Skip to main content

Full text of "Christ and the gospel; or, Jesus the Messiah and Son of God"

See other formats 


.•^°^ 


\  /  *afe*-  %./  -M^'".  ^^-^ 


V  ".T^'  <!'^  ,.„  V    '•'   >  ..V'.  <:>  V  .. 


•e^  A^   ''j$M. 


<  o 

V    ■•■     o*^    »-.     '"•^^  '•••■  4>^       ,       ^-^  '°-''    ♦^  ^ 

'?  ^^        "••        ^°  ^    ^^-o"     <V^  <5^      -•l■.' 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


OR 


JESUS  THE  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


BY   THE 

REV.  MARIUS  LEPIN,  S.S.,  D.D. 

OF  THE   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY   OF   LYONS 
FRANCHEVILLE,  RHONE,  FRANCE 


AUTHORIZED  ENGLISH  VERSION 


PHILADELPHIA 

JOHN  JOS.  McVEY 

1910 


IHtbil  ©bstat :  ,  ^  '' 


£0\ 


J.  F.  LOUGHLIN,  S.T.D., 

Censor  Libra  rum. 


■ffrnprtmatur : 

*  PATRICK  JOHN  RYAN, 

Archbishop  of  Philadelphia. 

July  75,  igio. 


Copyrighted  1910,  by  JOHN  JOS.  McVEY. 

Entered  at  Stationers'  Hall, 
All  Rights  Reserved, 


©QIA2^5335 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  FRENCH  EDITION 


The  welcome  given  to  this  work  has  led  us  to  pub- 
lish a  new  edition  at  once  and  to  bestow  the  utmost 
care  in  the  preparation  of  the  same.  The  Introduc- 
tion has  been  notably  lengthened.  We  have  endeav- 
ored to  state  the  views  of  living  critics  about  the  origin 
and  value  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  The  reader  will 
also  find  treated,  as  fully  as  the  limits  of  this  book 
allow,  the  recently  mooted  question  of  the  dependence 
of  these  Gospels  upon  the  influences  of  the  faith. 

As  regards  the  chapters  on  the  public  hfe  of  Jesus 
the  Messiah,  and  of  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  the  theories 
of  such  representatives  of  later  gospel  criticism  as 
Bernhard  Weiss,  H.  Wendt,  Oscar  Holtzmann,  Paul 
Wernle,  Johannes  Weiss,  and  W.  Wrede,  serve  to 
complete  those  of  Stapfer,  Harnack,  and  Loisy,  and  to 
fully  present  contemporary  thought  in  the  matter  of 
Jesus'  messiahship  and  divinity. 

The  special  study  on  the  formation  of  the  Messianic 
conscience  has  been  further  developed  from  the  view- 
point of  the  theory  advanced  by  Loisy  concerning  the 
imperfection  of  Christ's  human  knowledge,  and  the 
progressive  unfolding  of  His  mind. 

We  have  also  endeavored  to  give  a  more  precise 
statement  of  the  gospel  arguments  for  the  Saviour's 
divinity.  Lastly,  the  two  Appendices  have  been  in- 
corporated into  the  main  part  of  the  work. 

Along  with  these  more  noticeable  changes,  we  have 
increased  the  number  of  bibliographical  indications, 
the  references  to  the  best  contemporary  writings,  the 

(iii ) 


IV 


PREFACE 


annotations  which  serve,  on  each  important  point,  to 
show  the  opniion  of  the  leading  exegetes  of  the  day; 
when  necessary,  these  notes  become  short  critical  dis- 
sertations.' 

Thus  revised,  the  present  edition,  although  not  ex- 
cessively enlarged,  nor  placed  beyond  the  grasp  of 
most  readers,  will  possess,  we  think,  an  added  scientific 
value.  We  hope  that  it  will  be  welcomed  by  all  who 
are  interested  in  religion  and  who  eagerly  follow  the 
controversies  which  arose,  of  late,  about  the  founda- 
tions of  the  faith. 

November  i,  1904. 

^  In  the  translation,  these  notes  have  been  all  inserted  in 
the  main  text. 


EDITOR'S  GREETING 

Since  the  foregoing  preface  was  written,  M.  Lepin 
has  somewhat  enlarged  his  book.  To  the  fourth 
French  edition  an  Appendix  of  fifty-five  pages  has 
been  added,  in  which  the  author  submits  to  an  impar- 
tial criticism  the  latest  views  of  Loisy,  as  they  are  set 
forth  in  his  voluminous  Commentary  on  the  Synoptic 
Gospels.  An  alphabetical  table,  a  complete  biblio- 
graphy, a  list  of  the  most  important  passages  of  the 
New  Testament  cited  and  commented  upon,  have  also 
greatly  increased  the  usefulness  of  the  work.  All  these 
new  features  have  been  embodied  in  the  English  ver- 
sion, which,  we  trust,  will  not  prove  too  unworthy  of 
the  French  original. 

It  is  but  fitting  that  due  recognition  be  given  to  all 
the  friends  who,  in  one  way  or  another,  have  helped 
the  translator  in  his  long  and  arduous  task. 

Particular  thanks  are  here  expressed  to  Rev.  Felix 
Drouet^  C.  M.,  of  St.  Vincent's  Seminary,  German- 
town,  Pa.,  for  his  hearty  co-operation  and  many  valu- 
able suggestions.  Moreover,  the  translation  of  the 
fifth  chapter  (Appendix  of  the  fourth  French  edition) 
is  due  entirely  to  his  pen. 

And  now,  it  remains  for  the  translator  and  pub- 
lisher to  hope  that,  in  its  English  dress,  Abbe  Lepin's 
little  master-piece  will  receive  the  welcome  that  greeted 
it  in  its  native  land,  and  find  its  way  to  the  desk  of 
every  priest,  of  every  theological  student,  of  every 
thoughtful  layman,  who  is  anxious  to  verify  the  soHd- 
ity  of  the  foundations  of  his  faith. 

The  Translator. 

April,  ipio, 

(v) 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Author's    Preface v 

Editor's  Greeting  vii 

INTRODUCTION. 
The  authorship  and  historicity  of  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels       I 

Authorship   and    Inspiration    2 

Early  Chris lian  testimony    5 

Internal  evidence    13 

Modern  criticism 20 

Historicity 29 

Current   opinions 35 

Influence  of   tradi.ion    41 

Outline  of  the  work  56 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  dawn  of  Christianity   59 

The  messianic  hope    59 

The  Messiah's  character  and  mission  72 

Kingly    destiny    'j'j 

The   suffering    Servant 87 

Pre-existence    90 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  childhood  of  Christ  107 

Historicity  of  the  narratives 107 

The    nativity    117 

Popular    views 119 

(vii) 


I 


viii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

rAGM 

CHAPTER  III. 

I,  The  messianic  claims 128 

The   rationalists'  position    128 

Wellhausen  and  Wrede    129 

Christ's  baptism  and  temptation    137 

Christ's    reserve    143 

Doctrine  and  miracles    150 

Dignity  and  powers    152 

Messianic    allusions     156 

The  Son  of  Man  157 

Modern   criticism 158 

Resume    165 

Explicit    avowals    167 

The  suffering  Messiah   168 

The  supreme  revelation  of  Holy  Week 172 

n.  The  meaning  of  Jesus'  Messiahship  174 

The   final   Advent    174 

Opinion  of  the  early  Church   176 

Testimony  of  Jesus'  contemporaries    183 

The  Saviour's  statements   191 

HI.  The  source  of  the  messianic  consciousness  198 

Theory  of  illusion    198 

Renan    200 

Criticism , 204 

Theory  of  evolution  215 

Stapf er    216 

Wendt,  B,  Weiss,  O.  Holtzmann,  Harnack 222 

Loisy 23s 

Criicism :  the  public  life    235 

The  messianic  vocation  236 

The   Passion    238 

The  Baptism 244 

The  divine   Sonship 253 

The    Incarnation 255 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  ix 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Divine  Sonship. 

I.  Contemporary  criticism    263 

The   sacred   Humanity    263 

Rationalists     266 

Liberal    Protestants     271 

Conservative  Protestants  279 

H.  Loisy's  theory  of  Christ's  divinity   280 

The  Gospel  and  the  Church  280 

"  About  a  little  hook  "   287 

HI.  The  testimony  of  the  Synoptists   306 

Significant   declarations    306 

Christ's   transcendence    312 

His  consubstantial  union  with  the  Divinity 314 

His  acceptance  of  homage   316 

Loisy's  theory  of  the  equivalence  of  the  titles  "  Messiah  " 

and  "  Son  of  God  " 320 

The  Only-Begotten  Son  of  God  330 

Renan,  B.  Weiss,  Wendt,  Harnack , .  334 

Nature  of  Christ's  divine  Sonship    ^t,6 

Basis  of  His  Sonship    340 

The  eternal  Son  of  God 343 

The  Son  of  David   * 345 

The  parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen   348 

Christ's  knowledge  of  the  Father   355 

Protestant    critics     357 

Loisy   363 

St.   Peter's  confession    374 

The   formula  of  Bap'Jsm 375 

Resume    380 

TV.  The  testimony  of  the  early  Church   380 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  381 

St.    Paul's   Epistles    384 


X  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

The  Johannine   writings    394 

Agreement  with  the  facts  of  history   400 

Agreement  with  the  data  of  the  Synoptics   410 

V.  Christ's  reserve  in  revealing  His  Divinity   410 

His  peculiar  position    410 

A  guarantee  of   Synoptic  historicity    415 

VI.  The  perfection  of  Christ's  Knowledge  419 

Supernatural  and  experimental  knowledge   420 

How    far  supernatural    ■. .  .  .  422 

The  end  of  the  world    425 

The    fall   of   Jerusalem    426 

The   expansion   of    Christianity    433 

The  final  advent   441 

Significant    texts    443 

Persuasion  of  the  early  Church   458 

Interpretation  of  the  word  of  Jesus  concerning  the  Son's 

ignorance  of  the  final  advent    462 

The  messianic  and  filial  consciousness  of  Christ   468 

Conclusion    470 

CHAPTER   V. 

The  latest  theories  of  Loisy  regarding  the  messiahship 
and  divinity  of  Jesus. 

I.  Statement  of  his  views  473 

Messianic  manifestations  and  declarations   473 

Part  played  by  Jesus'  baptism   in   the   formation  of   His 

messianic    consciousness    479 

Illusions  concerning  the  future    481 

The  work  of  tradition    483 

Jesus  did  not  claim  to  share  the  nature  of  God   485 

Nor  to  enjoy  divine  privileges    491 

Conclusion :  how  the  dogma  of  Christ's  divini  y  came  into 

existence    49^ 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  xi 

PAGE 

II.  Critical  examination   500 

Noteworthy    admissions    500 

Questionable  theories :  the  true  motive  of  Jesus'  reserve 

in  revealing  His  messiahship    501 

Mere  hypotheses :  the  real  idea  of  the  Saviour  regarding 
the  advent  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  His  suffering 

destmy   503 

Facts  against   Loisy's   theories 505 

The  question  of  the  Parousia    511 

The    messianic    consecration    513 

Origin  of  the  messianic  consciousness    517 

The  faith  of  the  first  Christian  generation 521 

Value  of  the  texts  522 

The   interrogatory  before   Caiphas    526 

The  ti.le  of  Son  of  God  530 

Conclusion    537 

List  of  New  Testament  references  539 

Bibliography     543 

Alphabetical  Index 551 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

OR 

JESUS  THE  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


INTRODUCTION. 


Christ  and  the  Gospel !  An  olden  theme,  yet  ever 
new.  None  more  vital  in  this  era  of  criticism.  The 
faithful,  indeed,  adore  Jesus  as  their  Redeemer  and 
their  God,  offer  to  Him  their  hearts'  devotion,  con- 
secrate their  lives  to  His  service ;  but,  in  the  world  at 
large,  where  is  the  scholar,  the  man  of  thought  that 
is  not  deeply  interested  in  the  question  of  Christ? 
The  sacred  writings  that  tell  of  His  words  and  deeds 
come  under  the  analysis  of  the  commentator;  the 
documents  that  portray  His  world-mastering  influ- 
ence are  subjected  to  the  scrutiny  of  the  historian; 
while  His  majestic  mien.  His  profound  teachings,  the 
extraordinary  success  of  His  mission  are  the  wonder 
of  philosophers. 

"  That  the  gospel  is  a  part  of  this  past  which  noth- 
ing else  can  replace,"  says  Harnack,  "  has  been  af- 
firmed again  and  again  by  the  greatest  minds.  *  Let 
intellectual  and  spiritual  culture  progress,  and  the 
human  mind  expand  as  much  as  it  will,  beyond  the 
grandeur  and  the  moral  elevation  of  Christianity, 
as  it  sparkles  and  shines  in  the  gospels,  the  human 
mind  will  not  advance.'  In  these  words  Goethe,  after 
making  many  experiments  and  laboring  indefatigably 
at  himself,  summed  up  the  result  to  which  his  moral 


2  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

and  historical  insight  had  led  him.  .  .  .  But,  in  truth, 
this  religion  and  the  efforts  which  it  evokes  are  more 
active  to-day  than  they  used  to  be.  We  may  say,  to 
the  credit  of  our  age,  that  it  takes  an  eager  interest 
in  the  problem  of  the  nature  and  the  value  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  that  there  is  much  more  search  and  in- 
quiry in  regard  to  this  subject  now  than  was  the  case 
thirty  years  ago.  ...  In  dealing  with  religion,  is  it 
not,  after  all,  with  the  Christian  religion  that  we  have 
to  do?  Other  religions  no  longer  stir  the  depths  of 
our  hearts."  ^ 

The  foregoing  criticism  applies  particularly  to  the 
study  of  the  person  of  Christ.  We  care  little  about 
Buddha  or  Mahomet;  nor  are  we  seeking,  and  justly 
so,  to  ascertain  what  they  were  in  comparison  with 
God.  But  with  Jesus  it  is  quite  otherwise.  Jesus 
declared  Himself  to  be  the  Christ  promised  by  the 
prophets ;  and  in  proof  of  His  claims.  He  performed 
many  miracles.  He  called  Himself  the  Son  of  God, 
and  so  true  has  His  assertion  seemed  that  for  the  last 
nineteen  centuries  He  has  been  adored  as  the  true  Son 
of  God  and  true  God.  Such  is  the  fact  of  history. 
How  interpret  it  ?  Was  Jesus  truly  what  He  claimed 
to  be?  Is  He  really  what  Christian  thought  has  ever 
considered  Him  to  be  ?  This  topic  is  discussed  nowa- 
days more  than  ever  before.  In  this  prefatory  essay, 
it  will  be  treated  alike  from  the  view-point  of  modern 
criticism  and  in  accordance  with  a  method  befitting  the 
demands  of  recent  research. 

Inspiration. — It  is  chiefly  by  the  aid  of  the  gospels 
that  our  historical  study  of  Christ  is  to  be  pursued; 
for  it  is  there  that  we  meet  with  the  earliest  portrayal 
of  the  Saviour  as  He  appeared  to  men ;  it  is  there  that 
His  deeds  are  recorded ;  it  is  there  that  His  discourses 
are  reproduced ;  it  is  there  that  we  learn  of  the  im- 
pression that  He  made  upon  His  followers  and  of  the 

1  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity?  p.  56. 


INTRODUCTION  3 

opinion  formed  of  Him  by  those  amongst  whom  He 
Hved. 

We  may  ask,  accordingly,  before  proceeding  further : 
What  authority  have  these  writings  which  are  to 
serve  as  the  basis  of  our  investigations  ?  In  the  four 
gospels,  called  canonical,  the  Church  has  always  re- 
cognized an  absolutely  reliable  basis  for  our  faith. 
Its  official  teaching  states  that  they  were  composed  re- 
spectively by  two  of  the  Saviour's  disciples,  SS.  Mark 
and  Luke,  and  by  two  of  His  apostles,  SS.  Matthew 
and  John;  that  each  wrote  under  the  influence  of 
divine  inspiration,  or  with  a  special  assistance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  that  stimulated  their  intelligence  and  will 
and  so  helped  them  in  their  task  that  the  authorship 
of  the  gospels  is  due  not  merely  to  men,  but  to  God 
Himself ;  and  that,  although  arranged  in  a  human  way 
and  expressed  in  a  human  style,  they  present  the  very 
thought  and  word  of  God. 

The  Church,  indeed,  has  not  issued  a  definition  of 
faith  as  regards  the  human  authorship,  but  simply  the 
divine  inspiration  of  our  sacred  writings.  Neverthe- 
less, the  Council  of  Trent,  in  its  enumeration  of  the 
sacred  books  whose  inspiration  it  also  defines,  mentions 
"  the  four  gospels  according  to  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke, 
and  John,"  as  being,  in  its  estimation,  undoubtedly  in 
real  dependence  upon  the  writers  S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark, 
S.  Luke,  and  S.  John.  This  indication,  although  made 
intentionally,  did  not  form  part  of  the  definition  itself  ; 
but  it  is  an  authoritative  recommendation  and,  as  it 
were,  an  official  request  to  maintain  the  relationship 
of  these  gospels  with  those  authors  whom  tradition  has 
always  accepted.^ 

The  fact  of  biblical  inspiration,  then,  is  not  the  result 
of  discoveries  in  the  field  of  historical  criticism.  It  is 
a  dogma  of  the  faith  taught  by  the  Church.  And  the 
Church  is  competent  to  teach  it :  for  the  Church  comes 

1  Loisy,  Hist,  du  Canon  du  N.  Test.,  1891,  p.  250. 


4  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

from  God,  it  speaks  in  God's  name,  its  teachings  are 
sanctioned  by  God's  authority.  From  the  first,  the 
Church  appeared  among  men  with  Christ  as  its 
founder.  Now,  we  know  that  the  gospels,  considered 
merely  as  human  documents,  tell  us  that  Christ  was 
sent  from  heaven.  In  its  historical  past  as  in  its  pres- 
ent career,  in  the  numerous  testimonies  given  by  God 
in  proof  of  His  action  and  presence  therein,  in  its 
achievements  and  in  its  saints,  the  Church  bears  the 
visible  seal  of  its  divine  origin.  Nay  more,  that  the 
Church  is  divine  in  its  origin,  and  in  its  authority,  fol- 
lows from  the  fact  that  we  must  necessarily  admit  that 
there  exists  a  positive  religion  formally  approved  and 
willed  by  God.  Why  so?  Because  if  there  exists  a 
personal  God  who  takes  an  interest  in  men  and  who 
wishes  them  to  honor  Him ;  if  there  is  a  true  religion 
which  He  has  sanctioned  and  imposed  upon  men,  it 
can  be  found  only  in  that  Church  which  has  Christ  as 
its  founder  and  which  outrivals  all  other  existing  sects. 
If,  then,  in  its  origin  and  in  its  authority  this  Church 
comes  from  God,  whenever  it  speaks  to  us  in  His 
name,  it  is  God  Himself  who  guarantees  its  teaching 
and  ratifies  the  same  by  His  own  divine  authority. 

This  teaching,  moreover,  is  founded  upon  an  un- 
broken tradition  dating  from  the  very  beginning  of 
Christianity.  The  Church  itself  was  already  existing 
at  the  time  when  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
first  appeared.  It  was  the  Church  that  became  their 
custodian;  it  was  the  Church  that  first  knew  of  the 
circumstances  of  their  origin ;  it  was  the  Church  that 
learned  their  divine  authority  and  human  value 
from  Christ's  apostles  and  from  the  Holy  Spirit  who 
had  inspired  them  to  write;  it  was  within  the  fold  of 
the  Church,  as  we  find,  that  there  existed  from  the 
earliest  days  that  traditional  belief  which,  at  a  later 
period,  it  was  to  define  as  a  dogma  of  faith. 

Thus,  towards  150  A.  D.,  the  Gospels,  or  Memoirs 
of  the  Apostles,  as  also  the  Writings  of  the  Prophets 


INTRODUCTION  5 

were  read  in  the  assemblies  of  the  early  Christians. 
"  On  the  day  called  Sunday,"  writes  S.  Justin,  "  all 
who  live  in  cities  or  in  the  country  gather  together  to 
one  place,  and  the  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,  or  the 
Writings  of  the  Prophets  are  read,  as  long  as  time 
permits."  ^ 

So  too,  in  the  Epistle  ascribed  to  S.  Barnabas, 
written  about  100  A.  D.,  we  read :  "  Let  us  beware 
lest  we  be  found  (fulfilling  that  saying),  as  it  is 
written :  *  Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen '," 
where  the  text  of  S.  Matthew's  gospel  c.  xx.  16,  and 
c.  xxii.  14,  is  cited  as  Scripture. - 

The  Church,  therefore,  is  the  guarantor  of  our  faith 
in  the  inspired  character  of  the  gospels.  But,  even 
aside  from  such  an  assured  criterion,  although  in  view 
of  it,  we  can  form  of  these  sacred  writings  a  judgment 
at  once  scientific  and  rational.  That  is,  humanly 
speaking,  we  can  investigate  their  origin,  verify  their 
content,  and  account  for  the  fact  of  their  historical  im- 
portance. We  will,  accordingly,  proceed  to  give  a 
summary  of  the  conclusions  on  this  point  as  found  in 
the  writings  of  contemporary  critics. 

Early  Christian  Testimony.  —  Of  the  existing 
manuscript  copies  of  the  gospels,  the  oldest  date  from 
300-400  A.  D.  Papyrus  instead  of  parchment  had  un- 
til then  been  generally  used  for  copying  the  sacred 
text;  but  its  durability  was  so  slight,  that  even  of  the 
many  manuscripts  of  profane  literature  that  were 
written  prior  to  this  period,  there  were  few  that  es- 
caped the  ravages  of  time. 

The  numerous  citations  of  the  sacred  text,  how- 
ever, as  found  in  the  works  of  ecclesiastical  writers, 
and  the  versions  which  had  already  been  published, 
assure  us  of  the  existence  as  also  of  the  content  of  the 
gospels  during  this  epoch.     In  surveying  the  still  exist- 

1  Justin,  First  Apology,  n.  67. 

^  Bgrnabas,  Epistle  of,  c  iv,  n,  14;  cf.  Mt.  xx.  16;  xxii.  14. 


6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ing  series  of  documents  of  the  first  three  centuries, 
we  can  easily  follow,  as  it  were  step  by  step,  the  path 
of  our  sacred  writings  until  at  last  we  reach  the  apos- 
tolic age  itself. 

About  200  A.  D.,  or  at  the  beginning  of  the  third 
and  during  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  that 
is,  about  a  century  after  the  death  of  the  apostles, 
numerous  and  interesting  testimonies  are  particularly 
noticeable. 

At  this  epoch,  the  gospels  are  in  general  use. 
Throughout  the  Roman  Empire,  then  encircling  the 
Mediterranean  sea,  churches  are  founded  and  many 
are  already  flourishing.  Everywhere  the  gospels  are 
known  and  employed.  In  Syria,  about  170  A.  D., 
Tatian  compiles  his  Diatessaron ;  in  Egypt,  from  190- 
203  A.  D.,  Clement  of  Alexandria  edits  his  Stromata, 
or  "  Miscellanies,"  as  also  his  Hypotyposes,  or 
*'  Sketches  " ;  in  northern  Africa,  Tertullian  of  Carth- 
age, from  190-220  A.  D.,  writes  against  various  here- 
tics ;  in  Gaul,  S.  Irenaeus,  between  179-180  A.  D.,  pub- 
lishes his  great  Treatise  Against  Heresies;  while  at 
Rome  itself,  during  the  years  175-190  A.  D.,  there  ap- 
pears an  oflicial  list  of  the  New  Testament  scriptures 
which  is  known  as  the  "  Muratorian  Canon." 

What  these  various  witnesses  attest,  therefore,  is 
not  only  that  the  four  canonical  gospels  were  extant 
and  known  everywhere  at  that  epoch,  but  also  that 
they  were  in  universal  and  constant  use.  They  had 
become  so  much  in  demand  that,  for  the  convenience 
of  the  faithful  at  Edessa,  Tatian  had  already  pub- 
lished in  Syriac  a  kind  of  gospel  harmony,  called  the 
Diatessaron,  or  gospel  formed  out  of  the  four.  At 
this  time  also,  in  the  Muratorian  Canon  the  four  gos- 
pels are  enumerated  among  the  scriptures  which  were 
read  officially  in  the  Church  of  the  West.  The  ex- 
tant text  of  this  document,  found  in  an  eighth  century 
Codex,  is  mutilated  at  the  beginning  and  perhaps  at 
the  end;  and  although  the  part  preserved  mentions 


INTRODUCTION  y 

only  the  gospels  according  to  SS.  Luke  and  John,  these 
are  nevertheless  given  as  the  third  and  the  fourth. 

Greek  authors,  also,  like  S.  Irenaeus,  and  Latin 
writers  like  Tertullian,  strew  their  works  with  Gospel 
citations ;  so  much  so  that,  with  the  help  of  such  docu- 
ments, we  might  fairly  reconstruct  the  New  Testa- 
ment entire.  TertulHan  himself  had,  at  this  period, 
been  enabled  to  employ,  as  we  learn  from  his  work  on 
Monogamy  and  from  that  Against  Praxeas,  a  Latin 
version  of  the  gospels  w^hich  had  been  published  dur- 
ing the  second  century  and  was  commonly  used 
throughout  the  Church  in  northern  Africa.^ 

A  further  fact  to  which  these  witnesses  bear  testi- 
mony is  that  apostolic  tradition  warranted  the  uni- 
versal belief  in  the  four  gospels,  and  only  these;  and 
so  firm,  so  public,  so  confident  is  this  persuasion  that 
it  was  alleged  as  an  unanswerable  argument  against 
those  heretics  who  had  altered  the  faith. 

As  Origen  remarks  in  his  First  Homily  on  S.  Luke, 
"  The  Church  has  four  gospels ;  while  the  heresies 
have  them  in  great  numbers.  .  .  Of  all  these  writings, 
we  approve  nothing  but  what  the  Church  approves, — 
that  only  four  gospels  are  to  be  admitted."  ^ 

While  Clement  of  Alexandria  in  his  Stromata,  thus 
retorts  to  a  Gnostic  who  had  alleged  some  text  from 
an  apochryphal  gospel :  "  This  saying  is  not  read  in 
the  four  gospels  which  tradition  has  handed  down  to 
us,  but  in  that  of  the  Egyptians."  ^ 

Tertullian  and  S.  Irenaeus  also  writing  Against 
Marcion  and  Against  Heresies  point  to  the  fact  that 
they  enjoy  the  traditional  possession  of  the  four  gos- 
pels when  engaged  in  arguing  with  the  heretics  of 
their  day.* 

1  Tertull,  On  Monogamy,  c.  xi ;  Against  Praxeas,  c.  v. 

2  Origen,  Homily  on  S.  Luke,  n.  i. 

3  Clem.  Alex.,  Stromata,  Bk.  Ill,  c.  xiii. 

*  Tertull.,  Against  Marcion,  Bk.  V,  c.  v;  S.  Irenaeus,  Against 
Heresies,  Bk.  Ill,  c.  xi,  n.  7-9. 


8  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Nor,  lastly,  is  this  tradition,  thus  attested  within  a 
century  after  the  apostolic  age,  content  to  offer  the 
four  gospels  as  a  precious  legacy  left  to  the  Christians 
by  their  fathers  in  the  faith :  it  also  most  expressly  at- 
tests their  apostolic  origin.  At  Alexandria,  as  at 
Carthage ;  at  Lyons,  as  at  Rome,  it  is  universally  be- 
lieved that  the  four  gospels  were  composed  by  the 
two  apostles,  SS.  Matthew  and  John,  and  by  the  two 
disciples,  SS.  Mark  and  Luke. 

On  this  point,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  his 
Sketches,  gives  the  tradition  of  his  predecessors  in  the 
Catechetical  School  of  that  city,  and  which  Eusebius 
thus  records :  "  Clement  has  set  down  a  tradition, 
which  he  had  received  from  the  Elders  before  him, 
in  regard  to  the  order  of  the  Gospels,  to  the  following 
effect :  He  says  that  the  Gospels  containing  the  genea- 
logies were  written  first,  and  that  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  Mark  was  composed  in  the  following  circum- 
stances: Peter,  having  preached  the  word  publicly  at 
Rome,  and  by  the  Spirit  proclaimed  the  gospel,  those 
"who  were  present,  who  were  numerous,  entreated 
Mark,  inasmuch  as  he  had  attended  him  from  an  early 
period,  and  remembered  what  had  been  said,  to  write 
down  what  had  been  spoken.  On  his  composing  the 
Gospel,  he  handed  it  to  those  who  had  made  the  re- 
quest to  him;  which,  coming  to  Peter's  knowledge,  he 
neither  hindered  nor  encouraged.  But  John,  the  last 
of  all,  seeing  that  what  was  corporeal  was  set  forth 
in  the  gospels,  on  the  entreaty  of  his  intimate  friends, 
and  inspired  by  the  Spirit,  composed  a  spiritual 
gospel."  ^ 

A  Hke  testimony  is  given  by  Tertullian,  in  his  work 
Against  Marcion,  in  behalf  of  the  Church  in  northern 
Africa.  "  We  lay  it  down  as  our  first  position,"  he 
writes,  "  that  the  evangelical  Testament  has  apostles 
for  its  authors,  to  whom  was  assigned,  by  the  Lord 

1  Clem.  Alex.,  Hypotyposes:  Euseb.  Ch.  Hist.,  Bk.  VI,  c. 
xiv. 


INTRODUCTION  9 

Himself,  this  office  of  publishing  the  gospel.  If, 
however,  there  are  apostolic  men  also,  associated 
in  the  authorship,  yet  they  did  not  write  alone, 
but  with  the  apostles  and  after  the  apostles ;  be- 
cause the  preaching  of  disciples  might  be  open  to  the 
suspicion  of  an  affectation  of  glory,  if  there  did  not 
accompany  it  the  authority  of  the  masters,  which 
means  that  of  Christ,  who  made  the  apostles  their 
masters.  Of  the  apostles,  therefore,  John  and  Mat- 
thew first  instill  the  faith  into  us,  whilst  the  apostolic 
men,  Luke  and  Mark,  renew  it  afterwards."  ^ 

The  tradition  which  prevailed  at  Rome  at  this 
period  is  presented  in  the  Aluratorian  Canon,  of  which 
the  first  lines  refer  to  S.  Matthew  and  an  unfinished 
sentence  undoubtedly  to  S.  Mark.  It  also  refers  to 
the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  as  being  the  third  of  the 
Gospels.  It  alludes  to  him  as  the  physician  who,  after 
the  Ascension  of  Christ,  acted  as  S.  Paul's  companion 
on  his  voyages ;  who  wrote  in  his  own  name,  in 
methodical  fashion ;  who,  although  he  did  not  see  the 
Lord  in  the  flesh,  nevertheless,  from  what  he  could 
learn,  began  his  account  with  the  birth  of  John  the 
Baptist.  To  the  Gospel  according  to  S.  John,  it  thus 
refers :  "  Of  the  fourth  of  the  gospels,  John,  one  of 
the  disciples  ...  to  his  fellow  disciples  and  bishops, 
exhorting  him,  he  said :  '  Fast  with  me  for  three  days 
from  to-day ;  and  whatsoever  shall  have  been  revealed 
to  each,  let  us  relate  it  to  one  another.  On  the  same 
night,  it  was  revealed  to  Andrew,  (one)  of  the 
apostles,  that,  all  reviewing,  John  should  write  down 
all  things  in  his  own  name.'  "  ^ 

That  the  same  tradition  was  current  among  the 
Gauls,  we  find  from  the  following  explicit  testimony 
of    S.     Irenaeus    in    his    work    Against    Heresies: 

1  Tertull.,  Against  Marcion,  Bk.  IV,  c.  ii. 

2  Canon  of  Muratori;  cf.  Westcott,  The  Canon  of  the  N. 
T.  Preuschen,  Analecta,  p.  129;  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  N.  T. 
Kanons,  vol.  ii,  p.  139. 


lo  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

"  Matthew  also  issued  a  written  gospel  among  the 
Hebrews  in  their  own  dialect,  while  Peter  and  Paul 
were  preaching  at  Rome  and  laying  the  foundations  of 
the  Church.  After  their  departure  (demise),  Mark, 
the  disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter,  did  also  hand 
down  to  us  in  writing  what  had  been  preached  by 
Peter.  Luke,  also,  the  companion  of  Paul,  recorded 
in  a  book  the  gospel  preached  by  him.  Afterwards, 
John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  also  had  leaned 
upon  His  breast,  did  himself  publish  a  gospel  during 
his  residence  at  Ephesus  in  Asia."  ^ 

The  significance  of  the  foregoing  facts  supplied  by 
such  historical  witnesses  is  easily  perceived.  First 
of  all,  the  fact  that  our  Gospels  are  being  universally 
and  constantly  used,  as  early  as  the  end  of  the  second 
and  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  throughout 
the  most  distant  and  most  diverse  sections  of  the 
Church,  forces  upon  us  the  conclusion  that  these  writ- 
ings were  already  very  ancient.  Now,  at  this  stage 
of  our  study,  we  are  at  most  no  more  than  a  century 
from  the  apostolic  age  itself.  We  are,  therefore, 
obliged  to  date  the  gospels  at  a  period  very  near  to 
that  epoch,  if  not  to  the  very  days  of  the  apostles. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  then  accepted  belief  in  the 
apostolic  origin  and  transmission  of  the  gospels  has  all 
the  features  of  a  primitive  and  well-founded  tradition. 
Not  only  is  it  a  universal  conviction  established  in  all 
parts  of  the  Church;  a  public  belief,  so  firm  that  it  is 
available  against  heretics  as  an  irrefutable  argument; 
but  it  is  moreover  a  tradition  of  a  well-defined  charac- 
ter, and  historically  evident,  its  course  being  traceable 
to  the  very  beginnings  of  Christianity.  Each  Church, 
in  fact,  keeps  alive  the  memories  of  its  teachers  in  the 
faith ;  it  knows  by  what  channels  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  has  reached  it,  by  what  succession  its  Bishops 
are  allied  with  the  Saviour. 

1  S.  Irenaeus,  Against  Heresies,  Bk.  Ill,  c.  i,  n.  i. 


INTRODUCTION  II 

Naught,  indeed,  is  better  established  than  the  suc- 
cession of  Roman  Pontiffs  and  the  stages  of  tradition 
in  the  Church  at  Rome.  In  his  Sketches,  Clement  of 
Alexandria  refers  to  his  master  Pantaenus,  an  imme- 
diate disciple  of  those  presbyters  who  had  heard  the 
apostles.  While,  in  Gaul,  S.  Irenaeus  appeals  to  the 
testimony  of  those  Elders  whom  he  had  known  in  Asia, 
and  whom  his  contemporaries  and  such  heretics  as 
Florinus  had  also  known.  He  also  appeals  to  Polycarp, 
Bishop  of  Smyrna,  Papias,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis,  and 
other  Asiatic  presbyters  whom  John  the  Apostle  had 
known  as  his  own  disciples  and  direct  recipients  of  his 
teachings.^ 

A  tradition,  therefore,  so  universal,  so  precise,  and 
prevailing  within  only  a  century  of  its  presumed 
origin;  a  tradition  which,  even  at  that  time,  was  easily 
verifiable  by  comparing  together  the  recollections  of 
the  divers  Churches, — these  memories  in  turn  being 
traceable  to  their  primary  source, — can  be  founded 
only  upon  real  facts. 

Thus,  tradition  itself,  as  evidenced  at  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  suffices  to  establish  the  apostolic 
origin  of  our  gospels.  But  this  very  tradition  obtains 
a  valuable  confirmation  from  the  more  ancient  wit- 
nesses extending  from  the  end  of  the  second  century 
to  the  end  of  the  first.  Small  in  number  and  brief 
enough  are  the  documents  of  this  primitive  period. 
Written  mostly  for  special  occasions,  they  possess  a 
definite  character ;  so  that  their  authors  might  have  had 
little  reason  to  cite  our  gospels. 

Nor,  again,  should  it  be  forgotten  that,  at  an  epoch 
w^hen  those  were  still  living  who  had  known  the  apos- 
tles or  their  disciples,  oral  tradition  remained  pre- 
dominant, and  that  people  felt  less  need  to  appeal  to 
Scripture  itself  than  they  would  have  done  otherwise. 

1  Clem.  Alex.,  Hypotyposes:  Euseb.  Ch.  Hist.,  Bk.  VI,  c. 
xiii. 


12  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Nevertheless,  in  view  of  this  fact,  the  fully  genuine 
testimony  furnished  by  these  writings  is  only  the  more 
significant. 

About  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  we  meet 
with  two  writers  whose  testimony  on  this  matter  is 
very  valuable.  The  one,  S.  Justin,  represents  not  only 
Palestine,  his  native  land,  and  Asia  Minor  where  he 
became  a  convert  to  the  faith,  but  also  Rome  itself, 
where  he  directed  a  Catechetical  School.  The  other, 
Papias,  was  Bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia,  Asia 
Minor.  As  noted  above,  in  his  Two  Apologies  for 
Christianity,  S.  Justin  frequently  mentions  the  gos- 
pels which  he  styles  the  "  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles/' 
and  not  only  states  that  they  were  read  in  the  as- 
semblies of  the  faithful  on  each  Sunday,  but  quotes 
them  abundantly.  Papias,  in  turn,  in  his  ''  Explana- 
tions of  the  Sayings  of  the  Lord,"  apparently  pub- 
lished about  130  A.  D.,  shows  that  he  was  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  gospels  and  even  produces  the  tradi- 
tion concerning  the  origin  of  those  according  to  SS. 
Matthew  and  Mark. 

As  Papias  tells  us  :  "  The  presbyter  said  this :  *  Mark 
having  become  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down 
accurately  whatever  he  remem.bered.  It  was  not, 
however,  in  exact  order  that  he  related  the  sayings  or 
deeds  of  Christ.  For  he  neither  heard  the  Lord  nor 
accompanied  Him.  But,  afterwards,  as  I  said,  he 
accompanied  Peter,  who  accommodated  his  instruc- 
tions to  the  necessities  (of  his  hearers),  but  with  no 
intention  of  giving  a  regular  narrative  of  the  Lord's 
sayings.  Wherefore,  Mark  made  no  mistake  in  thus 
writing  some  things  as  he  remembered  them.  For,  of 
one  thing  he  took  especial  care,  not  to  omit  anything 
he  had  heard,  and  not  to  put  anything  fictitious  into 
the  statements.  .  .  .  Matthew  put  together  the  oracles 
(of  the  Lord)  in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  each  one 
interpreted  them  as  best  he  could.'  "  ^ 

^Papias;  Euseb.  Ch,  Hist.,  Bk.  Ill,  c.  xxjcijc. 


INTRODUCTION  13 

About  the  same  time,  Celsus,  a  pagan  author, 
takes  the  gospel  texts  as  the  basis  of  his  objections 
against  the  Christians,  while  the  heretics  Marcion, 
Basilides,  and  Valentinus  endeavor  to  support  their 
erroneous  teachings  by  the  writings  of  S.  Luke  or  of 
S.  John. 

At  the  very  beginning  of  the  second  century  and 
towards  the  close  of  the  first,  several  documents  con- 
tain authentic  citations  of  the  gospels  and  numerous 
allusions  to  our  sacred  texts.  Among  these  we 
notice  the  following :  the  Epistle  ascribed  to  S.  Barna- 
bas, which  Harnack  dates  at  130-131,  and  Funk  at 
96-98;  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  dated  at 
130-160  by  Harnack,  at  80-90  by  Funk,  and  shortly  be- 
fore 80  by  Batiffol;  the  Epistle  of  S.  Polycarp,  the 
Bishop  of  Smyrna,  written  about  98-117,  or  after  the 
death  of  S.  Ignatius  of  Antioch ;  the  Seven  Epistles  of 
S.  Ignatius,  who  died  during  Trajan's  reign,  and  dated 
by  Harnack  at  110-117,  and  by  Funk  at  107;  and 
lastly  the  Epistle  of  S.  Clement  of  Rome,  which 
Harnack  assigns  to  93-95,  and  Funk  to  9^-97  A.  D.^ 

Thus  it  is  that  by  the  aid  of  witnesses  ranging  from 
the  end  of  the  second  century  to  the  end  of  the  first, 
we  can  follow  the  path  of  our  gospels,  and  trace  the 
stages  of  their  progressive  diffusion.  These  primitive 
witnesses,  it  will  be  granted,  are  singularly  clear  and 
become  fully  significant  in  the  light  of  that  firm  and 
universal  tradition  which  we  have  witnessed  in  so 
many  documents  belonging  to  the  close  of  the  second 
century. 

Internal  Evidence.  —Historically  considered, there- 
fore, the  gospels  are  productions  of  the  early  days  of 

1  Harnack,  Die  Chron.  der  Altchrist.  Lift.,  1897,  Pt.  II,  vol. 
i,  pp.  251-255,  381-406,  410-438;  Funk,  Patres  Apost.,  2d  ed., 
1901,  vol.  i,  pp.  25,  38,  43 ;  Bardenhewer,  Les  Peres  de  I'Eglise, 
Fr.  ed.,  1898,  vol.  i,  pp.  60-62,  69;  Batififol,  Anc.  Lift.  Chre- 
tiennes:  La  Litt.  Grecqiie,  1897,  pp.  12,  72;  Allard,  Hist,  des 
Persec,  1885,  vol.  i,  p.  179. 


14  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Christianity,  or  more  exactly,  of  the  apostolic  age ;  and 
if  we  wish  to  ascertain  the  value  of  the  external  testi- 
mony thus  far  supplied,  we  may  do  so  by  a  survey  of 
the  internal  characteristics  of  these  sacred  writings. 
We  may  first  of  all  assume  as  a  principle  that  a  work 
ascribed  to  a  given  author,  if  it  is  to  be  considered  as 
his,  must  contain  nothing  unsuitable,  either  as  re- 
gards himself,  or  the  country  and  period  in  which  he 
flourished.  To  apply  this  principle  means  that  all  in- 
formation about  the  person,  country,  and  epoch  of  the 
writer  that  is  possibly  attainable  by  a  minute  analysis 
of  his  work,  must  be  critically  compared  with  the  pecu- 
liarities exhibited  by  the  character,  country,  and  time 
of  the  presumed  author  as  these  have  been  otherwise 
ascertained.  Such  an  inquiry  is  particularly  easy  in 
the  case  of  a  country  and  an  epoch  marked  by  very 
striking  features  and  of  a  work  wherein,  owing  to  its 
special  literary  form,  the  characteristics  of  the  writer's 
country  and  time  must  needs  be  faithfully  mirrored  in 
all  their  intricate  variety.  Now,  such  are  precisely 
the  land  of  Palestine  and  the  period  of  the  beginnings 
of  Christianity ;  such  are  also  our  Gospels :  on  the 
one  hand,  the  most  extraordinary,  the  most  striking, 
the  most  specific  peculiarities ;  on  the  other  hand, 
anecdotal  writings,  in  which  the  most  minute  circum- 
stances, the  most  complicated  situations,  the  most  par- 
ticular customs  and  manners  are  faithfully  recorded. 
The  linguistic  features  of  the  gospels,  for  instance, 
are  very  noticeable.  Masters  in  the  Science  of  Lan- 
guage, popularly  known  as  philologists,  have  examined 
the  gospel  texts  very  carefully,  analyzed  every  phrase, 
ascertained  every  construction,  classified  every  word, 
and  after  a  comparative  study  of  the  lexicons  and 
grammars  of  contemporary  documents,  have  edited 
such  works  in  the  interests  of  gospel  study.  Such 
labors  lead  ta  the  inevitable  conclusion  that,  even 
under  their  Greek  form,  the  lexicography  and  gram- 
mar of  the  gospels  are  essentially  Semitic.     For,  we 


INTRODUCTION 


15 


find  such  words  as  corbona,  ephpheta,  talitha  cumi, 
Eloi,  belonging  to  the  Aramaic,  or  common  language 
spoken  in  Christ's  time,  as  also  numerous  expressions 
intelligible  only  by  having  recourse  to  the  Hebrew  or 
the  Aramaic  tongue,  and  lastly  a  habitual  phrase- 
formation  which  bears  the  stamp  of  Semitic  genius. 
So  that,  viewed  in  the  light  of  philology,  the  gospels 
were  unquestionably  written  by  Christians  who  were 
familiar  with  the  Jewish  language.  We  are  thus  led 
back  to  the  very  cradle  of  our  faith,  to  that  epoch  of 
early  Christianity  when,  from  the  bosom  of  the  Syna- 
gogue the  new  religion  came  forth  into  the  world. 

Again,  the  Christians  of  this  epoch,  who  were  ori- 
ginally Jews  by  birth,  are  evidently  natives  of  Pales- 
tine. They  describe  the  places  where  the  Saviour's 
hfe  was  spent;  and  so  accurate  is  this  description,  and 
its  exactness  is  nowadays  fully  recognized,  that  it  must 
come  from  people  who  had  long  dwelt  in  Palestine  and 
who,  moreover,  knew  every  feature  of  the  country. 
To  describe  so  graphically  the  land  of  Galilee,  the  Lake 
of  Genesereth  with  the  busy  scenes  along  its  shores, 
the  peculiar  outlines  of  such  hamlets  as  Nazareth,  the 
respective  distances  of  different  cities,  the  environs  and 
monuments  of  Jerusalem,  all  this  implies  that  the  writ- 
ers had  passed  their  life  in  the  places  where  Christ 
once  lived. 

But,  at  which  period  of  its  history  did  our  writers 
know  Palestine?  We  can  determine  this  very  point 
from  a  providential  circumstance,  namely,  the  Fall  of 
Jerusalem.  It  was  in  70  A.  D.  soon  after  Jesus'  death 
that  the  Jews  witnessed  this  great  disaster  which 
brought  about  the  overthrow  of  Israel  and  the  es- 
tablishment of  an  entirely  new  order  of  things  in 
Palestine. 

Of  the  conditions  of  life  in  Palestine  prior  to  this 
epoch,we  learn  from  numerous  sources,  notably  the  writ- 
ings of  Josephus,  the  Annals  of  the  Latin  Historians, 
Inscriptions,  Medals,  and  the  Hke  monuments  of  his- 


l6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

tory.  It  was  a  world  all  to  itself, — unique  in  politics, 
in  social  life,  and  in  religion.  Judea,  for  instance, 
first  ruled  by  King  Archaelaus,  son  of  Herod  the 
Great,  was  later  governed  by  a  Roman  Procurator 
in  dependence  upon  the  Imperial  Legate  in  Syria, 
while  Galilee,  in  its  turn,  was  under  the  sway  of  Herod 
Antipas,  the  vassal  Tetrarch  of  Rome  and  his  suc- 
cessors. That  the  Roman  authorities  allowed  a  goodly 
share  of  self-government  to  the  local  authorities  is 
plain  enough ;  since  the  Sanhedrin,  for  instance, 
shared  the  judiciary  power.  Assuredly,  it  is  a  strangely 
complicated  situation  which  results  from  the  relations 
of  the  two  co-existing  powers,  the  vassal  and  the  suze- 
rain :  the  very  fusion  of  foreign  civilization  with  the 
hereditary  customs  of  the  Jewish  nation  is  portrayed 
with  the  utmost  detail.  Jerusalem,  indeed,  seems  like 
an  individual :  we  behold  its  numberless  national  and  re- 
ligious monuments,  its  magnificent  Temple  which  was 
rebuilt  by  Herod  the  Great,  its  mighty  High  Priests, 
its  vying  castes  of  Sadducees,  Pharisees,  and  Scribes, 
its  deeply  religious  life  within  the  sacred  precincts  of 
the  Temple.^ 

But  lo,  in  70  A.  D.,  this  fair  Palestinian  world,  so 
minutely  described,  suddenly  disappeared.  Palestine 
is  ravaged  by  the  Roman  armies;  its  populous  cities 
are  laid  waste,  and,  after  a  long  siege,  Jerusalem  is 
burned  to  the  ground,  its  monuments  lie  in  ruins,  its 
Temple  and  the  ritual  life  thereof  become  but  a 
memory. 

The  gospels,  however,  as  is  noteworthy,  do  not  de- 
scribe life  in  Palestine  as  it  was  experienced  after  that 
calamity  but  rather  before  its  occurrence.  What  they 
actually  reveal  is  the  political,  social  and  religious  con- 
ditions prevalent  during  the  Saviour's  day  and  which 
have  been  brought  into  newer  light  by  modern  critic- 

J-  Schiirer,  Gesch.  des  Jud.  Volkes,  3rd  ed.,  1898,  vol.  ii,  pp. 
313,  388. 


INTRODUCTION  ly 

ism.  We  readily  understand  the  diplomatic  relations 
that  were  carried  on  between  the  Roman  and  the  Jew- 
ish authorities,  the  conflict  that  waged  between  the 
judicial  claims  of  the  Sanhedrin  and  those  of  the 
Roman  Procurator.  We  behold  the  Pharisees,  Sad- 
ducees  and  Scribes  moving,  in  life-like  pictures, 
around  the  person  of  Jesus.  Jerusalem  appears  to  us 
in  the  Gospels  with  all  its  monuments  still  standing,  its 
High  Priests  revered,  its  devotional  life  in  full  vigor. 

"  In  the  Synoptists,"  observes  Loisy,  *'  the  Jewish 
factions  are  clearly  distinguished.  .  .  .  The  activity 
of  the  different  groups  is  portrayed  and  history 
appears,  in  their  narratives,  in  all  its  manifold 
variety."  ^  Only  contemporaries,  only  those  who 
had  lived  in  this  Palestinian  world,  who  had  dwelt 
amongst  its  people  and  witnessed  its  events  could 
have  thus  described  such  a  state  of  affairs.  After 
Jerusalem's  fall,  to  which  the  episodes  of  the 
French  Revolution  bear  no  comparison,  an  entire 
restoration  of  the  former  glory  was  impossible. 
The  ancients  had  no  genius  for  archeology.  In 
the  judgment  of  modern  criticism,  with  all  its 
facilities  and  manifold  resources  in  this  branch  of 
science,  they  were  wholly  unfitted  for  such  recon- 
structive efforts.  If,  however,  we  remember  that  this 
portrayal  is  by  no  means  intentional,  that  it  results 
from  various  circumstances  narrated  without  due  re- 
gard to  order  or  plan,  although .  to  the  extent  de- 
manded by  the  events,  its  accuracy  must  prove  that  it 
can  be  only  the  work  of  contemporaries,  of  Jews  who 
inhabited  Palestine  prior  to  the  Fall  of  the  Holy  City. 

Indeed,  the  character  of  the  gospel  accounts  shows 
that  their  authors  were  eye-witnesses  who  tell  what 
they  saw  and  heard  most  faithfully  and  exactly.  The 
Saviour's  journeyings  to  and  fro,  the  progressive 
stages  in  His  public  life,  the  changing  character  of 

1  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  1903,  p.  201. 
2. 


l8  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

public  opinion, — all  is  presented  with  precision,  with 
due  moderation,  with  admirable  candor  and  simplicity. 
Such  a  result  is  attained  not  by  commentaries  or  by 
personal  observations  on  the  part  of  the  various  au- 
thors ;  for  these  notice  but  briefly  the  result  of  Jesus' 
deeds,  the  impression  made  by  His  discourses  and 
miracles,  or  the  fulfilment  of  the  ancient  prophecies. 
Nay  rather,  the  fact  itself  is  stated  in  all  its  native 
charm.  How  many  details  seem  unlikely  unless  it  be 
that  they  are  due  to  eye-witnesses.  How  many  fea- 
tures are  possible  only  if  based  upon  reality.  Truly 
we  behold  a  vivid  photograph  of  places,  persons,  and 
things  that  are  wholly  evangelical.  Everywhere  we 
find  a  naturalness,  an  accuracy  of  tone,  a  due  regard 
for  circumstances.  So  that,  we  exclaim  instinctively: 
No,  this  is  not  the  work  of  inventive  romancers,  of 
enthusiasts  whom  a  deceiving  mirage  has  filled  with 
illusions ;  no,  it  is  surely  the  recollection  of  witnesses 
simply  and  calmly  reproduced  by  faithful  chroniclers ! 

Should  we  then  conclude  that  these  eye-witnesses 
were  the  final  editors  of  the  Gospels?  The  foregoing 
remarks  may  well  agree  with  another  theory,  which  is 
logical  enough  since  it  is  partly  verified  by  tradition; 
for,  as  we  have  seen,  of  the  four  Evangelists  whose 
names  have  come  down  to  us,  only  two  could  have  been 
the  immediate  witnesses  of  the  Saviour.  But  as  these 
writings  so  faithfully  reproduce  the  memories  of  genu- 
ine witnesses,  we  are  led  to  suppose  that  the  editors, 
if  not  eye-witnesses  themselves,  lived  very  near  the 
period  of  such  witnesses  and  were  very  likely  in  direct 
relation  with  them.  Tradition,  as  we  know,  regards 
S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark,  S.  Luke,  and  S.  John  as  the  au- 
thors of  the  four  gospels ;  and  the  internal  features  of 
these  documents  seem  to  agree  exactly  with  what  we 
certainly  know  of  their  respective  authors. 

The  first  gospel,  for  instance,  which  insists  upon 
the  relation  between  the  Gospel  to  the  Law,  and  bases 
Jesus'  Messiahship  upon  the  prophecies,  was  plainly 


INTRODUCTION  I9 

written  for  the  use  of  the  early  Jewish  converts  to 
Christianity.  This  agrees  with  the  testimony  of  the 
oldest  tradition ;  for,  S.  Irenaeus  writes :  '*  Matthew 
also  issued  a  written  gospel  among  the  Hebrews  in 
their  own  dialect,  while  Peter  and  Paul  were  preach- 
ing at  Rome  and  laying  the  foundations  of  the 
Church."  ^ 

The  second  gospel,  in  its  turn,  was  apparently 
written  for  the  advantage  of  Gentiles,  especially  of  the 
Romans.  Hence  its  explanation  of  such  Jewish  cus- 
toms as  the  ablutions  and  the  purifications  of  the 
Pharisees,  as  though  to  instruct  persons  ignorant  of 
such  usages.  In  many  texts,  too,  it  employs  Latin 
terms ;  thus  it  mentions  the  equivalent  in  Roman 
money  of  the  two  coins  dropped  by  the  poor  widow 
into  the  poor-box  in  the  Temple.  All  this  accords 
with  the  traditional  testimony  that  S.  Mark,  the  dis- 
ciple of  S.  Peter,  composed  his  gospel  for  the  faith- 
ful at  Rome.  This  gospel,  moreover,  is  assigned  to 
a  disciple,  and  not  to  S.  Peter  himself;  and  this  fact 
is  most  likely  in  keeping  with  the  truth. 

The  third  gospel  also  was  plainly  composed  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Gentiles.  Its  author,  a  disciple  of 
S.  Paul,  and  imbued  with  his  teaching  on  the  ex- 
tension of  salvation  to  all  mankind,  also  possessed  his 
tradition  about  the  Saviour's  final  days  on  earth.  That 
the  same  writer  wrote  the  Book  of  Acts  is  shown  by 
a  comparison  of  the  Prologues  and  the  literary  fea- 
tures of  the  third  gospel  and  the  Book  of  Acts  itself ; 
and  this  fact  also  is  quite  in  accord  with  what  tradition 
teaches  us  about  S.  Luke. 

Lastly,  the  fourth  gospel  is  held  to  be  the  work  of 
an  apostle,  of  an  apostle  well-beloved  by  Jesus.  Its 
author  apparently  survived  the  other  members  of  the 
apostolic  college,  and  also  wrote  the  Apocalypse,  and 
certainly    exerted    a    sovereign    influence    over    the 

^  S.  Irenaeus,  Against  Heresies,  Bk  III,  c.  i,  n.  i. 


:20  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Churches  in  Asia  Minor.  All  these  facts  fully  agree 
with  the  most  authoritative  tradition  concerning  S. 
John,  the  apostle. 

Harnack  says  that,  "  he  is  now  reconciled  to  that 
opinion — regarded  though  it  be  as  a  heresy  by  most 
critics  —  which  assigns  to  the  same  author  both  the 
Apocalypse   and  this   Gospel."  ^ 

While  Reynolds,  after  making  a  minute  comparison 
of  these  two  writings,  concludes  that  ''  it  is  very  likely 
that  the  two  documents  come  from  the  same  author."  ^ 

The  internal  features  of  the  gospels,  therefore,  seem 
to  confirm  in  all  points  the  external  testimony  afforded 
by  primitive  tradition,  namely  that  the  four  gospels 
are  the  production  of  two  apostles  and  of  two  dis- 
ciples, S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark,  S.  Luke,  and  S.  John. 

Modern  Criticism.  — To  what  extent,  we  may  ask, 
are  the  above  conclusions  accepted  by  modern  critics? 
Many  years  ago  Baur,  the  leader  of  the  Tiibingen 
school,  dated  the  first  gospel  at  130-134  A.  D. ;  the 
second  and  third  at  150,  and  the  fourth  at  160-180. 
The  numerous  efforts  made  in  this  field  since  then, 
have  gradually  brought  the  conclusions  of  criticism 
nearer  to  the  traditional  views. 

It  may  be  truly  asserted  that  Protestant  and  Ration- 
alistic critics  are  now  unanimous  in  placing  the  com- 
position of  the  first  three  gospels  in  the  latter  half  of 
the  first  century,  and  of  the  fourth  gospel  in  the  early 
part  of  the  second  century.  In  general,  such  critics 
also  accept  the  authorship  of  the  second  and  third  gos- 
pels by  the  disciples  SS.  Mark  and  Luke;  but  deny 
that,  in  their  actual  form,  the  first  and  fourth  gospels 
were  written  by  S.  Matthew  and  S.  John. 

It  is  claimed  by  modern  critics  that,  as  regards 
the  order  of  composition,  the  first  of  the  series  is 
S.    Mark's   gospel,   which   is   the   authentic   work   of 

1  Harnack,  Die  Chron.,  1897,  Pt.  II,  vol.  i,  p.  675,  n.  i. 

2  Reynolds,  art.:  John,  Gospel  of,  H.  D.,  p.  709. 


INTRODUCTION  21 

S.  Peter's  disciple  and  edited  about  70  A.  D. ;  that 
also,  about  80  K.  D.,  the  third  gospel  was  composed 
probably  by  S.  Luke,  the  disciple  of  S.  Paul ;  that, 
moreover,  towards  the  same  period,  there  appeared 
S.  Matthew's  gospel,  which  was  written  by  one  of 
that  apostle's  followers  at  a  later  epoch;  and  that, 
lastly,  during  the  first  ten  or  twenty  years  of  the 
second  century,  the  fourth  gospel  was  written  by  an 
unknown  writer,  probably  a  disciple  of  the  apostle 
S.  John. 

The  various  dates  assigned  by  leading  critics  with 
reference  to  the  composition  of  the  gospels  are  as  fol- 
lows: Renan,  Mk.  76,  Mt.  84,  Lk.  94,  Jo.  125  A.  D. 
H.  Holtzmann,  Mk.  68,  Mt.  Gy,  Lk.  70-100,  Jo.  100- 
133  A.  D.  B.  Weiss,  Mk.  69,  Mt.  70,  Lk.  80,  Jo.  95 
A.  D.  Jiilicher,  Mk.  70-100,  Mt.  81-96,  Lk.  80-120, 
Jo.  80-100  A.  D.  Harnack,  Mk.  65-70,  ]\It.  70-85,  Lk. 
78-93,  Jo.  80-100  A.  D.  Zahn,  Mt.  (Aramaic  text) 
62,  Mt.  (Greek  text)  85,  Mk.  64,  Lk.  75,  Jo.  90-100 
A.  D.  Schmiedel,  Mk.  80,  Mt.  90,  Lk.  loo-iio,  Jo. 
140  A.  D.  Stanton  and  Reynolds,  Mk.  69,  Mt.  70,  Lk. 
70-80,  Jo.  before  100  A.  D.  Loisy,  Mk.  70,  Mt.  and 
Lk.  80,  Jo.  100  A.  D.  Minocchi,  I\Ik.  Mt.  and  Lk. 
65-90,  Jo.  95-100  A.  D.  Batiffol,  Mk.  60,  Mt.  65-70, 
Lk.  65,  Jo.  95  A.  D.^ 

That  the  second  gospel  is  S.  Mark's  authentic  work, 
is  admitted  by  all  the  prominent  critics  except 
Schmiedel  and  Loisy.  At  first,  Loisy  favored  its  full 
authenticity,  but  later  maintained  that  it  was  at  most 

1  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus;  The  Gospels;  Holtzmann,  H.,  Ein- 
leit.,  1885,  3rd  ed.,  1892 ;  Weiss,  B.,  Lehrh.  der  Einleit.,  3rd  ed., 
1897;  Jiilicher,  Introduction  to  the  New  Test.,  1887;  Har- 
nack, Die  Chron.,  Pt.  H,  Vol.  i,  1897;  Jahn,  Einleit.,  vol.  ii, 
1899 ;  Schmiedel,  arts. :  Gospels,  and  John,  Son  of  Zebedee, 
E.  B. ;  Stanton,  art. :  Gospels,  H.  D. ;  Reynolds,  art. :  John, 
Gospel  of,  H.  D. ;  Loisy,  Les  Evang.  Synop.,  1893 ;  Chron. 
Bihl.  in  Rev.  d'Hist.  et  de  Lit.  Rel.,  1896-1904;  Autour  D'Un 
Petit  Livre,  1903,  p.  y6;  Le  Quat.  Evang.,  1903;  Minocchi, 
//  Nuov.  Test.:  I  Vangeli,  1900, 


22  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

based  upon  a  collection  of  S.  Peter's  traditions  edited 
by  S.  Mark  himself/ 

The  authenticity  of  the  third  gospel  is  either 
doubted  or  denied  by  H.  Holtzmann,  Jiilicher,  and 
Schmiedel;  but  in  fact  this  gospel  is  certainly  by  the 
same  author  as  the  Book  of  Acts.  For  in  the  latter 
work,  the  section  known  as  the  Journal  of  Voyage 
where  the  narrator,  writing  in  the  first  person  plural, 
thus  forming  what  are  called  the  ''  We-passages,"  or 
Wirstuckc,  as  in  c.  xvi.  10-17;  c.  xx.  5-15  ;  c.  xxi.  1-18; 
c.  xxvii.  I — c.  xxviii.  16,  speaks  like  one  who  had  wit- 
nessed the  events  recorded,  is  no  doubt  from  the  pen  of 
a  companion  of  S.  Paul,  and  apparently  this  was  S. 
Luke  himself.  H.  Holtzmann,  Schmiedel,  and  Ji.ilicher, 
however,  claim  that  these  particular  passages  are  only 
an  earlier  document  utilized  by  the  final  editor  of  the 
Book  "of  Acts,  and  that,  hence,  we  must  distinguish 
between  S.  Luke  and  this  editor  whom  these  critics 
also  claim  was  the  final  editor  of  the  third  gospel 
itself ! 

There  are  proofs  available,  however,  to  show  that 
the  final  editor  of  the  third  gospel  and  the  original 
author  of  the  aforenamed  passages  are  identical,  while 
it  is  also  clear  that  S.  Paul's  companion  is  mentioned 
as  much  in  the  course  of  the  book  as  in  this  particular 
section.  That  S.  Luke  was  really  the  author  both  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  of  the  Third  Gospel  is 
maintained  by  Renan,  Blass,  Zahn,  Plummer,  Rackam, 
Headlam,  and  Stanton,  not  to  mention  such  Catholic 
scholars   as   Knabenbauer.- 

The  results  of  criticism,  therefore,  tend  to  harmon- 

1  Loisy,  Les  Evang.  Synop.,  1893,  pp.  4,  6;  Chron.  BibL, 
1889,  p.  467;   1904,  p.  82. 

2  Blass,  Acta  Apostolorum,  1895;  Zahn,  Einleit.  1899,  vol. 
ii ;  Plummer,  Com.,  on  S.  Luke,  3rd  ed.,  1900;  Rackam,  The 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  1901 ;  Headlam,  art.:  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  H.  D. ;  Stanton,  art. :  Gospels,  H.  D. ;  Knabenbauer, 
Com.  in  Act.  Apostolorum,  1899. 


INTRODUCTION  23 

ize  with  the  traditional  positions  hitherto  received. 
Since  S.  Irenaeus'  day,  in  fact,  the  Church  has  tradi- 
tionally placed  the  composition  of  the  first  three  gos- 
pels between  50-70  A.  D.,  and  of  the  fourth  gospel  at 
80-100  A.  D.  And  these  dates  are  the  ones  most  gen- 
erally accepted  by  Catholic  critics  of  the  present  time, 
notably  by  Bacuez,  Vigouroux,  Cornely,  and  Batiffol. 
The  only  points,  it  may  be  noted,  on  which  modern 
criticism  tends  to  discard  the  Church  tradition  to  a 
great  extent  are  those  bearing  upon  the  composition  of 
the  first  gospel  by  the  apostle  S.  Matthew  and  of  the 
fourth  gospel  by  the  apostle  S.  John.^ 

The  theory  relative  to  S.  John's  gospel  is  connected 
with  a  problem  that  is  very  complex  and  even  now 
very  far  from  solution,  namely,  that  of  the  relation  of 
the  fourth  gospel  with  the  other  three  as  regards  the 
narration  of  facts  and  the  reproduction  of  discourses. 
As  the  study  of  this  problem  requires  a  special  volume, 
we  will  not  enter  upon  it  in  this  work ;  so  that  we  will 
here  leave  aside  the  testimony  of  the  fourth  gospel 
and,  to  meet  the  actual  requirements  of  criticism,  we 
shall  confine  ourselves  to  the  evidences  supplied  by  the 
first  three  gospels. 

With  regard,  then,  to  the  theory  of  the  authorship 
of  S.  Matthew's  gospel,  it  is  itself  partly  dependent 
upon  a  problem  which  is  also  far  from  being  solved, 
namely  that  of  the  literary  resemblances  noticeable  in 
the  first  three  gospels.  These  writings  are  arranged 
upon  a  uniform  plan;  they  include  the  same  portion 
of  Jesus'  ministry  in  GaUlee,  and,  for  the  most  part, 
relate  the  same  facts  and  the  same  discourses ;  so  that 
they  can  be  presented  in  three  parallel  lines,  thus  allow- 
ing the  triple  biographical  account  to  appear  under 
one  and  the  same  view.     Hence,  the  name,  synoptic, 

^  Bacuez  and  Vigouroux,  Manuel  Bihlique,  vol.  iii,  loth  ed., 
1900;  Cornely,  lutroductio,  vol.  iii,  1886;  Batiffol,  Six  Legons, 
4th  ed.,  1897;  Jesus  et  rHistoire,  2d  ed.,  1904. 


24  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

from  the  Greek  word  '  synopsis ',  or  a  survey  of 
several  things  at  one  glance. 

How  then  can  we  account  for  these  striking  simi- 
larities, as  also  indeed  the  notable  divergences  in  these 
gospels,  for,  in  fact,  these  very  features  do  not  allow 
us  to  suppose  for  a  moment  that  these  writings  were 
merely  based  one  upon  the  other?  This  difficulty  is 
called  the  Synoi:tic  problem,  and  so  complex  is  its 
character  that  it  has  given  rise  to  all  kinds  of  theories. 

The  theory  of  most  contemporary  critics  may  be 
thus  stated :  S.  Mark's  gospel  is  the  shortest ;  it  omits 
the  narratives  of  the  Infancy  of  Christ,  and  seems  to 
reproduce  more  exactly  the  original  form  of  the 
apostles'  system  of  catechetical  instruction,  as  we 
witness  it  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  Hence  it  must  have 
been  prior  to  S.  Matthew's  gospel  which  implies  an 
effort  of  later  reflexion,  as  also  to  S.  Luke's  gospel 
which  is  certainly  the  work  of  a  historian.  S.  Mark's 
gospel,  which  is  nearly  all  narrative,  served  as  the 
basis  of  the  other  two.  The  author  of  S.  Matthew's 
gospel  borrowed  the  narrative  portions  from  the  nar- 
ration in  S.  Mark's  gospel,  completing  his  work  by 
means  of  particular  sources,  and,  in  the  course  of  the 
recital,  inserting  the  discourses  which  he  had  bor- 
rowed from  already  existing  collections.  Of  the  lat- 
ter, the  principal  one  was  originally  written  in  Ara- 
maic, and  had  been  later  translated  into  Greek.  It  is 
this  Greek  translation,  entitled  the  Sayings  of  the 
Lord,  which  Papias  mentions  as  the  work  of  the 
apostle  Matthew,  and,  in  some  measure,  this  testimony 
would  warrant  the  title  given  to  the  first  gospel  from 
the  earliest  Christian  times.  As  regards  S.  Luke's 
gospel,  its  narrative  portion  depends  upon  S.  Mark, 
and  its  discourses,  upon  a  primitive  collection,  per- 
haps the  same  whence  the  Greek  form  of  S.  Matthew's 
discourses  were  drawn ;  while  its  author  completed 
these  two  principal  sources  by  the  aid  of  particular 


INTRODUCTION  25 

documents,  the  whole  series  being  finally  blended  to- 
gether after  the  method  of  a  true  historian.^ 

Thus  would  modern  critics  solve  the  synoptic  prob- 
lem ;  but,  after  all,  it  remains  simply  a  theory,  and  one 
against  which  there  are  two  serious  difficulties.  That 
is,  in  the  light  of  external  criticism,  it  apparently  dif- 
fers from  the  earliest  testimony  of  tradition.  The 
latter  always  has  placed  S.  Matthew's  gospel  as  the 
first  of  the  series,  and  held  that  it  was  composed,  as 
indeed  the  very  features  of  the  gospel  itself  serve  to 
show,  for  the  use  of  converted  Jews,  and  that  it  is  the 
authentic  work  of  that  apostle.  Again,  from  the 
view-point  of  internal  criticism,  this  theory  cannot  ex- 
plam  satisfactorily  the  notable  divergences  in  the 
Synoptic  gospels  both  as  regards  the  independent  ele- 
ments and  the  parts  common  to  each  writing.  The 
theory  of  the  two  Sources,  Mark  and  the  Logia,  how- 
ever, has  been  adopted  by  Loisy  and  Minocchi,  as 
also  by  Batiirol  and  Lagrange.  2 

Is  it  not  more  likely,  indeed,  that  the  Synoptic  gos- 
pels are  based  upon  a  certain  number  of  documents 
more  or  less  extensive  and  more  or  less  differently 
edited  and  forming  a  sort  of  Primitive  Gospel  like  the 
ordinary  Catechesis  employed  by  the  apostles  and  im- 
parted by  them  to  the  first  Christian  preachers?  In 
this  case,  S.  Matthew  would  have  early  adapted  this 
Primitive  Gospel  to  the  needs  of  the  Jewish  converts 
and  completed  it  with  the  help  of  his  own  recollections. 
While  S.  Mark  would  have  accommodated  it  soon 
afterwards  to  the  needs  of  the  Church  at  Rome,  and, 
although  preserving  it  in  its  original  form,  still  en- 
deavoring to  make  it  harmonize  with  S.  Peter's  teach- 

1  Wernle,  Die  Synop.  Frage,  1899 ;  Wendt,  The  Teaching 
of  Jesus,  vol.  i,  1892;  Holtzmann,  O.,  The  Life  of  Jesus,  1904; 
Soltau,  Unsere  Evangelien,  1901 ;  Hawkins,  Horae  Synop- 
ticae,  1899;  Moffatt,  J.,  The  Historical  New  Testament,  1901. 

^  Loisy,  op.  cit.;  Minocchi,  op.  cit.;  Batiffol,  op.  cit.;  La- 
grange, Jesus  et  la  Critique  des  Evangiles;  art. ;  Bulletin  d^ 
Litt,  BccL,  1904,  p.  19. 


26  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ing.  S.  Luke,*  lastly,  would  have  accepted  this  Primi- 
tive Gospel  as  the  basis  of  his  account,  while  also 
completing  it  from  his  personal  sources  of  informa- 
tion, oral  and  written,  and  then  arranging  it  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  special  purpose  which  he  had  in 
view. 

In  any  case,  as  is  noteworthy,  even  had  the  first  gos- 
pel been  finally  edited  by  a  writer  later  than  S.  Mat- 
thew, and  during  S.  Luke's  time,  nevertheless,  owing 
to  its  origin,  its  value  would  equal  that  of  the  second 
and  third  gospels,  which  were  written  by  disciples.  It 
is  also  very  remarkable  that  the  theory  of  the  Two 
Sources  tends  to  maintain  the  real  and  close  connection 
between  the  first  gospel  and  its  traditional  author ;  for 
its  advocates  claim  that,  at  least  to  a  notable  extent, 
this  gospel  depends  upon  the  authentic  work  of  the 
apostle  S.  Matthew,  that  is,  upon  a  collection  of  Dis- 
courses, or  a  truly  Primitive  Gospel,  originally  written 
in  the  Aramaic  language. 

As  for  the  gospel  of  S.  Mark,  it  is  significant  that 
critics  now  recognize  its  dependence  upon  earlier 
sources  just  as  they  do  in  the  case  of  the  other  Synop- 
tic gospels.  Jiilicher  and  Wernle,  for  instance,  admit 
such  dependence  in  the  apocalyptic  discourse  in  c.  13, 
and  Wendt  in  the  series  of  specially  grouped  anecdotes 
in  c.  ii.  I — c.  iii.  6,  and  in  c.  xii.  13-37. 

B.  Weiss  says  that  while  S.  Mark's  gospel  serves 
as  a  source  for  those  of  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Luke,  it  is 
itself  dependent  upon  S.  Matthew's  primitive  work 
which  was  a  collection  of  narratives  as  well  as  dis- 
courses. 

J.  Weiss  also  thinks  that,  to  a  large  extent,  this 
Primitive  Gospel  forms  the  basis  of  all  three  Synoptic 
gospels.^  And  Loisy,  with  scarcely  a  shade  of  differ- 
ence, declares  himself  strongly  in  favor  of  the  same 


1  Weiss,  J.,  Das  Alt.  Evang.,  1903. 

2  Loisy,    Le    Second   Evang.;    art.:    Rev.    d'Hist.,   etc.,    1903, 
p.  513;  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  26,  27,  1908, 


INTRODUCTION 


27 


Von  Weizsacker  believes  that  the  basis  of  the 
Synoptic  gospels  is  a  common  source,  which  S.  Mark 
has  reproduced  with  greater  fidelity,  while  S.  Matthew 
and  S.  Luke,  without  depending  upon  our  second  gos- 
pel, freely  used  this  common  source  by  combining  it 
with  the  Logia.^ 

Stanton  thus  summarizes  the  matter :  "  Was  our 
Mark  itself,  as  we  have  it,  one  of  the  original  docu- 
ments into  which  the  Synoptic  gospels  are  to  be 
analyzed?  On  the  other  hand,  did  Mark  himself  take 
a  document,  the  same  which  was  used  in  Mt.  and  Lk., 
and  revise  it,  though  much  more  slightly, — only  add- 
ing to  it  traits  here  and  there  which  he  had  derived 
from  his  close  intercourse  with  S.  Peter?  It  cannot  be 
said  that  criticism  has  as  yet  even  approximated  to  a 
decision  on  this  point."  ^ 

As  regards  the  gospel  of  S.  Matthew,  some  critics 
claim  that  they  can  harmonize  the  theory  of  the  Two 
Sources  with  its  entire  authenticity.  Thus,  Zahn  sup- 
poses that  our  first  gospel  in  its  Greek  form  is  a  mere 
translation,  made  about  85  A.  D.,  from  the  original 
Aramaic  text  of  S.  Matthew's  gospel  which  was 
written  towards  62  A.  D. ;  so  that,  in  this  view,  the 
translator  was  simply  inspired  to  take  his  hterary 
model  from  the  original  Greek  text  of  S.  Mark's  gos- 
pel which  was  composed  about  64  A.  D.^ 

In  Roehrich's  opinion,  it  was  S.  Matthew  himself 
who,  towards  the  close  of  his  life,  edited  "  the  new 
edition,  revised  and  corrected,  of  the  gospel  of 
S.  Mark."* 

Godet    ventures    to    suggest    that    the    apostle    S. 

1  Von  Weizsacker,  Untersuch.  iiher  die  Evang.  Gesch., 
1864,  2d  ed.,  1901. 

2  Stanton,  art. :  Gospels,  H.  D.,  p.  241. 

3  Zahn,  op.  cit. 

*  Roehrich,  La  Camp,  des  Evang.,  1897,  p.  331. 


2S  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Matthew  had  confided  to  one  of  his  disciples  the  task 
of  completing  the  Logia.^ 

Most  of  those  who  accept  the  theory  of  the  Two 
Sources  really  admit  a  partial  authenticity  for  S.  Mat- 
thew's gospel  by  the  fact  that  they  recognize  the  primi- 
tive document  of  the  Logia  as  the  genuine  work  of  the 
apostle  S.  Matthew.  "  One  would  have  scarcely  hit 
upon  the  name  of  an  apostle  so  little  known  as  Mat- 
thew/' says  Jiilicher,  *'  without  definite  cause.  One 
would  have  been  far  more  likely  to  ascribe  it  to  Peter 
m  view  of  the  brilliant  role  assigned  to  him  in  xvi, 
1 8  and  xvii,  24-27.  All  existing  facts,  including  the 
interest  shown  by  the  author  in  Mt.  ix,  9  and  x,  3  are 
best  explained  upon  the  supposition  that  peculiar  rela- 
tions existed  between  the  gospel  and  Matthew,  that 
the  author  actually  used  a  collection  of  Logia  made 
by  Matthew  as  the  foundation  for  his  book,  and  that 
since  he  had  not  his  own  personal  glory  so  much  at 
heart  as  the  influence  of  his  gospel,  he  recommended 
this  latter  to  his  fellow-believers  as  a  Greek  version, 
made  according  to  his  ability,  of  the  old  Matthew."  ^ 

Schmiedel  supposes  that  if  S.  Matthew  is  not  the 
author  of  the  Logia  directly  employed  by  the  Evan- 
gelist who  wrote  the  first  gospel,  he  is  at  least  the 
compiler  of  a  still  older  document  on  which  depended 
the  Logia  in  their  final  form.^ 

This  view  is  also  apparently  adopted  by  Loisy  in  his 
work  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  in  his  Biblical 
Chronicle.  While,  in  his  essay  Antour  d'un  Petit 
Livre,  which  followed  his  book  on  The  Gospel  and 
the  Church,  he  is  satisfied  with  stating  that  "  if  the  col- 
lection of  sayings  was  first  edited  by  the  apostle  Mat- 
thew, it  is  certainly  not  the  same  apostle  who  combined 

1  Godet,  Introd.  au  N.  T.,  1898,  vol.  ii,  p.  321. 

2  Jiilicher,  op.  cit.,  pp.  306,  376 ;  Stanton,  op.  cit.,  p.  242 ; 
Moffatt,  op.  cit.,  p.  270. 

s  Schmiedel,  op.  cit.,  par.  149,  col,  1891. 


INTRODUCTION  29 

the  Discourses  of  the  Lord  with  the  account  in  Mark 
for  the  purpose  of  forming  our  first  gospel."  ^ 

A  partial  although  less  restricted  authenticity  in 
behalf  of  the  first  gospel  is  advanced  by  several  Catho- 
lic critics  who  think  that,  while  based  upon  S.  Mark's 
gospel,  it  was  really  a  translation  from  the  original 
Aramaic  text  of  S.  Matthew. 

Calmes,  for  instance,  says  that  the  translator  of  the 
first  gospel,  while  utilizing  the  gospel  of  S.  Mark,  as- 
similated its  mode  of  expression  as  also  many  comple- 
mentary details,  particular  features,  and  even  facts 
which  were  not  found  in  the  text  of  the  original  Ara- 
maic  document.- 

And  lastly,  Lagrange  bids  us  recognize  that  our 
gospel  according  to  S.  Matthew  is  more  than  a  mere 
translation ;  that  it  is  a  composition  written  with  a 
certain  freedom  of  manner  as  compared  with  its  ori- 
ginal. Nor  does  he  believe  that  internal  criticism  has 
proved  that  such  changes  affect  the  work  substantially, 
and  he  thence  concludes  that  it  does  not  contradict 
the  traditional  view  which  considers  the  first  gospel 
both  as  an  inspired  writing  and  as  the  work  of  the 
apostle  S.  Matthew.^ 

Historicity. — The  first  three  gospels,  even  in  the 
supposition  that  they  are  to  be  assigned  to  the  second 
generation  of  Christians  and  that  we  may  minimize 
the  part  played  by  their  traditional  authors  in  the 
work  of  editing,  depend  upon  oral  traditions  as  also 
upon  written  documents  belonging  to  the  first  Chris- 
tian generation,  to  that  very  epoch  when  the  Saviour's 
immediate  witnesses  were  still  living. 

This  much  is  admitted  by  modern  critics.  Thus, 
among  Catholic  scholars,  Batiffol  dates  the  composi- 

1  Loisy,  Autour,  p.  y6',  Les  Evang.  Synop.,  1893,  p.  3; 
Chron.  Bihl,  1899,  pp.  188,  467. 

2  Calmes,  La  Quest,  des  Evang.  Synop.,  1898,  p.  26. 

3  Lagrange,  art. :  Rev.  Bihl,  1896,  pp.  26,  2y. 


30 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


tion  of  these  gospels  at  60-70  A.  D.  While  granting 
that  this  is  only  an  approximate  estimation,  and  that 
it  is  "  obtained  from  internal  criticism  which  ever 
tends  to  fall  short  of  the  truth  and  to  content  itself 
with  approximations,"  he  adds  that  ''  at  most  there 
is  an  interval  of  from  thirty  to  forty  years  between 
the  editing  of  the  Synoptic  gospels  and  the  very  brief 
period  of  the  Saviour's  historical  activity.  This  gap, 
however — as  the  critical  works  of  the  last  century 
have  conclusively  proved — is  filled  up  to  a  great, 
extent  by  the  very  fact  that  the  three  Synoptic  gospels 
were  edited  by  the  aid  of  former  original  sources, 
either  oral  or  written."  ^ 

Thus,  S.  Luke  assures  us  that  he  was  careful  to 
consult  primitive  sources  and  to  faithfully  reproduce 
well-authenticated  recollections  and  documents.  "For- 
asmuch," he  says  at  the  beginning  of  his  gospel,  "  as 
many  have  taken  in  hand  to  set  forth  in  order  a 
narration  of  the  things  that  have  been  accomplished 
among  us,  according  as  they  have  delivered  them  unto 
us,  who  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and 
ministers  of  the  Word,  it  seemed  good  to  me  also,  hav- 
ing diligently  attained  to  all  things  from  the  beginning, 
to  write  to  thee,  in  order,  most  excellent  Theophilus, 
that  thou  mayest  know  the  verity  of  those  words  in 
which  thou  hast  been  instructed."  " 

Such  testimony,  so  unquestionably  sincere,  is  more- 
over confirmed  by  what  is  found  from  an  internal 
criticism  of  the  third  Gospel.  Like  the  Book  of  Acts, 
it  is  made  up  of  documents  which  retain  all  the  candor 
of  writings  belonging  to  the  primitive  age  of  the 
Church.  ''  Luke  had  under  his  eyes,"  says  Renan, 
"  originals  which  we  no  longer  possess.  .  .  .  But  he  is 
a  biographer  of  the  first  century,  a  divine  artist  who, 
apart  from  the  information  he  has  extracted  from  the 

1  Batiffol,  Jesus  et  L'Hist.,  2d  ed.,  1904,  p.  17. 

2  5*.  Luke,  c.  i,  vs.  1-4. 


INTRODUCTION 


31 


more  ancient  sources,  shows  us  the  character  of  the 
Founder  with  a  feUcity  of  touch,  an  inspired  grasp, 
and  a  sharpness  of  rehef  which  the  other  two  Synop- 
tics do  not  possess."  ^ 

The  first  and  second  Gospels  also,  when  viewed 
from  the  same  standpoint,  give  evidence  of  their  de- 
pendence upon  memoirs  or  documents  dating  from 
the  Apostolic  age  and  compiled  by  direct  witnesses  of 
the  Saviour's  words  and  deeds.  As  regards  S. 
Mark's  gospel,  Renan  thinks  that  "  the  document,  al- 
though composed  after  the  death  of  Peter,  was  in  a 
sense  his  work ;  it  was  the  way  in  which  he  had  been 
accustomed  to  relate  the  life  of  Jesus.  Peter  knew 
scarcely  any  Greek;  Mark  served  him  as  a  dragoman; 
hundreds  of  times  he  had  been  the  channel  through 
which  this  marvelous  history  had  passed.  .  .  .  The 
strong  impression  left  by  Jesus  is  there  found  almost 
entire.  We  see  Him  really  living  and  acting.  .  .  . 
Everything  is  taken  from  life ;  we  feel  that  we  are  in 
the  presence  of  memories."  And  again :  *'  the  ob- 
servations are  most  minute  and  come,  no  doubt,  from 
an  eye-witness."  ^ 

Similarly,  of  S.  Matthew's  gospel,  Renan  says  that 
"  it  evidently  merits  special  confidence  in  respect  of 
the  Discourses :  here  are  the  Logia,  the  very  notes 
taken  from  a  clear  and  lively  memory  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus.  .  .  .  Their  profoundly  Hebraic  turn  of 
thought,  the  analogies  they  present  to  the  Sayings  of 
the  Jewish  Doctors  of  the  period,  their  perfect  har- 
mony with  Galilean  nature,  are  notable  marks  of  ori- 
ginality :  .  .  .  What  gives  value  to  the  work  attributed 
to  Matthew,  are  the  Discourses  attributed  to  Jesus, 
preserved  with  an  extreme  fidelity,  and  probably  in  the 
relative  order  in  which  they  were  first  written."  ^ 

^  Renan,  Life  of  lesus,  p.  66. 

2  Renan,  The  Gospels,  pp.  59,  60,  61 ;  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  62,. 

3  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  62;  The  Gospels,  p.  112. 


32 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


Among  later  critics,  Jiilicher  views  the  first  gospel 
as  perfectly  expressing  the  incisive  vigor  and  unpre- 
tending simplicity  of  Jesus'  words.  Indeed,  he  per- 
ceives the  same  marks  of  authenticity  in  all  the  Gospel 
discourses.  *'As  a  rule,"  he  says,  "  there  lies  in  all  the 
Synoptic  Logia  a  kernel  of  individual  character  so  in- 
imitable and  so  fresh  that  their  authenticity  is  raised 
above  all  suspicion.  Jesus  must  have  spoken  just  as 
the  Synoptists  make  Him  speak,  when  He  roused  the 
people  from  their  torpor,  when  He  comforted  them 
and  lovingly  stooped  to  their  needs,  when  He  revealed 
to  His  disciples  His  inmost  thoughts  about  the  message 
of  the  Kingdom,  when  He  guided  them  and  gave  them 
laws,  when  He  contended  forcibly  with  the  hostile 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees  or  worsted  them  by  force  of 
reasoning;  for,  not  otherwise  can  we  explain  the 
world-convulsing  influence  gained  in  so  short  a  life's 
work."  ^ 

We  can,  then,  readily  understand  how  Renan  could 
express,  in  a  few  words,  his  appreciation  of  the  canon- 
ical gospels,  as  when  he  declared  that  he  accepted  them 
as  "  documents  of  good  faith,  to  which  nobody  would 
think  of  comparing  the  apocryphal  gospels."  "  It  will 
be  observed,"  he  says,  "  that  I  have  made  no  use  of 
the  apocryphal  gospels.  In  no  sense  should  these  com- 
positions be  placed  on  the  same  footing  as  the  Canoni- 
cal Gospels.  They  are  tiresome  and  puerile  amplifica- 
tions, having  almost  always  the  canonical  documents 
for  a  base,  and  never  adding  anything  to  them  of  any 
value.  ...  It  would  be  doing  an  injury  to  Christian 
literature  to  place  these  insipid  compositions  on  the 
same  footing  with  the  masterpieces  of  Mark,  Luke, 
and  Matthew."  ^ 

And  Harnack  has  more  recently  thus  expressed  his 
conviction :    "  The    gospels    are    not    '  party    tracts  ' ; 

1  Julicher,  op.  cit:,  pp.  368,  2)7'^' 

2  Renan,  The  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  62,  66 ;  The  Christian 
Church,  7  vols.,  1888- 1889,  vol.  vi,  p.  272. 


INTRODUCTION 


^Z 


neither  are  they  writings  which,  as  yet,  bear  the  radi- 
cal impress  of  the  Greek  spirit.  In  their  essential 
substance  they  belong  to  the  first,  the  Jewish,  epoch 
of  Christianity,  that  brief  epoch  which  may  be  de- 
noted as  the  paleontological.  .  .  .  When  all  is  said, 
the  Greek  language  lies  upon  these  writings  only  like 
a  diaphanous  veil,  and  it  requires  hardly  any  effort  to 
retranslate  their  contents  into  Hebrew  or  Aramaic. 
That  the  tradition  here  presented  to  us  is,  in  the  main, 
at  first  hand,  is  obvious."  ^ 

While  Jiilicher  says  that  "  the  Synoptic  gospels  are 
of  priceless  value  not  only  as  books  of  religious  edi- 
fication, but  also  as  authorities  for  the  history  of 
Jesus."  ^ 

Modern  Criticism. — After  a  half-century,  there- 
fore, of  laborious  researches,  stimulated  by  the  denials 
of  Strauss  and  Baur,  critics  have  come  to  admit  the 
historical  value  of  the  entire  content  of  our  gospels. 
Such  an  admission,  indeed,  is  most  important ;  for,  if 
these  writings  present  in  substance  the  belief  of  the 
primitive  Church  and  the  original  tradition,  the  recol- 
lections of  those  who  were  the  Saviour's  contempor- 
aries, as  well  as  His  own  testimony ;  if,  moreover,  as  we 
shall  see,  nobody  nowadays  doubts  the  sincerity  of 
these  very  witnesses,  nor  that  of  the  editors  who  have 
transmitted  such  testimony  to  us,  the  question  arises : 
Does  not  this  suffice  for  our  belief  in  Christ,  in  His 
person,  and  in  His  doctrine?  And  should  we  not 
also  conclude  that,  assuredly,  the  Christian  religion  is- 
the  true  one?  As  early  as  1835,  Strauss  had  written: 
"  The  biblical  history  would  be  unassailable  if  it  were 
evident  that  it  had  been  committed  to  writing  by  eye- 
witnesses, at   least  by  men  neighbors  of  the  events."  ^ 

1  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity f  p.  23;  Bruce,  art.:  Jesus, 
E.  B.,  col,  2437. 

2  Jiilicher,  op.  cit.,  p.  371. 

3  Strauss,  Life  of  Jesus,  2d  American  ed.,  1845,  p.  54. 

3 


34 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


In  our  own  day  the  theory  rejected  by  Strauss  has 
been  verified ;  and,  nevertheless,  RationaUsts  nowadays 
actually  refuse  to  admit  the  conclusions  thence  ensu- 
ing. But,  be  it  noted  well,  the  Rationalist  opposition  to 
our  sacred  writings  is  now  exclusively  directed  against 
those  parts  which  are  so  evidently  supernatural ;  it 
views  these,  not  according  to  the  principles  of  scientific 
and  historical  order,  but  rather  and  very  often  with  the 
animus  of  philosophical  and  religious  prejudice. 
Renan  cynically  admitted  as  much  when  he  wrote : 
"At  the  bottom  of  all  discussion  on  such  matters  is  the 
question  of  the  supernatural.  .  .  .  That  the  gospels 
are  in  part  legendary  is  quite  evident,  inasmuch  as 
they  are  full  of  miracles  and  of  the  supernatural ;  but 
there  are  legends  and  legends.  ...  It  is  not  because 
it  has  been  proved  to  me  beforehand  that  the  evan- 
gelists do  not  merit  absolute  credence  that  I  reject 
the  miracles  which  they  relate.  It  is  because  they  tell 
of  miracles  that  I  say:  The  gospels  are  legends;  they 
may  contain  history,  but,  certainly,  all  that  they  set 
forth  is  not  historical."  ^ 

It  is,  then,  owing  to  an  a  priori  prejudice 
that  Renan  ventures  to  assign  to  the  very  days  of  the 
apostles  themselves  a  legendary  idealization  of  Jesus' 
life.  "A  rapid  work  of  transformation,"  he  claims, 
"  went  on  in  the  same  manner  in  the  twenty  or  thirty 
years  which  followed  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  stamped 
upon  His  biography  the  absolute  traits  of  an  ideal 
legend."  ^ 

This  a  priori  conviction  of  the  non-existence  of  the 
supernatural  rests  eventually  upon  the  monstrous,  ir- 
rational, and  immoral  hypothesis  of  God's  non-exist- 
ence, and  its  falsity  is  further  proved  by  the  very  ex- 
tremes to  which  it  reduces  Rationalist  critics.  Renan, 
for  instance,  is  obliged  to  go  to  such  lengths  in  order 


1  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  13,  15,  44. 

2  Renan,  op.  cit.,  p.  68. 


INTRODUCTION  35 

to  give  a  reasonable  explanation  of  the  supernatural 
features  of  the  Gospels,  that  such  attempts  are  enough 
to  condemn  that  philosophic  prejudice  which  compels 
him  to  resort  to  these  expedients. 

He  admits  that  miraculous  cures  "  held  a  large  place 
in  the  hfe  of  Jesus."  But  how  does  he  explain  them? 
By  declaring  that  "  the  touch  of  a  rare  personality  is 
worth  more  that  all  the  resources  of  pharmacy."  He 
admits,  indeed,  that  Mary  Magdalen,  the  Disciples 
on  the  road  to  Emmaus,  in  the  Cenacle,  on  the 
banks  of  the  Lake  of  Genesareth,  and  upon  the 
Mount  of  Ascension,  believed  in  the  apparition  of  the 
Risen  Christ;  but  his  only  explanation  of  such  behef 
is  that  all  these  various  witnesses  were  uniformly  the 
victims  of  illusion  and  hallucination.  It  was  thus, 
also,  he  says,  at  the  miracle  of  Pentecost,  when 
the  Apostles  were  so  unusually  transformed:  he 
views  this  miracle  as  being  but  a  fierce  tempest,  a 
whirlwind  that  shook  the  windows  of  the  room,  a 
dazzling  light  that  illumined  the  faces  of  the  persons 
assembled. 

We  must  say  that  such  grotesque  and  plainly  in- 
sufficient explanations  of  facts  which  he  is  obliged 
to  admit  as  historic,  but  which  he  wishes  to  explain 
as  wholly  natural,  evidently  prove  that  his  way  of  in- 
terpreting the  same  does  not  square  with  the  truth. 
And  this  indeed  justifies  his  own  declarations: 
"  If  miracle  and  the  inspiration  of  certain  books  are 
actual  facts,  our  method  is  false  and  wrong.  ...  If 
miracle  has  any  reality,  this  book  is  but  a  tissue 
of  errors."  ^ 

Current  Opinions. — At  the  present  time,  however, 
critics  are  apparently  guided  by  principles  of  a  less  ab- 
solute character  when  expressing  their  appreciation  of 
the  gospels :  the  radical   rationalism   of   Strauss   and 

1  Renan,  op.  cit.,  pp.  271,  276;  The  Apostles,  pp.  46-50,  53-54. 
55-57,  60-72,  85,  170;  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  12,  15. 


;^6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Renan  has  in  fact  quite  gone  out  of  favor.  But,  al- 
though contemporary  scholars  assert  their  rejection  of 
the  axiom  that  ''  miracles  are  impossible,"  they  still 
claim  to  ground  exclusively  upon  the  observations  of 
historical  or  literary  criticism,  a  conclusion  which 
closely  resembles  the  Rationalist  thesis. 

Thus,  Schmiedel  has  put  the  supernatural  features 
of  the  Gospel  to  the  test  of  an  extremely  critical  com- 
mentary, and  feels  compelled  to  conclude  that,  if  in- 
deed partly  historical,  our  sacred  writings  are  also 
partly  the  result  of  a  process  of  idealization  that  in- 
fluenced the  Saviour's  words  and  deeds  at  an  early 
period  of  Christianity.^ 

JiiHcher,  also,  after  asserting  the  Synoptic  gospels  to 
be  ''  of  priceless  value  ...  as  authorities  for  ascer- 
taining Jesus'  history,"  adds  that  "  what  they  know 
and  tell  is  a  mixture  of  truth  and  poetry.  .  .  .  Their 
task  was  not  to  understand"  and  estimate  the  historical 
Jesus ;  but  to  believe  in  Him,  to  love  Him  above  all 
else,  to  teach  men  to  hope  in  Him :  they  did  not  de- 
scribe the  Jesus  of  real  life,  but  the  Christ  as  He  ap- 
peared to  the  hearts  of  His  followers."  ^ 

A  like  theory  is  that  recently  advanced  by  Loisy. 
He  thinks  that  "  while  the  Saviour's  preaching  and 
the  gospel  events  are  transformed  in  S.  John,"  they 
are  but  "  slightly  glossed  in  the  Synoptics."  He 
claims  with  reference  to  the  Synoptic  Christ,  "  all 
that  He  did,  all  that  He  said,  rightly  and  naturally  cor- 
responds with  His  times  and  environment.  The 
world  which  we  see  surging  around  Him  is  a  real 
world,  the  persons  therein  described  standing  out  in 
bold  relief,  and  fully  alive  in  their  individual  charac- 
ters. Everywhere  there  is  life,  and  along  therewith 
there  is  a  truthfully  historical  representation."  ^ 

1  Schmiedel,  art.  E.  B.,  par.  137,  col.  1876. 
2Julicher,  op.  cit.,  pp.  368,  371. 
.  3  Loisy,  Autour,  p.  44. 


INTRODUCTION  37 

On  the  other  hand,  and  as  it  were  by  way  of  con- 
trast, the  same  author  writes :  ''  In  the  gospels  there 
remains  but  an  echo,  necessarily  weakened  and  a  little 
confused,  of  the  words  of  Jesus,  the  general  impres- 
sion He  produced  upon  hearers  well-disposed  towards 
Him,  with  some  of  the  more  striking  of  His  sentences, 
as  they  were  understood  and  interpreted;  and  finally 
there  remains  the  movement  w^hich  He  initiated."  ^ 

More  recently,  Loisy  expressed  his  opinion  that  ''  it 
is  because  the  gospels  are,  above  all,  works  of  edifica- 
tion that  their  authors  did  not  fear  to  treat  tradi- 
tional matter  with  great  freedom;  and  the  artifices, 
by  which  a  certain  kind  of  exegesis  endeavors  to  dissi- 
mulate it,  are  perfectly  useless.  .  .  .  H  the  parables  were 
gradually  merged  into  allegories ;  if  the  Saviour's 
teaching  was  constantly  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the 
growing  Church ;  if  a  process  of  progressive  idealiza- 
tion, of  symbolic  and  dogmatic  interpretation  influenced 
the  very  facts,  the  historian  must  be  able  to  find 
it  out."  The  gospels,  then,  "  are  not  to  be 
used  without  discernment " :  the  critic  must  sift 
"  what  belongs  to  primitive  reminiscence  from  what 
pertains  to  the  appreciation  of  faith  and  the  develop- 
ment of  Christian  belief."  - 

His  views  are  stated  even  more  explicitly  in  the 
second  and  enlarged  French  edition  of  "  The  Gospel 
and  the  Church."  He  tells  us  that  "  the  gospels  are 
not  strictly  historical  documents,"  but  ''  a  product  and 
a  witness  of  an  ancient  faith,"  and  "  the  principal 
documents  of  Christian  faith  for  the  first  period  of 
its  history."  ^ 

This  theory  he  applies  in  an  especial  manner  to  the 
idea  of  Jesus'  messianic  character.  ''  Tradition  must 
follow  its  natural  tendency,"  he  writes,  "  and  was  soon 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  13. 

2  Loisy,  Autour,  pp.  44,  83. 

3  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  23,  2>^,  50,  51. 


38  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

to  discover,  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  characteristic  fea- 
tures and  indubitable  proofs  of  His  Messianic  dignity. 
The  glory  of  the  risen  Lord  threw  new  Hght  on  the 
memories  of  His  early  career.  Thence  arose  a  kind  of 
idealization  of  His  discourses  and  His  acts,  and  a 
tendency  to  systematize  them.  .  .  .  Thus  everything 
assumes,  as  it  were,  a  relation  to  the  Messiah,  and  all 
contributes  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ."  ^ 

He  even  claims  that  "  this  inevitable  and  legitimate 
idealization  of  Christ  .  .  .  must  have  affected,  to  a 
certain  extent,  the  form  of  legendary  development,  and 
presents  itself  as  such  at  the  first  glance  of  criticism, 
although  actually  it  is  nothing  but  an  expansion  of 
faith,  and  an  attempt,  thought  an  insufficient  one,  to 
set  Jesus  on  the  height  that  is  His  rightful  place."  ^ 

Thus,  he  believes  that  "  the  narratives  of  the  child- 
hood of  Christ  are  for  the  historian  only  an  expres- 
sion and  an  assertion  of  faith  in  the  Messiah."  The 
manifestation  on  the  banks. of  the  Jordan,  the  tempta- 
tion in  the  desert,  the  acclamations  of  the  demoniacs, 
the  multiplication  of  the  loaves,  the  transfiguration,  the 
rending  of  the  veil  of  the  Temple,  are  but  so  many 
figures  or  symbols  whereby  the  early  Church  expressed 
its  faith  in  Christ;  the  Church,  however,  in  most  in- 
stances, grounded  its  belief  upon  early  facts  and  real 
data  which  it  was  content  to  interpret  in  the  light  of 
actual  historic  •  realities,  and  to  adapt,  as  it  were,  to 
the  condition  of  the  immortal  Christ.^ 

What  shall  we  say  of  this  theory?  From  the  view- 
point of  our  projected  study  of  Christ,  we  may  say 
that,  even  in  the  light  of  the  conclusions  of  the  fore- 
going contemporary  critics,  the  Synoptic  gospels  main- 
tain their  incomparable  value  as  history. 

First  of  all,  they  are  at  least  the  authentic  and  as- 
sured witnesses  of  the  faith  of  the  early  Church,  alike 
during  the  second  generation  of  Christians,  when  they 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  38,  39,  2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  41. 

^  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  39,  50, 


INTRODUCTION 


39 


were  presumably  edited,  as  during  the  first  Christian 
generation  which  furnished  those  traditions  and  docu- 
ments for  their  compilation.  In  these  gospels,  in  fact, 
the  idea  of  Jesus  is  as  extraordinary  as  the  parallel 
view  of  Him  which  we  find  in  S.  Paul's  Epistles. 
Jesus  is  more  than  a  great  prophet :  He  was  not  content 
with  teaching  His  disciples  the  loftiest  truths :  by  His 
miracles  He  has  shown  that  He  wields  a  divine  power ; 
by  His  death  He  has  become  the  redeemer  of  mankind ; 
by  His  resurrection  He  has  wondrously  shown  Himself 
to  be  what  He  declared  that  He  was  whilst  still  on 
earth,  namely,  the  Messiah  and  Son  of  God. 

Thus  did  the  early  Christians  esteem  Jesus.  But, 
we  may  ask.  Whence  came  their  persuasion?  Was  it 
not  due  to  the  impression  made  by  the  Divine  Master 
upon  those  who  had  lived  with  Him?  Must  we  not 
suppose  that  there  was  an  essential  correspondence  be- 
tween such  primitive  belief  and  the  object  thereof? 

This  much  is  granted  by  several  critics.  Thus,  to 
quote  Jiilicher :  "  H  the  total  picture  of  Jesus  which 
we  obtain  from  the  Synoptics  displays  all  the  magic  of 
reality,  (in  Luke  just  as  much  as  in  Matthew  and 
Mark),  this  is  not  the  effect  of  any  literary  skill,  often 
indeed  defective,  on  the  part  of  the  Evangelists,  nor  is 
it  the  result  of  the  poetic  and  creative  power  of  the  au- 
thorities lying  behind  them;  but  it  is  rather  owing  to 
the  fact  that  they,  while  modestly  keeping  their  own 
personalities  in  the  background,  painted  Jesus  as  they 
found  Him  already  existing  in  the  Christian  com- 
munities, and  that  this,  their  model,  corresponded  in 
all  essentials  to  the  original.  .  .  .  The  true  merit  of 
the  Synoptists  is  that,  in  spite  of  all  the  poetic  touches 
they  employ,  they  did  not  repaint,  but  only  handed  on 
the  Christ  of  history.  .  .  .  The  tendency  towards 
legendary  amplification  contented  itself  m  His  case 
with  adding  some  brightly  colored  ornament  to  the 
original  picture."  ^ 

ijiilicher,  op.  eit.,  pp.  371,  374. 


40  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Similarly,  O.  Holtzmann,  alluding  to  the  miraculous 
episodes,  which  in  fact  appear  to  him  to  be  partly 
legendary,  says  that  ''  they  do  mirror  the  sentiments 
which  the  infant  Christian  community  entertained  re- 
garding Jesus  .  .  .  and  in  so  far  they  contribute  to 
the  historical  understanding  of  the  personality  of 
Jesus.  They  show  clearly  that  even  in  the  circles 
which  specially  preserved  the  historical  meaning  of 
His  life,  the  image  of  Jesus  early  outgrew  all  human 
measure ;  and  that  can  only  have  been  due  to  the  im- 
pression which  Jesus  originally  made."  ^ 

Loisy,  too,  with  regard  to  the  Saviour,  thinks  that 
"  His  grandeur  was  not  perceived  until  after  His 
death  " ;  that  the  idealization  of  Christ  after  His  death 
was  "  inevitable  and  legitimate  .  .  .  although  actually 
it  is  nothing  but  an  expansion  of  faith,  and  an  attempt, 
though  an  insufficient  one,  to  set  Jesus  on  the  height 
that  is  His  rightful  one."  And  again :  "  If  the  point 
of  view  is  new,  and  differs  from  that  of  the  immediate 
witnesses  it  is  none  the  less  true  in  a  certain  sense. - 

And  elsewhere  we  are  told  that  "  the  glory  of  the 
risen  Saviour  threw  new  light  on  the  memories  of  His 
earthly  career,  so  as  to  adapt  them  to  the  condition  of 
the  immortal  Christ.  This  perspective,  which  may  be 
called  Messianic,  has  covered  over  the  properly  historic 
basis  of  the  gospel.  It  has  not  altered  it  substantially : 
from  the  viewpoint  of  faith,  it  even  places  the  work  of 
Jesus  in  a  truer  light  than  does  the  reality."  ^ 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  Synoptics,  as  critics  admit,  are 
not  only  an  expose  of  the  belief  of  the  early  Church, 
but  are  also  an  entirely  authentic  and  substantially 
faithful  account  of  Jesus'  words  and  deeds.  So  that 
to  obtain  a  correct  idea  of  Christ,  there  is  no  need  to 
enter  into  a  critical  discussion  of  the  respective  merits 

i  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  yy. 

2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  40,  41. 

3  Loisy,  Autour,  p.  84. 


INTRODUCTION  4I 

of  the  elements  composing  these  writings.  We  may 
justly  take  these  writings  as  they  stand;  and  if  we 
are  careful  to  base  our  study  not  upon  this  or  that 
isolated  detail,  but  upon  the  sum-total  of  the  accounts, 
we  may  rest  assured  of  coming  to  one  solid  and  cer- 
tain conclusion,  namely  that  our  study  will  be  essen- 
tially based  upon  that  substantial  history  which  critic- 
ism admits  as  the  fundamental  germ  of  these  docu- 
ments; whilst  those  chance  elements,  supposedly 
clinging  to  this  basic  nucleus  owing  to  the  progressive 
effort  of  Christian  reflexion,  may  have  influenced  the 
result  attained,  only  so  far  as  to  give  it  some  sort  of 
relief,  to  make  its  full  meaning  appear,  and  not  to 
corrupt  it  in  any  essential  respect. 

Influence  of  Tradition. — We  may  accordingly  ex- 
amine more  in  detail  the  proposed  theory  and  find  to 
what  extent  the  Synoptic  accounts  may  have  been  af- 
fected by  tradition.  To  ascertain  the  authentic  historical 
element  as  also  the  result  of  possible  idealization  in  this 
matter,  only  three  methods  of  procedure  are  available. 
Thus,  we  may  take  each  gospel  separately  and  en- 
deavor to  find  if  it  was  arranged  after  a  systematic 
plan,  or  even  in  accordance  with  a  secret  mental  pre- 
occupation whereby  an  intentional  coloring  may  have 
been  deliberately  or  perhaps  unconsciously  imparted  to 
the  editing  of  events  and  of  discourses.  Or  again,  by 
comparing  the  three  gospel  records,  we  may  try  to 
find  out  which  one  represents  the  original  tradition  and 
what  elements  contained  in  the  others  have  been  ap- 
parently added  to  the  primitive.  Lastly,  we  may  com- 
pare these  gospels  with  other  writings  of  the  early 
Church,  such  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  vari- 
ous Epistles,  in  order  to  see  in  what  measure  we  can 
perceive  an  influence  of  facts  and  of  ideas,  of  sub- 
sequent history  or  of  later  theology,  upon  the  process 
of  editing  the  gospel  material. 

This  task  of  verification  evidently  presents  some 
difficult  features  and  may  be  easily  hampered  by  pre- 


42 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


judice  as  also  lend  itself  to  arbitrary  methods.  "  It 
is  impossible,"  says  Lagrange,  "  for  the  critic  not  to  be 
guided,  when  choosing  what  belongs  and  what  does 
not  belong  to  primitive  tradition,  by  his  ideas  of  his- 
torical evolution."  ^ 

Where,  indeed,  we  may  ask,  can  we  find  in  the 
gospels  the  alleged  traces  of  a  systematically  designed 
plan  which  lessens  the  fideHty  of  the  account?  No 
critic  now  thinks  of  questioning  the  sincerity  of  the 
gospel  writers.  The  very  archaic  character  of  the 
language,  the  exactness  of  the  portrayal  of  life  in  the 
Palestinian  world  prior  to  70  A.  D.,  prove  how  ex- 
tremely faithful  they  were  in  making  use  of  tradi- 
tions and  documents.  Such  fidelity  is  especially  not- 
able on  the  part  of  S.  Luke. 

"  Their  sincerity,"  writes  Lagrange,  "  is  no  longer 
questioned,  and  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  defend 
it.  .  .  .  We  have  put  their  absolute  sincerity  beyond 
all  attack.  It  is  the  honorable  trait  of  actual  criticism 
not  to  doubt  it  at  all."  ^ 

.  "  The  three  Evangelists  are  all  found  to  write  in  a 
uniform  style,"  says  Batiffol,  "  to  write  Greek  in  short, 
disjointed  phrases  'wherein',  as  Renan  remarks, 
'  the  old  syntax  is  totally  shattered,  wherein  are  to 
be  found  the  clear  and  simple  sweep  of  the 
Hebrew  narrative,  the  fine  and  exquisite  tone  of  the 
Hebrew  Proverbs,  and  wherein  we  feel  that  we  hear, 
as  it  were,  the  same  popular  yet  peculiar  accent  that 
must  have  been  used  by  Jesus  and  His  Galilean 
apostles."  ^ 

Thus  the  editor  of  the  third  Gospel  is  evidently  the 
author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  in  each  work 
he  reproduces  many  discourses.     There  is,  however,  a 

1  Lagrange,  Jesus  et  la  Crit.;  art.:  Bullet,  de  Litt.  EccL, 
Jan.,  1904,  p.  21. 

2  Lagrange,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  18,  21. 

3  Batiffol,  Jesus  et  L'Hist.,  p.  18.. 


INTRODUCTION  43 

noticeable  and  complete  difference  between  those 
which  he  assigns  to  Jesus  in  the  third  Gospel  and 
those  which,  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  he  ascribes  to  the 
apostles.  In  the  former  we  find  the  primitive  and 
original  method  of  teaching  by  way  of  parable  and 
example,  whilst  in  the  latter  work  the  style  of  dis- 
course assumes  the  more  derived  quality  of  a  com- 
mentary. Whence  comes  this  divergence,  we  ask,  un- 
less it  be  owing  to  the  very  fact  that  the  historian  was 
careful  to  reproduce  exactly  his  sources  of  informa- 
tion and  to  adhere  scrupulously  to  facts  ? 

S.  Luke,  moreover,  was  the  disciple  of  S.  Paul  and 
his  writings  show  that  he  was  greatly  influenced  by 
his  master's  teaching.  And  yet,  as  we  shall  see  later, 
he  allows  himself  to  be  very  little  influenced  by  that 
apostle's  theological  opinions  about  Christ  the  Word 
of  God  when,  in  the  third  gospel,  he  describes  the  per- 
son of  Christ  Jesus  and  mentions  His  personal  mani- 
festation.    Assuredly,  this  is  a  very  remarkable  fact! 

The  EvangeUsts,  indeed,  shared  the  belief  of  the 
early  Church  in  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  the  Re- 
deemer of  mankind,  risen  and  dwelling  in  the  glory 
of  His  Eternal  Father,  and  certainly  they  wrote  partly 
in  view  of  establishing  and  confirming  the  faithful  in 
this  belief.  Nay  more,  the  documents  employed  for 
the  editing  of  the  gospels, — summaries  of  narratives 
and  collections  of  discourses, — had  been  perhaps  also 
edited  with  the  didactic  purpose  of  instructing  the 
early  group  of  Christians.  But  is  it  not  also  true 
that  such  educational  purpose  may  accord  with  his- 
toric fidelity?  It  supposes,  of  course,  a  special  point 
of  view,  a  determined  choice  of  materials,  and  a 
particular  arrangement  of  the  same,  but  not  necessar- 
ily a  real  partisan  spirit,  an  effort  towards  exclusive 
system  that  would  serve  to  transform  and  to  denatur- 
alize the  true  historical  outline. 

If,  then,  the  Evangelists'  sincerity  is  undoubtable, — 
as  is  that  also  of  those  primitive  editors  whose  docu- 


44  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ments  they  had  consulted, — perhaps  we  may  suppose  a 
work  of  slow  transformation,  of  progressive  ideaUza- 
tion,  which  affected  the  Christian  conscience  owing 
to  the  secret  influence  of  dogmatic  endeavor?  But, 
where  locate  this  mysterious  process? 

This  development  cannot  be  ascribed  to  the  Synop- 
tic authors  themselves.  Criticism  tends  more  and 
more  to  place  these  gospels  in  dependence  upon  the 
oldest  sources  and  primitive  documents.  The  aim  of 
the  Synoptic  editors  was  not  so  much  to  reproduce 
the  prevailing  belief  of  their  times,  but  rather  to 
ground  the  faith  upon  most  certain  foundations  in 
keeping  with  the  testimony  of  a  duly  verified  tradi- 
tion and  by  aid  of  the  best  guaranteed  data.  Naught 
is  more  decisive  on  this  point  than  S.  Luke's  state- 
ment at  the  beginning  of  his  gospel  and  which  is  borne 
out  by  an  examination  of  his  work  and  those  of  the 
other  Synoptists. 

Or,  again,  may  such  an  idealizing  process  have 
been  due  to  the  influence  of  that  oral  tradition  which 
had  preceded  the  editing  of  the  documentary 
sources?  Are  not  these  very  documents,  however, 
as  indeed  the  third  Evangelist  apparently  wanted  peo- 
ple to  understand,  ancient,  original,  dating  from 
the  dawn  of  the  Church's  life,  and  belonging  to  an 
epoch  when  dogmatic  idealization  and,  more  particu- 
larly, a  legendary  transformation  was  rather  impos- 
sible? At  all  events,  they  pertain  to  the  first  Chris- 
tian generation ;  we  might  even  say  that,  in  part,  they 
were  edited  in  order  to  aid  the  ordinary  catecheti- 
cal methods  of  instruction. 

Now,  at  a  time  when  Jesus'  contemporaries  were 
still  living,  when  the  Christian  communities  were 
still  being  evangelized  by  His  own  disciples,  or  at 
least  by  those  preachers  of  the  gospel  who  were  closely 
acquainted  with  His  immediate  witnesses,  may  we 
not  rest  assured  that  the  then  current  system  of  cate- 
chetism  h^d  a  solid  basis  and  was  wisely  managed? 


INTRODUCTION 


45 


Is  there  not  reason  to  believe  that,  like  our  present 
Evangelists,  the  editors  of  those  primitive  document- 
ary sources  related,  not  a  fluctuating  and  anonymous 
belief,  but  precisely  the  exact  tradition  of  witnesses 
then  living  and  known,  namely  the  apostles  and  dis- 
ciples of  the  Saviour?  Everything  tends  to  prove 
that  such  was  the  case :  in  the  days  of  SS.  Peter  and 
Paul,  of  SS.  Mark  and  Luke,  it  had  ever  been  sought 
to  base  the  faith  upon  the  reality  of  history ;  and  the 
endeavor  of  the  apologist,  or  the  interest  of  the  theo- 
logian, far  from  darkening  the  insight  of  the  critic 
and  the  conscientious  care  of  the  chronicler,  must  have 
served  rather  as  their  encouragement  and  support. 

Furthermore,  a  comparison  of  the  three  gospels 
will  prove  that  they  do  not  reproduce  the  Saviour's 
life  and  teachings  exactly  in  the  same  manner,  the  ac- 
counts showing  notable  divergences  both  in  substance 
and  in  form.  But,  although  to  some  extent  this 
is  true,  and  although  modern  critics  do  not  sufficiently 
consider  it  when  they  assert  the  mutual  dependence 
of  these  writings,  we  may  ask  if  we  have  in  this  case 
anything  different  from  the  constant  divergences 
found  in  the  works  of  chroniclers  who  give  indepen- 
dent versions  of  the  same  events  or  discourses? 
How  many  omissions  are  met  with  in  the  writings  of 
historians  who  are  usually  most  exact!  How  many 
implied  meanings  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  most 
conscientious,  how  many  variations  in  the  details 
and  expressions,  how  many  apparent  contradictions, 
— all  such  features  being  explained  by  the  mere  fact 
that  the  narrators  are  different,  or  that  the  witnesses 
upon  whom  they  depend  are  different,  or  by  the  fact 
that  the  conditions  and  the  viewpoints  are  various ! 

Now,  we  ask,  is  the  case  different  with  the  Evan- 
geUsts?  Are  not  most  of  the  evident  divergences  in 
the  choice  and  arrangement  of  materials,  in  the  de- 
tails of  the  accounts  and  discourses  supposed  to  be 
merely  casual,  in  nowise  irreconcilable,  mutually  sup- 


46  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

plementary  and  explanatory  rather  than  contradictory  ? 
Therefore  they  do  not  really  affect  the  accuracy 
of  the  information  given  by  historians,  but,  in  attest- 
ing their  reciprocal  independence  and  the  independ- 
ence of  testimonies  which  they  present,  rather  confirm 
the  general  exactness  and  fidelity  of  the  documents. 

Now,  if  we  do  not  succeed  in  settling  some  ap- 
parent contradictions,  nor  in  harmonizing,  in  a 
fully  satisfactory  way,  some  particular  fact  or  other, 
must  not  this  circumstance  be  due  to  the  anecdotal  and 
fragmentary  character  of  our  writings?  The  omis- 
sions, the  dissimilarities,  the  lack  of  connection  or 
of  harmony  would  require  for  their  explanation 
further  information  which  is  lacking;  but  because  it 
is  lacking,  we  surely  should  not  infer  the  inaccuracy 
of  our  Evangelists.  Are  we  not,  indeed,  too  often 
inclined  to  allege  errors  and  contradictions  where,  after 
more  careful  scrutiny,  a  new  bit  of  information 
later  leads  to  a  sound  and  exact  solution,  or,  at  least, 
a  well-founded  explanation? 

The  danger  of  subjectivism  and  of  arbitrary 
methods,  however,  is  especially  to  be  feared  when 
one  endeavors  to  ascertain  the  influence  exerted  upon 
the  Gospel  content  by  the  events  or  the  beliefs  of  the 
Christian  Church.  That  the  spectacle  of  events,  ac- 
complished as  a  fulfilment  of  the  Saviour's  predictions, 
should  have  contributed  to  place  in  fuller  light  some 
of  His  prophecies;  that  a  familiar  knowledge  of 
Christian  theology,  so  splendidly  developed  by  S.  Paul, 
should  have  guided  historians  in  their  choice  and 
setting  of  materials,  all  this  we  may  concede:  it  is, 
after  all,  quite  natural. 

But  is  it  not  arbitrary  to  claim  that  the  Saviour's 
prophecies  of  His  Passion,  of  His  resurrection,  of  His 
disciples'  missionary  labors  were  arranged  after  the 
event,  as  though  Christ's  knowledge  were  merely  of  an 
ordinary  and  natural  character?  Is  it  not  also  an  un- 
critical prejudice  to  claim  as  a  Pauline  influence  all 


INTRODUCTION 


47 


that  part  of  Jesus'  teachings  which  agrees  with  the 
pecuhar  points  in  S.  Paul's  theology?  As  if  the 
apostle  had  not  declared  his  dependence  upon  the 
teaching  of  Christ  Himself,  as  if  the  assent  which 
the  early  Church  gave  to  his  special  teachings  and  its 
approval  by  the  Saviour's  immediate  disciples  did  not 
rather  imply  that  he  was  really  inspired  by  the  blas- 
ter's words,  that  he  had  merely  to  announce  and 
sustain  what  had  already  been  outlined  in  Jesus' 
teachings  ? 

Loisy  who,  like  J.  Weiss,  finds  considerable  Paulin- 
ism  in  the  second  Gospel,  on  this  very  pretext  did  not 
hesitate  to  recently  express  his  disagreement  with 
the  tradition  which  accepts  S.  Mark  as  the  final 
editor  of  this  gospel :  "  We  do  not  readily  imagine," 
he  says,  ''  the  same  man  recording,  first  of  all,  S. 
Peter's  confession  as  gathered  from  the  current  re- 
miniscences of  that  apostle,  and  then,  like  Paul,  com- 
menting thereon  in  the  way  that  we  find."  ^ 

It  need  hardly  be  said  that  the  foregoing  consider- 
ations do  not  at  all  imply  that  the  historian  need  not 
verify  the  truth  of  the  precise  manner  in  which  the 
gospels  relate  the  Saviour's  life  and  words.  The  de- 
mands of  apologetics  may  now  render  such  a  process 
of  verification  timely  and  necessary  for  the  various 
points  at  issue.  Yet,  it  remains  true  that  the  con- 
siderations presented  are  enough  to  guard  us  from 
going  to  the  extremes  of  a  novel  criticism,  at  once 
dubious  and  conjectural,  and  warrant  us  in  rightly 
and  seriously  supposing  that  the  historical  exactness 
of  the  gospels  is  far  more  perfect  than  has  been 
claimed.  This  presumption,  indeed,  amounts  to  an 
absolute  confidence  as  regards  a  number  of  difficult 
and  important  points  in  connection  with  which  the 
work  of  critical  verification  is  conducted  under  con- 


1  Weiss,  J.,  op.  cit.,  1903;  Loisy,  art.:  Rev.  d'Hist..  etc.,  1904, 
p.  82. 


48  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ditions  of  a  very  favorable  sort  and  leads  to  con- 
clusions at  once  significant  and  serving  to  fully  con- 
firm the  general  results. 

The  character  of  the  popular  Messianic  ideal,  for  in- 
stance, which  is  presented  in  the  Synoptic  gospels  as 
circumstances  required,  is  quite  remarkable.  .  The 
eagerness  of  the  multitudes  and  of  the  disciples  them- 
selves for  temporal  power,  their  hope  for  a  Messiah, 
son  of  David,  an  earthly  and  conquering  king,  their 
haste  to  seek  after  the  first  places  in  the  Kingdom, 
which  they  imagined  like  that  of  this  world, — all  is 
graphically  portrayed  and  corresponds  exactly  with 
what  the  non-inspired  documents  of  that  period  men- 
tion about  the  Messianic  hopes  of  the  ancient  Jews. 

And  this  fact  is  surprising  enough  when  we  think 
of  the  transformation  which  was  wrought  in  the 
Church  after  Christ's  resurrection  and  the  descent  of 
the  Spirit  at  Pentecost.  For,  assuredly,  if  any  per- 
spective might  be  changed  by  the  influence  of  new 
ideas,  it  was  the  ancient  Jewish  view  of  the  Messiah, 
as  cherished  at  this  epoch.  It  seems  that  the  early 
Christian  preachers  and  catechists  of  that  time  should 
have  inevitably  tended  to  allow  to  pass  into  oblivion  the 
chimerical  hopes  of  olden  days,  and  especially  to  con- 
ceal and  to  dissimulate  the  earlier  imaginings  of  the 
disciples,  if  not  to  correct  and  to  ennoble  them  in 
accordance  with  the  new  realities  of  the  Christian 
dispensation. 

But,  let  us  repeat,  it  is  the  national  Messianism, 
fully  described  in  its  ancient  coloring,  which  the 
Synoptists  portray  as  filling  the  hearts  of  both  the 
apostles  and  the  people.  Is  it  not  a  very  significant 
fact, — this  freedom  of  our  sacred  writers  from  the 
ideas  current  in  their  day  on  a  matter  where  their  in- 
fluence must  have  made  itself  felt  so  powerfully? 

The  Synoptic  description  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves, moreover,  is  no  less  interesting  to  consider 
from  this  same  view-point.     It  is  nowadays  generally 


INTRODUCTION 


49 


admitted  that,  in  some  way,  the  second  gospel  de- 
pends on  the  tradition  handed  down  by  S.  Peter,  by 
whom  S.  Mark,  his  companion,  was  employed  as  an 
intermediary.  It  is  also  commonly  held  now  that 
the  first,  as  also  the  third  Gospel  are  based  upon  the 
collection  of  Logia,  of  Sayings  of  the  Lord,  of  which 
S.  Matthew  is  usually  considered  the  editor.  In  a 
general  way,  it  is  recognized  that  the  original  docu- 
ments, comprising  collections  of  narratives  and  dis- 
courses which  underlie  the  present  text  of  the  four 
Gospels,  are  closely  akin  to  the  memories  which  the 
early  Christians  treasured  of  the  Apostles,  and  that, 
at  any  rate,  they  were  compiled  at  a  period  when  the 
personality  of  the  apostles  themselves  was  held  in 
the  highest  estimation  among  the  members  of  the 
early  Church. 

Is  not,  then,  the  very  manner  in  which  the  apostles 
are  described  by  the  Synoptists  a  striking  proof  of 
the  accuracy  and  historical  sincerity  of  these  inspired 
writers?  We  are  told  in  detail  about  the  apostles' 
vices  and  virtues,  of  their  faults  and  good  deeds,  of 
their  timid  ways  and  their  generous  impulses.  We 
are  told  of  their  humble  origin;  of  their  slowness  to 
understand  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  their  Divine 
Master;  of  their  occasional  opposition  to  His  views; 
of  their  resistance  to  His  ways  of  acting;  of  their 
cowardice  in  the  Garden  of  Olives,  in  the  Pretorium, 
on  Calvary;  of  their  discouragement  after  His  death; 
and,  lastly,  of  their  doubts  about  the  reality  of  His 
resurrection.  Certainly,  such  a  picture  must  be 
the  work  of  none  but  accurate  and  truthful  wit- 
nesses, of  those  who  do  not  wish  to  write  unnatur- 
ally, nor  to  conceal  anything  really  important,  of  those 
who  want  to  view  events  in  the  light  of  current  reali- 
ties, as  also  from  their  own  personal  impressions, 
in  order  the  better  to  record  the  facts  of  history. 

And  what  shall  we  say  of  the  Synoptic  portrait 
of  Jesus  Himself?     Some  claim  that  the  gospels  are 

4 


50  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

rather  an  expression  of  Christian  faith  than  an  exact 
statement  of  facts.  How  is  it,  then,  and  this  thought 
occurs  instantly,  that  the  well-known  early  Christian 
belief  in  Christ's  preexistence  and  divinity  is  appar- 
ently so  little  reflected  in  these  gospels,  so  little,  indeed, 
that  some  critics  have  supposed  that  the  Saviour's 
divinity  is  not  really  revealed  therein?  This  tends 
to  show  that  our  Evangelists  knew  how  to  abstract 
from  their  personal  convictions  and  to  keep  them- 
selves free  from  the  theological  ideas  of  their  day, 
in  order  to  reproduce  faithfully  the  facts  of  history: 
this  fact,  to  be  sure,  is  especially  significant  as  re- 
gards the  third  Evangelist  who  was  so  familiar  with 
the  teaching  of  S.  Paul.  It  tends  also  to  prove  that 
the  basic  documents  and  memoirs  of  the-  Synoptic  ac- 
counts, that  the  editor  of  the  Logia,  and  that  all  primi- 
tive tradition  had  retained  intact  the  Christ  of  history, 
and  preserved  the  real  human  outline  of  Him  who,  on 
the  day  after  His  resurrection,  was  already  deemed 
to  be  the  triumphant  Messiah  who  shared  the  power 
of  God. 

In  particular,  as  regards  S.  Luke,  Jiilicher  re- 
marks that  *'  where  we  should  have  undoubtedly  been 
obliged  to  recognize  the  Disciple  of  Paul,  i.  e.  in  the 
doctrine  of  a  pre-existing  Christ  or  of  the  atoning 

value  of  His  death,  Luke  fails  us  altogether 

Luke  related  the  Gospel  history  from  the  viewpoint 
of  the  later  Gentile  Church,  without  any  infusion 
of  the  theology  of  his  time."  ^ 

Sanday  also  notices  the  remarkable  contrast  be- 
tween the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  Epistles  of 
S.  Peter  and  of  S.  Paul.  "And  yet,"  he  says,  "  these 
writings  are  practically  contemporary  with  the  com- 
position of  the  gospels.  The  two  streams,  of  his- 
torical narrative  on  the  one  hand  and  theological  in- 
ference on  the  other,  really  run  side  by  side.    They  do 

1  Jiilicher,  op,  cit.,  p.  ZZZ- 


INTRODUCTION  51 

hot  exclude  but  rather  supplement,  and  indeed  critic- 
ally confirm  each  other.  For,  if  the  gospels  had  been 
really  not  genuine  histories  of  the  words  and  acts  of 
Christ,  but  colored  products  of  the  age  succeeding 
His  death,  we  may  be  sure  that  they  would  have  re- 
flected the  characteristic  attitude  of  that  age  far 
more  than  they  do."  ^ 

It  is  claimed,  of  course,  that  the  glory  of  the  risen 
Lord  cast  new  light  upon  the  memories  of  His  earthly 
career,  and  that  we  must  ascribe  to  a  posthumous 
idealization  the  features  tending  to  exalt  Christ  above 
mere  humanity  by  attributing  to  Him  knowledge  and 
power  of  a  supernatural  character.  This  claim,  how- 
ever, is  an  a  priori  prejudice  rather  than  a  conclusion 
drawn  from  strictly  critical  observations.  The  selec- 
tion which  the  critics  make,  among  the  elements  of 
the  Synoptic  portrait  of  Jesus,  is  essentially  based 
upon  their  preconceived  idea  of  Him:  they  picture  to 
themselves,  beforehand,  a  diminished  Christ,  more  or 
less  conscious  of  His  mission,  of  His  future,  of  His 
divinity.  Such  prejudice,  indeed,  is  very  evident  in 
the  case  of  most  of  the  so-called  independent  critics. 

Thus  Schmiedel  says  that  ''  it  would  clearly  be 
wrong,  in  an  investigation,  such  as  the  present,  to 
start  from  any  such  postulate  or  axiom  as  that 
*  miracles  are  impossible  '  " ;  but  he  also  adds :  "  it  is 
quite  permissible  for  us  to  regard  as  historical  only 
those  of  the  miracles  which,  even  at  the  present  day, 
physicians  are  able  to  effect  by  psychical  methods,  as, 
more  especially,  cures  of  mental  maladies."  ^ 

The  views  held  by  Jiilicher,  O.  Holtzmann,  and 
Harnack  also  betray  the  same  animus.  While  Wrede 
holds  as  a  principle  that,   for  all   those  who  admit 

1  Sanday,  art. :  Jesus  Christ,  H.  D.,  p.  649. 

2  Schmiedel,  art. :  Gospels,  E.  B.,  par.  137,  col.  1876. 


52  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

only  historical  criterions,  miracle  and  prophecy  are 
utterly  excluded  from  the  field  of  history/ 

The  untenable  character  of  such  prejudice  on  the 
part  of  some  critics  will  be  apparent  from  several 
observations.  If  we  are  to  believe  Loisy,  among  others, 
"  the  Synoptic  Christ  is  a  being  of  flesh  and  bone. 
He  deals  with  men  as  one  of  themselves,  despite  His 
conviction  of  His  exalted  mission,  or,  perhaps,  because 
of  such  persuasion.  He  speaks  and  acts  as  a  man: 
He  sits  at  table  with  the  Pharisees  and  Publicans.  He 
allows  the  Magdalen  to  touch  Him.  He  talks  fami- 
Harly  with  His  disciples.  He  is  tempted  by  the  devil. 
He  becomes  sorrowful  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane. 
He  works  miracles  through  a  spirit  of  compassion, 
hiding  rather  than  proclaiming  them  guarantees  for 
His  mission.  Before  His  very  judges  He  stands 
calm  and  stately,  although  He  allows  the  soldiery  to 
strike  and  wound  Him.  In  dying.  His  expiring  cry 
is  one  of  distressful  agony.  If  in  His  discourses,  in 
His  deeds  we  perceive  the  touch  of  the  divine  which 
hfts  Him  above  mankind,  even  its  best  exemplars,  no 
less  true  is  it  that  all  His  words,  all  His  deeds  are 
very  human,  and,  so  to  say,  fully  charged  with  hu- 
man vitality  and,  despite  the  underlying  wonderful 
reality,  quite  naturally  corresponding  to  His  times 
and  surroundings."  ^ 

It  would  seem,  then,  unwarranted  to  assert  that, 
as  regards  detail,  the  current  theological  ideas  had 
influenced  historians  who  thus  present  Christ's  hu- 
manity at  an  epoch  when  all  of  the  faithful  beheld 
Him  crowned  with  the  aureole  of  the  divinity,  and 
who  describe  Him  as  being  seemingly  ignorant  of  the 
hour  of  final  judgment,  as  declining  the  title  of 
'*  good  "  which  belongs  to  God  alone,  as  persecuted, 

1  Jiilicher,  op.  cit.,  p.  371 ;   Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  Gr.  ed., 
pp.  58-59;  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  30;  Wrede,  op.  cit.,  r.  7. 

2  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  1903,  p.  72. 


INTRODUCTION 


53 


mocked,  crucified,  and  abandoned  by  all,  even  by  His 
Father.  Why  should  we  accept  the  evidences  of 
His  humiUty  and  yet  reject  the  proofs  of  His  divine 
grandeur?  Is  not  the  unquestionable  truth  of  the 
former  a  guarantee  of  the  like  historical  value  of 
the  others? 

So  appropriate,  so  skillful,  and  so  natural  withal  is 
the  Synoptic  portrait  of  Christ's  divinity  that  it  fully 
agrees  with  what  is  said  of  His  human  characteristics, 
the  whole  picture  leaving  a  deep  impression  of  liv- 
ing reality.  We  may  add,  moreover,  that  only  a 
historical  reality  corresponding  to  the  entire  portrait 
sketched  by  the  Synoptists,  only  a  historical  Christ  an- 
swering to  the  Christ  of  the  faith,  a  Christ  at  once 
man  and  God,  sufficiently  explains  the  unusual  im- 
pression which  He  made  upon  His  disciples,  the 
exalted  idea  which  He  had  imparted  of  Himself  to 
His  immediate  witnesses,  the  extraordinary  influence 
which  He  had  exerted  upon  the  primitive  Church 
and  which  has  not  ceased  to  make  itself  felt  in  the 
lives  of  individuals  and  in  the  history  of  the  world  at 
large. 

The  historical  character  of  the  entire  Synoptic  pic- 
ture of  Jesus  is,  then,  well  attested.  The  dim  light 
that  suffuses  His  divinity  comes  not  from  a  process 
of  later  idealization ;  whilst  His  human  character  is 
placed  in  such  bold  relief  as  to  afford  a  very  con- 
vincing proof  that  these  accounts  were  immune 
from  theological  tendencies.  But  if,  although  the  early 
Christians  believed  in  a  glorious  Christ  who  was  the 
true  Son  of  God  and  true  God,  the  Saviour  himself 
is  represented  as  manifesting  His  true  personal  char- 
acter with  such  discretion  and  reserve ;  if  He  is  said 
to  have, usually  called  Himself  "the  Son  of  Man,"  a 
title  which,  probably.  He  alone  employed  to  designate 
Himself,  and  which  nobody  else,  not  even  the  early 
Christians,  apparently  ever  applied  to  Him;  if,  in 
relation  to  God,  He  is  yet  said  to  have  uttered  such 


54  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

human  expressions  as  those  complaisantly  alleged 
by  modern  critics,  such  as :  "  Why  callest  thou  me 
good?  None  is  good  but  one,  that  is,  God  ...  Of 
that  day  and  hour,  no  man  knoweth,  neither  the 
angels  in  heaven,  nor  the  Son,  but  the  Father.  .  .  My 
God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?";  if,  in 
fine.  His  disciples  kept,  of  His  agony,  of  the  torments 
of  His  passion,  of  His  death  upon  the  cross,  such  a 
precise,  and,  so  to  speak,  such  a  realistic  memory 
which  gives  the  humiliating  details  with  no  effort  to 
dissemble  or  to  idealize,  but  with  startling  truthful- 
ness :  this  is  a  sure  guarantee  of  reliable  and  independ- 
ent Gospel  history. 

In  this  connection,  it  may  be  noted  that  the  title 
"  Son  of  Man,"  which  Jesus  so  often  appHed  to  Him- 
self, is  not  used  by  the  Evangelists  themselves  in 
those  discourses  which  they  composed.  It  is  found 
only  in  a  few  texts  which  allude  more  or  less  directly 
to  Daniel  c.  vii.  13;  or,  like  Ac.  c.  vii.  56;  Apoc.  c.  i. 
13 ;  xiv.  14,  to  the  Saviour's  own  expressions.  Euse- 
bius,  also,  records  it,  as  we  find  in  the  Fragment  of 
Hegesippus  on  the  Martyrdom  of  S.  James.^ 

Dalman  says  "  it  is  probable  that  substantially  the 
same  feeling  which  to-day  deters  the  Church  from 
naming  and  invoking  Jesus  as  the  '  Son  of  Man,'  must 
have  been  active  from  the  beginning."  ^ 

Schmiedel  remarks  that  the  text  of  S.  Mark,  c.  x. 
17;  xiii,  32;  -XV.  34,  and  others,  such  as  Mt.  c.  xii. 
31,  referring  to  the  pardon  of  blasphemy  against  the 
Son  of  Man,  as  also  Mk.  c.  iii.  21,  where  the  Saviour's 
own  kinsmen  apparently  deem  Him  to  be  the  victim 
of  insanity,  "  might  be  called  the  foundation-pillars 
of   a  truly   scientific  life   of  Jesus."  ^ 

1  Hegesippus,  Euseh.  Ch.  Hist.,  Bk.  II,  c.  xxiii ;  cf.  Acts  vii. 
56;  Apoc.  i.  13;  xiv.  14;  Daniel  vii.  13;  Lk.  xxvi.  69;  Mt. 
xxvi.  64. 

2  Dalman,  The  Words  of  Jesus,  p.  252 ;  Stanton,  The  Jewish 
and  the  Christian  Messiah,  1886,  p.  242. 

3  Schmiedel,  art. :  Gospels,  E.  B.,  par.  139,  col.  1881, 


INTRODUCTION 


55 


Of  the  process  of  idealizing  the  Saviour's  sacred 
humanity,  JiiUcher  says :  "  Nor  was  the  Messiah  who, 
in  His  night-watch  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane, 
though  His  soul  was  sorrowful  even  unto  death,  yet 
won  through  prayer  the  strength  to  go  forward  to 
the  end  in  spite  of  the  blindness  of  His  disciples, 
the  wickedness  of  His  foes,  and  the  agony  of  a  hor- 
rible death, — such  a  Messiah  was  not  the  creation  of 
the  idealizing  fancy  of  any  class  of  believers  which 
would  have  employed  far  different  colors.  .  .  .  Who 
could  have  possibly  invented  the  story  of  the  denial 
of  Peter,  for  instance,  or  the  cry  of  Jesus  on  the 
cross :  '  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me?"'i 

"  The  teaching  of  our  Lord,"  says  Stanton,  *'  is 
much  of  it  such  as  could  have  been  given  only  by 
Himself  in  His  own  lifetime,  or  is  marked  by  the 
prominence  of  terms  and  ideas  which  speedily  came 
to  be  much  in  vogue  in  the  Church.  This  serves  to 
show  that  the  character  of  the  record  generally  can 
have  been  comparatively  little  affected  by  the  thought 
and  language  of  the  Church  in  a  subsequent  gener- 
ation." 2 

In  a  similar  strain,  Batiifol  thus  states  his  opinion: 
"  During  the  first  generation,  the  Apostolic  teaching 
rapidly  developed  into  that  theology  which,  to  cite 
but  two  documents,  had  appeared  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  (65  A.  D.),  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  (58  A.  D.),  and  which,  moreover,  to  con- 
vey the  content  of  this  new  world  of  ideas,  had 
created  a  new  mode  of  Hnguistic  expression;  but, 
strangely  enough,  the  Synoptic  accounts  are  free  from 
all  traces  of  such  style  and  ideas :  they  retain  such 
obsolete  terms  as  *  Son  of  Man,'  applied  to  Jesus, 
although  never  by  the  Apostles  themselves,  or  such  ex- 

1  Jiilichcr,  op.  cit.,  pp.  371,  ^yi. 

2  Stanton,  art. :  Gpspels,  H.  D.,  p.  248, 


56  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

planatory  terms  as  '  Christ/  used  as  a  synonym  for 
'  Messiah/  and  not  for  '  Jesus/  of  which  the  Apostles 
had  deemed  it  the  equivalent.  The  archaic  character 
of  the  record  given  by  the  Synoptists  attests  the  firm- 
ness of  the  tradition  which  they  proclaim."  ^ 

We  may  say,  then,  by  way  of  conclusion,  that  on 
those  points  where  we  can  readily  make  the  im- 
portant comparison  between  the  Synoptic  gospels 
and  the  faith  of  the  early  Christians,  the  historical 
worth  of  the  Evangelists  is  wonderfully  evident,  and 
that  such  evidence  is  a  weighty  argument  in  favor  of 
the  accuracy  of  the  entire  account  presented  in  the 
four  canonical  Gospels. 

It  is  surely  in  keeping  with  the  wisest  and  truest 
method  of  criticism  to  accept  these  gospels  as  we 
find  them  and  to  place  the  utmost  confidence  in  their 
entire  content.  The  famous  Catholic  scholar  La- 
grange evidently  commends  such  a  method  of  pro- 
cedure when  he  says :  "  Instead  of  making,  under  the 
influence  of  a  preconceived  theory,  a  selection  of  so 
called  primitive  historical  details,  based  upon  a  com- 
parison of  texts,  would  it  not  be  wiser,  first  of  all, 
to  take  the  documents  just  as  they  stand? "^ 

Outline  of  Work.  — In  our  study  of  the  Synoptic 
Christ  we  have  the  same  purpose  in  view.  The 
general  basis  for  this  essay  is  the  gospel  of  S.  Mark, 
which  is  commonly  viewed  as  being  the  earliest,  and 
the  facts  thereby  supplied  shall  be  completed  when 
required  by  those  afforded  by  the  other  Synoptists. 
The  parallel  texts,  moreover,  will  be  indicated,  and 
the  4th  edition  of  Nestle's  New  Testament  in  Greek 
used  as  a  reference. 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  modern 
criticism,  we  have  endeavored  to  assure  the  authen- 

1  Batiffol,  Je^us  et  L'Hist.,  p.  i8. 

2  Lagrange,  art.;  Jesus  et  la  Criti,:  Bullet,  de  Lift,  EccL, 
1904,  p,  22, 


INTRODUCTION 


57 


ticity  of  special  texts  and  to  ground  general  con- 
clusions, not  upon  some  rare  and  doubtful  passages, 
but  upon  such  a  general  survey  as  must  necessarily 
rest  upon  that  substantially  historic  basis  which  un- 
questionably underlies  these  writings.  This  study, 
moreover,  is  especially  interesting  in  this :  it  will  en- 
able us  to  examine  closely  the  exactitude  of  the  evan- 
gelical records  on  the  very  point  in  which  such  an 
examination  should  be  both  very  easy  to  make  and 
leading  to  conclusive  results,  namely  on  the  value  of 
the  historical  portrait  of  Christ  Son  of  God. 

We  have  sought  to  outline  the  Messianic  hope  at 
the  dawn  of  the  Christian  era,  to  show  in  what  light 
the  Messiah  was  portrayed,  what  idea  people  had  of 
His  mission,  especially  of  His  suffering  destiny,  what 
they  thought  of  Him,  particularly  of  His  divine 
character,  and  next  to  consider  the  Alessianic  manifes- 
tation alike  at  the  crib  of  Bethlehem  as  during  the 
childhood  of  Christ.  This  study  will  follow  the  texts 
of  the  gospels  according  to  SS.  ]\Iatthew  and  Luke 
respectively,  the  historical  value  of  which  we  have 
also  sought  to  establish  both  by  the  aid  of  internal 
criticism  and  by  the  very  character  of  the  Saviour's 
recorded  revelations  of  Himself. 

Next  in  order  comes  Jesus'  public  life.  x\nd  here 
we  meet  with  the  vital  question  at  issue  between  in- 
fidelity and  the  Christian  faith,  namely.  Did  Jesus 
claim  to  be  the  expected  Messiah?  Like  other  Ra- 
tionalists, Renan  admits  as  much,  and,  in  fact,  the 
personal  manifestation  of  Jesus  as  the  ^lessiah  shall 
appear  to  us  as  carrying  along  with  itself  the  irrefut- 
able proof  of  its  own  authenticity. 

A  hard  problem,  a  real  stumbling-block  is  also 
presented  in  the  further  query:  What  is  the  source 
of  Jesus'  conviction  of  His  Messiahship?  Some 
would  explain  it,  as  did  Renan,  to  be  the  merely  human 
evolution  of  His  ideas  under  the  natural  influence 
of  His  surroundmgs.   But  such  an  explanation  is  wholly 


58  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

out  of  proportion  with  the  actual  facts,  although  it  is 
the  most  clever,  the  most  captivating,  the  most  artis- 
tically set  forth  theory  which  rationalism  has  ever 
been  able  to  produce.  Liberal  Protestants,  also, 
while  not  denying  the  reality  of  Jesus'  Messiahship, 
adduce  a  theory  on  this  point  which  is  very  like 
Renan's,  but,  as  will  be  seen,  is  not  based  either  upon 
an  accurate  criticism  of  the  Gospel  documents. 

Here  is,  finally,  the  capital  question :  In  what  sense 
did  Jesus  call  Himself  the  Son  of  God  ?  Can  we  con- 
clude, from  the  Synoptical  Gospels  critically  inter- 
preted, that  Jesus  manifested  Himself  as  the  true  Son 
of  God,  and  that,  consequently.  He  was  really  con- 
scious of  being  God?  Some  critics,  Renan  among 
them,  say  No ;  while,  in  his  wake  we  notice  critics  of 
the  Liberal  Protestant  school,  and  more  recently  Al- 
fred Loisy. 

The  Synoptic  testimony,  therefore,  will  be  discussed 
in  detail.  From  special  texts  which  will  be  shown  to  be 
authentic  although  Loisy,  especially, has  questioned  this 
very  point ;  from  the  sum-total  of  the  Gospel  texts,  as 
also  from  the  most  historically  assured  portions  of 
the  Saviour's  discourses,  we  will  see  that  Jesus  was 
aware  of  His  divinity,  and  that  in  His  discourses  He 
revealed  this  doctrine  cautiously  although  sufficiently. 
Moreover,  this  personal  manifestation  of  Christ  as 
Son  of  God  is,  as  we  shall  see,  of  such  a  character  as 
to  carry  along  with  it,  just  as  His  Messianic  mani- 
festation, the  visible  proofs,  not  only  of  its  historical 
truthfulness,  but  of  its  intrinsic  correspondence  with 
facts. 

May  this  study  help  to  strengthen  those  who  al- 
ready possess  the  grace  of  faith,  to  further  enlighten 
those  who  are  loyally  seeking  the  truth!  May  it 
serve  to  make  better  known  and  more  fondly  loved 
Him  who,  above  all  others,  should  be  known  and 
loved,  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  Son  of  pod,  true  God  ancj 
true  Man! 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Dawn  of  Christianity. 

The  Messianic  Hope.  —  For  over  fifty  years, 
Palestine  had  been  a  tributary  kingdom  of  the  Ro- 
man Empire.  The  princely  successors  of  Judas  Mac- 
cabaeus  had  fallen  into  so  many  internal  disputes  that 
a  Roman  army  under  the  command  of  Pompey  was 
despatched  to  Jerusalem,  and  in  63  B.  C,  this  great 
Roman  general  captured  the  Holy  City.  But  as 
Palestine  still  continued  to  enjoy  a  semblance  of  poli- 
tical liberty,  the  Maccabean  princes,  despite  their  many 
troubles,  maintained  their  influence  even  while  under 
the  suzerainty  of  Rome.  Soon,  however,  namely  in 
40  B.  C,  an  obscure  foreigner,  Herod  the  Idumean, 
was  given  the  title  of  King  of  Judea  by  the  Roman 
Senate.  Finally,  less  than  fifty  years  later,  even  that 
shadow  of  autonomy  disappeared.  For,  after  a  short 
reign,  Archaelaus,  son  of  Herod  the  Great,  was  de- 
posed in  the  year  6  A.  D. ;  the  kingdom  of  Judea  be- 
ing thereupon  annexed  to  the  vast  province  of  Syria. 
Thenceforth  a  Roman  procurator,  acting  as  Vicar  of 
the  Provincial  Legate  in  Syria,  ruled  the  ancient  realm 
of  David,  and  thus  was  destroyed  forever  the  inde- 
pendence of  God's  chosen  people. 

And  yet  Israel,  even  whilst  groaning  under  the 
yoke  of  the  despised  pagans  and  amidst  despairing 
grief  and  the  throes  of  wrath,  still  clung  to  an  un- 
conquerable hope.  Israel  was  awaiting  the  Messiah, 
the  Son  of  David  whom  the  Prophets  had  foretold, 
the  Supreme  King  foretold  ages  before,  the  Peace  and 

(59) 


6o  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Joy  vouchsafed  to  earth,  the  dawn  of  God's  eternal, 
world-wide  reign. 

How  intense  was  this  hope  may  be  seen  from  every 
page  of  the  gospels,  beginning  with  the  records  of 
the  childhood  of  Christ.  Thus,  whilst  watching  their 
flocks  upon  the  heights  of  Bethlehem,  the  Shepherds 
knew  full  well  the  meaning  of  the  glad  tidings 
heralded  by  the  Angel :  "  This  day  is  born  to  you  a 
Saviour  who  is  Christ  the  Lord."  And  forthwith, 
without  seeking  further  explanation,  they  hastened 
to  the  spot  indicated.  Within  the  precincts  of  the 
Temple  itself,  the  Prophetess  Anna  had  told  of  the 
Messiah  to  all  who  were  expecting  the  near  redemp- 
tion of  Jerusalem  from  its  pagan  bondage.  And 
when  the  Wise  Men  from  the  East,  on  reaching  the 
gate  of  the  Holy  City,  had  asked :  "  Where  is  He  that 
is  born  King  of  the  Jews?",  they  were  at  once  under- 
stood; for,  amid  the  general  excitement,  Herod  be- 
sought the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes  to  tell  him 
"  where  Christ  should  be  born."  ^ 

The  story  of  the  Saviour's  public  life,  moreover, 
attests  the  depth  of  this  expectancy.  "  He  who  is 
to  come.  .  .  .  He  who  cometh  " :  thus  is  the  Messiah 
often  styled.  From  the  Jordan's  banks,  the  Baptist 
had  hardl^^  proclaimed  his  message,  "  Behold,  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand,"  when  the  people  took 
that  austere  hermit  for  the  expected  Messiah.  John 
soon  dispels  their  illusion;  but  the  hope  in  the  Mes- 
siah's coming  grows  the  more  ardent  within  the  hearts 
of  his  disciples.  When  Jesus  of  Nazareth  appears  in 
His  turn,  astounding  the  people  by  His  miracles  and 
eliciting  their  wonder  by  His  discourses,  immediately 
the  great  question  is  asked:  Is  He  not  the  Messiah? 
People  recall  the  traditional  Messianic  ideas  and  even 
consult  the  teaching  of  the  Doctors  of  the  Law  con- 
cerning the  Christ.     And,  afterwards,  on  His  entry 

1  Lk.  ii.  II,  38;  Mt,  ii.  14. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  61 

into  Jerusalem  as  the  Messiah -King,  He  received 
from  the  multitude  an  ovation,  at  once  generous 
and  enthusiastic,  which,  while  in  contrast  with  His 
former  reserve  in  asserting  His  Messiahship,  never- 
theless serves  to  bear  eloquent  testimony  to  the 
influence  which  the  hope  in  the  promised  Messiah 
had  acquired  in  popular  esteem.  The  ardor  of 
this  prevailing  persuasion  was  also  shown  when 
the-  Sanhedrin  questioned  Jesus  concerning  His  self- 
asserted  character  of  "  Christ,"  and  when  the  rabble 
uttered  its  shouts  of  derision  at  the  crucified  King  of 
Israel  upon  the  summit  of  Calvary.^ 

The  history  of  the  early  Church,  finally,  as  found 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  Epistles  and  other 
writings  of  the  New  Testament,  fully  shows  how 
wonderfully  strong  the  belief  in  Christ  the  Saviour 
was  in  the  hearts  of  the  Jews.  The  Apostles  con- 
stantly appeal  to  the  Messianic  idea.  Their  chief 
care  is  to  prove  that  whatever  the  Prophets  had  fore- 
told of  Christ,  Jesus  had  realized ;  that  He  is  surely  the 
Messiah  expected  and  so  ardently  desired.- 

Such  is  the  character  of  the  testimony  afforded  by 
the  Gospels  and  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament  to 
the  condition  of  the  Messianic  belief  at  the  beginning 
of  Christianity.  The  documents  in  its  favor  give 
proofs  of  their  well-established  historical  value,  and 
their  testimony  is  so  outspoken  and  sincere  that  no 
sane  critic  thinks  of  disregarding  their  veracity  on 
this  point. 

Nor  is  the  evidence  presented  by  the  various  pro- 
fane documents  which  bear  upon  the  origins  of  Chris- 
tianity less  interesting  to  read.     The  careful  investiga- 

1  Mt.  xi.  3;  Lk.  vii.  20;  Jo.  vi.  14;  Lk.  iii.  15;  Jo.  i.  19,  25; 
Mt.  xii.  23;  xvii.  10;  Mk.  ix.  10;  Jo.  vii.  26,  31;  x.  24;  xii.  34;" 
Mk.  xi.  and  par. ;  cf.  Mt.  ix.  27 ;  Mk.  x.  47  and  par. ;  Mk. 
xiv.  61 ;  Mt.  xxvi.  62, ;  Mk.  xii.  32 ;  Mt.  xxvii.  39 ;  Lk.  xxiii.  35. 

2  Ac.  iii.  18;  V.  42;  viii.  37;  ix.  22;  xvii.  3;  xviii.  5;  xxviii. 
etc. 


62  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

tions  to  which  they  have  been  submitted,  chiefly  during 
the  second  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  fully  support 
the  testimony  given  by  the  Sacred  Scriptures/  Three 
writings,  especially,  preserve  an  echo  of  the  Messianic 
hope  during  the  years  prior  to  Christ's  advent:  the 
Book  of  Enoch,  the  Psalter  of  Solomon,  and  the 
Sibylline  Oracles. 

The  Book  of  Enoch,  named  after  the  famous 
Patriarch,  is  supposed  to  contain  his  revelation  •  of 
the  future  judgment  of  the  world.  In  its  entirety, 
it  is  the  work  of  a  Jewish  writer  of  the  second  cen- 
tury B.  C,  although  the  middle  portion  is  perhaps 
the  interpolation  of  a  later  editor.  In  the  oldest 
section,  i.  e.,  c.  xc,  the  Messianic  kingdom  and  the 
New  Jerusalem  is  described.  The  Messiah  is  repre- 
sented as  a  King  living  amidst  his  people,  and  is  sym- 
bolized under  the  image  of  a  white  bull  with  long 
black  horns.  The  pagans,  who  assume  the  figure  of 
animals,  pray  to  Him  and  are  converted  to  the  Lord.^ 
In  the  lattei*  part  of  the  book,  the  Messiah  appears  as 
the  Son  of  Man  foretold  by  Daniel,  pre-existing  with 
God,  by  whom  he  was  held  in  reserve,  even  before 
the  beginning  of  the  world,  and  finally  descending 
from  heaven  in  order  to  manifest  Himself  on  earth. ^ 

This  Book  is  not  extant  in  its  original  Hebrew  text. 
An  Ethiopic  version,  found  about  1800  A.  D.  among 
the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Church  of  Abyssinia,  was 
edited  by  Dillman  in  1851.  The  favorite  edition  of 
the  text  is  that  of  J.  Flemming.     The  best  versions  are 

1  Schiirer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  par.  29,  pp.  496-556,  3rd  ed.,  1898 
Holtzmann,  H.,  Lehrb.,  vol.  i,  68-85,  1897;  Volz,  op.  cit.,  1903 
Bousset,  Die  Relig.  des  Jud.,  1903 ;  Baldensperger,  Die  Mess 
Apok.,  1903;  Stanton,  The  Jewish  and  Christian  Messiah 
1886 ;  art. :  Messiah,  H.  D. ;  Drummond,  The  Jewish  Messiah 
1877;  Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  1894. 

2  Hen.,  xc.  37-38 ;  Charles,  Book  of  Enoch,  1893,  p.  258  and 
notes. 

3  Hen.,  xlviii.  2;  Ixii.  5-9;  Ixix.  27;  Charles,  ihid.,  pp.  133, 
164,  182. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  63 

those  of  Charles,  Beer,  Flemming,  and  Radermacher. 
Our  citations  are  based  upon  a  comparison  of  the  texts 
of  Charles  and  Flemming.^  Modern  critics  admit 
that  the  Book  has  a  composite  character,  the  Symbolic 
Discourses  being  considered  the  work  of  a  later  writer. 
Beer  claims  that  the  oldest  sections  should  be  dated 
before  167  B.  C. ;  and  the  later  parts  before  64  B.  C. 
Charles  places  c.  i.-xxxvi  as  earher  than  170  B.  C. ; 
c.  Ixxxiii-xc  to  166-161  B.  C. ;  c.  xc-civ  to  134-95  B.  C. ; 
the  latter  section,  c.  xxxvii-lxx  to  either  94-79  B.  C, 
or  70-64  B.  C.  Baldensperger  assigns  the  Symbohc 
Discourses  to  the  end  of  Herod's  reign,  and  the  rest 
of  the  work  to  about  fifty  years  later.  While  Kilgen- 
feld,  Volkmar,  Keim,  and  Vernes  regard  c.  xxxvii- 
Ixxi  as  being  influenced  by  Christian  ideas  and  as  an 
interpolation  made  about  390  A.  D.  Schiirer  dates 
c.  xc  about  95  A.  D.,  while  he  says  that  the  date  of 
c.  xxxvii-lxxi  is  very  uncertain.^ 

The  Psalter  of  Solomon  first  appeared  about  80-40 
B.  C.  It  is  a  collection  of  eighteen  chants,  or 
Psalms,  fictitiously  ascribed  to  the  great  monarch  of 
Israel,  but  really  composed  by  pious  Jews  shortly  after 
Pompey's  conquest  of  Palestine  in  63  B.  C.  Of  these 
Psalms,  two  are  particularly  remarkable  for  their 
Messianic  ideas. 

The  author  of  Ps.  17,  taking  as  his  model  our 
Psalms  89  and  132,  complains  to  God  because  of  the 
sad  situation  into  which,  in  his  day,  the  chosen  nation 
has  fallen.  Still,  he  is  hopeful.  And  despite  the 
fact  that  the  national  dynasty  is  corrupt  and  is  giv- 

iDillmann,  Liber  Henoch,  1851 ;  Flemming,  Das  Buck 
Enoch,  1902,  Ethiopic  text;  Charles,  op.  cit.;  Beer,  apiid 
Kaiitzsch's  Die  Apok.  u.  Pseiidepigraphen  des  A.  T.,  vol.  ii, 
1900,  pp.  217-310;  Flemming  and  Radermacher,  Das  Buch 
Enoch,  German  tr.,  1901. 

2  Beer,  op.  cit.;  art.:  Enoch,  H.  D.,  p.  706;  art.:  Apoc.  Lit- 
erature, E.  B.,  col.  222;  Baldensperger,  op.  cit.;  Schiirer,  op. 
cit.,  p.  200. 


64  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ing  way  before  the  foreign  invader,  he  beseeches 
the  Lord  to  raise  up  unto  His  people  a  Prince  of  the 
House  of  David.  He  sings :  "  Raise  up  unto  them, 
in  the  day  that  Thou  knowest,  a  Son  of  David  for  their 
King,  who  shall  rule  over  Israel  thy  servant"  (v.  xxiii). 
This  King,  as  he  calls  him,  is  *'  Christ  the  Lord,"  or  the 
''  Anointed  of  the  Lord."  He  is  a  just  king  and 
taught  of  God  (v.  xxxv)  ;  free  from  all  sin  and  holy 
(vs.  xH  and  xlvi).  God,  by  His  Holy  Spirit,  has 
made  Him  powerful  and  wise  (v.  xlii).  He  shall 
judge  the  tribes  of  the  nations  and  shall  not  suffer 
injustice  among  them.  He  will  gather  together  a 
perfect  people  whom  He  himself  shall  lead  in  right- 
eousness and  holiness  (v.  xxviii).  In  Ps.  17,  we 
find  the  same  Messianic  prayer.  The  Messiah's  ad- 
vent is  near.  Happy  they  who  shall  be  alive  on  the 
day  of  His  coming,  who  shall  see  the  inauguration  of 
the  New  Kingdom!  "  May  God  purify  Israel  for  the 
day  of  mercy  wherein  He  has  made  ready  to  bless  us : 
for  the  chosen  day  when  He  shall  lead  forth  the 
Messiah.  Happy  they  who  in  those  days  shall  see  the 
blessings  that  the  Lord  will  give  to  the  coming  race, 
under  the  teaching  sceptre  of  the  Lord  Messiah " 
(v.  vi-viii). 

The  Psalter  of  Solomon  was  originally  written  in 
Hebrew.  These  Psalms  are  now  extant  only  in  Greek 
and  were  first  published  in  the  year  1626  by  the 
Spanish  Jesuit  Louis  de  la  Cerda.  Swete  inserts 
them  in  his  edition  of  the  Old  Testament  according 
to  the  Septuagint.^  The  text  edited  by  Ryle  and 
James  is  the  one  we  have  employed.^  These  editors, 
as  also  Charles,  date  them,  at  the  latest,  from  70-40 
B.  C. ;  and  Schiirer,  from  63-40  B.  C.^ 

1  Swete,  Old  Test.,  in  Greek,  vol.  iii,  p.  765. 

2  Ryle  and  James,  Psalms  of  the  Pharisees,  1891,  p.  Ixiv. 

3  Charles  art. :  Apoc.  Literature,  E.  B.,  col.  2431 ;  Schiirer, 
op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  153. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  65 

The  Sibylline  Oracles,  arranged  by  numerous  com- 
pilers, also  manifest  the  like  Messianic  expectation 
in  that  part  written  by  a  Jewish  editor.  Along  with 
the  appearance  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  there 
was  announced  the  Advent  of  a  Holy  King,  a  Prince 
without  reproach,  who  should  reign  over  the  world 
and  hold  the  sceptre  of  the  nations  throughout  the 
eternal  years.  These  Books,  or  Oracles,  are  a  col- 
lection of  oracular  sayings  placed  up  on  the  lips  of 
the  Pagan  Sibyl,  although,  in  fact,  composed  by  vari- 
ous persons.  Pagans,  Jews,  and  Christians  at  different 
periods.  The  entire  work  is  written  in  Greek  hexa- 
meter verse,  and  has  been  edited  by  Alexander,  Rzach, 
and  Geffcken.^  The  Jewish  portions  are  assigned  by 
Schiirer  and  Charles  to  sometime  before  the  Chris- 
tian era.  Thus,  B.  3.  v.  xcvii-cxviii,  about  140  B.  C. ; 
B.  3.  V.  xxxvi-xcii  (Schiirer),  or  B.  3.  v.  i-lxii 
(Charles),  about  30  B.  C.^ 

These  three  ancient  documents,  therefore,  preserved 
as  they  have  been  from  the  ravages  of  time,  suffice  to 
show,  during  the  epoch  previous  to  the  dawn  of  the 
Christian  era,  the  vividness  of  the  Messianic  hope, 
of  which,  doubtless,  they  afford  but  a  faint  reflection. 

During  the  first  half  of  the  first  century  of  the 
Christian  era,  we  find  few  writings,  apart  from  the 
Gospels,  that  inform  us  about  the  Messianic  hope. 
But  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  described  in 
terms  of  a  beautiful  inspiration  in  both  the  "Assump- 
tion of  Moses,"  a  sort  of  prophecy  of  Israel's  future 
which  a  Jewish  writer,  shortly  before  50  B.  C,  as- 
signed to  Moses,  the  great  Hebrew  legislator,  and 
also  in  the  "  Book  of  Jubilees,"  which  dates  from 
about  the  same  period.  The  former  work,  probably 
written  in  Hebrew,  or  in  Aramaic,  is  extant  only  in 

^Alexandre,  Orac.  Sib.,  1891 ;   Geffcken,   Orac.  Sib.,  1902. 
2  Schiirer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  434;  Charles,  art.:  Apoc.  Lit., 
E.  B.,  col.  247. 

5 


66  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  Latin  text,  derived  from  the  Greek,  and  first  pub- 
lished by  Ceriani.  Schiirer  dates  it  at  the  first  ten 
years  after  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great,  namely 
from  4  B,  C. — 6  A.  D.  Charles  whose  English  ver- 
sion is  so  excellent,  assigns  it  at  y  B.  C. — 30  A.  D.^ 

The  "  Book  of  Jubilees,"  or  the  Little  Genesis,  was 
first  written  in  Hebrew.  It  is  extant  only  in  versions, 
chiefly  the  Ethiopic  and  the  Latin,  composed  respec- 
tively by  Charles  and  Ceriani.  Schiirer  dates  it  dur- 
ing the  first  century  A.  D.,  probably  just  before  the 
Fall  of  Jerusalem.  Charles,  after  placing  its  ex- 
treme Hmits  to  60  B.  C. — 70  A.  D.,  prefers  a  date 
nearer  the  former  and  suggests  even  40-10  B.  C,  or 
even  135-96  B.  C.  After  Charles  had  published  his 
translation,  Schiirer  admitted  his  own  dating  as  being 
too  late,  although  not  accepting  that  of  Charles. 
Baldensperger  places  it  after  63  B.  C,  namely,  durmg 
the  interval  following  Pompey^s  capture  of  Jerusalem.^ 

But  from  the  middle  and  end  of  the  first  century, 
many  testimonies  bear  the  echo  of  the  Messianic  hope 
animating  the  Jews  of  Christ's  time.  The  frequent 
popular  revolts  in  the  political  and  religious  sphere 
are  enough  to  show  how  anxiously  the  people  expected 
God's  miraculous  intervention  and  the  advent  of  His 
kingdom  on  earth.  Josephus  testifies  that  the  Mes- 
sianic hope  was  one  of  the  greatest  levers  in  the  great 
revolt  against  Rome  which  ended  in  Jerusalem's  fall. 
He,  who  lived  in  Caesar's  court,  feared  not  to  apply 
to  Vespasian  himself  the  Messianic  prophecies.^ 

1  Ceriani,  Monumenta,  vol.  i,  fasc.  i,  pp.  55-64;  Charles, 
The  Assumption  of  Moses,  1897;  art.:  Apoc.  Lit.,  E.  B.,  col. 
1235;  Schiirer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  218. 

2  Charles,  The  Ethiopic  Version  of  the  Hebrew  Book  of 
Jubilee,  1895;  art:  Apoc.  Lit.,  E.  B.,  col,  213,  232;  The  Book 
of  Jubilees,  1902;  Ceriani,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  fasc.  i,  pp.  15-54; 
Schurer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  277 ;  art. :  Theol.  Zeitung,  Dec.  5, 
1903. 

3  Flavins  Josephus,  Jewish  War,  Bk.  VI,  cs.  iv  and  v ;  Taci- 
tus, Hist.,  Bk.  V,  c.  xiii;  Suetonius,  Vespasian,  c.  iv. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  ey 

The  fall  of  Jerusalem,  however,  did  not  shatter  the 
great  hope.  That  hope  was  still  most  ardent  towards 
the  end  of  the  first  century  A.  D.,  as  we  learn  from 
writings  like  "  The  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,"  the 
''Apocalypse  of  Esdras,"  or  the  "  Fourth  Book  of 
Esdras." 

The  "Apocalypse  of  Baruch,"  probably  first  written 
in  Hebrew,  is  extant  only  in  Syriac.  Ceriani,  in  1871, 
published  the  Syriac  text  after  having  made  a  Latin 
version  from  the  same  in  1846.  Schiirer  assigns  it 
to  shortly  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  Charles  dates 
it  between  50-90  B.  C.^ 

The  "Apocalypse  of  Esdras,"  teaches  that  the 
Messiah  exists  in  heaven.  God  calls  Him  "  His  Son," 
and  was  to  send  him  forth  at  the  moment  fixed  by 
His  sovereign  will.  "  My  son,  said  the  Lord,  My 
son,  the  Messiah,  shall  be  revealed  with  those  who 
are  on  His  side.  .  ,  .  None  on  earth  can  see  my  son, 
neither  those  who  are  with  him,  until  the  day  that  is 
set."  ^  This  work  was  originally  composed  in  Greek, 
or  as  some  critics  hold,  in  Hebrew,  and  is  extant  in 
various  versions.  The  Latin  version  is  placed  as  an 
Appendix  at  the  end  of  the  canonical  Latin  Vulgate. 
It  has  been  edited  by  Bensly  and  James.  Most 
critics  date  it  between  81-96  B.  C.^ 

The  "  Shemoneh  Esreh,"  or  daily  prayer  of  the 
Jews,  received  a  definite  form  about  the  same  epoch. 
It  was  also  called  Hatephillah  or  the  Eighteen  Bene- 
dictions.    Its  basic  elements  are  older  than  its  present 

^Ceriani,  op.  cit.,  vol.  v,  fasc.  2,  pp.  1 13-180,  1871,  Syriac 
text;  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  _f asc.  2,  pp.  73-98,  1866,  Latin  text; 
Schurer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  229;  Charles,  The  Apocalypse  of 
Baruch,  1896;  art.:  Apoc.  Lit.,  E.  B.,  col.  217. 

2  IV  Esdras,  c.  vii,  vs.  28  and  29 ;  c.  xiii,  v.  52. 

3  Bensly  and  James,  T/i^  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra,  1895; 
Schurer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  243 ;  James,  art. :  Esdras,  E.  B., 
col.  1393;  Thackeray,  art.:  Esdras,  Second  Book  of,  H.  D., 
p.  765. 


68  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

form,  and  afford  a  valuable  insight  into  the  Jewish 
mind  during  the  first  years  of  the  Christian  era.  Its 
text  is  to  be  found  in  all  Jewish  prayer-books.  In 
Schiirer's  opinion,  it  reached  its  present  form  about 
70-100  A.  D.,  its  basis  being  certainly  much  earlier.^ 

Each  section  of  the  "  Shemoneh  Esreh  "  contains  a 
supplication  for  the  re-establishment  of  God's  people 
and  the  restoration  of  the  Holy  City  by  the  Messiah, 
the  Son  of  David.  In  the  loth  Benediction  the  pious 
Jew  prays :  "  Sound  the  trumpet  to  announce  our  de- 
liverance. Raise  up  a  standard  to  reassemble  our 
captains  together  and  to  reunite  us  from  the  four 
quarters  of  the  earth.  Blessed  be  Thou,  O  Lord, 
who  gathereth  together  the  exiles  of  Thy  people 
Israel  .  .  .  Oh,  set  up  again  our  judges  as  hereto- 
fore, our  Councillors  as  at  the  beginning  .  .  .  Do 
Thou  alone,  O  Lord,  reign  over  us  in  grace  and  mercy, 
and  justify  us.  Blessed  be  Thou,  O  Lord  King,  for 
Thou  lovest  righteousness  and  justice.  .  .  .  Upon 
Jerusalem,  thy  city,  look  down  with  compassion,  and 
dwell  in  her  according  to  thy  promise.  .  .  .  Rebuild 
her  without  delay,  in  our  day  and  forever.  Set  up 
again  within  her  the  throne  of  David.  Blessed  be 
Thou,  O  Lord,  who  rebuildeth  Jerusalem.  .  .  .  Make 
the  offspring  of  David,  thy  servant,  come  forth  with- 
out delay.  Let  his  horn  rise  up  in  the  day  of  thy  sal- 
vation. Blessed  be  Thou,  O  Lord,  our  God,  who 
makest  the  horn  of  salvation  spring  forth."  ^  This  ex- 
pression, the  horn,  is  taken  as  the  symbol  of  power. 
Hence,  the  horn  of  salvation  is  the  saving  power,  or 
the  Powerful  Saviour.  Again  we  read :  "  Be  pleased, 
O  Lord,  our  God,  in  thy  people  Israel  and  in  his 
prayers:  Re-establish  the  sacrifices  in  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  in  Thy  house.  Receive  our  offerings  and  en- 
treaties with  love.     Let  the   worship  of   Israel,  thy 

1  Schiirer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  463. 

2  Berakah,  11,  14,  15,  17;  cf.  Lk.  i.  69. 


THE  DAWX  OF  CHRISTIANITY  69 

people,  please  thee  forever.  Oh,  that  our  eyes  may 
see  Thy  return  to  Sion  full  of  mercy.  Blessed  be 
Thou,  O  Lord,  who  restoreth  Thy  glory  to  Sion."  ^ 

The  Targums,  also,  betray  the  last  phases  of  the 
Messianic  hope.  As  is  well  known,  these  writings 
are  a  transliteration,  or  rather  a  paraphrase  of  the 
Bible  in  the  popular  language,  the  Aramaic.  The 
Targums  on  the  Pentateuch  and  on  the  Prophets  are 
attributed  to  Onkelos,  and  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel,  two 
Rabbis  of  the  first  century.  In  their  present  form, 
these  Targums  were  not  probably  edited  before  the 
third  or  fourth  century  of  the  Christian  era ;  but,  their 
claim  to  a  greater  antiquity  is  supported  by  the  fact 
that  they  are  based  upon  earlier  writings  and  remote 
traditions  of  Jewish  commentators,  or  targumists. 
Hence  these  Targums  may  inform  us  about  the  rab- 
binical teaching  which  was  current  in  pre-Christian  as 
well  as  in  gospel  times..  We  may  note  that  the  Tar- 
gum  editors  interpret  many  texts  in  the  Law  and  in  the 
Prophets  as  referring  to  the  Messiah. - 

The  Rabbinic  Bible  of  Bomberg  and  Buxtorf  gives 
the  texts  of  the  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan. 
So  also  does  the  Polygot  Bible  of  London  ^  give  a 
critical  edition  of  the  former  by  Berhner,  and  of  the 
second  by  Lagarde.  The  Targum  of  Onkelos  on  the 
Pentateuch,  says  Walker,  is  apparently  the  work  of 
several  editors,  and  may  have  been  compiled,  at  least  in 
part,  during  the  second  or  third  century  after  Christ. 
The  Targum  on  the  Prophets  ascribed  to  Jonathan, 
was  edited  finally  only  in  the  fifth  century  A.  D. 
Both  Targums,  says  Noldeke,  w^ere  finally  edited  and 
officially  canonized  only  in  the  fourth  or  fifth  century. 

1  Schiirer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  461 ;  Dalman,  The  Words  of 
Jesus,  1903,  p.  350. 

2  Bomberg  and  Buxtorf,  Rabbinic  Bibles;  Polyglot  Bible 
of  London;  Berliner,  Targum  Onkelos,  2  vols.,  1884,  Lagarde, 
Prophetae  Chaldaice,  1872. 

3  Buxtorf,  Lexicon  Chaldaicum,  col.  1268- 1273. 


70  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

A.  D.  If  both  were  published  only  in  the  third  or 
fourth  century,  says  Schiirer,  they  were  probably 
based  on  former  works.  They  were  the  result  of  the 
gradual  development  of  many  centuries.  Thus,  at  the 
end  of  the  second  century,  the  "  Mishna "  already 
supposes  Chaldean  versions  of  the  Bible.  The  New 
Testament,  also,  quite  agrees  with  the  Targums  in 
its  manner  of  rendering  some  texts  "  concerning  the 
Elder."  This  proves  that  the  Targums,  taken  as  a 
whole,  were  composed  as  early  as  the  Apostolic  Age. 
The  "  Targnm  on  Job,"  is  explicitly  mentioned  just 
before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  Our  extant  "  Targums  " 
also  have  fragments  of  the  period  of  John  Hyrcanus 
(103-105  A.  D.).  The  modern  Targums  are  evidently, 
then,  made  up  of  gradual  accretions  from  many  gen- 
erations and  depend  upon  early  writings.^ 

Thus,  Onkelos  sees  the  expected  Messiah  in  the 
"  Seed  of  the  Woman  "  who  was  to  crush  the  serpent, 
and  in  the  mysterious  personage  who  seems  to  be 
announced  in  the  prophecy  of  Jacob  to  Juda.  "  The 
sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Juda,  nor  the  ruler's  staff 
from  between  His  feet :  Until  Shiloh  come,  and  the  peo- 
ple obey  Him."  ^  The  term  "Shiloh,"  which  the  Tar- 
gum  identifies  with  the  "  Messiah,"  is  even  now  a  very 
obscure  expression.  Some  have  translated  by  "  the  re- 
pose " :  The  Vulgate  reads  Shiloah,  or,  the  Envoy,  or 
messenger.^  If  the  Hebrew  text  be  read:  Shelo,  it 
means:  "He  to  whom"  (the  sceptre  should  belong). 
So  too,  in  the  royal  star  which  Balaam  sees  rising 
from  the  midst  of  Israel :  "  I  shall  see  Him ;  but  not 
now:  I  shall  behold  Him,  but  not  near.  A  star  shall 
rise  out  of  Jacob,  a  sceptre  shall  spring  up  from 
Israel."  * 

1  Walker,  art. :  Targum,  H.  D.,  p.  679 ;  Noldecke,  art. : 
Aramaic  Language,  E.  B.,  col.  283;  cf.  Ephes.  iv.  8. 

2  Gen.  iii.  15 ;  Ixix.  10. 

3  Aglen,  art. :  Shiloh,  H.  D.,  pp.  500  and  501, 
*  Numbers  xxiv.  17, 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  yi 

Jonathan,  also,  when  interpreting  the  Prophets,  ex- 
pressly identifies  the  Emmanuel  with  the  Messiah. 
The  Emmanuel  is  the  one  promised  by  God  to  His 
chosen  people;  the  child  who  is  to  bring  an  eternal 
peace  to  the  world;  the  flower  of  the  royal  root  of 
Jesse  upon  whom  shall  dwell  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord ;  the 
ruler  rising  from  Bethlehem,  and  whose  origin  goes 
back  to  the  ancient  days,  to  the  Days  of  Eternity; 
the  chosen  servant  in  whom  God  places  His  confidence 
and  who  is  to  establish  on  earth  the  reign  of  justice 
and  mercy,  who  is  to  be  clothed,  in  the  eyes  of  people 
and  kings,  with  incomparable  glory,  although  only 
after  suffering  humiliation  and  atoning  pain/ 

The  sufferings  of  the  Servant  of  Jaweh,  the  aton- 
ing victim  of  his  people,  are  described  in  c.  liii  of 
Isaiah.  The  Targum  of  Jonathan,  in  emphasizing 
his  great  and  glorious  character,  did  not  venture  to 
apply  to  Him  the  marks  of  humiliation  and  of  suffer- 
ing portrayed  in  c.  liii,  although  the  Prophet  had  fully 
in  view,  here  and  there,  the  same  Servant  of  Jehovah ; 
but,  the  Targumist  illogically  interprets  this  last  chap- 
ter as  referring  to  the  Hebrew  people  itself. 

The  faith  of  the  Synagogue,  intense  and  firm  as  it 
was,  even  at  a  time  when  it  openly  opposed  the 
Church,  can  be  ascribed  only  to  an  already  ancient 
tradition.  Thus  does  the  whole  collection  of  docu- 
ments, reflecting  the  thoughts  of  Jewish  generations 
immediately  following  the  Saviour's  death,  as  also 
those  wherein  we  find  a  true  echo  of  the  expectation 
filling  the  popular  mind  in  the  years  just  before  the 
Christian  era,  evidently  confirm  the  testimony  of  the 
Gospels.  That  is  to  say,  when  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
appeared,  the  Messianic  hope  was  fermenting  at  times 
in  the  heart  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  all  Israel  was 
expectantly  awaiting  its  Saviour. 

lis.  vii.  14;  ix.  5;  xi.  i;  Micheas  v.  i;  Is.  Ixii.  i;  Hi.  13; 
c.  liii;  Zach.  iii.  9;  vi.  12. 


J2  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

What  idea,  however,  had  they  of  this  Messiah  so 
eagerly  awaited?     We  must  try  to  settle  this  point. 
The   Messiah's  Character   and   Mission.— The 

title  "  Messiah  "  implies  the  idea  of  a  special  divine 
consecration.  The  Hebrew  term,  Mashiah,  or  the 
Aramaic,  Meshiha,  really  means  Anointed  or  Sacred, 
hke  the  Greek,  Christus,  and  the  Latin,  Unctus.  This 
title  had  long  been  employed  to  designate  those  who 
had  been  consecrated  by  sacred  unction,  namely,  the 
Kings  of  Israel,  who  were  the  theocratic  sovereigns  of 
the  people  of  God.  The  title  ''Anointed  of  the 
Lord,"  is  applied  both  to  Saul  and  to  David. ^ 

He  who  w^as  in  an  especial  sense  the  ''Anointed 
of  the  Lord,"  seemed  to  the  Jews  to  be  a  king,  or 
rather,  as  "  The  King,"  the  organizer  and  supreme 
sovereign  of  a  royal  kingdom,  final  and  incomparably 
glorious.  The  Targums  often  refer  to  the  Messiah 
King,  or  Malcha  Meshiha.  The  Shemoneh  Esreh 
views  Him  as  a  powerful  Saviour  who  shall  come  to 
re-establish  the  throne  of  David  and  rebuild  Jeru- 
salem. The  Psalter  of  Solomon  presents  Him  as  the 
King  of  Israel,  God's  envoy  for  the  deliverance  of  the 
Holy  City  from  its  oppressors,  and  who  shall  restore 
the  throne  of  David  and  extend  His  kingdom  over 
all  nations.  The  Targums  also  frequently  refer  to 
the  Messiah  as  the  "  Redeemer  of  Israel  "  who  was 
to  re-establish  the  chosen  people  in  their  rights,  to 
deliver  them  from  foreign  oppression,  to  bring  peace 
ancj  prosperity.  The  Saviour  is  recognized  as  the 
^'  Christ " ;  hence  they  wish  to  forcibly  lead  Him  to 
Jerusalem  "  to  make  Him  king."  On  His  triumphal 
entry  therein,  they  hail  Him  as  "  the  King  of  Israel," 
the  "  King  who  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
The  Jewish  populace,  also,  under  the  title  of  the  "King 

^i  Sam.  xii.  3,  5;  xxiv.  7,  11;  xxvi.  9,  11,  16,  23;  2  Sam, 
xxiii.  i;  cf.  Ps.  ii.  2;  xviii.  51;  xx.  7;  xxviii.  8;  Ixxxiv.  10; 
Ixxxix.  39,  52;  cxxxii.  17;  Habaeuc  iii.  13;  Lamen,  iv,  20; 
Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  288. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


n 


of  Israel,"  mockingly  salute  Him  as  He  hangs  upon 
the  Cross,  while  the  foreigners,  in  derision,  call  Him 
"  King  of  the  Jews."  ^ 

The  national  traditions  of  Israel  imply  that  the 
Kingdom  claimed  for  Christ  was,  in  a  way,  embodied 
in  the  name  of  David.  It  was  to  David  that  the 
Lord  made  this  wondrous  promise :  "  Thy  house  and 
thy  kingdom  shall  be  made  sure  forever.  Thy  throne 
shall  be  made  firm  forever."  "  His  throne  shall  stand 
before  me  as  the  sun;  as  the  moon  it  shall  be  unto 
everlasting."  The  Messiah-King  was  to  be  born 
of  the  race  of  David:  He  it  is  who  was  to  re- 
store the  throne  of  His  Father,  and  to  assure  to  His 
kingdom  the  eternity  promised  by  the  Lord.^ 

The  Psalter  of  Solomon,  also,  portrays  '*  Christ  the 
Lord,"  or  the  "  Christ  of  the  Lord,"  as  a  king,  the 
Son  of  David.  The  Targum  of  Jonathan  sees  the 
Messiah  in  the  "  Stem  arising  from  the  Root  of 
Jesse,"  in  the  "  Righteous  Branch  "  arisen  unto  the 
house  of  David.  The  Shemoneh  Esreh  beseeches  the 
swift  appearance  of  the  *'  Branch  "  of  the  great  king. 
And  Jesus  Himself  says  to  the  multitude:  How  do 
the  Scribes  say  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  David? 
From  the  moment  that  He  is  recognized  as  the  Messiah 
He  is  acclaimed  under  the  title:  Hosanna  to  the  Son 
of  David.  Blessed  is  He  who  cometh  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord.  Blessed  be  the  kingdom  of  our  father 
David  that  cometh.^  In  the  tradition,  moreover,  of 
the  Jewish  interpreters  of  the  Scripture,  the  Messiah 
was  to  be  born  in  the  very  native-land  of  David,  at 

1  Lk.  ii.  38;  Jo.  vi.  14;  Lk.  xviii.  38;  Jo.  xii.  13;  cf.  Jo.  i. 
48;  Mk.  XV.  32;  Mt.  xxvii.  39;  Mk.  xv.  9,  iS,  2^\  Lk.  xxiii. 
35;  Jo.  xviii.  2>2>,  Z7,  39;  xix.  3,  15,  19,  21;  Mt.  ii.  2. 

22  Sam.  vii.  16;  Ps.  Ixxxix.  35. 

3  Psalt.  Solomon  xvii.  5,  23 ;  Is.  xi.  i ;  Jer.  xxiii.  5 ;  xxxiii, 
15;  Shemoneh  Esreh,  15th  Berak. ;  Mk.  xii.  35;  Mk.  xi.  10;  Mt. 
xxi.  2,  9;  Lk.  xix.  38;  cj.  Mt.  xiii.  23;  ix,  27;  xx.  30;  Mk,  x, 
ly ;  Lk.  jcviji.  38, 


74  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Bethlehem  of  Juda.  Hence,  the  doctors  of  the  Law, 
relying  upon  the  prophecy  of  Micheas,  reply  to 
Herod:  ''And  thou,  Bethlehem,  land  of  Juda,  art  not 
the  least  among  the  princes  of  Juda;  for  out  of 
thee  shall  come  forth  the  captain  that  shall  rule 
my  people  of  Israel."  So  too,  when  the  news  spread 
abroad  among  the  multitude  that  this  Jesus,  the  pro- 
phet of  Nazareth  in  Galilee,  might  likely  be  the 
Messiah,  the  objection  was  made:  What,  then,  doth 
the  Christ  come  forth  from  Galilee?  Hath  not  the 
Scripture  said  that  the  Christ  cometh  of  the  seed  of 
David,  and  from  Bethlehem  ?  ^ 

The  Messiah,  however,  was  not  regarded  merely  as 
a  conquering  king  and  ruler  like  the  ancient  sover- 
eigns of  Israel  who  He  was  to  succeed  on  the  throne 
of  David.  He  was  also  looked  upon  as  the  Envoy  of 
God,  the  Elect  of  the  Most  High,  the  Prophet  par 
excellence.  The  prophetic  spirit  implied  the  knowl- 
edge of  secret  things,  past,  present,  or  future.  Christ, 
then,  the  greatest  Prophet,  was  to  signalize  Himself 
by  His  supernatural  knowledge.  It  is  precisely  be- 
cause Nathaniel  knows  that  Jesus  reveals  the  secrets 
of  His  inmost  soul  that  he  exclaims  with  much  emo- 
tion :  "  Master,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God ;  thou  art 
the  King  of  Israel."  The  Samaritan  woman,  also,  al- 
leges to  her  compatriots,  as  a  token  of  the  Saviour's 
messiahship,  the  fact  that  He  had  just  revealed  to  her 
all  her  past  conduct :  "  Come  and  see  a  man  who  has 
told  me  all  that  I  have  done.  Is  He  not  the  Christ?" 
So  too,  the  soldiers  in  the  Pretorium  felt  that  they 
could  ridicule  Jesus'  messianic  claims  in  no  surer  way 
than  by  blind-folding  Him  and  calling  upon  Him,  as 
the  Christ,  to  tell  who  had  struck  Him.^ 

As  prophet,  the  Messiah  was  also  a  great  wonder- 

1  Targ  Jonath.,  in  Micheas  v.  8;  Mt.  ii.  6;  Jo.  vii.  41. 

2  Jo.  iv.  29;  Lk.  vii.  39;  Jo.  i.  48;  iv.  24;  Mt.  xxvi.  67;  Lk. 
xxii.  64. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


75 


worker.  "  When  the  Christ  shall  come,  will  He  do 
more  signs?"  Thus  the  people  wondered  after  wit- 
nessing the  Saviour's  miracles.  It  was,  also,  certainly  a 
proof  of  His  Messiahship  that  the  Pharisees  demanded 
from  Jesus  when  they  asked  Him  for  "  a  sign  from 
heaven."  Nor  is  there  anything  more  ironical  than 
the  provoking  questions  which  the  people  put  to 
Him  who  had  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah :  "  Let  Christ 
the  King  of  Israel  now  come  down  from  the  Cross, 
that  we  may  see  and  beHeve  in  Him.  .  .  .  He  saved 
others:  let  Him  save  himself  if  He  be  the  Christ  of 
God,  the  elect."  ^ 

The  Messiah's  mission  was  to  display  such  eminent 
qualities.  Hence  it  would  be  not  only  a  kingly  and 
ruling,  but  also  a  doctrinal  and  religious  mission.  In 
the  Psalter  of  Solomon,  the  Messiah  is  a  king  free 
from  sin,  a  great  king  taught  of  God,  and  to  whom 
the  Lord  hath  given  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
wisdom  and  prudence  and  justice.  He  was  to  as- 
semble together  a  holy  people,  and  in  their  midst  He 
would  not  allow  iniquity  to  dwell.  He  was  to  destroy 
sinners  by  the  power  of  His  word.  The  holy  people 
whom  He  shall  assemble.  He  will  lead  in  justice  and 
holiness.  He  would  rule  Israel  in  the  fear  of  God,  in 
the  wisdom  of  the  Spirit,  in  righteousness  and  power. 
He  would  direct  men  in  the  way  of  justice,  inspiring 
them  all  with  the  fear  of  God.  And  this  mission  of 
justice  and  hoHness  shall  be  universal.  He  will  judge 
the  nations  and  peoples  in  the  wisdom  of  His  equity. 
He  shall  hold  under  His  yoke  the  nations  to  serve 
Him ;  and  He  shall  glorify  the  Lord  over  all  the  sur- 
face of  the  earth.2 

The  Book  of  Enoch,  also,  describes  in  an  allegorical 
vision  the  pagan  nations  as  beseeching  the  Messiah  and 
becoming  converted  to  the  true  God. 

1  Jo.  vii.  31 ;  Mk.  viii.  11 ;  xv.  32;  Mt.  xxvii  39;  Lk.  xxiii.  35. 

2  Psalt.  Solom.  xvii.  and  xviii ;  cf.  Orac.  Sib.,  vol.  iii,  49 ; 
agnos  anax  (ayvof  dva^). 


76  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

In  the  Sibylline  Oracles,  the  Jewish  Sibyl  portrays 
the  Messianic  kingdom  as  an  eternal  one  which  ex- 
tends throughout  all  nations  and  all  parts  of  the 
world.  Men  shall  bring  their  offerings  to  the  Temple 
of  God :  The  Lord  shall  dwell  forever  in  Sion,  and 
there  shall  reign  universal  peace  on  earth.^ 

Similarly,  the  magnificent  predictions  of  the  Pro- 
phets, but  faintly  echoed  in  the  foregoing  testimonies, 
refer  to  the  abiding  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
the  Messiah,  to  His  position  as  lawgiver,  teacher,  and 
judge,  to  His  work  of  enHghtenment  and  sanctification 
in  behalf  of  mankind.^ 

It  seems,  indeed,  that  the  woman  of  Samaria 
supposed  that  the  mission  of  the  Messiah  would 
possess  this  very  doctrinal  and  religious  character; 
for,  when  Jesus  spoke  to  her  of  the  new  kind  of 
worship  desired  by  His  heavenly  Father,  she  re- 
marked :  "  I  know  that  the  Messiah  cometh ;  when 
He  is  come.  He  will  reveal  unto  us  all  things."  And 
it  was  probably  the  same  conviction  that  led  people 
to  imagine  that  it  was  the  expected  Messiah  whom 
they  saw  and  heard  in  the  person  of  John  the  Baptist 
as  he  proclaimed  the  baptism  of  penance  in  the  desert.^ 

"  Wherever  the  moral  and  really  religious  elements 
had  begun  to  get  the  upper  hand,"  says  Harnack, 
"  people  were  forced  to  abandon  the  image  of  the 
political  and  warlike  ruler,  and  let  that  of  the  prophet, 
which  had  always,  to  some  extent,  helped  to  form  the 
general  notions  about  the  Messiah,  take  its  place."  * 

It  is  also  the  impression  of  O.  Holtzmann  that  "  the 
political  aspect  of  the  Messianic  hope  plays  no  great 
part  in  the  Jewish  literature  of  the  New  Testament 

1  Hen.,  c.  xc.  2)7>  38 ;  cf.  Orac.  Sib.,  vol.  iii,  710-794. 

2  Is.  ii.,  iv.,  xlii.,  xlix.,  li.,  Ivi.,  Ix.,  Ixi. ;  Soph.  ii. ;  Jer.  iii.  and 
iv. ;  Zach.  c.  viii.  and  ix. ;  Ps.  Ixxii. 

3  Jo.  iv.  25;  i.  19-25;  Lk.  iii.  15. 

*  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity  f  p.  147. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  yy 

period  that  has  come  down  to  us,"  and  that  ''  far 
greater  stress  is  laid  upon  the  hohness  of  the 
Messiah."  ^ 

Finally  it  is  Baldensperger's  opinion  that  the  Jewish 
apocalyptic  ideas  current  during  the  period  preced- 
ing the  Christian  era  present  "  the  Messianic  expecta- 
tion as  freeing  itself  from  the  earthly  political  ideal 
and  soaring  into  the  region  of  the  supernatural."  ^ 

Christ,  then,  was  the  Man  of  God,  par  excellence, 
the  Prophet  who  was  to  come  into  the  world.  In  fact, 
the  Rabbinic  Tradition  of  the  Targums  beheld  Him 
thus  foretold  in  every  page  of  the  Scriptures.  So  that 
Philip  the  Apostle,  one  of  the  first  called  by  Jesus  to 
the  apostolate,  might  well  point  Him  out  to  Nathanael 
as  the  One  "  of  whom  Moses  wrote,  both  in  the  Law 
and  in  the  Prophets."  ^ 

Kingly  Destiny. — What  opinion,  we  may  ask,  did 
the  Jews  have  of  the  career  of  their  expected  Messiah 
and  what  events  would  mark  the  course  of  His  hfe? 
On  this  point,  the  Jewish  tradition  was  far  from 
precise.  It  held  that  He  would  be  born  at  Bethlehem, 
the  city  of  the  great  king;  but  people  said  to  them- 
selves :  "  When  shall  He  come  ?  How  will  He  in- 
augurate His  reign  ?  " 

The  prevailing  belief  was  that  He  would  appear 
only  after  some  great  prophet  should  officially  herald 
His  coming.  Some,  in  fact,  thought  that  one  of  the 
ancient  prophets  of  Israel  like  Jeremias,  for  instance, 
would  re-appear  for  this  purpose.  Others  thought 
that  the  Messiah,  whilst  bearing  some  resemblance  to 
the  prophets  of  old,  would  Himself  be  a  new  prophet. 
Others,  again,  believed  Him  "  the  Prophet,"  foretold 
by  Moses  and  often  identified  with  the  Messiah.  But 
oftener  the   future  herald  of  the  expected   Messiah 

1  Holtzmann,  O.,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  123,  n. ;  art. :  Neutesf. 
Zeitgeschichte,  1895,  p.  243. 

2  Baldensperger,  Die  Mess.  Apoc.  Hoffnungen,  1903,  p.  173. 

3  Jo.  vi.  14;  i.  45. 


78  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

was  supposed  to  be  Elias,  whom  the  prophet  Malachy 
had  said  would  appear  before  the  great  day  of  the 
Lord.  The  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus  also  mentions  Him 
as  being  ^'  held  in  reserve  for  the  time  of  judgment." 
Whilst,  as  the  disciples  themselves  remark  to  Jesus, 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  had  taught  the  people  that 
"  Elias  was  to  come  "  before  the  advent  of  the  Mes- 
siah. This  is  why,  when  John  the  Baptist  declared 
he  was  not  Christ,  the  Levites  sent  by  the  Pharisees 
ask  him  if,  however,  he  were  not  Elias.  The  same 
opinion,  in  fact,  was  held  by  some  among  the  multi- 
tudes concerning  Jesus  Himself.^ 

But  it  was  also  believed  that  the  Messianic  reign 
would  begin  only  after  a  period  of  terrible  suffering  and 
great  political  commotions.  Wars  between  the  various 
nations,  social  disorders,  domestic  feuds,  disturbances 
in  nature,  earthquakes,  signs  in  the  heavens,  con- 
flagrations and  famines:  such  are  the  events  which 
shall  precede  the  revelation  of  the  Messiah  and 
which,  in  Rabbinical  teaching,  are  likened  to  the  sor- 
rows of  child-birth.^  The  mission  of  EHas  was  in- 
tended to  restore  peace  upon  the  earth  and  to  reestab- 
lish social  order.  "  His  mission,"  says  Rabbi  Simon, 
"  is  to  bring  peace  into  the  world.  For  it  is  written : 
*  I  send  unto  you  Elias  the  Prophet.'  "  ^  The  way 
being  thus  prepared,  the  Messiah  Himself  will  appear 
suddenly.  But  as  tradition  had  named  Bethlehem  as 
His  birth-place,  it  was  at  first  supposed  that  He  would 
remain  hidden  and  that  He  would  reveal  Himself  un- 
expectedly.    Hence,  no  doubt,  the  prevailing  impres- 

1  Mt.  xvi.  14;  Lk.  ix.  19;  Mk.  vi.  14;  viii.  28;  Jo.  i.  19,  25; 
vii.  40;  cf.  Ac.  iii.  32;  vii.  27;  Mai.  iv.  5;  Ecclus.  xlviii.  10; 
Mk.  ix.  10;  Mt.  xvii.  10;  Jo.  i.  19,  25;  Mk.  vi.  14;  Mt.  xiv.  2; 
Lk.  ix.  7;  Mk.  viii.  22>;  cf.  Mk.  xv.  35,  z^',  Mt.  xxvii.  47,  49. 

2  Cf.  the  phrase;  Hebelei  ha  Mashiah,  z.  e.,  the  Suffering  of 
the  Messiah;  cf.  Mk.  xiii.  9;  Mt.  xxiv.  8;  Mai.  iv.  5,  6. 

3  Ecclus,  xlviii.  10;  cf.  Mishna,  Eduioth,  c.  viii.  7. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  79 

sion  as  expressed  in  the  text :  ''  When  the  Christ 
cometh,  no  man  knoweth  whence  He  is."  ^ 

Some  Jewish  writers  also  tell  us  that  it  will  be  the 
official  privilege  of  EHas  to  anoint  the  Messiah  and 
to  proclaim  Him.  In  fact,  S.  Justin  represents  the 
Jew  Trypho  as  expressing  a  thought  which  must  rest 
upon  an  ancient  Jewish  tradition :  "  The  Christ,"  he 
says,  *'  even  when  born  and  found  somewhere  or  other, 
is  still  unknown.  Indeed,  He  does  not  know  His  own 
destiny:  He  has  no  power  until  Elias  come  and  con- 
secrate Him,  and  reveal  Him  to  all.  .  .  .  We  all  await 
Christ  who  is  to  be  a  man  among  men,  and  Ehas 
who  is  to  come  to  consecrate  Him."  ^ 

The  Targum  on  Micheas  says  that  the  Messiah  is 
present  already,  although  still  hidden  because  of  the 
sins  of  the  people.  A  relatively  recent  Talmudic 
legend  says  that  the  Messiah  is  born  in  Bethlehem  at 
the  moment  of  the  destruction  of  the  Temple,  and 
receives  the  name  Menahem,  or  Consoler.  He  is 
forcibly  taken  away  from  His  mother  and  carried  to 
Rome.  There,  at  one  of  the  city-gates,  He  remains 
surrounded  by  the  unhappy  and  the  sick  whose  wounds 
he  soothes,  awaiting  calmly  and  quietly  the  day  when 
the  conversion  of  His  people  shall  enable  Him  to 
reveal  Himself.^ 

The  Messianic  kingdom  should  begin,  we  are  told, 
with  the  "  great  day  of  the  Lord."  The  ancient 
Prophets  considered  the  *'  Day  of  Jaweh,"  as  the  day 
wherein  the  Eternal  should  judge  His  people  and  the 
nations  opposing  them.  Israel  would  be  revenged  upon 
its  enemies :  it  would  itself  be  chastened  for  its  sins 
and  be  purified  from  every  wicked  element.  Never- 
theless, apart  from  and  beyond  this  first  earthly  judg- 
ment, ending  with  a  national  renewal  or  resurrection, 

1  Jo.  vii.  27. 

2  Justin,  Dial.,  c.  viii ;  cf.  c.  xlix. 

3  Targ.,  in  Mich.  iv.  8. 


go  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  Prophets  foresaw  at  the  end  of  time,  after  a  gen- 
eral resurrection,  a  universal  and  final  judgment  of 
which  the  first  was  only  the  symbol  and  preparation, 
and  at  which  all  men,  summoned  to  appear  before 
God,  would  be  eternally  rewarded,  each  according 
to  His  deeds.^ 

Numerous  texts  of  the  Prophets  point,  in  some  way, 
to  this  solemn  judgment  which  shall  be  executed  by 
the  future  King,  the  Son  of  David,  in  whom  tradition 
had  long  since  beheld  the  Messiah.  The  Christ  of 
God,  therefore,  is  described  as  inaugurating  His  reign 
by  a  supreme  judgment  which  was  to  destroy  every 
hostile  power.^ 

The  popular  notion  of  this  Messianic  judgment  was 
very  complex,  inexact,  and  particularly  materialistic. 
Some  thought  the  Messiah  was  to  lead  His  armies 
on  a  march  against  the  pagan  nations,  the  enemies 
of  God  and  of  His  people.^  Philo  had  written :  "  He 
shall  enter  into  the  field ;  He  shall  wage  war,  and  He 
shall  subdue  nations  numerous  and  powerful."  *  In 
one  Targum  we  read :  "  How  fair  is  He,  the  Messiah 
King,  who  proceedeth  from  the  House  of  Juda.  He 
girds  His  loins,  takes  the  field,  gives  battle  to   His 

^  Day  of  the  Eternal:  Is.  ii.  12;  Ecclus.  iii.  17;  viii.  6;  Is. 
xiii.  9;  XXX.  27-33;  Ixix.  16-19;  Amos  v.  18-20;  Soph.  c.  i  and 
ii ;  Joel  cc.  i  and  ii ;  Jer.  xxx.  7 ;  Ezech.  cc.  vii  and  xxx ;  Zach. 
c.  xiv;  Mal.  c.  iv;  Abdias  i.  15;  Idea  of  Judgment:  Is.  iii.  3; 
Ez.  xxxix.  21;  Joel  c.  iii;  Dan.  vii.  9,  26;  Ps.  ix.  8;  Ixxv.  3; 
Ixxvi.  9;  Ixxxii.  8;  Ps.  xciv  and  xcvi;  Idea  of  Personal  Re- 
surrection and  of  General  and  Final  Judgment:  Joel  iii.  2; 
Dan.  xii,  1-3;  Ecclus.  xii.  16;  2  Macchab.  vii.  12,  43-46;  Wisd. 
iii.  1-9 ;  V.  16-24 ;  Psalt.  Solom.  iii.  16 ;  xiv.  2 ;  Hen.  Ixi.  i ; 
4  Esdras  vii.  32;  Apoc.  Baruch.  xxx.  1-5;  1.  i;  Ii.  6;  Test. 
XII  Patr.  Judae,  xxv;  Benj.  x;  Mishna,  Sanhedrin  x.  i; 
Aboth.  iv.  22. 

2  Is.  xi.  1-4;  Ps.  Ixxii.  1-3;  ex.  1-2,  5-6. 

3  Orac.  Sib.,  c.  iii,  663 ;  4  Esdras  xiii.  33 ;  Hen.  xc.  16 ;  Dan. 
xi;  Ps.  ii. 

*  Philo,  De  Praem.,  par.  16,  vol.  ii,  p.  422,  ed.  Mang. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CH^STIANITY  8l 

enemies  and  puts  kings  to  death."  ^  Others  thought 
that  the  Messiah  would  appear  less  as  a  warrior  than 
as  a  judge.  By  a  word  of  His  mouth,  says  the 
Psalter  of  Solomon,  He  shall  put  down  His  enemies.^ 
The  Book  of  Enoch,  in  its  figurative  discourses,  rep- 
resented the  Messiah,  as  a  memorial  of  the  vision  of 
Daniel,  under  the  guise  of  the  Son  of  Man  who  was 
seated  beside  the  Lord  of  Souls  upon  the  throne  of 
glory  so  that  He  might  judge  men  and  angels.  Upon 
beholding  Him,  the  kings  and  mighty  ones  of  earth 
shall  be  struck  with  fear  and  trembling.  They  shall 
fall  upon  their  knees  and  shall  ask  His  mercy;  but 
they  shall  be  cast  from  His  face  and  delivered  to 
avenging  angels,  and  receive  the  punishment  for  the 
awful  torments  which  they  have  inflicted  upon  the 
children  of  God,  and  upon  His  elect."  ^ 

The  Messianic  reign,  therefore,  shall  begin  after  this 
supreme  judgment.  It  was  usually  called  "  the  reign 
of  God."  In  fact,  since  the  beginning,  He  was  deemed 
the  true  King  of  Israel,  the  descendants  of  David  be- 
ing only  His  chieftains  and  representatives  on  earth. 
With  still  greater  reason,  God  was  to  be  the  Supreme 
Head  of  this  ideal  Messianic  kingdom  which  was  fore- 
seen "in  the  age  to  come."  It  was  in  God's  name^  and, 
in  some  sort,  on  God's  account,  that  the  Messiah  was 
to  reign  over  a  New  Israel.  Hence,  the  inaugura- 
tion of  the  Messianic  reign  was  to  be,  in  a  special 
way,  the  founding  of  "  the  Kingdom  of  God."  * 
The  sacred  name  of  God,  be  it  noted,  was  often  re- 

1  Targ.  Pseud.  Jonath.  and  Jerush.,  in  Genesis  xlix.  ii;  cf. 
Targ.  Jonath.,  in  Isaiah  x.  27;  Hen.  xlvi.  426;  Hi.  49;  Apoc. 
Baruch.  Ixxii.  6. 

2  Psalt,  Solom.  xvii.  27 ;  xxxvii.  39 ;  xli.  48 ;  Apoc.  Baruch. 
xl.  I  and  2;  4  Esdras  xiii.  10,  27-28,  37-38;  cf.  Is.  xi.  4. 

3  Hen.  xlv.  3 ;  Iv.  4 ;  Ixix.  27 ;  Ixi.  8-9 ;  c.  Ixii. 

*  Psalt.  Solom.  xvii.  4;  Orac.  Sib.,  iii,  47-48,  704;  Assiim. 
Mosis.  X.  I  and  3;  Shemoneh  Esreh,  nth  Ber.;  cf.  Ps.  ix.  8; 
xciii.  I ;  xcv.  3 ;  xcvii.  i ;  xcix.  i. 

6 


S2  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

placed  by  the  name  of  Heaven,  that  is,  "  the  King- 
dom descending  from  Heaven,"  and  which  has  its  be- 
ginning and  head  in  the  heavens.  The  expression, 
''  may  heaven  preserve  me,"  is  somewhat  similar ;  and 
the  term  "  kingdom  of  heaven  "  is  the  same  as  the 
term  "Malcout  Shammaim"  used  by  Rabbinic  writers.^ 

Since,  then,  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  by  origin  and 
foundation,  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven;  so,  by  des- 
tination and  extent,  it  was  to  be  the  Kingdom  of 
God  on  earth.  Palestine,  and  Jerusalem  its  capital 
city,  was  to  be  its  special  territory  or  centre.  There 
would  be  reunited  therein  all  the  children  of  Israel, 
the  dead  as  well  as  those  at  present  dispersed.^  But, 
forth  from  Jerusalem  and  the  Holy  Land,  the  Mes- 
sianic Empire  was  to  spread  over  the  earth.  The 
various  nations  would  submit  to  Israel  and  to  the 
Messiah-King.  Throughout  the  world  the  reign  of 
God  would  extend.^ 

Still,  it  was  not  only  under  the  material  aspect  of  the 
ancient  kingdom  of  David,  merely  restored  and  en- 
larged, that  the  Messianic  Kingdom  was  represented. 
In  fact,  there  was  expected  a  general  renewal  of  the 
world,  which  would  greatly  modify  the  territory  and 
other  features  of  the  kingdom.  Isaiah  had  foretold 
the  creation  of  a  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth :  after 
"  the  present  world,"  there  would  be  "  the  world  to 
come."  *     In  the  Rabbinic  worship  we  read  of  "  this 

1  Mishna,  Ber.,  ii,  2  and  5;  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  91. 

2  Psalt.  Solom.  iii.  16;  xiv.  2;  xi. ;  xvii.  28;  Philo  De 
Exec,  par.  8-9,  vol.  ii,  435;  4  Esdras  xiii,  39-47  ^  Shemoneh 
Esreh,  loth  Ber.;  cf.  Is.  xi.  12;  cc.  xlix.  and  Ix. ;  Sophon. 
c.  iii;  Baruch.  iv.  2>^  and  Z7\  c.  v. 

3  Orac.  Sib.  iii.  48 ;  Psalt.  Solom.  xvii.  32-35 ;  Hen.  xc.  30 
and  zy^ ;  xlviii.  5 ;  Ixiii.  i ;  Apoch.  Baruch.  Ixxii.  5 ;  Targ.,  in 
Zach.  iv.  7;  cf.  Is.  ii.  2;  xi.  10;  xlii.  1-6;  xlix.  6;  Ii.  4  and  5; 
Iv.  5;  Ivi.  i;  Micheas  iv.  10;  vii.  16;  Jer.  iji.  17;  xii.  14;  xvi. 
19;  Sophon.  ii.  11;  iii.  9;  Zach.  ii.  15;  viii.  20;  xiv.  9;  Dan. 
ii.  14;  vii.  14  and  27. 

*  Is,  Ixv.  17;  Ixvi.  22;  cf.  XXX.  26;  Ii.  6;  cf.  Mt.  xix.  28; 
2  Pet.  iii.  13;  Apoc.  xxi.  i. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  83 

world,"  and  "  the  world  to  come."  The  Targum  of 
Jonathan  mentions  *'  the  future  world  of  the  Messiah." 
The  Mishna  contrasts  ''  the  Day  of  the  Messiah  "  to 
"  the  present  world."  The  existing  order  would 
end  at  the  Messianic  age,  and  then  would  occur 
a  universal  transformation  of  the  world  and  a  new 
order  of  things.  *'  In  that  day  "  states  the  Book  of 
Enoch,  "  I  shall  have  my  Elect  dwell  amongst  you,  and 
I  shall  transform  the  heavens  and  make  them  a  bless- 
ing and  an  eternal  light;  and  I  shall  transform  the 
earth  that  it  may  also  become  a  blessing;  and  I  shall 
make  my  chosen  ones  to  dwell  therein."  ^ 

The  New  Jeriisalem,  the  capital  of  the  ideal  king- 
dom, was  also  to  be  transformed.  Many,  it  is  true, 
pictured  it  to  themselves  in  a  very  material  fashion. 
The  Psalter  of  Solomon  describes  it  as  being  restored 
to  its  former  holiness  by  the  expulsion  of  its  pagan 
oppressors;  while  the  Shemoneh  Esreh  pictures  it  as 
arisen  from  its  ruins  arid  rebuilt  forever.^  Others, 
however,  conceived  a  much  higher  ideal.  Thus,  the 
Prophets  had  foretold  that  it  would  be  incomparably 
superior  to  the  ancient  Jerusalem  in  wealth  and  glory. 
Aggeus,  Zacharias,  Isaiah,  and  Ezechiel  had  all  given 
an  enthusiastic  description  of  it.  Ezechiel  had  even 
beheld  it  in  a  mysterious  ecstasy  so  that  tradition 
considered  it  as  already  existing  in  Heaven.^  The 
Apocalypse  of  Baruch  discerns  it,  before  Adam's  fall, 
in  the  earthly  Paradise.  From  Eden,  after  the  sin  of 
the  first  man,  it  was  transported  to  heaven  where  Abra- 
ham and  Moses  beheld  it  in  a  vision  to  which  Esdras 

1  Note  the  expressions:  "Ha  61am  hazzeh,"  "Ha  61am 
habba  "  ;  cf.  the  Greek  :  0  alo)v  ovrog,  6  alcjv  6  ixeTikav,  or  6  ep^ouevog; 
cf.  Mt.  xii.  32;  Mk.  X.  30;  Lk.  xviii.  30;  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p. 
145;  Hen.  Ixv.  5;  cf.  xci.  16;  Targ.  Jon.;  4  Kings  iv.  33; 
Mishna,  Ber.,  i,  5. 

2  Psalt.  Solom.  xvii.  25-33 ;  Shemoneh  Esreh,  14th  Berakah. 

3  Aggeus,  ii.  7-9;  Zach.  ii.  6-17;  Is.  liv.  11;  c.  Ix;  Ezech., 
c.  xl;  c.  xlviii. 


84  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

also  was,  later  on,  admitted/  The  Book  of  Enoch, 
also,  says  that  the  New  Jerusalem  shall  descend  from 
heaven  on  earth  to  inaugurate  the  Messianic  reign  and 
thus  replace  the  ancient  kingdom  which  it  shall  far 
surpass  in'  grandeur  and  glory. 

To  Jewish  minds  the  Messianic  era,  in  this  re- 
newed world,  appeared  ^  as  a  period  of  peace  and 
happiness.  The  symbolic  and  highly  wrought  descrip- 
tions found  in  the  ancient  Prophets  certainly  enabled 
most  people  to  take  that  ideal  view  under  which 
was  represented  the  Golden  Age  of  the  Messiah. 
Henceforth,  no  more  wars,  nor  strifes,  nor  discords; 
but  rather  peace,  justice,  and  love  throughout  the 
earth.^  Even  the  wild  beasts,  now  that  they  have 
been  tamed,  will  be  at  man's  service.*  Everywhere 
there  shall  be  fertility,  abundance,  and  plenty.^  Every- 
one shall  enjoy  health  and  strength;  mothers  shall 
bear  children  without  sorrow ;  harvests  shall  be 
reaped  without  fatigue.^ 

Nevertheless,  this  Golden  Age  of  the  Messiah  is 
often  viewed  not  only  in  the  light  of  material  welfare, 
but  also  as  an  era  of  spiritual  prosperity,  of  moral 
holiness,  of  fervor  in  God's  service.  The  new  nation 
shall  be  a  holy  people.  Christ,  its  King,  will  allow  no 
injustice  within  its  domain ;  evil  shall  no  longer  dwell 
therein;  for  it  is  a  holy  people.^     Life  shall  be  one 

1  Apoc.  Baruch.  iv.  2-6 ;  4  Esdras  x.  44,  59, 

2  Hen.  liii.  6;  xc.  28  and  29;  cf.  4  Esdras  vii.  26;  Apoc.  Bar. 
xxxii.  4. 

^  Orac.  Sib.,  iii,  371-380;  751-760;  Philo  de  Praem.,  par.  16, 
vol.  ii,  422,  ed.  M. ;  Apoc.  Bar.  Ixxiii.  4-5;  cf.  Is.  ii.  4;  xi.  6, 
9;  Ix.  17;  Ixv.  19  and  25;  Ps.  Ixxii. 

*  Orac.  Sib.,  iii,  620-623,  743,  750 ;  Apoc.  Bar.  xxix.  5-8 ;  cf. 
Is.  xi.  6;  Ixv.  25, 

5  Philo,  De  Praem.,  par.  17-18,  vol.  ii,  428,  ed.  Mang. ;  Apoc. 
Bar.  Ixxiii.  2-7 ;  Ixxiv.  i ;  cf.  Is.  Iv.  20 ;  Ps.  Ixxii.  16. 

6  Psalt.  Solom.  xvii.  28-29;  xviii.  9  and  10;  cf.  Is.  Ix.  18-21; 
Lk.  xxiii.  35. 

''  Shemon.  Esreh.,  17th  Ber. ;  cf.  Lk.  i.  74  and  75. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  85 

constant  service  in  the  worship  of  God  who,  more 
than  before,  shall  be  worshiped  in  innocence  and  jus- 
tice. In  this  religious  renewal  the  Gentiles  shall  find 
a  place.  They,  too,  shall  become  subject  to  the 
Messiah.  Unto  His  light  they  shall  arise  from  their 
darkness.  From  every  nation  they  shall  offer  their 
homage  to  the  true  God;  their  gifts  and  victims  they 
shall  bring  to  His  sanctuary,  united  to  the  faith  of 
Israel  and  happy  therein.^ 

Nay  more,  a  yet  higher  idea  was  implied  in  this 
conception  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom.  Daniel  had 
represented  the  life  of  the  just  such  as  it  was  to  be 
after  the  resurrection  and  final  judgment  whereby 
their  lot  would  be  determined,  as  a  life  of  glory 
wherein  they  would  shine  like  stars  in  the  sky.  The 
Book  of  Wisdom  describes  how  it  is  that  they  shall 
find  their  recompense  with  the  Lord.  He  shall  repay 
them  magnificently  for  having  borne  the  slight  suffer- 
ings of  the  present  life.  Their  Lord  shall  reign  for- 
ever. Being  a  part  of  His  kingdom,  they  shall  be 
crowned  with  a  radiant  diadem:  they  shall  rule  over 
nations  as  conquerors.^  Under  the  same  aspect  also 
the  nobler  souls  picture  to  themselves  the  condition  of 
future  life  in  the  Messianic  Kingdom.  They  view  it 
chiefly  as  something  apart  from  earth  and  immaterial ; 
or,  rather,  as  a  spiritual  life  incomparably  exalted  and 
affording  the  intimate  enjoyment  of  God  and  the 
contemplation  of  His  glory.  Hence  the  place  of  this 
Messianic  Kingdom  was  not  likely  to  be  found  upon 
earth,  but  rather  in  an  ideal  sphere,  like  Eden,  the 
wondrous   Paradise.^     The   Kingdom  no  longer   was 

1  Hen.,  xlviii,  4 ;  cf.  Is.  ii.  2-4 ;  xi.  6,  10 ;  li.  4-5 ;  Ivi.  6-8 ; 
Ix.  i-ii;  Jer.  iii.  17;  Ps.  ii.  7;  xxii.  28;  Ixxii.  8. 

2  Dan.  xii.  2-3 ;  Wisd.  iii.  59 ;  v.  16 ;  cf.  2  Maccabees  vii.  z^, 

3  Apoc.  Bar.  Ixi.  3,  7-14;  4  Esdras  vi.  1-3,  68-72;  Bensly, 
The  Missing  Frag.,  pp.  55,  69;  Assum.  Mosis.  x.  9  and  10; 
Test.  12  Patr.  Dan.  v.:  The  Eden;  Test.  Levi:  The  Paradise, 
from  the  Persian:  pardes,  garden;  cf.  Lk.  xxiii.  43;  2  Cor. 
xii.  4;  Apoc,  ii,  7. 


86  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

viewed  in  its  origin  and  starting-point,  but  also  in 
its  destination  and  final  abode,  as  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven.  Indeed,  its  joy  was  thought  to  be  unfailing 
and  eternal.  The  Prophets  had  promised  Israel  that 
God  would  make  it  dwell  in  the  Land  always ;  that  the 
throne  of  David  would  endure  forever.  Daniel  had 
called  the  Kingdom  granted  to  the  saints  of  the  Most 
High  an  eternal  Kingdom  and  had  shown  the  risen 
saints  as  shining  like  brilliant  stars  until  the  end  of 
ages.  Hence  the  popular  idea  that  the  Messianic  King- 
dom would  never  end.  In  this  sense,  then,  did  the 
Jews  answer  Jesus :  "  We  have  heard  out  of  the  Law 
that  Christ  abideth  forever."  ^ 

Thus  did  the  Jews,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  regard 
the  Messianic  Kingdom.  It  should  be  noted,  however, 
that  they  did  not  all  attempt  to  assign  the  origin  of 
the  expected  Kingdom  only  at  the  general  resurrec- 
tion and  last  judgment.  Many  saw  it  already  real- 
ized, even  in  its  totality,  before  that  event.  They  be- 
lieved that  its  earthly  duration  was  to  be  limited,  that 
it  was  to  be  absorbed  after  the  final  judgment  in  a 
yet  grander  era  of  heavenly  happiness.  Thus,  the 
royal  reign  of  the  Messiah  is  said  to  last  "  to  the  end 
of  this  corruptible  world  " ;  and  again  "  until  the  end 
Cometh,  the  day  of  judgment."  Christ's  reign  was 
supposed  to  last  for  the  space  of  400  years,  as  we 
find  in  one  text  of  the  Talmud;  while,  elsewhere  in 
the  same  work,  it  is  supposed  to  last  for  1000  years. 
This  interval  of  four  hundred  years,  by  the  way,  seems 
to  answer  to  the  duration  of  the  Jewish  servitude  in 
Egypt.  Hence  while  most  people  regarded  the 
Messiah  as  immortal,  others,  who  believed  that 
His  reign  would  be  of  a  limited  duration,  said  that  He 


1  Jer.  xxiv.  6;  Ez.  xxxvii.  25;  Ps.  xlv.  7;  Ixxxix.  30;  Dan. 
vii.  27 :  malcout  olam ;  Dan.  xii.  2  and  3 ;  Orac.  Sib.,  iii,  49-50, 
766;  Psalt.  Solom.  xvii.  4;  Hen.  Ixii.  14;  Jo.  xii.  34;  cf.  Targ. 
Jonath.,  in  Is.  ix.  6:  Man  abiding  forever:  the  Messiah. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  87 

would  die  like  other  men  at  the  close  of  the  Messianic 
era  and  before  the  final  resurrection/ 

The  Suffering  Servant.— Did  they  go  a  step 
further  and  even  conclude  that  the  Messiah  was 
to  die  before  His  Kingdom  had  been  established 
fully  and  that  He  would  die  in  order  to  found  it? 
This  view  is  forcibly  suggested  by  Isaiah.  The  lat- 
ter part  of  his  prophecy  represents  the  Servant  of 
Jaweh  as  expiating,  by  His  sufferings,  the  iniquities 
of  His  people,  and  as  being  recompensed  by  God  for 
having  offered  His  life  as  an  atoning  sacrifice.  More- 
over, the  Jewish  traditions  held  that  this  Servant  of 
the  Eternal  could  be  none  other  than  the  Messiah. 
Thus,  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  interpreted  of  the 
Messiah  the  first  verses  of  the  passage  relating  to 
His  triumph  and  glory :  "  Behold,  my  Servant  cometh, 
the  Messiah.  He  shall  be  exalted  and  extolled,  and 
shall  be  exceeding  high."  Of  this  text,  Abarbanel 
says :  '*  Jonathan,  son  of  Uzziel,  has  applied  this  pas- 
sage to  the  Messiah  who  was  to  come,  and  this  is 
also  the  opinion  of  our  scholars  of  happy  memory."  ^ 

So  strong,  however,  was  the  hope  in  a  Messiah 
Triumphant  that  the  exclusive  view  of  His  power  and 
grandeur  tended  to  set  aside,  as  not  applying  to  Him, 
every  idea  of  suffering  and  humiliation.  So  that 
the  same  Targum,  which  so  clearly  beheld  Christ  in 
the  Glorious  Servant,  does  not  discern  Him  in  the 
Suffering  Servant ,  it  interprets  the  remainder  of  the 
text  as  referring  to  the  Jewish  people,  not  carmg  for 
the  want  of  logic  implied  in  such  a  misinterpretation 
of  the  text  itself. 

Among  modern  critics,  there  are  some,  like  Budde 
and  Marti,  who  interpret  the  whole  text  as  referring 

1  Apoc.  Baruch.  xl.  3;  4  Esdras  xii.  34;  vii.  28  and  29; 
Targ.  Sanhed.,  99a ;  cf.  Gen.  xv.  13 ;  Ps.  xc.  15 ;  Targ.  San- 
hed.,  97a;  cf.  Apoc.  xx.  4-6;  Jo.  xii.  34;  4  Esdr.  vii,  28  and  29. 

2  Ps.  xxii ;  Dan,  x^vi ;  Is,  Hi,  13  and  15. 


88  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

to  the  Jewish  People,  the  nation  being  personified  in 
the  Suffering  Servant.  Cheyne  thinks  that  this  per- 
sonage represents  a  chosen  portion  of  the  people,  the 
upper  classes  of  Israel.  Bertholet  perceives  in  him 
a  type,  the  type  of  the  doctor  of  the  law.  But  a 
larger  number  of  critics  insist  upon  the  individual  and 
personal  character  of  this  Servant.  Sellin,  for  in- 
stance, identifies  Him  with  Zorobabbel,  and  then  with 
Joakim.  Kittel  believes  Him  to  be  a  real,  historical 
personage,  perhaps  Zorobabbel  or  the  like.  Duhm 
suppose  him  to  be  an  unknown  doctor  of  the  law,  a 
martyr  of  zeal  for  the  pastoral  education  of  His  peo- 
ple. So  that,  the  traditional  Messianic  interpretation 
favors  the  individual  character  of  the  Suffering  Ser- 
vant of  the  Lord.^ 

Hence  we  see  how,  under  the  influence  of  the 
learned  Jews,  the  crowd  that  surrounded  Christ,  and 
especially  the  Apostles  disliked  to  be  told  of  the 
Messiah's  sufferings  and  approaching  death.  When 
Jesus  had  spoken  to  the  people  about  His  crucifixion, 
they  replied  that  they  had  been  taught  He  would  abide 
forever;  and  when  He  had  thus  spoken  to  His 
Apostles,  they  also  were  surprised  and  indignant  at 
the  idea.^ 

But  we  must  not  imagine  that  this  ofiicial  teaching 
of  the  Synagogue  was  forced  upon  everyone.  Many 
persons  who,  like  the  Eunuch  of  the  Queen  of  Can- 
dace,  had  been  aroused  by  the  strangely  vivid  grandeur 
of  the  53rd  chapter  of  Isaiah  must  have  thought  of  the 
Messianic  sense  of  this  text  and  felt  inclined  to  ac- 

1  Budde,  Die  Sogen.  Ebed.  Jeweh-Lieder,  1900 ;  Marti,  Der 
Buck  Jesaia,  1900;  Cheyne,  Jewish  Ret.  Life,  American  Lec- 
tures, 1898;  art.:  Servant  of  the  Lord,  E.  B.,  cal.  4409;  David- 
son, Old  Testament  Prophecy,  1904;  Bertholet,  Zu  Jesaja^  53, 
1899;  Sellin,  Serubabbet,  1898;  art.:  Studien  zur  Entsuchung. 
der  Jud.  Gemeinde,  1901 ;  Kittel,  Zur  Theol.  des  A.  T.,  1899; 
Duhm,  Da6  Buch  Jesaia,  1892,  2d  ed.,  1902,  in  Handkom,  Z. 
A.   T.   (Nowack). 

2  Jo,  xii.  32-34;  Mk,  viii.  31-33;  ix.  30-31, 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  89 

cept  the  idea  of  a  Suffering  Messiah  and  Redeemer. 
The  idea  of  a  Messiah  who  would  expiate  for  sin  by 
His  sufferings,  such  as  the  prophet  apparently  had 
announced,  was  certainly  admitted  by  the  scholarly 
Jews  of  the  second  century  after  Christ,  and  it  seems 
difficult  to  ascribe  this  belief  only  to  the  influence  of 
the  New  Revelation  and  to  the  efforts  of  Christian 
Apologists.^ 

Thus  S.  Justin  says :  "  If  we  show  to  the  Jews  the 
number  of  Scripture  texts  that  clearly  prove  that  the 
jNIessiah  was  to  suffer,  they  must  admit  that  such  texts 
are  Messianic ;  they  maintain,  however,  that  this  Jesus 
is  not  the .  Messiah."  And  the  Jew  Trypho  re- 
plied :  "  That  Christ  should  suffer,  and  that  the  Scrip- 
tures affirm  this,  is  quite  plain."  And  he  added,  as 
regards  the  text  of  Isaiah :  "  We  know  that  he  will 
suffer  and  shall  be  led  as  a  lamb."  ^ 

The  Talmud,  also,  affords  evidence  of  the  same 
opinion.  The  ancient  Rabbis  gave  many  reasons  to  the 
Messiah,  such  as  "  the  Suffering,"  or  "  the  Afflicted." 
These  latter  terms  agree  with  the  text  of  Isaiah  c.  liii. 
4.  The  word  "  nagoua,"  that  is,  stricken,  or  afflicted, 
or  chastized  by  God,  is  also  applied  to  leprosy,  viewed 
as  a  divine  chastisement.  The  Rabbi  Joses  of  Galilee, 
who  lived  in  the  time  of  Trypho,  says  that  "  the 
Messiah-King  will  be  humbled  and  made  an  object  of 
scorn  for  the  sake  of  the  rebels,  for  it  is  written; 
'  He  hath  been  stricken  for  our  iniquities.'  How 
much  more  shall  He  atone  for  all  generations,  ac- 
cording to  the  saying :  '  The  Lord  hath  placed  upon 
Him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.' "  Similarly,  in  the 
treatise,  Sanhedrin,  of  the  Talmud,  the  Messiah  is 
represented  sitting  at  one  of  the  gates  of  Rome,  and 
binding  and  unbinding  his  wounds.^ 

1  Acts  viii.  28-35. 

2  S.  Justin,  Dial.,  c.  Ixviii ;  cc.  Ixxxix  and  xv. 

^  Tr.  San.,  98b :  houlia,  i.  e.,  "  sick  " ;  also  interpreted,  hiv- 
vara,  i.  e.,  "  leprous  "  Is.  liii.  4;  cf.  the  noun,  nega,  z,  e.,  stroke, 
phastisement,  leper,  leprous.     Cf.  Tr.  San.  98a, 


90 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


Pre-existence. — The  Messiah,  therefore,  in  the 
popular  expectancy,  was  a  Man-Messiah,  born  among 
men  and  sharing  all  human  conditions,  even  though  He 
was  divinely  endowed  with  special  gifts  and  powers. 
But  was  there  not  a  far  nobler  idea  beyond  this? 
Did  not  most  people,  without  losing  hold  on  their 
conviction  of  His  human  nature,  get  a  glimpse  of  a 
supernatural  element  in  His  being,  of  a  transcendent 
personality  that  tended  to  enhance  human  nature  in 
Him,  to  draw  it  closer  to  the  divinity,  perhaps  to 
identify  Him  with  the  divinity?  This  question  can- 
not be  answered  precisely  and  with  full  certainty. 
Why?  Because  the  writings  that  might  give  us  the 
elements,  at  least,  of  a  solution  are  of  a  somewhat 
uncertain  date.  Besides,  we  cannot  determine  exactly 
whether  they  depend,  or  not,  upon  the  influence  of 
Christian  revelation.  But,  probably,  as  we  learn  from 
many  reliable  documents,  at  the  dawn  of  the  Christian 
era,  people  were  inclined  to  ascribe  to  Christ  a  pre- 
existence  in  heaven  before  His  earthly  appearance  on 
earth,  as  also  to  give  to  Him  the  tribute  of  an  almost 
supernal  and  superhuman  personality. 

The  Prophet  Micheas,  in  announcing  that  the  ruler 
of  Israel  should  arise  from  Bethlehem,  had  also  de- 
scribed His  origin  as  from  the  beginning,  from  the 
days  of  eternity.  Tradition,  perceiving  in  this  text 
the  prediction  of  the  birth  of  the  Messiah-King, 
the  Son  of  David,  was  naturally  led  to  determine  the 
question  of  His  eternal  origin,  which  it  endeavored  to 
harmonize  with  His  birth  in  the  course  of  time.  The 
Targum  of  Jonathan  is  content  to  give  this  less  pre- 
cise commentary :  "  From  Thee,  O  Bethlehem,  shall 
come  forth  unto  me  the  Messiah,  the  ruler  of  Israel, 
whose  name  had  been  uttered  from  the  beginning, 
from  the  days  of  eternity."  ^ 

The  like  terms  are  found  in  the  symbolic  discourses 

1  Mich,  V.  12 ;  Targ.  Jonathan,  in  Zach,  iy.  J, 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  91 

of  the  Book  of  Enoch ;  but  they  are  clearly  explained  by 
the  author  as  referring  to  a  real  pre-existence  of  the 
Messiah  with  God  before  His  earthly  appearance,  and 
before  the  creation  of  all  things.  His  name  had  been 
uttered  in  presence  of  the  Lord  of  Spirits,  before  the 
sun  and  the  planets  were  created,  before  the  stars 
existed.  Prior  to  His  earthly  advent,  He  was  hidden 
and  guarded  within  the  being  of  God :  the  world  was 
not  as  yet,  when  He  was  already  the  Elect  of  God, 
chosen  and  reserved  by  Him ;  and  He  shall  be  w^ith 
Him  for  all  eternity.^ 

"A  personal  existence  of  the  Messiah,  celestial 
though  not  premundane,  is  taught  in  Enoch,"  says 
Dalman.  "  The  statements  as  to  pre-existence  in  the 
Similitudes  of  Enoch  and  of  IV  Esdras,  moreover,  do 
not  presuppose  any  human  birth  of  the  Messiah.  He 
is  to  make  His  appearance  upon  earth  as  a  fully  de- 
veloped personality."  He  thinks  that  Enoch  xliii.  6, 
which  mentions  a  premundane  existence  is  an  inter- 
polation.^ 

Charles  and  Flemming,  however,  do  not  at  all  sug- 
gest such  interpolation.^  While  Schiirer  says :  *'  The 
Messiah,  the  perfect  King  of  Israel,  chosen  by  God 
from  eternity,  is  in  Heaven,  already  in  communion 
with  God.'  *  And  Holtzmann  remarks  :  "We  find  there 
the  same  wavering  between  the  real  and  the  ideal  pre- 
existence  that  generally  characterizes  the  whole 
opinion  of  later  Judaism  about  His  pre-existence."  ® 
Baldensperger,  too,  asserts  that  after  the  apparition  of 
the  parables  of  Enoch,  "  the  heavenly  pre-existence  of 

1  Hen.  xlviii.  3 ;  xlvi.  i  and  2 ;  Hi.  7 ;  xlviii.  6. 

2  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  131. 

3  Charles,  The  Book  of  Enoch,  1893,  p.  134;  Flemming, 
Das  Buck  Henoch,  p.  70. 

*  Schiirer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  xxi,  p.  503. 

5  Holtzmann,  H.,  Lehrb.  d.  N.  T.  TheoL,  vol.  i,  p.  75. 


92  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  Messiah  was  received  as  "a  dogma  in  the  apocalyp- 
tic circles."  ^ 

The  IV  Book  of  Esdras  puts  the  matter  in  no  less 
formal  terms :  "  We  behold  the  Messiah  whom  the 
Most  High  reserves  until  the  end.  ...  It  is  He  whom 
the  Most  High  guards  for  a  long  time.  .  .  .  None 
can  fathom  nor  know  what  lies  in  the  depths  of  the 
sea;  so  none  on  earth  can  see  the  Son  of  God  nor 
those  who  are  with  him  until  the  Judgment  day."  ^ 

Probably,  the  influence  of  Christian  ideas  is  trace- 
able in  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  in  the  IV  Book  of 
Esdras,  although  they  are  of  Jewish  origin.  Still  we 
may  safely  admit  that  the  Jewish  pre-Christian  tradi- 
tion borrowed  this  point  of  doctrine  from  the  data 
furnished  by  the  Old  Law  itself. 

The  teaching  of  Tradition,  -  as  we  have  seen, 
depends  upon  the  certainly  remarkable  text  of  the 
Prophet  Micheas.  But  we  may  ask  if  it  may  not 
also  have  some  foundation  in  the  famous  text  of  the 
Prophet  Daniel  concerning  the  Son  of  Man?  This 
seemingly  human  personage,  who  is  "  like  unto  a  son 
of  man,"  or  "  to  a  man,"  who  receives  from  the 
Ancient  of  Days,  that  is,  the  Eternal  God,  power  and 
dominion  over  the  earth  for  a  universal  and  endless 
reign,  is  seen  to  be,  if  we  interpret  the  text  strictly, 
the  personification  of  all  Israel,  of  that  race  of  "  saints 
of  the  Most  High,"  while  the  pagan  kingdoms,  hostile 
to  the  true  God,  are  represented  under  the  form  of 
four  beasts.  The  Angel,  however,  reminds  us  that 
the  Four  Beasts  represent  not  only  the  pagan  nations 
but  also  the  Kings  of  the  four  pagan  empires.  This 
analogy  led  people  to  think  that  the  Son  of  Man  rep- 
resents the  King  of  the  new  empire,  the  founder  and 
sovereign  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  the  Messiah ; 
while  all  the  saints  of  the  Most  High  share  in  His 

1  Baldensperger,  Das  Selbstbewust.  Jesu.,  26.  ed.,  p.  85,  1892. 

2  4  Esdras  xii.  $2 ;  xiii.  24  and  25. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  93 

glory  and  rejoice,  under  His  sway,  in  the  new  royalty 
that  is  without  limit  and  without  end. 

It  should  be  noted,  by  the  way,  that  the  term  '*  Son 
of  Man,"  in  the  Semitic  languages,  and  especially 
in  the  Old  Testament  phraseology,  is  synonymous  with 
the  word  "  Man."  In  the  poetic  passages,  and  as  a 
result  of  the  parallehsm,  it  seems  to  correspond  to 
the  word  "  Man  "  and  to  be  its  equivalent.  Apart 
from  this  view-point  of  parallelism,  it  is  also  em- 
ployed as  the  synonym  for  "  Man ''  about  eighty 
times  in  the  Prophecy  of  Ezechiel.^ 

In  fact,  the  Book  of  Enoch,  throughout  its  alle- 
gorical discourses,  calls  the  Messiah  the  "  Son  of 
Man."  This  title,  be  it  noted,  was  not  usually  ap- 
plied to  the  Messiah :  it  implied  such  humiliation  that 
it  was  allowed  to  fall  into  disuse.  Hence  we  can  ac- 
count for  the  surprise  caused  by  the  Saviour's  use  of 
this  title.  Yet,  we  may  admit  that,  for  some  time  be- 
fore the  Christian  era,  it  had  been  given  to  the 
Messiah,  and  especially  so  by  the  author  of  the  Book 
of  Enoch.  The  prominence  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Christian  Era  and  the  tradition- 
ally Messianic  character  of  its  seventh  chapter,  must 
have  naturally  connected  the  title  "  Son  of  Man  "  with 
the  Messiah-King.  The  same  text  of  Daniel  repre- 
sents the  Son  of  Man  as  coming  in  the  clouds  of 
heaven,  escorted  by  angels  before  the  throne  of  God, — 
to  be  invested  with  His  supreme  royalty.  Naturally 
enough.  He  who  seemed  to  thus  descend  upon  the 
clouds  of  heaven,  must  have  pre-existed  before 
His  earthly  advent.  It  would,  therefore,  seem  that 
the  Christian  ideas  had  not  influenced  Jewish  Tradi- 
tion concerning  the  pre-existence  of  the  Messiah  m 
heaven,  unless  it  were  perhaps  to  give  a  decisive  scope 

1  Dan.  vii.  13  and  14;  Num.  xxiii.  19;  Job  xvi.  22;  xxv.  6; 
Ps.  viii.  5;  cxliii.  3:  Is.  li.  12;  Ivi.  2;  Ecclus.  xvii.  29;  Dan. 
viii.  17;  vii.  17:  the  Hebrew  text  has  melakin,  i.  e.,  the  kings; 
the  Vulgate  reads :  regna,  i.  e.,  kingdoms. 


94  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

and  a  full  relief  to  the  ideas  already  imbibed  by  many 
persons  from  the  Old  Testament  writings,  and  es- 
pecially from  the  Prophecies  of  Micheas  and  Daniel. 
We  may  also  perceive  a  formal  allusion  to  this  idea 
of  Christ's  pre-existence  in  the  Jews'  remark  about 
the  Saviour:  "When  Christ  shall  come,  none  shall 
know  whence  He  is."  ^ 

Loisy  says  that  according  to  a  tradition,  "  the 
Messiah  was  to  appear  unexpectedly,  none  being 
aware  whence  He  came.  This  has  been  the  actually 
current  tradition,  it  agrees  fully  with  the  idea  of 
the  Messiah  pre-existing  in  heaven  and  awaiting  the 
moment  of  His  earthly  manifestation  such  as  we 
behold  Him  perhaps  in  Daniel,  and  certainly  in  the 
Book  of  Enoch  as  also  in  the  IV  Book  of  Esdras."  ^ 

Some  critics  believe  that  the  traditional  interpreta- 
tion agrees  with  the  sense  of  the  text  of  the  Prophet 
Daniel.  Thus,  Boehmer  says  that  the  Son  of  Man: 
mentioned  by  Daniel  is  the  Messiah  who  is  pre- 
existing in  heaven  and  awaiting  the  time  of  His 
earthly  manifestation.^  Volz,  also,  sees  the  Messiah 
in  the  personage  called  the  "  Son  of  A'lan."  *  Bousset 
remarks  the  mysterious  character  of  this  title  and 
shows  that,  in  Jewish  circles,  it  had  assumed  a  great: 
significance.^  Baldensperger,  also,  perceives  therein 
the  germ,  afterwards  developed  by  Judaism,  of  the 
heavenly,  pre-existent  Messiah.^  While  Lagrange 
remarks  that  the  term,  found  in  an  unusual  con- 
text, is  suggestive  and  that  the  individual  inter- 
pretation   is    the    most    probable,    namely,    that    the 

iHen.  xlvi.  2,  3,  4;  xlyiii.  2;  xlii.  5,  7,  9,  14;  Ixiii.  11;  Ixix. 
27  and  29;  Ixx.  i;  Jo.  vii.  27)  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  240. 

2  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  p.  510,  1903. 

3  Boehmer,  Reich  Gottes  und  Mensch.,  1899. 
*  Volz,  Jiid.  Eschatologie,  1903. 

5  Bousset,  Die  Rel.  des  Juden.,  1903. 

®  Baldensperger,  Die  Mess.  Apok.  Hoffnungen.,  1903. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  95 

Messiah,  as  one  distinct  from  the  people,  is  inckided 
in  the  spiritual  empire  of  which  He  is  the  King.^ 
Admitting  that  he  was  pre-existing  in  Heaven  with 
God,  in  what  relation,  exactly,  did  the  Messiah  stand 
with  reference  to  God?  Was  he  a  mere  creature,  al- 
though more  excellent  than  the  others,  or  was  he  par- 
ticipating in  some  way  in  the  very  Being  of  God? 

The  Jewish  Tradition,  remarkably  enough,  seems 
to  have  given  to  the  ^lessiah,  before  Christ's  earthly 
appearance,  the  title  "  Son  of  God."  It  is  to  be  found 
in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  and  in  the  IV  Book  of  Esdras, 
as  also  in  the  Sibylline  Oracles  of  the  Jewish  Sibyl.^ 

As  the  Gospel  text  seems  to  show,  by  the  Jews 
of  Christ's  time,  and  apart  from  His  statements,  the 
^lessiah  was  already  regarded  as  the  Son  of  God.^  In 
fact,  numerous  texts  of  the  Old  Law  present  this 
title  and  these  are  referred,  by  Tradition,  to  the  ex- 
pected Messiah-King.  Did  not  the  people  refer  to 
Christ  the  Psalmist's  words  in  the  second  psalm? 

To  fully  understand  the  exact  bearing  of  the  Mes- 
sianic title  and  the  meaning  which  it  must  have  had  to 
a  Jew  of  Christ's  time,  we  should  interpret  it  in  the 
light  of  the  genius  of  the  Jewish  language  and  the 
literary  usage  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  Semitic 
languages,  and  especially  in  that  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  word  "  son  "  has  not  the  precise  and  re- 
stricted meaning  which  it  bears  in  our  Western 
tongues.  Beyond  its  proper  sense,  it  also  has  figura- 
tive and  wider  meanings.  The  term  "  sonship "  is 
used    to    indicate    every    close    relation,    physical    or 

1  Lagrange,  art. :  Les  Propheties  Mess,  de  Daniel,  Rev.  Bib., 
1904,  p.  505. 

2  Hen.  cv.  2 ;  4  Esdr.  vii.  28  and  29 ;  xiii.  s^,  37,  52 ;  xiv.  9 ; 
Orac.  Sib.,  iii,  775;  the  text  reads:  vl6v  GfoZo;  but  has  been 
corrected  by  Alexandre  thus :  ^7701;  Qeo'io. 

3  Jo.  i.  48;  vi.  70;  xi.  27;  Mt.  xvi.  16;  Mk.  xiv.  61 ;  Mt.  xxvii. 
46;  Ac.  ix.  20  and  22;  Ps.  ii.  2,  7,  8,  12;  cf.  Targ.,  in  Ps.  ii; 
Ac.  iv.  25-27;  cf.  Ps.  Ixxxix.  27-30;  2  Sam.  vii.  14. 


96  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

moral,  every  intimate  connection  of  origin,  dependence, 
and  affection  analogous  to  the  relationship  between 
father  and  son.  Thus,  physically  speaking,  the 
arrow  is  called  "  son  of  the  bow,"  or  "  son  of  the 
quiver  " ;  the  spark,  "  daughter  of  flame  " ;  the  grain  of 
corn,  "  son  of  the  floor  " ;  an  anointed  person,  "  son 
of  oil " ;  a  person  worthy  of  death,  or  threatened 
therewith,  ''  son  of  death."  ^  Morally  viewed,  the 
disciples  of  the  Prophets  are  called  "  sons  of  the 
Prophets  " ;  while  evil  persons,  or  those  under  dia- 
bolical influence  are  called  ''  sons  of  Belial."  ^ 

In  the  New  Testament,  we  find  the  like  Hebraisms. 
The  descendants  of  sinful  Adam  are  called  ''  sons  of 
wrath ;  the  false  prophets,  ''  sons  of  malediction  " ; 
Judas,  the  *' son  of  perdition,"  as  is  also  Antichrist; 
the  damned,  ''  sons  of  gehenna."  Christ  calls  the 
Jews  ''  sons  of  the  devil,"  as  does  also  S.  Paul  call 
the  magician  Elymas,  and  S.  John  when  distinguish- 
ing sinners  from  the  children  of  God.  On  the  other 
hand,  Christ  calls  the  Apostles  "  my  sons  " ;  as  also 
SS.  Paul  and  John  their  respective  disciples.^ 

In  the  Old  Testament,  where  the  expression  "  son 
of  God  "  often  occurs,  the  word  "  son  "  has  a  varied 
and  general  sense.  It  designates  whatever  has  a 
special  relationship  with  God,  close  and  intimate, 
whether  of  origin,  dependence,  or  moral  and  affective 
union.  The  Angels,  in  particular,  are  called  "  sons 
of  God,"  because  they  are  especially  near  to  God  and 
by  their  nature  closely  related  to  Him.  Saintly  people 
who  serve  God  as  a  father  and  whom  God  regards 

ijob  xli.  19;  Lamen.  iii.  13;  Job  v.  7;  Is.  xxi.  10;  Zach.  iv. 
14;  I  Sam.  x:c.  31;  2  Sam.  xii.  5;  Ps.  Ixxix.  11;  cii.  21. 

2  I  Kings  XX.  35 ;  2  Kings  ii.  3,  5,  7 ;  iv.  38 ;  cf.  Exod.  ii.  10 ; 
Prov.  i.  10;  Deut.  xiii.  13;  Judith  xix.  22;  i  Sam.  ii.  12. 

3  Eph.  ii.  3;  2  Pet.  ii.  14;  Jo.  xvii.  12;  2  Thess.  ii.  3;  Mt. 
xxiii.  15;  Jo.  viii.  44;  Ac.  xiii.  10;  i  Ep.  Jo.  iii.  10;  Mk.  x.  24; 
Jo.  xiii.  ZZ\  Gal.  iv.  9;  i  Ep.  Jo.  ii.  i;  xii.  18,  28;  iii.  7,  18; 
iv.  4;  V.  21. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


97 


as  His  sons  are  also  styled  "  sons  of  God."  The 
giants,  apparently  are  also  called  the  ''  sons  of  God." 
Such  terms,  moreover,  as  "  mountain  of  God,"  "  cedars 
of  God,"  ''  garden  of  God  "  are  worthy  of  note  by 
way  of  comparison.^  Thus  it  is  that  the  Israelites,  the 
especially  chosen  and  cherished  people  of  Jehovah  are 
called  the  "  sons  of  God,"  and  that  Israel  receives,  in 
the  singular  number,  the  title  "  son,"  and  ''  first-born 
Son  of  God."  ^ 

This  title,  finally,  is  naturally  transferred  from  the 
people  as  such  and  given,  in  a  special  way,  to  their 
chief.  All  kings,  princes,  and  judges  of  the  land  are 
called  "  sons  of  God,"  as  holding  their  authority  from 
God  and  sharing  somewhat  in  His  power  and  func- 
tions. Just  as  the  Chinese  call  their  Emperor  "  tian- 
tseu,"  or  ''  son  of  heaven  " ;  a  title  also  given  to  the 
kings  of  Assyria  and  Egypt.  But  the  king  of  Israel, 
the  theocratic  sovereign,  the  official  vicar  of  Jehovah, 
merits  this  title  in  a  special  manner  because  of  His 
relationship  with  God.  Of  all  kings  soever,  he  is 
God's  "  First-born  Son,"  the  object  of  His  predilection 
and  of  His  special  favors.^ 

If,  then,  the  Old  Testament  literature  displays  such 
a  large  usage  of  the  title  "  son  of  God,"  we  can  see 
how  this  appellation  could  be  given  to  the  Messiah 
and  what  meaning  it  had  in  Jewish  minds  during  the 
first  century  of  Christianity. 

The  Messiah  was  the  "  Son  of  God  "  because  He 
was  destined  to  be  in  a  special  sense,  the  King  of 
Israel,  the  Elect,  the  representative  and  lieutenant  of 
God.       He  is  entitled  "  the  Elect "  in  the  Book  of 

1  Job  i.  6;  ii.  i;  xxxviii.  7;  Ps.  Ixxxix.  7;  Ecclus.  iv.  11; 
Wisd.  ii.  13;  cf.  Ps.  Ixxiii.  15;  Prov.  xiv.  26;  Gen.  vi.  2,  4. 

2  Deut.  xiv.  I,  2;  Is.  xliii.  6;  Wisd.  ix.  7,  12,  19,  21;  xviii.  4; 
cf.  Is.  i.  2;  XXX.  I,  9;  Jerem.  iii.  14,  19;  Osee  ii.  i;  Exod.  iv. 
22,  23;  Ps.  Ixxx.  16,  18;  Osee  xi.  i;  Jerem.  xxxi.  20. 

3  Ps.  Ixxxii.  6 ;  cf.  Ps.  Ixxxix.  28 ;  Dahnan,  op.  cit.,  p.  275 ; 
2  Sam.  vii.  14;  Ps.  ii.  7,  11;  Ixxxix.  27,  28. 

7 


98  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Enoch.  In  Him  was  to  be  consummated  the  glory 
of  the  ancient  kings  of  Israel.  He  it  was  who  should 
rule  the  ideal  kingdom  of  the  Messianic  future,  the 
eternal  kingdom  of  God.^  The  title,  "  Son  of  God," 
therefore,  answers  particularly  to  the  Jewish  idea  of 
the  Elect  of  God,  as  also  to  the  idea  of  His  close  and 
personal  relations  with  God.  He  was  the  "  Son  of 
God "  because  He  was  eminently  the  Man  of  God, 
sharing  in  a  special  manner  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
uniquely  endowed  with  His  holiness,  grandeur,  and 
power.  The  Book  of  Enoch  thus  describes  Him: 
"  His  look  is  like  that  of  a  man ;  but  He  is  full  of 
grace  as  one  of  the  holy  angels.  It  is  He  who  pos- 
sesses right,  with  whom  justice  dwells,  and  who  re- 
veals all  hidden  treasures ;  because  the  Lord  of  Spirits 
has  chosen  Him,  and  because  of  His  righteousness  He 
ever  rules  all  that  exists  in  sight  of  the  Lord  of 
Spirits.  .  .  .  His  glory  is  from  eternity  to  eternity: 
His  power  from  generation  to  generation.  In  Him 
dwells  the  Spirit  of  Wisdom ;  the  spirit  of  Him  who 
giveth  knowledge ;  the  spirit  of  teaching  and  of  power ; 
the  spirit  of  those  who  die  in  justice ;  He  shall  judge 
secret  things,  and  none  shall  hold  vain  discourse  be- 
fore Him  for  He  has  been  chosen  by  the  Lord  of 
Spirits  at  His  good-pleasure."  ^ 

"  The  author  of  the  Symbolic  Discourses,"  says 
Holtzmann, ''  has  imparted  to  the  figure  of  the  Messiah 
a  transcendent  character  which  exceeds  the  narrow- 
ness of  earthly  conditions ;  so  that  He  keeps  in  touch 
with  all  the  peculiar  features  of  New  Testament 
Judaism,  with  its  thought  and  feeling  which  surpasses 
the  reality."  ^ 

The  Messiah,  however,  was  surely  something  more 

1  Hen.  xliv.  3,  4;  xlix.  2;  li.  3,  5,;  Hi.  6,  9;  liii.  6;  Iv.  4;  Ixi. 
8;  Ixii.  i;  Lk.  xxiii.  35 ;  Hen.  xlvi.  i,  2. 

2  Hen.  xlix.  2,  4;  Schiirer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  503. 

3  Holtzmann,  H.,  Lehrb.  N.  T.  TheoL,  vol.  i,  p.  75. 


"THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  99 

than  a  creature  very  near  to  God  and  especially  privi- 
leged among  created  beings.  The  title  "  Son  of  God," 
although  itself  implying  a  simple  divine  sonship  of 
a  metaphoric  and  figurative  kind,  in  some  way,  when 
applied  to  the  Messiah,  begat  the  idea  of  a  sonship 
even  more  intimate  and  more  real.  The  text  of  the 
Prophet  Micheas,  for  instance,  seems  suggestive;  for 
it  describes  the  Messiah's  origin  which  is  said  "  to  go 
back  to  ancient  times,  to  the  days  of  eternity.'*  But 
was  He  a  mere  creature  only.  He  who  could  thus  lay 
claim  to  an  eternal  origin?  Isaiah,  also,  was  known 
to  have  given  unusual  names  to  the  Messiah.  Not 
only  is  He  called  "Admirable,  Counsellor,  Prince  of 
Peace,"  but  also  ■"  Mighty  God,"  "  Eternal  Father," 
and  even  '"'  Emmanuel,"  that  is,  God  with  us.^ 

Was  there  not,  finally,  a  tendency  to  estabhsh  a 
relation  between  the  Messiah,  God's  Envoy,  and  this 
species  of  divine  hypostasis,  of  reflection  of  the 
Divinity,  known  as  the  "Angel  of  Jaweh,"  the  "  Wis- 
dom,'' or,  the  "Word  of  God?  The  "Angel  of 
Jaweh  "  frequently  mentioned  in  the  Books  of  Genesis 
and  Exodus,  was  believed  to  be  a  person  both  distinct 
from  God,  whose  messenger  and  ambassador  he  was, 
as  the  word  mal'ak  implies,  and  at  the  same  time 
identical  with  God  whom  He  represents  equivalently 
and  whose  name  he  assumes.^ 

The  Sapiential  Books  seem  to  have  given  to  "Wisdom 
the  same  character  of  a  divine,  quasi-hypostasis.  Wis- 
dom appears  as  a  mysterious  intermediary  of  God  in 
the  work  of  creating  the  world  and  of  dealing  with 
men.  Wisdom  is  the  artisan  who  performs  the 
creative   work.     It    has    been    imparted    to    men   by 

1  Is.  ix.  5;  vii.  14;  viii.  8,  10. 

2  Gen.  xxiv.  4;  Num.  xx.  16;  Ex.  xxiii.  20;  xxxlii.  2,  3; 
Is.  Ixiii.  9;  Gen.  xxii.  12;  xxxi.  11,  12;  xxxii.  28;  xlviii.  15, 
16;  Judith  vi.  11-23;  Ex.  xiii.  21;  xiv.  19,  2^',  Davidson,  art.: 
Angel,  H.  D.,  p.  94;  Reynolds,  art.:  John,  Gospel  of,  H.  D., 
p.  704;  Piepenbring,  Theol.  de  I'Anc.  Test.,  1886,  p.  128. 


lOO  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL     ■ 

means  of  human  science,  and,  above  all,  to  Israel  by 
the  revelation  of  the  Law.  Wisdom  existed  in  God 
before  the  origin  of  the  world,  sitting  beside  Him  on 
His  throne  like  a  divine  ambassador.  It  is  a  most 
pure  emanation,  an  image  most  perfect,  a  kind  of 
radiation  of  the  divinity.^ 

A  striking  analogy  to  the  Logos,  or  Divine  Reason, 
mentioned  in  Greek  philosophy  is  observable  in  this 
"  Wisdom  of  God,"  or  ''  Hokmah  "  described  by  the 
sacred  writers.  In  the  Book  of  Wisdom  the  Greek 
term  "  logos  "  is  taken  as  equivalent  of  "  sophia,"  or, 
wisdom,  and  expresses  also  a  divine  hypostasis. 
"  Wisdom  is  represented  not  only  as  a  special  attri- 
bute of  God,"  says  Schiirer,  ''  but  also  as  a  feminine 
companion  whose  origin  is  from  God's  very  being. 
Side  by  side  with  her,  "  the  all-powerful  word 
of  God "  is  also  personified  in  a  way  closely 
approaching  the  divine  hypostasis.  So  that,  even 
here,  we  find  the  elements  whence  Philo  could 
develop  his  teaching  on  the  Logos  viewed  as  a  hypo- 
stasis which  acted  as  a  mediator  between  God  and  the 
world."  ^  The  term  "  logos  "  also  means  reason,  or 
intelligence,  or  the  mental  word  of  which  it  is  the 
expression.  In  fact.  Holy  Scripture  has  often  taken 
the  Divine  Word  and  the  Divine  Wisdom  to  be  iden- 
tical, personifying  each  in  the  same  way  and  ascribing 
to  each  the  same  role  of  mediator  between  God  and 
creatures.  Thus  creation  is  viewed  as  the  work  of 
the  Word  or  Divine  Wisdom ;  while  in  Ecclesiaticus, 

1  Job  xxviii.  20-28 ;  Prov.  viii.  22 ;  Bar.  iii.  29-38 ;  Ecclus. 
xxiv.  5-14;  Wisd.  vii.  25;  ix.  4;  Drummond,  Philo  Judaeus, 
1888,  vol.  i,  pp.  141,  217;  Heinze,  Die  Lehre  von  Logos.  i'^72, 
p.  200;  Aall,  Geschichte  der  Logosidee,  1896,  vol.  i,  p.  178. 

^  Heraclitus  of  Ephesus,  b.  525  B,  C. ;  Anaxagoras  of  Cla- 
somene,  b.  5oo  B.  C. ;  Plato, ^  fl.  427-347  B.  C. ;  Zeno  of  Citium, 
fl.  343-270  B.  C. ;  Wisd.  xviii.  15;  Schiirer,  op.  cit.,  vol,  iii,  p. 
379. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  loi 

Wisdom  is  identified  with  the  Word  of  God.^  The 
mysterious,  divine  hypostasis,  then,  described  in  Scrip- 
ture under  the  two-fold  form  of  Wisdom  and  the 
Word  of  God,  is  aptly  expressed  by  the  term  ''  logos," 
which  had  also  the  further  advantage  of  being  held  m 
high  honor  by  the  Greek  philosophers  and  even  served 
to  mark  the  agreement,  so  eagerly  desired  by  Jewish 
scholars  like  Philo,  between  Revelation  and  the 
vaunted  Greek  philosophy. 

Hence  the  unusual  favor  which  the  term  "  logos  " 
enjoyed  apparently  in  the  Jewish  schools,  if  not  be- 
fore, at  least  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era. 
The  Targumists,  inheritors  of  ancient  Tradition,  used 
it  on  each  page  of  their  popular  paraphrases  of  the 
Hebrew  text  under  the  Aramaic  form  "  Memra,"  or, 
the  Word,  and  even  employed  it  for  the  Sacred  Name 
of  God  (Elohim  or  Jaweh)  whenever  there  was  ques- 
tion of  His  relations  with  creatures.  God,  the  creator 
and  Lord  of  all  things ;  God,  the  protector  of  the 
patriarchs  and  leader  of  Israel  is  not  Jaweh  precisely, 
but  the  "  Word  "  of  Jaweh.  It  is  ''  Memra  "  who 
guides  the  people  through  the  desert;  who  speaks  to 
them  from  Mount  Sinai ;  who  gives  them  mastery 
over  Canaan ;  who  inspires  the  Prophets  and  dictates 
their  oracles.^ 

Thus  the  three  terms,  Angel  of  God,  Wisdom  of 
God,  and  Word  of  God  designate  one  and  the  same 
mysterious  being,  a  kind  of  divine  hypostasis,  or  God 
Himself  as  viewed  in  relation  to  His  creatures.  The 
author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom  had  already  shown 
the  equivalence  of  these  three  terms.  He  practically 
identifies  Wisdom  with  the  Word  of  God,  and  then 
attributes  to  the  Logos,  to  Wisdom,  and  to  the  Word 
of  God  the  very  same  role  towards  Israel  as  had  been 

1  Wisd.  ix.  I,  2;  Ps.  xxiii.  6;  Heb.  xi.  3;  cf.  Ps.  cxlviii.  4; 
Ecclus.  xlii.  15 ;  Gen.  c.  i. ;  Ecclus.  xxiv.  5 ;  i.  5. 

2  Hackspill,  Etudes,  Rev.  Bib.,  Jul.,  1901 ;  Jan.,  1902, 


I02  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

usually  given  to  the  *'Angel  of  the  Lord."  In  Exodus, 
the  "Angel  of  Jaweh  "  is  described  as  leading  Israel 
onward  by  the  pillar  of  cloud.  The  author  of  the 
Book  of  Wisdom  ascribes  the  same  role  to  "  the  Wis- 
dom of  God,"  He  also  attributes  to  the  "  Logos  "  the 
extermination  of  the  first-born  among  the  Egyptians. 
In  Exodus,  this  is  assigned  to  Jaweh  Himself,  but  the 
analogy  with  other  passages  permit  us  to  attribute 
it  again  to  the  "Angel  of  Jaweh."  Thus  the  latter  is 
called  the  Angel  Guardian  of  Israel  and  the  Exter- 
minator of  its  enemies.^ 

Philo,  therefore,  in  identifying  these  three  terms 
with  Wisdom,  merely  interprets  the  facts  of  Scripture. 
At  the  basis  of  all  his  theosophy,  he  places  the  doctrine 
of  the  Logos,  and  considers  the  Logos  as  being  both 
the  divine  act  of  inteUigence  as  conceiving  the  idea 
of  the  world,  that  is  the  hidden  Wisdom  of  God,  and 
the  outward  term  of  this  divine  idea,  or  the  creative 
Word.  But  He  is  also  the  Supreme  Angel  known  in 
Scripture  as  "  the  Angel  of  God  "  par  excellence.^ 

Some  critics  claim  that  the  Logos  as  described  by 
Philo  has  not  a  clearly  defined  hypostatic  character ; 
that  it  is  neither  a  mere  abstraction  nor  a  well-defined 
personality.  "  The  conception  wavers  confusedly," 
says  Zeller,  "  between  a  personal  and  an  impersonal 
being.  And  we  lose  sight  of  this  very  feature  when  we 
take  the  Logos  of  Philo  either  for  a  person  outside  of 
God  or  simply  for  God  Himself  viewed  in  the  special 

1  Ex.  X.  17;  Wisd.  X.  17;  Ex.  xii.  29;  Ps.  xxxiv.  8;  xxxv. 
5,  6;  cf.  2  Kings  xix.  35. 

2  Philo,  Leg.  Alleg.,  i.  g;  De  Sacrf.  Abel,  iii;  Legend.  Alleg., 
iii,  60 ;  De  Conf.  Ling.,  xviii ;  De  Cher,  i-iii ;  De  Somn.  i,  41 ; 
De  Mutat.  Nom.,  xiii ;  De  Vita  Mosis,  i,  12  (ed.  Mangey,  vol. 
i,  pp.  47,  122,  138-140,  165,  427,  591,  656)  ;  vol.  ii,  p.  92;  Heinze, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  230,  280-295 ;  Drummond,  Philo  Judaeus,  vol.  ii, 
pp.  201-213,  222-273;  Schiirer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  379/555  5 
Soulier,  La  Doct.  du  Logos,  pp.  157-165;  Reville,  J.,  Le  Logos, 
i^77>  P-  76;  La  Doct.  du  Logos,  1881. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


103 


relation  of  His  activity."  ^  Now,  was  there  not  a  tend- 
ency to  identify  the  Angel  of  God,  this  Wisdom,  this 
Word  of  God  with  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God? 
The  analogy  of  His  role  suggested  such  a  conclusion. 
As  the  Angel  of  Jaweh,  was  not  the  Messiah  to  be 
pre-eminently  God's  representative  among  men.  His 
mediator  in  the  work  of  renewing  the  world  ?  Among 
the  names  given  to  Christ  by  the  Prophets  we  notice 
that  of  "Angel  of  the  Great  Council,''  and  "Angel 
of  the  Alliance."  ^ 

Probably  as  a  result  of  such  resemblances,  the  Book 
of  Enoch  represents  the  Messiah  as  being  "  like  to 
one  of  the  Holy  Angels."  The  teaching  of  the 
Messianistic  Jews  concerning  the  Angels,  says  Balden- 
sperger,  had  likely  cleared  the  way  for  the  ideas 
found  in  the  writings  of  SS.  Paul  and  John  who  both 
represent  the  Messiah  as  a  celestial  being.^ 

But  does  not  the  Messiah  even  appear  as  God's  rep- 
resentative and  a  personification  of  His  word?  The 
Book  of  Enoch  describes  Him  as  being  "  clothed  with 
the  spirit  of  wisdom,  of  knowledge,  and  of  instruc- 
tion " ;  as  "  possessing  righteousness,  dwelling  with 
justice,  revealing  all  hidden  treasures."  In  the  des- 
cription of  the  symbolic  vision,  we  also  find  the  re- 
markable statement,  which  plainly  alludes  to  the 
Messiah:  "The  first  among  them  (the  animals)  was 
the  Word."  But  it  seems  that  the  extant  Ethiopic  text 
is  faulty ;  the  original  Hebrew  text  probably  had  re' em, 
the  "  wild  beast."  Perhaps  the  Greek  translator  has 
merely  transcribed  the  Hebrew  word  into  Greek 
letters,  i.  e.,  pvij^  ;  while  the  Ethiopic  translator 
may  have  taken  it  for  p;7//a,  i.  e.  the  "  Word,"  and 
have  written  the  Ethiopic  equivalent,  which  is  nagar. 
Charles  and  Flemming  both  translate  it  thus :  "And 
the  first  among  them  was  the  wild-horse."  * 

1  Zeller,  Die  Philos.  de  Griechen,  1881,  vol.  iii,  p.  378. 

2  Is.  ix.  5,  after  the  Septuagint. 

3  Enoch  xl  i.  I ;  Baldensperger,  op.  cit. 
*Hen.  xlvi.  3;  xlix.  2-4;  xc.  38, 


I04 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


Was  not  this  similarity,  finally,  favored  by  the  fact 
that  writers  like  Philo  ventured  to  give  to  the  Logos 
the  very  name  which  they  had  been  incHned  to  re- 
serve for  the  Messiah,  that  is,  the  "  Son  of  God,"  and 
the  "  First-Born  of  God?" 

Referring  to  Philo,  Schmidt  remarks  that  "  when 
he  called  this  Logos  '  the  perfect  Son,'  '  the  first-born 
Son  of  God,'  he  did  not  imply  that  it  was  an  individ- 
ual, an  hypostasis,  a  person.  Yet  it  was  inevitable  that 
the  term  '  Son  of  God '  should  suggest  a  mediator 
between  God  and  the  world,  a  celestial  personality 
more  grandly  conceived  than  any  other  associated 
with  the  name,  and  herein  lies  much  of  its  historic 
importance."  ^ 

If  such  was  the  popular  idea  of  the  Messiah  at  the 
beginning  of  Christianity,  we  may  say  that  it  bore 
a  twofold  aspect.  He  was  represented  as  a  man  in 
all  things  *'  like  to  a  son  of  man."  Afterwards,  the 
Jew  Trypho  says  to  S.  Justin :  '*  We  all  expect  a 
Messiah  who  will  be  born  a  man  among  men  " ;  and 
that  "  this  Messiah  should  suffer  is  what  the  Scriptures 
plainly  announce."  In  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Messiah 
is  called  '*  son  of  woman  " ;  but  apparently  the  people 
were  also  inclined  to  regard  Him  as  being  more  than 
a  man ;  for,  owing  to  the  higher  part  of  His  being,  He 
somehow  appeared  as  a  Divine  person.^ 

Philo,  relying  upon  the  Sapiential  Books,  called  the 
Logos  the  "  Ray  of  God,"  visible  to  men.  His  image ; 
the  "  splendor  of  His  glory " ;  the  "  instrument  of 
Creation,"  the  "  source  of  all  life,"  in  this  world.  He 
presents  Him  as  an  exemplary  type  of  man,  especially 
fitted  to  represent  mankind  before  God,  to  serve  Him 

1  Philo,  De  Confus.  Ling.,  i,  14,  28 ;  De  Agr.  Noe.,  xii :  De 
Migr.  Abraham,  i;  Quod  Deus  immut.,  vi ;  De  Profug.,  xx; 
De  Somn.,  i,  37]  Quis  Rer.,  xxv.  48  (ed.  Mangey,  vol.  i,  pp. 
277,  308,  414,  427,  437,  490,  505,  562,  653)  ;  Coloss.  i.  15;  Jo.  i, 
I,  18;  Schmidt,  art.:  Son  of  God,  E.  B.,  col.  4695. 

2  S.  Justin,  Dial.,  c.  xlix.  c.  Ixxxix ;  Hen.  Ixii.  5. 


THE  DAWN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  105 

as  ''  High  Priest "  and  ''  Intercessor."  He  seems  to 
describe  Him  as  a  divine  being,  doubtless  derived  from 
the  One  God,  although  not  as  are  creatures,  and  merit- 
ing Himself  the  name  of  "  God,"  or  the  "  Under- 
God."  Often  he  calls  Him  ''  odeiogloyoQj'  that  is, 
**the  Divine  Word,"  and  sometimes  the  *'Vice- 
gferent  of  God,"  or,  v-apxoq ;  and  also  **eedf'*  in  a 
minor  sense.  ^ 

Now,  was  it  not  under  that  particular  aspect, 
— with  that  mysterious  and  composite  mixture  of 
divine  and  human  elements  —  that  many  a  Jew 
pictured  the  Messiah  to  himself?  S.  Justin  writes: 
"  When  we  refer  the  Jews  to  the  Scripture  pas- 
sages which  clearly  show  that  the  Messiah  was  to 
suffer  and  be  honored,  and  that  He  is  God,  they  must 
admit  the  Messianic  sense  of  these  passages.  Still, 
they  dare  to  pretend  that  this  Jesus  is  not  the  Messiah, 
but  that  the  Messiah  is  yet  to  come,  to  suffer,  and  to 
reign;  and  that  He  will  be  a  God  worthy  of  adora- 
tion." 2 

Such  an  idea  of  the  Messiah-God  was  certainly  far 
from  being  as  general  and  precise  at  the  dawn  of  the 
Christian  era  as  it  was  afterwards  under  the  influence 
of  the  New  Revelation.  But  may  we  not  prudently 
venture  the  opinion  that  it  was  already  germinating 
in  the  heart  of  Judaism  during  the  years  preceeding 
the  Saviour's  birth?  It  is  hardly  credible  that  the 
most  distinguished  minds,  versed  in  the  deepest  study 
of  the  Scripture,  and  so  pious  and  divinely  enlightened, 

1  Philo,  De  Mund.  opif.,  viii;  De  Confus.  Ling.,  xx;  De 
Profug.,  xix.  20 ;  De  Somn.,  i,  41 ;  ii,  6,  139 ;  De  Mon.,  xi,  5 ; 
De  Plant.,  v;  De  Gigant.,  xi ;  Quis  Reriwi.,  xlii ;  De  Agric. 
Noe.,  xii;  Leg.  Alleg.,  Ixxiii ;  Qu.  and  Sol,  in  Ge.  vii.  13  (ed, 
Mangey,  vol.  i,  pp.  6,  419,  561,  655,  656,  665;  vol.  ii,  p.  225; 
vol.  i,  p.  28,  269,  308,  332,  501 ;  vol.  ii,  p.  625)  ;  Wisd.  vii.  25-26; 
Prov.  c.  viii;  Ecclus.  xxiv.  14;  Ps.  ex.;  Ps.  iv. ;  Wisd.  vii.  23, 
27-28. 

2  S.  Justin,  Dial.f  c.  Ixviii. 


lo6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

could  not  have  then  suspected,  in  the  dim  Hght  of 
the  ancient  revelation,  the  Incarnation  of  Divine  Wis- 
dom and  beheld,  in  a  still  mysterious  twilight,  the 
Word  of  God  Incarnate  in  the  living  Messiah. 

We  should  not  forget  that  the  extra-canonical 
documents,  which  we  have  employed,  present  only 
an  imperfect  study  of  the  Jewish  thought  of 
Christ's  time.  What  they  have  preserved  for  us 
is,  before  all,  the  tradition  of  the  Hebrew  schools 
and  synagogues;  the  speculative  ventures  of  the 
learned,  more  or  less  tainted  with  the  leaven  of  the 
Pharisees,  and  the  prevailing  belief  of  the  multitudes 
that  came  under  their  influence.  But,  in  face  of  the 
official  teaching,  aside  from  the  lower  class  of  Pharisees 
and  illiterate  Galileans  there  were  some  chosen  souls, 
less  enslaved  to  material  interests,  more  conversant 
with  the  Sacred  Scriptures  and  more  receptive  of 
God's  clear  revelations. 

Writing  of  Schiirer's  work,  Lagrange  says  that  he 
does  not  mention  the  good  people  who  remained  faith- 
ful to  the  Law,  without  Hving  apart  from  others  True, 
good  people  have  no  history ;  still,  they  are  a  great  fac- 
tor in  history.  The  life  of  Christ  would  be  unintelligible 
if  the  Mosaic  Law,  despite  its  flaws,  and  along  with 
it  the  admirable  prophetic  and  hagiographic  literature, 
had  not  been  fit  to  form  minds  that  yearned  after  a 
fuller  salvation."  ^ 

"  There  is  reason  to  believe,"  says  Wendt,  *'that, 
besides  the  Sadducean  aristocrats,  and  the  Pharisaic 
scribes,  and  the  extensive  classes  of  people  whom 
they  spiritually  influenced,  and  besides  the  Essenes 
who  gave  up  the  world,  there  was  at  that  time  another 
circle  among  the  Jewish  people  whose  hearts  were 
the  abode  of  sincere  and  tender  piety,  and  of  obedience 
to  the  duties  of  justice  and  love,  an  elite  nourished  by 
a  simple  and  upright  searching  of  the  Scriptures."  ^ 

1  Lagrange,  art. :  Rev.  Bib.,  Apr.,  1899,  P-  312. 

2  W^ndt,  op.  cit.,  26.  ed.,  1901,  p.  97. 


CHAPTER  II. 
I.  The  Childhood  of  Christ. 

Historicity  of  Narratives.  —  The  Messianic  hope 
had  thus  far  leavened  the  Jewish  mind  when  suddenly 
there  was  proclaimed  the  glad-tidings  that,  at  last, 
God  had  fulfilled  His  promises  of  olden  time:  In 
Bethlehem  was  born  the  Messiah,  Son  of  David,  Re- 
deemicr  of  Israel.  It  is  the  two  first  chapters  of  the 
gospels  of  SS.  Matthew  and  Luke  which,  in  narra- 
ting the  birth  of  the  Son  of  Mary,  disclose  to  us  the 
dawn-light  of  the  Messianic  manifestation  illumin- 
ating His  crib.  But,  some  may  say:  Are  these  ac- 
counts reliable? 

Rationalistic  critics  usually  assign  to  the  "  Gospel 
of  the  Infancy  "  a  place  lower  than  that  occupied  by 
the  "  Gospel  of  the  Public  Life,"  and  this  from  the 
view-point  of  historical  value.  Like  Renan,  many 
who  admit  the  Synoptic  gospels  as  a  reliable  basis  for 
the  life  of  Jesus,  endeavor  to  discredit  the  gospel 
record  of  His  Infancy  because  they  think  that  it  is 
only  a  compilation  of  charming  fables  and  the  product 
of  pious  fancy. 

In  Loisy's  opinion,  these  narratives  are  only  a 
statement  of  the  Messianic  faith  which  subsequently 
prevailed  throughout  the  Christian  church  after  a 
period  of  gradual  idealization.  "  These  narratives," 
he  says,  "  represent  a  normal  development  of 
christology.  The  very  nature  of  their  subject,  the 
critical  examination  of  the  two  versions  taken  separ- 
ately or  compared,  and  an  analysis  of  evangelical  tra- 
dition, permit  us  not  to  regard  them  as  a  definite 
(107) 


Io8  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

expression  of  historical  memories ;  none  the  less  they 
are  put  forward  as  a  document  of  Christian  faith, 
and  in  this  capacity  attract  the  attention  of  the  his- 
torian. .  .  The  narratives  of  the  childhood  of  Christ 
are  for  the  historian  only  an  expression  and  an  as- 
sertion of  faith  in  the  Messiah,  that  faith  which  is 
affirmed  at  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and 
transfigured  the  memories  of  the  Apostles,  which  is 
also  affirmed  and  developed  in  Paul,  and  then  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  This  faith  is,  as  it  were,  the  reply 
which  the  generations  of  believers  make,  each  in  turn, 
to  the  proposition  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus ;  it  increases, 
yet  remains  the  same,  like  an  echo  which,  reverberating 
from  mountain  to  mountain,  becomes  more  sonorous 
the  further  it  travels  from  its  point  of  origin."  ^ 

"  The  charm  of  these  Nativity  stories,"  says  O. 
Holtzmann,  "  does  not  depend  upon  their  historical 
truth,  but  upon  their  inner  meaning;  they  express  the 
joy  of  the  divine  world  at  the  coming  redemption  of 
mankind ;  the  longing  for  a  Redeemer,  the  homage  paid 
by  the  great  ones  of  the  earth  to  a  man  of  poverty  who 
makes  them  all  truly  rich ;  and  God's  protection 
vouchsafed  to  the  Holy  One  whom  the  world  seeks  to 
destroy.  Since  all  these  ideas  are  true,  and  remain 
true,  we  need  not  pronounce  the  Nativity  stories  un- 
true, even  though  they  are  at  the  same  time  histori- 
cally incorrect."  ^ 

And  it  is  Harnack's  impression  that  "  two  of  the 
Gospels  do,  it  is  true,  contain  an  introductory  history 
(the  history  of  Jesus'  birth)  ;  but  we  may  disregard 
it;  for,  even  if  it  contained  something  more  trust- 
worthy than  it  does  actually  contain,  it  would  be  as 
good  as  useless  for  our  purpose."  ^ 

Without  entering  into  a  full  discussion  of  the  Ra- 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  48,  49,  50, 

2  Holtzmann,  O.,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  89.  n.  i, 


THE  CHILDHOOD  OF  CHRIST 


109 


tionalist  position  at  present,  it  may  be  shown  that, 
apart  from  the  main  objection,  based  upon  an  a  priori 
method  of  argument,  which  in  turn  denies  all  objective 
supernatural  reality  and  all  historic  basis  in  miraculous 
accounts,  no  Rationalist  writer  can,  critically  speaking, 
find  any  real  difficulty  as  regards  the  truth  of  the 
narratives  of  Christ's  childhood;  while,  an  impartial 
critic  will  discover  in  these  records  positive  and  in- 
contestable proofs  in  favor  of  their  entire  historical 
value. 

The  third  gospel,  for  instance,  which  records  the 
events  of  Jesus'  infancy,  was  written  by  one  and  the 
same  author,  about  50-100  A.  D.,  as  the  most  indepen- 
dent critics  frankly  admit.  Let  us  grant  that  it  was 
written  after  the  fall  in  Jerusalem  in  70:  it  cannot, 
says  Renan,  have  been  composed  much  later.  So  that 
it  is  a  document  belonging  to  the  second,  if  not  to  the 
first  generation  after  the  Saviour's  death ;  and,  hence, 
in  this  respect  it  enjoys  a  special  value. ^ 

The  authority  of  S.  Luke's  Gospel,  moreover,  is 
enhanced  by  the  fact  that  it  represents  not  only  the 
Christian  tradition  from  the  time  that  it  was  put  in 
writing,  but  really  reproduces  the  ancient  and  primi- 
tive tradition  as  found  among  those  living  between 
the  time  of  the  Saviour  and  that  of  S.  Luke.  The 
author,  in  fact,  in  a  kind  of  preface  wherewith  he 
opens  his  work  and  wherein  he  dedicates  it  to  a  dis- 
ciple named  Theophilus,  says  that  many  have  tried  to 
narrate  the  Gospel  events  on  the  testimony  of  the 
Apostles,  "  according  as  they  have  delivered  them  to 
us  who,  from  the  beginning,  were  eye-witnesses  and 
ministers  of  the  Word."  And  he  adds :  "  It  seemed 
good  to  me  also,  having  diligently  attained  to  all  things 
from  the  beginning,  to  write  to  thee,  in  order,  most  ex- 
cellent Theophilus,  that  thou  mayest  know  the  verity 
of  those  words  in  which  thou  hast  been  instructed."  ^ 

1  Renan,  The  Gospels,  p.  152;  cf.  Lepin,  Introd.,  p.  xxxi, 
E.  Tr.,  p.  20. 

2  Lk.  i.  1-4. 


110  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

The  author's  aim,  then,  is  to  complete  and  confirm 
what  the  current  catechetical  teaching  had  already 
taught  his  disciple  about  the  beginnings  of  Christian- 
ity. To  attain  this  result  he  has  been  careful  to  get 
exact  information  concerning  everything.  The  work 
which  he  presents  to  his  dear  Theophilus  is  only 
the  writing  down  of  well-supported  and  carefully 
verified  testimonies.  The  sincerity  of  S.  Luke's 
statement,  such  as  it  is,  cannot  be  suspected,  and 
is  certainly  strengthened  by  an  examination  of 
the  intrinsic  features  of  the  work.  Critics  are 
unanimously  agreed  that  the  Third  Gospel  actu- 
ally bears  traces  of  manifold  documents,  fragments, 
written  memoirs,  or  oral  teachings  which  helped 
towards  its  composition.  This  very  feature  is  also 
noticeable  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  which  all 
critics  accept  as  the  work  of  the  same  author.'^ 

Now,  among  the  documents  which  were  employed 
in  the  composition  of  this  Gospel  we  may  note  es- 
pecially the  account  of  the  Genealogies  of  Jesus.  The 
thoroughly  Hebraic  character  observable  in  the  style, 
in  the  phrasing,  in  the  terms  themselves  even  under 
their  Greek  garb,  and  in  the  poesy  of  the  Canticles  so 
strikingly  contrasts  with  the  Greek  character  of  the 
Prologue  that  S.  Luke,  in  the  first  two  chapters  of 
his  Gospel,  undoubtedly  reproduces  or  at  least  largely 
employs  certain  accounts  which,  written  in  Hebrew  or 
the  Aramaic  language,  came  to  him  through  oral  or 
written  tradition. 

Thus,  we  may  observe  the  constant  use  of  the  con- 
junction "and,"  (Heb.  'Vav")  to  unite  sentences; 
the  frequent  employment  of  the  quite  Hebrew  figure 
of  speech,  "and  it  came  to  pass"  (Heb.  "vayeyi")  ;  the 
use  of  the  term  "  word "  to  signify  ''  thing,"  thus 
answering  to  the  two-fold  sense  of  the  Hebrew 
"  dabar,"    the   Greek   being    **  pv,^^ci^''     and   the    Latin 

1  Rose,  Studies  on  the  Gospels,  p.  73 ;  cf.  Lepin,  Introd. 


THE  CHILDHOOD  OF  CHRIST  m 

"  verbum  " ;  and  finally  the  correspondence  or  paral- 
lelism of  the  two  members  forming  each  verse  of  the 
Canticles  in  accordance  with  the  rule  of  Hebrew 
poetry.^ 

Resch  claims  that  SS.  Matthew  and  Luke  each  de- 
pend for  their  accounts  of  the  infancy  upon  the  same 
original  written  in  Hebrew.  Dalman  does  not  ac- 
cept this  view  but  admits  a  primitive  Aramaic  basis  in 
the  Gospels.  While  Jiilicher  says  that  the  Semitic 
character  of  S.  Luke's  Gospel  is  mostly  due  to  the 
presence  of  Aramaic  documents  which  the  Evangelist 
reproduced  very  carefully;  that,  most  likely,  these 
abundant  traces  of  the  Aramaic  idiom  come  either 
from  the  documents  used  by  the  writer,  or  from  the 
influence  brought  to  bear  upon  his  style,  in  the  very 
instances  where  he  wrote  independently,  by  the  docu- 
ments which  he  had  been  habitually  consulting.^ 

What,  then,  we  may  ask,  is  the  value  of  the  docu- 
ments thus  utilized?  First  of  all,  there  is  S.  Luke's 
statement  that  he  had  been  careful  to  get  exact  in- 
formation about  all  matters  "  from  the  beginning." 
Does  this  not  prove  that  his  data  concerning  the  early 
history  of  Jesus  were  drawn  from  reliable  sources? 
And,  indeed,  this  must  have  been  an  easy  task  for 
him.  Possibly  the  chapter  in  his  Gospel  referring 
to  the  Hidden  Life  of  Christ  may  not  have  formed 
part  of  the  primitive  catechetical  instructions  during 
Apostolic  times  such  as  it  can  be  reconstructed  by 
aid  of  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles,  and  such  as 
is  found  preserved  in  its  more  simple  form  in 
S.  Mark's  Gospel.  For,  naturally  enough,  the  at- 
tention of  the  early  Christians  was,  from  the  very 
beginning,     fixed     chiefly     upon     Jesus'     redemptive 

iLk.  i.  13,  31-33;  ii.  7-10,  25-28,  48-52;  i.  5,  23,  41;  ii.  i,  6, 
15,  46;  i.  Z7,  65;  ii.  15,  19,  51;  i.  46,  51-52. 

^  Resch,  Das  Kindheits  Evang.  Nach  Luc.  u.  Math.,  1897; 
Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  80;  Jiilicher,  op.  cit.,  p.  235. 


112  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

work,  His  public  life,  His  sorrowful  Passion  and 
Resurrection.  Still,  the  memories  of  the  infancy 
of  the  Master,  to  which  the  legitimate  inter- 
est of  the  faithful  was  not  tardy  in  attaching  a  high 
value,  although  they  were  not  originally  topics  of  or- 
dinary, or  perhaps  official  preaching,  must  have 
at  least  been  jealously  preserved  within  the  bosom  of 
the  Apostolic  College  and  in  that  inner  circle  of 
those  who  had  more  or  less  shared  in  those  primitive 
events.  It  would  be  very  strange  if  S.  Luke,  after  so 
plainly  asserting  his  endeavor  for  exactness,  had.  not 
taken  every  means  to  secure  correct  information,  and 
this  under  conditions  apt  to  beget  the  most  assured 
certitude.  It  was  a  delicate  matter,  indeed,  fully  im- 
plying, as  it  did,  his  own  personal  faith  and  that  of  his 
disciple;  and  it  was  managed  at  a  time  when  the  au- 
thorized testimonies  were  surely  not  wanting  and  were 
easily  verifiable. 

Indeed,  these  prefatory  pages  bear  upon  their  face, 
so  to  say,  the  proof  that  they  are  a  Palestinian  docu- 
ment which  goes  back  to  the  very  beginnings  of  the 
Christian  religion  itself.  Thus,  a  notable  feature 
is  the  prominence  given  to  the  Temple  and  its 
religious  service.  In  the  Temple  is  announced  the 
birth  of  the  Precursor;  in  the  Temple  there  lives  for 
years  the  holy  Prophetess  Anna;  in  the  Temple  there 
occurs  the  Presentation  of  Jesus;  in  the  Temple  His 
parents  afterwards  find  Him  engaged  in  teaching  the 
very  Doctors  of  the  Law.  Similarly,  the  service  of 
the  Temple  is  faithfully  portrayed  and  this  with  re- 
markable vividness.  From  the  very  first  pages  we 
find  the  daily  worship  thus  described  in  its  minutest 
details :  "  Zachary  was  a  Priest  of  the  Course  of  Abia. 
.  .  .  And  it  came  to  pass  when  he  executed  the  priestly 
function  in  the  order  of  his  course  before  God,  accord- 
ing to  the  custom  of  the  priestly  office,  it  was  his  lot  to 
offer  incense,  going  into  the  Temple  of  the  Lord.  And 
the  multitude  of  the  people  was  praying  without  at 


THE  CHILDHOOD  OF  CHRIST 


113 


the  hour  of  incense.  ...  And  the  people  were  wait- 
ing for  Zachary;  and  they  wondered  that  he  tarried 
so  long  in  the  Temple.  .  .  .  And  it  came  to  pass,  after 
the  days  of  his  office  were  accomplished,  he  departed 
to  his  own  house."  ^ 

A  description  so  minute  and  recognized  by  his- 
torians as  being  exact  could  have  been  written  only 
by  one  who  was  fully  informed  about  the  religious  life 
of  Israel;  by  one  who,  as  an  attentive  and  familiar 
witness,  still  living  before,  perhaps  long  before,  the 
catastrophe  of  the  year  70,  when  the  very  vestiges  of 
the  Temple  had  disappeared,  had  kept  in  touch  with 
the  liturgic  life  which,  in  his  recital,  appears  to  us 
in  full  intensity  and  in  all  its  fervor. 

What,  moreover,  is  also  very  striking  is  that  very 
primitive  phase  of  the  Messianism  which  is  therein 
presented :  Is  it  not  surprising  to  find  that  the 
Angel,  in  order  to  announce  the  Messianic  destiny  of 
Jesus,  apparently  describes  it  under  the  features  which 
marked  it  in  the  popular  and  primitive  ideas  ?  In  the 
Canticle  of  Zachary,  this  local  coloring,  this  rather 
national  touch  is  quite  noticeable.^ 

Loisy  ventures  the  suggestion  that  this  portion  of 
the  "  Benedictus  "  may  have  been  originally  a  common 
Psalm  before  it  was  ascribed  "  through  easily  dis- 
cernible additions "  to  the  important  personage 
Zachary.  He  also  suggests  the  same  theory  in  re- 
gard to  the  *'  Magnificat."  He,  therefore,  recog- 
nizes the  decidedly  primitive  character  of  these  two 
Canticles.  Nor,  again,  is  it  very  likely  that  the  so- 
called  primitive  portion  in  each  of  these  Canticles  is 
entirely  Jewish  and  pre-Christian.  Indeed  the  primitive 
character  of  the  Messianic  language  is  just  as  striking, 
perhaps  even  more  so,  in  the  words  used  by  the  Angel 

1  Lk.  i.  5,  8-10,  21,  23. 

2  Lk.  i.  32,  ZZ,  68-69,  71,  73-74. 


114 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


Gabriel  in  saluting  Mary  and  for  which  a  like  theory 
is  impossible.  If,  then,  we  admit  the  Christian  origin 
of  these  supposedly  primitive  Psalms,  we  must  assign 
their  composition  to  the  cradle-days  of  Christianity; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are  not  at  all  warranted 
in  supposing  that  the  so-called  adapted  portion  belongs 
to  a  later  epoch.^ 

We  should  be  of  course  especially  careful  not  to 
confound  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  with  the  more  or  less  symbolic  colors  under 
which  it  is  presentable.  Symbol  and  figure  served 
as  a  brilliant  vesture,  as  an  alluring  veil  to  clothe  the 
prophetic  oracles.  It  is  true,  none  the  less,  that 
the  manner  in  which  the  Messianic  future  is  de- 
picted in  the  accounts  of  the  Infancy  is  much  more 
like  the  language  current  in  Christ's  time  as  pre- 
served in  the  Gospel  and  the  other  New  Testament 
documents  than  that  used  in  the  Christian  church  after 
the  Ascension  and  Pentecost.  Indeed,  a  perusal  of 
the  discourses  of  the  Apostles  as  found  in  the  Acts  and 
in  S.  Paul's  Epistles  would  seem  to  prove  that,  for 
the  purpose  of  portraying  the  Messiah's  destiny,  a 
style  of  speaking  more  or  less  marked  by  temporal 
and  national  features,  the  inheritance  of  pre-Christian 
tradition,  was  no  longer  in  use  after  Pentecost.  So 
that,  in  this  respect,  the  gospel  of  the  Infancy  may 
rightly  go  back  to  the  very  beginnings  of  Christianity. 

This  inference  is  further  confirmed  by  the  very  idea 
which  is  given  to  us  of  the  person  of  the  Son  of  God. 
As  we  shall  see,  the  traits  revealed  in  the  first 
pages  are  rather  the  careful  and  suggestive  Synop- 
tic outhnes  of  the  Saviour's  personal  manifes- 
tation than  the  features  so  strongly  illumined  and 
placed  in  bold  relief  by  the  Church  writers  during  the 
Apostolic  Age.       Jesus   is   presented  as  the   Son   of 

1  Loisy,  Rev.  d'Hist.,  etc.,  1903,  p.  289 ;  Lk.  i.  2)^-Z3> ',  Lepin, 
art.:  L'Orig.  du  Magnificat,  I'Univ.  Cath.,  June,  1903,  p.  295. 


THE  CHILDHOOD  OF  CHRIST 


115 


the  Virgin  Mary,  as  conceived  by  the  most  pure 
operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  as  the  holy  and 
blessed  Son  who  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Most 
High.  Such  expressions,  no  doubt,  answer  exactly  to 
the  dogma  of  Christ's  heavenly  pre-existence  and 
divine  Sonship  as  formulated  in  the  writings  of  SS. 
Paul  and  John.  And  if  it  seems  strange  that  neither 
His  pre-existence  nor  His  real  divinity  are  herein 
formally  and  explicitly  stated,  is  not  this  fact  also 
a  proof  that  these  narratives  belong  to  that  early  epoch 
when,  as  if  providentially,  the  manifestation  of  the 
Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  was  marked  by  a  kind  of 
devout  discretion? 

It  may  be  noted,  moreover,  that,  apart  from  the 
question  of  origin,  these  accounts  also  afford  irre- 
futable guarantees  of  perfect  veracity.  Indeed,  they 
present  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  as  also  the  Person  of 
the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  in  a  primitive  aspect,  and 
devoid  of  any  additional  feature  which  might  be  due 
to  the  influence  of  a  tradition  prevailing  in  the  Church 
at  a  later  day.  Assuredly  this  fact  is  very  remark- 
able, and  testifies  in  S.  Paul's  disciple,  who  edited 
this  Gospel,  as  also  to  those  who  transmitted  the  ac- 
counts which  he  consulted,  a  scrupulous  care  for  exact- 
ness. None  but  a  most  conscientious  historian  could 
have  thus  reproduced  the  documents  in  their  native 
simplicity  without  submitting  them  to  the  modifica- 
tions or  developments  which  might  easily  have  been 
suggested  by  the  ideas  so  paramount  after  the  death 
of  Christ. 

The  humility  of  Christ  Jesus,  moreover,  is  here 
also  revealed  as  in  the  first  Gospel.  Is  not  this  fact 
a  striking  proof  of  the  historical  sincerity  of  these 
narratives  ?  The  early  Church  placed  Christ  upon  the 
summit  of  humanity  and  of  universal  creation ;  it  por- 
trayed Him  as  proceeding  from  the  bosom  of  God 
the  Father,  as  descending  upon  earth  to  redeem  men, 
as  returning  to  heaven  and  seated  at  the  right  hand 


Il6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

of  God  whose  power  and  divinity  He  shares,  and  as 
predestined  one  day  to  come  back  to  earth  in  order 
to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead.  If,  then,  the  Gospel 
of  the  Infancy  were  merely  the  product  of  Christian 
fancy,  or  of  the  imagination  of  theologians,  would 
its  inventor  have  dreamt  of  describing  Christ  Jesus 
as  having  but  a  manger  for  His  cradle  at  His  birth, 
as  compelled  to  flee  into  Egypt  to  avoid  Herod's 
anger,  and  as  passing  His  childhood  in  humble  submis- 
sion to  His  parents  in  the  workshop  of  Nazareth? 
The  unpretentious  character  of  these  features,  as  also 
the  extremely  sane  and  exquisite  style  which  so  elo- 
quently contrasts  them  with  the  phenomena  of  the 
Apocryphal  Gospels,  is  an  unanswerable  guarantee  of 
their  sincerity  and  veracity. 

The  very  differences  between  the  accounts  in  S. 
Matthew  and  S.  Luke  are,  to  tell  the  truth,  not  easily 
reconcilable  because  of  the  little  available  knowledge 
about  this  very  epoch  ;  but  even  such  variations  indicate 
the  historical  value  of  these  accounts.  Moreover, 
they  afford  a  positive  argument  for  the  historical 
character  of  the  basis  of  information  underlying  the 
parallel  narratives. 

Indeed,  S.  Luke's  remark  that  ''  Mary  kept  all  these 
things,  pondering  them  in  her  heart,"  has  led  many 
eminent  Catholic  and  Protestant  scholars  to  infer 
that  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  may  depend  partly, 
if  not  wholly,  upon  the  reminiscences  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  herself. 

Godet,  for  instance,  is  convinced  that  the  oftener 
we  read  and  re-re'ad  S.  Luke  c.  ii,  v.  19,  the  more  read- 
ily we  will  conclude  that  the  first  and  real  author 
of  this  narrative  can  only  be  Mary.  .  .  .  Expressed 
in  the  Aramaic  language,  Mary's  recollections  were 
secured  by  S.  Luke  both  in  oral  and  written  form. 
Gifted  with  an  exquisite  discernment  which  enabled 
him    to   appreciate    such   gems,    he   gave   to   them   a 


THE  CHILDHOOD  OF  CHRIST 


117 


Greek  setting  which  still  preserved  all  the  brilliance 
of  their  pristine  lustre.^ 

However  disconcerting,  therefore,  to  the  Rational- 
ist critic  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  may  be,  because 
of  its  miraculous  accounts,  an  impartial  student  must 
deem  it  worthy  of  notice  and  utmost  confidence. 
These  records  are  certainly  not  mythical  or  legendary : 
they  trace  the  facts  to  their  very  origin  and  relate 
them  with  the  utmost  sincerity  and  truthfulness. 

The  Nativity.  —  The  dawn  of  the  revelation, 
therefore,  is  perceptible  in  the  Gospel  account  of  the 
occurrences  at  the  crib  of  Jesus.  From  the  heights  of 
heaven  comes  the  first  news  of  His  approaching  ad- 
vent. To  Zachary,  the  venerable  Priest  of  the  Temple, 
the  Angel  Gabriel  announces  that  he  shall  have  a 
son  who  shall  be  called  John,  thus  betokening  the  near 
fulfilment  of  God's  mercies,  and  who  shall  be  called 
the  herald  of  the  Lord.  The  importance  of  this 
message  from  on  high  is  fully  realized  by  Zachary; 
for,  in  the  Canticle  Benedictus,  he  blesses  God  for 
fulfilling,  at  last,  his  former  promises :  He  wel- 
comes the  new-born  son  because  God  has  predestined 
him  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  Messiah. 

The  people  themselves  share  somewhat  in  this  first 
Messianic  announcement.  The  marvelous  happen- 
ings that  brought  it  about,  the  sudden  dumbness  of  the 
aged  priest  who  was  detained  in  the  Sanctuary,  the 
unusual  birth  of  his  son,  the  surprising  agreement  of 
Zachary  and  Elizabeth  upon  the  name  John,  the 
miraculous  recovery  of  his  father, — all  this  seemed  to 
clearly  indicate  the  near  fulfilment  of  some  great 
event.  People  expected  that  a  wondrous  destiny,  a 
divine  mission  awaited  this  child  of  miracle,  and  they 

1  Lk.  ii.  19,  51 ;  Godet,  Com.  sur  I'Evang.  de  S.  Luc,  3rd  ed., 

1885,  pp.  185,  224,-  Zahn,  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.,  1898,  vol.  ii; 
Plummer.  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  According  to  S.  Luke, 
3rd  ed.,  1900,  p.  7;  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem? 
pp.  87,  88;  Sanday,  art.:  Jesus  Christ,  H.  D.,  pp.  643,  644. 


Il8  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

went   abroad  exclaiming :  "  What   an   one,   think  ye, 
shall  this  child  be  ?" 

The  Messiah  is  indeed  to  be  born  of  a  virgin  at 
Nazareth,  and  it  is  the  same  Angel  Gabriel  who  an- 
nounces this  fact  to  Mary.  The  son  whom  she  shall 
conceive  "  shall  be  great  and  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  the  Most  High.  And  the  Lord  shall  give  unto 
Him  the  throne  of  David  His  father,  and  He  shall 
reign  in  the  house  of  Jacob  forever."  Yes,  it  is  He, 
— the  long-expected  Messiah.  So  too,  in  the  "  Magni- 
ficat," the  Blessed  Virgin  thanks  the  Lord  for  the 
fulfilment  of  His  promises  and  for  His  choice  of  her 
as  the  instrument  of  His  mercies  unto  Israel.  Joseph, 
also,  plays  a  part  in  this  Messianic  manifestation.  An 
angel  reveals  to  him  the  Blessed  Fruit  of  the  Virgin 
as  the  Saviour  who  would  redeem  the  people  from 
their  sins.  An  angel  too,  reveals  Jesus  to  the  Shep- 
herds at  Bethlehem  as  "  Saviour  and  Messiah  of 
God."  The  celestial  choirs  celebrate  the  new  Messianic 
reign  as  especially  destined  to  assure  glory  to  God  and 
peace  to  men  of  good-will;  and  the  Shepherds  pro- 
claimed the  news  of  these  marvels  far  and  wide. 
And  Simeon,  a  venerable  and  holy  man  of  Jerusalem, 
who,  after  waiting  long  for  ''  the  Consolation  of 
Israel,"  feels  himself  drawn  to  the  Temple  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  so  that,  before  dying,  he  may  behold  "  the 
Christ  of  the  Lord."  Taking  Jesus  in  his  arms,  he 
salutes  the  Child  as  ''  the  Salvation  of  God,"  the 
"  glory  of  thy  people  Israel,"  and  ''  a  light  which  is 
to  enlighten  all  nations."  Anna,  the  aged  prophetess, 
also  shares  in  this  revelation  and  speaks  of  Jesus  the 
Messiah  ''  to  all  that  looked  for  the  redemption  of 
Jerusalem."  And,  finally,  the  Magi,  or  Wise  Men, 
whom  a  mysterious  star  had  led  onward  from  the  East 
come  to  seek  Him  that  was  born  "  King  of  the  Jews." 
Nor  do  Herod  or  the  Scribes  mistake  the  identity  of 
this  strange  personage,  and  the  news  that  the  Messiah 
would  be  born  in  the  City  of  David  disturbs  all 
Jerusalem. 


THE  CHILDHOOD  OF  CHRIST  ng 

Still,  it  is  the  design  of  Providence  to  cast,  so  to 
speak,  a  cloud  upon  so  great  a  light :  it  is  not  its  pur- 
pose that  Christ  Jesus  should  be  manifested  suddenly 
and  forcibly  imposed  upon  the  people.  No ;  this  divine 
work  is  to  allow  full  play  to  human  liberty.  There 
shall  be  enough  light  for  the  enlightenment  of  men 
of  good-will,  and  not  over-much,  that  the  wicked 
should  not  be  dazzled  and  compelled,  as  it  were,  to 
believe  in  Christ. 

So  that,  John  the  Precursor,  after  the  mighty  mar- 
vels wrought  at  his  cradle,  passes  his  infant  days  in 
shadow  and  his  youth  in  the  deserts.  And  Jesus,  also, 
after  such  astounding  events,  goes  as  an  exile  into 
distant  Egy-pt,  while,  on  His  return  to  Nazareth,  He 
dwells  there  in  solitude,  humbly  submissive  to  His 
parents  in  the  exercise  of  a  lowly  trade.  No 
more  striking  manifestations,  no  more  extraordin- 
ary events,  so  that  the  commotion,  caused  by  the 
marvelous  happenings  which  accompanied  Christ's 
birth,  gradually  dies  out  and  leaves  only  the  im- 
pression of  a  long  vanished  dream.  Neverthe- 
less, the  first  stir  is  felt,  attention  is  aroused; 
and  when,  thirty  years  later,  John  the  Baptist  and 
Jesus  shall  begin  their  ministry,  they  shall  find  many 
well-disposed  hearts.  And  we  learn,  moreover,  from 
the  same  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  that  when  Jesus  was 
twelve  years  old,  He  manifests  Himself  personally  for 
the  first  time  in  the  Temple,  astounding  the  Doctors 
of  the  Law  by  His  questions  and  answers,  so  that  those 
present  could  have  also  exclaimed  "  What  think  ye 
this  child  will  be?"  And,  finally,  this  Gospel  also  tells 
us  that  the  Child  of  Nazareth  grew  in  stature,  in 
wisdom,  and  in  grace  before  God  and  men,  thus  sug- 
gesting that  He  would  be  a  great  personage. 

Popular  Views.  —  Under  what  aspect,  however, 
did  God  reveal  His  Christ?  What  idea  did  the  vari- 
ous persons  who  witnessed  these  earlier  manifestations 
possess  of  Jesus  the  Messiah  and  Son  of  God?     Jesus, 


I20  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  Messiah  or  Anointed  of  God,  was  to  be  chiefly  the 
"  Saviour  "  and  "  Reparator,"  as  is  indicated  by  the 
name  which  He  received  from  heaven;  for,  Jesus,  or 
leshoua,  means  Saviour,  and  hence  the  Angel  said  to 
Joseph :  ''  Thou  shalt  call  His  name  Jesus,  for  He 
shall  save  His  people  from  their  sins."  Zachary  fully 
understood  this ;  for  he  blessed  God  for  having 
"  visited  "  His  people  and  "  wrought  its  redemption  " 
after  having  "  raised  up "  in  the  House  of  David 
*'  the  mighty  Saviour "  who  should  "  deliver  Israel 
from  all  its  enemies."  And  Simeon,  who  was  awaiting 
the  ''  Consolation  of  Israel,"  thanked  God  for  having, 
before  his  death,  beheld  the  divine  ''  Saviour."  So 
too,  the  prophetess  Anna  and  all  who,  along  with  her, 
looked  for  the  "  Redemption  of  Jerusalem." 

Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour,  was  also  to  be  "  King," 
the  inheritor  of  the  throne  of  David  who  should  reign 
over  Israel.  It  was  thus  understood  by  the  Magi  and 
by  the  people  of  Jerusalem :  "  Where  is  He  that  is 
born  King  of  the  Jews?"  Such  was  the  query  of  the 
Wise  Men.  And  Herod  commanded  the  Scribes  to  tell 
him  where  "  the  Christ  should  be  born."  While  the 
Angel  Gabriel  said  to  Mary :  "  The  Lord  shall  give 
unto  Him  the  throne  of  David  His  Father.  And  He 
shall  reign  in  the  House  of  Jacob  forever :  And  of  His 
Kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end." 

Jesus,  moreover,  was  to  be  King  and  Saviour,  not 
merely  in  the  temporal  and  material  order  and  for 
the  benefit  of  the  Jewish  people  alone,  as  they  fondly 
hoped,  but,  in  a  spiritual  and  religious  sense,  for  the 
sake  of  all  men.  This  is  the  special  feature  that 
marks  the  religious  and  moral  character  of  the  mission 
entrusted  to  His  Precursor.  The  mission  of  John, 
as  the  very  words  of  the  Angel  show,  was  "  to  convert 
many  of  the  children  of  Israel  unto  the  Lord  their 
God,"  and  ''to  prepare  unto  the  Lord  a  perfect  peo- 
ple." Zachary  also  proclaims  him  as  the  Precursor 
of  the  Lord  and  the  Preparer  of  His  ways,  who  should 


THE  CHILDHOOD  OF  CHRIST  121 

"  give  the  knowledge  of  salvation  to  His  people  unto 
the  remission  of  sins." 

The  spiritual  character  of  the  reign  of  the  Messiah, 
was  also  to  be  in  accord  with  the  spiritual  aspect  of 
the  Precursor's  mission.  It  is  to  the  Messiah  that 
Zachary  refers  when  he  says :  "  The  Orient  from  on 
high  hath  visited  us :  to  enlighten  them  that  sit  in 
darkness  and  in  the  shadow  of  death :  to  direct  our 
feet  in  the  way  of  peace."  He  comes  to  bring  calm 
and  peace  in  order  that  "  we  may  serve  Him  without 
fear:  In  hoHness  and  justice  all  our  days."  To 
Joseph  the  Angel  reveals  His  virginal  conception  and 
also  shows  him  that  the  very  name  Jesus  implies  sal- 
vation of  a  wholly  spiritual  kind.  The  deliverance 
which  He  shall  bring  to  His  people  is  "  deliverance 
from  their  sins,"  And  Simeon  completes  these  pre- 
vious declarations :  he  presents  Jesus  as  the  Saviour 
and  Enlightener;  but  he  insists  upon  the  universal 
character  of  this  salvation  and  illumination.  He  ex- 
claims :  "  My  eyes  have  seen  Thy  salvation  which 
Thou  hast  prepared  before  the  face  of  all  peoples :  A 
light  to  the  revelation  of  the  Gentiles."  And  he 
further  announces  that  this  King,  this  Saviour  shall 
be  "  a  sign  which  shall  be  contradicted,"  and  that  a 
"  sword  shall  pierce "  His  mother's  soul  in  order 
that  "  out  of  many  hearts  thoughts  may  be  revealed." 

Undoubtedly,  the  spiritual  and  religious  character 
of  Christ's  mission  is  not  yet  very  explicitly  defined ;  it 
appears  at  times  only  discreetly  upon  the  material 
texture  that  enveloped  the  traditional  conceptions  of 
the  Messianic  Kingdom,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  this 
very  fact  is  a  good  guarantee  of  the  primitive  nature 
of  these  recitals.  Still,  the  spirituality  of  Christ's 
mission  is  announced  clearly  enough  in  order  that 
souls  of  a  less  earthly  and  less  carnal  temperament 
might  not  mistake  it  and  that  they  might  be  better 
disposed  to  accept  a  Messiah  who  was  deprived  of  that 
grandeur,  power,  and  temporal  royalty  which  the 
popular  imagination  had  pictured  to  itself. 


122  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Do  we,  then,  find  in  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  the 
idea  that  Christ  Jesus  possessed  a  super-human  and 
divine  character?  First  of  all,  He  appears  to  us 
quite  plainly  and  clearly  as  man  and  subject  to  all  the 
conditions  of  humanity.  He  is  conceived  within  the 
womb  of  Mary  where  He  dwells  for  the  space  of  nine 
months.  After  His  birth,  He  seems  to  pass  through 
all  the  various  stages  of  childhood,  to  grow,  to  in- 
crease in  size,  to  develop  physically,  mentally,  and  in 
character  as  do  others.  We  may  rightly  say  with 
S.  Paul :  ''  He  is  born  of  woman :  He  hath  been  fully 
subject  to  the  law." 

Still,  if  Jesus  is  really  man,  He  is  so  in  an  incom- 
parably higher  sense  than  are  other  men.  He  stands 
on  a  plane  apart,  in  a  special  condition  which  sets 
Him  far  above  mere  humanity.  Whoever  is  the 
greatest  in  dignity  or  the  mightiest  in  power,  even 
such  a  one  He  surpasses  in  some  sense  infinitely.  John 
the  Baptist  is  but  the  prophet  and  the  precursor  of 
the  Lord:  whilst  Jesus  is  called  "His  Son."  Said 
the  Angel  to  Mary :  "  He  shall  be  great,  and  shall 
be  called  the  Son  of  the  Most  High.  The  Holy  which 
shall  be  born  of  Thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of 
God."  And  Jesus  Himself  thus  spoke  to  His  mother 
when  He  was  twelve  years  old :  "  Did  you  not  know 
that  I  must  be  about  my  Father's  business?"  thus 
proclaiming  Himself  the  Son  of  Him  who  dwelleth 
in  the  heavens. 

What,  then,  we  may  ask,  is  the  nature  of  this  divine 
Sonship  thus  affirmed  by  Jesus  ?  The  title  "  Son  of 
God,"  as  we  have  remarked,  has  a  wide  meaning  in 
the  Hebrew  language :  it  may  extend  to  every  special 
relation  that  implies  dependence,  union,  and  love  with 
regard  to  God.  When  it  is  applied  to  the  Saviour  in 
particular,  it  may  simply  indicate  that  Jesus  is  the 
privileged  Elect  of  God,  the  future  King  of  Israel, 
the  Messiah.  Here,  however,  its  meaning  is  more 
precise  and  more  firmly  based  upon  reality. 


THE  CHILDHOOD  OF  CHRIST 


123 


Jesus,  therefore,  is  not  only  the  Son  of  God  by 
election  and  by  a  somewhat  extrinsic  choice,  but  He  is 
such  through  His  virginal  birth,  and  in  His  very  na- 
ture. Conceived  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary  by 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  He  is  indeed  the  Son 
of  God  as  well  as  the  Son  of  Mary.  As  the  Angel 
exclaims  to  the  Virgin :  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come 
upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Most  High  shall  over- 
shadow thee.  And,  therefore,  also  the  Holy  which 
shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God." 

It  has  been  claimed  by  some  critics  that  the  idea 
of  the  virginal  birth  of  Christ  and  of  His  divine  Son- 
ship,  which  is  thereby  implied,  was  formulated  among 
the  Christians  converted  from  paganism,  who  were 
used  to  ascribe  a  superhuman  origin  to  men  of 
renown.  But  this  theory  is  contradicted  by  all 
the  internal  testimony  which  we  have  seen  con- 
cerning the  origin  of  the  document  as  well  as  by  the 
very  primitive  and  truthful  character  which  is  im- 
parted to  the  physiognomy  of  Christ.^ 

It  is  also  asserted  that  the  account  of  Christ's  con- 
ception by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  only  a 
transposition  and  an  anticipation  at  the  first  instant 
of  His  earthly  existence  of  that  descent  of  the  Spirit 
which  occurred  at  His  baptism.^ 

Loisy,  who#  apparently  favors  this  opinion  and  not 
the  former,  remarks :  "  The  idea  of  the  Virginal  Con- 
ception by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not 
merely,  as  is  readily  admitted,  a  physical  explanation 
of  the  Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus,  but  also  a  religious  ex- 

1  Hillmann,  art. :  Die  Kindheitsgeschichte  Nach  Luc. :  Jahrb. 
fur  Prot.  TheoL,  1891,  p.  231 ;  Holtzmann,  H.,  Lehrh.  N.  T. 
Theol.,  vol.  i,  p.  414;  Usener,  H.,  Religiongeschichte  Untcr- 
suchungen,  18S9,  p.  69;  art.:  Nativity,  E.  B.,  col.  3350; 
Schmiedel,  art. :  Mary,  E.  B.,  col.  2963 ;  Rose,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
41-85. 

2  Usener,  art.:  Nativity,  E.  B.,  col,  3349;  Schmiedel,  art.: 
Mary,  E.  B.,  col.  2964. 


124  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

planation,  like  that  attached  to  the  idea  of  the  Messiah, 
and  a  metaphysical  explanation,  like  that  which 
belongs  to  the  idea  of  the  Incarnation;  it  is  of  the 
nature  of  both;  because  if  the  Virginal  Conception 
in  a  sense  demonstrates  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  has  not  for  its  immedi- 
ate end  the  miraculous  formation  of  a  purely  human 
being,  but  rather  the  communication  of  divine  life, 
which  makes  Jesus,  from  the  earliest  moment  of  His 
existence,  the  elect  of  God,  the  Christ  anointed  by  the 
Spirit,  the  only  Son  of  the  Heavenly  Father ;  and  thus 
is  anticipated  the  consecration  of  the  Messiah  which 
the  most  ancient  versions  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  re- 
ferred to  the  Baptism."  ^ 

But  even  this  theory  is  baseless.  The  event  of  the 
baptism  in  no  wise  affects  that  of  the  nativity.  The 
Holy  Ghost  may  have,  first  of  all,  intervened  secretly 
in  the  Saviour's  conception  and  then,  on  the  day  of 
His  baptism,  may  have  solemnly  invested  and  officially 
consecrated  Him  for  His  mission.  The  stamp  of 
unique  grandeur  which  we  must  recognize  in  the  his- 
toric Christ  agrees  admirably  with  the  fact  that  His 
humanity  possessed  a  unique  origin. 

In  Harnack's  opinion,  S.  Luke  borrowed  from  S. 
Matthew  the  idea  of  the  virginal  conception,  and, 
after  making  some  additions  and  corrections,  intro- 
duced it  into  a  primitive  account  in  which  it  was 
lacking.^ 

Schmiedel  ventures  a  hypothesis  which  seemingly 
denies  the  primitive  character  of  these  verses  of  S. 
Matthew  on  the  supernatural  conception.^ 

Both  theories  are  due  to  a  very  arbitrary  and 
hazardous  criticism  of  the  texts  and  at  the  same  time 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  49 ;  Chronique 
biblique  in  Rev.  d'Hist.,  etc.,  1903,  p.  290  sq. 

2  Harnack,  art.:  Zu  Luc,  i,  34  et  seq.;  Zeit.  fur  N.  T.  Wis- 
senschaft,  1901,  pp.  53-57. 

3  Schmiedel,  art. :  Mary,  E.  B.,  col.  2959. 


THE  CHILDHOOD  OF  CHRIST 


125 


contradict  the  most  ancient  and  reliable  testimony  of 
tradition. 

It  is,  therefore,  as  man,  first  of  all,  that  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God,  inasmuch  as  His  human  nature  was  di- 
rectly engendered  by  God.  Naught,  however,  indi- 
cates that  His  divine  sonship  is  confined  thereto,  or 
that  He  is  not  the  Son  of  God  even  apart  from  His 
human  nature,  as  sharing  in  some  way,  in  virtue 
of  the  higher  part  of  His  being,  in  the  nature  of 
God.  And  more  than  one  text  of  the  Gospel  of  the 
Infancy  tends  to  establish  a  sort  of  identity  between 
Jesus  and  the  divinity. 

Thus  the  Angel,  when  announcing  to  Mary  the  vir- 
ginal conception,  evidently  borrows  the  terms  of  the 
famous  prophecy  of  Isaias  wherein  the  ''Almah,"  that 
is,  the  Virgin,  gives  to  the  world  a  son  called  Em- 
manuel, or  God-with-us.  And  S.  Matthew  states 
plainly  that  it  is  the  virginal  conception  of  Jesus  which 
fully  realizes  that  ancient  prophecy.  Of  course, 
strictly  speaking,  the  name  Emmanuel  which  is  given 
to  the  Saviour  by  the  prophet  might  be  taken  in  a 
figurative  and  symbolical  sense.  That  is  to  say, 
Jesus  Himself  would  be  a  sign  that  the  "  favor  of 
God"  is  with  us;  since,  being  a  gift  of  His  mercy. 
He  would  be,  as  it  were,  a  manifestation  of  His  good- 
ness towards  us,  a  kind  of  visible  incarnation  of  God 
in  our  midst.  It  is  none  the  less  true  that  the  Evan- 
gelist's simple  expression,  "  God-with-us,"  wonder- 
fully agrees  with  the  Saviour's  real  divinity  and  sug- 
gests this  doctrine. 

It  is  also  noteworthy  that,  in  many  instances,  Christ 
Jesus  is  implicitly  identified  with  the  Lord  God,  or, 
Jehovah-Elohim.  It  is  particularly  so  in  the  words 
with  which  the  Angel  Gabriel  addresses  Zachary  con- 
cerning the  future  destiny  of  his  son  John,  whom  the 
Angel  represents  as  a  precursor  to  "  the  Lord  God," 
and  commissioned  to  prepare  "  unto  the  Lord  "  a  per- 
fect people.   Zachary,  in  turn,  foretells  that  his  son  shall 


126  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

"go  before  the  face  of  the  Lord  in  order  to  prepare  His 
ways."  Now,  the  whole  course  of  the  narrative  shows 
that  John  was  to  be,  in  reaUty,  the  forerunner  of 
"  Jesus,"  and  prepare  the  way  for  "  Jesus."  Such 
language  might  simply  imply  that  the  Saviour  would 
be  the  representative  of  God;  that  is,  John,  in  prepar- 
ing the  way  for  Jesus,  might  also  be  said  to  prepare 
the  way  for  God  Himself,  precisely  because  Jesus  is 
the  representative  of  God  and  the  instrument  for  the 
fulfilment  of  God's  work.  And  yet  it  remains  true 
that  the  expression  used  also  suggests  a  real  identity 
between  Jesus  and  God. 

Again,  in  the  closing  words  of  the  ''  Benedictus," 
which  seem  to  refer  at  once  to  the  Lord  God  of  Israel 
and  to  Jesus  the  Messiah,  we  can  perceive  an  insinua- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  the  heavenly  pre-existence  and 
Incarnation  of  the  Eternal  Word :  "  Through  the 
depths  of  the  mercy  of  our  God  in  which  the  Orient 
from  on  high  hath  visited  us.  To  enlighten  them  that 
sit  in  darkness  and  in  the  shadow  of  death;  to  direct 
our  feet  into  the  way  of  peace." 

Let  us  say  it  again,  this  revelation  of  the  divinity  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  not  absolutely  explicit.  It  did  not  enter 
into  God's  plan  to  begin  by  unveiling  openly  and 
publishing  unreservedly  so  astounding  a  mystery :  this 
prefatory  revelation  was  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
more  complete  disclosures  that  followed  later,  and, 
such  as  it  was,  it  surely  sufficed  for  chosen  souls  like 
Mary  and  Joseph,  Ehzabeth  and  Zachary,  Simeon 
and  Anna. 

And  yet  it  is  true  that,  even  in  the  case  of  these 
privileged  ones,  God  apparently  maintained  an  admir- 
able reserve  in  manifesting  this  divine  mystery.  Thus, 
in  Jesus'  intimate  dealings  with  His  parents  there  is 
noticeable  an  exquisite  delicacy.  We  see,  from  vari- 
ous details,  that  the  Saviour  lived  at  Nazareth  as  an 
ordinary  child;  that  Mary  and  Joseph,  who  were 
surely  aware  of  the  Divine  Treasure  placed  in  their 


THE  CHILDHOOD  OF  CHRIST  127 

keeping,  nevertheless  piously  awaited,  to  determine 
their  attitude  towards  the  Infant  God,  the  times 
set  by  Providence.  So  too,  Mary  does  not  feel 
warranted  in  revealing  to  Joseph  the  secret  of 
the  conception,  but  leaves  it  wholly  in  God's  hands; 
for  she  remains  in  silent  adoration  amidst  the 
wonders  accompanying  the  birth  of  her  divine  Son. 
She  tenderly  treasures  the  memory  of  these  marvels ; 
she  remembers  what  the  Shepherds  tell ;  she  ad- 
mires what  Simeon  and  Anna  announce  concern- 
ing the  destiny  of  the  Messiah;  she  adores  God 
upon  hearing  Jesus  declare  that  He  must  be  con- 
cerned with  His  Father's  affairs,  even  though,  perhaps, 
she  may  not  fully  understand  His  meaning;  she 
watches  for  the  times  appointed  by  heaven,  she  bark- 
ens to  them,  she  awaits  them  peacefully,  her  heart  ever 
open  to  the  faintest  lights  from  God. 

Among  the  guarantees  for  the  truth  of  these  ac- 
counts, not  the  least  persuasive  is  the  fact  that  such 
reserve  is  maintained  in  the  manifestation  of  Christ 
the  Son  of  God,  even  as  regards  those  very  ones 
whom  heaven  had  more  grandly  favored  with  its 
kindly  light. 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  Messianic  Ministry, 
i.  messiahship  asserted. 

The  testimony  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  to  the 
Messianic  manifestation  at  the  crib  of  Jesus  is  firmly 
rejected  by  Rationalists  Indeed,  if  they  were  to  ad- 
mit it,  they  would  also  have  to  accept  the  truth  of 
Christ's  Messiahship,  thus  attested  and  sanctioned  by 
heaven;  but  such  recognition  is  impossible  for  those 
who,  a  priori,  refuse  to  believe  in  any  divine  interven- 
tion in  the  world  and  who  exclude  the  fact  of  the 
supernatural  from  history.  Nor  need  we  fear  to 
repeat  it :  the  greatest  opposition  to  our  Gospel  ac- 
counts comes  from  the  adherents  of  this  one-sided  a 
priori  method  of  reasoning.  While,  on  the  other 
hand,  as  we  shall  see,  every  unbiased  mind  that  takes 
the  solid  ground  of  historic  exegetical  criticism  as  a 
basis,  will  readily  infer  that  the  origin  and  contents 
of  these  Gospels  are  such  as  to  guarantee  their  exact- 
ness, sincerity  and  truth,  and  thus  to  make  them 
credible.  There  is  also,  however,  a  problem  still  more 
formidable  to  Rationalistic  criticism  which,  in  fact, 
finds  it  impossible  to  solve  it  by  similar  a  priori  de- 
nials,— namely,  that  concerning  the  Saviour's  own  de- 
clarations about  His  Messianic  character.  How  can 
we,  humanly  speaking,  explain  in  One  such  as  Jesus, 
this  assurance  of  being  the  Messiah  ?  Here,  truly,  lies 
the  stumbling-block  to  infidel  criticism. 

The  problem  of  the  origin  of  Jesus'  Messianic  con- 
sciousness, be  it  noted,  is  so  disconcerting  to  Rational- 
ists that  their  first  endeavor  was  to  do  away  with  it  by 
(128) 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  129 

discarding  that  Messianic  consciousness  itself,  that  is, 
by  denying  the  historical  value  of  those  declarations 
ascribed  by  the  Evangelists  to  the  Saviour  when  He 
alluded  to  His  Messiahship.  Such  a  radical  solution 
was,  of  course,  quite  natural  at  the  time  when  Strauss 
found  in  the  Gospels  only  the  statements  of  beliefs 
prevailing  in  the  Church  long  after  Jesus'  death,  or 
when  Baur  denied  that  the  Gospels  were  composed 
before  the  second  half  of  the  second  century  of  the 
Christian  era.  It  was  then  the  fashion  to  attribute  to 
the  pious  fancies  of  popular  imagination  the  claims 
made  by  Jesus  to  the  Messiahship  and  also  His 
miracles  in  proof  thereof.  But  since  the  middle  of 
the  nineteenth  century  what  a  leap  has  not  criticism 
taken!  Nowadays,  as  we  have  seen,  critics  unanim- 
ously recognize  that  the  first  three  Gospels,  called  the 
Synoptics,  originated  in  the  second  half  of  the  first 
century;  nay  more,  that  most  of  the  facts  which  they 
contain  represent  the  testimony  of  the  Saviour's  own 
contemporaries,  the  eye-witnesses  of  His  deeds  and 
the  hearers  of  His  discourses.^ 

Wellhausen  and  Wrede.— It  is  clear,  then,  that, 
under  such  conditions,  we  can  hardly  attribute  to  an 
unconscious  idealization,  later  influenced  by  legend,  the 
Messianic  declarations  which  the  Evangelists  place  in 
the  Saviour's  mouth.  We  now  rarely  meet  with  those 
who,  like  Wellhausen,  think  that  the  faith  in  Jesus' 
Messiahship  was  born  of  the  faith  in  His  resurrection, 
and  that  the  Messianic  statements  which  the  Evan- 
geHsts  ascribe  to  Him  as  His  own  are  really  due  to 
later  tradition.  Thus,  Wellhausen  claims  that,  al- 
though Jesus  allowed  Himself  to  be  called  the  Messiah 
and  to  be  condemned  as  the  Messiah,  still  He  himself 
did  not  claim  to  be  such:  He  was  neither  aware  of 
being  the  Messiah  expected  at  the  world's  end,  nor 
did  He  ever  speak  of  His  Messianic  return  at  the  end 

1  Lepin,  Introd.,  p.  xxx,  E.  tr.,  p.  20  sq. 
9 


130  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

of  time.  And  Schmidt,  who  believes  he  has  proven 
that  Jesus  had  never  used  the  term  '  Son  of  Man/  as 
a  messianic  title,  thence  infers  that  "  the  opinion  that 
Jesus  regarded  Himself  as  the  Messiah  loses  its 
strongest  support."  A  conclusion  which  he  tries  to 
ground  upon  a  very  radical  interpretation  of  the  chief 
texts  adduced  in  behalf  of  the  Saviour's  Messianic 
consciousness.^ 

The  apparent  reasons  urged  by  the  supporters  of 
this  theory  have  been  thus  stated  by  Loisy :  "  The 
preoccupation  of  the  narrators  to  prove  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah,  immediately  rouses  the  critic  to  see 
if  the  point  of  view  of  the  evangelists  conforms  to 
the  facts.  In  many  details  an  interest,  either  apolo- 
getic or  simply  didactic,  has  influenced  the  narration 
of  discourses  and  occurrences ;  but  this  natural  ten- 
dency would  not  fall  under  suspicion  were  it  not  that  the 
attitude  which  the  narratives  attribute  to  the  Saviour 
seems  at  first  sight  inexplicable.  Jesus  did  not,  in  the 
course  of  His  preaching,  announce  Himself  as  the 
Messiah;  He  silenced  those  possessed  of  devils  who 
hailed  Him  as  the  Son  of  God;  further,  the  populace 
never  imagined  Him  to  have  this  mission;  they  made 
Him  the  subject  of  most  extravagant  hypotheses  with- 
out suspecting  the  truth.  The  disciples  alone  held 
Him  for  the  Christ  and  finally  declared  their  faith 
through  the  mouth  of  Simon;  but  the  Master  for- 
bade them  to  speak  of  it  to  others,  so  that  we  must 
look  to  the  end  of  His  career,  almost  to  His  last  day, 
to  find  the  public  avowal  of  His  dignity.  It  is  true 
that,  after  the  Confession  of  Simon  Peter,  Jesus  is 
said  to  have  discoursed  to  His  disciples  several  times 
as  to  the  fate  that  awaited  the  Messiah;  but  as  the 
general  scope  of  His  discourses  is  founded  on  ac- 
complished   facts   and   influenced   by   early   Christian 

1  Wellhausen,  Israel,  und  lud.  Geschichte,  1894,  3rd  ed., 
1897;  Das  Evangelium  Marci,  1903;  Schmidt,  art.:  Son  of 
Man,  E.  B.,  col.  4739,  par.  46. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


131 


preaching,  and  as  they  contain  no  sentence  definitely 
reported  as  the  saying  of  the  Lord,  such  an  assertion 
rather  comphcates  the  difficulty  than  throws  light  on 
it.  May  it  not  be  that  all  that  concerns  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah  belongs  to  tradition,  and  that  the  reserve  of 
the  Saviour,  as  narrated,  was  really  an  absolute  silence, 
much  easier  to  imagine  than  the  equivocal  situation 
described  by  the  evangelists  ?  "  ^ 

It  is  this  theory  that  Wrede  recently  advanced  in 
emphasizing  the  idea  of  the  Messianic  Secret.  This 
German  critic  claims  that  there  is  a  sort  of  perpetual 
contradiction  between  Jesus'  revelations  of  His  Mes- 
siahship  during  the  course  of  His  ministry  and  His  en- 
deavors to  put  aside  from  Himself  the  thought  of  the 
Messiah,  or  the  disciples'  lack  of  understanding  with 
regard  to  His  declarations.  To  Wrede,  however,  it  is 
all  clear  enough,  if  we  admit  the  posthumous  character 
of  the  Saviour's  Messiahship.  "  During  His  earthly 
life,  it  is  held,  Jesus  never  pretended  to  be  the  Messiah. 
After  His  death.  His  disciples,  being  assured  of  His 
resurrection, — howsoever  they  had  become  convinced 
thereof, — were  persuaded  that  it  was  by  this  very 
fact  that  He  had  become  the  Christ.  Since  then  He 
was  the  Messiah  after  His  resurrection,  they  thought 
that  during  His  life.  He  must  have  been  a  Messiah  in 
expectancy,  hidden  and  unknown.  Thus  arose  that 
mingling  of  light  and  darkness,  of  publicity  and  re- 
serve with  which  later  tradition  finally  represented 
the  manifestation  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  Our  Gospels, 
it  is  claimed,  reflect,  not  the  historical  truth,  but  the 
faith  of  the  Church  on  this  matter.  The  idea  of  a 
Messianic  Secret,  especially  prominent  in  S.  Mark's 
Gospel,  is  merely  a  means  to  hide  a  fact  so  embar- 
rassing to  the  Apologists  of  the  early  Church,  namely, 
that  Jesus  Himself,  neither  in  public  nor  when  alone 
with  His  disciples,  asserted  His  Messiahship. - 

^  Mk.  viii.  28;  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  99-100. 
2  Wrede,  Das  Messiasgeheimnis  in  den  Evang.,  1901 ;  Bous- 
set,  art. :  In  Theol.  Rundschau,  Aug.,  1902. 


132  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

However  plausible  this  extreme  theory  may  appear, 
still  it  is  recognized  by  the  entire  school  of  infidel 
critics  as  untenable.  In  fact,  apart  from  its  disagree- 
ment with  the  Gospel's  data,  it  goes  against  all  that  we 
certainly  know  about  the  faith  of  the  primitive  Church 
in  Jesus'  Messiahship. 

We  may  safely  say  that  the  beliefs  of  the  early 
Church  are  known  today  as  they  were  never  known  be- 
fore, and  that  we  possess  the  most  reliable  informa- 
tion about  them.  Thus,  apart  from  the  Gospels,  which 
portray  the  faith,  if  not  of  the  first,  at  least  of  the 
second  generation  of  Christians,  we  may  refer  to  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  edited  by  S.  Luke,  through  the 
aid  of  authorized  previous  documents,  about  80  A.  D. 
at  the  latest,  and  certainly  before  70  A.  D.  at  the 
earliest.  We  have  also  S.  Paul's  great  Epistles,  now- 
adays universally,  accepted  by  critics,  and  presenting 
such  a  vivid  idea  of  the  opinions  current  during  the 
twenty  or  thirty  years  that  elapsed  after  the  Saviour's 
death.  And  if  there  is  one  thing  that  these  various 
documents  bear  witness  to,  it  is  the  profound  faith  of 
the  early  Church  in  Jesus'  Messiahship.  If,  then,  we 
discard  the  Gospel  record  of  Christ's  own  declarations 
about  His  Messiahship  and  the  proofs  that  He  gave  in 
its  behalf,  the  undoubtable  faith  of  His  disciples  there- 
in becomes  inexpHcable.^ 

We  may  ask  how  it  was  that  the  Apostles,  the  re- 
cent witnesses  of  their  Master's  ignominious  death 
and  so  deeply  saddened  by  the  violence  of  the  Jewish 
authorities  and  the  distressing  events  of  the  Passion, 

1  Lepin,  Introd.,  p.  xxxi,  n.  i,  E.  tr,,  p.  21 ;  Schmiedel,  art. : 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  E.  B.,  col.  49  (160-130  A.  D.)  ;  Julicher, 
up.  cit.  (100-105  A.  D,),  p.  425;  Harnack,  Die  Chron.,  p.  250 
(78-93  A.  D.)  ;  Weiss,  B.,  Lehrh.  der  Einleit,  N.  T.  (80 
A.  D.)  ;  Zahn,  Einleit,  N.  T.,  vol.  ii  (75  A.  D.)  ;  Headlam, 
art:  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  H.  D.,  p.  29  (70  A.  D.)  ;  Blass, 
Acta  Apostolorum  (64-70  A.  D.)  ;  Rackam,  The  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  (64  A.  D.)  ;  Knabenbauer,  Com.  in  Actus  Aposto- 
lorum (62  or  6s  A.  D.). 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  133 

could  have  suddenly  got  the  idea  that  their  suffering 
Master  was  the  Messiah  of  God?  How  could  this 
personal  belief  become  so  powerful,  so  assured,  as  to 
transform  their  very  souls  in  a  way  unexampled  in 
history,  as  to  impel  them  to  go  into  all  nations,  despite 
all  kinds  of  privations  and  sufferings,  despite  death 
itself,  in  order  to  preach  Christ  crucified? 

"  Where  can  we  find  in  the  history  of  mankind," 
says  Harnack,  "  any  similar  instance  of  men  eating 
and  drinking  with  their  master,  seeing  Him  in  the 
characteristic  aspects  of  His  humanity,  and  then  pro- 
claiming him  not  only  as  the  great  prophet  and  re- 
vealer  of  God,  but  as  the  divine  disposer  of  history, 
as  the  '  first  born  '  of  God's  creation  and  as  the  inner 
strength  of  a  new  hfe?"  ^ 

Wonderful,  indeed !  A  belief  to  which  such  dis- 
tressing facts  seemed  to  give  the  lie,  yet  so  ardent  and 
assured  of  its  ground  that  it  expresses  itself  in  an  un- 
exampled heroism,  can  only  be  due  to  the  Saviour's  at- 
titude during  His  earthly  life ;  that  is  to  say,  its  basis 
lies  in  His  own  declarations  about  His  Messiahship 
and  in  the  invincible  proofs  that  He  gave  in  its  sup- 
port. It  is  useless  to  seek  to  explain  the  disciples' 
Messianic  faith  by  the  mere  fact  of  their  belief  in  the 
Resurrection  without  supposing  that  it  had  a  previous 
basis.  How  could  they  pass  at  once  from  the  idea  of 
Jesus'  Resurrection  to  that  of  His  Messiahship  and 
Messianic  advent  at  the  end  of  time?  Even  from  the 
Rationalist  view-point,  would  their  belief  in  His  Re- 
surrection be  explicable  without  their  previous  per- 
suasion that  Jesus  was  not  to  fall  a  prey  to  death? 
And  this  very  persuasion,  how  can  we  explain  it,  if 
we  do  not  admit  that  Jesus  had  previously  made  de- 
clarations significant  enough  to  impress  upon  the 
hearts  of  His  disciples  such  a  deep  conviction,  so  soon 
after   the   terrible   tragedy   of    Calvary?      But   if   we 

1  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity?  p.  167. 


134 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


must  admit  that  Jesus  positively  declared  His  future 
Resurrection,  as  also  the  entire  collection  of  extra- 
ordinary facts  destined  to  corroborate  His  testimony, 
why  can  we  not  also  admit  that  He  gave  similar  state- 
ments and  proofs  of  His  Messiahship  ?  At  all  events, 
the  most  uncompromising  critics  cannot  refuse  to  ad- 
mit that  the  Gospels  are  substantially  historic;  and  it 
is  this  historic  foundation,  which  they  must  accept, — 
it  is  positively  recognized  by  even  Wellhausen  and 
Wrede, — which  sufficiently  and  incontestably  proves 
that  Jesus  really  proclaimed  His  Messiahship. 

The  most  ancient  and  trustworthy  tradition,  affirms 
J.  Weiss,  shows  that  Jesus  considered  as  entirely  Mes- 
sianic the  movement  which  He  had  promoted  and  that 
He  believed  Himself  the  Elect  of  God  and  more  than 
a  prophet.^ 

''  To  say  nothing  of  anything  else,"  remarks  Har- 
nack,  "  such  a  story  as  that  of  Christ's  entry  into 
Jerusalem  would  have  to  be  simply  expunged,  if  the 
theory  is  to  be  maintained  that  He  did  not  consider 
Himself  the  promised  Messiah  and  also  desire  to  be 
accepted  as  such."  ^ 

And  Stevens,  by  way  of  answer  to  Schmidt,  says 
that  "  assuming  that  Jesus  called  Himself  barnasha, 
and  that  this  term  means  only  '  man,'  and  is  not  a 
Messianic  title,  it  would  by  no  means  follow -that  He 
was  not,  and  did  not  claim  to  be,  the  Messiah.  One 
finds  the  Messianic  idea  connected  with  Jesus  every- 
where throughout  our  Gospels.  He  is  baptized, 
tempted,  rides  triumphantly  into  Jerusalem,  suffers, 
dies  and  rises  as  the  Messiah.  It  is  necessary  to  dis- 
prove, not  merely  the  Messianic  import  of  the 
Aramean  counterpart  of  the  '  Son  of  Man,'  but  the 
whole  Gospel  picture  of  Jesus,  if  His  consciousness  of 
being  the  Messiah  is  to  be  disproved."  ^ 

^Weiss,  J.,  Die  Predigt  Jesu,  2d  ed.,  1900,  p.  64. 

2  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  pp.   140- 141. 

3  Stevens,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  p.  90. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


135 


A  propos  of  Wrede's  work,  The  Messianic  Secret  in 
the  Gospels,  Loisy  observes :  "  If  there  is  one  estab- 
lished fact  in  the  Gospel  tradition,  it  is  that  Jesus  was 
condemned  to  death  as  '  King  of  the  Jews,'  as  the 
Messiah.  It  would  be  arbitrary  to  hold  that  He  had 
given  no  room  for  the  charge,  and  had  not  avowed 
this  role  before  Caiphas,  nor  Pilate.  Jesus,  then, 
would  so  act  in  Jerusalem  that,  along  with  the  infor- 
mation given  by  Judas,  He  could  be  accused  of  Mes- 
sianic pretensions.  But,  if,  whilst  in  the  Holy  City, 
His  attitude  argued  such  pretensions,  He  must  have 
repaired  to  Jerusalem  for  the  very  purpose  of  doing 
there  what  He  actually  did:  He  believed  Himself  the 
Messiah ;  and  Peter's  confession,  the  disciples'  recogni- 
tion of  Him  as  the  Messiah,  is  probably  historical.  Nor 
is  there  any  reason  to  question  the  fact  that  Jesus  be- 
lieved Himself  the  Messiah  when  He  first  began  to 
preach  the  gospel;  on  the  contrary.  His  conviction  of 
His  vocation  explains  His  attitude  in  announcing  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven."  But,  if  Loisy  does  not  favor 
the  views  of  Wrede  and  Wellhausen  in  their  total  and 
radical  expression,  he  still  partly  accepts  them  under 
a  modified  form.  "  The  main  outlines  of  Mark's  ac- 
count," he  says,  "  are  to  be  held  as  historical.  But, 
as  for  the  particular  facts  alleged  by  Wrede,  there  is 
room  to  distinguish  between  the  different  sections  and 
the  different  strata  of  the  editing.  .  .  .  The  prophecies 
of  the  passion  and  of  the  resurrection,  which  are  not 
given  in  Jesus'  words,  are  based  upon  the  Apostolic 
catechesis;  what  is  said  of  the  lack  of  understanding 
on  the  apostles'  part  may  mean  almost  what  Wrede 
implies,  namely,  that,  only  after  the  resurrection  did 
they  grasp  certain  things  which,  indeed,  they  could  not 
have  even  suspected  previously.  .  .  .  There  may  have 
been  also  some  systematic  purpose  in  presenting  the 
testimony  which  the  possessed  persons  are  thought  to 
have  constantly  given  of  Jesus."  ^ 

1  Loisy,  art. :  Rev.  d'Hist.,  etc.,  1903,  p.  296. 


136  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Loisy  also  elsewhere  says :  "  Jesus  did  really  make 
Himself  known  to  His  disciples  as  the  Messiah,  and 
the  general  tendency  of  His  doctrine  as  to  the  King- 
dom of  Heaven  implied  the  part  that  was  His  by  right 
in  the  coming  reign  of  God.  .  .  .  Jesus  suffered  on  the 
cross  because  He  avowed  Himself,  and  believed  Him- 
self to  be,  the  Messiah.  .  .  .  Tradition  must  follow  its 
natural  tendency,  and  was  soon  to  discover,  in  the  min- 
istry of  Jesus,  characteristic  features  and  indubitable 
proofs  of  His  Messianic  dignity.  The  glory  of  the 
risen  Lord  threw  new  light  on  the  memories  of  His 
earthly  career :  Thence  arose  a  kind  of  idealization  of 
His  discourses  and  His  acts,  and  a  tendency  to  sys- 
tematize them.  .  .  .  Thus  everything  assumes,  as  it 
were,  a  relation  to  the  Messiah,  and  all  contributes  to 
prove  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  Nevertheless,  all 
these  arguments  are  not  the  simple  expression  of  in- 
creasing faith.  They  are,  for  the  most  part,  an  inter- 
pretation of  actual  facts  and  occurrences,  which  as- 
sume a  new  aspect  in  the  full  glory  of  the  Messiah,  as 
though  they  now  adapted  themselves  to  the  condition 
of  the  Eternal  Christ."  ^ 

These  views  of  Loisy  refer  particularly  to  certain 
episodes  of  a  most  extraordinary  supernatural  char- 
acter, such  as  the  acclamations  of  the  demons  through 
the  mouths  of  the  possessed  persons,  the  heavenly 
manifestation  at  the  Baptism,  the  temptation  in  the 
desert,  the  multiplication  of  loaves,  the  transfiguration, 
;and  the  like.  This  is  nearly  the  same  point  of  view 
that  we  meet  with  in  the  works  of  Harnack  and 
Stapfer.  As  for  the  "  Messianic  Secret,"  however, 
upon  which  Wrede  outlined  most  of  his  theory,  Loisy 
gives  an  interpretation  which  we  will  discuss  later. 
Like  J.  Weiss,  he  explains  it  by  the  fact  that  Jesus 
did  not  think  of  attaining  to  the  Messiahship  until 
the  end  of  time.^ 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  38,  39,  40,  119. 

2  Weiss,  J.,  Das  A I  teste  Evang. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  137 

It  would  be  useless  to  stop  to  discuss  a  hypothesis 
which,  historically  speaking,  is  so  inconvenient  as  to 
render  not  only  obscure,  but  absolutely  unintelligible, 
the  birth  and  death  of  Jesus  as  also  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity itself.  So  that,  we  will  survey  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  and,  from  their  testimony,  we  will  endeavor  to 
determine  the  various  phases  which  marked  the 
Saviour's   Messianic  manifestation. 

Christ's  Baptism  and  Temptation. — One  of  the 
prominent  facts  in  the  Synoptic  account  is  that,  from 
the  beginning  of  His  public  life,  Jesus  was  aware  of  be- 
ing the  Messiah.  This  much  is  clear  from  the  different 
occurrences  that  signalized  the  inauguration  of  His 
ministry.  He  is,  first  of  all,  the  Messiah,  the  agent  of 
the  Final  Judgment  and  chief  of  the  Kingdom  whose 
near  approach  John  the  Baptist  announces  in  cautious 
terms.  To  the  crowd  that  asks  Him  if  he  was  not  the 
Christ,  He  rephes :  "  No."  But  he  also  says :  "  The 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand."  And  again :  *'  There 
Cometh  after  me  one  mightier  than  I,  the  latchet  of 
whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  stoop  down  and  loose. 
I  have  baptized  you  with  water;  but  he  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  further :  "  Whose 
fan  is  in  His  hand,  and  He  will  thoroughly  cleanse  His 
floor  and  gather  His  wheat  into  the  barn ;  but  the  chaff 
He  will  burn  with  unquenchable  fire."  ^ 

The  Baptist's  declaration  certainly  refers  to  Jesus 
and  proclaims  Him,  in  equivalent  terms,  to  be  the  ex- 
pected Messiah.  It  is  a  prelude  to  the  miraculous 
manifestations  which  occurred  at  the  Saviour's  bap- 
tism and  which  have  even  a  greater  Messianic  bearing. 
The  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  Jesus  is,  in  a 
way.  His  investiture  and  public  consecration  as  the 
Christ  of  God.  The  voice  of  the  Heavenly  Father 
proclaims  Him  as  His  beloved  Son,  and  thus  officially 
declares  Him  the  Elect  and  Messiah  of  the  Lord.    But 

1  Lk.  iii.  18 ;  Mt.  iii.  2 ;  Mk.  i.  7,  8 ;  Mt.  iii.  12 ;  Lk.  iii.  16. 


138  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

is  Jesiis  really  the  Son  of  God  in  a  transcendent  sense, 
that  is,  in  virtue  of  a  superior  and  superhuman  part  of 
His  being?  This  point  we  will  determine  later.  If, 
however,  the  divine  filiation,  here  declared,  pertains  to 
Him  even  in  His  human  nature,  because  of  the  special 
election  or  particular  adoption  of  which  this  humanity- 
was  the  object  on  God's  part,  assuredly  there  can  be  no 
question  only  of  a  Messianic  election  or  adoption.  The 
term  "  Son  of  God,"  which  the  Gospels  invariably 
apply  to  the  Saviour,  is  at  least  equivalent  to  the  term 
"  Messiah,"  the  full  sense  of  which  it  contains,  if,  in- 
deed, it  does  not  imply  something  more. 

If,  moreover,  we  compare  the  various  Gospel  texts, 
we  will  clearly  see  the  directly  Messianic  sense  of  the 
manifestation  at  the  Baptism.  Thus,  while  in  the 
synagogue  at  Nazareth,  Jesus  implies  that  His  investi- 
ture by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  immediately  connected  with 
His  anointing  and  mission  as  the  Messiah.  So  too, 
S.  Matthew  applies  to  Him  that  saying  of  Isaiah  which 
proclaims  Him  as  the  object  of  the  complacency  of 
the  Most  High  in  virtue  of  His  election  for  the  Mes- 
sianic work.  And  later,  S.  Peter  indicates  more  pre- 
cisely the  Messianic  sense  of  this  text  in  his  appeal  to 
the  centurion  Cornelius.  Undoubtedly,  then,  it  is 
Jesus'  anointing  as  the  Messiah  that  is  signified  by  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  Him,  and  it  is  un- 
doubtedly in  His  character  of  Messiah,  the  privileged 
Elect  of  God,  that  the  Heavenly  Father  proclaims  Him 
as  His  beloved  Son  in  whom  He  is  well  pleased.  ^ 

From  the  banks  of  the  Jordan  Jesus  is  led  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  into  the  desert.  He  is  there  assailed 
by  temptations  which,  though  inspired  by  Satan,  are 
still  in  direct  relationship  with  His  Messianic  dignity. 
Satan  surmises  that  Jesus  is  "  the  Son  of  God,"  that 
is,  directly  and  at  least  the  Messiah,  and  fears  not  to 

^  Lk.  iv.  18;  cf.  Is.  Ixi.  i;  Mt.  xii.  18;  cf.  Is.  xlii.  1-4;  Ac. 
X.  38. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


139 


salute  Him  as  such.  And  since  the  Messiah  was  to 
have  great  miraculous  power,  he  demands  Him  to 
give  many  striking  signs  in  proof  of  His  Messiahship. 
Since  also,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Messiah  was  to  be 
the  universal  King,  he  offers  Him  dominion  over  all 
the  empires  of  the  world  and  invites  Him  to  seek  this 
sovereignty  from  himself,  as  though  he  had  had 
hitherto  the  whole  universe  in  his  power.  Jesus  repels 
Satan's  suggestions,  but  does  not  reject  the  title  "  Son 
of  God."  Here,  then,  is  the  Saviour's  own  avowal  of 
His  Messianic  dignity, — an  avowal  that  is  implicit,  but 
not  equivocal. 

Of  course,  Rationalists  of  the  extreme  sort  like 
Renan,  or  those  of  the  conservative  school  like  Har- 
nack  and  the  Liberal  Protestant  writers,  deny  the  full 
historical  truthfulness  of  these  accounts  whose  contents 
are  so  essentially  supernatural.  Still,  they  have  accepted 
these  records  as  the  authorized  expression  of  tradition 
as  to  the  fact  that,  from  the  beginning  of  His  ministry, 
Jesus  was  aware  of  His  Messianic  vocation.  The  su- 
pernatural occurrences  which  are  supposed  to  have 
happened  at  His  baptism,  or  during  His  temptation,  if 
unhistoric  as  to  their  miraculous  details,  may  be  the 
figures  or  symbols  whereby  tradition  has  been  enabled 
to  give  a  concrete  expression  and  a  mystical  repre- 
sentation to  the  Saviour's  Messianic  consciousness. 

In  O.  Holtzmann's  opinion,  "  Jesus'  baptismal  ex- 
perience is  thus  the  vision  of  His  call,  analogous  to  the 
visions  which  the  Old  Testament  prophets  had  at 
their  respective  calls.  (Is.  c.  vi;  Jer.  c.  i;  Ez.  c.  i,  ii). 
It  is,  then  a  complete  mistake  to  suppose  that  Jesus' 
experience  at  His  baptism  loses  in  value  and  signifi- 
cance when  it  is  no  longer  understood  as  an  objective 
occurrence  in  the  outside  world,  but  is  regarded  as  an 
incident  of  His  inner  spiritual  experience.  .  .  .  The 
really  important  thing  ...  is,  after  all,  the  awaken- 
ing of  Jesus'  belief  in  Himself  as  the  Messiah.  .  .  . 
This  belief  was  first  implanted  deep  in  His  conscious- 


I40 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


ness  on  the  day  He  was  baptized  by  John  in  the 
Jordan.  So  that,  even  on  the  soberest  conception  of 
history,  this  moment  is  one  of  the  greatest  turning- 
points  in  the  world's  development."  ^ 

Harnack,  also,  remarks:  '*An  inner  event  which 
Jesus  experienced  at  His  Baptism  was,  in  the  view  of 
the  oldest  tradition,  the  foundation  of  His  Messianic 
consciousness.  It  is  not  an  experience  which  is  sub- 
ject to  any  criticism;  still  less  are  we  in  a  position  to 
contradict  it.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  a  strong  prob- 
ability that  when  He  made  His  public  appearance  He 
had  already  settled  accounts  with  Himself.  The 
Evangelists  preface  their  account  of  His  public  activity 
with  a  curious  story  of  a  temptation.  This  story 
assumes  that  He  was  already  conscious  of  being  the 
Son  of  God  and  the  One  who  was  entrusted  with  the 
all-important  work  for  God's  people,  and  that  He  had 
overcome  the  temptations  which  this  consciousness 
had  brought  with  it."  ^ 

Loisy's  views  of  Christ's  baptism  may  be  thus 
stated:  The  account  of  Christ's  baptism  should  be 
viewed  in  a  symbolical  sense  just  like  that  which  re- 
cords the  formation  of  His  Messianic  consciousness. 
All  these  accounts  may  easily  be  reducible  to  the  theory 
of  a  vision.  We  are  not  at  all  bound  to  suppose  that 
the  Dove  which  the  Gospel  mentions  on  this  occasion 
was  a  real  dove.  And  as  regards  the  origin  of  the 
Messianic  consciousness  in  Jesus'  soul,  we  cannot 
certainly  infer  it  from  the  texts  alleged  in  its  support. 
Apparently,  the  earliest  Christian  tradition  explained, 
or  symbolized  it  by  means  of  a  revelation  made  at 
Christ's  baptism  in  the  Jordan.  This  may  be  nothing 
more  than  the  symbolical  explanation  of  a  real  fact, 
although  the  episode  of  His  baptism  has  undoubtedly 

1  Holtzmann,  O.,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  137;  Was  Jesus  Exsta- 
tikerf  1903. 

2  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  149. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


141 


marked  a  decisive  moment  in  the  Saviour's  career. 
The  account  of  the  Temptation  presents  symbolically 
and  in  miniature  Jesus'  mental  attitude  and  His  way 
of  viewing  His  providential  role.  Jesus  viewed  this 
role  as  represented  in  the  scene  of  His  Transfiguration, 
and,  in  the  significant  rending  of  the  Veil  of  the 
Temple,  He  perceived  the  relation  between  the  King- 
dom of  Heaven  and  the  Mosaic  Law.^ 

It  need  scarcely  be  remarked  that  these  critics  have 
no  stronger  objection  to  the  internal  truth  of  our 
writings  than  their  personal  opposition  to  the  historical 
character  of  every  particularly  miraculous  account. 
These  recitals  are  given  by  the  Synoptics.  They  are 
written  in  a  way  that  is  most  natural,  circumstantially 
exact,  and  in  full  agreement  with  the  entire  context. 
If  we  consider,  in  particular,  the  Synoptic  accounts  of 
the  Baptism  of  Jesus,  we  will  perceive  that  they 
square  exactly  with  the  somewhat  parallel  though  in- 
dependent accounts  found  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  On 
the  other  hand,  they  are  fully  confirmed  in  the  Dis- 
courses of  the  Apostles  in  the  first  chapters  of  the 
Acts.  For,  these  Discourses  reflect  the  genuine 
primitive  belief  of  the  first  days  after  the  Ascension 
of  Jesus.  Now,  we  find  that  not  only  is  His  Baptism 
placed  in  relief  as  marking  a  decisive  moment  in  His 
career,  but  S.  Peter  even  seems  to  formally  connect 
with  His  Baptism  the  solemn  anointing  which  inau- 
gurated Jesus'  Messianic  career  and  His  investiture 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nor  is  there  aught  to  prevent 
us  from  admitting  that  this  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  rendered  perceptible  by  an  outward  manifesta- 
tion such  as  is  described  by  our  sacred  writers.^ 

We  may  ask,  finally,  what  basis  have  these  critics 
for  opposing  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  accounts 

1  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  p.  229 ;  Rev.  d'Hist.,  etc.,  1904, 
p.  91 ;  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  40,  104. 

2  Ac.  i.  21,  22\  X.  Z7,  38. 


142  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

of  the  Temptation?  In  virtue  of  what  principle  do 
they  claim  authority  for  interpreting  and  transposing 
the  facts?  Jesus,  the  Messiah  and  founder  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  was  to  be,  thereby,  the  destroyer 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Satan/  We  shall  see,  moreover,  at 
the  episode  of  the  exorcisms,  that  the  demons  com- 
plain that  He  persecutes  them,  that  they  strive  to 
counteract  His  work  by  prematurely  divulging  His 
dignity.  Is  it,  then,  surprising  that  Satan  should  rise 
against  Jesus  as  an  adversary  and  tempter,  imme- 
diately after  the  revelation  at  the  Baptism  ?  Again,  is 
is  surprising  that  God  should  have  permitted  such  a 
temptation  against  the  Messiah?  Should  not  the 
chosen  Messiah  live  humbly  and  be  persecuted? 
The  Father's  well-beloved  Son, — was  He  not  to  suffer 
many  things  and  to  perish  under  the  blows  of  His 
enemies?  All  the  realities  of  the  Temptation  are 
understood  very  well  if  it  be  realized  that  Jesus  is  the 
Penitent  for  all  men  and  the  world's  Redeemer.  His 
temptation  by  Satan  is  of  the  same  character  as  the 
Baptism  of  Penance,  the  fast  in  the  desert,  the  priva- 
tions of  His  public  Hfe,  the  torments  of  His  passion 
and  death. 

There  is  no  apparent  theologic  motive  or  moral  in- 
terest, says  Rose,  that  might  have  determined  the  first 
Christian  generation,  so  intensely  spiritualized,  to 
invent  trials  that  rather  emphasize  the  human  as- 
pect of  the  Saviour's  person.  We  may  observe  that 
the  account  must  have  had  its  origin  in  the  con- 
fidential remarks  made  by  Jesus  to  His  disciples.  But, 
we  may  ask,  is  Rose  really  warranted  in  adding  that 
the  narrative,  which  is  substantially  historic,  may  be 
symbolic  in  its  details?  His  contention  is  that  the 
Saviour  had  described,  under  the  form  of  Parables, 
the  tests  which  He  had  to  undergo  as  Messiah  and 
Son  of  God;  that  the  different  temptations  were  in- 

1  Lepin,  Jes.  Messie,  p.  io8,  E.  tr.,  p.  156. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  143 

visible,  Jesus  having  withstood  them  in  thought;  that 
the  demon  appeared  to  Him  in  a  vision  which  affected 
His  imagination;  that  it  was  in  spirit  that  He  fled  to 
a  high  mountain.  In  behalf  of  this  view  there  has 
been  alleged  a  supposed  Sermon  of  S.  Cyprian,  prob- 
ably after  the  text  edited  by  Maldonatus.  This  com- 
mentator, however,  utterly  rejects  the  interpretation 
attributed  to  S.  Cyprian;  and,  besides,  we  have  not 
found  this  Sermon  mentioned  anywhere  whether  in 
the  editions  of  Migne  or  of  Hartel.^ 

At  all  events,  we  think  it  enough  to  accept  the 
formal  avowal  of  our  critics,  namely,  that  Jesus,  from 
the  very  beginning  of  His  ministry,  was  aware  of 
being  the  Messiah  of  God. 

Christs'  Reserve. — If  we  examine  the  Synoptic  ac- 
counts from  the  view-point  which  Jesus  took  of  His 
Messianic  dignity,  we  will  find  that  His  public  life  is 
divisible  into  two  sections.  In  the  first,  which  ex- 
tends from  the  Baptism  to  S.  Peter's  confession,  and 
which  probably  includes  the  first  two  years  of  His 
ministry.  He  reveals  Himself  in  an  extremely  reserved 
manner.  During  the  remaining  period,  that  is  from 
S.  Peter's  confession  until  Christ's  death,  the  Mes- 
sianic manifestation  is  still  cautiously,  although  more 
explicitly  made,  and  ever  advancing  towards  its  full 
expression. 

As  to  the  duration  of  Our  Lord's  ministry,  it  prob- 
ably lasted  for  three  and  a  half  years.  His  Baptism 
occurred  about  the  end  of  26  A.  D.,  or  779  A.  U.  C, 
i.  e.  of  the  Roman  era,  or  even  about  the  beginning  of 
27  A.  D.,  or  780  A.  U.  C.  In  April  2y  A.  D.  there 
was  celebrated  a  First  Passover;  while  in  April  28 
A.  D.,  there  occurred  a  Second  Passover  which  was 
probably  the  *'  Feast  of  the  Jews  "  mentioned  in  Jo. 
V.  I,  and  apparently  implying  the  Spring  season  to 
judge   from  the   reference   to   "the  plucked  ears  of 

1  Rose,  Evang.  selon  S.  Matt.,  p.  23 ;  S.  Cyprian,  Scnn.  de 
Jejun.  and  Tent.  Xti.;  Maldonatus,  Com.  in  Math.  iv.  5. 


144  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

corn."  Again,  in  29  A.  D.  there  was  held  a  Third 
Passover,  as  is  expressly  stated  in  Jo.  vi.  4,  and  im- 
plied by  the  reference  to  the  plentiful  green  grass  in 
Mk.  vi.  39.  And  the  final  or  Fourth  Passover,  men- 
tioned by  the  Four  Evangelists,  must  be  that  of  April 
7,  30  A.  D.,  or  783  A.  U.  C.  Of  course,  these  dates 
are  only  approximate.  Thus,  Turner  assigns  the 
Baptism  to  26-2y  A.  D.,  the  Public  Life  to  two  or 
three  years'  duration,  and  the  Crucifixion  to  29  A.  D. 
Von  Soden  dates  the  beginning  of  Christ's  ministry 
at  28-29  A.  D.,  and  His  death  at  30  A.  D.  Loisy 
seems  to  admit  this,  but  only  after  a  superficial  view 
of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  In  fact,  the  two  events 
above  mentioned,  namely,  the  ears  of  corn  and  the 
crowds  seated  on  the  grass,  seem  to  be  well  attested 
and  to  agree  with  the  Gospel  of  S.  John  which  sup- 
poses several  Spring  seasons,  and,  therefore,  at  least 
a  few  years'  duration  for  the  Saviour's  public  min- 
istry.^ 

Reserve  in  Revelation.  —  Remarkably  enough, 
during  the  early  years  of  His  Public  Ministry,  the 
Saviour  apparently  takes  special  means  to  hinder  the 
manifestation  of  His  Messianic  character.  The 
demons,  for  instance,  "  knew  Him,"  and  "  knew  that 
He  was  the  Christ " ;  and  by  the  mouths  of  the  pos- 
sessed they  saluted  Him  as  "  the  Holy  One  of  God  " 
who  was  come  to  destroy  them,  as  "  the  Son  of 
God,"  as  ''  the  Son  of  the  Most  High "  who  was 
come  to  torment  them.  But  Jesus  immediately  silences 
them  by  a  stern  rebuke,  thus  checking  their  declara- 
tion of  His  Messiahship,  as  soon  as  it  is  uttered. 

2  Mk.  i.  34;  Lk.  iv.  41;  Mk.  i.  24;  Lk.  iv.  34;  Mk.  iii.  12; 
Lk.  iv.  41 ;  Mk.  v.  7 ;  Mt.  viii.  29 ;  Lk.  viii.  28. 

ijo.  ii.  13;  iii.  24;  Mk.  i.  14;  Mt.  iv.  12;  Mk.  ii.  23;  Mt. 
xii.  I ;  Lk.  vi.  i ;  Jo.  vi.  4 ;  Mk.  vi.  39 ;  Mt.  xiv.  19 ;  Lk.  ix.  14 ; 
Mangenot,  art. :  Chron.  Bib.,  V.  D.,  col.  734 ;  Jacquier,  Hist, 
des  Liv.  du  N.  T.,  vol.  i,  p.  12,  2d  ed. ;  Turner,  art.:  Chronol- 
ogy, H.  D.,  P.  405 ;  Von  Soden,  art. :  Chronology,  E.  B.,  col. 
801 ;  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  p.  61. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  145 

This  attitude  seems  strange  to  those  critics  who 
say  that  the  above-mentioned  events  show  that,  at 
this  period,  Jesus  was  not  aware  of  His  Messiahship 
as  has  been  claimed  by  tradition.  But  as  regards 
such  an  interpretation  of  Christ's  attitude,  we  need 
merely  remark  that,  during  this  very  stage  of  His 
ministry,  He  took  the  like  means  to  conceal  His  mira- 
culous power.  He  acts  thus  after  the  cure  of  the 
lepers  and  the  two  blind  men,  of  the  deaf-mute  of 
DecapoHs  and  the  blind  man  of  Bethsaida,  as  also 
after  the  restoration  of  Jairus'  daughter  to  life.  If, 
however,  the  Saviour  thus  forbids  the  publication  of 
His  miraculous  deeds,  it  is  surely  not  because  He 
doubts  about  their  reality.  And  if  He  declines  the 
Messianic  titles  whereby  the  possessed  addressed  Him, 
it  is  not  because  He  thinks  such  titles  unwarranted. 
Quite  the  contrary ;  for  the  Evangelists  carefully  note 
that  He  ''  suffered  them  not  to  speak,"  precisely  be- 
cause "  they  knew  Him,"  because  "  they  knew  that 
He  was  Christ,"  and  that  He  *'  strictly  charged  them 
that  they  should  not  make  Him  known.'*  ^ 

Nor  can  we  ascribe  to  a  systematic  doctrinal  pur- 
pose the  declarations  of  the  possessed  persons,  or  even 
Christ's  attitude  itself,  as  is  claimed  by  Protestant 
critics  like  Wrede.  In  Loisy's  opinion,  the  objections 
alleged  by  Wrede  against  the  Messianic  character  of 
the  exclamations  uttered  by  these  possessed  persons 
are  reliable  in  the  sense  that  the  Evangelist  certainly 
wished  to  assign  them  to  the  time  of  Christ's  first 
appearance  in  Galilee  and  that  they  betray  a  certain 
desire  of  putting  forward  the  testimony  given  by  the 
demoniacs  to  Christ.^ 

Noticeably  too,  the  title  "  Messiah  "  is  not   found 

1  Mk.  i.  44;  Mt.  viii.  4;  Lk.  v.  14;  Mt.  ix.  30;  Mk.  v.  2)7 y  43; 
Lk.  viii.  51,  56;  Mk.  vii.  ZZ^  3^;  viii.  22,  26;  Mk.  i.  34;  Lk.  vi. 
41 ;  Mk,  iii.  12. 

2  Wrede,  Das  Messiasgeheimnis,  p.  2^ ;  Loisy,  Rev.  d'Hist, 
etc.,  p.  517;  Lepin,  Jesus  Messie,  p.  85,  n.  i,  E.  tr.,  p.  136. 

10 


146  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

among  the  acclamations  uttered  by  the  demon- 
iacs. The  terms  that  they  use  undoubtedly  serve  to 
designate  Christ.  But  the  Evangelists  alone  suggest 
the  real  equivalence  of  the  terms.  And  their  entire 
account  implies  that  this  equivalence  was  merely  in- 
sinuated to  Christ's  auditors  to  whom  it  still  seemed 
to  be  mysterious.  But,  we  may  ask,  is  it  likely  that 
the  early  faith  was  handed  down  in  such  a  cautious 
manner  in  accounts  wherein  the  Saviour's  Messiahship 
is  so  timidly  proclaimed  and,  at  first,  seems  to  be  dis- 
claimed by  Him  ?  Given  the  faith  of  the  early  Church 
in  Jesus'  Messiahship,  given,  also,  its  conviction  that 
Jesus  Himself  had  published  His  Messiahship,  it  is 
probable  that  the  interests  of  dogmatic  teaching,  or 
the  aims  of  apologetic  essays,  would  have  produced 
wholly  different  accounts. 

And  if  Jesus  was  really  accepted  as  the  Messiah, 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  incontestable,  it  was  very 
natural  for  Him  to  declare  His  Messiahship  in  that 
discreet  manner  to  which  the  Gospels  bear  witness 
during  the  early  years  of  His  ministry.  There  is 
naught  more  conformable  with  the  truth  than  that 
progress  in  the  process  of  His  manifestation,  the  first 
decisive  step  of  which  is  S.  Peter's  confession  and  the 
final  stage  the  solemn  avowal  of  Jesus  before  the  San- 
hedrin.  And  the  Saviour's  attitude,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances which  we  are  viewing,  exactly  agrees  with 
what  must  have  been  the  general  character  of  His 
earlier  manifestation.  So  that  we  may  accept  as  au- 
thentic the  testimony  of  the  possessed  persons  to  Jesus' 
Messiahship  as  also  His  reserve  in  accepting  them. 
But  where  can  we  find  the  reasons  for  such  reserve? 
Precisely  in  the  Saviour's  particular  situation, — and, 
indeed,  an  impartial  study  of  the  Gospel  clearly  re- 
veals them  to  us. 

We  must,  first  of  all,  allow  for  the  popular  pre- 
judices about  the  Messiah  and  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
as  also  for  the  probable  frenzied  enthusiasm  and  pas- 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  147 

sionate  excitement  which  would  have  resuUed  infalh- 
bly  from  an  immediate  and  unreserved  pubUcity  of 
the  Saviour's  miracles  and  Messiahship.  The  episode 
following  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves  sufficiently 
shows  to  what  excess  the  multitudes  would  have  gone 
as  a  result  of  their  chimerical  ideas  about  a  temporal 
king  and  a  too  earthly  conception  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  The  enthusiastic  witnesses  of  the  Miracle  of 
the  Loaves  cried  out :  "  This  is,  of  a  truth,  the  Prophet 
that  is  to  come  into  the  world  " ;  and,  at  once,  they 
try  to  seize  Jesus  and  to  forcibly  lead  Him  to  Jeru- 
salem in  order  that  they  might  proclaim  Him  King  in 
face  of  the  Roman  power.  Among  the  Disciples 
themselves  we  find  traces  of  the  like  anxiety.  Thus, 
at  Jesus'  death,  more  than  one  of  them  was  utterly 
discouraged;  the  two  disciples,  who  were  journeying 
along  the  road  to  Emmaus,  exclaim :  "  We  hoped  that 
it  was  He  that  should  have  redeemed  Israel."  And 
similarly,  on  the  morning  of  the  Ascension,  the 
Apostles  thus  besought  Jesus :  ''  Lord,  wilt  Thou,  at 
this  time,  restore  again  the  Kingdom  to  Israel  ?  "  Evi- 
dently, to  minds  thus  formed,  a  revelation  made  sud- 
denly, boldly,  and  without  previous  preparation  would 
have  been,  humanly  speaking,  untimely  and  impru- 
dent.^ 

Moreover,  along  with  this  mental  lethargy,  there 
was  also  a  lack  of  good-will  of  which  we  must  take  ac- 
count. All  who  heard  the  Master's  words  did  not 
possess  that  loyalty  and  sincerity  of  soul  which  seeks 
only  after  the  truth.  All  those  who  witnessed  His 
miracles  did  not  have  an  open  mind  and  an  upright 
heart,  ready  to  yield  to  the  evidence  of  facts.  Choro- 
zain,  Bethsaida,  Capharnaum,  and  even  Nazareth  dis- 
believed in  His  words  and  remained  stubborn  in  face 
of  His  miracles.  The  Pharisees  were  ready  to  criti- 
cise  His   every  word,   to   slander   His   every  act,   to 

ijo.  vi.  14-15;  Lk.  xxiv.  21;  Ac.  i.  6. 


148  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ascribe  to  the  Prince  of  Devils  His  exorcising  power. 
He  filled  their  paths  with  miracles,  but  that  was  not 
enough  for  the  Masters  in  Israel.  They  sought  a 
miracle  to  suit  their  own  ideas, — a  sign  from  heaven, 
as  though  such  a  sign  could  have  been  more  convinc- 
ing to  them  than  the  cures  and  restorations  to  life 
wrought  by  Jesus.  His  only  answer  was :  ''  An  evil 
and  adulterous  generation  seeketh  a  sign:  and  a  sign 
shall  not  be  given  it,  but  the  sign  of  Jonas  the  Pro- 
phet." ^ 

The  episode  of  the  possessed  Gerasens  shows  to  what 
extent  Jesus  had  to  take  into  account  the  temper  of 
peoples'  minds  and  hearts.  The  country  of  Gerasa 
was  situated  in  Decapolis  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the 
Lake  of  Genesareth,  and  accordingly  beyond  Palestine. 
There,  no  doubt,  the  influence  of  the  Pharisees  was 
hardly  felt;  there  the  intense  Messianic  enthusiasm 
was  least  noticeable,  there,  above  all,  the  people  were 
not  favored  as  much  as  others  had  been  by  His  bless- 
ings. Therefore  did  Jesus  take  pity  upon  the  terror- 
ized condition  of  these  poor  people.  He  did  for 
them  what  He  had  not  done  for  anyone  before.  Far 
from  silencing  the  possessed  whom  He  cured.  He  sent 
them  forth  to  proclaim  the  miracle  wrought  in  their 
behalf ;  so  that  all  Decapolis  wondered  at  the  prodigy 
wrought  by  Jesus.^ 

Finally,  it  was  part  of  the  designs  of  divine  Pro- 
vidence that  the  Saviour  redeemed  the  world  and  ob- 
tained the  Kingdom  by  His  death.  This  He  will  say 
later  on :  "  The  Son  of  Man  must  suffer  many  things, 
and  be  rejected  by  the  ancients,  and  by  the  High 
Priests  and  the  Scribes,  and  be  killed :  and  after  three 
days  rise  again."  Such  a  divine  plan  was  undoubtedly 
not  carried  out  through  necessity:  it  allowed  free 
play  to  human  desires  and  in  no  wise  removed  their 

1  Mt.  xii.  38;  Mk.  viii.  11;  Mt.  xvi.  I. 

2  Mk.  V.  19-20 ;  Lk.  viii.  39. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  149 

responsibility ;  and  yet  it  "  must "  be  accomplished. 
Jesus  would  not  hinder  it  by  a  too  evident  manifesta- 
tion of  Himself  which,  moreover,  would  not  have 
agreed  with  the  condition  of  His  auditors'  minds  and 
hearts.^ 

"  Had  Jesus  declared  Himself  quite  plainly  to  be  the 
Messiah,"  says  Wendt,  ''  there  would  have  been  asso- 
ciated with  His  person,  in  accordance  with  the  pre- 
vailing Jewish  ideas  of  the  nature  of  the  Messianic 
Kingdom,  expectations  which  He  neither  would  nor 
could  fulfil.  .  .  .  Jesus  after  having  trained  His  dis- 
ciples to  a  right  understanding  of  His  Messiahship, 
began  openly  to  claim  that  dignity."  ^ 

Loisy,  however,  thinks  differently.  "  Where  do  we 
find,"  he  asks,  "  that  Jesus  had  attempted  the  task  of 
correcting  the  current  ideas  on  the  subject  of  the  King- 
dom and  the  Messiah?  He  proclaims  the  Kingdom 
and  views  it  in  a  very  spiritual  manner,  although 
without  apologetic  or  polemic  interest."  But,  if  it  is 
true  that  Jesus  plans  and  announces  the  Kingdom 
in  a  very  spiritual  manner,  it  is  also  true  that  He 
thereby  corrects  those  popular  and  quite  material  pre- 
judices and  that  it  was  an  indirect  proceeding  planned 
by  the  Saviour.  Loisy,  moreover,  thinks  that  '*  Jesus' 
reserve  is  easily  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  true 
Messiah  was  the  glorious  Messiah."  He  adds :  *'  and, 
doubtless,  also  because  the  public  avowal  of  Messiah- 
ship  could  not  fail  to  put  the  Saviour  in  conflict  with 
the  political  authorities."  This  last  reason  squares 
with  what  we  have  pointed  out,  namely,  the  Saviour's 
necessity  of  acting  in  accordance  with  the  providential 
design  as  regards  His  death.  As  to  the  first  reason, 
as  we  shall  see  later,  it  is  baseless  if,  like  Loisy,  we 
should  hold  that  Jesus  did  not  believe  Himself  to  be 
the  Messiah  before  His  Resurrection.     On  the  other 

1  Mk.  viii.   31;    Mt.   xvi.   21;   Lk.   ix.  22;    Mk.  ix.   11 ;   Lk. 

xxiv.  26. 

2  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  pp.  177-178. 


I50  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

hand,  it  is  quite  warranted,  and  agrees  with  our  own 
view,  if  it  means  that  the  Saviour  refrained  from 
encouraging  people  to  hope  in  a  Messiah  who  was  to 
be  only  triumphant  and  glorious.^ 

The  necessity  of  allowing  for  the  disposition  of 
men,  of  gradually  correcting  the  rooted  prejudices  in 
their  minds,  in  fine,  of  conforming  Himself  to  the 
providential  plan  as  to  His  death  compelled  Jesus  to 
make  a  manifestation  that  was  full  of  discretion  and 
reserve.  So  that,  in  the  early  part  of  His  ministry, 
instead  of  at  first  openly  announcing  His  character  as 
Christ,  He  acted  otherwise.  He  preferred  to  mani- 
fest it  indirectly  by  His  conduct  and  works,  to  hint 
at  it  in  His  discourses  by  discreet  and  yet  suggestive 
statements,  to  gradually  lead  onward  men  of  good- 
will as  also  His  disciples  to  suspect  first  of  all, 
and  then,  by  personal  experience  to  verify  and  finally 
to  boldly  announce  this  Messianic  dignity  which  He 
will  at  length  decide  to  avow  publicly. 

Doctrine  and  Miracles.— Jesus  began  His  minis- 
try of  preaching  with  the  saying  of  John  the  Baptist: 
"  Do  penance,  for  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand," 
thus  announcing  Himself  the  advent  thereof.  The 
glad-tidings  of  the  kingdom  form  the  theme  of  His 
discourses  in  the  villages  and  synagogues  of  Galilee, 
of  His  sermon  on  the  Mount  of  Beatitudes,  of  His 
parables  by  the  lakeside.  Far  superior  indeed  is  His 
manner  of  announcing  the  kingdom  than  is  that  of 
John :  it  is  of  a  transcendent  order.  He  assumes 
the  right  to  choose  the  preachers  of  the  Gospel  and 
officially  invests  His  apostles  with  the  mission  of  an- 
nouncing its  glad-tidings  everywhere.  He  teaches 
with  extraordinary  authority.  The  Rabbinical  teach- 
ers of  His  day,  who  were  but  the  mere  reporters  of 
ancient  tradition,  took  care  to  base  their  pronounce- 

1  Loisy,  Rev.  d'Hist.,  etc.,  1903,  pp.  301,  406 ;  Bruce,  art. : 
Jesus,  E.  B.,  col.  2443,  par.  17;  Cheyne,  art.:  Messiah,  E.  B., 
col.  3063,  par.  8. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


151 


ments  upon  the  authority  of  a  master  at  once  ancient 
and  of  great  repute.  But  Jesus  corrects  the  tradi- 
tional teaching,  interpreting  the  Mosaic  law  anew,  and 
completing  it  by  teachings  that  are  most  appropriate, 
most  exalted,  and  the  most  perfect  conceivable.  He 
speaks  always  as  a  master ;  imposing  His  teachings  in 
His  own  name,  invoking  no  other  authority  than  His 
own;  so  that  the  people  are  in  admiration  at  His 
doctrine.^ 

Especially  surprising,  however,  is  the  contrast  ob- 
servable between  the  supreme  authority  asserted  by 
this  young  master,  and  His  humble  social  condition. 
His  early  days  are  spent  far  from  the  schools  and  the 
great  masters  of  Jewish  lore :  His  home  is  a  village 
among  the  Galilean  hills.  In  fact  the  people  would 
exclaim :  ''  How  came  this  man  by  all  these  things  ? 
.  .  .  Is  not  this  the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary?  .  .  . 
How  doth  this  man  know  letters,  having  never 
learned?"  Despite  the  proverbial  saying,  then,  that 
"  out  of  Galilee  a  prophet  riseth  not,"  and  the  ironic 
query :  "  Can  anything  good  come  out  of  Nazareth  ?" 
the  exceptional  character  of  Jesus'  teaching  must  have 
made  people  esteem  Him  as  an  extraordinary  person 
and  a  great  man  of  God.^ 

Again,  His  miracles  served  to  broaden  the  popular 
idea  of  Him.  He  commands  the  forces  of  nature, 
delivers  possessed  persons  from  the  power  of  demons, 
cures  diseases,  and  raises  the  dead  to  life.  The  sick 
are  brought  to  Him,  and  people  draw  near  to  touch 
even  the  hem  of  His  garment;  for  there  goes  forth 
from  Him  a  supernatural  power  that  heals  all  who 
approach  Him.  When  the  people  see  Him  casting  out 
a  devil  from  the  possessed  man  at  Capharnaum,  they 
exclaim :  "  What   thing   is   this  ?     What   is   this   new 

1  Mk.  iii.  14 ;  vi.  7 ;  Mt.  x.  7 ;  Lk.  ix.  2 ;  x.  9 ;  Mt.  v,  22,  28, 
:^2,  34,  39,  44;  Mk.  i.  22;  Mt.  vii,  29;  Lk.  iv.  32. 

2  Mk.  vi.  2;  Mt.  viii.  54;  Lk,  iv.  22;  Jo.  vii.  15;  c,  Hi.;  c  i, 
46. 


152  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

doctrine?  For  with  power  He  commandeth  even  the 
unclean  spirits,  and  they  obey  Him."  After  He 
cures  the  paralytic,  all  cry  out :  "  We  never  saw  the 
like."  When  He  calms  the  tempest,  His  apostles  won- 
der;  "  Who  is  this  that  both  the  wind  and  the  sea  obey 
Him?"  And  on  His  restoring  to  Hfe  the  son  of  the 
widow  of  Naim  as  the  corpse  is  being  borne  to  the 
tomb,  so  great  is  the  religious  fear  of  the  people  that 
they  declare :  "A  great  prophet  is  risen  up  among  us, 
and  God  hath  visited  His  people."  ^ 

Dignity  and  Power.  —  This  indirect  manner  of 
revelation  by  prophecy  and  miracle  which  Jesus  pur- 
sued during  the  first  two  years  of  His  pubHc  life,  is 
still  further  completed  by  His  statements  about  His 
personal  dignity,  and  by  His  claims  to  the  most  singu- 
lar powers  and  privileges.  He  says  that  He  is  the  en- 
voy of  God,  that  He  is  ''  come  "  and  has  been  "  sent " 
to  preach  the  gospel  of  the  Kingdom,  to  appeal  to 
sinners,  to  save  the  lost  sheep  of  the  House  of  Israel. 
In  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth,  He  exclaims  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  upon  Him,  applying  to  Himself  the 
words  of  Isaiah .  '*  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon 
Me.  Wherefore  He  hath  anointed  Me  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  poor :  He  hath  sent  Me  to  heal  the  con- 
trite of  heart,  to  preach  deliverance  to  the  captives, 
and  sight  to  the  blind,  to  set  at  liberty  them  that  are 
bruised,  to  preach  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,  and 
the  day  of  reward."  ^ 

Moreover,  the  idea  which  He  gives  of'  His  person  is 
extraordinary.    He  is,  indeed,  humble,  fond  of  obscur- 

1  Mk.  iv.  35-40 ;  Mt.  viii. ;  Lk.  viii. ;  Mk.  vi.  30-44 ;  Mt.  xiv. ; 
Lk.  ix. ;  Mk.  vi.  45-52;  Mt.  xiv.;  Jo.  vi. ;  Mk.  i.  23-26;  xxxiv. 
39;  V.  and  par.;  Mk  xxix.  40;  ii.  i ;  v.  21  and  par.;  Mt.  viii. 
5  and  par.;  Mk.  v.  21  and  par.;  Lk.  vii.  11;  Mk.  i.  32,  33;  Mt. 
iv.  23;  Lk.  iii.  9,  10;  v.  28;  Mt.  iv.  24;  Lk.  vi.  19;  Mk.  vi.  56; 
Mt.  xiv.  36]  Mk.  i.  27;  Lk.  iv.  36;  Mk.  ii.  12;  Mt.  ix.  8;  Lk. 
V.  26 ;  Mk.  iv.  40 ;  Mt.  viii.  27 ;  Lk.  viii.  25 ;  vii.  16. 

2  Mk.  i.  38;  Lk.  iv.  43;  Mk.  ii.  17;  Mt.  ix.  13;  Lk.  v.  32; 
Mt.  XV.  24;  Lk,  ivr  18,  19;  cf.  Isaiah  Ixi.  i, 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  153 

ity,  severe  towards  the  boastfully  proud  Pharisees,  per- 
sistent in  declining  honors  proffered  by  the  Jews,  care- 
ful to  veil  His  Messiahship,  and  dreading  to  arouse, 
for  His  own  profit,  any  hope  of  an  earthly  and  trium- 
phant Messiah.  Nevertheless,  time  and  again,  and  in  a 
manner  most  striking,  He  declares  that  He  surpasses 
all  that  was  greatest  in  Israel's  past.  He  is  greater  than 
Jonas,  greater  than  Solomon.  And  if  He  proclaims 
John  the  Baptist  to  be  greater  than  all  the  personages 
of  the  Old  Law,  nay  even  than  the  Prophets,  He  also 
makes  it  clear  that  John  is  His  precursor,  and  sent  to 
prepare  the  way  for  Him;  that,  therefore,  between 
John  and  Himself,  there  is  the  dift'erence  between  a 
herald  and  the  king  whom  He  announces ;  or,  as  the 
Baptist  remarks,  he  is  the  humble  disciple  of  a  mas- 
ter the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  he  is  unworthy  to  loose.^ 
Jesus  claims  to  possess  powers  which  unques- 
tionably place  Him  above  ordinary  men,  above  the 
most  illustrious  prophets,  and  which  seem  to  emanate 
from  God  Himself.  The  Jewish  Sabbath,  for  in- 
stance, w^as  a  most  sacred  and  inviolable  day,  its  care- 
ful observance  being  regulated  by  the  traditions  of 
the  Pharisees.  But,  as  we  see,  Jesus  acts  as  though  He 
were  master  of  all  that  pertained  to  a  day  so  revered. 
For,  it  is  on  the  Sabbath  that  He  cures  the  sick,  bids 
the  paralytic  take  up  His  bed  and  walk,  and  allows  His 
disciples  to  pluck  the  ears  of  corn.  The  Pharisees, 
indeed,  reproach  Him  for  having  acted  thus;  but  He 
reminds  them  of  the  practice  of  the  Old  Law ;  for,  if 
He  were  guilty  of  breaking  the  Sabbath,  so  too  would 
be  the  Priests  of  the  Temple  by  holding  services  on 
that  day.  As  He  affirms :  ''  I  tell  you  that  there  is  here 
a  greater  than  the  Temple,"  and  referring  to  Himself, 
He  adds :  "  The  Son  of  Man  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath 
also."  2 

^  Mt.  xii.  41,  42;  Lk.  xxxi.  32;  Mt.  xi.  9-11 ;  Lk.  vii.  26-28. 

2  Mk.  iii.  1-6;  Mt.  xii.  9-14;  Lk.  vi.  6-11;  cf.  Jo.  v.  9;  Mk: 
ii.  22, ;  Mt.  xii,  i ;  Lk,  yi.  i ;  Mt.  xii.  5-6 ;  Mk,  ii,  28 ;  Mt.  xii.  8 ; 
Lk.  vi.  5, 


154  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Nay  more,  Jesus  claims  to  have  the  supreme  power 
to  forgive  sins,  a  truly  extraordinary  prerogative. 
Thus,  after  curing  the  paralytic  at  Capharnaum,  who 
had  asked  only  for  a  bodily  cure,  He  utters  these  as- 
tounding words :  "My  son,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee." 
Whereupon  the  Scribes  are  scandalized,  and  exclaim: 
"  This  man  blasphemeth :  who  can  forgive  sins  but 
God  only?"  His  enemies  recognize  that  this  is  a 
divine  power,  and  yet  He  persists  in  claiming  it  as 
His  own.  Nor  is  He  content  to  assert  it  as  His,  but 
proves  that  He  possesses  it  by  suddenly  healing  the 
sick  man.  He  says :  "  Which  is  easier,  to  say  to  the 
one  sick  of  the  palsy :  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee ;  or 
to  say:  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed  and  walk?  But  that 
you  may  know  that  the  Son  of  Man  hath  power  on 
earth  to  forgive  sins.  He  saith  to  the  one  sick  of  the 
palsy:  I  say  to  thee,  arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go 
into  thy  house.  And  immediately  He  arose,  and  tak- 
ing up  his  bed,  went  his  way  in  the  sight  of  all."  ^ 

A  similar  scene  also  occurs  at  the  house  of  Simon 
the  Pharisee :  there  enters  into  the  banquet-hall  a  sin- 
ful woman,  who  proceeds  to  bathe  the  feet  of  Jesus 
with  her  tears  and  to  anoint  them  with  fragrant  oil. 
Thereupon,  Simon  says  to  himself :  "  This  man,  if  he 
were  a  prophet,  would  know  surely  who  and  what 
manner  of  woman  this  is  that  toucheth  him,  and  that 
she  is  a  sinner."  But  Jesus  forthwith  dispels  the 
doubts  in  the  mind  of  His  host  by  forgiving  the  wo- 
man; thus  implying  that  He  assumed  the  power  of 
forgiving  sins  and  proving  it  by  showing  that  the  very 
inmost  secrets  of  her  conscience  were  by  no  means 
hidden  from  Him.^ 

The  bestowal  upon  others  of  the  power  to  perform 
miracles  was  also,  evidently,  a  privilege  quite  unusual, 
extraordinary,  and  wholly  divine  in  character.    Now, 

1  Mk.  ii.  1-12;  Mt.  ix,  1-8;  Lk.  xvii.  26, 
2Lk.  vi.  36-50. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


155 


after  choosing  His  twelve  apostles,  Jesus  sends  them 
throughout  Judea  to  preach  the  gospel  of  the  King- 
dom, giving  to  them  at  the  same  time  "  the  power  to 
cure  the  sick  and  to  cast  out  demons."  Nor  was  this 
power  bestowed  in  vain.  The  gospels  state  that  the 
apostles,  who  had  set  out  to  preach  penance,  "  cast 
out  many  devils,  and  anointed  with  oil  many  that  were 
sick,  and  healed  them."  ^ 

Assuredly,  there  can  be  nothing  more  extraordinary 
than  Jesus'  claim  to  act  as  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  to 
forgive  sins,  to  cast  out  evil  spirits,  and  to  heal  the 
sick,  and  yet  there  is  nothing  better  established,  noth- 
ing more  unquestionably  proved.  During  the  first 
two  years  of  His  ministry,  Jesus,  therefore,  did  not 
merely  appear  as  a  prophet  who  stood  on  an  equality 
with  the  most  renowned  ones  of  the  Old  Law,  but  as 
incomparably  a  man  of  God,  as  one  in  some  way  in- 
vested with  the  divine  power,  possessing  divine  and 
entirely  incommunicable  privileges,  and,  as  none  pre- 
viously could  claim,  exercising  a  sovereign  authority 
over  the  souls  of  men  and  over  all  the  vast  domain  of 
nature. 

The  people,  indeed,  had  not  expected  that  the 
Messiah  would  be  thus  endowed,  nor  did  they  usually 
picture  Him  to  themselves  in  this  light.  And,  on  the 
other  hand,  in  Jesus'  humble  human  position,  in  the 
simplicity  and  austerity  of  His  life,  what  contrasts 
must  have  appeared,  and  these  of  such  a  kind  that  the 
people  considered  them  irreconcilable  with  His  divine 
pretensions,  and  incompatible  with  that  ideal  grandeur 
and  imagined  glory  of  the  Messiah-King!  Still,  the 
Saviour's  manner  of  procedure  must  have  surely,  al- 
though discreetly  and  progressively,  led  the  Jews  to 
ask :  "  The  Christ,  when  He  cometh,  shall  He  do  more 
miracles  than  these  which  this  man  doth  ?  "  ^ 

1  Mk.  iii.  15;  vi.  7;  Mt.  x.  i;  Lk.  ix.  1-2;  Mt.  x.  8;  cf.  Mk. 
xvi.  17;  Mk.  vi.  13;  Lk.  ix.  6;  cf.  Mk.  ix.  37;  Lk.  x.  17. 

2  Jo.  vii.  31. 


156  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Messianic  Allusions. — During  this  period  of  His 
ministry,  moreover,  Jesus  did  not  fail  to  suggest  ex- 
plicitly and  with  more  directness  the  idea  of  His  true 
Messiahship.  Thus,  He  connects  His  power  over 
evil  spirits  with  the  idea  of  founding  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  During  His  temptation  on  the  desert,  Satan 
had  claimed  an  absolute  sovereignty  over  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  earth.  But  behold,  what  conster- 
nation He  causes  in  Satan's  empire  itself !  Often 
do  the  demons,  after  being  cast  out  of  the  possessed 
persons,  reproach  Jesus  for  having  come  to  torment 
and  destroy  their  power.  If,  therefore,  Satan  is  thus 
expelled  from  His  own  kingdom,  Jesus  could  rightly 
object  to  the  Pharisees :  "  then  is  the  Kingdom  of  God 
come  upon  you."  If  Satan's  kingdom  falls,  it  is  in 
order  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  may  be  established. 
Who,  then,  unless  the  expected  head  of  the  Kingdom, 
the  Messiah,  shall  thus  establish  the  Kingdom  of  God 
as  though  upon  the  ruins  of  Satan's  empire  ?  ^ 

To  the  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist,  Jesus  makes 
this  fact  very  plain.  They  ask:  "Art  thou  He  that 
is  to  come,  or  look  we  for  another  ?"  The  Master  re- 
plies cautiously,  although  expressively.  He  does  not 
affirm,  but  leaves  it  clearly  understood  that  He  is  in- 
deed the  expected  Messiah.  In  fact,  instead  of  direct- 
ing the  attention  of  John's  followers  to  some  one  else, 
He  refers  to  His  own  works  as  sufficiently  indicating 
His  divinity.  He  says :  "  Go  and  relate  to  John  what 
you  have  heard  and  seen :  the  blind  see,  the  lame  walk, 
the  lepers  are  cleansed,  the  deaf  hear,  the  dead  rise 
again,  the  poor  have  the  gospel  preached  to  them." 
And  it  was  precisely  these  very  works  that  Isaiah 
seemed  to  have  considered  as  characteristic  of  the 
Messianic  advent.^ 

The    same    implicit   method   of   expression   is   also 

iMt.  iv.  8,  9;  Lk.  V.  5-6;  Mk.  i.  24;  Lk.  iv.  34;  Mk.  v.  7; 
Mt.  viii.  27;  Lk.  viii.  28;  Mk.  iii.  23-27;  Mt.  xii.  28;  Lk.  xi.  20. 
^Mt.  xi.  3;  Lk.  vii,  19;  Is.  xxxv.  5;  Ixi.  i. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  157 

found  in  Jesus'  words  to  the  people  after  the  depar- 
ture of  John's  disciples.  He  places  John  at  the  head 
of  humankind,  nay,  above  all  the  prophets  of  the  Old 
Law.  Whence  this  excellence  of  John?  Jesus  sug- 
gests the  reason ;  it  is  because  John  is  the  precursor  of 
the  Messiah.  "  This  is  he  of  whom  it  is  written :  '  Be- 
hold I  send  my  Angel  before  thy  face  who  shall  pre- 
pare thy  way  before  thee  '  .  .  .  He  is  Elias  that  is  to 
come."  ...  If,  then,  John  was  really  the  precursor  of 
Jesus,  did  not  this  fact  imply  that  the  Messiah  was 
none  other  than  Jesus  Himself  ?  ^ 

The  **Son  of  Man." — That  the  Saviour  intended 
to  reveal  Himself  as  the  Messiah  is  further  indicated 
by  His  employment  of  the  title  "  Son  of  Man."  He 
undoubtedly  made  use  of  it  f  rpm  the  very  beginning  of 
His  ministry ;  for,  at  various  times  during  the  first  two 
years  of  His  public  career.  He  called  Himself  by  this 
title,  especially  when  claiming  to  be  Lord  of  the  Sab- 
bath, and  when  curing  the  paralytic ;  and  in  both  in- 
stances its  authenticity  is  beyond  suspicion.^ 

The  term  *'  Son  of  Man  "  employed  by  Jesus  in- 
stead of  the  pronoun  "  I,"  has  in  fact  a  definite  mean- 
ing, namely,  "  the  man,"  "  the  man  "  whom  you  see, 
"  the  man  "  who  is  speaking  to  you,  "  the  man  "  to 
whom  everyone's  attention  is  drawn;  and  this  inter- 
pretation agrees  with  the  very  genius  of  the  Hebrew 
and  especially  of  the  Aramaic  language. 

This  title  was  also  associated  with  the  idea  of  the 
Messianic  Kingdom,  and  perhaps  to  many  it  had  al- 
ready become  synonymous  with  the  title  ''  Messiah." 
At  all  events  it  undoubtedly  henceforth  had  this  mean- 
ing in  the  Saviour's  estimation.  The  "  Son  of  Man  " 
to  whom  He  alludes  in  Mk.  ii.  10  is  the  same  person 

1  Mt.  xi.  10,  14;  Lk.  vii.  27;  xvi.  16;  cf.  Mk.  ix.  12;  Mt.  xvii. 
12-13. 

2  Mk.  ii.  10 ;  Mt.  ix.  6 ;  Lk.  v.  24 ;  Mk.  ii.  28 ;  Mt.  xii.  8 ; 
Lk.  vi.  5,  22;  Mt.  xi.  19;  Lk.  vii.  34;  Mt.  xii.  32,  40;  Lk.  xi.  30; 
Mt.  xiii.  37,  41 ;  x.  23;  cf.  Jo.  i.  51 ;  iii.  13,  14;  vi.  27,  54,  63. 


158  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

whom  He  describes,  throughout  the  rest  of  His  min- 
istry, as  "  the  Man  "  par  excellence  so  often  mentioned 
in  the  Scriptures,  the  head  of  the  Messianic  King- 
dom whom  Daniel  portrays  as  the  *'  Son  of  Man  "  who 
shall  come  upon  the  clouds  of  heaven,  attended  by  the 
Holy  Angels,  in  order  to  receive  from  the  Most  High 
a  universal  and  eternal  sovereignty. 

Indeed,  when  interpreting  the  parables  of  the  Good 
Seed  and  the  Tares  for  the  benefit  of  His  apostles, 
Jesus  places  the  "  Son  of  Man  "  in  the  position  which 
He  shall  hold  during  the  last  days  of  the  world:  He 
casts  into  the  field  of  the  world  the  seed,  that  is,  the 
word  of  God,  and  then,  at  the  end  of  time,  He  will 
send  His  angels  forth  to  separate  the  good  from  the 
bad  within  His  kingdom.^ 

However  humble,  then,  this  title  seemed  to  be,  it 
referred  directly  to  the  Messianic  Hope.  Besides,  it 
had  the  advantage  of  possessmg  a  mysterious  char- 
acter, and  therefore  it  would  not  be  apt  to  prematurely 
lead  popular  enthusiasm  beyond  bounds,  while  it  was 
also  conformable  to  the  idea  of  a  suffering  and  dymg 
Messiah.  Thus  did  it  accord  with  that  prudent  and 
gradual  method  which  the  Saviour  endeavored  to  fol- 
low in  revealing  His  divinity  to  men. 

Modern  Criticism.  —  It  is  claimed  by  Lietzmann, 
Wellhausen,  H.  Holtzmann,  and  Schmidt  that,  in  S. 
Mark's  account  of  Jesus'  lordship  over  the  Sabbath, 
the  term  "  Son  of  Man,"  means  ''  every  man,"  or 
*'  man  "  in  general.  As  we  read :  "  The  Sabbath  is 
made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath.  There- 
fore, the  Son  of  Man  is  lord  of  the  Sabbath  also." 

To  this  we  may  reply  that,  first  of  all,  the  con- 
junction "  therefore  "  does  not  necessarily  imply  that 
man  is  master  of  the  Sabbath  just  because  the  Sabbath 
was  made  for  His  advantage ;  but  it  may  merely  mean 

1  Mt.  xiii.  Z7,  41 ;  cf.  x.  23. 

2  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  174. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


159 


that,  as  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man's  benefit,  and 
is  not  absolutely  inviolable,  it  is  not  surprising  that,  in 
this  instance,  the  law  for  its  observance  was  not  kept 
by  Jesus,  "  the  Son  of  Man."  Otherwise,  how  ex- 
plain the  remarkable  change  of  terms,  *'  man,"  "  the 
Son  of  Man?"  The  two  terms,  in  fact,  do  not  cor- 
respond to  the  same  Aramaic  expression.  For,  in 
Mk.  ii.  2y,  the  word  *'  man,"  in  Greek,  '0  avOponog,  would 
be  'enascha'  in  Aramaic;  while,  in  verse  28  the 
term  "  the  Son  of  Man,"  in  Greek  6  vlbg  rov  avdpuTrov, 
would  be  bar  *enascha'  in  the  Aramaic  language. 
Since,  too,  it  cannot  be  fairly  maintained  that  the 
early  Christians  misunderstood  and  incorrectly  ren- 
dered the  idea  in  Christ's  mind,  we  may  ask  why  there 
should  be  such  a  change  of  terms  if,  in  either  case.  He 
had  meant  merely  "  man  "  in  general  ?  ^ 

Here,  as  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels,  then,  the  term 
"  Son  of  Man  "  refers  directly  to  Jesus.  A  personal 
title,  its  meaning,  however  mysterious,  appears,  none 
the  less,  to  involve  extraordinary  consequences.  While 
it  emphasizes  the  Saviour's  position  as  "  man,"  it  also 
and  chiefly  indicates  the  transcendent  character  of  His 
humanity ;  that  is,  "  a  man,"  "  this  man  "  whom  you 
behold,  is  lord  even  of  the  Sabbath !  And  here  too  as 
elsewhere,  may  we  not  suppose  that  the  title  "  Son  of 
Man  "  even  designates  Jesus  as  "  the  Man  "  par  ex- 
cellence? The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  it  is 
in  His  quality  of  "  Son  of  Man  "  that  is,  not  simply 
as  a  member,  but  as  the  head  and  official  representa- 
tive of  humanity,  that  Jesus  is  authorized  to  thus  de- 
termine its  meaning  and  to  rule  it  as  its  sovereign.^ 

Thus  appeared  the   Messianic  significance  of  this 

1  Lietzmann,  op.  cit.,  p.  89 ;  Wellhausen,  art. :  Skizzen  und 
V orarheiten,  1899,  vol.  vi,  p.  202 ;  Holtzmann,  H.,  Lehrh.,  vol. 

i,p.256;  Schmidt,  art.:  Son  of  Man,  E.  B.,  col.  4752. 

2  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  216. 

3  Driver,  art. :  Son  of  Man,  H.  D.,  p.  587. 


i6o  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

title,  but  in  a  very  dim  light.  Only  later  would  its 
meaning  be  more  clearly  discerned,  namely,  when 
the  Saviour  should  connect  it  directly  with  Daniel's 
prophecy.  So  that,  Loisy  erroneously  questions  its 
authenticity  in  Mk.  ii.  28,  and  wrongly  supposes  edi- 
torial corrections  in  all  these  accounts  which  have  a 
Messianic  bearing,  his  pretext  being  that  Jesus  publicly 
declared  His  Messiahship  only  on  the  occasion  of  S. 
Peter's  confession  of  faith.  Apropos  of  Mk.  ii.  10, 
19-20,  and  28,  Loisy  claims  that  the  Evangelist's  ten- 
dency to  enhance  the  argument  for  Messiahship  is 
apparent  in  three  instances  throughout  the  account, 
and  that  twice  there  is  question  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
although,  to  judge  from  the  account  of  S.  Peter's 
confession,  Jesus  must  not  have  publicly  styled  Him- 
self by  a  title  equivalent  to  that  of  Messiah.  He  says 
that  either  the  texts  where  Jesus  affirms  and  proves 
His  character  of  Christ  belong  wholly  to  a  passage 
edited  later  than  the  record  of  S.  Peter's  confession, 
or  perhaps  had  been  corrected  and  completed,  which 
latter  supposition  he  thinks  more  likely.  In  answer  to 
this  theory,  we  may  simply  remark  that  the  title 
"  Son  of  Man  "  was  not  at  all  clearly  understood  as 
being  directly  equivalent  to  the  title  *'  Messiah,"  and 
that,  at  first,  the  Saviour  probably  manifested  His 
Messiahship  through  significant  indications  and  insinu- 
ations prior  to  proclaiming  it  explicitly  at  Caesarea 
Philippi.^ 

So  also,  with  regard  to  Mk.  ii.  1-12,  which  records 
Jesus*  claim  to  possess  the  power  of  forgiving  sins, 
such  critics  a  Lietzmann,  Wellhausen,  and  Schmidt 
assert  that  here  also  the  title  "  Son  of  Man  "  means 
only  "  man "  in  a  general  sense.  But  their  inter- 
pretation is  wholly  improbable;  for,  here,  as  in  Mk. 
ii.  28,  it  can  be  only  a  personal  title,  and  if  it  refers  to 
His  humanity,  it  brings  out  the  extraordinary  gran- 

1  Loisy,  Rev,  d'Hist.,  etc.,  1903,  p.  518. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  i6i 

deur  and  transcendence  thereof.  That  is,  *'  a  man," 
"  this  man  "  whom  you  see,  has  power  to  forgive  sins ! 
To  wield  such  authority  over  other  men,  is  He  not 
"  the  Man "  above  all  others  ?  To  thus  share  the 
rights  peculiar  to  God,  is  He  not  eminently  the  Man 
of  God,  the  representative  and  delegate  of  God?^ 

From  the  view-point  of  philology,  it  is  further  as- 
serted by  Lietzmann,  Wellhausen,  and  Schmidt,  that 
Jesus  would  not  have  employed  this  title,  since,  in 
Aramaic,  it  signifies  only  "  man  "  generally,  and  hence 
could  not  be  made  to  serve  as  a  personal  appellation ; 
that,  moreover,  it  was  Greek  in  origin  and  resulted 
from^the  influence  of  the  text  of  Daniel  vii.  13;  and 
that,  by  mistake,  the  gospel  tradition  had  allowed  it 
to  enter  into  Jesus'  apocalyptic  discourses  on  the  future 
Parousia,  and  then  in  a  general  way  into  His  other 
discourses.^ 

This  radical  theory,  which  a  priori  involves  insur- 
mountable difficulties,  is  rejected  by  many  competent 
and  independent  critics  like  Driver,  Von  Weizsacker, 
and  Dalman.  For,  throughout  the  gospels,  the  title 
"  Son  of  Man  "  is  used  only  by  Jesus  and  never  by 
the  Evangelists  themselves;  whilst  the  above  theory 
necessarily  implies  that  Jesus  was  not  aware  of  such 
a  term  and  that  it  became  His  personal  title  only 
through  the  influence  of  the  gospel  tradition!  Such 
a  twisting  of  fact  is  truly  hardly  credible ;  for  this 
title  is  found,  not  in  rare  and  isolated  texts  but  in 
many  that  are  common  to  two,  or  even  three,  of  the 
Synoptists,  whilst,  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  it  appears 
with  the  same  character  of  a  title  reserved  for  Jesus. 

Indeed,  supposing  that  this  title  had  crept  into 
Jesus'  discourses  on  the  last  things  through  the  in- 
fluence of  the  text  of  Daniel  vii.  13,  we  can  hardly  see 
how  its  use  would  have  become  so  widespread  as  to 

1  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  256. 

2  Cf.  loc.  cit.,  Lietzmann,  Wellhausen  and  Schmidt  above. 

II 


l62  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

extend  to  so  many  texts  of  a  wholly  different  char- 
acter. It  is  also  very  likely  that  if  the  Gospel  tradi- 
tion had  sought  to  find  a  suitable  personal  title  for  the 
Saviour,  it  would  f!ot  have  confined  itself  to  the  choice 
of  a  term  so  lowly  and  unpretentious  as  "  Son  of 
Man."  So  unreliable,  in  fact,  is  the  philological  basis 
underlying  Lietzmann's  theory  that  it  is  contradicted 
by  such  noted  Aramaic  scholars  as  Dalman.^ 

Several  critics,  in  fact,  do  admit  that  the  title  "  Son 
of  Man  "  is  a  personal  one,  and  that  Jesus'  use  of  it  is 
authentic;  but  they  hold  that  He  must  not  have  em- 
ployed it  before  the  time  of  S.  Peter's  confession. 

Thus  Baldensperger  thinks  that  the  texts  in  ques- 
tion were  transposed  as  regards  their  chronology; 
while  Dalman  advances  this,  view  as  being  merely 
probable.  Loisy,  in  turn,  says  that  apparently  the 
Evangelists  used  this  title  much  more  frequently  than 
the  oldest  documentary  Gospel  sources  and  above  all 
than  did  Jesus  Himself;  that,  to  judge  from  the  re- 
cord of  S.  Peter's  confession,  Jesus  must  not  have 
publicly  assumed  a  title  equivalent  to  that  of  "  Mes- 
siah " ;  and  that  those  accounts  wherein  Jesus  does 
assert  and  prove  Himself  to  be  the  Christ  were  re- 
touched and  completed.  Let  us  say  that  there  is  no 
basis  for  the  supposition  implied  by  this  theory, 
namely,  that  the  title  "  Son  of  Man  "  is  directly  and 
clearly  synonymous  with  the  title  "  Messiah."  ^ 

H.  Holtzmann  notes  the  relative  rarity  of  the  title 
"  Son  of  Man  "  in  the  accounts  of  the  first  part  of 
Jesus'  public  ministry.  He  thinks  that,  during  this 
period,  Jesus  employed  it  in  an  impersonal  sense  to 
signify  "  man  "  in  general,  and  that  He  used  it  in  a 
personal  and  Messianic  sense  only  after  S.  Peter's 
confession.^ 

1  Driver,  art. :  Son  of  Man,  H.  D.,  p.  581 ;  Von  Weizsacker, 
The  Apostolic  Age,  vol,  ii,  p.  127;  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  234. 

2  Baldensperger,  Das  Selhst  Jesu,  p.  169 ;  Dalman,  op.  cit., 
p.  264;  Loisy,  Rev.  d'Hist.,  etc.,  1902,  p.  453;  1903,  p.  518. 

3  Holtzmann,  H.,  Lehrh.,  vol.  i,  p.  256. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  163 

This  view,  also,  which  is  utterly  discarded  by  Dal- 
man.  Driver,  and  Loisy,  is  certainly  a  mere  expedient; 
for  granting  that  the  Saviour  used  this  title  from  the 
very  beginning  of  His  ministry,  it  is  very  unlikely 
that  He  disclosed  its  true  significance  only  at  a  later 
period.  Everything  gives  the  impression  that,  from 
first  to  last,  Jesus  Christ  employed  this  term  to  design- 
ate Himself  and  to  suggest  His  Alessianic  character, 
even  though  it  must  not  have  been  clearly  perceived 
as  a  Messianic  title  until  after  His  later  declarations.^ 

Renan  says  that  Jesus  "  had  been  convinced  that  the 
prophets  had  written  only  with  Him  in  view.  He  re- 
cognized Himself  in  their  sacred  oracles ;  He  regarded 
Himself  as  the  mirror  in  which  all  the  prophetic  spirit 
of  Israel  had  read  the  future."^ 

In  Harnack's  opinion,  ''  the  very  expression,  '  Son 
of  Man,' — that  Jesus  used  it  is  beyond  question, — 
seems  to  be  intelligible  only  in  a  Messianic  sense."  ^ 

Says  Dalman:  '' The  only  genuine  Aramaic  term 
which  suggests  b  vlhg  rov  avdpuTtov  (the  Son  of  Man)  is 
bar  enasha.  This  term  did  not  properly  belong  to  the 
common  language  of  the  Palestinian  Jews  as  a  term 
for  "  man  " ;  it  was  characteristic  rather  of  the  ele- 
vated diction  of  poetry  and  prophecy.  To  the  Jews 
it  will  have  been  known  purely  as  a  biblical  word. 
The  Jewish  hearer  will  therefore  have  had  recourse 
in  the  first  place  to  Scripture  for  an  explanation  of 
the  strange  use  of  bar  enasha  on  the  hps  of  Jesus. 
And  Scripture  offered  the  Hke  Aramaic  expression 
only  in  Dan.  vii.  13,  where  it  denotes  a  definite  per- 
sonality, which,  further  Jewish  exegesis  sometimes 
identified  exphcltly  with  the  Messiah.  .  .  .  Moreover, 
the  "  One  like  to  a  son  of  man  "  there  mentioned  was 

^Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  264;  Driver,  art.:  Son  of  God,  H.  D., 
p.  587;  Loisy,  Rev.  d'Hist.,  etc.,  1903,  p.  518. 
2  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  267. 
^  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity  f  p.  140. 


164  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

to  be  brought  down  on  the  clouds  of  heaven  in  order 
to  be  master  of  the  world."  ^ 

This  title  also  denotes  Jesus'  special  relation  towards 
humanity,  and,  thus  viewed,  it  is  at  once  a  title  of 
humility  and  of  grandeur.  It  seems,  indeed,  to  sug- 
gest the  frailty  of  this  Son  of  Man  when  confronting 
His  Messianic  dignity:  Jesus  designates  Himself  as 
that  member  of  the  human  race,  powerless  by  its  na- 
ture, whom  God  will  make  the  Lord  of  the  world.^ 

On  the  other  hand,  this  appellation  seemingly  points 
to  Jesus  as  "  the  Man  "  par  excellence,  the  ideal  type 
of  human  nature,  the  chief  and  the  representative  of 
humanity.^ 

"  This  comprehensive  and  deeply  significant  title," 
says  Sanday,  "  touched  at  the  one  end  the  Messianic 
and  eschatological  expectation  through  the  turn  which 
had  been  given  to  it  in  one  section  of  Judaism,  i.  e. 
the  Book  of  Enoch.  At  the  other  and  opposite  end,  it 
touched  the  idea  of  the  Suffering  Servant.  But  at  the 
centre,  it  is  broadly  based  upon  an  infinite  sense  of 
brotherhood  with  toiling  and  suffering  humanity  which 
He,  who  most  thoroughly  accepted  its  condition,  was 
fitted  also  to  save."  * 

"  The  name  Messiah,"  says  Dalman,  "  denoted  the 
Lord  of  the  Messianic  age  in  His  capacity  as  Ruler. 
.  .  .  But  the  '  one  like  unto  a  Son  of  Man '  of  Dan. 
vii.  13,  has  still  to  receive  the  sovereignty."^ 

B.  Weiss,  whose  views  are  shared  by  Wendt,  Von 

1  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  pp.  256,  257;  Holtzmann,  Lehrb.,  vol.  i, 
p.  250;  Baldensperger,  op.  cit.,  p.  169;  Weiss,  J.,  Die  Predigt 
Jesus,  2d  ed.,  1900;  Fiebig,  Der  Menschensohn,  190 1 ;  Weiss, 
B.,  Bihl.  Theol.  N.  T.,  vol.  i,  p.  73;  Wendt,  op.  cit,  German 
ed.,  p.  426;  Stevens,  Theol.  A^.  T.,  p.  51. 

2  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  265 ;  Wendt,  op.  cit. 
^  Driver,  op.  cit.,  p.  585. 

4  Sanday,  art. :  Jesus  Christ,  H.  D.,  p.  623. 
°  Dalman,   op.   cit.,  p.   265 ;   Loisy,   Rev.   d'Hist.,  etc.,    1902, 
p.  543;  Sanday,  loc.  cit.,  p.  623. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  165 

Weizsacker,  and  Driver,  holds  that  Jesus  "  did  not  re- 
gard this  designation  of  Himself  as  a  direct  designa- 
tion, which  was  generally  intelligible  as  such,  of  His 
Messiahship.  Not  until  Jesus  Himself,  by  the  use  of 
this  name,  led  them  to  remember  Dan.  vii.  13,  could 
it  be  regarded  as  such.  This,  however,  is  quite  in 
keeping  with  the  manner  in  which  Jesus,  during  the 
greater  part  of  His  activity,  usually  avoided  the  direct 
proclamation  of  His  Messiahship  so  that  He  might 
not  encourage  the  hopes  which  were  connected  with 
the  current  Messianic  names."  ^ 

Resume.  — During  the  first  two  years  of  His  min- 
istry, therefore,  it  seems  that  Jesus  did  not  directly 
and  explicitly  manifest  His  Messianic  dignity,  al- 
though He  revealed  it  in  an  admirably  significant  man- 
ner. To  a  people  blindly  prejudiced  and  ill-disposed 
to  hearken  to  the  truth,  He  does  not  speak  too  ex- 
plicitly: He  makes  a  discreet,  progressive  and  con- 
tinuous revelation,  which  works  its  way  slowly  but 
surely  into  the  souls  of  men. 

And  after  such  manifestation,  what  was  the  popular 
idea  of  Jesus?  "A  great  prophet  is  risen  up  among 
us,*'  exclaims  the  crowd  upon  witnessing  the  miracle 
at  Naim,  "  and  God  hath  visited  His  people."  A  great 
prophet,  such  is  the  popular  view  of  Jesus  at  the  close 
of  His  second  year's  ministry.  Some  say :  "  It  is  a 
prophet,  as  one  of  the  prophets."  Others  exclaim 
that  He  is  one  of  the  prophets  of  old,  like  Jeremais 
for  instance,  who  has  returned  to  earth.  Others  again 
say  that  He  is  Elias.  Apparently,  therefore,  the  peo- 
ple were  content  with  this,  the  majority  not  going  so 
far  as  to  identify  Him  with  the  Messiah.  Jesus  was, 
in  fact,  so  far  from  acting  like  the  imagined  ideal 
Messiah !  For  would  not  the  expected  Messiah  im- 
mediately  secure  the   redemption   of   Israel?     Would 

1  Weiss,  B.,  Bihl.  Theol,  vol,  i,  p.  74;  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p. 
436  (Gr,  ed.)  ;  Von  Weizsacker,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  127;  Driver, 
op.  cit.,  p.  586. 


1 66  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

He  not  come  as  ruler  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  all  the 
splendor  of  His  glory  and  regal  power? 

To  secure  belief  in  His  Messiahship,  such  as  it  was 
manifested  in  Him,  Jesus  had  to  achieve  a  great  re- 
form in  the  Messianic  ideas.  All  the  strategy,  so  to 
say,  of  the  first  two  years  of  His  public  ministry,  and 
we  may  add,  of  the  third,  was  planned  with  the  view 
of  leading  His  disciples  to  the  conviction  of  the  reality 
of  His  Messiahship,  and  thereby  to  convince  them  of 
the  erroneous  character  of  their  pre-conceived  notions 
of  the  Messiah.  On  several  occasions  during  the 
course  of  these  first  two  years  of  His  ministry,  the 
people  were  so  surprised  that,  despite  the  rather  un- 
accountable contrast  between  Jesus'  lowly  personality 
and  the  position  of  that  ideal  Christ  whom  they  had 
dreamt  of,  they  had  asked  if  this  extraordinary  won- 
der-worker was  not  the  long-looked-for  Christ. 

''  Is  not  this  the  Son  of  David  ?",  exclaim  the  wit- 
nesses of  the  heahng  of  the  man  possessed  by  a  deaf 
and  dumb  demon.  But,  unfortunately,  the  Pharisees 
are  at  hand  to  check  the  growing  faith  of  the  by- 
standers, and  go  so  far  as  to  accuse  Jesus  of  perform- 
ing miracles  by  the  power  of  Satan.  Nevertheless,  the 
two  blind  men  of  Capharnaum,  as  also  the  Chanaanite 
woman,  do  not  hesitate  to  call  Him  by  the  title  "  Son 
of  David."  ^ 

His  disciples,  too,  as  they  beheld  their  divine  Master 
walk  upon  the  waters  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  save 
their  boat  by  calming  the  tempest,  are  so  filled  with 
religious  wonder  that  they  cast  themselves  at  His  feet 
and  cry  out :  "  Thou  art  truly  the  Son  of  God !"  ^ 

The  Fourth  Gospel,  finally,  bears  witness  to  the 
same  prevailing  popular  opinion  concerning  the  Mes- 
siah, after  the  miracle  of  the  multiplication  of  the 
loaves :  an  opinion  which,  as  we  know,  Jesus  Himself 
declined  to  countenance,  by  fleeing  away  to  the  re- 

1  Mt  xii.  2Z,  24;  ix.  27;  XV.  21.  ^yit.  xiv.  23. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  167 

cesses  of  the  mountain :  "  This  is  of  a  truth  the  prophet 
that  is  to  come  into  the  world,"  that  is,  the  expected 
Messiah.^ 

Later  Period :  Explicit  Avowals.— A  great  work, 
therefore,  had  already  been  achieved  in  the  souls  of 
men  at  the  opening  of  the  final  year  of  Christ's  public 
ministry.  The  hour  had  now  come  to  strike  the  blow. 
It  happened  at  Caesarea  Philippi.  Still  proceeding 
very  carefully  and  cautiously,  Jesus  leads  His  dis- 
ciples to  express  their  views  on  His  person.  Their 
belief  was  not  to  be  the  result  of  any  direct  statement 
on  His  part,  but  the  spontaneous  growth  of  their  per- 
sonal experience.  Thus  far,  He  had  avoided  explain- 
ing the  significance  of  His  Messiahship :  He  was  con- 
tent to  manifest  and  prove  it  by  His  works.  Now, 
however.  His  disciples  have  seen  and  heard  enough : 
their  conviction  is  settled ;  so  that  He  asks  them  to  pro- 
claim it  themselves.  He  says :  "  But  you,  whom  do 
you  say  that  I  am  ?"  2 

Simon  Peter  replies  in  the  name  of  the  twelve 
apostles.  He  had  previously,  indeed,  declared  His 
faith  in  the  Saviour  after  the  famous  discourse  de- 
livered by  Jesus  on  the  Bread  of  Life  when  some  of 
the  disciples  left  the  Master.  "  We  have  believed 
and  have  known  that  thou  art  the  Christ  the  Holy  One 
of  God,"  said  Simon  on  that  occasion ;  and,  perhaps, 
this  profession  of  faith  was  not  so  firm  nor  as  solemn 
as  the  present  one.  Now,  he  boldly  proclaims  His  be- 
lief in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  :  "  Thou  art  the  Christ 
.  .  .  the  Christ  of  God  .  .  .  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God."  By  His  manner  and  by  His  words,  the 
Saviour  approves  and  confirms  the  faith  thus  ehcited; 
by  His  question ;  but  He  also  advises  His  disciples  not 
to  tell  the  people  that  He  is  really  the  Christ ;  and  His 
motives  for  so  doing  are  known.  He  apparently  now 
insists  upon  the  necessity  of  not  hindering,  by  an  un- 

1  Jo.  vi.  14.  2  Mk,  viii.  29;  Mt.  xvi,  15;  Lk.  ix.  20. 


i68  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

timely  revelation,  the  fulfilment  of  those  providential 
designs  whereby,  as  it  was  written.  He  should  be  re- 
pudiated by  the  people,  condemned  by  the  Jewish  reli- 
gious authorities,  and  put  to  death.^ 

The  manifestation  of  Caesarea  Philippi  grows 
clearer  at  the  Transfiguration,  although  even  here 
the  Saviour  maintains  a  rather  passive  attitude.  The 
Father  it  is  who  reveals  the  Son  on  this  occasion,  and 
in  terms  like  those  uttered  at  the  Baptism :  "  This  is 
My  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased :  hear  ye 
Him."  Moses  and  Elias  are  also  present  as  witnesses 
of  the  event.  As  representatives  of  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets,  they  appear  at  the  side  of  Jesus  as  His  aids ; 
and  render  homage  to  the  founder  of  the  New  Alli- 
ance, to  Christ  towards  whom  converges  the  entire 
Old  Testament.  And  the  mystery  of  the  Transfigura- 
tion itself  affords  the  Apostles  a  physical  experience 
of  that  glory  which  will  later  surround  Jesus,  the 
triumphant  Messiah.^ 

*'  The  name  Messiah,"  says  Dalman,  "  denoted  the 
Lord  of  the  Messianic  age  in  His  capacity  as  Ruler 
.  .  .  But  the  '  One  Hke  to  a  Son  of  Man '  of  Daniel 
vii.  13,  has  still  to  receive  the  sovereignty."  ^ 

The  Suffering  Messiah. — The  Saviour,  however, 
as  at  Caesarea,  still  continues  to  urge  silence  upon  the 
privileged  witnesses  of  His  glory,  even  until  the  day 
of  His  death  and  of  His  resurrection;  for,  as  it  was 
written,  the  Son  of  Man  was  destined  to  shameful  suf- 
ferings. 

Again,  He  reveals  His  Messiahship  through  those 
unusual  terms  that  portray  His  mission  and  person, 
and  especially  through  His  explicit  references  to  His 
advent  as  the  Son  of  Man  at  the  end  of  time.     Nor 

1  Jo.  vi.  70.  In  the  Greek  extus  Receptus  and  the  Latin 
Vulgate  we  read :  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God," 

2  Mk.  viii.  29;  Lk,  ix.  20;  Mt.  xvi.  16,  17-19. 

3  Mk.  ix.  6;  Mt.  xvii.  5;  Lk.  ix.  35;  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  276; 
Mk.  viii.  34;  Lk.  ix.  2$;  xiv.  25-27;  Mt.  x.  37-39. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  169 

are  the  Apostles  alone  the  witnesses  of  such  declara- 
tions ;  for  the  people  themselves  are  often  mentioned 
as  being  present  along  with  His  disciples,  thus  form- 
ing together  with  the  inner  circle  of  followers,  a 
second  group  of  witnesses  and  auditors.  Thus,  after 
confirming  Peter's  faith  and  forbidding  His  Apostles 
to  publish  the  fact  of  His  Messiahship,  Jesus  calls 
''  the  multitude  together  with  His  disciples,"  and  ad- 
dresses to  the  assembly  these  fervent  words:  "  If  any 
man  will  come  after  Me,  let  him  deny  himself,  and 
take  up  his  cross  daily,  and  follow  Me.  For  whoso- 
ever will  save  his  life,  shall  lose  it;  for  he  that  shall 
lose  his  life  for  My  sake  shall  save  it.  .  .  .  For  he  that 
shall  be  ashamed  of  me  and  of  my  words,  of  him  the 
Son  of  Man  shall  be  ashamed  when  He  shall  come 
in  His  majesty,  and  that  of  His  Father,  and  of  the 
holy  angels."  Under  the  figure  of  the  incomparable 
glory  which  Jesus  asserted  as  His  own  and  in  His  re- 
lation towards  God  and  men,  the  people  could  readily 
perceive  His  true  character  as  the  Christ.^ 

And  again,  "  when  great  multitudes  stood  about 
Him,  so  that  they  trod  one  upon  another,"  Jesus  thus 
proclaims  Himself  as  the  supreme  judge  at  the  end  of 
time :  "  Whoever  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him 
shall  the  Son  of  Man  also  confess  before  the  angels  of 
God.  But  he  that  shall  deny  me  before  men,  shall  be 
denied  before  the  angels  of  God."  ^ 

At  another  time,  as  the  Saviour  ''  went  through 
the  cities  and  towns  teaching,  and  making  His  jour- 
ney to  Jerusalem,"  a  man  from  the  crowd  said  to  Him : 
"Lord,  are  they  few  that  are  saved?"  But  Jesus  re- 
plies, not  to  the  man,  but  to  the  people  themselves,  and 
in  this  response  He  clearly  presents  Himself  to  them 
as  The  One  who,  at  the  end  of  days,  shall  act  as 
master  of  the  Kingdom,  and  pronounce  authoritatively 

^  Mk.  viii.  34-38 ;  Mt,  xvi.  24-28 ;  Lk.  ix.  23-26, 
?Lk.  xii.  I,  8-9;  cf.  Mt.  X.  32, 


lyo  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  sentence  which  will  admit  His  disciples  therein  and 
exclude  sinners  therefrom.  He  tells  them :  *'  Strive  to 
enter  by  the  narrow  gate ;  for  many,  I  say  to  you,  shall 
seek  to  enter,  and  shall  not  be  able.  But  when  the 
master  of  the  house  shall  be  gone  in,  and  shall  shut  the 
door,  you  shall  begin  to  stand  without,  and  knock  at 
the  door,  saying:  Lord,  open  to  us.  And  He  an- 
swering, shall  say  to  you :  I  know  you  not  whence  you 
are.  Then  shall  you  begin  to  say:  We  have  eaten 
and  drunk  in  thy  presence,  and  thou  hast  taught  us  in 
our  streets.  And  He  shall  say  to  you :  1  know  you 
not  whence  you  are:  depart  from  me,  all  ye  workers 
of  iniquity.  There  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of 
teeth,  when  you  shall  see  Abraham  and  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets,  in  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
and  you  yourselves  thrust  out."  ^ 

All  these  declarations,  so  cautiously  but  unequivo- 
cally made,  serve  to  gradually  extend  the  Messianic 
manifestation  beyond  that  inner  circle  of  His  apostles. 
But  Jesus  does  not  content  Himself  with  declaring 
His  Messiahship  in  this  manner:  as  to  the  apostles, 
so  to  the  people  He  reveals  the  suffering  destiny 
awaiting  Him  and  the  delay  that  will  retard  His  final 
advent  as  the  triumphant  Messiah. 

Thus,  even  in  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  the 
Saviour,  while  addressing  the  Pharisees  and  the  dis- 
ciples of  the  Baptist,  had  mysteriously  suggested  the 
prospect  of  His  death :  "  Can  the  children  of  the  mar- 
riage fast,  as  long  as  the  bridegroom  is  with  them? 
As  long  as  they  have  the  bridegroom  with  them,  they 
cannot  fast.  But  the  days  will  come  when  the  bride- 
groom shall  be  taken  away  from  them;  and  then  they 
shall  fast  in  those  days."  ^ 

It  is  especially,  however,  towards  the  approach  of 
Holy  Week  that  Jesus  multiplies  His  declarations  on 

1  Lk.  xiii.  22-29 ;  cf.  Mt.  vii.  21-23. 

2  Mk.  ii.  19-20;  Mt.  ix.  15;  Lk.  v.  34-35;  cf.  Lepin,  Jesus 
Messie,  p,  194,  E.  tr.,  p.  239. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


171 


this  subject.  Undoubtedly  the  circle  of  Apostles  was 
not  without  the  usual  crowd  of  people  when,  to  the 
question  put  by  the  sons  of  Zebedee  about  the  first 
places  in  the  Kingdom,  Jesus  thus  significantly  an- 
swered :  "  Can  you  drink  of  the  chalice  that  I  drink 
of,  or  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  wherewith  I  am 
baptized?  .  .  .  The  Son  of  Man  is  not  come  to  be  min- 
istered unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  His  Hfe  a 
redemption  for  many."  Again,  at  the  scene  which  oc- 
curred at  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper,  there  were 
Hkely  others  present  besides  the  Apostles,  and  they 
also  heard  Jesus  say,  in  behalf  of  Alary  of  Bethany: 
''  Let  her  alone :  why  do  you  molest  her  ?  She  hath 
wrought  a  good  work  upon  me.  For  the  poor  you 
have  always  with  you  .  .  .  but  me  you  have  not  al- 
ways. .  .  .  She  is  come  beforehand  to  anoint  my  body 
for  the  burial."  And  the  Pharisees,  who  had  come  to 
question  Jesus  about  the  advent  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  were  surely  present  even  when  He  foretold  to 
His  disciples :  "As  the  lightning  that  lighteneth  from 
under  heaven  shineth  unto  the  parts  that  are  under 
heaven,  so  shall  the  Son  of  Man  be  in  His  day.  But 
first  He  must  suffer  many  things,  and  be  rejected  by 
this  generation."  And,  finally,  it  is  surely  to  dispel 
the  opinion  of  the  multitudes  concerning  the  imme- 
diate approach  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  that  the 
Saviour,  while  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  relates  the  par- 
able of  the  Ten  Pounds,  wherein  He  represents  Him- 
self under  the  symbol  of  a  nobleman  who  had  to  go 
away  into  "  a  far  country  to  receive  for  himself  a  king- 
dom and  then  to  return."  ^ 

Such  a  manifestation  on  the  part  of  Christ  Jesus,  at 
once  so  discreet  and  so  significant,  although  it  was  still 
conflicting  with  the  former  messianic  misconceptions 
and  the  decided  opposition  of  the  Pharisees,  must 
have,  however,  strengthened,  in  better  disposed  souls, 

^  Mk.  iv.  6-8;  Mt.  xxvi.  10-12;  Jo.  xii.  7-8;  Lk.  xvii.  20, 
24-25;  cf.  Lk.  xvii.  26,  30;  xviii.  8;  Lk.  xix.  11-12. 


172  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

that  faith  which  we  have  seen  growing  during  the 
first  two  years  of  His  ministry.  In  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
too,  we  find  a  very  detailed  and  graphic  account  of 
the  changes  that  were  taking  place  in  the  minds  of 
men,  and  of  the  varied  opinions  which  the  multi- 
tudes had  of  Him  towards  the  close  of  this  part  of  His 
career.  "  Some  said :  He  is  a  good  man.  And  others 
said:  No;  but  He  seduceth  the  people.  And  yet  no 
man  spoke  openly  of  Him  for  fear  of  the  Jews." 
Nevertheless,  after  hearing  Him  speak,  some  among 
the  multitude  said :  ''This  is  the  prophet  indeed.  Others 
said:  This  is  the  Christ."  They  had  once  asked: 
"  When  the  Christ  cometh,  shall  He  do  more  miracles 
than  these  which  this  man  doth?"  But  soon  the  ob- 
jection was  heard:  "Doth  the  Christ  come  out  of 
Galilee?  Doth  not  the  Scripture  say:  that  Christ 
cometh  of  the  seed  of  David,  and  from  Bethlehem, 
the  town  where  David  was?  So  there  arose  a  dis- 
sension among  the  people  because  of  Him."  And 
even  though  the  Pharisees  had  decided  among  them- 
selves that  "  if  any  man  should  confess  Him  to  be 
Christ,  he  should  be  put  out  of  the  Synagogue,"  they 
could  not  prevent  the  popular  manifestation  of  faith 
in  the  Saviour.  "  li  we  let  Him  alone  so,  all  will  be- 
lieve in  Him,"  they  murmured.  And  very  soon  they 
would  say  to  one  another :  "  Do  you  see  that  we  pre- 
vail nothing?  Behold  the  whole  world  is  gone  after 
Him!"i 

The  Supreme  Revelation  of  Holy  Week.— The 
Messianic  faith  of  the  multitude,  after  increasing  thus 
far  to  the  end  of  Jesus'  ministry,  burst  forth  on  Palm 
Sunday.  The  day  before,  amidst  a  numerous  crowd, 
the  two  blind  men  of  Jericho,  after  crying  out  to  the 
Saviour  "  Son  of  David,  have  pity  on  us !",  were  mira- 
culously cured  in  recompense  for  their  faith  and  in 
confirmation  of  it.  And  on  the  very  day  of  His  tri- 
umphal entry  Jesus  is  everywhere  acclaimed :  "  Son  of 

^  Jo.  vii.  12-13,  31,  40,  41,  41-42,  43;  Jo.  ix.  22;  xi.  48;  xii.  19. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  1^3 

David/'  "  King  of  Israel."  All  beg  a  blessing  on  the 
advent  "  of  the  kingdom  of  David,"  and  long  life  to 
Him  "  who  cometh  "  to  establish  the  kingdom  "  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  Jesus,  who  has  in  some  way  called 
forth  this  triumph,  accepts  the  ovations  of  the 
crowd,  and  despite  the  Pharisees'  murmurs,  expressly 
approves  the  Messianic  salutations  of  His  disciples  and 
the  applause  of  the  children  of  the  Temple :  "  I  say  to 
you  that,  if  these  shall  hold  their  peace,  the  stones  will 
cry  out."  .  .  .  Yea,  have  you  never  read :  Out  of  the 
mouths  of  infants  and  sucklings  Thou  hast  perfected 
praise  ?  "  ^ 

It  is  chiefly  in  Holy  Week,  however,  that  Jesus  em- 
phasizes His  former  statements.  To  the  incredulous 
Pharisees,  and  to  those  who  proudly  demanded  a  rea- 
son for  His  asserted  powers.  He  represents  Himself 
indirectly,  and  under  a  veil,  but  clearly  and  precisely, 
in  the  parable  of  the  faithless  husbandmen,  as  God's 
well-beloved  Son,  incomparably  greater  than  the 
prophets  who  were  only  servants.  And  to  the  Apostles 
in  still  more  explicit  terms  He  speaks  boldly  of  the 
ruin  of  Jerusalem,  of  His  future  advent  as  Son  of 
Man  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  attended  by  saints  and 
angels  in  the  glory  of  God,  for  the  supreme  judgment 
and  universal  retribution.^ 

Jesus,  finally,  officially  seals  His  Messianic  manifes- 
tation by  plainly  telling  Caiphas  and  Pilate,  with  the 
full  prospect  of  death  before  Him,  that  He  is  *' the 
Christ  the  Son  of  God,"  or  "  the  Beloved  Son,"  who, 
as  "  Son  of  Man  "  shall  be  "  sitting  on  the  right  hand 
of  the  power  of  God,  and  coming  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven."  ^ 

1  Mk.  X.  47-48;  Mt.  XX.  30-31;  Lk.  xviii.  38-39;  Mt.  xxi.  9; 
Lk.  xix.  38;  Jo.  xii.  13;  Mk.  xi.  10;  Mt.  xxi.  9;  Lk.  xix.  38; 
Jo.  xii.  I ;  Lk.  xix.  40 ;  Mt.  xxi.  16. 

2  Mk.  xi.  28 ;  Mt.  xxi.  23 ;  Lk.  xx.  2 ;  Mk.  xii. ;  Mt.  xxi. ; 
Lk.  XX.;  cf.  the  Parable,  Mt._xxi.  1-14;  Mk.  xiii. ;  Mt.  xxiv. 
and  XXV. ;  Lk.  xi. ;  cf.  Lk.  xxii.  29-30. 

^  Mt.  xxvi.  63 ;  Lk.  xxii.  70 ;  Mk.  xiv.  61 ;  Mk.  xiv.  62 ;  Mt. 
xxvi.  64;  Lk.  xxii.  69. 


174  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

II.    MEANING  OF  HIS  MESSIAHSHIP. 

The  Final  Advent.  —  Thus,  as  we  have  seen, 
Jesus  beheves  and  calls  Himself  the  Messiah:  this 
point  is  most  certainly  demonstrated  and  is  admitted 
nowadays  by  all  critics.  But,  before  considering  the 
question  as  to  how  Jesus  could  have  come  to  believe 
and  style  Himself  the  Messiah,  we  must  first  see  in 
what  sense  this  title  belongs  to  Him.  In  what  meas- 
ure, and  in  what  manner  did  He  precisely  realize  this 
special  and  essential  function  during  His  earthly  car- 
reer? A  solution  has  been  presented  by  Loisy,  who 
follows  in  the  lead  of  J.  Weiss,  and  we  shall  examine 
his  answer  in  detail. 

The  title  of  Messiah,  in  the  opinion  of  J.  Weiss, 
designates  Him  as  the  sovereign  of  the  Messianic  king- 
dom, the  king  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  the  chief  of 
the  society  of  the  elect.  This  social  status,  however, 
will  not  be  realized  until  the  end  of  time;  only  then 
this  title  will  really  and  properly  belong  to  Jesus. 
Why?  Because  only  then  will  this  special  and  essen- 
tial function  begin  to  be  fulfilled.  Until  then  Jesus 
is  He  who  is  yet  to  be  the  Messiah ;  He  is  not  as  yet 
properly  speaking,  the  Messiah.  At  most.  He  is  the 
Messiah  in  a  preliminary  sense,  that  is  by  vocation 
and  destiny.^ 

It  is  Loisy's  theory  that  ''  as  the  Kingdom  is  essen- 
tially future,  the  Messiah's  position  is  essentially 
eschatological.  Christ  is  chief  of  the  society  of  the 
elect.  The  ministry  of  Jesus  is  only  a  preliminary 
phase  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  and  of  the  role 
proper  to  the  Messiah.  In  one  sense,  Jesus  is  the 
Messiah,  but,  in  another.  He  is  still  to  become  the 
Messiah.  He  was  so  in  that  He  personally  was  called 
upon  to  rule  the  New  Jerusalem ;  but  He  was  not  yet 
so,  since  the  New  Jerusalem  did  not  exist  yet,  and 

1  Weiss,  J.,  Die  Predigt  Jesus,  2d  ed.,  1900;  cf.  Wrede,  Das 
Messiasgeheimnis  in  Evang.,  1901. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  175 

since  the  Messianic  power  had  no  chance  for  its  ex- 
ercise." ^ 

In  criticism  of  the  foregoing,  we  may  say  that  we 
readily  grant  that  the  title  of  Messiah  pertains  to  the 
Saviour  in  a  special  manner  at  the  end  of  time.  For, 
then,  indeed,  shall  be  fully  realized  the  Messianic 
Kingdom, — then,  indeed,  shall  be  definitely  inaugur- 
ated Christ's  universal  and  eternal  dominion.  Never- 
theless, it  does  not  follow  that  we  have  to  wait  until 
then  to  find  a  first  realization  of  that  title,  and  to  wit- 
ness the  beginning  of  those  realities  which  it  implies. 
Is  it,  indeed,  quite  certain  that  the  Messianic  Kingdom 
shall  begin  only  at  the  end  of  time?  No  doubt  then 
shall  occur  its  final  consummation,  its  triumph,  its 
perfect  realization.  Nay  more, — then  shall  begin  the 
solemn  inauguration  of  its  glorious  and  final  phase,  the 
beginning  of  the  eternal  Kingdom  of  God  in  the  high- 
est. Does  not,  however,  this  Kingdom  presuppose  a 
former  and  real  existence,  although  not  under  the  same 
form ;  a  phase  wherein  it  is  truly  realized  as  the  King- 
dom of  God  on  earth,  if  not  the  final  Kingdom  of 
God  in  heaven;  a  phase  wherein  it  is,  indeed,  in  a 
condition  preparatory  to  its  final  establishment  in  its 
heavenly  and  perfect  form,  but  wherein,  nevertheless, 
it  is  really  carried  on  in  the  earthly  form.  So  that, 
since  the  Messianic  Kingdom  is  already  realized  in 
a  true  sense  during  this  preliminary  phase,  the  title 
of  Messiah  is  rightly  attributed  to  Jesus  at  that  time. 
Even  supposing,  however,  that  this  first  question 
should  be  answered  in  the  negative,  we  might  put 
another:  Is  the  title  of  Messiah  so  closely,  and  so 
essentially  related  to  the  final  realization  of  the  Mes- 
sianic reign  that  it  could  not  properly  belong  to  the 
Saviour  during  its  preparatory  stage?  Was  not  this 
very  preparation,  such  as  Jesus  realized  it,  also  a 
Messianic   function, — perhaps   not  the  final   one,   but 

^  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  101-102. 


176  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

still  strictly  and  properly  Messianic  such  that  even 
it  alone  fully  warrants  the  title  of  Messiah  given  to 
the  Saviour?     These  are  the  questions  at  issue. 

For  the  present,  however,  we  shall  view  them  in- 
directly. After  surveying  the  evangelical  and  post- 
evangelical  texts,  the  Saviour's  own  declarations  and 
those  of  the  first  Christian  generation,  we  shall  see 
whether  or  not  He  had  given  the  title  of  Messiah, 
whether,  also.  He  Himself  employed  it  apart  from 
the  glorious  realization  of  the  Kingdom  and  the 
Final  Advent.  This  examination  is  possible  and 
the  problem  soluble  independently  of  the  question, 
to  be  discussed  later,  of  the  existence  or  non-existence 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  a  two-fold  phase,  earthly 
and  heavenly.  It  is  possible  to  prove,  directly  from  the 
texts,  that  the  title  of  Messiah  was  given  to  the 
Saviour  and  that  He  applied  it  to  Himself  during  His 
earthly  Hfe:  this  fact  established,  we  can  thence  con- 
clude that,  if  the  realization  of  the  Messianic  King- 
dom did  not  begin  even  before  its  final  phase,  at  least 
there  is  no  essential  connection  between  the  reality  of 
the  Messianic  character  and  the  actual  inauguration  of 
the  Kingdom. 

Opinion  of  the  Early  Church.— And  first  of  all, 
how  was  this  matter  viewed  in  the  thought  of  the  early 
Church,  in  the  minds  of  the  Apostles  who  were  formed 
by  the  very  teachings  of  the  Saviour?  Loisy  inter- 
prets it  in  the  sense  of  his  own  theory  which  is  the 
same  as  that  of  J.  Weiss  and  that  held  in  a  more 
radical  sense  by  Wrede.  "  We  easily  understand," 
says  Loisy,  "  that  the  Apostolic  Church  should  have 
taught  that  Jesus  became  Christ  and  Lord  by  His 
resurrection,  that  is,  by  His  entrance  into  heavenly 
glory,  and  that,  at  the  same  time,  it  should  have 
awaited  His  coming,  that  is.  His  advent  as  Christ 
and  not  His  return,  since  His  earthly  ministry  was 
not  as  yet  viewed  as  a  Messianic  advent.  ...  As 
far   as   we   can   judge    from    the   testimonies   which 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  177 

came  more  or  less  under  the  influence  of  the  Pauline 
theology,  it  was  only  the  resurrection  which  made 
Him  the  Christ  and  placed  Him  upon  His  throne  of 
glory;  death  was  only  the  providential  condition  of 
the  resurrection,  a  condition  willed  by  God  and  ac- 
cepted by  Jesus.  .  .  .  But  if  Jesus  was  proclaimed 
Christ  and  Lord  by  the  first  disciples,  it  was  owing, 
not  to  His  death,  but  to  the  resurrection  which  intro- 
duced Him  into  the  glory  of  His  Messianic  vocation."  ^ 

Thus  we  have  two  facts :  Firstly,  the  Saviour's  com- 
ing at  the  end  of  time  is  not  His  Return,  but  simply 
His  Coming  or  His  Advent,  as  though  it  were  His  first 
appearance  in  the  role  of  Christ,  His  Messianic  advent 
properly  speaking.  And  secondly:  The  Saviour  be- 
came Christ  and  Lord  by  His  resurrection. 

True,  the  Church  of  the  Apostolic  age  speaks  of 
the  Coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  not  precisely  of 
His  Return:  Christ  is  to  come,  the  day  of  His  Ad- 
vent is  near.  "Behold,  /  come,"  He  says  in  the 
Apocalypse,  and  S.  John  becomes  the  echo  of  the 
Spirit  and  of  the  Spouse  that  he  may  exclaim :  '*  Come, 
Lord  JesLis."  It  is  also  remarkable  that  the  expres- 
sion is  employed  even  in  circumstances  where  the  term 
"  return "  would  seem  very  suitable.  Thus,  to  the 
disciples  who  witnessed  the  Saviour's  ascension,  the 
Angel  did  not  say :  "He  shall  come  again,"  as  if  He  had 
gone  away ;  but,  "  He  shall  come."  So,  too,  the 
Apostles  asked  the  Master  when  viewing  the  Temple, 
the  ruin  of  which  He  had  just  foretold;  "What  sign 
wilt  Thou  give  us  of  Thy  coming?"  And  Jesus  an- 
nounced, not  His  return,  but  His  coming  at  the  end 
of  time  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  and  in  the  glory  of 
His  Father.^ 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  104,  127,  130-131. 

2  Ac.  i.  11;  I  Cor.  iv.  5;  xi.  26;  i  Thes.  v.  2;  Heb.  x.  37; 
Apoc.  i.  7,  8;  ii.  25;  iii.  3;  iv.  8;  i  Cor.  i.  8;  xv.  23;  2  Cor. 
vii.  7;  I  Thes.  ii.  19;  iii.  13;  iv.  14;  v.  23 ;  2  Thes.  ii.  i,  8,  9; 
I  Tim.  vi.  14;  2  Tim.  iv.  i,  8;  Titus  ii.  3;  James  v.  7,  8;  2  Pet. 

12 


178  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Such  a  mode  of  speech  evidently  supposes  that  at- 
tention was  drawn  less  to  the  return  of  the  person  in 
question  than  to  the  special  character  of  His  return, 
namely,  the  advent  of  a  new  order  of  things,  the 
signal  for  the  final  judgment,  the  announcement  of 
the  final  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 
The  idea  that  Jesus  shall  personally  return  is  kept  in 
the  background,  and  what  especially  commands  atten- 
tion is  the  thought  of  His  coming  as  Sovereign  Judge 
and  glorious  chief  of  the  Kingdom. 

The  coming  of  the  Day  of  the  Lord,  the  terrible  Day 
of  Judgment,  the  arrival  of  the  Kingdom  is  often  men- 
tioned. Thus  is  emphasized  the  glorious  character  of 
this  Advent  which  shall  be  not  so  much  His  return  as 
His  triumphant  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  and 
in  all  the  splendor  of  divine  glory.  Interest  lies  not 
so  much  in  the  fact  that  the  Saviour  has  left  the 
earth  and  is  to  return,  but  rather  that  He  is  now 
hidden  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father  and  is  one  day  to 
appear  again,  to  manifest  His  glory,  and  to  come  for 
the  great  revelation.  This  solemn  manifestation, 
which  shall  inaugurate  the  judgment  and  the  reign  of 
God  in  glory,  may  rightly  be  viewed  as  the  great 
revelation  of  Jesus  as  Christ  the  Lord.^ 

Does  this  mean  that  Jesus  shall  merit  this  title  of 
Messiah  only  at  that  time?  That  this  advent  shall  be 
not  only  His  final  manifestation  but  His  very  first 

iii.  4,  12 ;  I  Jo.  ii.  28 ;  J  ude  i.  24 ;  cf.  Mt.  xxiv.  3,  39 ;  Apoc.  iii. 
II ;  xvi.  15;  xxii.  7,  12,  20;  Ac.  i.  11 ;  Mt.  xxiv.  3;  x.  23;  xi.  3; 
xvi.  27,  28;  xxiv.  30,  39,  44;  XXV.  31 ;  xxvi.  64;  Mt.  viii.  38,  39; 
xiii.  26;  xiv.  62;  Lk.  vii.  19;  ix.  26;  xii.  40;  xviii.  8;  xxi.  27; 
xxii.  18;  Jo.  XX.  29. 

1  Ac.  ii.  20;  I  Thess.  i.  10;  v.  2;  2  Pet.  iii.  10;  Apoc.  ii.  18; 
cf.  Mt.  iii.  7;  Lk.  iii.  7;  Mk.  viii.  39;  Lk.  xvii.  20;  xxii.  18; 
2  Thess.  ii.  8;  Titus  ii.  13;  Apoc.  i.  7;  cf.  Mt.  xvi.  27,  28; 
xxiv.  30;  XXV.  31;  xxvi.  64;  Mk.  viii.  38;  xiii.  26;  xiv.  62; 
Lk.  ix.  26;  xxi.  27;  I  Cor.  i.  7;  Col.  iii.  4;  2  Thess.  i.  7;  Heb. 
ix.  28;  I  Pet.  i.  13;  iv.  13;  v.  4;  I  Jo.  ii.  28;  iii.  2;  cf.  Lk. 
xvii.  30. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  179 

consecration  as  the  Messiah?  That  only  then  He 
shall  begin  to  be  the  Messiah  in  the  proper  sense 
of  the  word?  We  do  not  believe  so.  A  careful  ex- 
amination of  the  texts  shows  a  connection  between 
the  idea  of  the  "  final  Advent "  and  the  idea  of  the 
glorious  apparition,  of  the  terrible  manifestation,  of 
the  revelation  of  the  Kingdom.  We  cannot  discern  a 
clearly  marked  connection  between  the  idea  of  the 
"  final  Advent "  and  that  of  the  first  Messianic  con- 
secration. Jesus  shall  appear,  shall  manifest  His 
glory  as  Christ  the  Lord.  It  does  not  follow  appar- 
ently that  He  had  not  been  previously  Christ  the  Lord 
hidden  either  in  His  Father's  bosom  or  even  on  earth 
in  the  weakness  of  human  nature.  The  last  day  will 
be  His  "Advent  "  as  the  glorious  Messiah ;  for  He 
shall  "  come  "  to  establish  His  Kingdom  in  its  final 
phase.  Everything  connected  with  His  first  coming 
shows  that  He  was,  during  His  mortal  life,  the  Messiah 
sufifering  and  laboring  to  prepare  for  the  eternal  King- 
dom ;  as  will  be  seen  from  a  study  of  several  texts. 

Is  not  Loisy's  inference  from  the  original  testi- 
monies of  the  apostolic  Church  rather  at  odds  with 
that  testimony  upon  which  he  claims  to  base  his 
theory,  namely,  that  Jesus  "  would  become  Christ  and 
Lord  by  His  resurrection?"  If  He  did  so,  it  was  be- 
cause His  character  as  Christ  long  preceded  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  heavenly  Kingdom  which  was  to 
begin  only  by  His  coming  at  the  end  of  time.  As 
noted  before,  this  final  Advent  was  to  especially  in- 
dicate the  Saviour's  great  manifestation  as  the  glori- 
ous Messiah  and  not  exactly  the  mere  beginning  of 
his  Messiahship.  But,  let  us  see  in  what  sense  the 
Apostolic  Church  taught  that  Jesus  became  Christ  and 
Lord  by  His  resurrection.  One  single  text  serves  as 
the  basis  of  this  assertion :  "  Therefore  let  all  the 
House  of  Israel  know  most  certainly  that  God  hath 
made  both  Lord  and  Christ  this  same  Jesus  whom  you 
have  crucified."  ^ 

1  Act  ii.  36. 


l8o  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

The  context  shows  the  exact  meaning  of  this  state- 
ment. The  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  relying  upon  the 
striking  manifestation  which  had  just  signalized  the 
departure  from  the  Cenacle,  took  advantage  of  the 
Jews'  deep  emotion  in  order  to  procure  their  conver- 
sion. Jesus  is  the  Christ :  He  proved  it  by  His  resur- 
rection and  by  sending  the  Holy  Spirit  which  they  had 
just  witnessed.  Christ  was  truly  to  rise  again :  this  is 
announced  by  David  in  the  sixteenth  Psalm.  Appar- 
ently the  Psalmist  speaks  of  himself ;  but,  as  S.  Peter 
observes,  since  in  reality  he  still  remains  a  prey  to 
death,  it  is  clear  that  he  speaks  in  the  name  of  Christ 
who  is,  moreover,  plainly  denoted  by  the  term,  "  the 
Holy  One  "  of  God :  "  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in 
hell,  nor  suffer  the  Holy  One  to  see  corruption."  ^ 

Now  Jesus  is  surely  risen :  '*  This  Jesus  hath  God 
raised  again :  whereof  we  are  all  witnesses."  Therefore 
He  is  truly  the  Christ.  Moreover,  is  not  this  fact  also 
shown  by  the  miracles  wrought  by  Him  during  His 
life,  miracles  that  were  to  accredit  Him  among  the 
people,  as  a  man  approved  by  God?  And  finally,  con- 
tinues S.  Peter,  you  yourselves  are  witnesses  of  the 
wonders  attesting  an  unusual  out-pouring  of  God's 
Spirit.  In  fact,  Jesus  had  promised  this:  He  was  to 
demand  it  from  His  Father :  and  now.  He  had  realized 
the  promise :  then,  the  Father  has  granted  His  prayer. 
He  fully  shares  in  the  power  of  God  and  is  really 
seated  at  His  right  hand,  as  David  had  said  of  Christ 
his  Lord.  Apart,  then,  from  His  miracles,  both  the 
fact  of  the  resurrection  and  of  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  prove  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  truly  the 
Messiah-Lord  foretold  by  the  prophet.^ 

Thus  does  S.  Peter  argue ;  and,  after  a  survey  of  all 
the  consequences  of  his  reasoning,  we  seem  to  reach 
one  conclusion :  the  expression  "  He  has  been  made  by 
God,  Lord  and  Christ "  must  not  be  understood  as 

^  Ps.  xvi.  10  in  Septuagint ;  cf.  Ac.  ii.  27. 
2Ac.  ii.  22,  32 ;  Ps.  ex.  i ;  Ac.  ii.  34. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  i8i 

meaning  strictly  that  Jesus  had  become  by  His  resur- 
rection Lord  and  Christ  for  the  first  time.  The 
Apostle  fearlessly  points  to  Jesus'  resurrection  and 
glorious  share  in  His  Father's  power,  not  exactly  as 
being  the  primary  basis  and  only  reason  for  His 
Messiahship,  but  as  marks  of  His  Messianic  dignity 
and  demonstrations  of  His  character  as  Christ.  The 
resurrection,  and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  prove 
that  Jesus  now  possesses  that  power  and  glory  re- 
served to  Him  as  the  Christ;  but  there  is  nothing  to 
expressly  show  that  He  first  became  the  Christ  only 
by  His  resurrection  and  participation  in  the  divine 
glory.  S.  Peter  may  Hkely  mean  that  Jesus'  entrance 
into  glory  is  merely  a  sign  that  God  had  made  Him 
Lord  and  Christ,  or,  again,  that  by  His  resurrection 
He  had  truly  become  Christ,  as  the  Christ-Lord,  in  the 
final  enjoyment  of  His  glory,  after  experiencing  the 
infirmity  of  His  mortal  condition.  Similarly,  S.  Paul 
who  clearly  teaches  that  Jesus'  divine  Sonship  was 
anterior  to  His  human  birth,  nevertheless  assigns  to 
the  resurrection  the  real  manifestation,  the  striking 
and  solemn  revelation  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God.^ 

Moreover,  this  rather  difficult  text  of  Acts  ii.  36 
should  evidently  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  language 
usual  throughout  the  other  texts.  And  the  fact  is  that, 
in  this  same  ApostoHc  Church,  Jesus  is  believed  to  be 
the  Christ  from  the  very  moment  of  His  incarnation. 

In  many  portions  of  his  discourse  at  Pentecost,  S. 
Peter  really  seems  to  consider  the  Saviour  as  the  Christ 
even  during  His  earthly  life.  This  very  '''  man  ap- 
proved of  God  by  miracles  and  wonders  and  signs 
which  God  did  by  him," — was  He  not,  even  whilst  liv- 
ing on  earth  the  true  Christ?  Why  does  S.  Peter 
speak  of  the  death  of  the  "  Holy  One  "  of  God,  and 
of  the  resurrection  of  "  Christ "  unless  it  is  because 
Jesus  was  already  the  Holy  One  of  God  and  the  Christ 
before  His  death  and  resurrection  ?  ^ 

1  Ac.  V.  31 ;  X.  s6,  42;  xi.  20;  Rom.  i.  4. 

2  Ac.  ii.  22;  xxvii.  31. 


l82  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

At  Caesarea,  S.  Peter  speaks  of  Jesus  as  being  the 
Anointed  of  the  Lord  even  from  the  beginning  of  His 
ministry  and  as  being  endowed  with  His  Spirit  and 
power  in  order  to  spread  broadcast  His  miracles  and 
blessings.  The  faithful,  too,  in  noting  the  ignominies 
inflicted  upon  Jesus  in  the  various  stages  of  His  Pas- 
sion, recall  how  the  Jewish  and  Roman  authorities 
along  with  the  populace  revolt  against  the  Anointed  of 
the  Lord,  thus  arraying  themselves,  as  David  had  said, 
against  God  and  against  His  Christ.^ 

Moreover,  when  Jesus'  sufferings  and  death  are  re- 
ferred to.  He  is  commonly  called  Christ  as  though  it 
were  truly  in  His  character  as  Christ  that  He  endured 
His  Passion.  Thus  we  read :  "  Christ  died  for  our 
sins,  according  to  the  Scriptures  " ;  and  again :  "  Christ 
also  hath  loved  us  and  hath  delivered  Himself  for  us, 
an  oblation  and  a  sacrifice."  ^ 

During  the  Apostolic  age,  as  we  can  see,  one  of  the 
chief  aims  of  Apologetics  was  to  show  that,  by  His 
Passion,  Jesus  had  but  realized  what  the  Scriptures 
predict  of  Christ,  the  suffering  Redeemer.  Christ 
occupies  all  Scripture.  It  is  Christ  that  Isaiah  repre- 
sents as  the  redeeming  victim  for  sin.  That  the  divine 
prophecies  should  be  fulfilled,  it  was  necessary  that 
Christ  should  suffer.  Apparently,  therefore,  it  was 
as  Christ  that  Jesus  was  to  suffer  and  die,  just  as  it 
was  as  Christ  that  He  arose  from  the  dead.^ 

We  also  find  the  name  of  Christ  associated  with  the 
very  idea  of  Jesus'  first  appearance  in  the  flesh : 
"  Christ  Jesus  came  into  this  world  to  save  sinners," 

1  Ac.  X.  27 ;  cf.  Mt.  iii.  16 ;  Is.  Ixi.  i ;  Ac.  iv.  26,  27 ;  Ps.  ii. 
1-2. 

2  I  Cor.  XV.  3 ;  Eph.  v.  2 ;  cf.  Rom.  vii.  4 ;  viii.  32 ;  x.  7 ; 
xiv.  15;  I  Cor.  ii.  2,  8;  v.  7;  x.  16;  xv.  3;  2  Cor.  v.  15;  xvi.  19; 
Gal.  i.  19;  vi.  14;  Col.  i.  24;  i  Tim.  ii.  5,  6;  vi.  13;  i  Pet. 
i.  II,  19;  ii,  21;  iii.  18;  i  Jo.  v.  6. 

3  Ac.  iii.  18 ;  viii.  z^-Z7  \  xvii.  2-z ;  i  Cor,  xv.  3 ;  cf.  Lk. 
xxiv.  26. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  183 

says  S.  Paul ;  and  S.  John  says :  "  Every  spirit  which 
confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  of 
God."  Is  not  this  to  say  that  Jesus  was  Christ  from 
His  entrance  into  the  world  and  that  He  came  here  be- 
low precisely  as  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour 
of  men/ 

Naught,  then,  after  a  careful  study  of  the  texts 
seems  to  authorize  the  assertion  that,  according  to 
the  teaching  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  Jesus  had,  prop- 
erly speaking,  become  Christ  and  Lord  by  His  resur- 
rection.^ 

The  Testimony  of  Jesus'  Contemporaries. — Let 
us  now  ascertain  what  have  been,  on  this  very  point, 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself  and  the  ideas  of  those 
who  lived  with  Him.  Loisy  thinks  that  Jesus'  reserve 
about  calling  Himself  the  Messiah  is  very  peculiar,  and 
that  the  key  to  the  solution  of  this  problem  is  to  be 
found  in  the  theory  that  He  was  not  to  become  the 
Messiah  until  the  end  of  time.  "  We  easily  see  why 
He  wanted  to  avow  His  Messianic  character  only  at 
the  day  of  His  death,"  he  says,  "  and  we  see  in  what 
sense  He  admitted  it.  He  had  no  reason  to  proclaim 
it  before,  not  only  because  He  would  have  met  with 
incredulity  or  would  have  exposed  Himself  to  the 
vengeance  of  the  public  authorities,  but  precisely  be- 
cause He  could  not  do  so,  since  preaching  was  not 
the  Messiah's  function  and  since  His  coming  as  the 
Christ  was  only  to  be  realized  afterwards,  at  the 
moment  determined  by  divine  Providence.  .  .  .  With 
regard  to  Jesus'  reserve  about  His  Messiahship,  we 
must  remember  that  the  idea  of  the  Messiah,  as  also 
that  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  had  an  eschatological 
character.  The  Messiah  is  not  the  Preacher  but  the 
Chief  of  the  Kingdom.     It  pertains  to  Him  to  rule 

1  I  Tim.  i.  15;  I  Jo.  iv.  2;  2  Jo.  vii. ;  cf.  Lk.  ii.  11,  26;  Mt. 
ii.  24;  Rom.  viii.  3,  32;  Gal.  iv.  4-6;  i  Jo.  iv.  9,  10,  14;  v,  20. 

2  Lagrange,  art, :  Rev,  Bib.,  1903,  p.  302, 


i84  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  Elect.  As  long  as  the  Kingdom  had  not  come, 
Jesus  might  indeed  prepare  for  its  Advent  but  He 
could  not  be  the  Messiah,  and  we  easily  understand 
why  He  did  not  claim  to  be  such,  since  He  was  des- 
tined to  be  Messiah  in  the  future  only.  We  can,  how- 
ever, understand  how  His  disciples  had  discovered  the 
secret  and  how  He  had  aided  them  in  doing  so ;  why, 
during  His  final  effort  to  convert  Jerusalem,  He  had 
acted  and  spoken  more  freely  than  in  Galilee  because 
He  beheld  the  near  consummation  of  His  destiny; 
why,  to  Caiaphas,  who  had  asked  Him  if  indeed  He 
were  the  Son  of  God,  He  had  replied :  '  I  am ;  and  you 
shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  at  the  right  hand  of 
the  power  of  God ! '  This  answer  gives  the  explana- 
tion :  it  amounts  to  saying  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah 
because  He  is  soon  to  sit  at  God's  right  hand  and  to 
rule  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven."  ^ 

So  that,  in  Loisy's  opinion,  Jesus  refrained  from 
calling  Himself  the  Messiah  because,  in  His  own  esti- 
mation. He  was  not  as  yet  the  Messiah  and  would  be- 
come so  only  in  course  of  time.  But,  in  studying  the 
manner  in  which  the  Saviour  had  manifested  His  Mes- 
siahship  we  have  found  other  reasons  for  His  reserve 
and  these  are  based  upon  facts.  Loisy's  suggestion  is 
apparently  hard  to  reconcile  on  the  one  hand  with  the 
character  of  the  Messianic  manifestations  which  refer 
to  Jesus  during  His  earthly  life,  and  on  the  other  hand 
with  the  attitude  and  the  most  authentic  declarations 
of  the  Saviour  Himself.  If,  indeed,  we  study  the 
Messianic  manifestations  during  Jesus'  earthly  life, 
we  will  see  that  always  and  everywhere  He  is  pro- 
claimed to  be  actually  and  for  the  time  being,  as  well 
as  personally  and  officially,  the  Messiah;  and  that  no 
suggestion  is  ever  made  that  He  shall  become  such 
only  at  the  end  of  time. 

Along  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  on  the  Mount  of 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  102-103;  Rev. 
d'Hist.,  etc.,  1903,  pp.  296,  301. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  185 

Transfiguration,  God  the  Father  proclaims  Jesus  as 
His  Son,  as  His  chosen  Messiah,  as  the  object  of  all 
His  love.  He  does  not  merely  say  that  Jesus  will  be 
His  beloved  Son,  but  declares  that  He  is  such.  And 
the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  Jesus  at  the  Bap- 
tism, as  also  His  glorious  transfiguration  between 
Moses  and  Elias,  seem  to  fully  manifest  Him  as  being, 
here  and  now,  the  predestined  Messiah,  whom  God 
has  anointed  and  especially  loves.  Nor,  again,  in  the 
testimony  of  the  demoniacs  to  His  Messiahship,  is 
there  aught  to  show  that  the  evil  spirits  wish  merely 
to  call  Him  the  future  Messiah,  the  One  Chosen  to  be 
the  Messiah  at  a  distant  day.  In  fact,  they  say  that 
He  is  now  living,  and  they  call  Him  the  "  Holy  One 
of  God,"  "the  Son  of  the  Most  High  God";  and 
when  the  Evangelist  explains  the  Saviour's  prohibition 
of  revealing  it,  his  very  reason  is  that  they  knew  Him, 
and  knew  Him  as  being  the  Christ."  ^ 

S.  John  the  Baptist,  while  imprisoned,  asked  Jesus 
through  his  disciples  as  spokesmen:  "Art  thou  he  that 
is  to  come,  or  look  we  for  another?"  Loisy  thinks 
that  this  question  is  easily  understood  if  only  we  sup- 
pose that  Jesus  was  to  be  the  Messiah  simpl}^  at  the 
time  of  His  final  advent.  He  also  says  that  "  John 
the  Baptist  did  not  say:  'Art  thou  the  Christ,'  be- 
cause the  Kingdom  was  not  realized  nor  was  Jesus 
acting  in  his  role  of  Messiah.  He  asked  rather  if 
Jesus  was  not  to  become  the  Christ.  Need  we,  how- 
ever, have  recourse  to  this  hypothesis  in  order  to  find 
an  intelligible  meaning  in  the  question  put  by  the  Pre- 
cursor? It  would  appear  not.  Let  us  study  the 
passage  in  the  light  of  its  context.^ 

While  confined  in  the  prison  of  Machaerus,  John 
learns  of  the  miracles  wrought  by  Jesus,  the  renown 

1  Mk.  i.  24 ;  Lk.  iv;  34,  41 ;  cf.  Mk.  v.  7 ;  Mt.  viii.  29 ;  Lk. 
viii.  28;  Mk.  i.  34;  Lk.  iv.  41. 

2  Mt.  xi.  3;  Lk.  vii,  19;  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church, 
p.  102, 


i86  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

of  which  accredited  Him  everywhere  as  a  great  prophet 
whom  God  had  given  to  His  people.  He  sends  two  of 
His  disciples  to  ask  Jesus  if  He  is  the  One  who  is  to 
come.  Perhaps,  by  this  message,  he  wants  to  af- 
ford the  Master  a  chance  to  make  a  decisive  manifes- 
tation before  these  messengers  whom  he  thus  sought 
to  strengthen  in  the  faith:  In  fact,  the  Saviour  per- 
forms divers  miracles  right  under  the  eyes  of  these 
messengers  in  support  of  the  answer  which  He  gives 
them.  Possibly  also,  John  wants  a  decisive  proof  for 
himself.  True  it  is  that  his  faith  was  already  ancient: 
on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan  river,  after  declaring  he 
was  not  personally  the  Christ,  he  had  announced  that 
this  Christ  was  to  come  after  him  and  that  he  was 
already  present  in  the  midst  of  the  multitude;  at  the 
Baptism  he  had  recognized  Him  and  had  witnessed 
the  heavenly  manifestation;  and  to  his  own  disciples 
he  had  spoken  of  Jesus  in  terms  that  equivalently  de- 
signated Him  as  the  Messiah.  But,  perhaps,  he  is 
surprised  at  the  delay  in  the  advent  of  the  great  Mes- 
sianic manifestation,  of  "  that  baptism  in  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  fire "  which  he  had  announced  as  being 
the  special  work  of  Christ;  and,  what  surely  shows 
the  substantial  firmness  of  his  faith,  he  feels  that  he 
can  do  naught  better  than  to  speak  to  Jesus  directly  in 
order  to  have  his  belief  fully  and  finally  confirmed.^ 

We  do  not  see,  therefore,  how  we  can  admit  the  fol- 
lowing assertion  of  Loisy :  "  The  captive  John  did  not 
know  even  then  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah ;  he  was 
beginning  merely  to  suspect  it,  and  the  Synoptics  do 
not  state  that  Jesus'  reply  had  led  him  to  believe  it. 
We  may  doubt  that  he  did  so,  since  his  followers  did 
not  rally  to  the  cause  of  the  Gospel." 

The  only  ground  for  such  an  interpretation  is  the 

1  Lk.  vii.  i6,  i8;  Mt.  xi.  2;  Lk.  vii.  21;  iii.  15;  Jo.  i.  20; 
Mk.  i.  7;  Mt.  iii.  11;  Lk.  iii.  16;  Jo.  i.  26,  27;  Mt.  iii.  14; 
Jo.  i.  33,  34;  i.  36;  iii.  28;  Mk.  i.  8;  Mt.  iii.  11,  12;  Lk.  iii.  16, 
17;  Jo.  i.  Z3' 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  187 

episode  which  we  are  discussing  and  which  may  be 
explained  quite  otherwise.  Against  it  is  the  positive 
fact  that  the  three  Synoptics,  not  to  mention  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  show  that,  even  prior  to  the  Saviour's  baptism, 
John  the  Baptist  was  aware  of  the  Messiah's  near 
arrival.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Synoptic  accounts 
leave  the  impression  that  the  Precursor  recognized 
Jesus  as  Messiah  at  the  baptism,  and  this  is  expressly 
attested  by  S.  Matthew  as  by  S.  John.  And  Jesus' 
magnificent  eulogy  of  His  Precursor,  delivered  after 
the  incident  in  question,  would  not  be  intelligible  if 
the  Saviour  could  have  perceived  in  the  Baptist's  ques- 
tion a  formal  doubt,  which  would  not  have,  even 
later  on,  ended  in  belief.  These  testimonies  are  clear 
and  accordant ;  they  surely  are  a  part  of  the  early 
tradition.  What  right,  then,  have  we  to  reject  them 
just  for  the  sake  of  a  doubtful  passage,  instead  of 
interpreting  this  doubtful  passage  in  agreement  with 
the  primitive  testimonies,  and  in  a  way,  moreover, 
of  which  it  is  perfectly  susceptible  ?  ^ 

At  all  events,  the  Baptist's  query :  "Art  thou  He 
that  is  to  come?",  seems  to  be  but  a  traditional  expres- 
sion serving  to  designate  the  Messiah:  The  Messiah 
is  ''  He  that  is  expected,"  He  who  is  to  come,  or,  more 
literally.  He  who  cometh  in  fulfilment  of  the  divine 
promises  and  according  to  general  expectation.  The 
usual  representation  of  Christ's  coming  at  the  last  day 
does  not  prove  that  the  term  of  itself  may  not  be  purely 
and  simply  synonymous  with  "  Messiah,"  or  that  the 
person  holding  such  eschatological  position  may  not 
rightly  be  called  Messiah  before  that  final  manifesta- 
tion, if  God  has  already  anointed  Him  for  this  purpose 
and  He  performs  works  that  are  also  Messianic.^ 

Let  us  even  suppose  the  Precursor  used  this  expres- 

1  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  p.  ZZZ)  Bruce,  art.:  Jesus,  E.  B., 
par.  27,  col.  2450. 

2C/.  Jo.  vi.  14;  xi,  27. 


l88  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

sion  to  signify  the  final  Messianic  Advent:  there  is 
nothing  to  prove  that,  once  fully  assured  that  Jesus 
was  to  be  the  Messiah  at  the  end  of  time,  John  does 
not  consider  Him  to  be  the  Messiah  even  now;  so 
that  his  question,  instead  of  being  interpreted  "  Art 
thou  he  who  is  to  be  the  Christ  ?  "  would  more  natur- 
ally read :  "  Art  thou  not  at  present  the  Christ  ?  " — 
this  Christ  whom  we  await  as  the  Saviour,  who  at  the 
end  of  days  is  to  preside  over  the  general  judgment 
and  estabhsh  the  reign  of  God?  And,  as  we  shall  see 
later,  the  Saviour's  reply  confirms  our  interpretation. 

The  Apostles,  also,  like  John  the  Baptist,  call  Jesus 
the  Messiah,  and  they  apparently  see  in  Him  not  only 
the  Messiah  in  expectation  but  the  Messiah  already 
present  and  essentially  realized.  Loisy,  indeed,  is 
not  of  this  opinion.  He  thinks  that  "  when  Peter 
says :  '  Thou  art  the  Christ,'  he  does  not  mean  that 
the  Saviour  is  already  exercising  the  Messianic  func- 
tion, but  that  He  is  the  person  appointed  for  this 
office."  This  view,  again,  seems  irreconcilable  with 
the  texts.^ 

Jesus  did  not  ask  His  disciples :  "  Whom  do  men 
say  that  I  shall  be  ?" — What  do  they  think  shall  be  the 
Son  of  Man's  destiny  ?  but  exactly :  "  Whom  do  men 
say  that  I  am?" — What  do  they  think  of  my  present 
character,  of  my  real  personality?  The  Apostles  in 
fact  tell  Him  about  the  various  opinions  of  the  people 
about  Him,  as  also  the  current  ideas  about  His 
person  and  exact  identity.  Some  take  Him  for  a 
prophet,  others  for  one  of  the  old  prophets  returned 
to  life,  others  again  for  Elias,  the  Precursor.  And 
again,  the  Saviour  asks  the  same  question :  "  But  you, 
whom  do  you  say  that  I  am  ?"  Peter  answers  plainly : 
"  Thou  art  the  Christ " ;  thus  proclaiming  that  he 
sees  in  Him,  even  at  the  present  moment,  Christ's 
person  realized.     He  does  not  say :  "  Thou  shalt  be 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  102-103. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  189 

the  Christ,"  nor  "  Thou  art  He  who  is  to  be  the 
Christ."  Naught  suggests  that  such  is  his  underlying 
thought ;  but  all  seems  to  show  that,  although  the  mul- 
titude then  saw  in  Jesus  an  ordinary  prophet  actually 
exercising  His  office  and  at  most  the  precursor  of  the 
Messiah,  he  himself  perceives  in  His  very  actual  func- 
tion and  in  His  present  activity  the  person  of  the 
Messiah/ 

A  study  of  the  Gospel  of  S.  John,  moreover,  serves 
to  fully  confirm  our  interpretation.  In  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  no  more  than  in  the  Synoptics,  do  we  find  the 
Apostles  or  the  Disciples  expressing  the  idea  that  Jesus 
is  destined  to  become  the  Christ  only  at  a  future  day. 
Every  time  that  they  bear  witness  to  the  Saviour's 
Messiahship  they  clearly  indicate  that,  as  far  as  they 
can  see.  He  is  already  the  Messiah  both  in  person  and 
in  function. 

Thus,  at  their  first  meeting  with  the  Master,  Andrew 
says  to  his  brother  Simon :  *'  We  have  found  the  Mes- 
siah." And  on  the  morrow,  Philip  tells  Nathanael: 
**  We  have  found  him  of  whom  Moses  in  the  Law,  and 
the  Prophets  did  write :  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of 
Joseph."  But  when  Nathanael  hears  Jesus  revealing 
to  him  secrets  of  his  past  life,  he  perceives  in  this 
fact  a  sign  that  Philip's  testimony  is  true ;  so  that  he 
exclaims :  "  Rabbi,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God ;  thou  art 
the  King  of  Israel."  ^ 

The  Samaritan  woman,  also,  after  the  Master  re- 
veals to  her  all  things  that  she  ever  did,  hastens  into 
the  city  and  says  to  the  people :  "  Come  and  see  a  man 
who  has  told  me  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  done: 
Is  he  not  the  Christ?"  And  the  people  of  the  same 
city,  after  hearing  Jesus  discourse  to  them  for  two 
days,  tell  the  same  woman :  "We  ourselves  have  heard 

^  Mk.  viii.  27;   Mt,  xvi.   13;  Lk.  ix.   18;   Mk.  viii.  29;   Mt. 
xvi.  15;  Lk.  ix.  20;  Mk.  viii.  29;  Mt.  xvi.  16. 
2  Jo.  i.  41,  45,  49. 


1^0  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Him,  and  know  that  this  is  indeed  the  Saviour  of  the 
world."  Similar  language  is  uttered  by  S.  Peter  at  the 
close  of  Jesus'  discourse  on  the  Bread  of  Life:  We 
have  believed  and  have  known  that  thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God."  ^ 

Of  especial  significance,  too,  is  the  profession  of 
faith  made  by  Martha :  "  I  believe  that  thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  come  into  the  world."  To 
her,  the  two  titles,  "  Christ "  and  ^'  Son  of  God,"  are 
inseparably  connected,  and  the  addition,  "  come  into 
the  world,"  qualifies  each  of  the  two  antecedents. 
Now,  from  the  entire  context,  it  is  quite  apparent 
that  the  expression,  "  come  into  the  world,"  should 
be  taken  in  this  place  not  for  the  final  coming  at  the 
end  of  time,  but  for  the  first  advent  which  was  ac- 
complished through  the  Incarnation.  Jesus  comes 
into  this  world  as  the  Son  of  God  who  sets  forth 
from  the  bosom  of  His  Father,  and  also  as  the  Christ, 
or  Anointed,  of  God  for  the  fulfilment  of  Messianic 
designs.  On  entering  the  world  He  was  the  Son  of 
God:  He  was  also  the  Messiah.^ 

The  remarks  of  the  multitude,  finally,  also  prove 
that  if  they  thought  the  supreme  Messianic  mission 
was  to  be  the  estabHshment  of  the  ideal  Kingdom  of 
David,  they  nevertheless  discerned  in  Jesus'  teachings 
and  miracles  a  strictly  Messianic  function  which 
warranted  Him  in  employing  the  title  of  Messiah. 
After  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  the  people  exclaim: 
"  This  is,  of  a  truth,  the  Prophet  that  is  to  come  into 
the  world."  In  all  the  various  views  about  Him 
there  is  question  only  of  His  present  character  as 
Christ :  "  Have  the  rulers  known,  for  a  truth,  that 
this  is  the  Christ  ?"  Again,  many  wonder :  ''  When 
the  Christ  cometh  shall  He  do  more  miracles  than 
this  man  doth  ?".     Some  say :  "  This  is  the  prophet 

ijo.  iv.  29,  42;  vi.  70. 

2  Jo.  xi,  27 ;  cf.  I  Jo.  iv.  2 ;  2  Jo.  vii. ;  i  Tim.  i.  15. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  191 

indeed  " ;  others  say :  "  This  is  the  Christ.  ...  If  thou 
be  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly."  ^ 

And  when  Caiaphas  questions  Jesus,  let  Loisy  say 
what  he  will,  he  does  not  at  all  suggest  that  he  wants 
to  allude  to  a  mere  claim  to  be  the  one  ''  who  is  to 
be  the  Messiah."  The  question  is  very  plainly  stated 
in  the  three  Synoptics:  ''Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  Blessed  God?  ...  I  adjure  thee  by  the  liv- 
ing God  that  thou  tell  us  if  thou  he  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God.  ...  If  thou  he  the  Christ,  tell  us.  .  .  . 
Art  thou,  then,  the  Son  of  God?".  Pilate,  also,  sim- 
ply asked  Him:  ''Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews?" 
No  allusion  is  made  to  His  future  destiny:  the  ques- 
tion bears  entirely  upon  what  He  claims  to  be  at  the 
present  time.^ 

The  Saviour's  Statements.— But,  let  us  consider 
the  Saviour's  own  declarations :  throughout  His 
earthly  life  and  in  His  apostolic  ministry  He  is  al- 
ways the  Messiah,  according  to  His  own  assertions. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  Fourth  Gospel :  it  shows  that, 
in  the  various  circumstances  in  which  He  avowed 
His  Messiahship,  He  proclaims  Himself,  not  Him 
who  was  to  be  the  Messiah,  who  was  to  come  later  as 
the  Messiah,  but  indeed  the  Messiah  at  hand,  the 
Messiah  who  was  to  come  and  is  actually  come.  The 
Samaritan  woman  speaks  to  Him  about  the  future 
coming  of  the  promised  Messiah :  "  I  know  that  the 
Messiah  cometh,"  she  says,  "  who  is  called  the  Christ ; 
therefore,  when  He  is  come,  He  will  tell  us  all  things." 
And  Jesus  replies :  that  He  is,  indeed,  the  expected 
Messiah,  the  Christ  who  shall  come :  "  I  am  He," 
says  He,  "  who  am  speaking  with  thee."  So  too.  He 
asks  the  man  born  blind :  "  Dost  thou  believe  in  the 

1  Jo.  vi.  14;  vii.  26,  31,  41 ;  Jo.  x.  24. 

2  Mk.  xiv.  61 ;  Mt.  xxvi.  63 ;  Lk.  xxii.  67,  70 ;  Mk.  xv.  2 ; 
Mt.  xxvii.  11;  Lk.  xxiii.  3;  Jo.  xviii.  ZZ^  2>7-\  Lagrange,  Rev. 
Bib.,  1903,  p.  308. 


192  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Son  of  God  ?"  And  the  man  replies :  *'  Who  is  He, 
Lord,  that  I  may  beheve  in  Him?"  Jesus  answers: 
'*  Thou  hast  both  seen  Him  and  it  is  He  that  talketh 
with  thee."  Again,  when  the  people  entreat  Him  to 
tell  openly  if  He  be  the  Christ,  the  Saviour  lets  it  be 
understood  that  such  declaration  has  long  since  been 
given  through  His  works  which  declare  Him  the  Son 
of  God  and  His  Messiah :  ''  I  speak  to  you,  and  you 
believe  not:  the  works  that  I  do  in  the  name  of  my 
Father,  they  give  testimony  of  me."  ^ 

If,  moreover,  we  consult  the  Synoptic  gospels,  we 
will  find  the  Saviour  employing  the  like  language.  To 
John  the  Baptist,  who  asks  Him  if  He  is  "  He  that  is 
to  come,"  Jesus  replies  in  terms  that  seem  to  fully 
designate  Him  as  being  thenceforth  the  Messiah  ex- 
pected. Loisy,  indeed,  tries  to  square  this  answer  with 
his  theory.  He  claims  that  Jesus'  reply  is  such  as  "  to 
make  him  understand  that  He  who  really  prepares  the 
Kingdom  is  He  who  is  to  come  with  the  Kingdom." 
The  deeds  which  Jesus  describes  are  not  strictly  His 
Messianic  work  which  is  wholly  withheld  until  the 
final  advent ;  they  are  but  a  preparation  to  that  unique 
Messianic  work,  and  merely  designate  Jesus  as  Him 
who  is  one  day  hence  to  be  the  Messiah.^ 

Let  us  closely  examine  the  data.  Supposing  that 
John's  query  could  mean:  Art  thou  He  who  shalt 
come  for  the  final  judgment,  then,  in  appeahng  to 
His  miracles,  the  Saviour  would  mean  that  He  was 
indeed  the  Messiah  expected  at  he  end  of  time;  but 
He  says  naught  to  indicate  that,  if  He  is  to  be  such 
a  Messiah  later  on.  He  was  not  already,  in  another 
though  real  condition,  personally  exercising  His  Mes- 
siahship  and  that  His  present  ministry  which  prepared 
for  the  definite  establishment  of  the  Kingdom,  was 
not,   at  the   same   time,   a   Messianic    function.     We" 

1  Jo.  iv.  25,  26 ;  ix.  35-37 ;  x.  24,  25. 

2  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  103. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  193 

may  even  say  that,  in  this  case,  the  Saviour's  reply, 
so  remarkable  because  He  is  content  to  appeal 
to  His  works  in  order  to  strengthen  the  faith  of 
the  messengers,  is  true  only  if  there  is  an  essential 
relation  between  Him  "  who  is  to  come  "  and  the  one 
who  wrought  the  wonders  described  by  Jesus.  And 
such  essential  relation  can  be  only  that  common  and 
identical  quality,  the  Messiahship;  for,  His  present 
miracles  are  Messianic  works  as  much  as  is  the 
supreme  manifestation,  and  in  the  exercise  of  His  min- 
istry Jesus  is  already  "  the  Messiah,"  and  hence  He  is 
"  He  who  is  to  come." 

If,  however,  as  seems  probable,  we  must  see  in  the 
Baptist's  expression  ''Art  thou  He  who  is  to  come," 
merely  the  current  term  for  designating  the  expected 
Messiah,  whether  He  comes  at  once  into  this  world 
with  the  final  Kingdom,  or  whether  He  has  other 
works  to  perform  before  that  supreme  manifestation; 
if  He,  on  the  other  hand,  as  seems  true,  models  His 
reply  upon  the  oracles  wherein  tradition  saw  por- 
trayed the  special  works  of  the  Messianic  era,  there 
is  but  one  plain  conclusion:  John  the  Baptist  had 
asked  Jesus  if  He  were  the  Messiah  whom  people  ex- 
pected, and  Jesus  answers,  in  equivalent  terms,  that 
He  is  indeed  the  Messiah  since  He  performs  the 
works  and  the  functions  of  the  Messiah,  although  not 
as  yet  the  final  work  nor  the  supreme  function.^ 

We  may  next  consider  the  Confession  of  St.  Peter, 
He  declares  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ ;  and  the  Saviour 
approves  and  confirms  his  avowal  in  such  wise  that 
He  leads  nobody  to  suppose  that  He  will  merit  this 
title  only  at  the  end  of  time.  Nor,  in  telling  His 
apostles  to  keep  silent,  is  there  aught  to  show  that 
such  silence  relates  to  His  future  Messiahship.  In- 
deed, everything  shows  that  it  refers  to  His  present 
quality  of   Messiah :  "  He  commanded   His   disciples 

1  Mt.  xi.  5 ;  Lk.  vii.  22 ;  cf.  Is.  xxx.  5 ;  Ixi.  I. 
13 


194  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

that  they  should  tell  no  one  that  He  was  Jesus,  the 
Christ."  ^ 

Again,  there  is  Jesus'  answer  to  the  High-Priest. 
Loisy,  by  the  way,  thinks  that  he  has  some  support 
for  his  theory  in  that  reply.  *'  The  discourse  that 
Jesus  addressed  to  him,"  he  says,  "  is  really  intelli- 
gible only  in  that  hypothesis.  The  Saviour  avows 
that  He  is  the  Christ ;  but,  to  explain  His  answer.  He 
also  adds :  '  You  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  Power,'  that  is,  of  God,  '  and 
coming  upon  the  clouds  of  heaven.'  It  is  precisely 
this  place  of  honor  and  this  coming  upon  the  clouds 
that  characterize  the  Messiah.  Jesus  declares  Him- 
self to  be  the  Son  of  Man  who  is  to  come.  We  can 
easily  understand  why  He  wished  to  avow  His  charac- 
ter only  on  the  day  of  His  death,  and  we  see  in  what 
sense  He  avowed  it."  ^ 

Is  Loisy's  interpretation  really  correct?  We  do  not 
think  so.  Aside  from  his  hypothesis,  the  Saviour's 
response  remains,  we  believe,  perfectly  intelligible, 
let  us  say,  more  inteUigible.  It  is  at  least  certain  that 
Jesus  was  asked,  not  if  He  said  He  was  to  be  the 
Messiah,  but  if  He  is  now  the  Christ.  Jesus  answers  in 
the  affirmative,  and  it  would  seem  exactly  in  the  same 
sense:  ''Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed 
God?"  ...  "I  am"  ...  "I  adjure  thee,  by  the 
name  of  the  living  God,  to  tell  us  if  thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God?"  .  .  .  "Thou  hast  said  it" 
.  .  .  *'Art  thou,  then,  the  Son  of  God?"  .  .  .  "You 
say  yourselves  that  I  am."  And  Jesus  adds :  "  You 
shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  power  of  God,  and  coming  upon  the  clouds  of 
heaven."  ^ 

1  Mt.  xvi.  20. 

2  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  103. 

3  Mk.  xiv.  61,  62;  Mt.  xvi.  6^,  64;  Lk.  xxii.  67,  70;  Mk. 
xiv.  62)  Mt.  xxvi.  64;  Lk.  xxii.  69. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  195 

There  is  no  sign  of  any  restriction  made  in  order 
to  narrow  the  sense  of  the  first  response  by  estab- 
Hshing  an  essential,  even  exclusive  relation  between 
His  quality  of  Christ  and  His  coming  at  the  end  of 
time.  Why  should  not  this  declaration  be  absolutely 
independent  of  the  response  already  made,  and  which 
fully  retains  its  own  meaning?  Could  not  the  Saviour 
wish  rather  to  enforce  His  avowal  by  expressly 
claiming  for  Himself,  in  face  of  his  death,  the  glorious 
destiny  reserved  to  the  Son  of  Man.  Could  He 
not  wish  simply  to  set  before  the  conscience  of  His 
judges  the  perspective  of  that  supreme  judgment 
which  one  day  He  would  personally  administer  in  all 
the  formidable  array  of  His  glory?  Whatever  be 
said,  there  is  nothing,  absolutely  nothing,  that  seems 
to  indicate  His  desire  to  restrict  His  title  and  His 
quality  of  Messiah  solely  to  the  final  advent. 

Before  Pilate,  also,  Jesus  uses  the  like  language. 
The  Procurator  asks:  "Art  thou  the  King  of  the 
Jews?",  that  is,  the  Messiah-King.  The  Saviour  re- 
plies :  "  Thou  hast  said  it."  And  if,  as  the  Fourth 
Gospel  states.  He  adds :  "  My  Kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world,"  He  did  not  mean  that  this  royalty,  and  hence 
this  Messiahship,  would  be  realized  only  at  a  future 
epoch.  He  simply  meant  that  His  royalty  is  not  of 
the  temporal  order,  like  the  kingdoms  of  this  world, 
otherwise  He  would  have  defended  Himself  against 
those  who  had  raised  their  hands  at  Him.  He  also 
implied  that  He  came  here  below,  already  clothed  in 
His  royalty,  but  a  wholly  spiritual  one,  since  His  mis- 
sion was  to  reign  over  souls  by  leading  them  to  the 
truth :  "  Thou  sayest  that  I  am  a  king.  For  this  was 
I  born,  and  for  this  I  came  into  the  world:  that  I 
should  give  testimony  to  the  truth."  ^ 

We  may  refer,   finally,   to   the   Saviour's   constant 

1  Lk.  xxiii.  2;  Mk.  xv.  2;  Mt.  xxvii.  ii;  Lk.  xxiii.  3;  Jo. 
xviii.  S7;  Jo.  xviii.  3^-37- 


196  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

use  of  the  "  Son  of  Man  "  as  a  title,  which  fact,  we 
think,  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  It  is  a  Messianic 
title :  the  "  Son  of  Man," — this  is  the  Messiah  who 
would  come  at  the  end  of  time  to  establish  the  King- 
dom as  foretold  in  the  vision  of  Daniel.  Remarkably 
enough,  Jesus  employs  this  title  even  in  the  present 
exercise  of  His  ministry.  He  does  not  call  Himself 
the  "  Son  of  Man "  merely  for  the  final  revelation. 
No;  He  is  such  even  in  His  work  of  evangeUzation 
and  redemption.  It  is  the  "  Son  of  Man  "  who  has 
power  on  earth  to  remit  sins,  and  who  is  absolute 
master  of  the  Sabbath.  It  is  the  ''  Son  of  Man " 
who  plants  in  souls  the  good  seed  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  It  is  the  Son  of  Man  who  is  come,  not  to  de- 
stroy, but  to  save ;  not  to  be  ministered  to,  but  to  min- 
ister and  to  give  His  life  in  ransom  for  many.  To 
fulfil  His  mission,  the  Son  of  God  leads  a  wandering 
life  and  condemns  Himself  to  the  absolute  penury  of 
a  missionary :  he  has  no  place  where  to  lay  His  head. 
When  foretelling  His  Passion,  the  Saviour  declares 
that  it  is  necessary  that  the  *'  Son  of  Man  "  should 
suffer  much,  as  it  is  written  of  Him;  that  He  should 
be  rebuked  by  the  Ancients  of  the  people,  the  High 
Priests,  and  the  Scribes,  and  that  He  should  be  put 
to  death  and  rise  again  the  third  day.^ 

In  thus  employing,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end 
of  His  earthly  life,  a  title  properly  Messianic,  as  He 

1  Mk.  xviii.  38 ;  Mt.  xvi.  27,  28 ;  Lk.  ix.  26 ;  Mk.  xiii.  26 ; 
Mt.  xxiv.  30;  Lk.  xxi.  27;  Mk.  xiv.  62;  Mt.  xxvi.  64;  Lk. 
xxii.  69;  Mt.  X.  23;  xiii.  14;  ix.  27;  xxiv.  37,  39,  44;  xxv.  31; 
Lk.  xii,  8,  40;  xvii.  22,  24,  26;  xviii.  8;  xxi.  s^;  Mt.  xi.  19; 
Lk.  vii.  34;  Mt.  xii.  32;  Lk.  xii.  10;  Mt.  xvi.  13;  Lk.  xi.  30; 
xxii.  48;  Mk.  ii.  10;  Mt.  ix.  6;  Lk.  vi.  24;  Mk.  ii.  28;  Mt.  xii. 
8;  Lk.  vi.  5;  Mt.  xiii.  37  \  Mk.  x.  45;  Mt.  xx.  28;  xviii.  11; 
Lk.  ix.  56;  xiv.  10;  Mt.  viii.  20;  Lk.  ix.  58;  Mk.  viii. -31 ;  Lk. 
ix.  22;  Mk.  ix.  8,  11;  Mt.  xvii.  9,  12;  Mk.  ix,  30;  Mt.  xvii.  21; 
Lk.  ix.  44;  Mk.  X.  33;  Mt.  xx.  18;  Lk.^  xviii.  31;  _Mk.  xiv. 
21,  41;  Mt.  xxvi.  24,  25;  Mt.  xii.  40;  xxvi.  2;  Lk.  xxiv.  7,  26; 
Jo.  iii.  14;  viii.  28;  xii.  34. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


197 


was  to  prove  it  later,  did  not  Jesus  equivalently 
indicate  that,  even  at  present,  He  was  the  Mes- 
siah. No  doubt,  the  title  would  be  realized  in  a  special 
and  fuller  sense  at  the  final  advent ;  but,  that  He  might 
rightly  and  constantly  use  it  during  life ;  that  He  might 
employ  it  continuously  in  connection  with  His  ministry, 
it  was  quite  necessary  that  this  title  should  precisely 
be  His  while  on  earth. 

"  If  Jesus  is  the  future  Messiah,"  says  Lagrange, 
"  we  will  have  to  explain  how,  during  His  life.  He  has 
thus  readily  taken  the  title  and  assumed  the  office  of 
the  Son  of  Man  precisely  predicted  of  the  heavenly 
Messiah."  ^ 

And  Holtzmann  observes :  ''  Jesus  put  into  this  title 
all  that  characterized  His  mission  and  ministry.  .  .  . 
As  He  knew  that  this  mission  should  be  accomplished 
by  suffering  and  death,  the  Son  of  Man  became  the 
object  of  prophecies  referring  both  to  His  glory  and 
to  His  sufferings.  Thus  it  is  that  Jesus  is  and  calls 
Himself  the  "  Son  of  Man,"  when  He  proclaims  and 
extends  the  Kingdom  of  God,  in  pardoning,  in  teach- 
ing, and  in  suffering.  On  the  other  hand,  and  in  an 
especial  manner,  He  thus  styles  Himself  when  He  per- 
fects the  Kingdom  in  coming  upon  the  clouds  of 
heaven.  ...  As  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  a  reality 
present  as  well  as  future,  so  the  title  chosen  by  Jesus, 
as  regards  the  bearing  of  His  mission  upon  the  King- 
dom, embraces  the  present  as  well  as  the  future 
work."  ^ 

If,  then,  we  examine  the  texts  impartially,  it  would 
seem  that  the  Saviour  presents  Himself  in  the  Gos- 
pels, not  only  as  the  one  who  was  to  be  the  Messiah 
at  the  end  of  time,  but  also  as  being  already,  during 
His  earthly  life,  the  Messiah  in  person  and  office.  As 
we  have  seen,  it  is  thus  that  He  is  represented  in  the 

1  Lagrange,  art. :  Jesus  et  la  Crit.  des  Evang.,  Bullet,  de 
Lit.  EccL,  1904,  p.  13 ;  Holtzmann,  H.,  Lehrb.  N.  T.  TheoL, 
1897,  vol.  i,  pp.  250-253. 


198  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

church  of  the  ApostoUc  times.  No  doubt,  His  resur- 
rection and  His  ascension  shall  manifest  Him,  in  a 
divine  manner,  as  the  Messiah,  or  even,  these  events 
shall  confirm- the  triumphant  Messiah  in  the  perfect 
possession  of  His  glory;  but,  properly  speaking,  they 
shall  not  constitute  Him  the  Messiah.  So  too,  His 
coming  at  the  end  of  time  shall  be  His  advent  as 
supreme  judge  of  the  world  and  chief  of  the  eternal 
Kingdom;  in  a  sense  this  will  be  the  final  Messianic 
advent,  His  coming  as  the  triumphant  and  glorious 
Messiah  par  excellence.  But  if,  so  to  say,  this  is  to 
be  the  crown  of  His  Messianic  career,  it  shall  not 
be,  its  beginning  and  inauguration.  In  His  first  ad- 
vent and  in  His  earthly  fife,  in  His  Gospel  ministry 
and  in  His  redemptive  work,  Jesus  is  already  person- 
ally and  actually  the  Messiah,  the  Saviour  of  men. 

III.    SOURCE    OF    MESSIANIC    CONSCIOUSNESS. 

Theory  of  Illusion. — How,  we  may  ask,  did  Jesus 
come  to  believe  and  to  deem  Himself  the  Messiah? 
Whence  did  He  become  aware  of  His  Messiahship? 
To  the  infidel  critic  this  is  the  great  problem,  the 
utterly  disconcerting  problem.  The  rationalist,  deny- 
ing aught  that  surpasses  the  natural,  scouts  the  idea  of 
an  authentically  real  Messiah,  of  a  person  actually  sent 
by  God  to  represent  Him  among  men  and  to  establish 
at  the  world's  end  the  eternal  kingdom  of  the  Elect. 
To  believe  such  critics,  Jesus,  in  claiming  to  be  the 
Messiah,  could  not  speak  the  truth.  We  have,  then, 
two  hypotheses  between  which  we  must  choose:  either 
Jesus  was  deceived,  or  He  was  a  deceiver. 

Was  Jesus,  indeed,  deceiving?  Did  He  lie  by  pre- 
tending to  be  what  He  knew  He  was  not,  namely,  the 
Messiah  ?  No  one  nowadays  dreams  of  accepting  such 
a  theory:  the  Saviour's  loyalty  to  truth  is  far  beyond 
suspicion.  No'  one  more  fiercely  censured  the  hypoc- 
risy of  the  Pharisees  than  He.  No  one  more  ur- 
gently enforced  the  agreement  between  the  outer  and 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


199 


the  inner  life,  the  accord  between  words  and  actions 
with  the  soul's  inward  emotions,  in  a  word,  sincerity 
and  uprightness  as  founded  upon  the  universal  and 
constant  principle  that,  although  men  may  see  only  the 
outward  view,  God  indeed  discerns  the  depths  of 
hearts.  He  wished  that  His  disciples  would  banish 
from  their  speech  every  oath  as  being  superfluous :  the 
Christian  should  be  content  to  use  the  simple  asser- 
tion: Yea,  yea;  nay,  nay.  Surely,  such  a  love  for 
truthfulness  in  others  defends  Him  from  all  suspicion 
of  dissimulation,  and  especially  of  lying,  in  such  an  im- 
portant matter  as  His  divine  mission  and  Messianic 
dignity.^ 

All  His  words,  nay,  all  His  acts  breathe  a  humihty, 
a  frankness,  an  uprightness  that  forcibly  impress  every- 
one, believer  or  infidel,  that  cares  to  study  His  dis- 
courses and  His  conduct.  Dare  we  say  that  an  im- 
poster,  with  the  view  to  declare  Himself  the  Messiah, 
has  employed  that  admirable  delicacy,  reserve,  and 
discretion  witnessed  in  the  Gospel  story?  Would  He 
have  so  carefully  avoided  favoring  the  popular  pre- 
judices and  profiting  by  the  passions  of  the  multitude? 
Would  He,  as  Jesus,  have  sustained  so  firmly  His 
claims  even  until  death  ?  The  Passion,  the  crucifixion, 
as  undergone  in  support  of  the  testimony  rendered  to 
His  Messiahship, — here  truly  is  the  unexceptionable 
proof  of  the  sincerity  of  the  Saviour's  convictions. 

Jesus,  to  be  sure,  did  not  want  to  be  a  deceiver. 
Therefore,  the  rationahst  critic  concludes,  he  deceived 
Himself:  Jesus,  it  is  said,  was  the  victim  of  illu- 
sion !  But,  how  explain  such  illusion  ?  How  did  Jesus, 
in  spite  of  the  real  facts,  come  to  be  falsely  per- 
suaded and  yet  deeply  convinced  that  He  was  the 
Messiah?  Such,  in  a  word,  is  the  problem  that  con- 
fronts the  infidel  critic,  and  which  Rationalists  have 
sought  to  solve, 

i  Mt.  vi.  37. 


200  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

The  various  attempts  at  its  solution,  generally  speak- 
ing, start  out  from  the  idea  that  Jesus'  illusion  on  this 
point  was  the  result  of  His  human  soul's  activity,  of 
a  slowly  progressive  evolution  which  naturally  af- 
fected His  thoughts  through  the  influence  of  His  en- 
vironment,— the  prevailing  ideas  and  His  personal 
temperament, — and  which  ended  in  that  profound  and 
very  strong  conviction  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  the 
Son  of  God. 

Renan.  —  This  alleged  soul-development  in  Jesus 
has  been  described  by  no  author  with  a  greater  dis- 
play of  literary  ability  nor  with  a  finer  appearance  of 
critical  acumen  than  by  Ernest  Renan.  His  endeavor 
in  psychological  reconstruction,  sketched  in  his  "  Life 
of  Jesus,"  is  still,  and  no  doubt  shall  remain  the  su- 
preme effort  of  infidel  criticism  to  explain  rationally 
the  Saviour's  consciousness  of  His  Messiahship. 

In  Renan's  opinion,  the  beginning  of  all  that  psy- 
chological progress  in  Jesus  was  His  settled  convic- 
tion that  He  enjoyed  an  intimate  union  with  God. 
His  soul  enjoyed  it  in  a  manner  so  special  that  He 
believed  Himself  to  stand  towards  God  as  a  son  to 
His  father.  Nay  more,  He  beHeved  Himself  to  be, 
in  a  higher  degree  than  others,  the  Son  of  God.  And 
Renan  thinks  that  this  persuasion  of  Jesus  was  so 
firm,  so  abiding  that  it  probably  had  no  beginning  and 
clung  to  the  very  fibers  of  His  being. 

"  The  development  of  living  character,"  says  Renan, 
"  is  everywhere  the  same ;  and  it  cannot  be  doubted 
that  the  growth  of  a  personality  so  powerful  as  that 
of  Jesus  followed  very  strict  laws.  An  exalted  con- 
ception of  the  Divinity, — not  due  to  Judaism,  and 
seemingly  the  creation  of  His  own  great  soul, — was, 
in  a  manner,  the  germ  of  all  His  power.  .  .  .  God 
does  not  speak  to  Him  as  to  one  outside  Himself ;  God 
is  in  Him.  He  feels  Himself  close  to  God,  and  draws 
from  His  own  heart  all  that  He  says  of  His  Father. 
He  lives  in  the  bosom  of  God  by  contact  at  every 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  201 

moment.  .  .  .  He  believes  Himself  to  be  in  direct 
communication  with  God;  He  believes  Himself  to  be 
a  son  of  God.  The  highest  consciousness  of  God  that 
has  existed  in  the  bosom  of  humanity  is  that  of  Jesus. 
.  .  .  Jesus,  no  doubt,  did  not  reach  at  one  step  this 
high  assertion  of  Himself;  but  it  is  probable  that, 
from  the  first.  He  looked  on  Himself  as  standing 
with  God  in  the  relation  of  a  son  to  His  father.  Here 
lies  His  true  originahty:  for  this  He  owes  nothing  to 
His  own  people.  Neither  the  Jew  nor  the  Mussulman 
has  understood  this  delightful  theology  of  love."  ^ 

Convinced  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  Jesus 
soon  realized  that  He  had  a  mission,  namely,  to  ad- 
mit all  men  to  a  share  in  His  divine  Sonship  by  teach- 
ing them  to  know  God  as  their  Father  and  to  worship 
Him  as  sons. 

"  Rising  boldly  above  the  prejudices  of  His  nation. 
He  would  establish  the  universal  Fatherhood  of  God. 
.  .  .  He  establishes  the  supreme  consolation,  —  re- 
course to  the  Father  whom  each  one  has  in  heaven, 
and  the  true  Kingdom  of  God  which  each  one  bears 
in  His  own  heart.  The  expression,  "  Kingdom  of 
God,"  or  "  Kingdom  of  Heaven,"  was  the  favorite 
phrase  by  which  Jesus  described  the  revolution  He 
was  bringing  into  the  world.  .  .  .  Near  the  end  of 
His  life,  Jesus  seems  to  have  believed  that  it  would 
be  realized  in  a  material  form  by  a  sudden  renovation 
of  the  world ;  but  this  was,  doubtless,  not  His  first  idea. 
.  .  .  The  realistic  conception  of  the  Divine  Advent 
was  only  a  cloud,  a  transient  error,  which  His  death 
has  made  us  forget.  He  who  founded  the  true  King- 
dom of  God,  the  kingdom  of  the  meek  and  the  humble, 
was  the  Jesus  of  the  earlier  period,  of  those  pure  and 
cloudless  days  when  the  voice  of  His  Father  re-echoed 
within  His  bosom  in  clearer  tones.  It  was,  then,  for 
some  months, — a  year  perhaps, — that  God  truly  dwelt 
on  earth."  ^ 

^Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  131-133.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  133. 


202  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Again,  "  it  appears  that  His  stay  near  John,  not  so 
much  by  the  influence  of  the  Baptist  as  by  the  natural 
growth  of  His  own  thought,  ripened  many  of  His  ideas 
about  the  '  kingdom  of  heaven  '.  .  .  .  He  is  no  longer 
the  delightful  moralist  merely,  aspiring  to  embody  sub- 
lime lessons  in  a  few  vivid  and  concise  aphorisms ;  He 
is  a  revolutionary  of  lofty  aim,  who  attempts  to  re- 
new the  world  from  its  very  base,  and  to  establish  on 
earth  the  ideal  He  has  conceived.  ...  In  the  world, 
as  it  is,  evil  has  the  upper  hand.  .  .  .  The  reign  of 
goodness  is  to  have  its  turn.  The  advent  of  this  reign 
of  goodness  is  to  be  a  great  and  sudden  revolution. 
The  world  will  seem  turned  upside  down."  ^ 

"  Who  is  to  establish  this  kingdom  of  God  ?"  asks 
Renan.  "  Let  us  recall  that  the  first  thought  of  Jesus, 
— a  thought  so  deeply  rooted  in  Him  that  it  probably 
had  no  source  outside,  but  lay  in  the  very  roots  of 
His  being, — was  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  the 
bosom  friend  of  His  Father,  the  agent  of  His  will. 
The  reply  of  Jesus  to  such  a  question  could  not,  then, 
be  doubtful.  The  persuasion  that  He  should  found 
the  kingdom  of  God  took  absolute  possession  of  His 
mind.  He  looked  upon  Himself  as  the  universal  re- 
former. Heaven,  earth,  all  Nature,  insanity,  disease, 
and  death  are  only  His  instruments.  In  the  glow  of 
His  heroic  will,  He  believes  Himself  all-powerful.  If 
the  earth  does  not  lend  itself  to  this  complete  trans- 
formation, it  will  be  broken  up,  purified  by  fire  and 
by  the  breath  of  God.  A  new  heaven  will  be  created, 
and  the  whole  earth  will  be  peopled  with  the  angels 
of  God."  2 

From  this  point,  thinks  Renan,  it  was  but  a  step  to 
identity  Himself  with  the  Messiah,  the  chief  ideal  of 
the  future  Kingdom.  "  Haunted  by  an  idea  more  and 
more  imperious,  Jesus  henceforth  follows  calmly,  as  if 
under  a  certain  doom,  the  path  marked  out  for  Him 

J- Renan,  of>.  cit.,  pp.  162,  163.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  164. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  203 

by  His  astonishing  genius  and  the  extraordinary  cir- 
cumstances in  which  He  hved.  .  .  .  On  His  return  to 
GaUlee,  He  boldly  proclaimed  the  '  glad  tidings  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God/  This  Kingdom  was  at  hand;  and 
He,  Jesus,  was  that  '  Son  of  Man '  whom  Daniel  in  his 
vision  had  beheld  as  the  divine  herald  of  the  final  and 
supreme  revelation.  .  .  .  But  this  chief  passage  of 
Daniel  struck  the  mind ;  the  phrase  '  Son  of  Man  '  be- 
came, at  least  in  certain  schools,  one  of  the  titles  of 
the  Messiah,  regarded  as  judge  of  the  world  and  as 
King  of  the  new  era  about  to  open.  The  application 
made  of  it  by  Jesus  to  Himself,  accordingly,  pro- 
claims His  Messiahship,  and  affirms  the  coming  catas- 
trophe in  which  He  was  to  appear  as  Judge,  invested 
with  the  full  powers  delegated  to  Him  by  the  Ancient 
of  Days."  ^ 

It  may  be  noted,  in  passing,  that  O.  Schmiedel  main- 
tains that  Jesus  at  first  believed  Himself  to  be  the 
Prophet  of  the  Kingdom,  and  then,  by  His  success, 
had  come  to  believe  Himself  the  Messiah.^ 

Nevertheless,  in  the  measure  that  Jesus'  conviction 
of  His  Messiahship  grows  stronger,  the  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  His  work  increase,  the  opposition  of  the 
Pharisees  becomes  more  menacing:  He  perceives  that 
before  becoming  the  triumphant  Messiah,  He  must 
first  of  all  .undergo  suffering  and  death.  "  His  ideas 
are  henceforth  spoken  with  perfect  clearness.  .  .'  . 
The  Law  must  be  abolished;  and  He  is  the  one  ap- 
pointed to  abolish  it.  The  Messiah  is  come;  and  He 
it  is  who  is  the  Messiah.  The  Kingdom  of  God  is 
soon  to  be  revealed.  He  knows  well  that  He  will  fall 
a  victim  to  His  boldness ;  but  the  Kingdom  of  God 
cannot  be  conquered  without  violence :  it  must  be  es- 
tablished through  shocks  and  rendings.     The  Son  of 

1  Renan,  op.  cit.,  pp.  172,  173. 

2  Schmiedel,  Die  Hauptprobleme  der  Lehen  Jesu  Fors- 
chung,  1902. 


204  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Man  after  His  death  will  return  in  glory,  accompanied 
by  legions  of  angels,  and  those  who  have  rejected  Him 
will  be  overwhelmed."  ^ 

On  His  last  journey  towards  Jerusalem,  the  thought 
of  His  approaching  death  had  become  a  matter  of 
conviction.  ''  Jesus  went  in  advance,  lost  in  thought. 
They  all  gazed  at  Him  in  silence  with  a  feeling  of 
dread,  not  daring  to  question  Him.  He  had  already 
spoken  to  them  at  various  times  of  His  future  suffer- 
ings, and  they  had  listened  reluctantly.  Jesus,  at 
length,  spoke  out,  and,  no  longer  concealing  His  pre- 
sentiments, addressed  them  on  His  approaching  end. 
This  caused  a  great  sadness  in  the  whole  company. 
.  .  .  For  Himself,  Jesus  was  confirmed  in  the  thought 
that  He  was  about  to  die,  but  that  His  death  would 
save  the  world."  ^ 

Criticism. — Such  is,  according  to  Renan,  the  soul- 
development  which  Jesus  experienced  on  the  subject 
of  His  Messiahship.  In  describing  it,  he  is  surely 
compelled  to  ask  himself  how,  from  the  view-point  of 
sound  reason  such  a  psychological  process  should  be 
termed.  Naturally  enough,  the  word  "  insanity  "  oc- 
curs to  his  mind,  and,  very  often,  slips  from  his  pen. 
He  was  inclined  to  adhere  to  this  view,  so  very  strange 
and  extravagant  appeared  to  him  Jesus'  pretension  to 
be  the  Messiah,  the  supreme  judge  of  men.  and  the  in- 
a'ugurator  of  God's  eternal  kingdom.  Still,  he  could  not 
abide  by  such  an  explanation;  for,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  seemed  to  him  that  it  was  not  less  unHkely  that  a 
fool  could  have  had  such  wisdom,  achieved  so  great 
a  work,  exerted  an  influence  so  mighty  and  so  bene- 
ficient  upon  all  humanity.  And  then,  he  entrenches 
himself  within  a  vaporous  dilettantism,  he  clings  to 
the  vague  and  the  unprecise,  proffering  a  medley  of 
hair-splittings,  and  forever  correcting  the  most  con- 
tradictory insinuations,  the  one  by  the  other. 

1  Renan,  op.  cit.,  pp.  252,  253.  2  /^/j.^  pp_  354^  355^ 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  205 

Under  the  alluring  veil  of  style  that  masks  the  line 
of  argument  employed  by  this  master  of  rhetorical 
criticism,  an  impartial  analyst  will  perceive  that, 
while  pretending  to  utterly  disclaim  the  word  "  mad- 
ness," or  "  insanity,"  Renan  still  somewhat  insists 
upon  the  fact  itself.  Thus,  as  regards  the  Saviour's 
persuasion  that  He  was  intimately  united  with  God 
and  was  the  Son  of  God,  he  ventures  this  blasphemous 
suggestion :  "  In  this,  the  madman  is  close  beside  the 
man  inspired."  Of  course,  he  soon  checks  himself: 
"  Only,  the  madman  never  succeeds.  It  has  not  yet 
been  given  to  mental  aberration  to  act  seriously  upon 
the  progress  of  mankind."  But,  for  all  that,  the  in- 
sinuation stands:  he  ascribed  to  insanity  Jesus'  con- 
viction of  His  relationship  with  God.  So  too,  must  he 
ascribe  to  a  sort  of  abnormal  and  mystical  exaltation, 
bordering  upon  madness,  Jesus'  prophecy  about  His 
coming  at  the  end  of  the  world  to  judge  all  men  and 
to  secure  the  final  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God.^ 

To  be  sure,  Renan  affects  to  find  some  excuse  for 
such  an  extravagant  illusion  on  the  part  of  Jesus: 
"  Let  us  overlook,"  he  says,  "  His  hope  of  a  vain 
apocalypse,  of  a  second  coming  in  great  triumph  upon 
the  clouds  of  heaven.  .  .  .  The  realistic  conception  of  • 
the  Divine  Advent  was  only  a  cloud,  a  transient  error, 
which  death  has  made  us  forget."  So  that,  he  deems 
the  Jesus  of  the  final  advent  as  merely  an  enthusiast 
misled  by  popular  revelations, — a  sort  of  visionary  and 
illuminist  whose  imagination  argues  in  Him  an  in- 
creasing over-exaltation  and  whose  soul  was  crushed 
by  sorrow.  He  writes :  "  Carried  away  by  this  tre- 
mendous sweep  of  enthusiasm,  and  governed  by  the 
demands  of  a  preaching  more  and  more  exalted,  Jesus 
was  no  longer  free ;  He  belonged  to  His  mission  and 
in  a  sense  to  mankind.     Sometimes  one  might  have 

1  Renan,  op.  cit.,  p.  133. 


2o6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

said  that  His  reason  was  unbalanced.  He  suffered 
great  anguish  and  disturbance  of  mind.  The  great 
vision  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  flaming  constantly  be- 
fore His  eyes,  dazzled  Him."  ^ 

Thus  Jesus'  claims  do  not  appear  humanly  expli- 
cable unless  we  suppose  like  Renan,  that  He  suffered 
from  an  abnormal  exaltation  verging  on  insanity.  To 
that  infidel  critic,  then,  Jesus  would  be,  at  all  events, 
either  a  madman,  or  the  victim  of  illusions. 

Does  this  partial  mental  aberration  of  the  illusion- 
ist, this  semi-insanity  of  the  visionary,  however,  suf- 
fice to  explain  the  unusual  character  of  the  Saviour's 
claims  to  Messiahship?  Is  it  credible?  That  a  car- 
penter of  Nazareth, — such  was  Jesus  in  popular  es- 
teem,— could  have  pretended  to  be,  we  will  not  say 
merely  an  envoy  of  heaven,  a  privileged  prophet  of 
God,  but  the  very  Son  of  God,  greater  than  Jonas, 
greater  than  Solomon,  greater  than  the  most  illustrious 
men  of  the  Old  Law ;  that  He  should  imagine  Himself 
to  be  the  regenerator  of  humanity,  who  was  to  reveal 
to  men  the  true  religion  of  the  Father,  the  Messiah  of 
whom  "  the  prophets  had  written  with  only  Him  in 
view,"  and  "  the  mirror  in  which  all  the  prophetic  spirit 
of  Israel  had  read  the  future  " ;  that,  above  all.  He  had 
dared  to  conceive  and  to  declare  His  coming  upon  the 
clouds  of  heaven  at  the  world's  end,  escorted  by  the 
holy  angels  in  all  the  splendor  of  divine  power  in  order 
to  preside  at  the  solemn  trial  of  the  human  race,  tO'  pro- 
nounce Himself  the  final  sentence  upon  the  good  and 
the  bad,  and,  finally,  to  inaugurate  the  glorious  reign 
of  the  eternal  Kingdom  of  God ;  that  this  village  work- 
man should  have  had  such  immeasurably  extravagant 
pretensions,  and  that  He  should  have  entertained 
them,  not  for  the  passing  moment,  but  for  many  long 
months,  nay,  that  He  should  have  cherished  them 
even  unto  His  death, — truly  such  a  man  must  have 

1  Renan,  op.  clt.,  pp.  135,  314. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


207 


been  insane.  Mere  mental  exaltation,  partial  illu- 
sion, is  not  enough  to  explain,  humanly  speaking,  the 
excessive  and  unusual  character  of  these  pretensions. 
In  any  case,  we  have  to  suppose  a  deranged  condition 
unexampled  in  the  annals  of  human  pathology,  and 
which  any  sane  person  could  only  regard  as  the  ut- 
most and  wildest  folly.^ 

This  fact  is  apparently  quite  a  difficulty  in  Kenan's 
estimation.  But  notice  how  he  tries  to  elude  it !  "  If 
we  may  believe  one  version,"  he  says,  "  the  high-priest 
then  adjured  Him  to  say  if  He  were  the  Messiah. 
Jesus  confessed  it,  and  even  proclaimed  before  the  as- 
sembly the  near  approach  of  His  heavenly  reign.  The 
courage  of  Jesus,  who  had  resolved  to  die,  did  not  re- 
quire that."  An  odd  way  to  twist  the  texts,  to  be 
sure.  Observe,  too,  that  what  Renan  calls  one  version 
is  really  the  account  of  the  three  Synoptists.  In  fact,  in 
a  foot-note  he  states :  "  Mt.  xxvi.  64 ;  Mk.  xiv.  62 ;  Lk. 
xxii.  69.  The  Fourth  Gospel  speaks  of  no  such  in- 
cident." But  he  fails  to  note  that  this  latter  gospel 
shows  that  Jesus  explicitly  declared  His  Messiahship 
before  Pilate,  and  that  the  Sanhedrin  stated  that  the 
reason  for  the  death-sentence  pronounced  against  Him 
was  that  "  He  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God."  Thus, 
may  we  judge  how  much  of  the  partisan,  a  priori 
animus,  in  defiance  of  every  scientific  fact,  permeates 
the  method  of  a  so-called  independent  critic.^ 

Another  critic,  Wernle,  says  that  "  Jesus  died  with 
the  beHef  in  His  speedy  return  in  Messianic  glory, 
which  belief  causes  every  thoughtful  person  the  great- 
est difficulty  at  the  present  day.  Compared  with 
this,  even  the  Messianic  problem  has  but  little  import- 
ance. .  .  .  The  doubt  will  still  arise  whether  it  was 
really  Jesus  Himself,  whether  it  was  not,  after  all, 
His  disciples  who  were  the  authors  of  this  fantastic 

1  Renan,  op.  cit,  p.  267. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  373;  Mt.  xxvi.  64;  Mk,  xiv.  62;  Lk.  xxii.  69; 
Jo.  xix.  7. 


2o8  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

and  erroneous  conception.  But  we  must  silence  our 
modern  modes  of  thought  when  facts  speak  so  clearly 
and  so  decisively.  However  much  may  be  a  later  addi- 
tion in  the  eschatological  speeches  of  Jesus,  the  con- 
stant element  in  them  is  just  this  thought  of  the  second 
coming.  It  is  this  thought  around  which  the  whole  of 
the  apocalyptic  theory  has  crystallized,  and  not  vice 
versa."  Wernle  at  length  reaches  this  strange  con- 
clusion :  "  He  accepted  the  idea  under  compulsion. 
He  fought  with  it,  broke  it  up,  re-cast  it;  yet,  a  por- 
tion of  the  deception  which  it  contained  crept  into  his 
mind!"^ 

The  theory  of  an  Illusionist  Messiah,  it  will  be  said, 
is  untenable.  Assuredly  so :  the  best  proof  of  the  fact 
being  that  Renan  does  not  venture  to  advance  it  and 
feels  the  need  of  protesting  loudly  against  it.  "  Only 
the  madman,"  he  says,  "  never  succeeds.  It  has  not  yet 
been  given  to  mental  aberration  to  act  seriously  upon 
the  progress  of  mankind."  Still,  of  itself  this  theory 
might  account  for  Jesus'  inconceivable  illusion.  But  if 
this  theory,  supposing  it  is  alone  capable  of  rationally 
solving  the  problem,  is  nevertheless  in  too  flagrant  con- 
tradiction with  the  facts  to  admit  of  formulation,  must 
we  not  thence  simply  conclude  that  rationalism  is  radi- 
cally powerless  to  explain  away  the  Saviour's  Mes- 
sianic convictions  as  being  illusory  ?  ^ 

We  may,  accordingly,  examine  the  more  moderate 
theory  as  Renan  thought  it  could  be  stated.  Not 
only  is  it  a  priori  to  be  rejected  as  being  out  of  propor- 
tion with  the  data  of  the  problem,  and  incapable  of 
reasonably  accounting  for  such  claims  as  those  made 
by  the  Saviour,  but  it  is  also  self -destructive  and  ab- 
solutely discordant  with  the  real  facts.  For,  the 
very  difficulties  which  prevent  the  critic  from  suppos- 

1  Wernle,  op.  cit.,  po.  50,  52 ;  Bruce,  art. :  Jesus,  E.  B.,  par. 
32,  col.  2453. 

2  Renan,  op.  cit,  p.  131. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  209 

ing  that  Jesus  was  utterly  and  really  insane  likewise 
preclude  the  supposition  of  partial  madness  such  as 
the  alleged  soul-frenzy  and  hallucination.  Like  the 
former,  the  latter  theory  expressly  contradicts  all  our 
assured  knowledge  about  Jesus'  mental  and  moral 
temperament  and  His  life  and  works. 

An  attentive  and  unbiased  study  of  the  gospels  will 
show  that  there  is  one  trait  which  stands  out  plainly  in 
the  Saviour's  character:  it  is  His  profoundly  sincere 
humility.  Naught  more  severe  than  His  rebuke  of  the 
Pharisees  because  of  their  pride,  their  boasting,  their 
love  of  show,  their  craving  for  the  highest  places. 
Naught  more  constantly  urged  on  the  other  hand  than 
humihty,  care  to  avoid  men's  opinion  in  order  to  Hve 
as  meek  suppliants  before  God  like  the  Publican.  To 
enter  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  one  must  be  as  humble 
as  a  child.  His  disciples  must  consider  themselves  the 
servants  of  all,  and  as  unprofitable  servants !  He  is 
come,  not  to  be  served,  but  to  minister.  He  refuses 
honors,  flees  from  the  crowd,  avoids  unseemly  show, 
and  hides  when  men  seek  to  enthrone  Him!  Truly 
might  He  call  Himself  meek  and  humble  of  heart. 

Was  not  such  deep  and  sincere  humility  the  safest 
preservative  against  such  an  unusual  flight  of  imagi- 
nation and  such  an  unbearable  excess  of  pride  as  that 
of  believing  Himself  the  Son  of  God,  the  ideal  Chief- 
tain, and  the  supreme  judge  of  mankind? 

"  This  Jesus  who  preached  humihty  and  knowledge 
of  self,"  says  Harnack,  ''  nevertheless  named  Himself, 
and  Himself  alone,  as  the  Son  of  God  .  .  .  who,  in 
spite  of  His  lowliness,  called  Himself  the  Messiah." 

And  again :  "  It  is  only  of  One  that  we  know  that 
He  united  the  deepest  humility  and  purity  of  will  with 
the  claim  that  He  was  more  than  all  the  prophets 
before  Him :  the  Son  of  God."  ^ 

1  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity  f  pp.  139,  149;  Christianity 
and  History,  p.  37. 

14 


210  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

"  The  most  wonderful  feature  in  Jesus,"  says 
Wernle,  ''  is  the  co-existence  of  a  self-consciousness 
that  is  more  than  human,  with  the  deepest  humility 
before  God."  ^ 

Who  is  there,  on  the  other  land,  that  has  not  ad- 
mired the  depth  and  brilliance  of  His  intelligence,  the 
incomparable  candor  and  high-mindedness  manifested 
in  all  His  remarks  and  discourses?  None  knew  man 
better  than  He:  none  has  given  a  higher  or  more  ex- 
cellent idea  of  God  than  He  has  afforded.  As  His 
philosophy  of  religion  has  eclipsed  all  the  ancient  sys- 
tems, so  has  His  moral  code  become  the  standard  for 
mankind  to  follow.  He  has  found  disciples  among 
the  greatest  geniuses,  and,  even  at  this  day.  His  doc- 
trine is  the  food  of  thinkers,  while  His  words  com- 
pel the  investigation,  and  His  axioms  the  admiration 
of  the  fiercest  infidels. 

Thus  Renan  admits  that  He  "  taught  the  noblest 
moral  lesson  that  man  has  ever  received.  .  .  .  He  con- 
ceived the  true  city  of  God,  the  genuine  *  new  birth,' 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  ennobling  of  the  weak, 
the  love  of  the  people,  tenderness  to  the  poor,  the 
strengthening  anew  of  all  that  is  humble,  true,  and 
simple.  This  rehabilitation  He  has  depicted,  as  an 
incomparable  artist,  by  features  which  will  last  for- 
ever. Each  of  us  is  in  debt  to  Him  for  that  which  is 
best  in  himself."  ^ 

It  shall  ever  seem  improbable,  nay  impossible,  there- 
fore, that  an  intelligence  so  lofty  and  brilliant  as  His 
could  have  co-existed  with  the  most  absurd  folly.  As- 
suredly the  world's  greatest  and  finest  mind  could  not 
have  belonged  to  humanity's  greatest  fool. 

''  That  Jesus'  message  is  so  great  and  so  powerful," 
observed  Harnack,  "  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  so  simple, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  so  rich;  so  simple  as  to  be 

1  Wernle,  op.  cit.,  p.  25. 

2  Renan,  op.  cit.,  pp.  165,  288. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  21I 

exhausted  in  each  of  the  leading  thoughts  which  He 
uttered ;  so  rich  that  every  one  of  these  thoughts  seems 
to  be  inexhaustible  and  the  full  meaning  of  the  say- 
ings and  parables  beyond  our  reach."  ^ 

'^  His  spiritual  intuitions,"  says  Bruce,  "  are  pure 
truth,  and  valid  for  all  ages.  God,  man,  and  the  moral 
ideal  cannot  be  more  truly  or  happily  conceived.  Far 
from  having  outgrown  His  thoughts  on  these  themes, 
we  are  only  beginning  to  perceive  their  true  signifi- 
cance. How  long  it  will  be  before  full  effect  shall  be 
given  to  His  radical  doctrine  of  the  dignity  of  man! 
How  entirely  in  accord  with  the  moral  order  of  the 
world,  as  interpreted  by  the  whole  history  of  mankind, 
His  doctrine  of  sacrifice  as  at  once  the  penalty  and 
the  power  of  righteousness  in  an  evil  world !"  ^ 

How  impressive,  indeed,  is  the  depth  and  extent  of 
the  Saviour's  wisdom  in  all  His  words  and  deeds! 
Renan  speaks  of  enthusiasm,  soul-frenzy,  impulsive- 
ness, as  his  theory  demanded ;  but  naught  is  more  op- 
posed to  the  Gospel.  In  contrast  to  the  impulsiveness 
of  the  people  and  the  enthusiasm  of  the  disciples  is 
indeed  the  peace,  the  calmness,  the  seriousness  of 
Jesus,  His  clear  conviction  of  His  mission,  His  sub- 
limely placid  view  of  His  destiny.  His  prudent  reserve 
in  revealing  Himself.  Not  a  single  Gospel  event  can 
serve  as  a  support  for.  Renan^s  assertions.  Every- 
where the  Saviour  appears  wonderfully  serene,  and 
ever  with  the  air  of  calm  and  noble  majesty.  His 
self-control.  His  mastery  of  emotions  in  the  most  try- 
ing and  various  circumstances  impresses  even  His  ene- 
mies. In  all  sincerity,  then,  it  must  be  granted  that 
His  perfectly  balanced  temperament  is  irreconcilable, 
not  only  with  utter  madness,  but  also  with  Renan's 
alleged  hallucination  or  soul-frenzy  on  the  part  of 
Jesus,  especially  to  such  a  strangely  extravagant  de- 
gree as  this  critic  would  have  us  to  suppose. 

1  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity  f  p.  55. 

2  Bruce,  art. :  Jesus,  E.  B.,  par.  ^^,  col.  2454. 


212  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Jesus  "  is  always  modest,  humble,  sane  and  sober," 
writes  Wernle,  "  and  yet  always  conscious  of  being 
more  than  a  man.  It  is  quite  impossible  to  realize 
such  an  inner  life  as  this."  ^ 

While  O,  Holtzmann  remarks  that  ''  in  His  subse- 
quent ministry,  Jesus  gives  such  strong  proofs  of  the 
clearness  and  certainty  of  His  judgment,  and  of  the 
strength  with  which  His  will  is  ever  directed  towards 
definite  good  ends,  that  it  is  quite  impossible  in  His 
case  to  trace  these  visions  to  any  mental  affection.  .  .  . 
The  vigorous  manner  in  which  He  at  the  same  time 
took  up  the  profession  ...  of  a  preacher  shows  that 
Jesus  was  far  from  giving  evidence  of  an  enthusiast, 
while  there  is  nothing  at  all  fantastical  in  the  substance 
of  His  preaching."  ^ 

Harnack,  also,  recognizes  that  *'  He  is  possessed  of 
a  quiet,  uniform,  collected  demeanor,  with  everything 
directed  to  one  goal.  He  never  uses  any  ecstatic  lan- 
guage, and  the  tone  of  stirring  prophecy  is  rare.  En- 
trusted with  the  greatest  of  all  missions.  His  eye  and 
ear  are  open  to  every  impression  of  the  life  around 
Him, — a  proof  of  intense  calm  and  absolute  cer- 
tainty." 3 

Kenan's  theory,  moreover,  is  no  less  certainly  in- 
admissible when  we  consider  what  an  influence  Jesus 
exerted  upon  His  immediate  disciples,  upon  the  early 
Church,  and  upon  the  future  destiny  of  mankind. 
Renan  himself  has  said :  "  This  great  foundation  was, 
in  truth,  the  personal  work  of  Jesus.  To  make  Him- 
self adored  to  this  degree.  He  must  have  been  worthy 
to  be  adored.  Love  is  kindled  only  by  an  object 
worthy  of  it;  and  did  we  know  nothing  of  Jesus  ex- 
cept the  passion  He  inspired  in  those  around  Him,  still 
we  must  affirm  that  He  was  great  and  stainless.     The 


1  Wernle,  op.  cit.,  p.  41. 

2  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  137. 

3  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity  f  pp.  38-39. 


I 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  213 

faith,  the  enthusiasm,  the  constancy  of  the  first  Chris- 
tian generation  are  to  be  explained  only  by  assuming, 
at  the  beginning  of  it  all,  a  man  of  transcendent  great- 
ness." ^ 

How,  then,  can  Renan's  theory  of  partial  insanity 
on  Jesus'  part,  be  reconciled  with  such  a  statement  as 
this?  To  say  that  an  unbalanced  mind  could  achieve 
such  wondrous  moral  reforms  in  His  immediate  fol- 
lowers, and  so  gently,  although  so  strongly,  influence 
the  first  apostles,  and  later  become  the  head  of  that 
marvelous  soul-movement  called  the  early  church, —  is 
not  this  a  contradiction  in  terms  ? 

And  then  the  future  destiny  of  the  world, — Renan 
also  extols  the  incomparable  influence  which  Christ 
exerted  thereon.  We  may  ask,  indeed,  whether  an  un- 
happy victim  of  hallucination  could  elicit  from  this 
critic  that  panegyric  which,  despite  its  plainly  affected 
dithyramb,  is  so  significant  because  issuing  from 
the  pen  of  an  infidel  ? 

"  Rest  now  in  Thy  glory,  noble  Founder,"  exclaims 
Renan.  "  Thy  work  is  completed :  Thy  divinity  is 
established.  Fear  no  more  to  see  the  edifice  of  Thy 
efforts  crumble  through  any  fault!  Henceforth,  be- 
yond all  frailty,  Thou  shalt  see,  from  the  depth  of  Thy 
divine  peace,  the  unending  results  that  follow  from 
Thy  deeds.  At  the  cost  of  a  few  hours  of  suffering, 
which  have  not  even  touched  Thy  great  soul.  Thou 
hast  achieved  immortality  the  most  complete.  During 
thousands  of  years,  the  world  will  breathe  life  from 
Thee.  Around  Thee,  as  an  ensign  lifted  above  our 
conflicts,  will  be  fought  the  hottest  battle.  A  thousand 
times  more  living,  more  beloved,  since  Thy  death  than 
during  the  days  of  Thy  pilgrimage  here  below,  Thou 
wilt  become  so  completely  the  corner-stone  of  human- 
ity, that  to  tear  Thy  name  from  the  record  of  this 
world    would    be    to    disturb    its    very    foundations, 

1  Renan,  op.  cit.,  p.  412. 


214  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Henceforth,  men  shall  draw  no  boundary  between 
Thee  and  God.  Do  Thou,  who  hast  completely  van- 
quished death,  take  possession  of  Thy  kingdom, 
whither,  by  the  royal  road  Thou  hast  pointed  out,  long 
generations  of  adorers  shall  follow  Thee !"  ^ 

No !  He  who  holds  such  a  place  in  the  world's  his- 
tory, who  has  beheld  the  greatest  geniuses  as  also  the 
humblest  minds  enter  His  school,  who  has  enabled 
mankind  to  achieve  great  progress  at  once  mental, 
moral,  and  religious,  and  to  which  history  finds  noth- 
ing comparable, — such  a  being  could  not  have  been  a 
madman,  nor  the  victim  of  hallucination. 

"  Jesus  Christ,"  says  Harnack,  "  was  the  first  to 
bring  the  value  of  every  human  soul  to  light,  and 
what  He  did  no  one  can  any  more  undo.  We  may 
take  up  what  relation  to  Him  we  will :  in  the  history 
of  the  past  no  one  can  refuse  to  recognize  that  it  was 
He  who  raised  humanity  to  this  level."  ^ 

How  could  He  have  been  a  madman,  or  an  illusion- 
ist of  whom  Renan  has  also  written :  "  Let  us  place 
the  person  of  Jesus,  then,  at  the  highest  summit  of  hu- 
man greatness.  .  .  .  He  is  the  one  who  has  impelled 
His  fellow-men  to  take  the  longest  step  towards  the 
divine.  ...  In  Him  was  gathered  whatever  is  good 
and  elevated  in  our  nature.  .  .  .  Whatever  unlooked- 
for  events  the  future  may  have  in  store,  Jesus  will 
never  be  surpassed.  His  worship  will  unceasingly  re- 
new its  youth ;  His  story  will  call  forth  endless  tears ; 
His  sufferings  will  subdue  the  noblest  hearts ;  all  ages 
will  proclaim  that,  among  the  sons  of  men,  no  one  has 
been  born  who  is  greater  than  He."  ^ 

In  a  word,  the  only  theory  which  a  Rationalist  can 
imagine  to  account  for  the  Saviour's  consciousness  of 
being  the  Messiah,  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the 

1  Renan,  op.  cit.,  pp.  395-396. 

2  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  y^)- 

3  Renan,  op.  cit.,  pp.  413,  420,  421. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


215 


ascertained  facts  about  His  person  and  the  indubitable 
realities  of  history.  This  hypothesis,  none  has  pre- 
sented, nor,  let  us  say,  can  hope  to  offer,  more  cleverly 
than  Renan.  He  has  employed  all  the  suppleness  of 
his  varied  and  divergent  genius,  all  the  resources  of  his 
talent  as  a  critic  and  rhetorician.  His  explanation, 
however,  is  so  confused,  so  contradictory,  so  designedly 
unprecise  and  vague,  that  it  cannot  satisfy  an  earnest 
mind  which  falls  not  under  the  subtlety  of  sophism 
nor  the  magic  of  style,  but  is  eager  to  test  the  proofs 
and  to  verify  the  correctness  of  his  method  of  argu- 
ment. 

It  might  even  be  said  that  Renan's  anxiety  to  elevate 
Jesus'  personality  to  the  pinnacle  of  humanity,  past 
and  future,  his  affected  manner  in  utterly  denying  a 
formal  accusation  of  madness  or  imposture ;  his  in- 
sistance  in  excusing  the  Saviour  from  what  he  calls 
"  a  cloud,"  a  "  passing  error,"  when  it  is  question  of  a 
basic  idea  maintained  until  His  death ;  the  shifting, 
elusive,  cleverly  suggestive  and  roundabout  insinua- 
tions whereby  he  broaches  the  idea  of  illusion  or  semi- 
insanity,  without,  however,  daring  to  say  so  in  words, 
as  if  ashamed  to  resort  to  such  an  expedient : — we  may 
say  that  all  this  procedure  is  the  best  proof  of  the 
falsity  of  his  thesis. 

If  Renan,  with  all  his  critical  subtilties,  with  all  the 
agility  of  his  literary  genius,  could  only  offer,  in  the 
end,  a  method  of  argument  so  flimsy  and  an  explana- 
tion so  manifestly  contradictory,  we  have  again  the 
best  demonstration  of  the  truth  of  Jesus'  claims  to  be 
the  Messiah,  and,  therefore,  of  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity.^ 

Theory  of  Evolution.  —  Among  the  Protestant 
scholars  who  profess  liberal  views  in  Biblical  matters, 
and  who,  while  fully  admitting  the  existence  of  a  per- 
sonal God,  have  nevertheless  too  often  imbibed  the 

1  Renan,  op.  cit.;  cf.  Lepin,  lesus  Messie,  pp,  158,  161; 
Engl.  tr.  204-206. 


2i6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

opinions  of  Rationalists,  there  prevails  a  theory  which 
has  many  points  in  common  with  the  one  advanced  by 
Renan  and  other  thoroughgoing  promoters  of  the 
Rationalistic  school.  As  far  as  we  can  judge  from 
their  declarations,  too  often  very  vague,  they  consider 
Jesus  as  being  truly  the  Messiah  chosen  by  God,  but, 
nevertheless,  a  Man-Messiah,  a  sort  of  prophet,  greater 
than  the  other  prophets,  and  especially  sent  by  God  to 
establish  the  Christian  religion.  We  are  told  that,  born 
Hke  other  men,  and  strictly  bound  by  the  laws  of  men- 
tal and  moral  development,  as  also  by  those  of  physical 
growth  imposed  upon  the  progeny  of  Adam,  He  be- 
came aware  of  His  Messiahship  only  through  a 
gradual  soul-effort  like  that  described  by  Renan.  We 
are  told  that  Jesus'  idea  of  His  Messiahship  was,  at 
first  vague  and  incomplete,  very  uncertain,  filled  with 
misgivings,  and  mingled  with  egregious  errors.  Hence, 
it  is  claimed,  Jesus  needed  the  influence  of  outward 
events,  as  also  the  patient,  laborious  effort  of  His  own 
soul,  if  not  some  divine  inspiration,  to  specify,  to  make 
clear,  to  strengthen,  to  fully  manifest  and  assure  this 
conviction.  Such  critics,  then,  regard  the  Saviour's 
Messianic  consciousness  as  the  result  of  a  complex  and 
progressive  soul-activity  just  as  do  the  avowed  Ra- 
tionalists, the  only  difference  being  that,  whilst  the 
Rationalist  critic  calls  it  an  illusion,  the  Liberal  Pro- 
testant maintains  its  reality. 

Stapfer.  —  The  leading  exponent  of  the  Liberal 
Protestant  position  is  Edmund  Stapfer,  who  is  now 
considered  as  the  representative  of  Liberal  Protestant- 
ism throughout  France,  and  at  present  Dean  of  the 
Faculty  of  Protestant  Theology  of  Paris.  Although 
firmly  rejecting  Renan's  position,  he  remarks  that 
Jesus  "called  Himself  the  Messiah.  That  is  proved: 
it  is  certain.  How  did  He  reach  that  point  ?  Was  He 
crazy, — yes  or  no?  Such,  it  seems  to  us,  is  the  sole 
alternative  which  henceforth  forces  itself  between  be- 
lievers and  unbelievers."  ^ 

1  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  Before  His  Ministry,  p.  xiii, 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


217 


And  again :  '*  Renan  has  said  that  Jesus,  intoxicated 
by  success,  beHeved  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah.  He  was 
perfectly  sane  at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry.  He 
was  no  longer  so  at  its  close ;  and  His  history,  as  Renan 
relates  it,  notwithstanding  the  carefulness  with  which 
He  treats  it,  is  the  history  of  the  growing  excitement 
of  a  man  who  began  with  good  sense,  clearness  of 
vision,  the  moral  health  of  a  fine  and  noble  genius, 
and  who  ended  in  a  sickly  exaltation  next-door  to  in- 
sanity. The  word  '  madness  '  was  not  written  by 
Renan,  but  the  thought  may  be  found  expressed  on 
every  page.  Well,  the  facts  are  opposed  to  this  ex- 
planation." ^ 

"  On  the  contrary,"  Stapfer  continues,  "  that  in  Him 
which  is  most  striking,  the  more  closely  one  studies 
Him,  is  His  possession  of  Himself,  His  clear-sighted- 
ness. His  complete  freedom  from  illusion."  ^ 

And  further :  "  It  is  exceedingly  remarkable  that  the 
faith  of  Jesus  in  Himself  and  in  His  work  remained 
absolutely  true  to  itself.  .  .  .  This  unalterable  confid- 
ence of  Jesus  in  His  work.  His  Father,  and  Himself 
is  certainly  supernatural.  .  .  .  There  is  enormous 
strength,  as  a  proof  of  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus,  in 
this  assurance  which  no  external  event  could  disturb."  ^ 

Stapfer's  method,  however,  in  describing  the  origin 
of  the  Messianic  consciousness  and  its  gradual  develop- 
ment prior  to  its  full  realization  by  Jesus  resembles 
Renan's  point  by  point. 

Like  Renan,  for  instance,  Stapfer  perceives  the  be- 
ginning of  Jesus'  conviction  of  His  Messiahship  in 
His  sentiment  of  special  union  with  God,  known  as 
Father  and  as  His  Father. 

"Among  the  acts  preparatory  to  His  public  life," 
says   Stapfer,   "  we  must   include   prayer,   the  hours 

1  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  During  His  Ministry,  p.  222. 

2  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  Before  His  Ministry,  p.  181. 

3  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  During  His  Ministry,  pp.  208,  209. 


2i8  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

spent  with  His  Father.  He  knew  how  to  '  close  His 
door '  and  *  pray  to  His  Father  who  seeth  in  secret ' ; 
but  it  was  especially  upon  the  heights  which  encircle 
the  village  that  He  found  solitude  and  isolation.  .  .  In 
this  nature  Jesus  unceasingly  saw  the  face  of  His 
Father.  He  had  known  this  Father,  and  loved  Him 
with  all  His  heart,  all  His  soul,  all  His  strength,  and 
all  His  thought  from  the  very  day  when  His  pious 
mother  taught  Him  to  lisp  His  name ;  and  after  having 
found  His  Fatherhood  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  the 
marvelous  story  of  the  deliverance  of  His  people.  He 
found  it  again  on  the  solitary  heights  which  overlook 
Nazareth."  ^ 

In  Stapfer's  opinion,  therefore,  Jesus'  conviction  of 
His  Messiahship  is  merely  the  normal  evolution  of  His 
consciousness  of  being  the  Son  of  God.  "  We  be- 
Heve,"  he  says,  "  that  it  was  the  inward  development  of 
His  moral  consciousness  which  led  Jesus  to  declare 
Himself  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  His  vocation  did 
not  come  to  Him  from  without;  it  was  not  events 
which  made  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  for  the  events  can 
only  be  explained  by  the  consciousness  which  Jesus 
had  of  being  the  Son  of  God.  .  .  .  His  faith  in  His 
Messianic  vocation  and  His  faith  in  His  own  perfect 
holiness  were  nothing  else  than  a  consciousness  of 
His  union  with  God,  or  faith  in  His  own  divinity."  ^ 

Christ's  realization  of  His  Divine  Sonship  was, 
therefore,  according  to  Stapfer,  due  to  a  gradual  evo- 
lution whereby,  through  ever-increasing  presentiments, 
He  became  convinced  of  His  Messiahship.  Stapfer 
thus  represents  the  wonderings  of  the  Child  of  Naza- 
reth :  "  Why  am  I  in  the  world  ?  What  is  my  mission  ? 
What  is  to  be  my  life?'  And  He  also  asked  Himself 
that  other  question :  '  Who  would  be  the  Messiah  ? 
When  would  He  appear?     What  work  would  He  ac- 

1  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  Before  His  Ministry,  pp.  68,  7a 

2  Stapfer,  op.  cit.,  pp.  163,  164. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


219 


complish?  Thus  passed  eighteen  years,  and  He  ar- 
rived slowly  but  surely  at  the  unalterable  conviction: 
'  The  Messiah !     I  myself  am  He.'  "  ^ 

But  it  is  at  the  Baptism,  we  are  told,  that  occurred 
the  climax  of  Jesus'  soul-struggle  concerning  His 
Messiahship;  and  that  then  He  at  last  reached  the 
full  conviction  of  His  position  as  Messiah  after  pro- 
gressive mental  effort  and  under  an  inner  revelation 
of  which  Stapfer  claims  the  account  in  the  Gospels  is 
merely  an  expressive  symbol. 

"  In  fact,''  says  Stapfer,  "  His  Baptism  marks  the 
awakening  of  His  Messianic  consciousness.  What  He 
had  already  foreseen,  was  now  realized.  The  question 
which  for  some  time  He  had  been  asking  Himself, 
'  Might  it  be  I  ?'  received  its  answer.  The  inward 
crisis  through  He  was  passing  came  to  its  acme  and 
reached  its  end.  He  heard  the  voice  of  God  saying  to 
Him  clearly :  '  Thou  art  My  well-beloved  Son.'  The 
voice  resounded  to  the  depths  of  His  soul.  Jesus 
heard  God.  We  cannot  for  an  instant  doubt  it;  for, 
from  this  sacred  hour,  His  conviction  w^as  not  to  be 
shaken.  It  was  an  absolute  certainty;  nothing  could 
henceforth  weaken  it.  He  had  come  to  the  point  w^here 
He  could  say :  '  I  am  the  Messiah,'  because,  f eehng 
Himself  the  child  of  His  Father,  He  experienced  an 
irresistible  desire  to  realize  among  men  the  divine  Son- 
ship.  The  development  of  His  moral  consciousness 
had  brought  Him  to  His  definite  conviction,  to  a  cer- 
titude which  to  Him  bore  the  marks  of  absolute 
evidence."  ^ 

Stapfer  also  puts  the  further  query :  "  But  what 
kind  of  Messiah  was  He  to  be?  What  work  was  He 
to  accomplish  ?  This  question  He  put  to  Himself  and 
went  on  to  seek  for  its  answer."  ^ 

If  we  are  to  believe  Stapfer,  therefore,  in  its  pre- 

1  Stapfer,  op.  cit.,  p.  71. 

^Ibid.,  pp.  127-128.  ^Ibid.,  p.  128. 


220  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

liminary  stage,  the  Messianic  ideal  detached  itself 
from  all  that  hitherto  bound  it  to  all  base  and  material 
views,  and  this  as  the  result  of  His  soul-struggle  of 
which  the  Gospel  record  of  His  Temptation  in  the 
desert  is  merely  the  symbolic  expression. 

"  The  temptation,"  he  says,  "  was  not  an  isolated 
and  momentary  experience.  It  extended  over  all  that 
part  of  Jesus'  life  which  immediately  followed  His 
baptism.  The  Evangelists  assign  to  it  a  duration  of 
forty  days.  The  number  is  symbolical,  like  the  whole 
narrative.  During  forty  days,  and  no  doubt  a  much 
longer  time,  Jesus  had  been  asking  Himself  what  kind 
of  Messiah  He  should  be.  The  picturesque  narrative 
of  the  Evangelists  admirably  describes  the  conflict 
through  which  His  soul  was  passing,  and  the  struggles 
which  He  had  undergone.  .  .  .  Now,  He  knew  He 
was  the  Messiah,  and  He  could  no  longer  escape  the 
struggle.  It  came.  It  was  terrible ;  it  was  a  gigantic 
battle  out  of  which  He  came  forth  conqueror.  His  con- 
science was  its  battle-field ;  His  triumph  in  it  was  such 
that  the  temptation  never  again  assailed  Him.  Over 
what  did  He  triumph?  Over  false  ideas,  over  the 
erroneous  notion  of  His  contemporaries,  over  all  that 
He  had  believed  and  expected  in  common  with  His  en- 
tire people."  The  Messianic  ideal  was  to  be  freed 
from  "  superstition  and  Jewish  fanaticism."  Jesus 
was  to  be  simply  "  the  spiritual  and  moral  Messiah. 
.  .  .  His  Kingdom  should  be  established  in  mens' 
hearts :  He  would  accomplish  only  a  religious  work."  ^ 

But  a  further  and  final  development  is  to  mark  the 
Saviour's  idea  of  His  Messiahship.  Although  a  Mes- 
siah spiritual  and  moral.  He  shall  suffer  and  die  for 
the  sake  of  His  work.  And  it  is  the  opposition  of  the 
Pharisees  that  leads  Him  to  become  aware  of  this 
dolorous  destiny. 

"  His   Messianic   ideas   began,"   continues    Stapfer, 

1  Stapfer,  op.  cit.,  pp.  138,  139,  151. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  221 

*^  to  change  their  character.  To  the  exterior  drama 
now  beginning — namely  the  opposition  of  the  Phari- 
sees— corresponded  henceforth  an  interior  drama 
which  nothing  in  history  at  all  resembles.  First, 
the  possibility,  then  the  extreme  probability,  and 
finally  the  certainty  of  a  violent  and  approaching 
death, — such  was  the  new  element  which  was  about 
to  enter  into  His  previsions  of  the  future ;  and,  as  His 
conviction  that  He  was  the  Messiah  never  weakened 
for  an  instant,  as  the  certitude  of  this  which  He  had 
gained  at  His  baptism  was  final  and  unalterable.  He 
began  to  conceive  of  a  Messiah  who  might  be  perse- 
cuted and  put  to  death,  and  consequently  who  might 
disappear  before  the  advent  of  the  Kingdom.  The  as- 
sociation of  these  two  ideals  was  something  so  strange 
and  unheard-of, — a  violent  death  on  one  side,  and 
Messianism  on  the  other, — it  was  so  far  outside  of  all 
that  a  Jew  of  that  time  could  conceive  or  imagine,  that 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  picture  to  ourselves  the  in- 
terior struggles  which  Jesus  must  have  gone  through, 
the  painful  surprises,  the  acts  of  abnegation,  and  the 
immensity  of  the  sacrifice  to  which  He  was  called.  .  . 
Ah,  it  is  certain  that  we  shall  never  sound  the  depths 
of  the  Messianic  consciousness  of  Jesus."  ^ 

Jesus'  inward  struggle  against  the  popular  Messianic 
views  of  the  Jews  is  thus  described  by  Wernle :  "  The 
story  of  the  temptation,"  he  writes,  ''  signifies  the 
breach  of  Jesus  with  all  that  is  fanciful  and  politically 
dangerous  in  the  conception  of  the  Messiah.  .  .  .  He 
shall  not  be  the  Messiah  dreamed  of  by  the  Zealots ; 
nor  shall  He  be  either  the  Messiah  of  the  Rabbis.  .  .  ; 
He  resigns  Himself  to  be,  if  God  so  wills  it,  the  Mes- 
siah whom  Israel  rejects  and  the  Gentiles  accept.  .  .  . 
Finally,  the  bitter  experience  that  Jesus  had  gained 
in  His  dealings  with  the  people  caused  the  thought  of 
the  necessity  of  suffering,  and  even  of  death,  to  ripen 

1  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  During  His  Ministry,  pp.  156,  157, 
158. 


222  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

in  His  soul.  .  .  .  Thus  did  Jesus,  after  much  labor, 
purify  the  title  of  Messiah  which  He  had  at  first  as- 
sumed through  an  inner  compulsion.  Even  for  us, 
after  all  these  centuries,  there  is  something  surpris- 
ingly grand  as  we  observe  how  the  idea  is  emptied  of 
all  the  merely  sensual  and  selfish  elements,  so  that 
finally  the  image  of  the  King  in  all  His  pomp  and 
glory  is  turned  into  the  tragic  figure  on  the  Cross."  ^ 

Wendt,  B.  Weiss,  O.  Holtzmann,  Harnack. — 
Such  was  the  origin  and  gradual  evolution  of  the 
Messianic  consciousness  according  to  Stapfer's  theory. 
Its  basis  lies  in  the  opinion  advanced  in  Germany  by 
Wendt,  B.  Weiss,  and  O.  Holtzmann,  and  also  recently 
accepted  by  Harnack.  It  is  noteworthy,  however,  that 
these  German  critics  are  much  less  assertive  than 
Stapfer,  and  describe  far  more  cautiously  these  vari- 
ous phases  of  Jesus'  soul-activity  which  he  details 
so  minutely. 

First  of  all,  like  Stapfer,  they  hold  that  Jesus'  con- 
viction of  being  the  Messiah  was  derived  from  His 
conviction  of  being  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  it  had 
taken  shape  in  His  mind  when  He  began  His  pub- 
lic ministry. 

Wendt,  for  instance,  thinks  that  on  entering  upon 
His  public  Hfe  Jesus  felt  convinced  that  He  enjoyed 
a  special  union  of  Sonship  with  His  heavenly  Father 
as  also  extraordinary  divine  gifts  as  a  result  thereof, 
and  further  that  somehow  this  deep  persuasion  helped 
Him  to  become  aware  of  His  Messianic  mission, 
namely,  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
in  the  world  by  imparting  to  all  men  its  essential  ele- 
ment, sonship  with  God.^ 

Whence,  therefore,  did  Jesus  reach  the  conviction 
of  His  divine  Sonship?  Wendt  assigns  its  origin  to 
the  study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  taught  Him 

^Wernle,  op.  cit.,  pp.  47,  48,  49. 
2  Wendt,  op.  cit,  p.  94. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  ^23 

to  revere  God  as  Father,  and  also  to  His  early  home- 
training  whereby  His  soul  was  filled  with  deep  senti- 
ments of  religion  and  tender  devotion.  Wendt  says, 
however,  that  "  the  certainty,  clearness,  and  perfection 
with  which  Jesus  grasped  the  Scripture  revelation  of 
the  fatherly  love  of  God,  is  not  found  in  the  mere  in- 
fluence of  the  piety  of  His  parents.  That  must  be 
sought  in  the  peculiar  spiritual  power  which  belonged 
to  Himself  and  which  He  felt  to  be  a  miraculous 
Divine  endowment,  a  blessed  pledge  of  the  fatherly 
love  of  God  bestowed  upon  Himself,  and  a  lively  con- 
straining impulse  to  childhke  obedience  to  the  will 
of  God."  ^ 

But  Wendt  declares  that  we  cannot  maintain  that 
the  Saviour's  profound  conviction  of  possessing  such 
a  God-given  gift.  His  persuasion  of  being  the  recipient 
of  so  special  a  grace,  had  its  origin  during  the  course 
of  His  earthly  life. 

"  On  the  ground  of  the  religious  self-consciousness 
which  prompted  the  later  words  and  acts  of  Jesus,  we 
can  affirm  that,  so  far  back  as  that  religious  conscious- 
ness extended,  He  had  always  felt  Himself  in  a  re- 
lation of  Sonship  to  God.  Certainly,  this  feeling  had 
grown  within  Him  gradually  and  had  widened  and 
deepened.  Along  with  the  general  development  of 
His  spiritual  and  moral  hfe,  the  true  and  full  signi- 
ficance of  His  loving  fellowship  with  God,  and  His 
endowment  of  divine  life  and  grace,  and  His  sense  of 
filial  duty  towards  God  had  unfolded.  But,  in  order 
to  attain  that  conscious  standing  in  grace,  and  that 
position  of  filial  freedom,  Jesus  had  not  to  work  His 
way  out  of  servile  legalism.  From  first  to  last.  He 
was  conscious  of  His  filial  relation  to  God.  .  .  .  Jesus, 
even  from  childhood,  was  clearly  sensible  of  the  fath- 
erly love  of  God,  and  of  His  filial  relationship  to  God, 
and  He  remained  faithful  to  that  early  assurance." 

^  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  99. 


224  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

"  Perhaps,  even  long  before  He  began  His  public 
ministry,"  continues  Wendt,  "  He  was  not  yet  fully 
aware  of  the  relation  of  His  religious  conception  to 
the  setting-up  of  the  long  expected  Kingdom  of  God; 
in  other  words.  He  did  not  as  yet  know  that,  in  His 
perfect  knowledge  of  the  fatherly  love  of  God,  and  in 
His  own  perfect  embodiment  of  the  filial  relation  to 
God,  the  principle  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  Divine  pro- 
mises in  the  Old  Testament  in  regard  to  salvation 
were  in  the  highest  sense  contained.  ...  At  the  mo- 
ment when  Jesus  underwent  the  baptism  of  John, 
He  received  and  He  alone,  according  to  the  clear  ac- 
count in  Mark,  which  is  corroborated  in  the  further 
course  of  the  history,  the  revelation  which  imparted  to 
Him  His  Messianic  consciousness ;  He  became  con- 
vinced that  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  was  to  be  pos- 
sessed and  given  by  the  Messiah,  had  been  imparted 
to  Him,  and  that  He  now  deserves,  as  the  Heavens 
themselves  testified,  the  titles  of  Son  of  God  and  Well- 
Beloved  of  the  Father,  which,  according  to  the  Old 
Testament  promises,  belonged  also  to  the  Messiah. 
No  doubt  Jesus  was  previously  conscious  that  He  was 
the  Son  of  God,  and  an  object  of  the  divine  compla- 
cency; but,  through  this  revelation  was  awakened  the 
consciousness  of  a  unique  pre-eminence  of  sonship  in 
relation  to  God,  and  of  the  unique  significance  which, 
in  virtue  of  this  pre-eminence.  He  should  have  for  the 
establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  the  Mes- 
sianic dispensation.  .  .  .  The  consciousness  of  His 
special  endowment  by  God  and  His  pre-eminent  posi- 
tion among  men,  must,  for  Him,  have  involved  a  re- 
cognition of  His  special  duty  in  regard  to  God,  and  of 
His  special  vocation.  .  .  .  He  was  to  impart  to  other 
men  the  knowledge  and  the  reality  of  this  relationship ; 
and  therefore,  also.  He  was  to  be  the  founder  of  the 
promised  Kingdom  of  God."  ^ 

1  Wendt,  op.  cit.,-pp.  loo-ioi. 


( 

I 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


225 


It  is  also  the  impression  of  B.  Weiss  that  "  the  fact 
that  Jesus'  consciousness  of  His  Messiahship  was 
gradually  matured  is  manifestly  connected  with  His 
genuinely  human  development."  ^ 

He  thinks,  as  does  Wendt,  that  it  arose  from  the 
Saviour's  consciousness  of  His  divine  Sonship. 
Speaking  of  Jesus,  he  says  that  ''  starting  from  the 
consciousness  of  His  ethical  Sonship,  He  arrived  at 
consciousness  of  his  official  mission.  .  .  .  His  divine 
Sonship  is  the  deepest  ground  of  the  peculiar  calling 
which  is  given  Him  as  the  Son  of  Man,  and  of  the 
dignity  which  already  appertains,  and  will  one  day 
appertain  to  Him;  for,  only  the  elect  object  of  divine 
love  can  be  called  to  the  highest  vocation."  ^ 

While  Wendt,  however,  apparently  dates  the  origin 
of  Jesus'  realization  of  His  Messiahship  at  the  Bap- 
tism, while  O.  Holtzmann  explicitly  states  that  ''  the 
awakening  of  the  Messianic  consciousness  "  occurred 
on  that  occasion ;  that  previously  Jesus  simply  thought 
Himself  called  to  the  Kingdom,  that,  like  other  men, 
He  was  under  obligation  to  receive  the  Baptism  of 
Penance,  and  that  only  during  the  Vision  which  ac- 
companied the  Baptism  did  He  become  aware  of  being 
the  Messiah  expected  at  the  end  of  the  world,  the  vicar 
of  God  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.^  Weiss,  on  the 
other  hand,  thinks  that  Jesus  was  fully  aware  of  His 
position  as  Messiah  at  the  moment  when  He  met  S. 
John  the  Baptist.  In  his  opinion,  the  revelation  at 
the  Baptism  was  simply  the  signal,  given  by  God,  that 
the  time  had  come  for  Jesus  to  fulfil  the  Messianic 
mission  of  which  He  had  already  been  made  person- 
ally aware ;  at  the  same  time,  the  coming  upon  Him 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  imparted  to  Him  the  qualities  and 
powers  He  needed  for  the  accomplishment  of  that 
work. 

1  Weiss,  B.,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  295. 

2  Weiss,  B.,  Biblical  Theology,  vol.  i,  p.  81,  n.  i ;  p.  82. 

3  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  pp.  136,  137. 

15 


226  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

"  Jesus  presented  Himself  for  baptism,"  he  says, 
"  with  entire  consciousness  of  His  Messiahship.  .  .  . 
But  He  had  been  obhged  to  wait  for  the  calling  of 
God,  telling  Him  that  the  hour  had  now  struck  for 
the  salvation  of  His  people.  ...  In  the  command  of 
God  summoning  Him  to  baptism,  He  saw  the  long- 
expected  token  from  His  Father  that  the  time  was 
come  to  enter  upon  His  Messianic  career."  ^ 

Nor  do  Harnack's  views  on  this  subject  differ  ap- 
preciably from  those  of  Wendt  and  B.  Weiss.  He 
claims  that  the  source  of  Jesus'  conviction  of  His  Mes- 
siahship was  precisely  His  perception  of  the  filial  re- 
lationship which  He  bore  to  His  Father.  He  thinks 
that  Jesus  became  convinced  that  He  knew  God  as 
•none  had  known  Him  before,  and  that  His  union 
with  God  was  one  of  incomparable  intimacy.  Thus 
did  He  come  to  reahze  Himself  as  the  Son  of  God; 
thus  He  became  persuaded  that  He  was  divinely  sent 
to  impart  to  men  His  personal  knowledge  of  God  as 
Father  so  that  they  might  thereby  be  enabled  to  par- 
take of  His  own  divine  Sonship. 

"  Jesus  is  convinced,"  says  Harnack,  "  that  Hei 
knows  God  in  a  way  in  which  no  one  ever  knew  Him 
before,  and  He  knows  that  it  is  His  vocation  to  com- 
municate this  knowledge  of  God  to  others  by  word 
and  by  deed, — and  with  it  the  knowledge  that  men 
are  God's  children.  In  this  consciousness  He  knows 
Himself  to  be  the  Son  called  and  instituted  of  God, 
and  hence  He  can  say:  My  God  and  My  Father; 
and  into  this  invocation  He  puts  something  which  be- 
longs to  no  one  but  Himself."  ^ 

Harnack  also  would  derive  Jesus'  conviction  of 
His  Messiahship  from  His  persuasion  that  He  was 
the  Son  of  God;  but  he  does  not  venture  to  explain 
how   Jesus   passed   from  the   one   conviction  to   the 

^  Weiss,  B.,  Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  i,  pp.  295,  301,  323. 
2  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  138. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


22y 


other,  and  merely  observes  that  Jesus*  reahzation  of 
His  Messianic  role  must  have  been  already  formed  in 
His  mind  at  His  entrance  upon  His  public  ministry. 

"  We  shall  never  fathom,"  says  Harnack,  "  the  in- 
ward development  by  which  Jesus  passed  from  the 
assurance  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God  to  the  other 
assurance  that  He  was  the  promised  Messiah.  .  .  . 
An  inner  event  which  Jesus  experienced  at  His  bap- 
tism was,  in  view  of  the  oldest  tradition  the  founda- 
tion of  His  Messianic  consciousness.  It  is  not  an 
experience  which  we  can  verify;  still  less  are  we  in  a 
position  to  contradict  it.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  a 
strong  probability  that,  when  He  made  His  public  ap- 
pearance. He  had  already  settled  accounts  with  Him- 
self. The  Evangelists  preface  their  narrative  of  His 
public  activity  with  a  curious  story  of  a  temptation. 
This  story  assumes  that  He  was  already  conscious  of 
being  the  Son  of  God  and  the  One  who  was  entrusted 
with  the  mission  of  fulfilling  God's  promises  to  His 
people ;  we  see  Him,  moreover,  overcoming  tempta- 
tions that  bore  relation  to  His  Messianic  conscious- 
ness." '"- 

But  if  the  Saviour,  even  from  the  beginning  of  His 
ministry,  is  fully  aware  of  His  Messianic  vocation,  it 
may  be  asked  if  He  had  thereafter  an  equally  perfect 
and  definite  knowledge  of  the  precise  position  await- 
ing Him  as  the  Messiah  ? 

Stapfer's  views  on  this  matter  are  by  no  means  ap- 
proved by  Wendt,  B.  Weiss,  O.  Holtzmann,  and  Har- 
nack. Jesus'  temptation  in  the  desert,  they  say, 
somehow  helped  to  form  His  conviction  of  His  Mes- 
sianic mission;  but,  strictly  speaking,  their  method  of 
solving  the  problem  does  not  imply  a  higher  develop- 
ment of  the  Messianic  ideal,  nor  a  divergence  from 
the  erroneous  popular  notions. 

"  Jesus   cannot,    of    course,"    says    O.    Holtzmann, 

^  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  pp.  148-149. 


228  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

"  have  drawn,  all  at  once,  all  the  conclusions  involved 
in  His  Messianic  belief;  and  yet,  the  force  of  the  new 
revelation  was  so  overpowering  as  assuredly  to  have 
left  Him  no  peace  until  He  had  reflected  upon  it  and 
recognized  it  in  all  the  fulness  of  its  meaning.  .  .  . 
Jesus  Himself  told  His  disciples  about  it  in  the  story 
of  His  temptation.  .  .  .  We  may  be  sure  that  what 
most  exercised  Him  now,  in  the  depths  of  His  soul, 
was  the  great  promise  connected  with  the  name  of  the 
Messiah :  '  Thou  wilt  be  the  Lord  of  this  world.'  .  .  . 
He  had  now  to  reconcile  the  consciousness  of  His 
duty  toward  God  with  the  persuasion,  freshly  awak- 
ened in  His  soul,  that  He  was  the  Messiah."  ^ 

In  Wendt's  estimation,  "it  is  perfectly  conceivable 
that  Jesus,  after  this  sudden  and  miraculous  imparta- 
tion  of  the  knowledge  of  His  Messiahship,  was  as- 
sailed with  conflicting  doubts,  and  that  He  felt  it  an 
urgent  duty,  founded  on  His  Messianic  endowments, 
to  bring  this  conflict  to  an  immediate  and  decisive 
issue.  ...  It  was  no  conflict  against  images  and 
ideals,  arising  out  of  a  wicked  and  selfish  and  un- 
godly disposition  and  inclination  in  Jesus  Himself. 
We  must  surely  repudiate  the  idea  of  a  temptation 
originating  in  the  state  of  Jesus'  own  heart.  But  there 
were  Messianic  conceptions  and  ideals  which  hitherto 
approached  Him  from  without,  that  is,  from  the  pre- 
vailing views  and  traditions  of  His  countrymen,  and 
which  now  entered  His  soul,  in  the  sense  of  their  being 
known  to  Him,  and  being  images  in  His  mind  without 
needing  any  external  means  of  representation.  They 
represented  themselves  to  Him  with  a  plausible  ap- 
pearance of  being  true  and  Scriptural,  and  through 
such  plausibility  they  became  veritable  temptations 
which  it  cost  Him  a  struggle  to  overcome.  Yet,  in 
examining  them.  He  perceived  the  impious  principles 
on  which  they  were  based,  and,  to  that  extent,  regarded 

1  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  pp.  138,  143. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


229 


i 


and  treated  them  as  temptations  of  Satan.  .  .  . 
Thenceforth,  from  this  moment,  He  no  longer  knew 
of  perplexity  nor  doubt.  .  .  .  Henceforth,  He  could 
undertake  His  public  ministry  with  an  invincible  con- 
viction of  His  Messiahship,  with  a  marvelous  clear- 
ness of  view,  and  a  remarkable  firmness  of  feeling, 
touching  the  Kingdom  of  God."  ^ 

Similarly,  B.  Weiss  supposes  that  the  evil  sugges- 
tions against  which  the  Saviour  struggled  represent, 
not  His  own  present  convictions,  nor  His  personal 
desires  or  inclinations,  but  ideas  and  images  to  which 
He  was  a  stranger.  He  believes  that  Jesus  entered 
the  desert  purposely  to  ascertain  the  divinely  ordained 
means  for  the  accomplishment  of  His  mission 
which  were  destined  to  determine  His  course  of  pro- 
cedure after  He  had  clearly  discerned  the  divine  will 
in  His  regard.  He  says  that  during  such  reflexions, 
He  necessarily  perceived  that  tableau  of  the  Messianic 
ideal  which  stood  opposed  to  the  divine  plan ;  that  this 
view  of  the  earthly  and  unhallowed  means  which 
might  lead  Him  onward  to  attain  His  purpose  arose, 
not  from  the  carnal  source  of  His  personal  feelings, 
but  simply  from  the  outer  world ;  and  that,  despite  the 
seductive  power  that  vision  could  exert  over  His 
natural  senses,  over  the  world  of  sense,  Jesus  deemed 
it  a  Satanic  illusion  which  sought  to  have  Him  aban- 
don the  path  willed  for  Him  by  God.^ 

Harnack,  too,  is  satisfied  with  remarking  that  ''  the 
Evangelists  preface  their  account  of  His  public  activity 
with  a  curious  story  of  a  temptation.  This  story  as- 
sumes that  He  was  already  conscious  of  being  the  Son 
of  God,  and  the  one  who  was  entrusted  with  the  mis- 
sion of  fulfilling  God's  promises  to  His  people."^ 

1  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  pp.  98,  102. 

2  Weiss,  B.,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i  (German  ed.,pp.3i5,  316). 
^  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  pp.   148,  149. 


230  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

These  critics,  however  cautious  in  referring  to  the 
changing  view  which  Jesus  had  of  His  Messianic  mis- 
sion during  His  hfe,  are  still  more  so  when  describing 
the  alleged  evolution  in  the  Saviour's  ideas  about  His 
suffering,  destiny  and  death. 

Thus,  Wendt  says  that  Stapfer's  conclusions  on  this 
point  are  not  at  all  warranted  by  the  Gospel  data. 
"  How  this  knowledge,"  he  writes,  "  was  gradually  de- 
veloped in  Him,  we  cannot  now  circumstantially  trace, 
since  our  sources  do  not  afford  the  material  for  it." 
Wendt's  theory  is  that  the  Saviour  had  been,  from  the 
first,  convinced  that  He  had  to  sacrifice  His  life  for 
the  sake  of  the  Kingdom,  but  that,  from  the  exigencies 
of  circumstances  and  events,  He  learned  how  and 
when  He  was  to  make  this  sacrifice.  "  From  the  fact 
that  Jesus,  publicly  and  for  the  first  time,  spoke  of  His 
sufferings  and  death  after  Peter's  confession,  it  does 
not  follow  that  He,  then  for  the  first  time,  became 
aware  of  the  suffering  destiny  which  laid  in  store  for 
Him.  On  the  contrary,  the  firmness  with  which  He 
asserts  the  necessity  of  His  fate  and  rebukes  Peter 
who  had  contradicted  Him,  is  a  proof  that  He  had 
already  triumphed  over  the  trial  brought  about  by  this 
prospect  of  Messianic  suffering.  How  and  when  did 
the  thought  of  His  passion  first  enter  His  mind?  Was 
it  at  the  very  beginning  of  His  public  ministry?  Or, 
did  the  thought  occur  to  Him  later  on,  as  an  abso- 
lutely new  intellectual  element?  It  would  be  wrong, 
I  think,  to  accept  this  alternative  as  the  only  possible 
hypothesis.  Even  granting  that  Jesus  became  con- 
scious of  the  proximity  of  His  violent  death  only  dur- 
ing the  course  of  His  ministry,  this  idea  of  coming 
sufferings  was  not  necessarily  something  altogether 
new  and  foreign  to  His  usual  thoughts.  It  may  have 
been  simply  the  normal  outcome  of  these  fundamental 
ideas  which,  since  He  had  become  conscious  of  His 
Messiahship,  were  a  part  of  the  essential  convictions 
of  Jesus.     And  that  such  was  the  fact  we  must  of 


THE  MESSIAXIC  MINISTRY 


231 


necessity  admit,  if  we  wish  to  give,  of  the  origin  of 
that  thought,  a  satisfactory  psychological  explanation, 
in  keeping  with  the  data  of  evangelical  tradition.  .  .  . 
Abnegation  and  sufferings,  connected  with  His  par- 
ticular vocation,  must  have  appeared  to  Him,  from 
the  beginning,  as  a  necessity  to  which  He  had  to  sub- 
mit through  love  for  God  and  for  the  sake  of  men's 
salvation.  But  it  was  only  by  degrees,  during  the 
course  of  His  ministry,  that  His  various  experiences 
made  Him  realize  the  precise  nature  and  the  special 
intensity  of  the  sorrows  which,  in  fact,  fell  to  His  lot. 
.  .  .  The  knowledge  must  have  been  forced  upon 
Him  with  increasing  clearness,  that  He  could  not 
hope  for  a  peaceful,  regular  expansion  of  His  teach- 
ing and  of  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God  thereby;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  fearful  con- 
flicts and  persecutions  lay  before  Him,  and  that  His 
hfe  must  be  vielded  up  in  the  cause  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God."  ^ 

On  this  point,  the  opinion  of  B.  Weiss  does  not  ap- 
parently dift'er  from  that  of  Wendt.  "  It  is  impos- 
sible to  prove,"  he  writes,  "  that  Jesus  had  ever  re- 
ferred directly  to  His  death  before  the  episode  at 
Csesarea  Philippi.  ...  It  by  no  means  follows  from 
this  that  the  thought  of  death  had  only  recently  oc- 
curred to  Jesus.  .  .  .  The  knowledge  Jesus  had  of 
His  coming  fate  was  not  merely  owing  to  human  prog- 
nostication or  foresight ;  it  rested  upon  God-given 
certitude  which  could  never  fail  Him  who,  from  His 
baptism,  had  been  the  subject  of  the  constant  opera- 
tion of  the  divine  Spirit.  But,  even  this  foreknowledge 
was  governed  by  the  fundamental  law  of  all  prophetic 
prediction.  ...  It  was,  therefore,  only  possible  for 
Jesus  to  infer  the  necessity  of  His  death  according  to 
the  degree  in  which  the  event  was  made  inevitable 
by  its  historic  preparation.  .  .  .  The  necessity  of  His 

1  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  219. 


232  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

death  He  learnt  from  the  development  of  the  histor- 
ical circumstances,  and  this  not  because  He  had 
hitherto  been  blinded  to  it,  but  only  because  the  de- 
velopment of  events  now  brought  it  about."  ^ 

''  Jesus  believes  that  He  is  the  Messiah,"  says  O. 
Holtzmann.  "  But  He  knows  that  when  He  intro- 
duces the  Kingdom  of  God,  the  Messiah  will  come  on 
the  clouds  of  heaven.  Consequently,  before  He  Him- 
self can  thus  appear  in  His  glory.  He  must  first  be 
raised  up  to  God.  Whether  He  believed,  from  the 
very  beginning,  that  this  would  be  effected  by  His 
death,  we  do  not  know.  At  any  rate,  the  contrast 
between  His  situation  at  the  moment  of  speaking  and 
the  future  glory  He  hoped  for,  must  have  been  also 
instrumental  in  leading  Him  to  beheve  that  the  com- 
ing of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  despite  its  nearness,  was 
not  an  event  that  would  happen  entirely  without  di- 
rect cause."  2 

No  less  explicit,  it  would  seem,  is  Harnack's  con- 
demnation of  Stapfer's  fanciful  conjecture.  He  con- 
siders it  probable  that,  during  the  course  of  His  public 
ministry,  Jesus  felt  obliged  to  modify  His  views  of 
the  nature  of  His  Messianic  position  and  destiny ;  but 
maintains  that  the  fact  itself  cannot  be  settled  from 
historical  data.  "  Unless  all  appearances  are  decep- 
tive," he  says,  "  no  stormy  crisis,  no  breach  with  His 
past,  lies  behind  the  period  of  Jesus'  Hfe  that  we  know. 
.  .  .  Everything  seems  to  pour  from  Him  naturally, 
as  though  it  could  not  do  otherwise,  like  a  spring  from 
the  depths  of  the  earth,  clear  and  unchecked  in  its 
flow.  We  see  a  man  who,  at  the  age  of  thirty,  has 
apparently  never  known  these  inner  struggles,  after 
which  He  would  have  burned  what  He  once  adored 
and  adored  what  He  burned!  We  see  a  man  who 
has  broken  with  his  past  in  order  to  summon  others  to 

^  Weiss,  B.,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  64,  65,  66,  6y, 
^  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  180, 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  233 

repentance  and  yet  never  speaks  of  his  own  conver- 
sion! This  consideration  makes  it  impossible  that 
His  life  could  have  been  spent  in  inner  conflict,  al- 
though He  had  His  share  of  deep  emotions,  tempta- 
tions and  doubts." 

Loisy. — Such  is  the  stand  taken  by  various  classes 
of  Protestant  critics  who  believe  in  Christ  and  thus 
draw  the  Hne  between  themselves  and  pronounced  in- 
fidels. To  be  sure,  the  Christ  whom  they  revere  is 
more  or  less  human,  and  their  tendency  is  to  exalt 
His  human  character  at  the  expense  of  His  divine  per- 
sonality and  nature. 

A  theory,  however,  very  similar  to  that  held  by  the 
foregoing  critics  was  advanced  by  Loisy,  who  some- 
time ago  was  ranked  among  Catholic  scholars.  He 
contended  that  "  the  critic  may  conjecture  that  in 
Jesus  the  filial  sentiment  preceded  and  prepared  the 
way  for  the  consciousness  of  being  the  Messiah,  as 
His  soul  was  elevated  by  prayer,  confidence,  and 
love  to  the  highest  degree  of  union  with  God,  till  the 
idea  of  His  vocation  as  the  Messiah  came  quite  natur- 
ally to  crown  the  travail  of  His  spirit."  ^ 

He  does  not  agree,  indeed,  with  those  who  ascribe 
the  source  of  Jesus'  conviction  of  His  Messiahship  at 
the  time  of  His  baptism;  but  he  does  claim  that  only 
then  did  the  Saviour  become  fully  aware  of  His  Mes- 
sianic position  and  destiny.^ 

"  There  may  be,"  he  says,  "  some  conventional 
features  in  the  account  of  the  Baptism ;  but  this 
record,  at  least,  proves  that  the  oldest  tradition 
assigned  to  this  event  the  origin  of  Jesus'  full  reali- 
zation and  possession  of  His  role.  Why  not  place  the 
development  of  the  Messianic  consciousness  before 
the  Baptism?"  This  event,  thinks  Loisy,  must  have 
marked  "  a  decisive  moment  in  the  Saviour's  career  " ; 

1  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  pp.  35-36,  150. 

2  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  105. 


234  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

it  "  may  have  had  a  decisive  influence  upon  the  de- 
velopment of  His  Messianic  consciousness,"  inas- 
much as  "  the  Baptism  marks  an  important  date  for 
Jesus  Himself  as  regards  His  interior  development 
and  not  only  as  regards  the  exterior  manifestation  of 
His  divine  life.  .  .  .  According  to  the  Synoptics,  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  having  become  aware  of  His  providential 
mission,  began  to  preach."  ^ 

He  further  suggests  that,  if  the  Saviour  was  fully 
aware  of  His  Messianic  character  from  the  beginning 
of  His  pubUc  life,  nevertheless,  it  was  during  the 
course  of  His  ministry,  that  the  special  form  of  His 
Messianic  role  became  precisely  defined  in  His  mind. 

"A  perusal  of  the  Synoptics,"  he  says,  "  makes  it 
clear  that  Jesus  does  not,  at  first,  publicly  proclaim 
Himself  as  the  Messiah,  and  that  He  did  not  even  de- 
clare Himself  such  to  His  disciples:  He  allowed  their 
faith  in  Him  to  shape  itself  slowly.  We  may  even 
say  that  His  consciousness  of  His  mission  is  devel- 
oped in  Him  and  that  His  attitude  towards  the  people 
and  towards  His  disciples  bore  a  relation  to  the  in- 
terior progress  of  His  ideas  and  of  His  designs."  H 
Jesus  was  aware  of  His  Messianic  vocation  be- 
fore S.  Peter's  confession,  ''  it  is  evident  that  the 
special  form  of  His  role  was  at  that  time  defined  in 
His  mind,  and  that  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  was 
uppermost  in  His  thoughts  before  that  event."  ^ 

Loisy,  finally,  seems  to  admit  that  the  Saviour,  dur- 
ing His  ministry  and  owing  to  the  influence  of  events, 
had  become  aware  of  His  suffering  destiny.  "  Jesus 
knew,"  he  says,  "  that  He  was  to  bear  the  gospel  to 
Jerusalem ;  but  His  experience  in  Galilee  warns  Him 
of  the  sad  outcome  which  that  necessary  step  may 
have:  He  follows  the  law  of  His  destiny."     We  will 

^  Loisy,  Rev.  d'Hist.,  etc.,  1903,  p.  301 ;  The  Gospel  and  the 
Church,  p.  104;  Rev.  d'Hist.,  etc.,  1904,  p.  91;  Le  Quatr, 
Evang.,  pp.  71,  233. 

^  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  pp,  69,  252, 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  235 

see  later  on  how  the  same  critic  is  forced  to  cast 
aside  the  very  texts  which  prove  that  Jesus  had  an 
early  foresight  of  His  death.  ^ 

Criticism:  The  Public  Life.  —What  then  shall 
we  say  .of  the  variously  shaded  theories  advanced  by 
the  foregoing  critics  of  the  Protestant  liberal  school, 
as  also  of  the  more  moderate  views  of  Loisy?  With 
the  gospels  as  a  basis,  can  we  decide  upon  any  par- 
ticular moment  in  Jesus'  life  as  the  starting-point  of 
His  Messianic  consciousness?  Is  this  latter  convic- 
tion strictly  derivable  from  His  consciousness  of  be- 
ing the  Son  of  God?  And,  further,  to  what  extent 
may  we  reasonably  admit  a  real  evolution  in  the 
manner  in  which  the  Saviour  viewed  His  destiny  as 
the  Messiah?  The  solution  of  these  questions  neces- 
sarily implies  an  impartial  examination  of  the  Gospel 
account.  Whoever  studies  this  matter  carefully, 
therefore,  will  find  in  the  following  considerations 
ample  evidence  for  the  desired  answer  to  the  above- 
mentioned  questions. 

The  Gospel  record  of  Jesus'  statements  do  not,  first 
of  all,  betray  any  sort  of  evolution  in  His  ideas  of 
His  position  as  Messiah  or  of  the  destiny  awaiting 
Him  as  Messiah. 

During  the  closing  year  of  His  public  ministry,  in 
fact,  this  matter  is  beyond  doubt.  A  survey  of  the 
whole  series  of  His  definite  declarations  during  this 
part  of  His  career  shows  that  His  assertions  were 
constantly  uniform.  From  His  reply  at  S.  Peter's 
confession  to  His  last  avowals  before  the  Sanhedrin, 
He  expresses  His  mind  most  plainly  and  firmly,  with 
the  utmost  calmness  and  self-possession.  Jesus  con- 
siders Himself  the  Messiah,  that  Messiah  who  is 
destined  to  suffer  and  die  in  fulfilment  of  the  pro- 
phecies, and  who  shall  come  at  the  end  of  time  to 
judge  all  mankind  and  to  inaugurate  the  eternal  reign 
of  God. 

^  Lpisy,  Autour  d'un  Petit  Livre,  p.  89, 


236  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

If,  then,  during  the  first  two  years  of  His  ministry, 
Jesus'  discretion  was  so  marked  ahke  in  positively 
reveaUng  His  position  as  Messiah  as  also  in  expressly 
announcing  the  role  which  He  was  to  subsequently 
play  as  the  Messiah,  His  motives  for  such  reserve  were 
quite  other  than  ignorance  of  mind  or  uncertainty  of 
ideas.  Whoever  cares  to  find  an  exact  explanation  for 
the  Saviour's  attitude  will  assuredly  conclude  that 
His  reserve  was  prompted  only,  as  His  wisdom  dic- 
tated, by  His  hearers'  mental  and  moral  dispositions 
and  by  the  need  of  fulfilling  a  providential  design. 

The  Messianic  Vocation.  —  Jesus  was  neverthe- 
less aware  of  His  Messianic  caUing  even  from  the  be- 
ginning of  His  ministry,  however  cautious  He  may 
have  been  in  its  manifestation,  as  is  granted  by  Pro- 
testant critics  and  by  Loisy.  But,  despite  His  re- 
serve, what  right  have  we  to  deny  that,  thenceforth, 
He  was  fully  aware  of  His  destiny  as  Messiah,  and 
that  His  idea  of  His  Messianic  position  was  complete  ? 
It  is  a  very  gratuitous  assumption  to  say  that  His  pru- 
dent, discretion  indicates  His  ignorance  of  one  or  other 
point  of  His  destiny,  or  that  His  ideas  of  His  Mes- 
siahship  underwent  a  process  of  real  development  and 
change.  He  could  manifest  His  ideas  progressively, 
according  as  outward  circumstances  demanded,  by 
accommodating  Himself  to  the  views  of  His  follow- 
ers. As  He  had  plainly  done  so  as  regards  His  es- 
sential dignity  of  Son  of  God,  He  might  also  do  so  in 
the  case  of  His  special  character  of  Messiah.  But, 
again,  in  this  matter,  the  gospel  texts  do  not  warrant 
us  in  supposing  that,  strictly  speaking.  His  conscious- 
ness experienced  a  development. 

Stapfer  thinks  that  the  temptation  of  Jesus  occupied 
a  longer  time  than  is  mentioned  in  the  gospels,  and 
that  it  was  really  a  soul-struggle  against  the  prejudices 
of  His  earlier  training  in  regard  to  the  temporal  sover- 
eignty of  the  Messiah.  But  this  is  merely  a  personal 
interpretation  which  may  well  be  called  arbitrary  and 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  237 

fantastic.  The  Gospels  do  not  at  all  warrant  in  sup- 
posing that  Jesus'  temptation  lasted  a  long  while,  and 
that  the  Saviour  was  throughout  its  duration  engaged 
in  struggling  with  the  temptation.  Above  all,  there 
is  naught  to  support  the  theory  of  an  inner  struggle, 
properly  speaking,  between  erroneous  personal  ideas 
and  the  new  revelation  of  His  Messianic  calling. 

This  theory,  first  of  all,  contradicts  all  that  is  stated 
about  the  preaching  of  S.  John  the  Baptist  prior  to 
Christ's  baptism  and  temptation.  The  Messiah  whom 
John  announces  is  by  no  means  the  earthly  king  of 
false  Jewish  hopes.  As  O.  Holtzmann  says,  "  John 
describes  the  Messiah  as  being,  above  all  things  else, 
the  judge  of  the  world."  In  no  wise  is  John  the  herald 
of  an  earthly  sovereignty;  for  he  dwells  in  solitude, 
and  proclaims  the  approach  of  judgment.  As  a  pre- 
paration for  the  Messiah's  advent,  he  urges  the  prac- 
tice of  penance,  of  which  his  special  kind  of  baptism 
is  the  symbol,  and  he  also  inculcates  holiness  and 
charity.  "  We  should  also  have  heard  something 
about  political  hopes  being  associated  with  the  advent 
of  the  Baptist,"  says  O.  Holtzmann,  ''  but  of  this 
there  is  not  a  single  word."  ^ 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Synoptic  account,  to  con- 
sider only  the  fact  of  the  temptation,  clearly  proves 
that  it  proceeded  from  without,  and,  as  is  rightly  ad- 
mitted even  by  Wendt  and  B.  Weiss,  the  Saviour's 
soul  betrays  not  the  slightest  sign  of  disturbance. 
While  Sanday  says  that  ''  there  did  not  enter  into  His 
mind  even  a  passing  shadow  of  the  ambition  which 
marked  the  best  of  earthly  conquerors.  He  was  de- 
termined not  to  minister  in  the  least  to  the  national 
pride  of  the  Jews."  ^ 

That  Jesus  was  really  tempted  by  the  devil  is  un- 
doubtedly denied  by  Wendt  and  B.  Weiss,  and  appar- 

1  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  122. 

2  Sanday,  art. :  Jesus  Christ,  H.  D.,  p.  612. 


238  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ently  even  by  Loisy;  for  they  say  that  the  temptation 
was  rather  a  symbol  of  His  changing  ideas  when  con- 
sidering the  ways  and  means  of  achieving  His  divine 
mission.  But  it  is  still  true  that  these  critics  deny 
that  any  substantial  change  of  views  could  have  oc- 
curred in  the  Saviour's  mind,  as  a  result  of  the  temp- 
tation. As  we  have  seen,  it  is  far  better  to  take  the 
gospel  account  of  this  episode  as  it  stands.  ^ 

The  Passion. — That  Jesus  originally  hoped  to  real- 
ize the  Messianic  Kingdom  without  having  to  suffer 
and  die,  and  that  He  became  aware  of  the  necessity 
of  His  death  only  when  facing  the  ever-increasing 
hatred  of  the  Pharisees, — such  is  a  further  view  taken 
by  Stapfer  who  follows  in  the  lead  of  Renan.  This 
position,  like  his  other  one  given  above,  is  not  based 
upon  facts.  Jesus,  indeed,  after  S.  Peter's  confes- 
sion, often  refers  to  His  death  and  shows  that  He 
knows  exactly  the  circumstances  of  its  occurrence. 
His  remarks  do  not  at  all  refer  to  His  experience  of 
the  Pharisees'  hostility,  nor,  in  fact,  do  the  texts  allow 
us  to  suppose  such  an  allusion.  If  it  is  at  this  precise 
moment  in  His  ministry  that  Jesus  begins  to  speak 
pubhcly  about  the  last  days  of  the  world,  His  motive 
for  so  doing  must  be  found  in  the  general  method 
that  guided  His  manifestations.  Naught  was  further 
from  the  minds  of  the  Apostles  than  the  thought  of  the 
sufferings  of  the  Messiah;  naught  more  opposed  to 
their  ordinary  way  of  thinking  than  the  prospect  of 
the  crucifixion.  Thus  it  is  that  the  predictions  relat- 
ing to  that  great  scandal.  His  death,  are  withheld  by 
the  Saviour  until  the  moment  when  the  faith  of  His 
disciples  seems  finally  assured  and  firm.  And  it  is 
also  remarkable  to  see  how,  after  the  event  at 
Caesarea,  each  clearer  manifestation  of  His  Messianic 
dignity  is  accompanied  by  a  more  explicit  announce- 
ment of  His  death. 

^  Cf.  Lepin,  Jesus  Messie,  p.  90,  n.  i,  E.  tr.,  p.  142. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  239 

Note  the  gradation :  At  the  opening  of  His  ministry, 
the  simple  announcement  of  His  violent  removal ;  at 
Caesarea  Philippi,  and  in  Galilee,  a  more  detailed 
announcement  of  His  rejection  by  the  religious  au- 
thorities, of  His  crucifixion,  and  of  His  resurrection 
of  the  third  day;  at  the  close  of  His  final  preaching 
tour,  a  very  minute  prediction  of  the  treason  that  will 
serve  to  deliver  Him  over  to  the  Jewish  rulers,  of  His 
condemnation,  of  the  Gentiles'  execution  of  that 
sentence,  of  the  mockeries,  spitting,  and  buffeting,  and, 
finally,  of  His  death  and  resurrection. 

There  is  a  sort  of  compensation  made  between  the 
new  splendor  of  His  Messiahship  and  the  dark  vision 
of  His  approaching  crucifixion ;  between  the  dreadful 
trial  which  His  passion  shall  prove  to  be  the  faith  of 
His  disciples,  and  the  assurance  which  His  words  and 
deeds  give  that  He  is  truly  the  Messiah  Founder  of 
God's  Kingdom.  On  the  other  hand,  such  was  the 
Saviour's  view  at  this  time,  such  the  conviction  and 
certitude  with  which  He  announced  His  destiny,  that 
His  judgment  on  this  matter  seemed  to  be  already 
settled,  or,  rather,  appeared  not  so  much  as  a  conviction 
acquired  by  ordinary  experience,  as  a  kind  of  super- 
natural assurance  which  He  had  from  the  first. 

The  three  Synoptics,  moreover,  assign  to  Jesus  a  de- 
claration, uttered  at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry, 
and  prudently  but  precisely  alluding  to  His  separation 
from  His  friends  by  death.  "The  day  will  come,' 
He  says,  "  when  the  Bride-groom  shall  be  taken  away 
from  them;  and  then  they  shall  fast  in  those  days." 
His  assertion,  given  as  a  parable,  as  also  its  close 
connection  with  the  context  and  with  His  other  sayings, 
which  are  surely  authentic,  would  seem  to  guarantee 
its  authenticity  in  the  fullest  historical  sense. ^ 

Hence,  as  we  think,  the  views  of  Stapfer  and  Renan 
are   formally   opposed  to  history.       Harnack   rightly 

1  Mk.  ii.  19-20;  Mt.  ix.  15;  Lk.  v.  34,  35. 


240  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

recognizes  this  fact ;  he  says  that  "  no  stormy  crisis, 
no  breach  with  His  past,  hes  behind  the  period  of 
Jesus'  hfe  that  we  know.  .  .  .  Everything  seems  to 
pour  from  Him  naturally,  as  though  it  could  not  do 
otherwise,  like  a  spring  from  the  depths  of  the  earth, 
clear  and  unchecked  in  its  flow.  .  .  .  This  considera- 
tion makes  it  impossible  that  His  life  could  have  been 
spent  in  inner  conflict."  ^ 

Says  Loisy,  following  Jtilicher :  "  The  allusion  to 
the  Children  of  the  Marriage  who  shall  fast  when  the 
Bridegroom  shall  be  taken  away,  is  simply  presented 
as  an  allegory.  But,  if  Jesus  styled  Himself  the 
Bridegroom,  His  argument  would  have  no  proving 
force ;  He  would  have  merely  meant  that  His  disciples 
could  not  fast  while  He  was  with  them.  Originally, 
the  reply  seems  to  have  been:  the  Children  of  the 
Marriage  cannot  fast  while  they  are  feasting  with  the 
Bridegroom.  Should  the  Bridegroom  be  suddenly 
taken  away,  the  feast  would  be  over,  and  His  com- 
panions troubled;  thus  the  Baptist's  disciples  fast,  as 
their  master  is  gone;  while  those  of  Jesus  do  not 
fast,  since  they  still  have  Him  with  them."  ^ 

Evidently,  this  interpretation  is  forced,  its  author 
endeavoring  by  every  means  to  exclude  from  Jesus' 
teaching  and  to  ascribe  to  later  tradition  whatever  is 
presented  in  the  form  of  allegory.  But,  even  if  thus 
interpreted,  the  Saviour's  reply  plainly  alludes  to  His 
departure.  The  comparison  drawn  from  the  Children 
of  the  Marriage,  if  applied  to  the  disciples  of  Christ 
and  of  John,  would  make  the  Bridegroom's  removal 
refer  to  His  own  sudden  and  violent  departure  as 
also  to  that  of  His  precursor.  That  Jesus  did  not 
merely  utter  this  parable  in  a  very  general  sense,  as  is 
alleged,  but  wished  to  represent  Himself,  by  recourse 

1  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  pp.  35-36. 

2  Loisy,  Etudes  Evang.,  1902,  p.  43,  n.  i ;  Rev.  d'Hist.,  etc., 
1903*  p.  519;  art.:  Le  Second  Evang.;  Jiilicher,  Die  Gleich- 
nisreden  Jesu,  1899,  vol.  ii,  p.  188. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


241 


to  a  sort  of  veiled  allegory,  as  the  Bridegroom,  and 
to  afford  a  real  glimpse  of  His  crucifixion,  is  indicated 
by  His  use  of  the  future  tense,  so  similar  to  the  "  pro- 
phetic "  future  and  which  an  a  priori  interpretation 
alone  could  ascribe  to  the  Gospel  editors :  "  The  days 
will  come  when  the  Bridegroom  shall  be  taken  away 
.from  them,  and  then  they  shall  fast  in  those  days."  ^ 

In  Schmidt's  opinion,  Jesus'  warning  is  as  "clearly  a 
vaticinium  ex  eventu  as  the  words  concerning  the 
garments  and  the  wineskins  are  unmistakably  genu- 
ine." But  why  so?  For  the  very-  reason  that  a 
Rationalist  could  not  logically  admit  that  Jesus  had 
such  an  early  foresight  of  His  death.^ 

As  to  the  more  moderate  theory  of  those  who  claim 
that  Jesus,  at  an  early  period,  foresaw  His  death  in 
a  general  way,  and  that  He  became  aware  of  it  only 
by  degrees,  according  to  events,  special  conditions,  and 
certain  circumstances,  we  think  it  is  based  rather  upon  a 
philosophical  a  priori  view  than  upon  a  fully  scientific 
study  of  the  texts.  The  Gospels,  indeed,  present  the 
Saviour  as  revealing  slowly  and  progressively  to  His 
disciples  the  sad  prospect  of  His  death,  but  they 
do  not  at  all  imply  that  this  succession  and  progress 
noticeable  in  His  predictions  also  affected  His  inner 
knowledge  and  His  personal  intentions.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  plain  that,  after  S.  Peter's  confession,  Jesus 
very  minutely  predicted  His  ignominious  Passion,  His 
death  upon  the  cross,  and  His  resurrection  on  the 
third  day.  Surely,  Jesus  could  not  have  acquired 
such  foresight  from  mere  experience.  Why  then 
should  we  place  in  dependence  upon  human  conditions 
what  is  evidently  of  the  supernatural  and  divine 
order  of  things? 

The  full  authenticity  of  these  Gospel  passages,  how- 

1  The  Greek  term  for  "  shall  be  taken  away  suddenly "  is 
airapdy-^  Lagrange,  Rev.  Bib.,  April,  1903,  p.  307. 

2  Schmidt,  art.:  The  Son  of  Man,  E.  B.,  par.  46,  col.  4739; 
Holtzmann,  O.,  Synoptiker,  3d  ed.,  p.  55. 

16 


242  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ever,  is  disputed  by  Wrede,  Loisy,  and  the  like  critics. 
Loisy  thinks  that  if  "  after  S.  Peter's  confession,  Jesus 
is  thought  to  have  conversed  often  with  His  disciples 
about  the  destiny  awaiting  Him  as  the  Messiah,"  the 
general  statement  of  these  discourses  is  based  ''upon 
accomplished  facts  and  upon  the  theme  of  the  early 
Christian  preaching.  ...  If  He  predicts  His  passion 
and  resurrection,  it  is  because  He  was  in  possession 
of  His  future  by  a  sure  prevision."  Such,  indeed, 
is  the  Gospel  testimony;  but  Loisy  classes  it  among 
the  "  interpretations  of  primitive  facts  and  real  events 
which  assume  a  new  aspect  in  the  perspective  of  the 
Messianic  glory."  In  particular,  this  would  be  an  in- 
terpretation which  later  tradition  elaborated  from  the 
authentic  saying  in  Math.  x.  39.  He  does  not  deny 
that,  in  a  general  way,  the  Saviour  foresaw  His  death, 
and  admits  as  authentic  a  saying  which  all  three 
Synoptics  refer  to  the  episode  at  Caesarea  Philippi. 
Jesus,  he  writes,  ''  had  admitted  the  necessity,  both  for 
Himself  and  for  His  followers,  of  losing  His  Hfe 
in  time  in  order  to  gain  it  for  eternity."  What  reason, 
then,  has  he  to  cast  suspicion  upon  the  very  details 
and  circumstances  found  in  the  text?  He  seems  to 
argue  from  a  preconceived  opinion  and  not  from  an 
impartial  analysis  of  the  texts.  We  may  remark,  too, 
that  the  sentence  in  question  occurs  not  only  in  S. 
Matthew's  account  of  the  great  discourse  relating  to 
the  first  mission  of  the  Apostles,  but  is  also  given  by 
the  three  Synoptics  after  S.  Peter's  confession.^ 

Loisy  also  claims  that  "  the  prophecies  of  the  pas- 
sion and  resurrection  are  not  formulated  in  Jesus' 
discourse,"  that  they  do  not  present  "  any  saying  form- 
ally retained  as  the  saying  of  the  Lord."  His  view  is 
utterly  wrong.  The  prediction,  indeed,  is  given  by 
the  three  Synoptics  as  a  direct  discourse  which  Christ 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  100;  Rev.  d'Hist.. 
I903»  P-  297;  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  40;  Mk.  viii.  35; 
Mt.  xvi.  25 ;  Lk.  ix.  24 ;  cf.  Lepin,  Jesus  Messie,  p.  201 ; 
Engl,    tr,   246. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


243 


delivered  on  His  last  journey  to  Jerusalem.  As  to 
His  declaration  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  and  in  Galilee, 
a  comparison  of  the  Gospel  narratives  justifies  the 
conclusion  that  the  sacred  writers  also  intended  to 
present  these  statements  as  being  substantially  the  very 
words  of  Jesus.^ 

Why,  we  may  ask,  should  the  Saviour's  genuine 
thought  be  less  exactly  reproduced  through  indirect 
discourse?  Surely,  an  explicit  announcement  is  im- 
plied in  that  spontaneous  outburst  of  S.  Peter :  ''  Lord, 
far  be  it  from  Thee;  this  shall  not  be  unto  Thee!" 
Nor  will  we  be  apt  to  ascribe  to  tradition  that  atti- 
tude of  S.  Peter  which  drew  this  stern  rebuke  from 
Jesus :  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan,  because  thou 
savourest  not  the  things  that  are  of  God,  but  that  are 
of  men."  And  the  repeated  remarks,  the  sense  of 
which  Jesus'  disciples  did  not  at  first  perceive,  while 
they  retained  the  words  without  comprehending  them ; 
for  they  wondered  what  He  really  meant  thereby; 
their  great  sadness  in  feeling  the  presentiment  of  an 
unknown  evil ;  their  dread  to  ask  the  Master  about  the 
matter; — are  not  all  these  observations  taken  from 
real  life  and  in  admirable  correspondence  with  the 
true  state  of  the  Apostles'  own  minds  rather  than 
with  the  endeavors  of  the  early  Church?  Must  we 
not,  therefore,  perceive  therein  a  valuable  guarantee 
of  their  authenticity  ?  ^ 

1  Mk.  X.  33-34;  Mt.  XX.  18-19;  Lk.  xviii.  31-33;  cf.  Lk.  xvii. 
25.  Note  that  the  conjunction  "that"  (ort)  precedes  the 
present  tense  of  the  verb  ^£i,  thus:  Mk.  viii.  31  {otl  del)-, 
Mt.  xvi.  21 ;  Lk.  ix.  22.  In  Mk.  ix.  9  it  is  iva  . .  . .  ;  Mt.  xvii. 
19  (direct  discourse)  ;  Mk.  ix.  30  has  on  , , . ,  -^  Mt.  xvii.  21-22 
(direct  discourse)  ;  Lk.  ix.  44  (direct  discourse  emphasized 
by  the  forewarning:  "Lay  up  in  your  hearts  these  words"). 
Note,  too,  the  significant  remark  in  Mk.  viii.  32 :  "  And  He 
spoke  the  word  openly " ;  and  that  the  conjunction  "  that " 
{oTi)  does  not  necessarily  imply  indirect  discourse,  but  is 
often  used  to  introduce  direct  discourse.  Cf.  Mk.  vi.  2^ ', 
viii.  4;  X.  33;  xii.  19;  Mt.  vii.  22,;  xvi.  26;  xxvi.  yi,  74;  xxvii. 
43;  Lk.  i.  61;  ii.  23;  iv.  43;  xv.  27. 

-  Mk.  viii.  33;  Mt.  xvi.  22,;  Mk.  ix.  9;  Mk.  ix.  31;  Mt.  xvii. 
22;  Lk.  ix.  45;  xviii.  34. 


244  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

In  Wrede's  opinion,  the  Apostles'  alleged  failure 
to  understand  these  words  of  Christ  was  itself  a  con- 
viction in  S.  Mark's  mind.  He  might  also  say  the 
same  for  SS.  Matthew  and  Luke.  He  thinks  that 
it  is  meant  to  serve  as  an  explanation  of  the  fact  that 
Jesus  was  not  recognized  as  the  Messiah  before  His 
resurrection  despite  the  Messianic  declarations 
ascribed  to  Him  later.^ 

Loisy  says  that  ''  what  is  said  of  the  Apostles'  lack 
of  understandmg  may  almost  mean  what  is  asserted 
by  Wrede,  namely,  that  only  after  the  resurrection  did 
they  perceive  things  of  which  they  could  not  have 
previously  doubted."  But,  from  what  we  have  seen, 
we  can  judge  what  should  be  thought  of  this  in- 
genious, but  fanciful,  theory.^ 

We  may  conclude,  then,  that  from  the  standpoint  of 
exegetical  criticism  there  is  no  warrant  for  the  theory 
of  any  evolution-process  in  the  Messianic  conscious- 
ness during  the  course  of  Jesus'  ministry.  The  pro- 
posed hypotheses  on  the  subject  proceed  rather  from 
philosophy  than  from  exegesis.  In  face  of  the  Gos- 
pel texts  they  are  but  clever  attempts  at  psycholog- 
ical reconstruction,  and  tend  to  reproduce,  in  a  con- 
jectural way,  the  mode  in  which  the  phenomenon  of 
His  consciousness  would  act  if  it  were  to  follow  the 
ordinary  laws  of  the  human  soul :  they  are  not  based 
upon  facts. 

The  Baptism.  —  The  hypotheses  which  seek  to 
explain  the  origin  of  Messianic  consciousness  have 
no  firmer  basis  than  the  others  previously  discussed. 
It  is  useless  to  assign  its  origin  to  the  baptism  of 
Jesus.  Thus,  O.  Holtzmann  asserts  that  the  Saviour, 
in  receiving  the  Baptism  of  Penance,  thought  Himself 
an  ordinary  sinner  who  was  called  to  membership  in 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  but  who  never  imagined  that  He 

^  Wrede,  op.  cit.,  1901. 

2  Loisy,  Rev.  d'Hist.,  etc.,  1903,  p.  297. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  245 

would  become  its  Founder.  But  we  know  that  the 
whole  career  of  Jesus  stands  as  a  solid  argument 
against  such  an  interpretation.  How  so?  Because 
His  very  method  in  calling  others  to  holiness ;  the  as- 
surance with  He  proclaims  Himself  as  the  Mediator 
for  attaining  to  God  and  obtaining  the  Kingdom;  the 
power  which  He  assumes  to  pardon  sinners  Himself, 
to  compel  men  to  leave  all  things  that  they  may  follow 
Him,  to  pass  supreme  judgment  upon  the  living  and 
the  dead ; — all  this,  along  with  the  incomparable  moral 
perfection  visible  alike  in  His  conduct  as  in  His  words, 
utterly  dispels  the  idea  that  He  could  ever  have  thought 
Himself  to  be  a  sinner. 

What,  indeed,  can  preclude  the  existence  of  that 
intimate,  deep,  and  unique  union  which  Jesus  knew 
that  He  had  with  His  father?  Stapfer  calls  it  "a 
union  with  God  which  nothing  in  the  past  had  ever 
troubled,  and  which  nothing  troubled  in  the  present. 
.  .  .  This  is  why  we  defined  as  holiness  His  perfect 
union  with  God,  His  constant  and  inalterable  feeling 
of  the  entire  approval  of  Him  whom  He  called  the 
Father ;  in  a  word,  the  consciousness  of  a  cloudless  in- 
tegrity. .  .  .  He  was  sure  of  Himself,  sure  of  God, 
sure  of  His  own  hoHness.  His  soul  bore  no  scars, 
for  it  had  never  received  a  wound,  never  suffered  a 
moral  defeat.  ...  It  is  impossible  to  prove  directly 
His  perfect  holiness ;  but  it  can  be  proved  that  He  al- 
ways had  a  consciousness  of  integrity,  and  that  He 
was  never  known  to  repent."  ^ 

As  Harnack  well  says :  "  Where  shall  we  find  the 
man  who  has  broken  with  His  past  in  order  to  sum- 
mon others  to  repentance,  but  who,  through  it  all, 
never  speaks  of  His  own  repentance  ?  "  ^ 

The  foregoing  theory  might  be  intelligible  enough  if 
it  were  true  that,   during  His   earthly  career,  Jesus 

1  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  Before  His  Ministry,  pp.  162,  165, 
166. 

2  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity  f  p.  ^6, 


246  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

was  aware  of  His  role  as  the  atoning  victim  for  sin 
and  the  world's  Redeemer.  That  He  was  so  convinced 
seems  to  follow  not  only  from  the  Fourth  Gospel,  but 
also  from  the  text  of  S.  Mark's  gospel  and  from  the 
Synoptic  accounts  of  the  Last  Supper.  S.  Mark  says 
that  ''  the  Son  of  Man  is  come  to  minister  and  to 
give  His  life  as  a  redemption  for  many."  ^ 

The  authenticity  of  the  Synoptic  accounts  of  the 
Last  Supper  is  admitted  by  O.  Holtzmann,  Stapfer, 
Harnack,  B.  Weiss,  and  Wendt.  It  is,  therefore,  only 
mere  prejudice  that  could  lead  Loisy  to  assert  that 
these  very  accounts  ''  have  all  come  more  or  less  under 
the  influence  of  the  PauHne  theology."  And  he  also 
says  that  "  it  seems  certain  that,  if  Christ  did  not  an- 
nounce His  death  in  the  precise  terms  of  the  Gospel 
tradition.  He  nevertheless  proved  it  and  gave  to  it  a 
meaning  conformable  with  the  general  significance 
which  He  gave  to  His  mission."  ^ 

The  fact  is,  we  think,  that  the  theology  of  the  early 
Church  is  appreciable  only  in  the  light  of  the  Saviour's 
own  declarations  whereby  it  was  assuredly  influenced. 
For  instance,  although  unquestionably  authentic,  we 
cannot  appreciate  the  fact  of  the  institution  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist  apart  from  the  idea  of  sacrifice  which 
so  completely  pervades  it.  And  does  not  the  idea  of 
the  Redemption,  moreover,  undoubtedly  arise  from  the 
historic,  yet  appealing  accounts  of  Jesus'  sufferings? 
"  In  His  sorrows,"  says  Loisy,  "  we  feel  that  there  is 
something  divine  which  uplifts  Him  above  even  the 
best  of  mankind."  If,  then,  Jesus  had  ever  felt 
Himself  obliged  to  do  penance  and  to  repent,  He 
would  hardly  have  assumed  such  a  position  before 
God  and  men.^ 

1  Mk.  X.  45;  Mk.  X.  24;  Mt.  xxvi.  28;  Lk.  xxii.  19  and  20; 
cf.  I  Cor.  xi.  24-25. 

2  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  365,  Ger.  ed. ;  Stapfer,  Jesus 
Christ  During  His  Ministry,  p.  265;  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  170; 
Weiss,  B.,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii.  p.  195;  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  505, 
Ger.  ed. ;  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  80 ;  Rev.  d'Hist.,  1902,  p.  175. 

3  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  p.  38. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  247 

S.  Matthew's  account  of  Jesus'  baptism,  indeed,  sug- 
gests another  reason  for  His  manner  of  acting  on  that 
solemn  occasion  than  the  one  mentioned  by  O.  Holtz- 
mann.  We  are  told  "that  when  John  the  Baptist  be- 
held Jesus  among  the  crowd  of  penitents,  he  per- 
sistently declined  to  baptize  One  by  whom  he  should 
be  baptized  and  the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  he  felt 
himself  unworthy  to  loose.  "  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now," 
replies  the  Saviour ;  "  for  so  it  becometh  us  to  ful- 
fill all  justice."  This  reply  is  of  such  a  kind,  indeed, 
that  we  cannot  assign  it  to  the  influence  of  a  later 
Gospel  tradition.  We  should  probably  look  for  a 
reply  which  would  involve  a  different  meaning,  were 
we  to  seek  to  reconcile  the  idea  implied  in  the  baptism 
of  penance  with  what  might  be  thought  derogatory  to 
the  holiness  of  the  Messiah.  Jesus  prudently  acknowl- 
edges the  Baptist's  astonishment  as  legitimate,  and 
shows  that  He  wants  to  freely  submit  to  a  baptism 
which  was  not  really  meant  for  Him.  So  that,  if  He 
actually  does  receive  this  baptism,  it  is  because,  as  He 
says,  "  it  becometh  us  to  fulfill  all  justice."  ^ 

What  is  really  meant?  Wendt  thinks  that  the  bap- 
tism administered  by  John  was  not  so  much  the  re- 
nouncement of  sin  as  the  direction  of  one's  Hfe  to- 
wards a  perfect  fulfilment  of  God's  will ;  and  that  it 
is  thus  plain  how,  Jesus  in  spite  of,  or  rather  owing  to 
His  deep  yearnings  for  a  filial  obedience  to  the  divine 
will,  felt  Himself  impelled  to  receive  this  baptism.^ 

Another  motive  for  Jesus'  procedure  is  suggested 
by  B.  Weiss,  who  says :  "  The  symbolism  of  baptism 
manifestly  referred  to  the  complete  conclusion  of  the 
life  up  to  that  point,  and  to  the  commencement  of  a 
new  Hfe  of  a  totally  different  nature.  To  the  sinful 
people  it  formed  the  conclusion  of  their  Hfe  of  sin,  and 
the  beginning  of  a  new  one  that  was  free  from  sin. 
...  It  could  not  be  all  this  to  Him  who  was  without 

1  Mt.  iii.  15.  ?  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  100. 


248  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

spot;  but  for  Him,  too,  it  marked  the  close  of  His 
former  life,  and  the  commencement  of  one  perfectly 
new ;  the  new  life  to  which  He  emerged  did  not  differ 
from  the  earlier  one  by  reason  of  its  sinlessness,  but 
only  by  its  being  dedicated  from  that  time  forward  to 
His  great  divine  calling."  ^  And,  if  we  would  believe 
Sanday,  it  was  "the  inauguration  of  a  new  phase  in 
the  accomplishment  of  His  mission."  ^ 

The  attitude  of  Jesus,  indeed,  is  easily  explained  if 
we  admit  that,  in  seeking  baptism.  He  realized  Him- 
self to  be  the  "  Lamb  of  God  "  who  bore  the  sins  of 
the  world  in  order  that  He  might  expiate  for  them 
through  His  sufferings  and  death.  This  idea  is  im- 
plied in  the  account  given  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and 
it  is  evidently  adapted  fully  to  the  Synoptic  texts.  If, 
at  the  baptism,  Jesus  desired  to  offer  publicly,  and  in 
some  sort  officially,  this  self-oblation  as  the  victim  for 
sin, — such  is  the  role  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
assigns  to  Him  from  the  first  moment  of  His  earthly 
life, — we  can  readily  understand  the  words  of  the 
heavenly  Father  who  recognized  His  inward  holiness 
and  His  outward  acts  of  penance  when  He  said :  "  This 
is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased." 

The  submission  of  Jesus  to  the  baptism  of  John  is, 
therefore,  explained  quite  otherwise  than  by  supposing 
that  He  intended  to  do  penance  for  His  own  sins, 
since  this  would  be  incompatible  with  His  conscious- 
ness of  His  Messiahship.  O.  Holtzmann,  however, 
whom  Stapfer  and  Wendt  also  follow,  alleges  a  new 
reason  in  behalf  of  his  hypothesis.  These  critics  say 
that  the  baptism,  thus  prominently  placed  as  the  cul- 
minating point  in  Christ's  life  and  the  beginning  of 
His  entire  ministry,  must  have  played  a  decisive  part 
in  the  formation  of  His  ideas  about  His  mission ;  more- 
over, the  vision  which  accompanied  it  was  apparently 

^  Weiss,  B.,  op.  cit.,  col.  i,  p.  323. 

2  Sanday,  art. ;  Jesus  Christ,  H.  D.,  p.  61 1, 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  249 

meant  only  for  the  Saviour,  and  hence  must  be  con- 
sidered, it  would  seem,  in  relation  to  His  own  soul. 

But  this  interpretation  also  hardly  bears  out  several 
important  facts  that  may  be  mentioned.  Is  it,  in- 
deed, quite  certain  that  the  miraculous  incident  of  the 
vision  was  witnessed  by  none  except  Jesus?  The 
Synoptics  simply  relate  the  Saviour's  vision,  but  with- 
out specifying  that  it  was  intended  only  for  Him. 
S.  Matthew's  account  rather  implies  the  Baptist  was 
a  witness  of  this  miracle :  ''  John  stayed  Him,  saying : 
I  ought  to  be  baptized  by  Thee,  and,  comest  Thou  to 
me?  And  Jesus,  answering,  said  to  him:  Suffer  it  to 
be  so  now.  For  so  it  becometh  us  to  fulfill  all  justice. 
Then  He  suffered  him.  And  Jesus,  being  baptized, 
forthwith  came  out  of  the  water:  and  lo,  the  heavens 
were  opened  to  Him;  and  He  saw  the  Spirit  of  God 
descending  as  a  dove,  and  coming  upon  Him.  And 
behold,  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  This  is  my  be- 
loved Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  The  pres- 
ence of  John,  in  fact,  is  expressly  stated  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel :  ''And  John  gave  testimony,  saying,  I  saw  the 
Spirit  coming  down,  as  a  dove,  from  heaven,  and  He 
remained  upon  Him.  .  .  .  And  I  saw,  and  I  gave  testi- 
mony that  this  is  the  Son  of  God."  ^ 

In  this  hypothesis,  admitted  by  B.  Weiss  and  San- 
day,  the  miraculous  apparition  and  voice  would  have 
been  made,  at  least  partially,  in  order  to  proclaim  the 
public  manifestation  of  Jesus  as  Messiah.  Thus,  B. 
Weiss  alludes  to  Mt.  iii.  14  which  represents  John  as 
being  aware  of  Jesus'  Messiahship,  and  also  to  the  im- 
personal character  of  the  words  in  verse  17:  This  is 
my  beloved  Son.  "  It  is  beyond  doubt,"  he  says,  "  that 
the  oldest  form  of  the  tradition  told  of  a  vision  in 
which  the  Baptist  had  a  share."  While  Sanday  says : 
"  We  are  not  obliged  to  choose  between  the  Synoptic 
and  the  Johannine  account  of  the  witnesses  of  the 

iMt.  iii.  14;  Jo.  i.  Z2,  34. 


250  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

supernatural  signs.  The  two  accounts  may  be  re- 
garded as  complementary  rather  than  contradictory."  ^ 

Moreover,  if  the  vision  and  the  voice  were  meant 
only  for  Jesus,  they  might  have,  even  for  Him,  a 
meaning  quite  different  from  the  one  alleged  by  the 
critics  quoted  above.  In  these  events  we  may  really 
perceive  the  providential  sign  which  Christ  was  await- 
ing before  entering  upon  His  ministry,  the  visible 
manifestation  of  His  Father's  will  that  He  should  be- 
gin His  career  as  Messiah.  Nay,  we  may  actually 
perceive  therein  the  official  consecration,  as  it  were, 
of  the  Saviour  for  His  work,  His  solemn  and  most 
special  investiture  by  the  Holy  Spirit  for  His  destined 
mission.  Not,  indeed,  that  hitherto  He  was  deprived 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  that,  in  His  humble,  retired 
Hfe  at  Nazareth,  the  Spirit  had  not,  seemingly,  acted 
in  and  through  Him  as  it  was  to  do  later  in  so  striking 
and  unusual  a  manner.  Now  is  the  hour  of  His  pub- 
lic ministry:  the  hour  of  great  revelations  and 
miracles.  The  Spirit  of  God  solemnly  descends  upon 
Him  and  takes  special  possession  of  Him  with  direct 
reference  to  His  new  mode  of  life.  The  Spirit,  as  it 
were,  places  Him  more  closely  under  its  protection, 
— endows  Him  with  special  powers  and  gifts  which 
were  not  exerted  during  His  Hidden  Life,  but  were 
now  to  have  a  bearing  upon  His  mission.  Hence  it  is 
that,  soon  after  His  baptism,  Jesus  is  led  into  the 
Judean  desert  "  by  the  Spirit " ;  that,  in  the  power 
of  the  Spirit,  He  returns  to  Galilee;  that,  by  the 
power  of  the  same  divine  Spirit,  He  casts  out  the 
demons  from  the  souls  of  the  possessed  persons.^ 

"  Henceforth,"    says    B.    Weiss,   "  Jesus   would  be 

1  Weiss,  B.,  op.  cit.,  p.  324;  Sanday,  art.:  Jesus  Christ,  H. 
D.,  p.  611 ;  cf.  Jo.  i.  31 :  "  And  I  knew  Him  not,  but,  that  He 
may  be  made  manifest  in  Israel,  therefore  I  am  come  bap- 
tizing with  water." 

2  Mk.  i.  12;  Mt.  iv.  i;  Lk.  iv.  i;  Lk.  iv.  14;  Mt.  3cii.  cf. 
Lk.  xi.  I ;  Mk.  iii.  29. 


I 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


251 


under  the  continuous  impulse  of  the  Spirit  who  en- 
ables Him  to  say  and  to  do  what  His  Messianic  voca- 
tion demands.  He  assumes  this  mission  in  order 
that  through  His  works  of  grace  and  mercy  God  may 
be  revealed  unto  His  people."  ^ 

The  solemn  event  of  the  baptism,  indeed,  is  not 
necessarily  the  first  time  that  the  Holy  Spirit  pos- 
sessed Jesus.  From  the  first  instant  of  His  concep- 
tion, as  the  Gospel  of  the  infancy  testifies,  He  may 
have  been  substantially  pervaded  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
and,  until  His  baptism,  have  lived  in  intimate  de- 
pendence upon  this  divine  Spirit  and  in  the  conviction 
of  His  union  with  Him.  The  episode  at  the  Jordan  in 
nowise  prevents  such  an  admission ;  for,  in  that  case, 
there  is  question  only  and  directly  of  a  new  mode  in 
Jesus'  endowment  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  a  new  phase 
that  corresponds  with  the  new  kind  of  existence  en- 
joyed by  the  Saviour  (i.  e.  as  the  God-Man).  Nor, 
again,  are  we  at  all  obliged  to  believe  that  the  miracu- 
lous event  had  any  real  influence  upon  the  formation  of 
Jesus'  conviction  of  His  Messiahship.  We  may  rightly 
assert  that,  from  the  view-point  of  the  fulfilment  of 
His  mission,  a  new  kind  of  life  began  for  Jesus,  the 
Christ.  The  Baptism  was  "  the  starting-point  "  of  His 
public  ministry ;  and,  as  such,  we  may  call  it  "  an  im- 
portant moment,"  if  by  this  we  mean  "  a  decisive 
moment,"  in  His  career.  If,  however,  we  go  further 
and  suppose  that  the  event  of  the  baptism  marks  an 
important  date  in  the  "  inward  development "  of  the 
Saviour,  that  it  could  have  decidedly  influenced  "  the 
development  of  His  Messianic  consciousness,"  we  are 
going  beyond  what  the  texts  imply  and  also  the  facts 
of  history. 

Loisy  claims  that  his  theory  has  a  Patristic  basis, 
as  also  the  support  of  a  certain  number  of  Catholic 
scholars.     Of  Christ's  baptism  he  says  that  "  the  tra- 

1  Weiss,  B.,  op.  cit.,  p.  330,  vol  i. 


252  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ditional  exegesis  usually  sees  no  more  in  this  event 
than  the  very  occasion  on  which  Christ  chose  to  reveal 
Himself  and  to  institute  Christian  baptism.  The 
texts  themselves  are  proof  against  those  who  might 
care  to  force  the  theological  method  upon  history; 
and  we  easily  understand  why,  like  the  Church 
Fathers,  several  Catholic  scholars  maintain  that  the 
baptism  indicates  an  important  moment  not  solely  for 
the  outward  manifestation  of  His  divine  life  but  also 
for  His  interior  soul-development."  ^ 

We  may  say  that,  between  Loisy's  own  interpreta- 
tion and  that  which  he  particularly  attributes  to  "  the 
traditional  exegesis,"  we  can  assign  another  which  is 
even  more  conformable  to  criticism  and  to  genuine 
tradition.  It  is  the  theory  which  we  have  endeavored 
to  present.  H  Loisy's  theory  is  considered  unrehable, 
our  own  may  supply  its  place.  Loisy,  indeed,  is  far 
from  putting  himself  forward  as  a  critic;  nor  did  we 
see  what  Church  Fathers,  or  Catholic  scholars  he  can 
produce  in  his  support.  It  is  remarkable,  too,  how 
often  Loisy  so  cautiously  states  his  opinions !  For 
instance :  *'  We  cannot  say  that,  according  to  the 
Synoptic  tradition,  the  baptism  of  Christ  appeared  to 
be  the  solemn  consecration  of  His  Messianic  role. 
.  .  .  The  receiving  of  the  baptism  of  John  appears  to 
have  been  a  decisive  moment  in  the  career  of  the 
Saviour.  .  .  .  The  circumstance  of  the  baptism  is  like 
a  starting-point  in  the  ministry  of  the  Saviour."  ^ 

Indeed,  that  John  the  Baptist,  the  precursor,  was 
aware  of  the  near  approach  of  the  Messiah  is  shown 
ahke  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  in  the  three  Synoptics. 
What  right,  therefore,  have  we  to  suppress  such  testi- 
mony? Why  should  we  not  see  in  it  a  significant 
guarantee  of  Jesus'  own  consciousness  of  His  Messiah' 
ship  on  His  arrival  at  the  Jordan?     At  all  events,  we 

1  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  p.  233. 

^  Loisy,  ihid.,  p.  169 ;  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  20, 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


253 


have  seen  how  S.  Matthew's  gospel  formally  wit- 
nesses this  Messianic  consciousness  of  the  Saviour 
from  the  time  that  He  first  met  John  the  Baptist. 

A  careful  critic  of  the  Synoptic  gospels  will,  there- 
fore, undoubtedly  conclude  that,  at  the  baptism,  there 
occurred  a  solemn  declaration  of  Jesus'  divine  Son- 
ship,  as  also  a  public  manifestation  of  His  dignity 
as  Messiah,  His  official  consecration,  we  may  say,  as 
Messiah  of  the  Lord,  and  His  special  endowment  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  view  of  His  mission's  fulfilment. 
But  naught  shows  that  previously  and  secretly  He 
was  not  the  Messiah-Son  of  God  and  that  He  did  not 
know  Himself  to  be  such.  On  the  contrary,  we  may 
fully  accept  the  testimony  of  the  first  Gospel  which, 
like  the  fourth,  presents  Jesus  as  being  fully  aware 
of  His  Messiahship  even  at  His  meeting  with  the 
Precursor. 

The  Divine  Sonship. — H  we  are  not  authorized, 
therefore,  in  assigning  the  origin  of  the  Messianic 
consciousness  to  the  baptism,  should  we,  at  least, 
maintain  that  the  filial  consciousness,  that  is,  Jesus' 
conviction  of  His  divine  Sonship,  prepared  the  way 
for  it?  Apparently  not.  From  the  view-point  of 
exegetical  criticism,  there  is  naught  in  the  Gospels  to 
allow  us  to  suppose  that  Jesus'  consciousness  of  being 
the  Son  of  God  preceded  His  conviction  of  being  the 
Messiah,  nor  that  it,  in  the  least,  helped  to  form  it. 
Of  course,  in  the  Gospel  accounts,  such  as  those  of 
the  baptism,  of  the  temptation,  of  the  cure  of  the 
demoniacs,  the  title  "  Son  of  God  "  is  apparently  prior 
to  that  of  "  Messiah  " ;  but,  in  reality,  from  what  we 
can  see,  the  former  title  includes  the  latter.  The 
Son  of  God  who  receives  baptism  is  the  Chosen  Ser- 
vant, the  privileged  Messiah  of  the  Almighty,  and  in 
receiving  the  Holy  Spirit,  He  is  thereby  officially 
consecrated  for  His  work.  The  Son  of  God  who  is 
tempted  in  the  desert  is  also  the  Messiah  whose  mis- 
sion,   so    thoroughly    spiritual,    was    destined    to    be 


^54  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPBL 

carried  on  in  the  spirit  of  humility,  of  dependence 
upon  God,  of  self-sacrifice,  thus  contrasting  with  the 
selfish,  earthly  views  suggested  by  the  Tempter.  As  is 
plain  from  the  fairest  criticism  of  the  texts,  the  Gos- 
pel testimony  proves  that  Jesus  is  proclaimed,  and 
declares  Himself  to  be  always  and  in  the  same  sense 
the  Son  of  God  and  the  Messiah.  Nowhere  is  it 
suggested  that  He  passed  from  the  knowledge  of 
His  divine  Sonship  to  that  of  His  Messianic  charac- 
ter. These  two  states  of  consciousness  seem  to  co- 
exist together :  the  one  pervades  the  other  at  the  same 
time. 

Hence,  there  is  no  ground  for  the  assertion  of 
Loisy,  who,  after  stating  that  "  we  cannot  certainly 
conclude  from  these  texts  the  origin  of  the  Messianic 
consciousness  in  Jesus'  soul,"  also  adds  that  ^'  the 
critic  may  conjecture  that  conviction  of  Sonship  pre- 
ceded and  prepared  for  the  Messianic  consciousness." 
To  be  sure,  Loisy  speaks  of  a  possible  conjecture 
simply.  But  still,  he  seems  to  go  too  far  in  justify- 
ing it  in  the  name  of  criticism.^ 

Harnack,  too,  in  making  the  following  remark 
which  is  also  a  condemnation  of  his  own  method, 
seems  to  have  fully  understood  this  fact.  "  We  shall 
never  fathom,"  he  writes,  "  the  inward  development 
by  which  Jesus  passed  from  the  assurance  that  He 
was  the  Son  of  God  to  the  other  assurance  that  He 
was  the  promised  Messiah."  ^ 

We  may,  therefore,  conclude  that  there  is  nothing 
to  keep  us  from  admitting  that  the  Messianic  con- 
sciousness is  not  only  prior  to  Jesus*  baptism,  but  also 
that  it  is  as  ancient  as  His  assurance  of  His  divine 
Sonship.  Loisy  thinks  that  he  may  maintain  that 
"  Jesus  calls  Himself  the  only  Son  of  God  in  the 
measure  that  He  avows  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah. 

1  Loisy,  Le  Quair.  Evang.,  p.  103. 

2  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  148. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


255 


Hence  will  the  historian  infer,  hypothetically,  that  He 
believes  Himself  the  Son  of  God  because  He  believes 
Himself  the  Messiah."  But  we  may  quite  justly 
reply  that  Jesus  proclaims  Himself  the  Messiah  and 
the  Son  of  God  at  the  same  time,  and  that,  there- 
fore, He  beheved  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah  inasmuch 
as  He  believed  Himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God.^ 

The  Incarnation.  —  Among  the  critics  whose 
theories  we  have  discussed,  there  are  some  who  have 
made  rather  significant  statements  about  Jesus  'con- 
sciousness of  His  divine  Sonship.  Thus  it  is  that 
Harnack,  although  not  positively  asserting  that  Jesus 
was  God's  only-begotten  Son,  firmly  believes  that,  in 
some  way,  He  was  Himself  fully  convinced  of  this 
fact.  "  How  He  came  to  this  consciousness  of  the 
unique  character  of  His  relation  to  God  as  Son,"  he 
says :  "  how  He  came  to  the  consciousness  of  His 
power,  and  to  the  consciousness  of  the  obligation  and 
the  mission  which  this  power  carries  with  it,  is  His 
secret,  and  no  psychology  will  ever  fathom  it.  The 
confidence  with  which  John  makes  Him  address  the 
Father :  '  Thou  hast  loved  Me  before  the  world  was 
created,'  is,  undoubtedly,  the  direct  reflection  of  the 
certainty  with  which  Jesus  Himself  spoke."  ^ 

But,  within  the  sphere  of  the  Saviour's  conscious- 
ness, there  is  no  reason  to  draw  a  Hne  of  separation 
between  His  quality  of  Messiah  and  His  quality  of 
Son  of  God.  If  He  deemed  Himself  chosen  as  God's 
eternal  Son  from  all  eternity.  He  must  have  believed 
Himself  predestined  from  all  eternity  to  be  the 
Messiah.  This  point  is  apparently  suggested  by  Har- 
nack when  he  speaks  both  of  the  ''  power  "  which  es- 
pecially characterized  Jesus'  divine  filiation  and  of  the 
"  duty  "  or  the  mission  implied  by  such  power. 

B.  Weiss  says  that  as  far  back  as  Jesus  could  cast 

1  Loisy,   op.   cit.,  pp.   105-106. 

2  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  138. 


256  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

His  eyes  into  His  past  life,  He  perceived  no  moment 
when  God  had  made  choice  of  Him,  when  He  had  be- 
gun to  be  the  object  of  His  love.  He  was  aware  of 
being  beloved  by  God;  for  He  had  learnt  to  look  to- 
wards His  Father,  and  knew  that  in  this  love  lay  the 
principle  of  His  election  as  Messiah.  It  was  this 
line  of  thought  which  must  have  led  Jesus  to  the  con- 
viction that  He  was  the  object  of  God's  love  prior  to 
His  earthly  existence,  and  that  His  election  as  Messiah 
originated  in  the  depths  of  eternity.^ 

Does  not  this  fact,  indeed,  stand  in  remarkable 
agreement  with  the  account  presented  in  the  Gospel 
of  the  Infancy?  As  is  shown  in  the  first  two  chap- 
ters of  SS.  Mark  and  Luke,  Jesus  is  the  begotten  Son 
of  God,  and  the  Messiah  of  the  Lord.  From  the  first, 
in  virtue  of  His  Father's  eternal  predilection,  Jesus 
maintains  His  character  of  Messiah  and  Son  of  God: 
of  this  fact  His  own  consciousness  gives  testimony. 

"  If  Jesus  was  conscious  of  no  beginning  in  His 
peculiar  relationship  to  God,"  says  Dalman,  '^  it  must, 
of  course,  have  had  its  genesis  with  His  birth;  and, 
further,  God  must  have  so  participated  in  assigning 
that  position,  that  the  human  factors  concerned  fell 
entirely  in  the  back-ground."  ^ 

It  would  have  been  very  strange,  however,  if  so 
extraordinary  a  conviction  had  been  preceded  by  a 
period  of  ignorance  wherein  the  Saviour  was  indis- 
tinguishable from  other  men  in  His  relationship  with 
God.  How  could  He  believe  Himself  the  eternal  ob- 
ject of  His  Father's  love,  singled  out  before  His  birth 
for  the  Messianic  vocation,  if  He  had  recalled  one  in- 
stant in  His  Hfe  when  He  was  unaware  of  His  divine 
filiation  and  of  His  mission? 

Wendt,  indeed,  does  not  hesitate  to  assign  Jesus' 
conviction  of  being  the  Son  of  God  to  the  very  awak- 
ening of  His  religious  consciousness;  and  that  how- 


1  Weiss,  B.,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  297. 

2  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  286. 


) 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY 


2S7 


ever  early  we  must  place  the  origin  of  His  religious 
convictions,  He  always  felt  Himself  to  be  in  a  rela- 
tion of  sonship  with  God.  Why,-  then,  should  we  not 
ascribe  the  same  antiquity  to  His  consciousness  of 
being  the  Messiah  ?  ^ 

In  fact,  the  declaration  which  the  Gospel  of  the  In- 
fancy attributes  to  Jesus  during  His  sojourn  among 
the  doctors  in  the  Temple  seems  to  refer  quite  as 
much  to  His  consciousness  of  Messiahship  as  to  that 
of  His  divine  Sonship.  "  Did  ye  not  know,"  he  asks, 
"  that  I  must  be  about  My  Father's  business  ?"  The 
historicity  of  this  account,  moreover,  is  considered  un- 
questionable by  such  critics  as  Stapfer,  O.  Holtzmann, 
and  B.  Weiss.^ 

"  The  calm  assurance  with  which  He  spoke  of  God 
as  His  Father,"  observes  Wendt,  "  and  of  His  sojourn 
in  His  Father's  house  as  if  it  were  a  matter  of  course, 
and  the  child-like  naivete  and  simplicity  of  judgment 
with  which  He  perceived  it  a  necessary  duty  to  tarry  in 
His  heavenly  Father's  house  in  spite  of  His  parents' 
departure  and  their  anxious  quest  of  Him,  all  these 
traits  bear  evidently  the  stamp  of  truth.  We  know 
not  from  what  source  Luke  derived  this  narrative ;  but 
we  can  say  that  it  gives  us  a  thoroughly  true  and 
natural  picture  of  the  spiritual  life  of  Jesus  as  it 
existed  at  the  dawn  of  His  earthly  development."  ^ 

On  this  occasion,  too,  Jesus  is  apparently  aware  of 
His  Messiahship  as  well  as  of  His  divine  Sonship. 
And,  despite  himself,  O.  Holtzmann  seems  to  admit 
as  much ;  for  he  says  that,  in  this  account  the  youthful 
Jesus  is  described  under  an  aspect  exactly  corres- 
ponding with  what,  one  day,  His  works  shall  manifest.* 

1  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  97. 

2  Lk.  ii.  49 ;  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  Before  His  Ministry,  p. 
40;  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  100;  Weiss,  B.,  op,  cit.,  vol.  i, 
p.  278. 

3  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  99. 

*  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  100. 

17 


258  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

So  significant,  indeed,  is  this  fact  that  to  explain 
it  critics  feel  bound  to  assign  the  origin  of  His  Mes- 
sianic consciousness  "at  a  period  prior  to  His  baptism 
and  during  His  childhood.  In  their  view,  it  had  been 
early  latent  in  Jesus'  soul  and  the  vision  at  the  bap- 
tism served  simply  to  lead  it  onward  to  a  full  ex- 
pansion. 

"  It  is  not,  indeed,  to  be  assumed,"  says  O.  Holtz- 
mann,  "  that  the  special  conception  of  the  will  of  God 
which  Jesus  set  forth  underwent  at  that  time  any 
transformation.  But  this  evangel,  which  had  hitherto 
slumbered  in  Him,  required  a  special  impulse  in  order 
that  what  was  in  His  mind  might  be  brought  to  birth, 
and  so  be  made  useful  to  the  world.  And  this  impulse 
was  imparted  to  Him  in  the  inspiring  revelation  made 
to  Him  beside  the  Jordan."  ^ 

And  Wendt  remarks  that  "  the  difference  in  the 
case  of  Paul  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  miraculous  re- 
velation caused  Him  to  break  entirely  with  His  past, 
and  with  His  whole  previous  modes  of  view  and 
course  of  life;  whilst  for  Jesus  the  revelation  rather 
disclosed  the  goal  which  formed  the  terminus  of  the 
direct  line  in  which  He  was  going."  ^ 

Such  admissions  are  noteworthy,  and  supply  the 
best  proof  of  the  unusual  meaning  which  must  be  re- 
cognized in  the  declaration  of  the  Holy  Child  Jesus. 
To  one  who  refuses  to  see  in  the  miraculous  vision  at 
the  baptism  a  meaning  which  it  does  not  necessarily 
possess;  to  one  who  refuses  to  be  influenced  by  the 
rather  rationalistic  prejudice  that  such  consciousness 
could  not  be  found  in  a  twelve-year-old  child,  the 
Gospel  account  would  seem  to  prove  clearly  that  the 
Saviour  was  aware  of  His  Messiahship  as  also  of  His 
divine  Sonship  during  His  pilgrimage  to  the  Temple 
as  well  as  at' His  baptism. 

1  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  135,  n.  I. 

2  Wendt,  op.  cit,  p.  97. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY  259 

"  We  cannot  find  in  that  expression,"  observes  B. 
Weiss,  "  even  an  allusion  to  His  Messianic  calling, 
even  supposing  that  we  should  seek  to  explain  such  an 
allusion  as  arising  merely  from  a  presentiment  or  fore- 
boding of  His  destiny;  for,  apart  from  the  circum- 
stance that  it  is  not  what  lies  primarily  in  the  word, 
we  should  thereby  also  step  over  the  impossible  bound- 
ary-line which  is  drawn  around  the  consciousness  of 
this  stage  of  life."  ^ 

Assuredly,  even  from  the  beginning  of  His  earthly 
life  as  also  throughout  its  course,  Christ's  conviction 
of  being  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Messiah  is  so  re- 
markable for  its  calm  confidence  and  seems  to  spring 
so  freely  from  His  inmost  being,  that  it  appears  to 
be  somehow  inborn  and  connatural  to  Him.  We  may, 
then,  find  it  interesting  to  give  the  views  of  some 
critics  on  this  matter. 

"  Everything  seems  to  pour  from  Him  naturally," 
writes  Harnack,  "  as  though  it  could  not  do  other- 
wise, like  a  spring  from  the  depths  of  the  earth,  clear 
and  unchecked  in  its  flow."  ^ 

While  Dalman  thinks  that  "  it  seems  to  be  an  in- 
nate property  of  His  personality,  seeing  that  He,  as 
distinct  from  all  others,  holds  for  His  own  the  claim 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  world,  and  the  immediate 
knowledge  of  God,  just  as  a  son,  by  right  of  birth,  be- 
comes an  heir,  and,  by  growing  up  from  childhood  in 
undivided  fellowship  with  the  father,  enters  into  that 
spiritual  relationship  with  the  father  which  is  natural 
for  the  child."  ^ 

Wernle,  also,  thinks  that  the  basis  of  Jesus'  Mes- 
sianic consciousness  was  an  "  inner  compulsion,"  not 
necessarily  connected  with  the  vision  at  the  baptism, 
and  the  origin  of  which  remains  a  mystery.     "  It  is 

1  Weiss,  B.,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  279. 

2  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  36, 

3  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  285. 


26o  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

only  honest  to  confess,"  he  says,  "  that  this  origin  is 
a  mystery  to  us :  we  know  nothing  about  it.  All  that 
we  can  say  is  how  this  consciousness  did  not  arise  in 
Jesus.  It  was  not  through  slowly  matured  reflections 
of  an  intellectual  nature.  .  .  .  Nor,  again,  was  it 
owing  to  the  influence  of  His  surroundings.  .  .  .  The 
fact,  too,  that  Jesus  appears  from  the  very  first  with 
unswerving  constancy  and  immovable  certainty  as  one 
sent  by  God  causes  us  to  abandon  both  explanations. 
There  is  nowhere  any  hesitation,  or  doubt,  or  develop- 
ment from  presentiments  to  certainty.  Jesus  learns 
new  things  as  to  the  manner  of  His  calling,  but  never 
anything  fresh  as  to  the  fact  itself.  He  acts  His 
whole  life  under  the  stress  of  compulsion.  He  knows 
Himself,  nay,  driven  by  God,  He  has  only  one  choice : 
to  obey  or  to  disobey.  .  .  .  The  consciousness  of  His 
call  does  not  depend  upon  voices  and  visions,  which 
everyone  who  has  not  himself  experienced  them  is  at 
liberty  to  doubt,  but  simply  upon  inner  compulsion. 
How  this  compulsion  came  upon  Him,  whether  it  was 
in  the  end  connected  with  some  visionary  experience, 
that  is  not  for  us  to  know."  ^ 

Loisy  likewise  draws  attention  to  the  Saviour's 
"  simple  and  profound  intuitions  of  soul,"  the  "  superb 
assurance  of  His  faith,"  His  "  irresistible  impulse " 
to  follow  the  Messianic  summons.  He  further  re- 
marks: ''We  may  say  that  His  life-impulse  is  reli- 
gious, and  we  may  add,  uniquely,  ardently  religious. 
If  O.  Holtzmann  terms  as  ecstasy  the  simple  and  pro- 
found intuitions  of  soul,  the  superb  assurance  of  faith, 
he  should  have  expressed  himself  differently.  .  .  . 
The  visionary  and  the  practical  man  described  by 
O.  Holtzmann  are  blended  into  something  higher 
which,  properly  speaking,  is  neither  the  one  or  the 
other,  but  is  precisely  a  soul  penetrated  by  a  most  pure 

1  Wernle,  op.  cit.,  pp.  45,  46. 


THE  MESSIANIC  MINISTRY.  261 

religious  ideal  and  ruled  by  the  conviction  of  having 
a  special  vocation  to  secure  its  realization."  ^ 

And  from  the  pen  of  Renan  we  have  that  rather  as- 
tonishing declaration  that  Jesus  "  from  the  first  "  prob- 
ably "  looked  on  Himself  as  standing  with  God  in  the 
relation  of  a  son  to  his  father  " ;  moreover,  that  His 
conviction  of  being  "  the  Son  of  God,  the  bosom 
friend  of  the  Father,  the  agent  of  His  will,"  in  other 
words,  the  general  idea  of  His  Messianic  vocation, 
was  "  a  thought  so  deeply  rooted  in  Him  that  it  prob- 
ably had  no  source  outside,  but  lay  in  the  very  roots 
of  His  being."  - 

To  conclude :  There  is  nothing  in  the  Gospel  ac- 
counts, when  rightly  interpreted,  to  allow  us  to  assign 
the  origin  of  Jesus'  consciousness  of  being  the  Messiah 
and  the  Son  of  God  at  this  or  that  particular  moment 
of  His  earthly  career.  On  the  other  hand,  everything 
would  seem  to  bear  witness  to  the  fact  that  Jesus 
holds  His  character  of  Messiah  and  Son  of  God  from 
His  very  Incarnation  and  in  virtue  of  His  transcen- 
dant,  divine  nature. 

Does  this  mean  that  the  Saviour,  from  the  first  in- 
stant of  His  earthly  existence,  was  really  aware  of  His 
dignity  and  of  His  mission,  and  that,  from  the  same 
instant,  this  conviction  was  so  perfect  as  to  admit  of 
no  possible  progress  or  further  development  ?  This  is 
quite  a  different  question  and  pertains  to  the  general 
question  of  Christ's  human  knowledge. 

Before  we  discuss  it,  we  must  more  thoroughly 
analyze  the  meaning  of  the  title  "  Son  of  God  "  ap- 
plied to  Jesus,  and  also  specify  the  particular  re- 
lations that  united  His  sacred  humanity  to  His  divin- 
ity. If  the  Gospel  accounts,  viewed  in  the  light  of  the 
beHef  of  the  Church,  warrant  us  in  inferring  an  in- 

1  Loisy,  Rev.  d'Hisf.,  1904,  p.  91 ;  Holtzmann,  O.,  War 
lesus  Exstatiker?  1903. 

-  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  132,  162, 


262  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

comparably  close  and  truly  substantial  union  between 
Christ  and  God,  it  would  be  fitting  to  consider  what 
consequences  that  union  must  have  upon  Jesus'  hu- 
man knowledge.  Was  His  human  knowledge,  we  may 
ask,  left  to  its  own  powers  and  to  its  own  activity,  or, 
rather,  did  it  not  receive  a  higher  light  from  the 
divinity  which  possessed  it?  And,  further,  if  this  hu- 
man knowledge  shared,  in  any  way,  the  divine  intelli- 
gence, to  what  extent  can  it  admit  a  real  development 
in  His  ideas?  In  particular,  in  what  measure  could 
there  be  a  progress,  essential  or  simply  accidental,  in 
the  Saviour's  consciousness  of  His  Messiahship  and 
divine  Sonship  ?  It  is  a  question  which  we  can  answer 
satisfactorily  only  after  studying  the  fundamental 
problem  of  Jesus'  divinity. 

For  the  present,  it  will  suffice  to  note  that  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  appears  to  attribute  to  Christ,  from 
His  entrance  into  this  world,  the  full  conviction  of 
what  He  is,  in  His  humanity,  with  respect  to  God,  and 
of  the  work  which  He  is  to  accomplish ;  "  Where- 
fore, when  He  cometh  into  the  world.  He  saith: 
'  Sacrifice  and  oblation  Thou  wouldst  not,  but  a  body 
Thou  hast  fitted  to  Me.  Holocausts  for  sin  did  not 
please  Thee.'  Then  said  I :  *  Behold  I  come :  in  the 
head  of  the  Book  it  is  written  of  Me  that  I  should  do 
Thy  will,  O  God.'  "  ^ 

iHeb.  X,  s. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Public  Life:  Jesus  the  Son  of  God. 

I.  Contemporary  Criticism. 

Jesus  declares  Himself  the  Messiah ;  and  all  that  we 
know  of  Him  and  of  His  works  confirms  the  truth  of 
His  statement :  such  is  the  conclusion  to  which  we 
have  been  rightly  led  after  a  faithful  study  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels.  Jesus  is,  moreover,  the  Son  of 
God,  as  all  Christians  have  ever  believed.  But,  in 
what  sense  does  He  bear  this  new  title  ?  To  what  ex- 
tent does  He  merit  this  name  ?  Is  He  such  only  figur- 
atively and  in  a  less  precise  sense,  either  because  His 
Messiahship  was  a  privilege,  or  because  of  the  close 
relationship  of  His  humanity  to  His  Father?  Or, 
rather  in  a  real  and  ontological  sense,  because  He 
is  the  truly  Begotten  Son  of  the  Father  and,  hence,  a 
sharer  in  God's  very  nature?  This  is  the  very  im- 
portant and  crucial  matter  which  we  are  now  to  ex- 
amine. 

If  we  study  the  first  three  Gospels  with  the  view 
of  finding  therein  an  authentic  outline  of  Christ,  it 
is  unquestionable  that  He  appears,  alike  in  conduct  as 
in  teaching,  to  be  truly  man  and  subject  to  all  the  con- 
ditions of  humanity.  He  is  born  with  the  frailties  of 
childhood.  At  Nazareth,  He  increases  in  age,  in  wis- 
dom, in  grace  before  God  and  men.  In  the  earlier 
part  of  His  public  ministry,  He  receives  the  Baptism 
of  Penance  as  might  an  ordinary  sinner.  He  tells 
John  that,  Hke  him,  "  it  behooveth  us  to  fulfil  all  jus- 
tice."    By  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit,  He  enters  into 

(263) 


264  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  Judean  desert  and  there  He  fasts  and  abstains  and 
is  tempted  by  the  devil.^ 

During  His  pubhc  Ufe  He  often  becomes  the  prey 
of  human  misery,  .  of  fatigue,  of  hunger,  of  thirst. 
After  the  long  fast  in  the  desert,  He  seems  to  break 
down.  Thus,  on  His  return  to  Bethany  the  day  after 
His  triumphant  entry  into  Jerusalem,  He  reaches  up 
to  the  barren  fig  tree  in  the  hope  of  finding  some 
fruit  wherewith  to  appease  His  hunger.  He  sits  at 
table  with  Levi  the  Publican  to  the  scandal  of  the 
Pharisees  who  reproach  Him  for  consorting  with 
sinners.  He  dines  with  Simon  the  Pharisee,  again 
with  another  Pharisee,  and  with  Simon  the  Leper  of 
Bethany.  At  times,  the  crowd  of  His  followers  is  so 
dense  that  He  cannot  take  His  meal  for  lack  of  room. 
He  eats  the  Paschal  Lamb  along  with  His  disciples. 
He  falls  asleep  in  the  ship  while  crossing  the  Sea  of 
GaHlee.^ 

So,  too,  the  soul's  varied  feelings, — pity,  tenderness, 
sadness,  sorrow, — all  these  does  Jesus  display.  How 
full  of  affection  for  the  youth  who  asks  Him  about 
the  way  that  leads  to  eternal  Hfe.  How  He  pities 
the  poor  widow  whose  only  son  is  soon  to  be  buried. 
How  great  is  His  compassion  for  the. tired  and  fam- 
ished multitudes  that  follow  Him  far  into  the  desert 
on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Lake.  How  He  weeps 
over  Jerusalem,  the  city  of  unbelief  and  hardness  of 
heart.  How  unutterable  His  abasement  and  sadness 
as  He  kneels  in  the  Garden  of  Olives  on  the  eve  of 
His  Passion.  His  soul  is  sad,  even  unto  death.  He 
falls  down  in  an  agony.  A  sweat  of  blood  covers  His 
limbs  and  the  very  ground  where  He  lies  prostrate, 
and  lo,  an  Angel  hastens  to  soothe  Him !  ^ 

iLk.  ii.  40,  51,  52;   Mt.  iii.   15. 

2Mt.  iv.  2;  Lk.  iv.  2;  Mk.  xi.  12;  Mt.  xxi.  18;  Mk  ii.  15; 
Mt.  ix.  10;  Lk.  V.  29;  cf.  Mt.  xi.  19;  Lk.  vii.  34,  36;  xi.  Z7', 
Mk.  xxiv.  3;  Mt.  xxvi.  6;  Jo.  xii.  2;  Mk.  iii.  20;  Mk.  xiv.  18; 
Mt.  xxvi.  20 ;  Lk.  xxii.  14 ;  Mk.  iv.  38 ;  Mt.  viii.  24 ;  Lk.  viii.  2^. 

3  Mk.  X.  21;  Lk.  vii.  13;  Mk.  vi.  34;  Mt.  xxvi.  37-38;  Lk. 
xxii.  43-44- 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  265 

At  last,  after  enduring  the  torments  of  His  most 
fearful  Passion,  He  dies  upon  the  Cross.  His  corpse 
is  soon  embalmed  in  accordance  with  Jewish  custom 
and  is  placed  in  the  tomb.  And,  after  His  resurrection, 
He  seeks  to  convince  His  disciples  of  the  living  real- 
ity of  His  glorified  humanity.  The  disciples  from 
Emmaus,  after  entering  with  Him  into  a  wayside 
house,  recognize  Him  as  the  Lord  during  the  ceremony 
of  the  Breaking  of  Bread.  And  when  the  apostles  are 
assembled  within  the  cenacle.  He  appears  in  their 
midst :  He  bids  them  touch  His  feet  and  hands,  and 
in  their  presence  partakes  of  the  fish  and  honey- 
comb. Verily,  from  first  to  last,  do  we  see  Jesus  ap- 
pear as  true  and  perfect  man.^ 

Jesus  also  acts  as  a  man  when  dealing  with  God, 
of  whom  He  speaks  as  would  creature  to  Creator. 
Do  the  Pharisees  accuse  Him  of  casting  out  devils 
by  the  power  of  Beelzebub,  the  prince  of  devils?  He 
replies  by  showing  that  their  absurd  slander  attacks, 
not  Himself,  the  Son  of  Man,  but  God  whose  divine 
power  is  manifested  through  the  ministry  of  this  very 
Son  of  Man.  Thus,  evidently,  He  makes  a  distinc- 
tion between  Himself,  the  Son  of  Man,  and  God 
whose  Spirit  He  possesses.  Once,  a  certain  youth 
calls  Him  "  good-master,"  and  Our  Lord  rejoins : 
"  Why  callest  thou  Me  good  ?  None  is  good  but  One, 
that  is  God."  Again,  He  ascribes  to  God  the  honor 
of  performing  the  miraculous  cures  which  He  him- 
self wrought.  And  as  for  the  foresight  of  future 
events,  He  places  Himself  after  His  heavenly  Father. 
Thus,  the  Judgment  Day  is  so  hidden  in  God  that  it 
is  known  to  the  Father  alone.  To  the  Son  and  to  the 
Angels  it  is  unknown.^ 

In  God's  presence,  He  acts  as  a  suppliant;  and  the 

1  Mk.  XV.  37,  46;  Mt.  xxvi.  50,  59,  60;  Lk.  xxiii.  49,  53; 
Lk.  xxiv.  30,  39-43;  cf.  Jo.  xxi.  5,  10-13. 

2  Mk.  ii.  29;  Mt.  xii.  28;  Lk.  xi.  20;  Mk.  x.  17,  18;  Mt.  xix. 
16,  17;  Lk.  xviii.  18,  19;  Mk.  v.  19;  Lk.  viii.  39;  Mk.  xiii.  32; 
Mt.  xxiv.  36, 


266  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Evangelists  frequently  relate  how  He  was  wont  to  give 
Himself  up  to  prayer.  Often  He  spends  whole  nights 
in  prayer.  While  awaiting  a  miracle,  He  raises  His 
eyes  to  heaven.  He  can  even  invoke  His  Father  and 
obtain  from  Him  more  than  a  dozen  legions  of  angels 
to  assist  Him.  His  prayer  in  Olivet  shows,  especially, 
the  real  distinction  between  Himself  and  God,  between 
His  own  and  His  Father's  will.  And,  whilst  dying 
upon  the  Cross,  He  complains  to  His  Father  that  He, 
whom  He  calls  His  God,  has  abandoned  Him,  and,  as 
would  an  humble  creature,  He  commends  His  soul  into 
His  hands.^ 

Thus  does  Jesus  plainly  draw  the  line  between  Him- 
self and  God:  He  assumes  the  attitude  of  a  creature 
towards  the  divine  majesty;  He  acts  as  an  inferior 
when  in  presence  of  His  Father ;  He  recognizes  Him- 
self as  being  truly  man. 

Renan. — While,  however,  the  features  above  de- 
scribed argue  a  real  and  living  humanity  on  Jesus' 
part,  and  thus  greatly  impress  whoever  studies  the 
Gospel  perspective  of  Christ,  it  is  otherwise  with 
Rationalists  who,  after  exaggerating  these  character- 
istics, want  to  conclude  that,  if  Christ  were  truly  man. 
He  was  really  nothing  more.  The  Evangelists,  says 
Renan,  make  Him  act  "  purely  as  a  man.  He  is 
tempted ;  He  is  ignorant  of  many  things ;  He  corrects 
Himself;  He  changes  His  opinion;  He  is  cast  down, 
discouraged;  He  entreats  His  Father  to  spare  Him 
trials;  He  is  submissive  to  God  as  a  Son;  He  who 
must  judge  the  world  does  not  know  the  date  of  the 
day  of  judgment.  He  takes  measures  for  His  safety. 
Directly  after  His  birth  He  has  to  be  concealed,  to 
escape  from  powerful  men  who  wish  to  kill  Him.  .  .  . 
All  this  is  simply  the  work  of  a  messenger  of  God, — a 

1  Mt.  xiv.  23 ;  Lk.  ix.  18,  28 ;  xi.  i ;  xxii.  42 ;  Lk.  vi.  12 ;  Mk. 
vii.  34;  cf.  Jo.  xi.  38,  41;  Mt.  xxvi.  53;  Mk.  xiv.  35-36,  sq; 
Mt.  xxvi.  39,  42,  44;  Lk.  xxii.  42;  Mt.  xv.  34;  Mt.  xxvii.  46; 
Lk.  xxiii.  46. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  26;^ 

man  protected  and  favored  by  God.  In  His  exorcisms, 
the  devil  resists  and  will  not  come  out  at  the  first 
command.  In  His  miracles,  there  appears  a  painful 
effort,  a  weariness  as  if  '  some  virtue  had  gone  out 
from  Him.'  "  ^ 

We  may  remark  that  Renan's  inclination  to  yield 
to  unbecoming  humor  has  led  him,  here  as  elsewhere, 
to  exaggerate  the  true  sense  of  the  texts,  or  even  to 
render  them  meaningless;  as  is  clear  from  the  texts 
to  which  he  refers  in  chapters  xvii,  ix,  viii  and  xi, 
respectively,  of  the  Gospels  according  to  SS.  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke  and  John.  But  is  not  his  inference 
rather  hasty  and  premature  ?  Does  it  fully  account 
for  all  the  phases  of  the  problem  and  for  the  entire 
mass  of  facts?  Undoubtedly,  it  is  right  to  insist  on 
the  fact  of  the  reality  of  Christ's  humanity.  The 
person  whom  we  behold  is  truly  a  man.  He  pos- 
sesses hum^n  nature  in  its  entirety, — intelligence,  free- 
will, personal  and  free  activity.  He  deals  with  men 
as  an  equal  and  brother,  and  towards  God  as  an  in- 
ferior and  subject.  But  if  we  let  the  matter  go  at 
this  like  the  Rationalist  critics,  would  it  not  imply  a 
superficial  study,  a  mere  partial  accounting  for  the 
facts,  a  half-formed  criticism?  Jesus  is  verily  man; 
but  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  He  is  noth- 
ing else. 

One  of  the  chief  teachings  of  the  Catholic  faith  is 
the  reality  of  Christ's  divine  Sonship,  and  hence  His 
real  divinity.  This  doctrine  is  enough  to  assure  us 
a  priori  that  we  may  be  certain  of  our  faith  in  the 
particular  dogma  in  question.  The  authority  of  the 
Church  itself  rests  upon  a  basis  quite  separate  from 
the  Saviour's  assertions  of  His  divinity  as  interpreted 
by  Bible  commentators ;  and  the  same  principle  applies 
to  the  instances  where  He  does  not  assert  His  divine 
nature.     Whether  we  view  Jesus  as  the  real  and  true 

1  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  263. 


268  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Son  of  God,  or  whether  we  do  not  regard  Him  as 
such  expHcitly  and  evidently,  He  presents  Himself, 
at  least,  as  God's  own  envoy  and  as  the  founder  of 
that  Church  which,  until  the  end  of  time,  shall  be 
assisted  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  God  Himself  has 
not  ceased  to  directly  witness  and  confirm  the  divine 
truth  of  His  Church  throughout  the  course  of  ages, 
alike  by  various  miraculous  interventions  as  by  all  the 
most  authentic  marks  of  His  presence  and  activity. 
This  suffices  for  us  who  believe  in  the  divine  authority 
of  the  Church  and  in  the  infallible  truth  of  its  official 
teaching.  A  priori,  therefore,  because  the  Church  be- 
lieves and  teaches  it,  and  because  its  beHef  and  teach- 
ing are  in  a  manner  guaranteed  and  sanctioned  by 
God,  we  may  say,  with  the  certitude  of  faith,  that  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of  God,  and  God 
Himself  become  man  through  the  Incarnation. 

At  all  events,  as  the  Church  has  never- denied  the 
truth  of  Christ's  affirmations,  on  this  point,  nor  on 
others,  a  priori  we  may  rest  assured  that  naught  in  the 
Gospel  account  of  what  He  says  about  Himself  denies, 
but  rather  implies  this  belief. 

The  Church's  teaching,  indeed,  is  our  sure  rule  of 
faith;  but,  apart  therefrom,  the  question  is  prompted 
by  the  conviction  prevalent  in  the  early  Church  which 
affords  testimony  that  cannot  fail  to  impress  the 
most  independent  critic.  Indeed,  there  is  no  doubt 
that  the  Church  in  the  apostolic  times  thought  that 
Jesus  was  a  person  of  superhuman  character  and 
closely  alHed  by  nature  with  the  divinity.  S.  Paul, 
for  instance,  shows  Jesus  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  pre- 
existing before  the  moment  that  His  Father  sent  Him 
forth  into  this  world.  So  too,  in  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
He  is  identified  with  the  Word  of  God,  pre-existing 
in  God  from  eternity.  And,  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  He  is  described  as  sharing  the  divine  nature 
and  as  assisting  in  the  creation  of  the  world.  This 
tradition,  therefore,  so  early  current,  so  ancient,  so 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  269 

warranted  by  Christ's  own  words  and  deeds,  must 
have  a  sound  basis. 

Another  feature  that  prompts  our  researches  is  the 
fact  that  Renan,  in  seeking  to  give  an  appreciation  of 
the  Saviour's  personahty,  seems  impelled,  as  it  were, 
to  employ  unusual  terms.  His  style  of  language  would 
be,  let  us  say,  highly  ridiculous,  horribly  grotesque, 
if  he  was  speaking  of  a  mere  man.  Still,  if  he  does 
speak  thus  of  Christ  Jesus,  is  it  not  because,  de- 
spite himself,  he  recognizes  something  transcendent 
and  superhuman  in  His  person?  Here  is  the  tirade 
that  follows  his  account  of  the  Saviour's  death :  "  Rest 
now  in  Thy  glory,  noble  Founder !  Thy  work  is  com- 
pleted; Thy  divinity  is  established.  .  .  .  Henceforth, 
beyond  all  frailty,  Thou  shalt  witness,  from  the  depth 
of  Thy  divine  peace,  the  unending  results  that  follow 
from  Thy  deeds.  .  .  .  Henceforth  men  shall  draw  no 
boundary  between  Thee  and  God.  Do  Thou  ,  .  . 
take  possession  of  Thy  Kingdom,  whither,  by  the 
royal  road  Thou  hast  pointed  out,  long  generations 
of  adorers  shall  follow  Thee!"  EarHer  in  his  work, 
he  had  also  said :  "  It  was,  then,  for  some  few  months, 
— a  year  perhaps, — that  God  truly  dwelt  upon  earth." 
And  finally :  *'  To  make  Himself  adored  to  this  de- 
gree. He  must  have  been  worthy  to  be  adored.  .  .  . 
The  faith,  the  enthusiasm,  the  constancy  of  the  first 
Christian  generation  are  to  be  explained  only  by  as- 
suming, at  the  beginning  of  it  all,  a  man  of  transcend- 
ent greatness.  .  .  .  This  sublime  Person,  who  day  by 
day  still  presides  over  the  destiny  of  the  world,  may 
well  be  called  divine, — not  in  the  sense  that  Jesus  has 
absorbed  all  that  is  divine,  or  was  one  with  it ;  but  in 
the  sense  that  He  is  the  one  who  has  impelled  His 
fellow-men  to  take  the  longest  step  towards  the 
divine."  ^ 

Renan's  inveterate  liking  for  sentimental  and  de- 

1  Renan,  op.  cit.,  pp.  136,  395,  412,  420,  421. 


270  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

clamatory  rhetoric  is  of  course  to  be  taken  into  ac- 
count when  there  is  question  of  interpreting  these 
various  texts.  In  his  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  he  allows  him- 
self to  drift  along  easily  in  the  stream  of  harmonious 
phrasing  and  abandon  of  words.  No  previous  writer, 
indeed,  had  ever  dreamed  of  employing  such  extreme 
language  when  speaking  of  Christ.  To  do  so,  and 
nevertheless  to  view  Christ  as  a  mere  man, — this  seems 
insincere.  He  pretends  not  to  believe  at  all  in  the 
divinity  of  Christ;  but  he  can  speak  of  Him  only  as 
would  a  believer.  He  pretends  to  dethrone  Him  from 
heaven ;  but  he  appears  to  be  fascinated  by  His  divine 
aureole!  He  impresses  every  sensible  man  as  giving 
a  disfigured  and  counterfeit  representation  of  Christ's 
person  by  affecting  to  lower  it  to  the  level  of  ordin- 
ary humanity,  although  he  speaks  of  Him  in  a  way 
that  befits  only  a  superhuman  being. 

Is  there  not,  moreover,  an  implied  testimony  to 
Christ's  real  divinity  in  the  very  manner  in  which  he 
is  constrained  to  interpret  Jesus'  own  testimony  about 
Himself?  He  vainly  asserts:  *' Jesus  never  once  ut- 
ters the  sacrilegious  thought  that  He  is  himself  God. 
.  .  .  That  Jesus  ever  dreamed  of  claiming  to  be  an 
incarnation  of  the  true  God,  there  is  no  ground  what- 
ever to  suspect  .  .  .  the  first  three  Gospels  have  no 
trace  of  it."  But  he  fears  not  to  say  of  the  Saviour : 
"  The  position  which  He  assigned  to  Himself  was  that 
of  a  superhuman  being;  and  He  wished  to  be  regarded 
as  having  a  more  exalted  relation  with  God  than  other 
men.  .  .  .  God  does  not  speak  to  Him  as  to  one  out- 
side of  Himself:  God  is  in  Him.  .  .  .  The  trans- 
cendent idealism  of  Jesus  never  permits  Him  to  have  a 
very  clear  notion  of  His  own  personality.  He  is  His 
Father, — His  Father  is  He.  .  .  .  We  cannot  fail  to 
see  in  these  affirmations  of  Jesus  the  germ  of  the 
doctrine  which  was,  later  on,  to  make  Him  a  divine 
'  hypostasis,'  in  identifying  Him  with  the  '  Word.'  "  ^ 

1  Renan,  op.  cit.,  pp.  132,  257,  258,  260. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


271 


These  admissions  are  certainly  surprising.  They 
suppose  that  the  Saviour  made  very  extraordinary  de- 
clarations about  His  own  personality:  and  it  matters 
much  to  ascertain  their  exact  meaning.  We  are 
warranted  in  asking  if  the  doctrine  which  was,  later 
on,  to  make  of  Jesus  "  a  divine  hypostasis,"  became  en- 
grafted by  mistake  upon  those  assertions  of  His  that 
did  not  contain  it  at  all;  just  Hke  a  parasite  upon  a 
tree  of  a  different  species;  or,  again,  to  insist  upon 
Renan's  very  words,  if  this  doctrine  was  not  contained 
already  in  those  affirmations  as  in  a  germ  which 
further  development  would  not  transform,  but  keep 
substantially  identical  with  itself. 

Liberal  Protestants. — Protestants  of  the  Liberal 
school  of  criticism  readily  admit  that  the  problem  un- 
der discussion  is  insoluble;  or,  rather,  in  a  general 
way,  they  give  up  hope  of  finding  in  the  Christ  of  his- 
tory that  Christ  whom  the  Church  recognizes  as  being 
true  God  and  true  Son  of  God.  Like  Renan,  they 
insist  upon  the  well-assured  humanity  of  Jesus,  upon 
His  attitude  of  subordination  and  of  inferiority  with 
respect  to  His  Father,  more  especially  upon  the  limited 
sphere  of  His  knowledge  and  upon  His  liableness  to 
the  erroneous  opinions  current  in  His  day. 

Thus,  Stapfer  would  have  us  believe  that  "  Jesus 
was  a  man  of  His  time,  and  shared  the  beliefs  of 
His  time.  ...  At  the  present  time,  among  Christians, 
no  one  believes  precisely  like  Jesus."  Again,  to  be 
His  disciple,  it  suffices  to  believe  "  in  Him."  .  .  .  He 
was  less  than  His  Father:  the  Father  had  not  re- 
vealed all  things  to  Him.  ...  If  He  was  the  Son  of 
God  in  a  special  sense.  He  was  that  as  all  men  are, 
or  may  become.  His  sons."  ^ 

And  Bruce  tells  us  that  "  the  remarks  of  Jesus 
about  the  future  show  a  limitation  in  His  knowledge. 

1  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  During  His  Ministry,  pp.  236,  245, 
251. 


2^2  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

On  other  points  are  like  indications  that  Jesus  was  the 
child  of  His  people  and  of  His  times."  ^ 

Harnack,  also,  says  that  Jesus  "  described  the  Lord 
of  heaven  and  earth  as  His  God  and  Father ;  as  the 
Greater,  and  as  Him  who  is  alone  good.  He  is  certain 
that  everything  which  He  is  to  accomplish  comes  from 
His  Father.  He  prays  to  Him;  He  subjects  Himself 
to  His  will;  He  struggles  hard  to  find  out  what  it  is 
and  to  fulfil  it.  Aim,  strength,  understanding,  the 
issue,  and  the  hard  *  must,'  all  come  from  the  Father. 
This  is  what  the  Gospels  say,  and  it  cannot  be  turned 
or  twisted.  This  feeling,  praying,  working,  struggling, 
and  suffering  individual  is  a  -man  who,  in  the  face  of 
His  God,  also  associates  Himself  with  other  men."  ^ 

This  class  of  critics,  however,  while  emphasizing 
the  Saviour's  humanity  do  not  fail  to  insist  on  what  is 
supernatural  in  His  own  knowledge  and  extraordinary 
in  His  claims,  and,  differently  from  the  thorough- 
going Rationalists,  recognize  these  facts  as  well  es- 
tablished. 

We  are  told  by  Stapfer  that  "  Jesus  was  convinced 
that  all  who  believed  in  Him  would  receive  the  entire 
satisfaction  of  their  religious  needs.  .  .  .  He  never 
demanded  beliefs,  but  confidence  in  Himself;  and 
by  this  confidence,  He  created  a  new  life  in  the  soul, 
a  religious  and  moral  life, — communion  with  God." 
.  .  .  Thus,  Jesus  came,  little  by  little,  to  the  point 
where  He  could  make  the  highest  assertions  con- 
cerning Himself,  His  work,  the  future,  the  final  tri- 
umph of  righteousness,  and  of  His  own  person.  .  .  . 
He  was  one  day  to  judge  and  renew  the  world,  to  pre- 
side at  the  final  assizes,  where  all  humanity  would  ap- 
pear,— this  was  His  office."  ^ 

Wernle,  like  Harnack,  declares  that  Jesus  presents 

1  Bruce,  art. :  Jesus,  E.  B.,  col.  2454. 

2  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity?  p.  136. 
s  Stapfer,  op.  cit.,  pp.  243,  254. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


273 


Himself  as  a  man  among  men,  as  one  who  feels  the 
sense  of  distance  separatmg  Him,  like  every  creature, 
from  God.  He  strongly  insists  upon  the  supernatural 
character  of  the  Saviour's  knowledge,  assuring  us 
that  ''  Christianity  arose  because  a  layman,  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  endowed  with  the  consciousness  of  being 
more  than  a  prophet,  came  forward  and  attached  men 
so  firmly  to  His  person  that,  in  spite  of  His  shameful 
death,  they  were  ready  both  to  live  for  Him  and  to  die 
for  Him.  .  .  .  From  passages  taken  from  the  Syn- 
optics it  appears  clearly  that  Jesus  is  conscious  of  being 
more  than  a  man.  And  this  is  the  mystery  of  the  origin 
of  Christianity.  What  we  need  to  do  above  all  is  to 
accept  it  as  a  fact, — a  fact  which  demands  a  practical 
and  reverent  hearing.  .  .  .  The  most  wonderful  fea- 
ture in  Jesus  is  the  co-existence  of  a  self-conscious- 
ness that  is  more  than  human  with  the  deepest  hu- 
mility before  God.  .  .  .  He  is  always  modest,  humble, 
sane  and  sober,  and  yet  with  this  superhuman  self- 
consciousness.  It  is  quite  impossible  to  realize  such 
an  inner  life  as  this."  ...  In  correspondence  with 
Jesus'  transcendent  personal  consciousness  there  also 
answers,  in  Wernle's  opinion,  the  transcendent  char- 
acter of  His  whole  hfe.  "  If  He  passes  nights  in 
solitary  prayer,  if  in  His  zeal  for  preaching  and 
healing,  He  forgets  both  food  and  rest,  if  He  inter- 
rupts the  ordinary  sequence  of  natural  laws,  or.  Him- 
self subject  to  some  mysterious  power,  appears  to  His 
companions  as  a  being  of  another  world  and  to  His 
ignorant  relations  as  one  possessed, — everywhere  there 
is  the  same  impression  of  the  superhuman."  ^ 

Harnack  thus  summarizes  the  opinions  of  B.  Weiss 
and  Wendt,  whose  remarkable  descriptions  of  the  pre- 
eminence of  Christ's  divine  Sonship  and  of  the  in- 
comparable excellence  of  His  mission  were  given 
above.     "  This  Jesus,"  he  says,  "  who  preached  hu- 

1  Wernle,  op.  cit.,  pp.  40,  41,  42. 
18 


274  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

mility  and  knowledge  of  self,  nevertheless  named 
Himself,  and  Himself  alone,  the  Son  of  God.  He 
is  certain  that  He  knows  the  Father,  that  He  is  to 
bring  this  knowledge  to  all  men,  and  that,  thereby,  He 
is  doing  the  work  of  God.  Among  all  the  works  of 
God,  this  is  the  greatest;  it  is  the  aim  and  end  of  all 
creation.  The  work  is  given  to  Him  to  do,  and  in 
God's  strength  He  will  accomplish  it.  It  was  out 
of  this  feehng  of  power  and  in  the  prospect  of  vic- 
tory that  He  uttered  the  words :  '  The  Father  hath 
committed  all  things  to  me.'  Again  and  again  in  the 
history  of  mankind,  men  of  God  have  come  forward 
in  the  sure  consciousness  of  possessing  a  divine  mes- 
sage, and  of  being  compelled,  whether  they  will  or 
not,  to  deliver  it.  But  the  message  has  always  hap- 
pened to  be  imperfect."  .  .  .  But,  in  this  case,  the 
message  brought  was  of  the  profoundest  and  most 
comprehensive  character;  it  went  to  the  very  root  of 
mankind,  and,  although  set  in  the  frame-work  of 
the  Jewish  nation,  it  addressed  itself  to  the  whole  of 
humanity, — the  message  from  God  the  Father.  .  .  . 
He  who  delivered  it  has,  as  yet,  yielded  His  place  to 
no  man,  and  to  human  life  He  still  to-day  gives  a 
meaning  and  an  aim :  He  is  the  Son  of  God."  ^ 

The  superiority  of  Christ  Jesus, — in  what,  then, 
does  it  consist?  Is  it  merely  relative,  and  hence  de- 
noting His  pre-eminence  over  other  men,  whilst  He 
"still  remains  a  mere  man?  Or  rather,  is  it  some- 
thing absolute,  and,  therefore,  grounded  upon  the 
very  nature  of  His  being  and  upon  a  substantial  union 
with  God? 

This  dogma  of  the  consubstantial  union  of  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God,  with  His  Father,  thinks  B.  Weiss, 
is  rather  a  teaching  influenced  by  Christian  belief  than 
a  strict  and  exact  interpretation  of  historical  facts. 

"  This  divine  Sonship  of  Jesus  "  he  says,  ''  in  the 

1  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  pp.  139-140. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  275 

ethical  sense,  will  have  its  deeper  ground  in  an  original 
relationship  of  love  on  the  part  of  God  to  Him,  a 
relation  which  is  established  by  the  Father  Himself. 
Whether  this  reaches  back  into  eternity  and  depends 
upon  an  original  relationship  of  essence  on  the  part 
of  the  Son  to  the  Father, — to  shed  light  on  this  point 
Jesus  could  not  appeal  to  his  own  testimony  without 
going  entirely  beyond  the  intellectual  horizon  of  his 
hearers.  It  was  the  development  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Apostles  that  allowed  men  for  the  first  time  to  enter 
into  these  questions.  .  .  .  All  attempts  to  import  into 
this  self-designation  (of  Son  of  God)  the  dogmatic 
idea  of  a  divine  generation,  or  of  a  metaphysical  con- 
substantiality  of  essence  with  Him,  are  simply  un- 
historical.  .  .  .  The  assertion  that  this  (perfect  knowl- 
edge Jesus  claims  to  have  of  the  Father)  already  pre- 
supposes the  consubstantiality  of  essence,  is  only  a 
dogmatic  axiom."  ^ 

And,  if  we  w^ould  believe  Wendt,  the  "  Synoptic 
sources  p'rove  that,  on  certain  occasions,  although  sel- 
dom, Jesus  calls  Himself  the  Son  of  God  in  a  sense 
that  ranks  Him  above  all  other  men.  .  .  .  This,  how- 
ever, does  not  warrant  us  in  ascribing  to  Jesus  such 
filial  relations  with  His  Father  as  would  have,  in 
principle,  a  different  character  from  those  which,  ac- 
cording to  His  own  words,  should  unite  His  disciples 
to  God.  .  .  .  His  very  words  show  that  men  ought  to 
aspire  to  a  God-like  love,  and  thus  "  become  the  sons 
of  the  heavenly  Father."  Thenceforth,  aware  as  He 
was  of  His  perfect  affection,  so  much  in  touch  with 
God's  will  and  very  nature,  we  see  how  He  could  feel 
assured  of  being,  par  excellence,  the  Son  of  God."  - 

"  The  sentence,  *  I  am  the  Son  of  God,'  was  not 
inserted  in  the  Gospel  by  Jesus  Himself,"  says  Har- 
nack ;  "  and  to  put  that  sentence  there,  side  by  side 

1  Weiss,  B.,  Bibl  TheoL  N.  T.,  vol.  i,  p.  81,  n.  3;  p.  78,  n.  i. 

2  Wendt,  op.  eit.,  pp.  417,  421,  Ger.  ed. 


2^6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

with  the  others,  is  to  make  an  addition  to  the  Gospel." 
He  seems  to  regard  Christ  as  a  man  who  is  united  to 
God  in  an  incomparable  manner,  and  in  whom  God 
Himself  is  manifested  in  an  ideal  and  unique  manner. 
In  fact,  he  goes  on  to  say :  ''  No  one  who  accepts  the 
Gospel,  and  tries  to  understand  Him  who  gave  it  to  us, 
can  fail  to  affirm  that  here  the  divine  appeared  in  as 
pure  a  form  as  it  can  appear  on  earth."  ^ 

Wernle,  however,  thinks  that  Jesus'  personality, 
owing  to  the  seeming  double  element,  the  human  and 
the  super-human,  which  it  embraces,  is  still  mysterious. 
He  is  inclined  to  portray  Christ  as  the  supreme  and 
final  Mediator,  whose  nature  he  declines  to  explain 
otherwise  than  by  the  general  term  of  Messiah. 
''  Jesus  conceived  of  Himself  as  a  Mediator."  The 
Mediator  is  altogether  man,  without  subtraction  of 
anything  that  is  human.  But  He  has  received  from 
God  an  especial  call  and  commission  to  His  fellow- 
men,  and  thereby  He  towers  high  above  them.  Jesus 
shares  this  feeling  of  being  a  mediator  with  other 
men  like  Him.  Even  if  it  has  in  His  case  attained  the 
highest  degree  of  constancy,  depth  and  reality,  yet 
no  formula  can  define  its  exact  limits.  .  .  .  There 
was  in  Him  something  entirely  new,  a  surpassing 
greatness,  a  superhuman  self-consciousness  which  sets 
itself  above  all  authorities,  declaring  God's  will  and 
promises,  imparting  consolation,  inspiring  courage, 
delivering  judgment  with  divine  power,  a  new 
mediatorship  between  God  and  man,  that  left  all  the 
former  far  behind  it.  .  .  .  The  superhuman  self-con- 
sciousness of  Jesus,  who  knows  nothing  higher  than 
Himself  save  God,  can  find  satisfactory  expression  in 
no  other  form  but  that  of  the  Messianic  idea."  ^ 

O.  Holtzmann  takes  almost  a  similar  view.  He  says : 
"  The  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  Jesus  lifts  him 

1  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  pp.  156-157. 

2  Wernle,  op.  cit.,  pp.  40,  45,  55. 


JESUS  THE  SOX  OF  GOD 


277. 


above  all  the  prophets;  by  this  divine  gift,  he  is 
qualified  to  be  the  ruler  of  the  everlasting  world  of 
the  future.  .  .  .  He  becomes,  for  the  first  time,  en- 
dowed with  the  attributes  which  distinguished  the 
Messiah  from  all  other  men :  he  becomes  the  first-born 
Son  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  because  it  is  through  him 
that  all  other  men  are  to  participate  in  the  Spirit  of 
God."  And  J.  Weiss  also  insists  that  Jesus  con- 
sidered Himself  as  the  Elect  par  excellence  who  was 
more  than  a  prophet.^ 

So  too,  Stapfer  does  not  pretend  to  condemn  "  a 
priori  any  formula,  any  dogmatic  decree  of  the 
Church,"  about  the  Saviour's  personality.  But  he  re- 
marks :  "  I  am  more  and  more  persuaded  of  the  inan- 
ity of  definitions  and  formulas."  As  he  says,  "  there 
are  differences  between  the  Christological  ideas  of  the 
Synoptics,  those  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  the  meta- 
physical notions  set  forth  in  more  than  one  Epistle. 
These  differences  are  evident.  It  is,  therefore,  neces- 
sary to  choose,  and  to  choose  is  to  create  individual 
opinions.  .  .  .  For  my  part,  I  am  not  surprised  at  this ; 
nor  do  I  regret  it.  I  am  convinced  that  individual- 
ism of  this  sort  is  the  wisest  course,  and  the  only  one 
possible  at  the  present  time.  Each  believer  in  Pro- 
testantism makes  his  own  Christology,  because  each 
believer  represents  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  in  his 
own  w^ay,  and  it  is  not  the  way  of  his  neighbor."  ^ 

To  judge  from  his  views  expressed  in  various  parts 
of  his  writings,  Stapfer  had  no  settled  theory.  If, 
however,  his  views  do  not  seem  to  be  quite  coherent, 
they  are  nevertheless  interesting  to  study  from  the 
view-point  of  Protestant  criticism.  He  endeavors  to 
level  the  Saviour's  personality  to  the  plane  of  mere 
humanity,  although  he  strives,  at  the  same  time,  to 

1  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  135 ;  Weiss,  J.,  op.  cit.,  p.  64. 

2  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  During  His  Ministry,  p.  259;  The 
Death  and  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  pp.  271,  274-275. 


278  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

hold  to  the  titles  Son  of  God  and  Messiah.  "  Jesus 
was  the  Son  of  God,"  he  writes,  "  but  He  seems  never 
to  have  conceived  the  idea  that  He  might  be  an  in- 
carnation of  God.  ...  If  He  was  the  Son  of  God 
in  a  special  sense,  it  was  that  as  all  men  are  or  may 
become  His  sons.  We  cannot  go  farther  without  en- 
tering the  domain  of  dogmatics,  and  we  abide  by  the 
expression  '  divine  sonship.'  "  ^ 

Nevertheless,  this  author  makes  very  remarkable 
declarations  in  favor  of  Christ's  transcendence  and 
real  divinity.  "  Let  us  recall  to  mind,"  he  remarks, 
"  the  grand  saying  of  Jesus :  '  No  one  knoweth  the 
Son  but  the  Father,'  I  say,  on  the  authority  of  this 
utterance,  that  it  is  impossible  to  define  Jesus.  He 
remains  above  and  outside  of  all  the  subtilties, — I  say 
more — of  all  the  impossibilities  of  metaphysics ;  and  by 
the  word,  '  No  one  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father,' 
He  remains  an  incomprehensibility,  which  is  one  of 
the  most  certain  signs  of  His  divinity,  and  should 
make  a  part  of  all  our  adoration  of  Him.  ...  In 
this  work,  which  is  neither  dogmatic  nor  metaphysical, 
and  in  which  we  confine  ourselves  to  ascertaining  the 
facts,  we  find  ourselves  led  on  to  the  establishment 
of  facts  which  are  strange  and  utterly  inexplicable 
if  Jesus  was  not  a  being  apart,  above,  and  beyond 
humanity  as  we  know  it.  .  .  .  The  Christ  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  in  no  respect  surpasses  Him  whom 
the  Synoptists  had  made  us  perceive.  Jesus  was, 
indeed,  the  one  who  is  '  the  way,  the  truth,  and 
the  life.'  .  .  .  He  who  hath  seen  Him,  hath  seen  the 
Father."  ..."  In  presence  of  such  a  being,  a  being 
who  had  such  moral  greatness  and  such  compassion, 
who  possessed  so  absolute  a  conviction,  who  made 
such  unheard-of  demands,  who  showed  so  entire  a  de- 
votion, and  who  enjoyed  a  life,  in  God  and  by  Him,  so 
deep,  so  intense,  so  evidently  certain,  the  exclamation 

1  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  During  His  Ministry,  p.  236. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


279 


of  Thomas  is  not  too  strong :  it  bursts  from  our  hearts 
and  hps;  we  utter  to  Jesus  this  cry  of  obedience  and 
adoration :  '  my  Lord,  and  my  God.'  "  ^ 

Conservative  Protestants.  —  The  position  taken 
by  Protestant  critics  is  surely  significant.  The  most 
independent  writers  among  them  recognize  as  a  his- 
torical fact,  as  a  main  point  of  the  faith  of  the  Church, 
the  mysterious,  transcendent,  and  superhuman  charac- 
ter of  Jesus'  personality.  He  is  placed  above  the 
prophets.  He  is  called  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God, 
the  ideal  Alediator.  Does  not  this  avowal  of  modern 
scholars  afford  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the 
well-established  integrity  of  our  faith? 

The  features  noticeable  in  Christ's  real  and  living 
humanity  agree  with  the  plain  statement  of  the  early 
Church  as  also  with  that  of  the  Church  to-day.  Nor 
is  it,  a  priori,  at  all  prejudicial  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
same  Church  regarding  the  substantial  union  of 
Christ's  humanity  with  the  divinity.  Besides,  when 
we  find  such  critics  assigning  to  Jesus  a  position 
far  above  the  prophets,  declaring  Him  the  supreme 
Mediator,  the  Son  of  God  par  excellence,  and  ad- 
hering exclusively  to  facts  in  their  references  to  what 
was  "  superhuman "  or  "  divine "  in  Jesus,  as  did 
Wernle  and  Harnack, — we  may  rightly  suspect  that 
the  dogma  of  Christ's  substantial  union  with  the 
Father  is  not  as  independent  of  historical  facts  as 
they  wish  to  assert.  We  may  also  surmise  that 
Stapfer  had  good  reason  to  declare  that  the  facts  are 
"  inexphcable  if  Jesus  had  not  been  a  being  apart, 
above  and  beyond  humanity,"  and  that  "  the  Christ 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  in  no  respect  surpasses  Him 
whom  the  Synoptists  had  made  us  perceive." 

Such  is  the  opinion  of  a  number  of  distinguished 
Protestant  critics  to  whom  the  Christ  of  the  Gospel 

^  Stapfer,  The  Death  and  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p. 
275;  Jesus  Christ  During  His  Ministry,  pp.  244,  245,  264. 


28o  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

is  none  other  than  the  Christ  of  Christian  belief? 
Among  French  Protestants  this  view  is  held  by  Godet, 
lately  professor  of  the  independent  Faculty  of  Neu- 
chatel,  and  among  Anglicans,  by  such  noted  authors 
as  Sanday  of  Oxford  and  Stevens  of  Yale.  Catholic 
critics  also  have  thus  ever  thought.  But  it  remained 
for  our  day  to  witness  an  attempt  to  interpret  the 
Gospel  testimony  on  Christ's  person  as  the  hberal 
Protestants  would  do.  So  that,  in  view  of  the  stir 
caused  by  recent  works  of  Loisy,  and  the  importance 
of  the  question,  we  may  proceed  to  give  a  complete 
statement  of  Loisy's  theory  on  Jesus'  divinity,  as  also 
of  its  exact  meaning.^ 

II.  Loisy's  Theory  of  Christ's  Divinity. 

I.    ''  THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  CHURCH." 

It  was  in  1902  that  the  Catholic  reading  public 
throughout  France  were  startled  by  a  book  entitled 
"  The  Gospel  and  the  Church."  Its  author,  Alfred 
Loisy,  of  Paris,  was  careful  to  remind  the  reader  that 
his  aim  was  "  to  catch  the  point  of  view  of  history  ", 
and,  in  particular,  to  discuss  "  solely  according  to  the 
data  of  history  "  the  well-known  work  of  Harnack, 
familiar  to  English  readers  under  the  name  of  "  What 
is  Christianity  "  ?  In  a  later  work,  which  he  named 
"Autour  d'un  petit  Livre ",  Loisy  says  that  his 
former  book  was  but  "  a  modest  effort  towards  historic 
construction  ",  and  that,  especially  as  regards  Jesus' 
person,  "  he  felt  bound  to  portray  the  historic  outline 
of  the  Saviour,  .  .  .  the  ministry  of  Jesus  in  the 
humble  conditions  of  real  life,  .  .  .  the  Christ  as 
shown  in  history  ".^ 

1  Godet,  com.  siir.  VEv.  de  S.  Luc,  2d  ed. ;  Sur.  S.  Jean, 
4th  ed. ;  Stevens,  The  Theol.  of  the  N.  T.,  1901 ;  The  Teach- 
ing of  Jesus,  1902 ;  Sanday,  art. :  Jesus  Christ,  H.  D. ;  art. : 
The  Son  of  God,  H.  D. ;  Liddon,  The  Divinity  of  our  Lord. 

2  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  2,  3;  Autour  d\un 
Petit  Livre,  pp.  vii,  viii,  11,  112, 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  281 

In  thus  taking  history  as  his  basis,  Loisy  thinks  that 
he  has  reached  the  following  conclusions :  Jesus  re- 
vealed Himself  directly  and  only  as  the  Messiah :  His 
assertion  even  of  His  divine  Sonship  did  not  really  go 
beyond  the  avowal  of  His  Messiahship.  He  assures 
us  that  "  more  than  one  passage  in  the  Gospels  can 
be  found  without  difficulty  from  which  the  conclusion 
is  clear  that  the  title,  Son  of  God,  .  .  .  was,  for  the 
Saviour  Himself,  the  equivalent  of  Messiah.  .  .  . 
In  so  far  as  the  title.  Son  of  God,  belongs,  in  an  ex- 
clusive sense,  to  the  Saviour,  it  is  equivalent  to  that 
of  Messiah,  and  takes  its  meaning  from  the  rank  of 
the  Messiah.  .  .  .  Jesus  named  Himself  the  Son 
of  God  to  the  extent  to  which  He  avowed  Himself  the 
Messiah  ".^ 

What,  then,  does  Loisy  really  think  of  Christ  as 
Messiah?  He  believes  that  His  Messiahship  wholly 
consists  in  the  "  providential  function "  which  the 
Saviour  exercises  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  in  the 
"office"  which  He  was  destined  to, hold  at  the  final 
advent.  "  The  office  of  Messiah  ",  he  says,  is  essentially 
eschatological.  .  .  .  He  speaks  but  little  of  Himself 
in  His  preaching.  .  .  .  but,  none  the  less,  assigns 
to  Himself  an  essential  part  in  the  arrival  and  es- 
tabhshment  of  the  Kingdom."  ^ 

So  that,  though  identical  with  the  idea  of  Messiah- 
ship,  "  the  idea  of  the  divine  Sonship  was  linked  to 
that  of  the  Kingdom :  as  far  as  Jesus  was  concerned, 
it  had  no  definite  significance  except  in  regard  to  the 
Kingdom  about  to  be  established.  .  .  .  The  title, 
Son  of  God,  equivalent  to  that  of  Messiah  belongs  to 
Jesus,  not  because  of  His  inner  disposition  and  His 
Religious  experiences,  but  because  of  His  providential 
function  as  the  sole  ag:ent  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 
.  .  .  He  is  the  Son,  par  excellence,  because  He  alone 
is  the  Vicar  of  God  for  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  ".^ 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and-  the  Church,  pp.  91,  105. 

2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  102,  105,  108. 

3  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  105. 


282  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

If,  therefore,  we  critically  interpret  the  Gospel  in 
this  fashion,  we  should  infer  that,  in  proclaiming  His 
Divine  Sonship,  Jesus  had  merely  sought  to  declare 
His  character  of  Messiah,  that,  in  calling  Himself  the 
Son  of  God,  He  did  so  simply  as  ''  the  principal  agent 
and  predestined  head "  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom. 
Loisy,  indeed,  seems  to  go  still  further.  He  implies 
that,  historically  speaking,  Jesus  was  aware  of  being 
nothing  but  Messiah  Ruler  of  the  Kingdom  and  that, 
this  consciousness  itself  may  have  been  acquired 
but  not  inborn.  "  It  must  be  recognized  also  ",  he 
writes,  ''  that  the  texts  permit  no  psychological  analysis 
of  the  idea  of  Son  of  God.  Jesus  named  Himself 
the  Son  of  God  to  the  extent  to  which  He  avowed 
Himself  the  Messiah.  The  historian  must  come,  there- 
fore, to  the  hypothetical  conclusion  that  He  beHeved 
Himself  the  Son  of  God  from  the  time  He  believed 
Himself  to  be  the  Messiah  ".^ 

Undoubtedly,  the  above  theory  tends  to  subvert  the 
traditional  basis  of  the  faith  of  Catholics.  For,  if 
Jesus  in  no  way  whatever  revealed  Himself  as  the  true 
Son  of  God  nor  believed  Himself  to  be  such,  what  is 
to  become  of  the  dogma  of  His  divinity?  Once  that 
we  suppress  the  Saviour's  own  testimony,  upon  what 
basis  shall  faith  in  the  Christ-God  continue  to  stand? 

Loisy,  in  fact,  is  not  very  precise.  He  merely  says 
that  "  the  Christological  dogma  was,  before  every- 
thing, the  expression  of  what  Jesus  represented,  from 
the  beginning,  to  Christian  conscience.  The  passage 
from  the  mere  idea  of  the  Messiah,  as  head  of  the 
heavenly  Kingdom,  to  that  of  the  Incarnate  Word  was 
due  to  a  twofold  influence,  namely,  the  control  of 
Greek  philosophy  over  the  Gentile  converts  and  the 
instinct  of  the  faith  itself  which  had  to  employ  Greek 
terms  in  endeavoring  to  interpret  the  idea  of  Christ's 
Messiahship.2 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  105,  107, 

2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  214, 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  283 

"  The  development  of  Christian  dogma  ",  he  writes, 
'*  was  brought  about  by  the  state  of  mind  and  culture 
of  the  earliest  converts,  who  were  Gentiles  or  under 
Gentile  influence.  ...  So  far  as  they  were  imbued 
with  Greek  culture  they  felt  the  need  of  interpreting 
their  new  faith  to  themselves.  ...  In  this  way, 
progressively  but  beginning  at  an  early  date,  the  Greek 
interpretation  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Messiah 
came  into  being  through  the  spontaneous  effort  of  the 
faith  to  define  itself,  through  the  natural  exigences  of 
propagandism ;  and  thus  the  Christ,  Son  of  God  and 
Son  of  Man,  predestined  Saviour,  became  the  Word 
Made  Flesh,  the  Revealer  of  God  to  humanity.  .  .  . 
The  divinity  of  Christ,  the  Incarnation  of  the  Word, 
was  the  only  conceivable  way  of  translating  to  Greek 
intelligence  the  idea  of  the  Messiah.  .  .  .  From  a 
historical  point  of  view,  it  may  be  maintained  that  the 
Trinity  and  the  Incarnation  are  Greek  dogmas,  since 
they  are  unknown  to  Judaism  and  Judaic  Christianity, 
and  that  Greek  philosophy,  which  helped  to  make 
them,  also  aids  in  their  comprehension  ".^ 

If,  however,  we  consider  these  two  ideas,  thus 
placed  in  mutual  connection,  namely,  the  idea  of 
Messiah  and  that  of  the  Incarnate  Word,  we  may  ask 
if  it  is  quite  right  to  say  that,  in  formulating  the  latter, 
the  instinct  of  the  faith  was  only  "  interpreting  "  for 
itself  and  "translating"  the  former?  The  idea  of 
Messiah  presents  Jesus  simply  as  the  head  of  the 
future  Kingdom,  while  the  idea  of  the  Incarnate 
Word  presents  Him  as  the  Eternal  Son  of  God,  made 
flesh  in  course  of  time,  and  at  once  true  God  and  true 
man.  It  does  not  at  all  seem  likely  that  the  former 
idea  contains  the  latter,  nor  that  therein  it  finds  its 
equivalent  expression,  its  "  translation "  pure  and 
simple,  its  proportionate  "  interpretation  ". 

Does  Loisy  mean  to  say  that,  to  those  possessing 
"  the   faith  ",  the   Messianic   formula  had  finally  as- 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  192,  193,  195. 


284  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

sumed  a  sense  more  complete  that  the  primitive  one; 
that  ''  the  faith  "  could  discern  in  the  primary  idea  of 
Messiah  the  hitherto  unknown  though  real  germ  of 
the  idea  of  the  Incarnate  Word?  Again,  he  should 
have  expressed  himself  more  clearly  and  stated  exactly 
what  was  meant  by  that  "  instinct  of  faith ",  that 
"  spontaneous  effort  of  the  faith  to  define  itself ". 
Did  it  imply  a  special  providence  of  God,  a  particular 
light  and  impulse  of  grace,  which,  along  with  the  con- 
currence of  outward  influences,  served  to  assist  and 
direct  the  Church  so  that  its  faith  might  be  given  a 
new  expression,  a  more  ample  interpretation,  while 
still  retaining  the  meaning  of  the  primitive  idea  which 
was  really  far  more  complete,  far  richer  in  significance 
than  might  be  at  first  supposed?  Such  is,  we  think, 
the  most  Catholic  way  to  interpret  Loisy's  views. 
But  how  is  it  that  he  does  not  express  himself  more 
clearly  upon  so  vital  a  matter? 

Moreover,  his  theory,  as  he  has  stated  it,  appears 
to  present  serious  difliculties.  Thus,  on  the  one  hand, 
it  is  inconceivable  that,  if  the  idea  of  Messiah  em- 
braced and  contained  the  idea  of  the  Incarnate  Word 
in  any  way  at  all,  there  is,  as  Loisy  indeed  claims,  no 
trace  of  it  in  the  Gospels,  inasmuch  as  the  Saviour 
apparently  never  revealed  it  in  any  manner  nor  was 
even  aware  of  it.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  faith  alone 
could  have  discerned  the  real  and  deeper  sense  of  the 
Messianic  idea,  what  warrant  is  there  for  the  truth 
of  that  faith  and  for  the  soundness  of  its  instinct? 
What  means  do  we  have  of  ascertaining  that  it  comes 
from  God  and  that  its  interpretation  is  authorized  by 
Heaven  ?  When  we  openly  assault  the  historic  founda- 
tions of  dogma,  when  we  attempt  to  ruin  in  particular 
the  traditional  belief  in  the  foundation  of  the  Church, 
— a  fact  surely  intended  and  well-considered  by  Christ, 
it  becomes  at  least  a  duty  to  explain  precisely  upon 
what  solid  basis  the  faith  continues  to  rest  and  how 
it  is  possible  to  hold  as  lawful  and  true  a  belief  of  the 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  285 

primitive  Christians  which  is  represented  as  being  ojd- 
posed,  as  it  were,  to  the  Saviour's  own  manifestation 
and  personal  convictions. 

He  remarks,  rightly  enough,  with  reference  to  his 
book:  "In  no  sense  is  it  an  attempt  to  write  an 
apology  of  Catholicism  or  traditional  dogma.  Had  it 
been  so  intended,  it  must  have  been  regarded  as  very 
defective  and  incomplete,  especially  as  far  as  concerns 
the  divinity  of  Christ  and  the  authority  of  the 
Church  ".  But  this  assertion  does  not  fill  the  gap. 
He  affirms  that  he  takes  ''  the  point  of  view  of  his- 
tory ",  and  doubtless  he  means  that  he  has  given  all 
the  testimony  of  history.  Such  testimony,  however, 
is  very  far  from  the  affirmations  of  traditional 
dogma,  and  above  all  from  what  has  been  hitherto 
believed  to  be  the  revelation  and  conviction  of  Jesus 
Himself.  And  yet,  Loisy  fails  to  explain  at  all  how 
it  is  possible  to  secure  an  agreement  between  the  faith 
in  the  traditional  Catholic  dogma  and  the  new  theory 
which  he  advances  for  the  historical  origin  of  the 
dogma  on  Christ's  divinity.  Whatever  respect  we  may 
have  for  the  author's  talent,  one  cannot  help  re- 
marking that,  in  this  instance,  it  betrayed  serious 
defect. 

The  false  impression  was  deepened  by  Loisy's  ven- 
turesome and  utterly  suspicious  manner  in  expressing 
his  ideas  upon  the  possibility  of  a  modern  translation 
of  ancient  dogmatic  formulas,  and  upon  the  oppor- 
tunity of  a  new  explanation  of  dogma  because  of  the 
progress  made  in  the  philosophic  and  historic  sciences. 

"  Any  one  who  has  followed  the  progress  of  Chris- 
tian thought  from  the  beginning,"  he  writes,  "  must 
perceive  that  neither  the  Christological  dogma  nor  the 
dogma  of  grace,  nor  that  of  the  Church  is  to  be  taken 
for  a  summit  of  doctrine,  beyond  which  no  prospect 
opens  for  the  believer,  or  can  ever  open,  except  the 
dazzling  perspective  of  infinite  mystery;  it  is  not  to 
be  expected  that  these  dogmas  will  remain  firmer  than 


286  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  rock,  inaccessible  even  to  accidental  change,  and 
yet  intelligible  for  all  generations,  and  equally  ap- 
plicable, without  any  new  translation  or  explanation, 
to  all  states,  and  to  every  advance  of  science,  life,  and 
human  society.  .  .  .  Reason  never  ceases  to  put 
questions  to  faith,  and  traditional  formulas  are  sub- 
mitted to  a  constant  work  of  interpretation  wherein 

*  the   letter   that   killeth '   is   effectively   controlled   by 

*  the  spirit  that  quickeneth  '."  ^ 

"  The  efforts  of  a  healthy  theology  "  he  continues, 
"  should  be  directed  to  a  solution  of  the  antinomy,  pre- 
.sented  by  the  unquestionable  authority  that  faith  de- 
mands for  dogma,  and  the  variability,  the  relativity, 
that  the  critic  cannot  fail  to  perceive  in  the  history  of 
dogmas  and  dogmatic  formulas.  ...  It  follows 
that  a  considerable  change  in  the  state  of  knowledge 
might  render  necessary  a  new  interpretation  of  old 
formulas,  which,  conceived  in  another  intellectual  at- 
mosphere, no  longer  say  what  is  necessary,  or  no 
longer  say  it  suitably.  .  .  .  It  is  not  indispensable 
to  the  authority  of  belief  that  it  should  be  rigorously 
unchangeable  in  its  intellectual  form  and  its  verbal 
expression.  .  .  .  The  Church  does  not  exact  belief 
in  its  formulas  as  the  adequate  expression  of  absolute 
truth,  but  presents  them  as  the  least  imperfect  expres- 
sion that  is  morally  possible.  ...  As  all  souls  and 
all  intelligences  differ  one  from  the  other,  the  grada- 
tions of  belief  are  also  of  infinite  variety,  under  the 
sole  direction  of  the  Church,  and  in  the  unity  of  her 
creed  ".^ 

We  do  not  at  all  want  to  make  Loisy  say  more  than 
he  meant  to  say.  The  terms  of  the  declarations  which 
have  been  mentioned  are  cleverly  calculated  and  may 
admit  of  a  strictly  orthodox  interpretation.  All  goes 
well,  it  would  seem,  when  we  maintain  the  immutable 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  2,  3. 

2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  210,  211. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  287 

character  of  the  truth,  and  object  only  to  the  relative 
imperfection  of  the  formula;  when  we  affirm  the  un- 
questionable authority  of  dogma,  and  plead  only  for 
improvement,  for  accidental  modification  in  its  expres- 
sion; when,  finally,  we  proclaim  the  need  of  adhering 
to  the  Creed  of  the  Church  and  to  hold  fast  to  the  es- 
sential unity  of  the  faith,  and  only  admit  variations 
in  the  mode  which  individuals  employ  in  describing 
and  proving  that  faith  to  themselves.  In  these  pages 
of  Loisy's  work,  however,  the  stress  that  he  lays  in  a 
way  upon  the  possibility  of  modifications  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  formulas  leaves  the  vague  impression  that 
he  had  wanted  to  tell  us  different  from  what  had 
hitherto  been  told  by  anybody.  We  may,  for  instance 
remark  his  new  style  of  judging  of  the  historical  origin 
of  dogmas,  especially  the  dogma  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  and  we  may  anxiously  ask  if  that  *'  new  inter- 
pretation of  old  formulas ",  rendered  necessary  by 
"  a  considerable  change  in  the  state  of  knowledge  ". 
was  not  something  else  than  an  accidental  change  and 
a  normal  improvement. 

At  least,  as  we  believe,  this  is  the  impression  which 
the  author's  pages  have  made  upon  a  number  of  his 
most  considerate  readers.  To  offset  that  false  impres- 
sion, it  would  seem  that  Loisy  should  have  explained 
to  his  readers  exactly  what  really  was  to  be  under- 
stood by  that  new  interpretation  of  old  formulas. 
Why  did  he  neglect  to  do  so? 

2.    "  ABOUT  A  LITTLE  BOOK." 

Since  the  first  edition  of  his  work  on  "  The  Gospel 
and  the  Church  "  was  published,  Loisy  has  apparently 
endeavored  to  modify,  or  to  complete  it  in  many  re- 
spects. Thus,  in  a  later  work  entitled  ''About  a  little 
Book  "  he  feels  the  need,  first  of  all,  to  state  his  behef 
in  more  precise  terms.  He  is  glad  to  have  "  spent  his 
life  in  showing  that  the  profession  of  Catholicism  is 
compatible  with  the  full  play  of  reason  and  the  un- 


288  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

trameled  researches  of  criticism  ".  He  feels  honored 
to  be  ranked  among  "  those  who,  while  devoted  to 
the  scientific  study  of  religion  and  anxious  about  the 
future  welfare  of  Catholicity  in  France,  claim  to  re- 
main sincere  students  and  loyal  servants  of  the 
Church  ".  Nor,  especially,  does  he  hesitate  to  make 
a  public  profession  of  his  faith  in  Christ's  divinity. 
"  The  Christological  problem  ",  he  says,  ''  which  for 
ages  has  shaped  the  life  and  activity  of  the  Church,  is 
not  to  be  examined  as  though  it  had  never  been  dis- 
cussed and  decided.  We  should  not  cast  aside  the 
experiences  of  the  past.  To  suspect  me  of  wanting  to 
revive  some  antiquated  system  condemned  by  the 
ancient  Councils, — this  would  be  to  greatly  mistake 
my  appreciation  of  the  errors  of  former  days  and  of 
present  orthodoxy.  The  acquired  knowledge  of  the 
past  remains  the  teaching  of  the  present:  Christ  is 
God  according  to  the  teaching  of  the  faith  ".^ 

Moreover,  he  undoubtedly  means  to  reconcile  his 
theory  with  orthodoxy ;  for,  in  his  new  book,  he  seems 
to  insist  upon  an  element  of  the  historic  Christ  which 
he  had  left  unnoticed  in  his  work  on  "  The  Gospel 
and  the  Church  ".  Thus,  he  speaks  of  ''  the  deep  and 
undefinable  mystery  of  His  relationship  with  God; — 
a  quite  special  relationship  of  union  existing  between 
God  and  the  Man-Christ;  a  relation  which  is  not  the 
mere  knowledge  of  the  good  God,  but  something  in- 
finitely more  mysterious  and  more  profound :  a  species 
of  intimate  and  ineffable  permeation  of  the  Man-Christ 
by  God,  as  happened  at  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
upon  Jesus  when  receiving  Baptism.  .  .  .  Here  is 
all  that  we  find  in  the  history  of  Christ  ".^ 

We  find  the  same  idea  expressed  also  in  his  work 
entitled  "The  Fourth  Gospel".  He  tells  us  that 
"  the  divine  mission  of  Christ,  viewed  as  an  historical 

^  Loisy,  Autour  d'un  petit  livre,  p.  xxxv. 
2Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  117,  134,  IS5- 


» 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  289 

fact,  is  explained  by  the  circumstance  that  His  Jewish 
habit  of  thought  was  enhvened  by  the  conviction  of  a 
divine  fiHation  which  we  may  say  was  unique  and 
personal  in  the  case  of  Jesus  ".  Again,  in  the  same 
work,  Loisy  thus  estimates  the  impression  made  upon 
him  by  the  Synoptic  Christ :  "  Throughout  all  His 
discourses,  His  deeds.  His  sorrows,  we  feel  something 
divine  uplifting  him  above  mankind,  even  the  best  ".^ 

So  too,  in  the  second  edition  of  *'  The  Gospel  and 
the  Church  "  not  only  does  he  insist  that  Jesus  "  for 
the  faith  is  King  and  God  eternally  ",  but  in  the  name 
of  history,  he  emphasizes  anew  "  His  unique  relation- 
ship with  God  ",  a  relationship  based  "  upon  a  sub- 
stantial communication  of  the  divine  Spirit,  that  is, 
of  God  Himself  unto  the  predestined  Messiah  ".^ 

Of  course,  this  new  element  brought  into  "  the  his- 
tory of  Christ "  has  its  importance.  Why  was  it  not 
pointed  out  in  any  way  at  all,  when,  previously,  we 
were  shown  the  veritable  Christ  of  history?  Why 
insist  so  complaisantly  upon  "  the  humble  conditions  " 
of  Jesus'  historic  ministry,  and  so  prominently  uphold 
the  reality  of  His  humanity  without  in  the  least 
emphasizing  the  peculiar  features  of  His  person, 
of  His  words,  and  of  His  deeds,  which,  on  the 
other  hand,  show  "  something  divine ",  a  "  quite 
special  relationship  of  union  "  with  God,  a  substantial 
communication  of  the  divine  Spirit  "  which  is  nov/  in- 
dicated to  us  after  all  that  has  been  said  before? 
Why,  especially,  instead  of  firmly  adhering  to  these 
new  observations,  of  setting  forth  their  value,  of  mak- 
ing them  the  point  of  agreement  between  the  incom- 
plete exposition  in  his  first  book  and  the  fulness  of 
Catholic  doctrine, — why  be  content  to  notice  them 
casually  in  a  brief,  general  formula?  Why,  more- 
over, try  to  weaken  their  meaning  in  the  context,  and 

1  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  p.  38,  2d  ed. 

2  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  51,  125. 

19 


290  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

bring  them  finally  to  the  former  insufficient  conclu- 
sions which  they  were  apparently  meant  to  correct? 

If,  then,  we  are  not  satisfied  with  the  mere  appear- 
ance of  words,  but  are  seeking  for  the  author's  real 
thought  beneath  somewhat  obscure  and  equivocal 
terms,  the  following  facts  appear  to  be  quite  evident. 
On  the  one  hand,  "  we  find  in  the  history  of  Christ  " 
that  there  was  "  a  unique  communication  of  the  divine 
life  ",  a  ''  species  of  intimate  and  ineffable  permeation 
of  the  Man-Christ  by  God  ".  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
we  are  made  to  plainly  understand  that  the  idea  of 
Christ's  divinity  is  not  at  all  encountered  by  Loisy  in 
the  Saviour's  own  teaching.  After  remarking,  and 
somewhat  justly,  that  ''  the  divinity  of  Jesus  is  not  a 
fact  of  Gospel  history  which  is  verifiable,  critically 
speaking,  as  to  its  reality,  but  .  .  .  the  definition 
of  the  relationship  existing  between  Christ  and  God, 
that  is,  a  belief,  the  origin  and  development  of  which 
the  historian  can  simply  ascertain  ",  he  continues  " : 
"  This  belief  would  be  a  part  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
and  it  should  be  recognized  by  the  historian,  if  the 
Fourth  Gospel  was  a  direct  echo  of  the  Saviour's 
preaching,  and  if  the  saying  in  the  Synoptists  about 
"  the  Father  who  alone  knoweth  the  Son  and  the  Son 
who  alone  knoweth  the  Father  "  was  not  a  product  of 
tradition.  But  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  a  book  of  mystic 
theology  wherein  is  heard  the  voice  of  the  Christian 
conscience,  and  not  the  Christ  of  history ;  and  in  *'  The 
Gospel  and  the  Church  ",  I  have  explained  why  the 
text  of  Matthew  and  of  Luke  is  very  likely  a  fruit 
of  theological  speculation,  the  work  of  a  Christian 
prophet,  like  the  Fourth  Gospel  ".^ 

In  Loisy's  opinion,  then,  the  historical  Christ  never 
in  the  least  manifested  Himself  as  the  true  Son  of 
God.  He  also  gives  us  to  understand,  even  more 
plainly  than  he  did  in  his  other  book,  that  Christ  was 

1  Loisy,  Autour,  p.  130. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


291 


never  at  all  aware  of  being  the  true  Son  of  God  and 
true  God. 

*'  Is  it  not  true  ",  he  says,  "  that  the  conciliation  of 
this  theory  with  history  would  not  be  without  its  diffi- 
culties if  we  would  have  the  theory  to  be  the  exact 
expression  of  history?  When  Jesus  answers  a  man 
who  had  called  Him  '  Good  Master ',  it  is  by  the  re- 
mark :  '  Why  call  you  Me  good  ?  None  is  good  but 
one,  that  is,  God '.  And  when  He  makes  that  act  of 
resignation :  '  Father,  not  what  I  will,  but  what  Thou 
wilt ',  the  natural  sense  of  the  words  does  not  agree 
with  the  theory,  and,  besides,  the  Fourth  Gospel  does 
not  assign  such  sayings  to  Him.  The  critic  may,  then, 
suspect  the  authenticity  of  these  declarations  which, 
in  any  supposition,  would  correspond  to  a  Christology 
other  than  that  of  S.  John;  for  the  theory  does  not 
teach  us  anything  about  the  Saviour's  inner  life.  In 
itself,  the  dogma  is  a  doctrinal  construction  which 
theologians  are  inclined  to  interpret  as  a  psychological 
reality:  but,  for  the  occasion,  they  create  a  special 
psychology  which,  in  fact,  is  no  psychology  at  all, 
since  its  basis  is  not  observation  but  reasoning  due  to 
an  unhistoric  interpretation  of  the  Gospel.  The  theo- 
logian conceives  of  two  distinct  intelligences  and  wills, 
of  a  sort  of  double  consciousness,  the  one  above  the 
other  and,  as  it  were,  possessing  a  reciprocal  penetra- 
tion :  the  human  faculty  is  entirely  subordinated  to  the 
"divine,  and  the  Man-Christ,  although  fully  aware  of 
his  humanity,  is  also  aware  of  being  God.  ...  If 
at  all  authorized,  this  theory  needs  to  be  explained, 
especially  nowadays,  by  the  exegetical  theologian, 
rather  than  it  furnishes  light  for  the  historical  inter- 
pretation of  the  Gospel  ".^ 

Loisy  is  so  unequivocal  in  his  manner  of  represent- 
ing the  consciousness  of  the  historical  Christ  that  we 
know  full  well  the  meaning  of  the  following  remarks : 

1  Mk.  X.  17-18;  xiv.  36;  Loisy,  Autour,  pp.  148-149. 


292  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

"  Jesus,  while  living  on  earth  ",  he  says,  *'  was  aware 
of  His  humanity,  and  He  spoke  and  acted  according 
to  such  conviction.  He  lived  in  the  full  knowledge  of 
His  Messianic  vocation,  and  taught  in  accordance  with 
what  Hght  He  had  of  this  vocation.  His  discourses, 
His  conduct,  the  attitude  of  His  disciples  and  enemies, 
all  show  that  Christ  was  a  man  among  men,  '  in  all 
things  like  to  them,  except  sin ' :  we  may  even  add, 
except  the  intimate  and  undefinable  mystery  of  His 
relationship  with  God.  This  relationship  is  expressed 
in  the  idea  of  Messiah  ".^ 

We  may  at  first  ask  ourselves  if  in  Loisy's  mind 
the  restriction  **  except  the  intimate  and  undefinable 
mystery  of  His  relationship  with  God  ",  as  also  the 
expression,  "  except  sin ",  refers  to  an  element  in 
Christ  which  was  only  afterwards  perceived  by  the 
Christian  conscience,  or  rather  an  element  which  is 
positively  attested  by  the  Gospel  history  and  of  which 
Christ  had  shown  Himself  to  be  aware?  But  the 
analogous  and  unequivocal  reflections  found  in  the 
context  leave  no  room  for  deception:  in  Loisy's 
opinion,  the  historical  Christ  was  aware  of  his  rela- 
tionship with  God  only  in  so  far  as  He  was  aware  of 
His  character  as  God's  representative  for  the  estab- 
lishment and  government  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 
And  it  is  wholly  in  this  sense  that  he  says :  "  this 
relationship  is  expressed  in  the  idea  of  Messiah  ". 

We  find  elsewhere  a  more  explicit  statement: 
"  Critically  interpreted,  the  Gospel  shows  that  Jesus 
preached  the  advent  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  and 
that  He  made  Himself  known  to  His  disciples  and  to 
His  judges  as  the  Messiah  foretold  to  Israel.  As  to 
what  was  really  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  what 
was  meant  by  the  title  Messiah,  Son  of  God,  I  have 
shown  it  as  clearly  as  could  be,  while  refraining,  as  I 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  116-117. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


293 


should,  from  introducing  later  theological  speculations 
into  the  teachings  of  the  Saviour  ".^ 

What  can  be  plainer  than  this?  In  Loisy's  estima- 
tion, the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  reveals  Himself  only 
as  the  Messiah,  and  the  Messiah,  as  Loisy  has  con- 
stantly and  clearly  stated,  is  only  "  the  principal  agent 
and  predestined  head  of  the  Kingdom  ",  and  the  Son 
of  God  in  the  sense  that  "  He  alone  is  the  vicar  of 
God  for  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  ". 

It  is,  therefore,  this  and  only  this  Messianic  relation- 
ship, displaying  itself  through  the  "  providential  func- 
tion "  which  is  to  be  exercised  only  at  the  end  of 
time,  that  is  implied  in  the  "  quite  special  relationship 
of  union  "  existing  between  the  Man-Christ  and  God. 
Naught  more  is  supposed  to  be  found  in  the  Saviour's 
personal  teaching  nor  in  His  historic  consciousness. 
We  see  clearly,  then,  what  to  think  of  the  following 
observations  of  Loisy,  if  we  only  take  the  trouble  of 
looking  through  the  outer  veil  of  words : 

"  The  Gospel  idea  of  the  Messiah ",  he  tells  us, 
"  contains,  in  principle,  the  entire  Christological  de- 
velopment. It  really  implies  the  eternal  predestination 
of  Him  who  was  to  appear  in  this  world  as  the  Son 
of  God,  and  also  His  final  exaltation,  and  even,  as  an 
intermediary  condition  for  predestination  and  glory,  a 
quite  special  relationship  of  union  between  God  and 
the  Alan-Christ:  a  relation  implying  not  merely  the 
knowledge  of  the  good  God,  but  something  far  more 
mysterious  and  profound,  namely,  a  sort  of  intimate 
and  ineffable  penetration  of  the  Man-Christ  by  God, 
such  as  was  visibly  symbolized  by  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  upon  the  baptized  Jesus.  The  vocation  of 
Jesus  is  not  that  of  a  prophet :  it  is  unique  in  its  kind, 
both  as  a  providential  mission  and  as  a  grace  of  God. 
A  unique  predestination  of  a  human  being  for  a  unique 
role  for  which  this  human  being  (Christ)  is  fitted  by 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  131, 


294  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

a  unique  communication  of  divine  life  that  buds  forth 
into  a  unique  perfection  of  faith,  hope,  and  love:  this, 
is  all  we  find  in  Christ's  history."  ^ 

Let  us  state  the  case  with  the  greatest  precision: 
''  The  Gospel  idea  of  the  Messiah,  we  are  told,  implies 
the  eternal  predestination  of  Him  who  was  to  appear 
in  this  world  as  the  Son  of  God  ".  Yes,  to  be  sure ; 
but  "  eternal  predestination  "  is  not  necessarily  eternal 
pre-existence.  The  former  imphes  ideal  pre-existence 
in  God's  intelligence  and  will,  while  the  latter  implies 
eternal  existence  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word;  nor 
is  this  latter  at  all  implied  in  the  former.  For,  although 
the  Man-Christ  had  been  predestined,  in  the  divine 
plan,  to  become  the  Son  of  God  as  Head  of  the  Mes- 
sianic Kingdom,  it  does  not  logically  follow  that  He 
pre-existed  eternally  before  His  advent  into  this  world, 
as  true  Son  of  God  in  God. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Gospel  idea  of  the  Messiah, 
such  as  Loisy  has  explained  it,  does  not  positively 
imply  "  a  relationship  of  union  between  God  and  the 
Man-Christ "  other  than  that  of  His  "  providential 
function "  as  "  vicar  of  God  for  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven ".  If,  as  Loisy  claims,  Jesus  only  gave 
Himself  as  the  *'  Ruler  "  and  "  Sole  Maker  "  of  the 
Kingdom,  He  really  did  not  reveal  that  He  had  ex- 
perienced an  *'  intimate  and  ineffable  penetration  "  of 
Himself  ''  by  God " ;  nor,  strictly  speaking,  did  He 
manifest  that  "  unique  communication  of  the  divine 
life  "  supposed  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  Christ. 
If  He  has  revealed  it.  He  must  have  spoken  otherwise 
than  Loisy  makes  Him  speak.  His  statements  would 
point  beyond  that  mere  "  eschatological  role  ",  beyond 
that  mere  "  providential  function  "  in  which,  it  is  al- 
leged, is  centered  the  Gospel  idea  of  the  Messiah  Son 
of  God. 

At  all  events,  to  affirm  that  the  dogma  of  Christ's 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  133-134;  cf.  The  Gospel  and  the  Church, 
p.  51. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


295 


divinity  "  existed  in  germ  in  the  idea  "  which  Loisy  has 
given  us  of  "  the  Messiah  Son  of  God  ",  to  pretend 
that  the  "  Gospel  idea  of  the  Messiah  contains,  in 
principle,  the  entire  Christological  development  "  seems 
to  be  a  mere  play  upon  words.  He  tells  us,  that  "  the 
divinity  of  Christ  is  a  dogma  which  has  grown  in  the 
Christian  conscience,  although  it  is  not  expressly  for- 
mulated in  the  Gospel,  it  exists  only  in  germ  in  the 
notion  of  Messiah,  Son  of  God  ".^ 

The  Gospel  idea,  indeed,  serves  as  the  basis  for  the 
dogma,  but  this  basis  is  wholly  extrinsic  and  without 
any  natural  bearing  upon  the  dogma :  it  does  not  con- 
tain it  either  in  germ  or  in  principle.  It  does  not  con- 
tain it  as  the  root  does  the  germ  which  shall  normally 
develop  into  a  tree  with  trunk  and  branches,  but  rather 
as  the  spike  fixed  in  the  wall  contains  the  first  link 
of  the  chain  which  is  attached  to  it. 

The  Gospel  idea  of  the  Messiah  does  not  contain 
in  principle  the  dogma  of  the  Christ-God  because  its 
essential  constitutive  elements,  namely,  Christ's  eternal 
pre-existence.  His  real  participation  in  God's  nature, 
are  not  taken  from  the  Gospel  idea :  they  do  not  issue 
therefrom  as  though  previously  contained  in  it,  they 
are  introduced  from  without.  So  true  is  this  that, 
by  the  adaptation  of  these  new  and  extrinsic  elements, 
the  Gospel  idea  becomes  totally  transformed;  it  is 
Hke  a  great  hiatus,  a  radical  separation  between  the 
former  idea  which  means  one  thing  and  the  second 
idea  which  implies  another ;  between  the  Christ  of  the 
Gospel,  the  simply  privileged  Messiah  of  God,  and  the 
Christ  of  the  Christian  conscience,  the  true  Son  of 
God  and  true  God. 

In  vain  does  Loisy  say :  "  Theological  endeavor 
does  not  start  outside  of  history  and  from  mere  specu- 
lation. The  Greek  explanation  is  not  made  aside  from 
the  initial-  fact;  it  rests  upon  the  fact  and  coincides 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  117. 


296  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

therewith;  we  may  also  say  that  it  issues  from  it. 
.  .  .  The  character  of  the  Johannine  thought  is  not 
Jewish,  but  the  substance  of  that  thought  was  in  the 
Synoptists,  and  the  thought  of  the  Synoptists  reflects 
what  we  may  be  allowed  to  call  the  Psychological  con- 
sciousness of  Jesus.  No  break  of  continuity  is  notice- 
able between  the  fact  and  its  interpretation.  The  one 
is  not  a  fiction  foreign  to  the  other ;  nor,  on  the  other 
hand,  does  the  Gospel  fact  when  well  understood,  go 
against  the  theological  interpretation,  if  it  be  taken 
for  what  it  is  worth,  nor  does  it  destroy  this  latter. 
.  .  .  The  persuasion  which  Jesus  had  of  His  union 
with  God  is  wholly  undefinable.  It  is  enough  to  show 
that  the  expression  which  He  Himself  has  given  of 
it  is  substantially  equivalent,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  to 
the  ecclesiastical  definition  ".^ 

Such  kind  of  language  appears  to  us  like  a  mirage 
and  a  sophism  if  it  be  used  in  the  hypothesis  of  Loisy. 
For,  to  pretend  to  find  "  the  substance  "  of  the  Johan- 
nine thought,  "  the  substance  "  of  Church  definitions 
on  the  Christ-God  in  the  Gospel  facts  such  as  they  are 
set  forth  in  the  author's  books,  implies  a  deception  and 
a  use  of  words  against  their  obvious  sense.  If,  as  is  af- 
firmed, *'  the  psychological  consciousness  "  of  Jesus,  as 
"  reflected  in  the  thought  of  the  Synoptists  "  made  him 
aware  only  of  his  quality  of  Messiah,  the  predestined 
Head  of  the  Kingdom;  if  the  declarations  made  by 
the  historic  Christ  do  not  express  a  relationship  of  a 
far  more  excellent  kind  between  Himself  and  God,  and 
rightly  and  logically  expressed  by  the  idea  of  His  real 
participation  in  God's  very  being,  it  were  false  to  allege 
a  "  substantial  "  equivalence  between  the  Gospel  fact 
and  its  theological  interpretation. 

No  doubt,  we  may  well  believe  that  Christ,  although 
God  in  the  fullest  sense,  maintained  a  kind  of  reserve 
in  revealing  His  divinity.     Nor  may  we  at  all  refuse 

^  Loisy,  op.  cit,  pp.  135,  138. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  297 

to  concede  that  ''  the  divinity  of  Christ "...  is  a 
dogma  that  was  not  expressly  formulated  in  the  Gos- 
pel ",  or  that  *'  the  theology  of  the  Incarnate  Word  " 
is  not  found  therein  "  formally  ".  Says  Loisy,  "  It  is 
claimed  that  the  theology  of  the  Incarnate  Word  is 
connected  with  the  Gospel  of  Jesus.  It  is,  indeed,  in 
a  way  connected  therewith,  although  it  be  not  contained 
therein.  The  imperious  desire  of  theologians  cannot 
make  us  find  it  there  in  its  formal  expression."  We 
may  also  add  with  Loisy :  "  We  are  not  surprised  that 
the  historical  Christ  gave  no  definition  of  His  person 
and  of  His  role  according  to  the  methods  of  Greek 
thought  ".1 

The  theology  of  the  Incarnate  Word,  however,  must 
be  logically  connected  with  the  Gospel  and  really  con- 
tained therein  under  one  form  or  other,  Christ  must 
have  been  truly  aware  of  His  divinity  and  must  have, 
in  some  manner,  positively  suggested  the  idea  of  the 
essential  transcendence  of  His  union  with  God,  if  there 
be  any  reason  for  claiming  that  "  the  Greek  explana- 
tion .  .  .  issues  from  the  initial  fact  ",  and  that 
"  the  expression  "  given  by  Jesus  as  to  His  conviction 
of  being  united  with  God  is  "  equivalent  substantially 
...    to  the  ecclesiastical  definition  ". 

If  Christ  were  not  truly  aware  of  His  substantial 
union  with  God;  if  His  psychological  consciousness 
were  limited  to  the  idea  of  His  Messiahship,  such  as 
Loisy  has  explained  it  to  us,  we  could  not  say  that  the 
theological  dogma  issues  from  the  Gospel  fact  like  a 
plant  from  its  germ,  but  rather  as  a  plant  from  the 
soil  wherein  it  lies,  or  as  a  flower  from  its  surrounding 
vase.  Between  the  one  and  the  other  there  is  only  a 
material  relation,  there  is  only  an  exterior  agreement, 
without,  however,  a  dependence  of  origin  founded 
upon  their  nature. 

We  are  told  that  "  the  Greek  explanation  is  not 

1  ]Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  117;  cf.  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  p.  138. 


298  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

made  aside  from  the  initial  fact  " ;  that,  in  a  manner, 
''  it  rests  upon  the  fact " ;  and  nevertheless,  in  its  sub- 
stance, in  its  essential  elements  it  is  foreign  to  this 
initial  fact  and  wholly  separate  from  its  basis.  For, 
the  dogma  expresses  an  idea  different  from  the  Gospel 
idea, — a  second  idea  in  no  way  contained  in  the  first. 
It  is  not  really  an  interpretation,  but  a  new  construc- 
tion. The  explanation  given  of  the  Gospel  fact  does 
not  place  in  proper  light  the  elements  which  it  con- 
tains, since  it  is  understood  that  the  Gospel  fact  his- 
orically  speaking,  does  not  contain  them.  The  very 
essential  parts  of  the  dogma,  and  not  merely  the  acci- 
dental ones,  are  constructed  by  means  of  elements  that 
are  foreign  to  "  the  personal  teaching  of  Christ ",  and 
furnished  only  by  faith.  The  Christian  conscience  did 
not  draw  from  the  Gospel  what  was  historically  con- 
tained therein:  its  endeavor  was  not  confined  to  dis- 
covering and  formulating  what  was  latent  and  implicit 
in  the  Saviour's  discourses.  It  put  there  what  was  not 
there;  it  drew  from  its  behef ;  and  it  is  the  edifice  of 
the  faith  that  was  built  in  its  entirety  upon  the  base 
of  the  fact  through  a  sort  of  extrinsic  superposition, 
without,  however,  the  Gospel  fact  being  destined  for 
this  construction  nor,  even,  critically  speaking,  sus- 
ceptible of  receiving  it. 

Has  it  not,  indeed,  been  claimed  by  Rationalists  that 
the  idea  of  the  Christ-God  was  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  Gospel  expression,  Son  of  God,  had  been  taken 
in  a  wrong  sense  by  Greek  Christians  and  interpreted 
to  mean  a  real  divine  Sonship  by  those  who  did  not 
perceive  the  general  and  figurative  meaning  attached 
to  it  in  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  languages?  If  we 
had  to  admit  that  the  dogma  of  the  divinity  of  Christ 
arose  from  such  an  erroneous  interpretation,  we  might 
perhaps  still  say,  to  borrow  Loisy's  words,  that  the 
explanation  was  not  made  "  aside  from  the  fact  ",  but 
even  "  based  upon  the  fact  "  ?  But  could  we  say  that 
"  it  coincides  therewith  ",  that   "  it  issues   from  it  ", 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


299 


that  it  was  therein  contained  "  in  germ  "  and  "  sub- 
stantially '■  ?  Assuredly  not.  And  the  reason  is  plain : 
between  the  fact  and  its  interpretation  there  would  be 
a  "  real  break  of  continuity  " ;  the  Gospel  fact  having 
its  own  meaning  while  the  interpretation  given  thereto 
would  have  a  different  one. 

In  Loisy's  theory,  the  case  is  somewhat  similar,  the 
difference  being  that  he  finds  that  the  meaning  given 
to  the  facts  by  the  theological  interpretation  thereof 
is  founded  upon  faith.  But  it  remains  true,  however, 
that  such  a  meaning  was,  historically  speaking,  foreign 
to  the  Gospel  fact,  and  that,  critically  viewed,  it  was 
not  even  contained  therein.  So  that,  on  the  one  hand, 
we  have  the  fact  with  its  own  meaning  and,  on  the 
other,  the  interpretation  whereby  this  fact  receives  a 
new  meaning,  a  sense  by  no  means  warranted  in  his- 
tory but  resting  upon  faith.  Between  the  fact  and  its 
interpretation,  whatever  Loisy  may  say,  there  is,  critic- 
ally speaking,  a  "  real  break  of  continuity":  from  the 
fact  to  its  interpretation  the  way,  indeed,  is  found 
only  by  faith. 

For  the  interpretation  of  Gospel  facts,  faith  can  as- 
suredly offer  elements  unknown  to  history,  which  go  be- 
yond the  formula  admitted  by  critics  and  which  impart 
thereto  a  meaning  that  they  could  not  suspect.  Thus, 
a  direct  inspiration  from  God,  or  a  special  assistance 
of  His  providence  may  reveal  to  faith  what  science 
cannot  discern.  But  if  this  were  so  in  the  case  viewed 
by  Loisy,  he  would  at  all  events  have  to  cease  looking 
in  history  for  what  faith  alone  can  supply.  The  dogma 
of  Christ's  divinity  would,  then,  no  longer  rest  upon  the 
Gospel;  it  would  no  longer  rest  upon  the  Saviour's 
personal  testimony.  The  dogma  would  have  only  an 
extrinsic  basis  upon  the  fact  of  history;  its  essential 
elements  would  come  only  from  faith ;  and,  against 
the  data  of  faith,  there  would  stand  this  difficulty,  which 
if  not  peremptory,  is  assuredly  annoying  and  startling 
enough,  namely,  the  strange  instance  of  a  God-Man 
Christ  who  was  not  aware  of  being  God ! 


300  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

"  The  gravity  of  the  problem,"  says  Loisy,  ''  does 
not  escape  me  in  the  least ;  nor  have  I  stated  it  without 
due  reflexion ".  Still,  he  thinks  that  such  critical 
hypotheses  are  compatible  with  dogma;  for  he  affirms 
that  ''  the  believing  historian  perceives  naught  in  these 
facts  to  disturb  his  faith.  And  he  reasons  thus :  "  The 
natural  representation  of  things  as  they  appear  to  the 
observer's  view  is  fully  compatible  with  their  super- 
natural explanation.  This  explanation,  however,  is 
not  a  matter  of  history.  .  .  .  All  such  historical  re- 
searches tend  only  to  verify  and  to  represent  facts 
which,  in  turn,  cannot  contradict  any  dogma  precisely 
because  they  are  facts  and  because  the  dogmas  them- 
selves are  ideas  that  represent  the  faith  which  seeks, 
not  the  humanly  knowable,  but  the  divinely  incom- 
prehensible ".^ 

Thus,  in  his  estimation,  dogma  would  be  wholly  in- 
dependent of  facts.  No  conflict  could  occur  between 
the  one  and  the  other  because  the  one  sprang  from 
science  and  the  other  from  faith;  because  there  is  be- 
tween science  and  faith  a  closed  wall,  as  it  were,  and 
an  entirely  separate  domain.  We  do  not  care  to  dis- 
cuss the  reasons  for  this  general  view  of  the  relation- 
ship between  science  and  faith,  between  fact  and 
dogma;  but  we  may  be  allowed  to  remind  Loisy  that, 
although  the  object  of  faith  be  "  the  divinely  incompre- 
hensible ",  it  must  also  have  a  basis  in  "  the  humanly 
knowable  ".  Dogma,  indeed,  is  not  as  independent  of 
fact  as  he  would  wish  it  to  be.  In  fact,  he  speaks  of 
the  divinity  of  Jesus  as  "  a  belief  "  of  which  the  his- 
torian "  can  verify  the  origin  and  development ",  and 
he  endeavors  to  ascertain  if  this  belief  does  or  does  not 
belong  to  the  Saviour's  teaching.^ 

"  The  persuasion  which  Jesus  had  of  His  union  with 
God,"  he  rightly  remarks,  "  is  wholly  undefinable ". 

^  Loisy,  Autour  d'un  petit  Uvre,  pp.  ii,  51,  132,  150. 
2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  130, 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


301 


I 


And  yet  this  fact  itself  does  not  prevent  him  from 
investigating  the  "  expression  which  He  himself  has 
given  of  it ",  nor  from  asserting  that  he  deems  it 
"  substantially  equivalent "  to  the  dogma.  So  that,  he 
is  somewhat  convinced  that  dogma  may  be  founded 
upon  fact,  and  that,  in  particular,  the  dogma  of  Christ's 
divinity  might  rest  upon  Jesus'  personal  testimony.^ 

Loisy  does  not,  indeed,  admit  Jesus'  testimony  on 
this  point ;  but  he  cannot  rightly  refuse  to  do  so.  He 
does  not  believe  that  Jesus  has  testified  to  His  real 
divinity;  but  he  cannot  deny  that,  if  the  Saviour  had 
done  so.  His  word  would  be  a  solid  foundation,  his- 
torically speaking,  for  our  faith  in  His  divinity.  Let 
it  be  granted,  for  a  moment,  that,  as  he  says,  "  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  even  if  taught  by  Jesus  Himself, 
would  not  be  a  fact  of  history  but  a  religious  and 
moral  fact,  of  which  we  become  certain  in  the  same 
way  as  we  do  of  the  existence  of  God,  and  not  by  the 
mere  investigation  of  the  Gospel  testimony  ".  He  will 
grant  us,  I  hope,  that  it  is  not  at  all  an  indifferent 
matter  whether  or  not  Christ  has  taught  this  truth; 
that  the  reality  of  the  Gospel  testimony  which  is  an 
historical  fact  is  not  without  its  importance  to  give  our 
certitude  a  reasonable  basis  and  serve  as  a  motive  of 
credibility  for  that  religious  fact  known  as  the  divinity 
of  Christ.2 

In  a  word,  to  deny,  in  the  name  of  history,  that  the 
Saviour  attested  His  divinity,  and  even  that  He  was 
aware  of  it,  is  to  ruin,  not  directly  faith  in  the  Christ- 
God,  but  one  of  the  most  reliable  and  rational  grounds 
upon  which  our  faith  has  hitherto  stood. 

It  would  seem,  however  that  Loisy's  faith  in  this 
dogma  remains  unshaken.  Evidently,  it  can  not  be  a 
castle  in  the  air:  it  must  have  a  foundation;  and  this 
basis  he,  like  any  theologian,  seeks  to  find  in  the  facts : 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  137-138. 

2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  215. 


302  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

so  true  it  is  that  between  the  fact  and  the  dogma  there 
is  not  that  radical  separation  which  the  critics  allege. 
"  Does  not  faith  in  the  divinity  of  Christ ",  he  asks, 
*'  rest  also  on  the  divine  influence  w^hich  he  has  never 
ceased  to  exert  upon  souls,  even  despite  the  strictly 
Jewish  sense  which  is  still  attached  to  His  quality  of 
Messiah,  and  although  the  formal  definition  of  His 
divinity  was  only  developed  progressively  in  Christian 
tradition."  ^ 

Thus,  in  Loisy's  estimation,  faith  in  Christ's  divinity 
would  rest  upon  the  humanly  observable  fact  of  "  the 
divine  influence "  which  Christ  has  never  ceased  to 
exert  upon  souls.  Moreover,  it  is  this  very  influence 
of  Christ,  historically  evident,  guiding  the  Church  in 
the  beginning,  and  acting  therein  in  order  to  per- 
petuate it  until  the  end  of  time,  that  rationally  estab- 
lishes our  belief  in  the  divinity  of  the  Church.  It  is 
thus,  at  least,  that  we  may  likely  interpret  the  follow- 
ing slightly  enigmatic  words  of  the  author.  "  The 
divine  institution  of  the  Church  ",  he  says,  is  founded 
upon  the  divinity  of  Christ,  which  itself  is  not  a  fact 
of  history  but  a  fact  of  the  faith  attested  by  the 
Church  and  which,  from  the  very  beginning  of  the 
Church,  appears,  we  may  say,  in  the  birth  and  the 
perpetuity  of  the  Church.  ...  To  the  historian 
who  limits  himself  to  the  consideration  of  observable 
facts,  it  is  faith  in  Christ  which  has  founded  the 
Church ;  from  the  view-point  of  the  faith,  it  is  Christ 
Himself,  living  for  the  faith  and  thereby  accomplishing 
what  the  historian  sees  realized  ".^ 

We  do  not  think  that  Loisy  means  that  faith  is 
absolutely  independent  of  observable  facts:  he  plainly 
recognizes  that  the  fact  is  a  rational  basis  for  the 
faith.  The  historian  shows  that  the  Church's  founda- 
tion and  perpetuity  practically  rest  upon  belief  in  the 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p,  ii6. 

2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  162,  172. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


303 


[ 


Christ-God;  the  historian-philosopher  judges  that  the 
truth  of  the  belief  is  guaranteed  by  the  very  character 
of  the  fact  observed,  that  is,  by  the  perceptible  marks 
of  Christ's  living  and  incessant  influence;  but  it  re- 
mains for  the  believer  to  make  the  act  of  faith  in 
Christ's  real  divinity,  and,  at  the  same  time,  in  the 
divinity  of  that  Church  wherein  He  has  never  ceased 
to  live  and  to  act. 

Thus  understood,  Loisy's  apologetic  work  is  not 
without  its  value.  We  are  very  far  from  contesting 
that  Christ's  influence  makes  itself  perceptibly  felt  in 
the  life  of  the  Church  from  the  first  and  throughout 
the  course  of  its  history,  just  as  it  has  not  ceased  to 
be  felt  in  the  Ufe  of  souls.  This  is  a  very  sound  proof, 
and  one  on  which  we  cannot  insist  too  strongly,  of 
the  truth  of  our  faith.  Loisy  might  have  also  observed 
that  Christ's  divinity  and  that  of  the  Church  rest  upon 
the  sohd  basis  of  the  rational  necessity  of  admitting  a 
personal  God  who  watches  over  men  and  approves  of 
a  positive  religion;  for,  at  present,  whoever  sincerely 
seeks  this  personal  God,  and  whoever  wishes  to  go  to 
Christ,  knows  well  that  He  can  be  found  only  in  the 
Church. 

It  remains  true,  none  the  less,  that  in  presenting  the 
moral  proof, — drawn  from  the  influence  exerted  by 
Chrisrt, — as  the  only  rational  basis  for  faith  in  His 
divinity,  Loisy  deprives  this  faith  of  one  of  its  firmest 
foundations,  namely,  Christ's  historic  testimony  to  the 
fact  that  He  was  aware  of  His  divinity. 

Moreover  Loisy  goes  counter  to  what  until  now  has 
been  the  general  teaching  of  theologians  concerning 
the  psychological  consciousness  of  the  Christ  God. 
What  he  advances  is  indeed  a  complete  revolution  in 
the  manner  of  conceiving  the  Saviour's  interior  at- 
titude towards  God  and  Jesus'  own  declarations  as  to 
this  attitude.  We  will  perceive  how  serious  all  this  is 
after  reading  the  author's  venturesome  and  too  often 
repeated  remarks. 


304 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


"  The  progress  of  history  ",  he  says,  sets  forth  in 
new  terms  the  problem  of  Christ  .  .  .  What  dis- 
turbs the  minds  of  the  faithful  as  regards  Christ's 
divinity  and  '  His  infallible  knowledge  '  is  the  fact  that 
it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  the  natural  meaning  of  the 
most  certain  Gospel  texts  with  what  theologians  teach, 
or  seem  to  teach,  concerning  Jesus'  consciousness  and 
knowledge.  .  .  .  And  as  to  the  interpretation  of 
texts,  is  not  a  reasonable  exegesis  impossible,  if  we 
do  not  admit,  first  of  all,  that  the  Church's  actual 
teaching,  which  serves  as  the  standard  for  the  theo- 
logian and  the  Catholic  preacher,  is  distinct  from  the 
historic  sense  of  Scripture?"  ^ 

"  The  biblical  question  ",  he  continues,  "  pertains  to 
the  important  question  of  the  intellectual  formation  of 
Catholics,  to  the  question  of  the  intellectual  regime  of 
the  Church.  .  ,  .  Catholicism  will  become,  by  the 
force  of  circumstances,  what  it  should  not  be,  namely, 
a  party,  nay  a  reactionary  party,  given  over  to  in- 
curable decay  and  fatal  ruin,  as  long  as  ecclesiastical 
teaching  shall  apparently  want  to  impose  upon  our 
minds  a  view  of  the  world  and  human  history  that  is 
not  in  accord  with  the  results  of  scientific  endeavor 
during  the  last  centuries.  .  .  .  The  crisis  (of  the 
faith)  is  born  of  that  opposition  which  ardent  minds 
perceive  between  the  theological  and  the  scientific 
spirit,  between  what  is  presented  as  Catholic  truth  and 
what  is  more  and  more  presented  as  the  truth  of 
science.  .  .  .  It  is  begotten  within  the  field  of 
religious  history  through  the  obstinacy  of  present  dog- 
matism in  rejecting  the  evidence  of  facts  and  the 
legitimacy  of  the  critical  method  ".^ 

Such  bitter  reflections,  mingled  as  they  are  with 
accusations  so  unseemly,  and  coming  from  a  believing 
critic,  are  serious  enough.    But  he  goes  on  to  say  that 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  xxiii,  xxv,  64-65. 

2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  xxxiv,  216-217. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


305 


i 


"  facts  are  facts,  and,  if  so,  the  first  conclusion  to  be 
drawn  therefrom  is  that  they  are  naught  else.  A 
mountain  of  syllogisms  can  avail  nothing  against  a 
grain  of  nature's  sand.  It  is  simply  a  question  whether 
"  The  Gospel  and  the  Church  "  represents  the  Gospel 
fact  in  sufficient  conformity  with  reality.  ...  If 
that  explanation  is  defective,  it  is  by  efforts  of  a 
similar  and  more  satisfactory  kind  that  its  imperfec- 
tions may  be  corrected.  Even  if  it  were  radically 
false,  we  should  still  have  to  seek  the  true  explanation 
of  the  ancient  facts  and  to  show  how  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  does  not  contradict  them.  .  .  .  We 
must  strengthen  the  faith  in  Christ's  divinity  by  inter- 
preting the  Gospel  and  the  documents  of  ecclesiastical 
antiquity  in  accordance  with  the  rules  which  are  nowa- 
days usually  applied  to  all  human  texts,  and  by  taking 
into  account  the  progress  of  contemporary  thought  in 
the  philosophic  order  ".^ 

Accordingly,  at  Loisy's  invitation,  we  will  ascertain 
if  the  facts  are  really  such  as  he  has  given  them,  if 
his  representation  of  the  Gospel  fact  is  integral  and 
exact,  or,  on  the  contrary,  if  it  is  incomplete,  inade- 
quate as  regards  the  entire  sacred  testimony,  and,  as  a 
consequence,  without  sufficient  conformity  to  the  full 
reality. 

This  study  demands  a  minute  and  complete  exami- 
nation of  the  contents  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and, 
undoubtedly,  it  also  requires  a  particularly  careful  and 
well-balanced  interpretation  of  their  testimony.  For, 
may  it  not  be,  that  Jesus  was  really  aware  of  His 
divine  origin  and  nature,  that  He  really  manifested 
His  own  divinity,  and  that,  nevertheless.  He  sur- 
rounded this  manifestation  with  some  discretion  and 
reserve ;  that  He  did  not  publish  this  secret  openly 
and  as  plainly  as  his  disciples  were  to  do  it  one  day? 
Such  an  attitude  on  His  part  should  not  surprise  us. 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  xxviii,  114. 
20 


306  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Jesus'  reserve  in  manifesting  His  Messiahship  must 
have  been  even  surpassed  when  He  revealed  Himself 
as  the  true  Son  of  God.  As  regards  His  Messiahship, 
in  fact,  had  He  not  revealed  it  rather  by  His  works 
than  by  His  formal  declarations;  had  He  not  led  His 
disciples  to  gradually  form  their  conviction  on  this 
matter  by  a  personal  experience  in  order  that  after- 
wards they  might  proclaim  it  freely  ?  Should  He  not, 
therefore,  have  cast  even  a  deeper  veil  over  the  incom- 
parably more  astounding  mystery  of  His  divine  nature, 
and  led  them  to  believe  in  it  rather  through  insinua- 
tions and  suggestive  declarations,  the  full  sense  of 
which  would  be  disclosed  at  an  opportune  time?  As- 
suredly, this  inference  is  quite  legitimate. 

Let  us,  therefore,  take  up  the  first  three  Gospels  and 
endeavor  to  submit  to  the  most  attentive  as  well  as 
most  loyal  criticism  the  testimony  that  is  found  therein 
concerning  the  person  of  Jesus. 

HI.  The  Divinity  of  Christ  in  the  Synoptists. 

I.    THE    special    significance   OF    JESUS'    STATEMENTS 
AS  TO  HIS  DIGNITY,  PRIVILEGES,  AND  POWERS. 

A  striking  feature  of  the  Gospels  is  the  unusual 
character  and  import  of  Our  Lord's  declarations  con- 
cerning His  dignity,  privileges,  and  powers.  As  we 
have  seen,  naught  is  more  surprising  than  the  manner 
in  which  He  places  Himself  above  every  creature. 
Greater  than  the  most  illustrious  personages  of  the 
Old  Law ;  greater  than  Jonas  or  Solomon ;  greater 
than  David  who  had  called  Him  his  Lord;  greater 
than  Moses  or  EHas  who  appeared  beside  Him  on  the 
Mount  of  Transfiguration;  greater  even  than  John 
the  Baptist,  whose  dignity  as  Precursor  ranked  him 
above  the  sons  of  men;  yea,  greater  than  the  Angels 
of  God, — thus  does  Jesus  reveal  Himself.  In  fact, 
after  the  Temptation,  in  the  desert,  the  angels  come 
to  minister  unto  Him:  He  has  but  to  say  one  word. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


307 


and  His  Father  will  send  them  to  His  aid  in  a  dozen 
legions.  Nor  are  they  merely  His  Father's  angels : 
they  are  His  also;  they  are  His  messengers,  His  ser- 
vitors, the  executors  of  His  will.  At  the  last  Advent, 
they  shall  form  His  escort  of  honor.  He  shall  com- 
mand them  Himself;  He  shall  send  them  into  His 
harvest  in  order  to  separate  the  wheat  from  the  chaff, 
to  assemble  the  just,  His  chosen  people,  from  the 
four  parts  of  the  earth.  When,  also,  there  is  question 
of  drawing  a  line  between  man,  the  angels.  Himself, 
and  His  Father,  He  ranks  Himself  above  the  angels 
and  takes  His  position  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  "  Of 
that  day  or  hour  no  man  knoweth ",  says  He ; 
**  neither  the  angels  in  heaven,  nor  the  Son ;  but  the 
Father  ".^ 

It  has  been  remarked,  indeed,  by  Dalman  that  the 
words :  *'  nor  the  Son ;  but  the  Father  "  are  a  later 
addition  to  the  text;  but  we  think  it  hardly  credible 
that  the  Church  subsequently  thought  of  attributing 
to  the  Saviour  a  declaration  which  might  appear  to 
imply  an  attack  upon  the  universal  extent  of  His 
knowledge.^ 

The  Saviour,  undoubtedly,  assumes  qualities, 
powers,  and  authority  such  as  seemingly  place  Him 
wholly  above  and  beyond  mankind,  and  very  close  to 
God.  He  demands  as  had  never  been  done  before, 
nor  could  have  been  demanded  by  any  mere  man, 
that  His  followers  manifest  both  for  His  gospel  and 
person  a  faith,  an  obedience,  and  a  love  such  as  might 
entail  the  renouncement  of  every  contrary  affection, 
and  the  sacrifice  of  the  most  precious  goods, — nay 
of  Hfe  itself:  and  in  return.  He  promises  the  greatest 
rewards   for  all  eternity.     "  If  any  man  will   follow 

1  Mk.  i.  13;  Mt.  iv.  4,  II ;  Mt.  xxvi.  53;  Mt.  xiii.  41 ;  xvi.  27; 
Mt.  xxiv.  31;  Mk.  xiii.  27;  Mk.  viii.  38;  Lk.  ix.  26;  Mt.  xxv. 
31 ;  Mk.  xiii.  32. 

2  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  194;  Schmiedel,  art.:  In  Prot.  Monats- 
hefte,  1900,  p.  20;  Bovon,  Theol.  du  N.  T.,  vol.  i,  p.  425; 
Schmidt,  art.:  Son  of  God,  E.  B.,  par.  14,  col.  4698. 


3o8  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

me  ",  He  says,  "  let  Him  deny  himself,  and  take  up 
his  cross,  and  follow  me.  For,  whosoever  will  save 
his  life,  shall  lose  it ;  and  whosoever  shall  lose  his  Hfe 
for  my  sake  and  the  gospel,  shall  save  it ".  Again : 
"  Every  one  therefore  that  shall  confess  me  before 
men,  I  will  also  confess  him  before  my  Father  who 
is  in  heaven.  But  he  that  shall  deny  me  before  men, 
I  will  also  deny  him  before  my  Father  who  is  in 
heaven."  .  .  .  He  that  loveth  father  or  mother 
more  than  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me;  and  he  that 
loveth  son  or  daughter  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy 
of  me.  And  he  that  taketh  not  up  his  cross,  and 
followeth  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me  ".  So  too,  we  are 
told :  "  Blessed  are  ye  when  they  shall  revile  you,  and 
persecute  you,  and  speak  all  that  is  evil  against  you, 
untruly,  for  my  sake:  Be  glad  and  rejoice  for  your 
reward  is  very  great  in  heaven.  For  so  they  perse- 
cuted the  prophets  that  were  before  you ".  And 
again  we  read:  *' Amen  I  say  to  you,  there  is  no 
man  who  hath  left  house  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or 
father,  or  mother,  or  children,  or  lands,  for  my  sake 
and  for  the  gospel,  who  shall  not  receive  a  hundred 
times  as  much,  now  in  this  time :  houses,  and  brethren, 
and  sisters,  and  mothers,  and  children,  and  lands,  with 
persecutions :  and,  in  the  world  to  come,  life  ever- 
lasting ".^ 

Jesus,  moreover,  as  we  have  already  noticed,  de- 
clares Himself  to  be  *'  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  ".  In 
fact.  He  assumes  exceptional  authority  over  the  Old 
Law.  In  a  way.  He  places  Himself  upon  an  equality 
with  the  divine  Lawgiver  of  Sinai,  and,  in  His  own 
name,  interprets,  specifies,  and  perfects  the  traditional 
commandments.  Thus,  He  says :  *'  You  have  heard 
that  it  was  said  to  them  of  old  .  .  .  but,  I  say 
to  you  ".2 

1  Mk.  vi  ii.  34,  21^ ;  Mt.  xvi.  24,  25 ;  Lk.  ix.  22,,  24 ;  Mt.  x.  2)^, 
ZZ,  37-38;  Lk.  xiv.  26-27,  31;  Mt.  V.  11-12;  Mk,  x.  29-30;  Mt. 
xix.  28-29;  Lk.  xviii.  29-30. 

2  Mt.  V.  22y  28,  32,  34,  39,  44. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  309 

He  also  heals  the  sick,  casts  out  demons,  and  com- 
mands the  elements  of  the  natural  world  in  His  own 
name  and  by  His  authority.  He  can  work  miracles 
because  of  a  "  power  "  which,  though  hidden,  is  per- 
ceptibly and  personally  experienced  by  all  who  draw 
near  to  Him.  He  does  not,  indeed,  act  apart  from  the 
Spirit  of  God,  but  His  divine  power  is  so  special  to 
Him  as  to  be  seemingly  identified  with  Him.  He 
says  but  one  word,  and  all  obey  Him:  as  when  He 
said :  "  Damsel,  I  say  to  thee,  Arise  ",  and  the  daughter 
of  Jairus  returned  to  life ;  or,  again,  "  Speak  no  more : 
and  go  out  of  the  man  ",  and  the  demon  at  once  left 
him;  or,  at  another  time:  "Peace,  be  still!"  where- 
upon the  wind  ceased,  and  there  was  a  great  calm 
upon  the  Sea  of  Galilee.^ 

So  eminently,  indeed,  does  Jesus  possess  the  power 
of  performing  miracles  that  He  imparts  to  His 
disciples  the  gift  of  working  the  like  wonders  by  His 
authority  and  in  His  name.  To  the  twelve  He  says : 
"Going,  preach,  saying:  The  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is 
at  hand.  Heal  the  sick,  raise  the  dead,  cleanse  the 
lepers,  cast  out  devils :  freely  have  you  received,  freely 
give ".  And  they  immediately  go  forth  upon  their 
mission  of  preaching  penance:  many  demons  do  they 
indeed  expel,  and,  by  anointing  the  sick  with  oil,  they 
restore  them  to  health.  So  that,  in  turn,  they  may 
joyfully  assure  the  Saviour :  "  Lord,  the  devils  also 
are  subject  to  us  in  thy  name!"  And,  even  after 
Pentecost,  it  is  still  "  in  the  name  of"  Jesus  Christ  of 
Nazareth  that  the  apostles  perform  many  miracles 
and  prodigies.^ 

A  still  more  unusual  power  assumed  by  Jesus  is 

1  Mt.  xii.  28 ;  Lk.  xi.  20 ;  Mk.  v.  30 ;  Lk.  vi.  19 ;  Mk.  v.  41 ; 
Lk.  viii.  54;  Mk.  i.  25;  Lk.  iv.  35;  Mk  iv.  39;  Mt.  viii.  27; 
Lk.  viii.  25. 

2Mk.  iii.  15;  vi.  7;  Mt.  x.  i;  Lk.  ix.  i,  2;  Mt.  x.  8;  cf.  Mk. 
xvi.  17;  Mt.  vi.  13;  Lk.  ix.  6;  cf.  Mk.  ix.  37;  Lk.  x.  17;  cf, 
Mk.  ix.  38;  Ac.  iii.  6,  16;  iy.  10,  30;  ix.  34;  xvi.  18, 


3IO  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

that  of  purifying  the  human  soul  through  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins.  He  does  not  deny  that  this  is  a  divine 
privilege;  and  yet  He  asserts  His  power  in  this  re- 
spect and  gives  striking  proofs  of  possessing  it.  We 
may  well  suppose  that  His  remarkable  miracles  in  the 
order  of  nature  are  a  guarantee  for  the  truth  of  His 
miracles  in  the  invisible  order.  God  alone  can  for- 
give sins.  Be  it  so.  And  yet,  the  "  Son  of  Man  " 
asserts  and  proves  that  He  has,  even  on  this  earth, 
the  power  of  forgiving  sins.  What,  then,  are  we  to 
conclude  unless  it  be  that  God  abides  within  this  very 
"  Son  of  Man  "  because  of  the  authority  and  entirely 
incommunicable  powers  which  He  gives  Him?  Upon 
the  soul-world,  as  upon  the  corporeal  sphere,  God 
acts  in  and  through  Jesus.  Such  is  the  implied 
reasoning  of  the  Jews  themselves  in  asking  the  ques- 
tion :  "  Who  is  He  that  can  forgive  sins  ?"  Neverthe- 
less, Jesus  goes  even  further.  He  asserts  His  right 
to  directly  impart  to  others  this  very  power  of  for- 
giving sins  precisely  because  He  is  aware  that  He 
enjoys  it  Himself  by  reason  of  His  divine  personal 
authority :  and  it  may  be  noted  that  His  declaration  as 
found  in  S.  Matthew  is  analogous  to  that  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  In  the  one  we  read :  "  Amen  I  say 
to  you,  whatsoever  you  shall  bind  upon  earth,  shall 
be  bound  also  in  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  you  shall 
loose  upon  earth,  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven  " ;  and, 
in  the  other :  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose 
sins  you  shall  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them;  and 
whose  sins  you  shall  retain,  they  are  retained  ".^ 

To  this  unheard-of  claim  to  pardon  sins  we  must 
add  the  no  less  apparently  exorbitant  right  which 
Jesus  assumes  of  being  one  day  the  supreme  judge  of 
the  living  and  the  dead.  He  is  not  content  to  call 
Himself  that  redeemer  of  mankind  "  who  is  come  to 

1  Mt.  xviii  i8;  Jo.  xx,  22;  cf.  Mk.  i.  10;  Mt.  ix.  6;  Lk.  v. 
24;  Lk.  xix.  10;  cf.  Mt.  xviii.  11;  Greek  Textus  Receptus  and 
Vulgate. 


lESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  311 

save  what  was  lost ",  and  "  to  give  His  life  as  a 
ransom  for  many  " ;  He  is  not  content  with  striving  to 
rule  the  world  by  His  teaching  and  virtuous  example, 
or  to  leave  after  Him  followers  with  whom  He  prom- 
ised to  be  all  days  even  to  the  consummation  of 
the  world:  no,  this  is  not  enough;  He  promises  to 
come,  at  the  end  of  days,  even  as  the  supreme  judge  of 
the  living  and  the  dead;  He  foretells  His  appearance 
at  that  time  in  all  the  splendor  of  His  divine  glory, 
attended  by  the  holy  angels  and  sharing  the  full  power 
of  His  Father,  and,  as  judge  of  the  human  race,  pro- 
nouncing, in  His  own  name,  the  final  sentence  of  ever- 
lasting life  or  death  upon  each  individual  soul !  ^ 

And,  as  a  last  promise,  Jesus  tells  His  apostles  that 
He  will  send  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  them;  and  His 
manner  of  making  this  promise  shows  plainly  how 
far  He  enjoys  God's  confidence  and  shares  the  divinest 
privileges  and  powers.  It  was  by  the  action  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  that  He  had  been  conceived  and  had 
assumed  human  nature  within  the  womb  of  Mary, 
His  Immaculate  Mother,  and  had  been,  at  His  bap- 
tism in  the  Jordan,  solemnly  proclaimed  the  Son  of 
God.  All  His  deeds  are  influenced  by  the  same  Holy 
Spirit  by  whose  power  He  also  heals  the  sick  and 
casts  out  demons.  And  yet,  wonderful  to  tell,  He  has 
authority  over  this  very  same  Holy  Spirit;  and  He 
shall  fully  exert  this  power  after  entering  upon  the 
possession  of  His  Father's  glory  on  Ascension  day. 
The  Father,  indeed,  promises  this  Holy  Spirit  to  Him, 
but  it  is  really  He  who  shall  send  it  upon  His  own 
beloved  apostles.^ 

To  His  chosen  twelve  He  says :  "  I  send  the  promise 

1  Mk.  X.  45;  Mt.  XX.  28;  Mk.  viii.  38;  Mt.  x.  32;  xvi.  17; 
Lk.  ix.  26;  Mt.  vii.  23;  Lk.  xii.  8,  9;  xiii.  27;  Mk.  xiii.  26-27; 
Mt.  xxiv.  30-31;  Lk.  xxi.  27;  Mt.  xxv.  34,  41;  Mk.  xiv.  62; 
Mt.  xxvi.  64;  Lk.  xxii.  69. 

2Lk.  i.  35;  Mt.  i.  20;  Mt.  i.  10;  Mt.  iii.  16;  Lk.  iii.  22;  Ac. 
x.  38;  Mk.  i.  2;  Mt.  iv.  i;  Lk  iv.  i,  18;  x  21;  Mt.  xii.  28; 
Lk.  xi.  20. 


312 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


of  my  Father  upon  you:  but  stay  you  in  the  city,  till 
you  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high  ".  So  that, 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  S.  Peter  could  rightly  tell 
the  Jews :  "  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  again,  whereof 
we  are  all  witnesses.  Being  exalted,  therefore,  by 
the  right  hand  of  God,  and  having  received  of  the 
Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  He  hath  poured 
forth  this  which  you  see  and  hear  "/ 

a.  The  Eminence  of  the  Sacred  Humanity. 

Such  are  the  extraordinary  privileges,  the  incom- 
parable powers,  the  extensive  rights  ascribed  to  Jesus. 
But,  we  may  ask,  in  what  sense  do  they  belong  to  him  ? 
They  are  His  directly  in  His  character  of  Messiah 
and  in  His  divinely  privileged  humanity.  It  is  be- 
cause He  was  sent  by  His  Father  that  He  preaches 
and  teaches ;  it  is  in  virtue  of  the  divine  power  im- 
parted to  Him  that  He  heals  the  sick  and  dispels 
demons ;  it  is  by  divine  delegation  that  He  remits  sins 
on  earth.  His  action  being  ratified,  so  to  say,  by  God  in 
heaven,  and  that  He  sends  the  Holy  Spirit,  although 
after  having  beforehand  asked  and  obtained  His 
Father's  authorization.  And  it  is  directly  owing  to 
His  Messianic  dignity  that  Jesus,  after  His  Father 
had  endowed  Him  with  power  to  exercise  His  earthly 
ministry,  is  to  receive  also  a  share  in  His  supreme 
authority  and  in  the  splendor  of  His  glory,  for  the 
work  of  judging  all  men  and  inaugurating  the  reign 
of  God  in  triumph. 

How  far,  indeed,  do  these  claims  which  Jesus 
made  surpass  the  notion  which  ordinary  Jews  had  of 
their  terrestrial  Messiah !  In  the  Christ-Man,  as  we 
behold  Him,  the  Sacred  Humanity  stands  upon  a 
plane  unusually  lofty,  nay  inaccessible,  and  fairly 
surpassing  all  other  men  in  an  infinite  degree,  as  also 
the  angelic  world  itself,  and  even  reaching  unto  the 
divinity, 

^  Lk.  xxiv.  49 ;   Ac.  ii.  ^2>^ 


b 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  313 

We  may  note  what  Bovon  has  to  say  with  regard 
to  the  text  of  S.  Mark  xiii.,  32,  where  mention  is 
made  of  the  fact,  that  neither  the  angels,  nor  the 
Son  of  Man  are  aware  of  the  time  of  the  final  judg- 
ment. "  This  enumeration,  then,  places  Jesus  apart 
from  other  men,  as  it  also  does  the  angels ;  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  argues  a  very  close  relationship 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  How  can  we  explain 
such  an  unusual  situation?  It  is  not  enough  to  say 
that  Christ  claims  it  because  He  believes  Himself  to 
be  the  object  of  God's  good  pleasure;  for,  in  that 
case.  He  would  not  be  warranted  in  ranking  Himself 
above  the  angels.  So  that,  we  are  compelled  to  exceed 
the  limits  of  the  theory  of  Christ  considered  as 
Prophet,  in  order  to  vindicate,  in  behalf  of  Him  who 
claims  such  a  glorious  privilege,  a  divine  origin  of  a 
special  kind.  In  other  words,  this  text  rightly  leads 
us  to  the  idea  of  the  Only-Begotten  Son  mentioned  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel  ".^ 

This  very  text  is,  in  fact,  so  suggestive  that  Schmidt 
has  observed :  "  We  cannot  attribute  the  position  held 
by  the  Son  between  the  Angels  and  the  Father  merely 
to  an  exaltation  of  Christian  thought  concerning 
Jesus  ".2 

In  any  case,  we  must  admit  that,  between  Christ 
and  God,  there  was  an  incomparable  union,  a  union 
of  a  surpassing  and  absolutely  special  kind.  Besides, 
so  strict  is  Jesus'  association  in  the  powers  and  rights 
of  God,  so  extraordinary  is  the  kind  of  identification 
with  God  which  results  therefrom,  that  the  very  nature 
of  His  union  is  apparently  far  beyond  strictly  human 
conditions  and  surpasses  the  common  order  of  God's 
dealings  with  His  creatures. 

^  Bovon,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  425. 

?  Schmidt,  art;  Son  of  God,  E.  B.,  par,  14,  col.  4698L 


314  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

b.  The  Consubstantial  Union, 
To  be  more  explicit:  Is  the  Savior's  signal  pre- 
eminence explained  solely  by  His  character  as  Christ, 
that  is,  by  supposing  Him  to  be,  in  His  very  nature, 
a  man  among  men?  Are  the  incomparable  privileges 
that  He  enjoys  only  based  upon  a  casual  quahty,  a 
merely  accidental  dignity,  divinely  super-added  to  Him 
as  man,  as  a  partaker  in  human  nature,  but  in  nowise 
affecting  the  inner  nature  of  His  being,  and,  sub- 
stantially considered,  leaving  Him  in  the  possession 
of  mere  humanity? 

To  suppose  that  a  mere  man  had  been  chosen  by 
God  for  elevation  to  so  eminent  a  dignity  and  for  a 
share  in  privileges  so  divine,  seems  rather  a  hard 
claim.  If  He  were  a  mere  man,  even  though  extra- 
ordinary privileged  by  His  very  dignity,  could  the 
Messiah  have  thus  claimed  what  seems,  in  truth,  to 
pertain  only  to  God  ?  And,  in  that  case,  would  He 
have  been  authorized  in  directly  remitting  sins,  nay, 
in  delegating  this  power  to  others,  as  God  Himself 
would  do,  and  yet  without  at  all  sharing  God's  nature  ? 
Would  He  have  been  allowed  to  command,  by  His 
own  power,  the  winds  and  the  waves;  to  heal  the 
sick,  to  expel  demons,  and  to  confer  upon  His  dis- 
ciples the  power  to  perform  the  same  miracles,  not  in- 
deed in  His  Father's  name,  but  in  His  own  name? 
Would  He  have  received  such  authority  and  pre- 
eminence over  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Spirit  of  God 
Himself,  the  Spirit  who  abides  in  God  and  proceeds 
from  God?  Would  He  have,  in  fine,  been  thus  asso- 
ciated in  the  majesty  of  His  Father  to  the  extent  of 
sitting  at  His  right  hand,  of  sharing  His  throne,  and, 
amid  the  splendor  of  His  Glory,  of  passing  final  judg- 
ment upon  the  living  and  the  dead,  and  of  ruling  His 
kingdom  forever  ?  ^ 

In  thus  deifying  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  there  is  ap- 

1  Mt,  xxviii.  19;  I  Cor,  ii.  10-12. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


315 


parently  only  one  reasonable  explanation,  namely, 
that,  this  Alan-Messiah  is  something  more  than  man, 
that,  in  His  most  perfect  humanity,  He  enjoyed, 
from  the  first  and  essentially,  a  mysterious  although 
real  share  in  the  divine  nature  such  as  justified  His 
very  special  privileges  and  powers  and  in  a  manner 
authorized  such  an  elevation  of  His  humanity  to  the 
plane  of  the  divinity.  In  other  words :  Jesus'  mes- 
sianic claims  are  such  that  they  appear  to  really  desig- 
nate Him,  not  simply  as  a  Messiah  who  possessed  a 
human  nature,  but  rather  as  one  who,  in  a  way,  was 
a  divine  Messiah  in  virtue  of  a  higher  part  of  His 
being, — a  God-Ma.n  Messiah. 

We  see,  therefore,  that  the  idea  of  Christ's  con- 
substantial  union  with  the  Father  is  not  discordant 
with  the  Synoptic  data  which  we  are  studying,  but 
seems  to  harmonize  exactly  therewith,  and  that  this 
idea  should  be  taken  as  their  most  authentic  ex- 
pression. To  be  sure,  the  idea  is  not  expressed  with 
the  exactness  of  a  definition,  but  it  is  implied  in  all 
the  facts  narrated  and  is  a  logical  and  necessary  con- 
sequence of  such  facts.  Christ,  moreover,  is  repre- 
sented as  enjoying  with  God  a  special  union  which 
implies  a  sharing  in  powers  so  unique  that,  appar- 
ently. He  is  no  stranger  to  the  divine  nature  but 
verily  is  united  with  the  divinity.  God  abides  within 
Him;  not  merely  accidentally  and  in  passing,  as 
though  by  His  power,  by  His  grace,  and  by  His 
influence ;  but  substantially,  that  is,  by  His  nature  and 
by  His  essence.  So  that  we  may  rightly  call  Christ 
by  the  name  of  God.  Not,  indeed,  that  He  is  God  in 
as  far  as  He  is  man  and  as  sharing  the  nature  of 
man,  but  because  in  Him  human  nature  is  united  sub- 
stantially to  the  divinity,  and  because,  above  and  be- 
yond His  assumed  human  nature  He  essentially  shares 
the  divine  nature.  Christ,  who  is  verily  man,  must 
also  be  truly  God. 


3i6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

c.  The  Saviour  s  Attitude  In  Receiving  Homage. 

We  are  also  led  to  the  same  conclusion  after  con- 
sidering the  Saviour's  significant  manner  of  accepting 
the  many  acts  of  homage  paid  to  Him.  It  fact,  we 
see  Him  accepting  honors  which,  although  not  in 
themselves  religious  and  divine,  nevertheless  display 
such  a  character  in  various  circumstances.  Thus,  He 
allows  many  whom  He  meets  to  prostrate  themselves 
before  Him  and  to  adore  Him.  Such  is  the  at- 
titude of  the  Leper  who,  at  the  foot  of  the  Mount 
of  Beatitudes  humbly  asks  to  be  cured;  and  also 
of  Jairus,  the  leader  of  the  Synagogue,  who  prays 
that  his  daughter  be  restored  to  life ;  of  the  demoniac 
of  Gerasa,  who  hastened  to  salute  Him  as  Son  of  the 
Most  High ;  of  the  boatmen  who,  seeing  Him  crossing 
the  sea  of  Genesareth,  cried  out:  "thou  art  truly  the 
Son  of  God  " ;  and  of  the  Holy  Women  and  the  Dis- 
ciples who  thus  also  render  their  homage  to  the  risen 
Christ.^ 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  terms  ''  adoration ", 
and  "  prostration  "  do  not  always  imply  homage  in  the 
sense  usually  given  to  them.  They  may  serve  to  de- 
note the  action  of  a  servant  when  kneeling  before  his 
master,  of  a  subject  in  presence  of  his  king.  Thus, 
in  the  parable  found  in  Mk.  xviii.  26,  the  servant  is 
described  as  lying  prostrate  before  his  master  whilst 
asking  a  favor.  The  Magi  and  Herod  himself  speak 
of  going  to  adore  the  new  king  of  the  Jews, 
undoubtedly  in  his  proper  capacity  as  king  of  the 
Jews.  So  too,  the  soldiers  of  the  Pretorium  intend 
to  mock  Jesus  by  prostrating  themselves  before  Him 
in  derision  as  though  they  recognized  his  royal 
dignity.^ 

It   may   also   be   remarked   that   the   Greek   term 

1  Mt.  viii.  2 ;  ix.  18 ;  Mk.  v.  6. 

2  Mt.  xiv.  Z3',  Mt.  xxviii.  9,  17;  Lk.  xxiv.  52;  cf.  Jo.  ix.  38; 
Mt.  xviii.  26;  Mt.  ii.  2,  8,  11;  Mk.  xv.  19;  cf.  Apoc.  iii.  9, 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


317 


" Trpof/cweiv "  signifies  literally  "to  give  a  kiss  with  the 
hand  "  in  token  of  reverence.  This  also  is  the  precise 
sense  of  the  Latin  term  which  is  found  in  the  Vulgate 
text,  namely,  ''  ad-orare  ".  In  reality,  however,  these 
two  terms,  the  Greek  and  the  Latin,  as  employed  in 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments,  indicate  the  atti- 
tude of  kneeling  or  of  prostration.  In  Hebrew,  the 
corresponding  term  is  the  verb  hishtahavdh,  which 
signifies :  to  fall  prostrate  at  anyone's  feet.  Through- 
out the  Orient,  indeed,  people  perform  the  act  of 
adoration  by  means  of  prostration:  this  act  is  called 
the  "  salam  ",  and  consists  in  one's  falling  down  on  his 
knees  and  touching  the  ground  with  the  forehead  as  a 
sign  of  profound  reverence.  Such  is  the  meaning 
that  we  should  give  to  the  texts  in  question.  It  may 
be  noted,  too,  that  in  the  Vulgate  the  text  of  Mt.  xviii. 
26,    reads    "  orabat "    instead    of    "  adorabat ",    or, 

**TrpoaeKvvei*'  . 

Nevertheless,  the  expression  does  possess  a  religious 
meaning;  and  when  such  is  the  case  it  is  always  that 
of  adoration,  properly  speaking,  of  the  supreme  hom- 
age due  to  God  alone.  It  is  thus  used  with  reference 
to  the  services  of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  to  that 
religious  duty  which  the  Jews  were  to  render  to  the 
Lord  in  the  Holy  City.  The  author  of  the  Apocalypse 
also  employs  this  term  to  represent  the  honor  rendered 
to  the  eternal  and  living  God  by  the  four  and  twenty 
Ancients  who  surround  the  throne.  It  is  also  thus 
that  Jesus  replies  to  Satan  who  demands  this  homage 
from  Him :  "  The  Lord,  Thy  God,  shalt  thou  adore, 
and  Him  only  shalt  thou  serve."  ^ 

When  performed  in  a  religious  spirit,  this  homage 
so  plainly  bears  the  character  of  adoration,  strictly 
speaking,  such  as  is  reserved  to  the  true  God  alone, 
that  it  is  in  fact  refused  by  those  men  and  angels  to 

1  Jo.  iv.  20,  21,  22;  xii.  20;  Ac.  viii.  27;  xxiv.  11;  Apoc.  iv. 
10;  V.  14;  vii.  11;  xi.  16;  xix.  4;  cf.  xiv.  7;  Mt.  iv.  10;  Lk. 
iv.  8;  cf.  Jo.  iv.  23,  24. 


3i8  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

whom  it  happens  to  be  offered.  CorneUus  the  cen- 
turion, when  surprised  by  the  appearance  of  S.  Peter, 
falls  down  at  the  Apostle's  feet,  as  though  to  adore 
him.  S.  Peter  promptly  bids  him  to  rise  up,  saying: 
"  Arise,  I  myself  also  am  a  man  ".  In  Lycaonia,  the 
same  thing  happens  when  the  people  of  Lystra  after 
witnessing  a  miracle  take  SS.  Paul  and  Barnabas  for 
gods  descended  upon  earth  and  proceed  to  offer  sacri- 
fice to  them ;  and  the  apostles  exclaim :  *'  Ye  men,  why 
do  ye  do  these  things  ?  We  also  are  mortals,  men  like 
unto  you,  preaching  to  you  to  be  converted  from  these 
vain  things,  to  the  living  God  who  made  the  heaven 
and  the  earth  and  the  sea,  and  all  things  that  are  in 
them".  And  S.  John  recounts,  in  his  Apocalypse,  how 
he  desired  to  fall  prostrate  at  the  feet  of  the  Angel 
of  the  great  revelations  and  to  adore  him ;  but  he  was 
told :  "  See  thou  do  it  not :  I  am  thy  fellow  servant, 
and  of  thy  brethren.     .     .     .     Adore  God  ".^ 

With  Jesus,  however,  it  is  otherwise :  He  never  for  a 
moment  declined  such  homage,  even  in  circumstances 
that  marked  it  with  a  religious  stamp:  He  accepts  it, 
He  approves  of  it.  No  doubt,  it  is  not  always  that 
those  who  thus  prostrate  themselves  at  His  feet  intend 
to  offer  Him  the  adoration  reserved  to  God  alone. 
Often,  however,  such  prostration  bears  the  general 
character  of  religious  homage.  Was  it  not,  for  in- 
stance, to  a  great  wonder-worker  to  a  man  of  God, 
that  the  adoration  rendered  by  the  lepers  and  by  the 
chief  of  the  Synagogue  was  apparently  directed  ?  But, 
above  all,  the  demoniacs  of  Gerasa,  and  the  boatmen 
of  Genesareth  plainly  disclose  the  true  meaning  of 
their  prostration  when,  in  falling  down  at  Jesus'  feet, 
they  proclaim  Him  to  be  the  "  Son  of  God ",  the 
"  Son  of  the  Most  High  ".,  So  too,  the  holy  women 
and  the  apostles  who  fell  prostrate  before  the  Risen 
Lord  undoubtedly  thus  meant  to  pay  Him  religious 

1  Ac.  xiv.  14 ;  Apoc.  xix.  10. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  319 

homage.  If  then  reHgious  adoration  could  truly  prove 
to  be  an  honor  exclusively  divine,  how  was  it  that 
Jesus  so  readily  favored  it? 

That  one  so  humble,  so  jealous  of  the  rights  of  His 
heavenly  Father,  so  attentive  to  discard  the  honors 
of  men,  should  not  oppose  their  attitude  but  rather 
willingly  agree  to  it;  that,  instead  of  protesting  like 
S.  Peter.  "  I  myself  also  am  a  man  ",  or  like  the  angel 
in  the  Apocalypse :  "  I  am  thy  fellow-servant. 
.  .  .  Adore  God,"  He  rather  accepts  and  approves 
such  homages, — it  must  be  that  He  really  believed  that 
He  had  the  right  to  receive  religious  worship  from 
men,  that  He  believed  that  He  could  be  adored  equally 
with  God.  But,  on  the  Saviour's  part,  such  an  ex- 
treme pretension  is  inexplicable  if  He  were  simply  a 
man,  whom  God  had  indeed  called  to  the  highest  voca- 
tion, yet  a  total  stranger  to  the  divine  nature. 
That  Jesus  accepted  these  homages  because  of  His 
messianic  dignity,  is  admissible,  but  this  Messiahship 
must  have  been  intimately  associated  with  the  divinity. 
To  have  assumed  honors  which  are  apparently  re- 
served to  God,  Christ  must  have  been  more  than  a 
mere  Man-Christ :  He  must  have  been  the  Christ-God, 
and,  in  some  manner,  sharing  the  grandeur,  the  ma- 
jesty, and  the  very  being  of  God. 

It  has  been  observed  by  Loisy  that  ''  in  their  daily 
intercourse  with  their  Master,  the  disciples  had  no 
other  worship  for  Him  than  a  religious  reverence. 
Even  after  the  confession  of  Peter,  there  was  no 
alteration  of  the  simplicity  that  governed  the  relations 
between  Christ  and  the  apostles.  The  glory  of  the 
Messiah  was  still  to  come,  and  no  homage  would  be 
rendered  till  the  glory  was  made  manifest.  But  the 
respective  situations  of  the  Saviour  and  His  followers 
were  entirely  changed  as  a  result  of  the  Passion  and 
the  Resurrection."  Loisy,  imdoubtedly  as  a  result 
of  this  general  view,  would  willingly  attribute  to  later 
Tradition,   influenced   by   the   Messianic   belief,    such 


320 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


adoration  as  that  rendered  by  the  lepers,  the  chief 
of  the  Synagogue,  the  demoniacs,  or  the  boatmen. 
But,  is  it  impossible  that,  although  the  Saviour's  fol- 
lowers habitually  showed  for  Him  only  the  "  religious 
reverence  "  mentioned,  they  should  also,  as  in  the  in- 
stances related  by  the  Evangelists,  have  felt  a  special 
and  sudden  impression  which  caused  them  to  assume 
the  attitude  of  "  reUgious  adoration "  ?  We  need 
not  suppose  that  the  faith  of  those  who  fell  down 
before  Jesus  was  perfectly  expUcit:  it  suffices  if 
they  had  a  certain  persuasion  of  the  divine  nature 
within  Him,  and  if,  under  this  mysterious  im- 
pression, their  homage  appeared,  under  the  circum- 
stances, to  have  a  religious  stamp.  The  whole  force 
of  our  reasoning  is  due  precisely  to  the  fact  that  the 
Saviour  accepted  such  homage.^ 

The  Titles  "  Messiah  "  and  "  Son  of  God  ". 

To  come  now  to  those  statements  of  Jesus  that  have 
a  special  bearing  upon  His  position  as  Son  of  God. 
They  surely  afford  an  important  confirmation  of  our 
previous  conclusion.  What,  we  may  ask,  does  the 
title  Son  of  God  really  mean  ?  What  is  its  significance 
as  assumed  and  employed  by  Christ  the  Saviour? 

And,  first  of  all,  to  discuss  Loisy's  opinion  on  the 
matter.  "  More  than  one  passage  in  the  Gospels  ",  he 
writes,  "  can  be  found  without  difficulty  from  which 
the  conclusion  is  clear  that  the  title,  Son  of  God,  was 
for  the  Jews,  the  disciples,  and  for  the  Saviour  Him- 
self the  equivalent  of  the  Messiah.  It  is  enough  to 
recall  the  different  versions  of  the  confession  of  Peter 
in  the  synoptic  Gospels,  and  the  questioning  of  Jesus 
by  the  High  Priest.  In  Mark,  Peter  says  to  the 
Saviour,  '  Thou  art  the  Christ '.  In  Matthew,  '  Thou 
art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God '.  In 
Luke,    '  Thou    art    the    Christ    of    God.'      In    the 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  251. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


321 


second  Gospel  Caiphas  says  to  Jesus,  art  Thou  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed?'  In  the  first  Gos- 
pel, '  I  adjure  Thee  by  the  Hving  God  to  tell  us 
if  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God '.  In  the 
third,  the  priests  first  ask  Jesus  if  He  is  the  Christ, 
and  because  He  does  not  reply  clearly,  they  re- 
peat the  question  in  the  form,  '  Art  Thou  then  the 
Son  of  God?'  to  which  Jesus  replies  in  the  affirma- 
tive, as  in  the  other  two  synoptic  Gospels."  And 
Loisy  concludes :  "  In  so  far  as  the  title  of  Son  of 
God  belongs  in  an  exclusive  sense  to  the  Saviour,  it  is 
equivalent  to  that  of  Messiah,  and  takes  its  meaning 
from  the  rank  of  the  Messiah.  .  .  .  Jesus  named 
Himself  the  Son  of  God  to  the  extent  to  which  He 
avowed  Himself  the  Messiah."  He  is  the  Son  of 
God,  par  excellence,  the  only  Son  of  the  Father  by 
reason  of  His  incommunicable  Messianic  function,  in- 
asmuch as  He  is  "  the  sole  maker  of  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  ",  as  also  "  the  single  organizer  of  the  King- 
dom ",  or  again,  the  only  vicar  of  God  for  the  kingdom 
of  Heaven  ".^ 

Despite  the  boldness  of  these  assertions,  we  may 
ask  if,  indeed,  it  is  fully  settled  that  the  title,  Son  of 
God,  which  the  Saviour  applies  to  Himself,  has  not  a 
deeper  and  higher  meaning  than  the  title,  ''  Messiah  "  ? 
It  is  really  true  that,  in  the  texts  mentioned,  the  titles 
"  Christ  "  and  "  Son  of  God  "  are  interchangeable  and 
somewhat  synonymous.  It  is  true,  furthermore,  that 
a  comparison  of  the  Old  Testament  usage  of  these 
titles  justifies  us  in  supposing  that  the  "  Son  of  God  " 
is  first  of  all  God's  especially  privileged  Elect,  His 
beloved  Christus,  or  Anointed,  in  a  word,  the  Messiah. 

We  may  remark,  by  the  way,  that  in  the  fore-part 
of  this  work,  wherein  we  viewed  Jesus  in  His  role 
of  Messiah,  we  provisionally  accepted  this  primary  and 

1  Mk.  viii.  29 ;   Mt.  xvi.   16 ;  Lk.  ix.  20 ;   Mk.  xiv.  61 ;   Mt. 
xxvi.  63;   Lk.   xxii.  67-70;   Loisy,   op.   cit.,  pp.  91,    105;   Rev. 
d'Hist.,  1903,  p.  406. 
21 


322  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

fully  warranted  meaning  of  the  title  "  Son  of  God  ". 
We  will  now  proceed  to  study  it  more  closely,  and 
first  of  all  examine  the  two  texts  that  serve  as  Loisy's 
principal  basis,  in  order  to  ascertain  what  relation  they 
bear  to  the  two  titles  given  to  Jesus. 

S.  Peter's  profession  of  faith,  so  heartily  approved 
and  ratified  by  the  Saviour  is  thus  given  in  S.  Mark: 
"  Thou  art  the  Christ " ;  in  S.  Luke :  "  Thou  art  the 
Christ  of  God  " ;  in  S.  Matthew :  ''  Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  Uving  God  ".  A  comparison  of  these 
three  accounts  would  seem  to  prove  that  S.  Peter 
wants  to  directly  assign  to  Jesus  the  role  of  "  Christ ", 
or  God's  "  Anointed  ".  This  inference  is  supported 
by  the  fact  that,  in  the  very  account  which  S.  Matthew 
presents,  and  just  after  the  confession  of  S.  Peter, 
Jesus  warns  His  followers  to  tell  nobody  about  what 
had  happened,  to  tell  no  one  that  He  was  '*  the  Christ  ". 
But,  does  it  necessarily  follow  that,  in  this  instance, 
S.  Peter  perceived  His  Master  to  be  only  and  merely 
the  human  Messiah  whom  the  Jews  had  awaited? 
When  he  declares  Jesus  to  be  "  the  Christ ",  does  he 
regard  Him  as  a  mere  man  whom  God  has  chosen  to 
establish  His  kingdom  upon  earth,  and  nothing  more? 
It  would  seem  not.  ^ 

During  the  first  two  years  of  His  public  ministry, 
our  Lord,  alike  by  His  words  and  deeds,  seeks  to 
reveal  Himself  discreetly  to  the  people,  but  especially 
to  His  disciples.  He  had,  in  fact,  impressed  them 
with  the  idea  that  His  personality  was  superhuman, 
intimately  related  to  God,  and  enjoying  a  share  in 
divine  prerogatives  and  power. 

Thus,  the  disciples  had  witnessed  the  fact  that  He 
forgave  the  sins  of  the  paralytic  and  of  the  sinful 
woman,  and,  like  the  Scribes,  had  undoubtedly  won- 
dered :  "  None  can  forgive  sins  but  God  alone.  .  .  . 
Who  then  is  this  man  that  He  forgiveth  sins  ?"    They 

*  Mk.  viii.  29;  Lk.  ix.  20;  Mt.  xvi.  16. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


323 


had  seen  Him  suddenly  calm  the  storm  and  had  ex- 
claimed :  "  Who  is  this  that  He  can  command  the 
wind  and  the  sea  ?"  They  had  beheld  Him  walk  upon 
the  waters,  and,  falHng  down  at  His  feet,  had  said: 
"  Thou  art  truly  the  Son  of  God  ".  They  had  heard 
also,  no  doubt,  the  unusual  testimony  of  the  demoniacs, 
although  the  Saviour  had  promptly  checked  them :  "  I 
know  that  Thou  art  the  holy  one  of  God  ",  "  the  Son 
of  God",  ''the  Son  of  the  Most  High".  Perhaps, 
too,  they  were  aware  of  the  solemn  revelation  at  the 
Baptism  and  of  the  mysterious  words  pronounced  by 
the  heavenly  Father :  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased  ".  And,  indeed,  they  were  to 
hear  soon  afterwards  this  very  same  voice  at  the 
Transfiguration;  nor  did  this  latter  manifestation  ap- 
parently modify,  in  any  important  degree,  their  pre- 
viously formed  notion  of  Jesus  the  Messiah  and  Son 
of  God. 

So  that,  we  are  entirely  led  to  believe,  it  would 
seem,  that  in  declaring  the  Saviour  to  be  "  the  Christ  ", 
S.  Peter  did  not  behold  in  Him  only  the  Man-Christ, 
existing  in  His  mere  humanity,  but  "  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God  ",  who  was  closely  related  to  God,  even 
though  he  had  undoubtedly  been  hitherto  without  a 
perfectly  clear  and  definite  idea  of  the  true  nature  of 
such  divine  Sonship. 

Therefore  S.  Matthew's  addition  to  the  formula 
given  in  the  other  Synoptists,  namely,  "  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God ",  is  not  merely 
synonymous  with  the  word  "  Christ  "  to  which  it  is 
added  as  an  apposition.  We  must  not  lower  the 
term  "  Son  of  God  "  to  the  level  of  the  term  "  Christ  " 
as  implying  an  entirely  human  Christ.  Rather,  the 
term  "  Christ  "  should  be  raised  to  the  higher  level  of 
the  term  "  Son  of  God "  so  expressive  of  a  mys- 
terious and  surpassing  reality.  Hence  if  S.  Matthew's 
qualifying  remark  were  not  an  authentic  part  of  S. 
Peter's  profession  of  faith, —  and  this  is  not  proven, — 


324  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

it  nevertheless  explains  and  very  exactly  defines  its 
meaning.^ 

The  term  ''  Sort  of  God  ",  in  Van  Manen's  opinion, 
does  not  in  this  particular  passage  designate  the  Mes- 
siah as  theocratic  king,  but  should  be  understood  in  a 
metaphysical  sense.  While  H.  J.  Holtzmann  thinks 
that  the  addition,  *'  Son  of  God ",  was  designed  to 
bring  out,  by  way  of  opposition,  the  transcendence  of 
the  ''  Son  of  Man  "  mentioned  in  S.  Matthew  c.  xvi., 
V.  1 6.  And  Dalman  says  that  "  it  is  evident  that  he 
who  is  called  the  Son  of  Man  is  in  reaHty  the  Son  of 
God.  And  this  is  why  it  is  next  stated  in  c.  xvi.,  v.  17 
that  Peter  had  acquired  this  conviction,  not  through 
men,  but  from  God."  ^ 

Thus,  apparently  the  transcendent  meaning  of  the 
title  "  Son  of  God  "  in  this  passage  is  well  estabHshed. 
Moreover,  it  seems  to  be  recognized  that,  in  this  in- 
stance, the  expression  accentuates  the  real  meaning  of 
the  title  of  Messiah ".  ''  To  the  interpolator,  says 
Schmidt,  *' '  the  Christ '  was  no  longer  a  mere  equiva- 
lent of  '  Messiah  ' ;  it  had  no  doubt  already  assumed 
the  same  significance  as  the  '  Son  of  God  '  ".^ 

Such  admissions  are  worth  retaining.  And,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  remains  true  that  the  transcendent  sense, 
which  the  two  synonymous  terms  share  in  common, 
does  not  supply  a  reason  for  concluding,  as  do  the 
critics,  that  we  have  here  a  later  interpolation ;  for,  as 
we  have  just  seen,  its  equivalent  is  met  with  again 
in  the  most  authentic  Christological  texts. 

On  the  other  hand,  Jesus'  reply  to  S.  Peter  plainly 
shows  what  meaning  should  be  attributed  to  the 
apostle's  declaration,  and  in  what  sense  He  should  be 
considered  the  "  Son  of  God  ".  S.  Matthew,  indeed, 
is  the  only  evangelist  to  relate  these  words ;  but  this 

1  Ac.  ix.  20,  22 ;  I  Jo.  ii.  22 ;  v.  15. 

2  Van  Manen,  art.:  Theol.  Tijdschrift,  1894,  p.  184;  Holtz- 
mann, H.,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  257;  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  254. 

3  Schmidt,  art. :  Son  of  God,  E.  B.,  par.  19,  col.  4700. 


\ 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


325 


additional  phrase  is  expressed  in  so  manifestly  primi- 
tive terms,  it  harmonizes  so  well  with  the  context, 
such  as  it  is  given,  whether  in  S.  Matthew,  or  in  the 
two  other  Synoptists,  it  corresponds  so  exactly  with 
what  the  entire  apostolic  tradition  teaches  on  the  sub- 
ject of  S.  Peter's  primacy,  that  we  cannot  reasonably 
doubt  that  these  are  authentic  words  of  the  Saviour, 
which,  like  many  others,  are  omitted  by  two  evan- 
gelists and  preserved  by  a  third.  Now,  Jesus'  reply 
is  of  such  a  kind  that  it  appears  indeed  to  imply  that, 
in  S.  Peter's  confession  which  the  Saviour  approved, 
there  is  at  least  an  allusion  to  the  superhuman  trans- 
cendence of  His  Messiahship,  a  sort  of  suspicion  and, 
as  it  were,  an  insight  into  the  superior  character  of 
His  divine  Sonship. 

Notice,  in  the  passage,  the  appellation :  Simon  Bar- 
Jona,  that  is,  Simon  Son  of  Jona;  again  the  play 
upon  words  in  the  use  of  Petrus  and  petram,  thus 
implying  the  primitive  Aramaic  term  "  Kepha "  or 
Rock ;  and,  finally,  the  quite  Hebraic  figures  of  speech : 
"Gates  of  Hell",  and  "Keys  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  "/ 

As  regards  the  text  of  Mt.  xvi,  17-19,  Schmidt 
claims  that  it  has  long  since  been  recognized  as  "  a 
later  interpolation.  It  serves  to  show  the  pretensions 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  has  been  more  correctly 
interpreted  by  Catholic  than  by  Protestant  commen- 
tators ".^ 

But,  how  explain  the  fact  that,  for  such  supposed 
interpolation,  choice  was  made  of  St.  Matthew's  Gos- 
pel and  not  that  of  S.  Mark  which  the  most  ancient 
tradition  connects  precisely  with  the  Church  in  Rome 
and  with  S.  Peter?  On  the  other  hand,  how  explain 
the  fact  that  persons  who  were  so  bold  as  to  insert 

1  Jo.  i.  42;  xxi.  15,  16,  17;  Mt.  xvi.  19;  xviii.  18;  Jo.  xx.  23; 
Mt.  xvi   17  j  xi.  27;  Lk.  x.  22. 

2  Schmidt,  art.:  Son  of  God,  E.  B.,  col.  4700,  Mt.  xvi.  17-19; 
Wernle,  Die  Synop.  Frage,  p.  192, 


326  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

in  the  traditional  text  the  declaration  that  favors  the 
chief  of  the  apostles,  in  nowise  modified  nor  lessened 
the  blame  which  the  Saviour  so  severely  administered 
to  him  soon  afterwards  with  the  words :  '*  Get  thee 
behind  me,  Satan  "  ?  Are  not  rather  the  claims  of  the 
bishop  of  Rome  and  Simon  Peter's  very  evident  pre- 
eminence, from  the  first  days  of  the  Church,  explained 
only  by  Jesus'  authentic  declarations,  like  those  con- 
tained in  this  passage? 

"  Even  among  the  Twelve  ",  says  Loisy,  '*  there  is 
one  who  stands  first,  not  only  by  priority  of  conver- 
sion or  the  ardor  of  his  zeal,  but  by  a  kind  of  designa- 
tion by  the  Master,  accepted  by  the  apostolic  com- 
munity with  consequences  still  felt  in  its  subsequent 
history."  ^ 

Indeed,  the  apostle's  profession  of  faith  must  have 
had  something  remarkable  about  it  in  order  that  the 
Saviour  might  thereby  be  justified  in  making  so  magni- 
ficent a  promise  as  that  of  founding  His  church  upon 
the  apostle  thus  privileged :  "  And  I  say  to  thee : 
That  thou  art  Peter;  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build 
my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it.  And  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  And  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind 
upon  earth,  it  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven:  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  upon  earth,  it  shall  be 
loosed  also  in  heaven  ".  Above  all,  it  must  have  had 
a  very  extraordinary  import,  a  very  deep  meaning  in 
order  that  Jesus  might  ascribe  it  to  a  particular  revela- 
tion granted  by  His  heavenly  Father :  "  Blessed  art 
thou,  Simon  Bar-Jona:  because  flesh  and  blood  hath 
not  revealed  it  to  thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in 
heaven  ".  The  fact  of  attributing  to  a  revelation  from 
the  heavenly  Father  the  faith  of  the  apostle  seems 
surely  to  indicate,  in  a  suggestive  manner,  the  super- 
natural grandeur  and  the  superhuman  character  of  the 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  147 ;  Sanday,  art. :  Son  of  God,  H,  D., 
p.  572;  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  253. 


lESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  327 

title  which  Simon  had  just  proclaimed:  "Thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God  ".^ 

Is  it  not  in  the  same  transcendent  sense  of  Messiah- 
Son  of  God  that  Jesus  replies  to  the  question  of  the 
Sanhedrin?  Caiphas  asks  Him  if  He  is  truly  "the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God  ",  or  "  the  Son  of  the  Blessed  ". 
The  Saviour  answers  affirmatively :  "  Thou  hast  said 
it  ",  and,  in  order  to  fully  indicate  the  meaning  of  His 
response,  He  adds  that  people  will  one  day  see  Him, 
"  the  Son  of  Man,  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Power  of  God,  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven ''. 
Thus  did  He  place  before  the  eyes  of  His  judges  the 
idea  of  His  Messiahship  in  its  most  transcendent  and 
most  divine  aspect.  Not  only  is  He  the  Messiah  such 
as  they  had  expected, — the  mere  son  of  David  and 
temporal  king  of  the  Jews,  but  indeed  the  Messiah- 
Son  of  God,  exalted  in  power  and  glory  to  the  very 
plane  of  God.  And  so,  indeed,  do  the  Sanhedrists 
understand:  they  cry  out  that  He  blasphemeth,  and 
at  once  declare  Him  worthy  of  death. ^ 

More  explicit  still  is  the  account  given  in  S.  Luke's 
gospel.  The  High  Priest  begins  by  asking  Jesus  if  He 
is  really  the  Messiah.  Jesus  answers  by  affirming  that 
He  shall  one  day  appear  as  "  the  Son  of  Man  .  .  . 
sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Power  of  God  ".  His 
judges  perceive  that  He  identifies  Himself  with  the 
Messiah  whom  the  prophet  Daniel  described  under  the 
features  of  a  Son  of  Man ;  but  they  understand  above 
all  that  He  claims  to  stand  upon  a  level  with  God  and 
to  be  a  Son  of  God  equal  in  power  to  God.  And  so 
they  then  put  that  further  question  to  Him :  "  Art 
thou  then  the  Son  of  God?"  ^ 

Why,  we  may  ask,  this  change  of  expression?  If 
we  are  to  believe  Loisy,  it  is  but  the  same  query  stated 

1  Dalman,  up.  cit.,  p.  284. 

2  Mt.  xxvi.  6z ;  Mk.  xiv.  61, 
?Lk.  xxii.  66,  70. 


328  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

in  another  form  owing  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  "  does 
not  reply  clearly  "  to  the  first  question.  But  how  is 
it  that,  to  secure  a  clearer  reply,  the  members  of  the 
Sanhedrin  actually  employ  an  expression  less  simple 
and  less  usual  than  the  one  used  in  their  former  in- 
terrogation? If  they  do  not  ask  simply  "Art  thou 
then  the  Christ  f  is  it  not  because  Jesus  had  just  con- 
fessed more  than  His  quality  of  Christ?  It  would 
seem  then  that  the  change  of  expression,  '*  thou  art 
then  the  Son  of  God?"  is  fully  intelligible  only  if 
Jesus'  reply  served  to  specify  His  quality  of  Christ 
as  a  close  relationship  with  God,  and  if,  while  avow- 
ing Himself  the  Christ,  he  at  the  same  time  proclaimed 
Himself  the  Son  of  God  and  an  equal  to  God  in  power. 
So  that  it  was  owing  less  to  His  avowal  of  Messiah- 
ship  than  to  His  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God  that 
Jesus  was  declared  guilty  of  the  most  horrible  blas- 
phemies and  condemned  to  death.^ 

All  this,  indeed,  corresponds  exactly  with  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Fourth  Gospel  which  shows  that  its  sacred 
author  was  very  well  informed  about  all  that  concerns 
the  Passion  of  Jesus :  "  We  have  a  law  ",  repHed  the 
Jews  of  Pilate,  *'  and,  according  to  the  law.  He  ought 
to  die,  because  He  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God  ".^ 

In  a  word,  we  are  not  justified  in  discovering  in 
the  text  mentioned  by  Loisy  the  proof  that  the  title. 
Son  of  God,  which  was  given  to  Jesus  should  be 
lowered  to  the  human  level  of  such  a  Messiah  as  the 
Jews  were  actually  awaiting,  but  rather  that  the  very 
title  of  Messiah  should  be  elevated  to  the  dignity  of 
the  title  Son  of  God  taken  in  a  mysterious  and  super- 
natural sense.  In  reality,  the  Saviour's  declarations, 
which  we  have  interpreted,  in  the  fore-part  of  this 
work,  as  simply  a  Messianic  manifestation,  appear  to 
possess  a  more  profound  significance,  and  to  lift  Jesus 

1  Mk.  xiv.  62, ;  Mt.  xxvi.  65,  66 ;  Lk.  xxii.  71. 
2jo.  xix.  7;  cf.  V.  18;  X.  3. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


329 


I 


the  Messiah  to  a  superhuman  rank,  in  a  way  to  the 
very  plane  of  God,  because  He  is,  par  excellence,  the 
Son  of  God. 

Several  critics,  in  fact,  recognize  the  special  signifi- 
cance of  the  Saviour's  response  as  recorded  in  the 
third  Gospel.  Thus,  Dalman,  referring  to  the  second 
question  of  the  High-Priest,  acknowrledges  its  trans- 
cendent meaning ;  he  says  that  "  it  must  mean  that 
Jesus  is  really,  and  according  to  His  ov^n  declaration, 
not  the  Son  of  Man,  but  the  Son  of  God".  It  is 
also  the  opinion  of  J.  Weiss  and  Bousset  that,  in  pres- 
ence of  the  Sanhedrin,  Jesus  affirms  not  so  much  His 
character  of  Messiah  as  that  of  Son  of  God  in  a 
supernatural  sense.  Schmidt,  however,  thinks  that  the 
meaning  implied  by  the  text  is  so  clear  that  it  must 
be  ascribed  to  a  later  tradition.  "At  the  time  when 
these  accounts  were  elaborated,  he  says  '  Son  of  Man  ', 
'  Christ ',  and  '  Son  of  God  '  had  become  synonymous, 
and  '  Son  of  God  '  was  understood  as  '  God  ' ;  so  that 
the  blasphemy  of  making  Himself  equal  with  God 
could  be  conceived  of  as  a  charge  brought  against 
Jesus  ".^ 

Such  conclusions  certainly  go  against  Loisy's  inter- 
pretation of  the  text.  Besides,  we  are  not  authorized 
in  supposing  that  S.  Luke's  account  is  less  authentic 
than  those  of  the  other  two  Synoptists.  It  specifies 
them,  indeed,  but  without  changing  their  meaning. 
The  transcendent  meaning  of  Christ's  Messiahship 
underlies  the  triple  account,  and  corresponds  to  all  the 
other  declarations  of  the  Saviour :  we  cannot  refuse  to 
recognize  its  authenticity. 

It  is  suggested,  indeed,  by  H.  J.  Holtzmann  that 
Jesus  was  accused  of  blasphemy  simply  because  of 
His  claiming  to  be  the  Messiah.     But,  in  reality,  such 

1  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  255 ;  Weiss,  J.,  Die  Predigt  Jesu,  2nd 
ed. ;  Bousset,  art.:  In  Theol.  Rundschau,  Aug.,  1902,  p.  311; 
Schmidt,  art. :  Son  of  God,  E.  B.,  par.  20,  col.  4701. 


330 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


a  claim  could  have  been  considered  as  "  blasphemy  " 
only  inasmuch  as  the  Messiahship  which  Jesus  asserted 
impUed  a  close  relationship  with  God  similar  to  that 
which  we  have  seen  clearly  implied  in  His  own  state- 
ments. Moreover,  there  remains  the  general  impres- 
sion that  what  seemed  to  the  High  Priest  to  be  the 
supreme  blasphemy,  and  what  caused  him  to  rend  his 
garments  in  indignation,  was  really  Jesus'  formally 
expressed  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God.^ 

Jesus  the  Only  Son  of  God. 

It  is  particularly,  however,  in  the  texts  which 
record  Jesus'  declarations  about  His  relation  of 
Sonship  with  His  heavenly  Father  that  His  de- 
clarations, which  we  have  mentioned  above,  are 
explained  and  determined.  In  the  first  place,  an 
examination  of  these  various  texts  proves  peremptorily, 
as  it  were,  that  the  title  of  Son  of  God,  in  the  Saviour's 
opinion,  did  not  imply  that  He  was  only,  nor  directly, 
the  Messiah,  the  chosen  representative  of  God,  but 
rather  the  Son  who  enjoyed  strictly  filial  relations  and 
an  incomparable  intimacy  with  God.  While,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  very  extraordinary  and  unique  char- 
acter of  these  relations  of  Sonship  serves  to  confirm 
the  idea  which  we  have  thus  far  obtained  of  Christ's 
transcendent  personality. 

In  referring  to  this  feature  as  found  throughout  the 
texts  of  the  New  Testament,  Loisy  remarks  that  ''  The 
Spirit  of  God  is  the  agent  of  the  divine  Sonship  of 
Jesus;  but  the  nature  of  His  activity  and  that  of  the 
Sonship  are  not  presented  in  the  same  light.  If  we 
take  the  view  of  the  second  Gospel,  Jesus  will  be  the 
Messiah,  Son  of  God,  because  He  received  at  His 
baptism  the  divine  Spirit ;  and  it  will  be  hardly  possible 
to  suspect  the  metaphysical  character  of  His  divine 
Sonship.    If  we  take  Matthew  and  Luke  alone,  Jesus 

1  Holtzmann,  H.,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  266, 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  331 

will  be  the  Son  of  God  because  He  is  man  without 
being  born  of  man,  and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
will  apear  as  a  complement  to  the  former  grace  "/ 

These  assertions  give  only  a  part  of  the  truth.  It 
is  true  that,  in  the  second  Gospel,  Jesus  appears  as 
the  Messiah  Son  of  God  at  His  baptism  and  in  the 
two  other  Synoptists  at  His  conception.  We  may  also 
admit  that  the  manifestation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the 
baptism,  like  the  intervention  of  this  divine  Spirit  in 
the  virginal  conception,  justifies  the  Saviour's  divine 
filiation  in  as  far  as  His  humanity  alone  is  concerned. 
As  man  born  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Most  High,  as  man 
invested  by  the  Spirit  of  God  for  the  inauguration  of 
His  Messianic  career,  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God.  But 
above  all,  as  Loisy  recognized,  the  appearance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  at  the  baptism,  as  narrated  in  S.  Matthew 
and  in  S.  Luke,  does  not  indicate  that  Jesus  then 
received  the  divine  Spirit  for  the  first  time,  or  that 
only  then  did  He  become  the  Son  of  God :  it  serves 
merely  to  complete  and  confirm  what  occurred  at  the 
moment  of  His  conception,  to  manifest  and  proclaim 
what  was  accomplished  within  the  womb  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin. 

Now,  the  episode  recorded  in  S.  Mark's  gospel  may 
have  exactly  the  same  meaning:  the  second  evangelist 
does  not  indeed  mention  the  Infancy  of  Jesus;  but 
this  affords  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  intended  to 
assign  to  the  baptism  the  beginning  of  His  Messiah- 
ship  and  divine  Sonship.  On  the  other  hand,  this 
is  not  all  the  testimony  that  the  Synoptists  give  to 
Christ's  divine  filiation.  Independently  of  His  virginal 
conception  and  endowment  by  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the 
baptism,  Jesus  appeared  as  Son  of  God  by  the  very 
special  filial  relations  which  He  enjoyed  with  God. 
And  it  is  precisely  these  filial  relations  that  we  should 
study  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  Jesus'  divine  Son- 

1  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  p.  231 ;  Rev.  d'Hisi.,  1904,  p.  93. 


^^2  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ship  belonged  to  Him  only  as  man  and  implied  in 
Him  naught  more  than  His  humanity.  Loisy  says  that 
"  if  we  take  the  view  of  the  second  Gospel  it  will 
be  hardly  possible  to  suspect  the  metaphysical  char- 
acter of  the  divine  Sonship  ".  Perhaps,  then,  it  may 
be  somewhat  suspected;  and  perhaps  more  so  than  he 
would  care  to  admit. 

As  regards,  then,  Jesus'  references  to  His  relation- 
ship to  His  Father,  we  find  that  He  constantly  calls 
God  "  my  Father  ",  "  my  heavenly  Father  ",  "  my 
Father  who  is  in  heaven",  or  simply,  "the  Father; 
and,  in  turn,  He  calls  Himself  "  the  Son  ",  "  the  Son 
of  God  ".  It  is  because  He  is  Son  that  He  must  be 
about  His  Father's  business.  He  stands  toward  Him 
in  loving  dependence  and  rejoices  in  spirit  when  be- 
holding what  had  seemed  good  in  His  sight.^ 

So  greatly,  indeed,  does  He  love  to  do  His  Father's 
will,  and  so  ardently  does  He  seek  His  Father's  glory 
that,  among  the  very  first  words  of  that  great  prayer 
which  He  taught  his  disciples,  are  the  words :  "  Our 
Father  .  .  .  hallowed  be  Thy  name.  Thy  kingdom 
come.  Thy  will  be  done  ".  All  His  affections,  all  His 
predilections  are  for  those  who  do  His  Father's  will 
and  keep  His  commandments.  If  He  is  so  anxious 
about  the  welfare  of  the  souls  of  little  children,  it  is 
because  their  guardian  angels  in  heaven  behold  the 
face  of  His  Father.  Naught  more  touching,  whilst 
He  endured  His  agony  in  the  Garden,  than  His  gener- 
ous acquiescence  and  filial  abandonment  to  the  designs 
of  His  Father.     In  dying,  His  last  word  is  to  proclaim 

iLk.  ii.  49;  Mt.  XX.  2S;  Mt.  xvi.  27;  Mk.  viii.  38;  Lk.  xxii. 
29;  Mt.  xxv.  34;  xxvi.  29,  53;  xxvi.  42;  xi.  27;  Mt.  xv.  13; 
xviii.  35;  Mt.  vii.  21;  x.  32,  33;  xii.  50;  xiv.  13;  xviii.  10,  19; 
Lk.  ix.  26;  Mt.  xxvi.  39;  Mk.  xiv.  36;  Lk.  xxii.  42;  Lk. 
xxiii.  46;  Mt.  xi.  25,  26,  27;  Lk.  x.  21,  22;  Mk.  xiii.  32;  Mt. 
xxiv.  36;  xxviii.  19;  Ac.  i.  4,  7;  Mt.  xi.  25;  Lk.  x.  21;  Mk. 
xiii.  32 ;  Mt.  xxiv.  36 ;  xxviii.  19 ;  Mk.  xiv.  61 ;  Mt.  xxvi.  63 ; 
Lk.  xxii.  70;  Mt.  xvi.  16;  cf.  Mk.  xii.  6;  Mt.  xxi.  37;  Lk.  xx. 
13;  Lk.  ii.  49;  Mt.  xi.  25;  Lk.  x.  21. 


JESUS  THE  SOX  OF  GOD  333 

that  He  gently  breathes  forth  His  soul  into  His  Fath- 
er's hands.  Wherever  we  look,  we  feel  that,  in  this 
word  "  Father ",  which  He  addresses  God,  He  con- 
centrates all  the  respect,  fihal  submission,  confiding 
trust,  and  devotedly  generous  love  that  can  be  found 
within  the  heart  of  the  best  of  sons/ 

And,  on  the  other  hand,  as  Son,  He  is  the  object  of 
His  Father's  especial  affection.  He  is  His  cherished 
and  well-beloved  Son  in  whom  He  finds  the  greatest 
delight.  He  has  but  to  ask  His  Father  for  assistance, 
and  His  Father  will  send  Him  a  dozen  legions  of 
angels.  All  things  have  been  given  Him  by  His 
Father.  He  s-hall  grant  the  Kingdom  to  His  disciples, 
but  He  has  first  received  it  from  His  Father  directly, 
and  with  sovereign  power  to  dispose  of  it.  It  is  on 
the  Resurrection  day  that  He  enters  upon  the  com- 
plete and  final  possession  of  His  powers.  He  can  de- 
clare, on  that  day,  that  all  power  has  been  officially 
given  to  Him  in  heaven  and  earth ;  so  too,  at  the  last 
day.  He  shall  be  seated,  amid  the  splendor  of  the 
divine  glory,  at  the  right  hand  of  His  Father.^ 

Hence,  the  title  Son  of  God,  employed  by  the 
Saviour  is  warranted  directly  and  independently,  as 
it  were,  of  His  Messianic  character,  by  the  filial 
relations  uniting  Him  to  God.  Not  only  does  God  act 
towards  Him  as  a  Father,  bestowing  upon  Him  the 
most  striking  marks  of  His  love  and  predilection,  but 
He  Himself  acts  as  though  He  were  really  His  Fath- 
er's son,  and  showing  for  Him  all  the  sentiments  which 
a  son  should  have  for  his  Father.  So  that,  the  idea 
of  those  filial  relations  did  not  necessarily  enter  into 
the  notion  of  the  traditional  Messiah :  it  surpassed  the 

1  Mt.  vi.  9-10;  Lk.  xi.  2;  Mt.  xii.  50;  cf.  vii.  21;  Mt.  xviii. 
10;  Mk.  xiv.  36;  Mt.  xxvi.  39,  42;  Lk.  xxii.  42;  Lk.  xxiii.  46. 

2  Mk.  i.  16;  Mt.  iii.  17;  Lk.  iii.  22;  Mk.  ix.  6;  Mt.  xvii.  5; 
Lk.  ix.  35;  Mk.  xii.  6;  Lk.  xx.  13;  Mt.  xxvi.  53;  Mt.  xi.  27; 
Lk.  X.  21;  Lk.  xxii.  2g;  Mt.  xxviii.  18;  Mk.  viii.  38;  Mt.  xvi. 
27;  Lk.  ix.  26;  Mk.  xiv.  62;  Mt.  xxvi.  64;  Lk.  xxii.  69. 


334  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Messianic  theme.  Jesus'  relations  with  His  heavenly 
Father  possess  a  separate  and  special  meaning  inde- 
pendently of  that  relationship  existing  between  Jesus 
as  Messiah  and  that  God  whose  chosen  one  He  is. 

Renan,  B.  Weiss,  Wendt  and  Harnack. — The 
foregoing  facts  are  fully  appreciated  by  such  critics 
as  Renan,  B.  Weiss,  Wendt,  and  Harnack.  Thus 
Renan  says :  "  The  men  who  have  best  comprehended 
God  .  .  felt  the  divine  within  themselves.  We  must 
place  Jesus  in  the  front  rank  of  the  great  family  of 
the  true  sons  of  God.  Jesus  has  no  visions ;  God  does 
not  speak  to  him  as  to  one  outside  himself:  God  is 
in  him.  He  feels  himself  close  to  God,  and  draws 
from  his  own  heart  all  that  he  says  of  his  Father.  He 
lives  in  the  bosom  of  God  by  contact  at  every  moment ; 
He  sees  him  not,  but  hears  him  .  .  .  He  believes  him- 
self to  be  in  direct  communication  with  God;  He  be- 
lieves himself  to  be  a  son  of  God.  The  highest  con- 
sciousness of  God  that  has  existed  in  the  bosom  of  hu- 
manity is  that  of  Jesus."  ^ 

B.  Weiss  goes  so  far  as  to  derive  Jesus'  conscious- 
ness of  being  the  Messiah  from  the  fact  that  He  was 
previously  aware  of  being  the  Son  of  God.  "  He 
could  place  everything",  he  says,  "  in  its  proper  rela- 
tion to  His  mission  only  if  convinced  of  the  Messianic 
character  of  His  calling,  but  He  could  never  infer  the 
latter  from  the  former.  So  there  is  nothing  left  but 
to  assume  that  the  popular  expectation  which  He  en- 
countered first  gave  Him  a  clear  understandmg  of  His 
calling;  and  that  it  was  only  during  the  course  of  His 
ministry  that  He  assumed  the  character  of  Messiah  ".^ 

And  Wendt  observes :  "  We  cannot  claim  that 
Jesus,  in  personally  styling  Himself  the  Son  of  God, 
desired    to    affirm    merely    His    Messianic    vocation. 

1  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  131,  132, 

2  Weiss,  B.,  Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  i,  p.  280 ;  cf.  Bibl.  Theol. 
N.  T.,  vol.  i,  pp.  82,  400. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


335 


What  He  wished  in  the  first  place  was  to  indicate  His 
incomparably  pure  and  strict  union  with  God,  and,  in 
His  estimation,  the  title  would  have  had  no  reason  to 
exist  if  it  had  not,  first  of  all,  signified  the  entire  real- 
ity of  that  personal  union  ".^ 

Harnack  in  turn,  writes  that  "  Jesus  Himself  gave 
a  meaning  to  this  conception  which  almost  takes  it  out 
of  the  class  of  Messianic  ideas,  or,  at  all  events,  does 
not  make  its  inclusion  in  that  class  necessary  to  a 
proper  understanding  of  it  ".^ 

"  Both  the  Synoptic  and  the  Johannine  reports  of 
Jesus'  teaching  ",  says  Stevens,  "  require  us  to  suppose 
that  the  sonship  to  God  which  He  claimed  was  not  so 
much  an  official  as  a  personal  relation.  To  the  mind 
of  Jews,  His  sonship  designated,  not  primarily  a  his- 
toric function,  but  an  intimate  fellowship  and  union 
with  God.  This  unique  and  reciprocal  knowledge  be- 
tween Himself  and  the  Father,  and  the  inscrutable 
union  upon  which  it  was  founded,  was  for  the  con- 
sciousness of  Jesus  the  basis  and  condition  precedent 
of  His  historic  mission.  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  be- 
cause He  was  par  eminence  the  Son  of  God  ".^ 

Sanday,  also,  remarks  with  reference  to  the  title 
Son  of  God  that  "  its  meaning  was  very  far  from 
being  exhausted  by  the  holding  of  a  certain  office  or 
function  such  as  that  of  Messiah.  For  Jesus,  the 
phrase  means  the  absolute  fullness  of  all  that  it  ought 
to  mean, — the  perception  of  Sonship  in  relation  to 
God;  in  a  word,  just  all  that  sum  of  relations  and 
habitudes  of  feeling  and  thought  and  action  that  we 
have  seen  so  amply  set  before  us  in  the-  Gospel  of 
St.  John".* 

We  see  clearly,  then,  what  we  should  think  of  this 

1  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  421,  Ger.  ed. 

2  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  137. 

3  Stevens,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  p.  10 1. 

*  Sanday,  art.:  Son  of-  God,  H.  D.,  p.  576.- 


336  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

statement  of  Loisy :  "  In  so  far  as  the  title  of  Son 
of  God  belongs  in  an  exclusive  sense  to  the  Saviour, 
it  is  equivalent  to  that  of  Messiah,  and  takes  its  mean- 
ing from  the  quality  of  Messiah;  it  belongs  to  Jesus, 
not  because  of  His  inner  disposition  and  His  rehgious 
experiences,  but  because  of  His  providential  function 
as  the  sole  maker  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  .  .  .  He 
is  the  Son,  par  excellence  .  .  ,  because  He  alone  is 
the  vicar  of  God  for  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  ".^ 

No!  After  consulting  all  the  Gospel  testimony,  it 
does  not  seem  that  the  divine  filiation  of  Jesus  pre- 
sents, first  of  all,  the  character  of  an  excelling  divine 
choice,  of  an  extraordinary  consecration,  incom- 
municable, received  from  God,  and  in  virtue  of  which 
He  will  be  "  the  sole  maker  of  the  Kingdom."  It 
more  directly  implies  the  idea  of  a  veritable  divine 
filiation,  of  a  real  relation  with  His  Father.  Jesus 
does  not  seem  to  be  called  the  Son  of  God  merely  in 
a  sense  analogous  to  the  ancient  kings  of  Israel,  as 
sovereign  of  the  ideal  theocratic  kingdom,  and 
Jehovah's  lieutenant  for  the  kingdom  of  Heaven;  but 
also,  and  chiefly,  as  truly  holding  towards  God  the 
position  of  a  son  towards  His  Father,  and  maintaining 
with  Him  particularly  intimate  filial  relations.  This 
much  cannot  be  doubted :  in  emphasizing  so  constantly 
and  so  expressly  the  idea  of  His  divine  Sonship, 
Jesus  fully  shows  that  He  was  the  Messiah  only  be- 
cause being  at  the  same  time  the  Son  of  God. 

Son  of  God  and  Son  of  Man. 

It  may  be  asked,  in  the  next  place,  what  is  the 
precise  nature  of  that  divine  Sonship?  At  first  sight, 
it  apparently  belongs  to  Jesus  in  His  sacred  humanity. 
For,  the  dependence,  the  respect,  and  the  love  which 
we   have   seen    Him   manifest   as    Son   towards    His 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  105,  106. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


337 


I 


heavenly  Father  are  such  as  may  exist  between  every 
human  creature  and  God.  Indeed,  His  disciples  are 
called  "  sons  of  God  ",  and  God  is  also  called  "  their 
Father  ".^ 

True  enough.  And  yet  a  study  of  the  Gospel  texts 
shows  the  remarkable  fact  that  the  Saviour  constantly 
places  Himself,  in  dealing  with  His  Father,  upon  a 
plane  apart  from  other  men,  and  indicates  that  His 
divine  Sonship  is  of  a  different  and  incomparably 
higher  order.  Not  only,  in  fact,  is  He  the  only  one 
who  shares  His  Father's  entire  possessions,  the  only 
one  who  receives  universal  power  directly  from  Him, 
as  also  the  kingdom  and  the  glory,  whilst  others  are 
admitted  thereto  only  by  His  mediation ;  but  more- 
over, as  enjoying  filial  relation  with  God,  He  is  always 
careful  not  to  rank  Himself  iipon  the  same  plane  as 
His  disciples.  Thus,  Dalman,  referring  to  the  divine 
sonship  enjoyed  by  other  men,  says  that  "  their  dignity 
stands  in  dependence  upon  His  own.  It  is  by  com- 
munication that  they  possess  what  properly  belongs  to 
Him  alone.  He  receives  the  sovereignty  because  He 
is  the  Son ;  while  they  receive  it  because  they  are  the 
followers  of  the  Son  ".^ 

Jesus  constantly  speaks  of  ''  My  Father  ",  of  "  Your 
Father  "  but  never  of  "  Our  Father  "  in  speaking  of 
Himself  and  of  His  disciples.  Nor  is  the  prayer 
known  as  the  "  Our  Father "  an  exception,  since  it 
is  solely  in  the  mouth  of  His  disciples  that  the  Saviour 
places  it :  "  Thus  shall  ye  pray :  Our  Father  who  art 
in  heaven  ".  In  fact  Jesus  keeps  to  the  same  rule  in 
circumstances  where,  placing  His  disciples  side  by  side 
with  Him  before  God,  He  must  have  felt  called 
upon  to  speak  of  "  their  Father  "  rather  than  of  "  His 

1  Lk.  vi.  35 ;  xx.  36 ;  Mt.  v.  9,  45 ;  Mt.  v.  6,  45,  48 ;  vi.  i,  4, 
6,  8,  9,  14,  15,  18,  26,  32;  vii.  11;  X.  20,  29;  xi.  25,  26;  xviii. 
14;  xxiii.  9;  Lk.  vi    36;  xi.  2,  13;  xii.  30,  32. 

2  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  281. 

22 


338  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Father  ".  As  we  read :  "  I  will  not  drink  from  hence- 
forth of  this  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that  day  when 
I  shall  drink  it  zvith  you  anew  in  the  kingdom  of 
my  Father.  ...  I  send  the  promise  of  my 
Father,  upon  you.  .  .  .  Come  ye  blessed  of  my 
Father,  possess  you  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world  ".  What  does  all 
this  mean  but  that  the  relation  of  sonship  uniting 
Jesus  to  God  His  Father  is  not  of  the  same  order  as 
that  which  binds  the  rest  of  mankind  to  God.^ 

It  may  be  noted,  too,  that  S.  Luke  xi.  2,  the  parallel 
to  S.  Matthew's  text,  reads :  "  When  you  pray,  say : 
Father,  hallowed  be  thy  name  ".  Perhaps  Jesus  had 
told  His  disciples  to  say  simply :  "Abba ",  i.  e. 
"  Father  "  when  praying  to  God.  However,  in  either 
Gospel,  the  prayer  is  given  simply  as  the  utterance 
of  the  disciples.  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  indeed,  supposes 
that,  in  the  above  instance,  the  Saviour  had  prayed  in 
common  with  the  disciples ;  but  there  is  nothing  to  au- 
thorize such  a  supposition;  so  that,  as  Dalman  ex- 
pHcitly  admits,  S.  Matthew's  text  conveys  the  true 
meaning  of  the  invocation  addressed  to  the  Father.^ 

Schmidt  thinks  that  Jesus  never  used  any  other  ex- 
pression than  the  general  one  of  "Abba  ",  or  "  Father, 
and  that  the  variant  terms  "  My  Father  "  and  "  Your 
Father  "  were  due  to  the  Greek  evangelists.^ 

Dalman,  however,  a  critic  so  noted  for  his  knowl- 
edge of  the  Aramaic  language,  holds  that  it  is  beyond 
doubt  that  Jesus  actually  ranked  Himself  apart  from 
His  disciples  and  close  to  His  heavenly  Father. 
"  The  unique  position  assumed  by  Jesus  also  follows 
in  other  passages  from  the  invariable  separation  be- 
tween *  my  Father  '  and  '  your  Father  '  ".* 

1  Mt.  vi.  9 ;  xxvi.  29 ;  Lk.  xxiv.  49 ;  Mt.  xxv.  34. 

2  Holtzmann,  H.,  op.  cU.,  p.  268;  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  230. 

3  Schmidt,  art. :  Son  of  God,  E.  B.,  par.  12,  col.  4696. 
*  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  193. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  339 

And  Stevens  says :  "  God  is  to  Him  the  Father,  and 
He  is  to  God  the  Son  in  an  absokite  sense.  .  .  . 
Jesus  never  puts  Himself  in  the  same  category  with 
others  when  speaking  of  God's  Fatherhood,  or  men's 
Sonship  to  God  ".^ 

God  is  truly  "  the  Father  "  of  His  disciples,  but 
rather  as  their  creator  and  all-loving  Providence.  His 
disciples  are  also  ''  sons  of  God  ",  but  only  on  certain 
conditions,  and  in  a  restricted  and  imperfect  sense. 
After  the  Resurrection  they  shall  be  sons  of  God; 
for  then  they  shall  be  "  as  the  angels  "  in  that  celestial 
kingdom  wherein  God  shall  recognize  them  as  His 
own  and  treat  them  as  His  children.  On  earth,  they 
may  in  a  manner  merit  this  title.  Jesus  applies  it 
to  them  only  in  a  single  circumstance,  and  then  merely 
to  advise  them  to  show,  by  their  good-will  towards  all 
men,  that  they  are  sons  worthy  of  their  heavenly 
Father  who  makes  His  sun  shine  upon  the  just  and 
unjust  alike.  But  He  Himself  is  the  *'  Son  of  God  " 
in  an  unconditional  and  unrestricted  sense,  that  is,  by 
His  nature  and  essence.^ 

If,  then,  the  Saviour  was  so  careful,  so  anxious  to 
distinguish  between  the  relations  which  He  held  with 
His  Father  and  those  which  His  disciples  enjoyed; 
if  He  who  was  so  humble,  so  full  of  condescension, 
so  tenderly  affectionate  for  His  own,  whom  He  calls 
"  His  friends  ",  nay  more  ''  His  brethren  ",  acted  in 
this  manner,  He  must  have  used  these  terms  because 
He  was  impelled  to  do  so  by  the  necessity  of  the  case, 
that  is,  because  of  the  actual  transcendence  of  His 
divine  Sonship.^ 

Schmidt,  therefore,   quite   erroneously   affirms  that 

1  Stevens,  Theol.  N.  T.,  p.  60;  Weiss,  B.,  Bihl.  Theol.  N.  T„ 
vol.  i,  p.  78. 

2  Mk.  xii.  25 ;  Mt.  xxi.  30 ;  Lk.  xx.  z^ ;  Mt.  v.  9 ;  Lk.  vi.  35 ; 
Mt.  V.  45. 

^  Mt.  xii.  50 ;  XXV.  34 ;  xxviii.  10. 


340 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


"A  careful  examination  of  the  Gospels  tends  to  pro- 
duce the  conviction  that  Jesus  never  assumed  the  title 
'  Son  of  God '  either  to  designate  Himself  as  the  ex- 
pected King  of  Israel  or  to  intimate  that  His  nature 
was  unlike  that  of  other  men,  but  that  He  spoke  of 
men  in  general  as  '  the  Sons  of  God ',  and  of  God  as 
their  Father,  and  also  used  the  expression  as  a  mark 
of  distinction  for  those  whose  character  resembled 
God's  ".  The  truth  is  that,  even  apart  from  the  pas- 
sages, wherein  we  have  seen  the  Saviour  consider 
Himself  expressly  as  the  Son  of  the  Father,  and  which 
Schmidt  mercilessly  eliminates  by  a  process  of  entirely 
negative  criticism,  "  Jesus  although  he  never  applied 
to  Himself  the  title  '  Son  of  God  ',  yet  made  it  in- 
dubitably clear  that  He  was  not  merely  '  a ',  but  *  the  ' 
Son  of  God  ''."■ 

This  divine  transcendent  filiation  belongs  to  Jesus 
even  in  His  human  nature.  It  is  as  man  that  He  enjoys 
such  incomparable  filial  relations  with  God  His  Father 
as  unite  Him  to  God  in  a  manner  absolutely  different 
from  that  experienced  by  other  men.  His  human 
faculties,  in  the  first  place,  must  be  regarded  as  the 
organ  of  those  relations  which  He  declares  that  He 
has  with  His  Father.  Thus,  it  is  His  intellect,  divinely 
formed,  which  conceives  of  the  greatness  and  good- 
ness of  His  heavenly  Father.  It  is  His  human  will 
which  humbly  submits  to  His  designs ;  it  is  through 
His  human  heart  that  He  testifies  to  His  filial  affec- 
tion. His  complacent  love  in  His  perfections  and  de- 
votedness  to  His  glory. 

Basis  of  the  Divine  Sonship. 

So  intimately,  however,  is  the  Saviour's  humanity 
united  with  His  heavenly  Father,  so  extraordinary  are 
the  privileges  and  powers  which  rightly  impart  to 
Him  His  character  of  Only  Son  of  God,  that  we  are 

1  Schmidt,  art. :  Son  of  God,  E.  B.,  par.  25,  col.  4703 ;  Dal- 
man,  op.  cit.,  p.  281. 


lESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


341 


led  to  ask:  Have  such  filial  relations  their  founda- 
tion only  in  the  created  humanity  assumed  by  Jesus? 
It  is  very  unlikely  that  a  mere  man,  even  though 
privileged  with  the  vocation  of  Messiah,  could  have 
thus  set  Himself  apart  from  other  men  in  the  relation 
of  divine  Sonship  and  become  exalted  to  so  special  a 
degree  of  union  with  God  and  of  participation  in  His 
powers.  To  warrant  in  some  way  such  relations  of 
Sonship,  must  there  not  have  been  a  real  elevation  of 
the  Saviour's  humanity  to  a  plane  above  that  of 
pure  human  nature  by  means  of  a  substantial  union 
which  would  unite  Him  with  the  divinity  and  thus 
make  Him,  the  Christ,  equal  to  His  Father? 

The  majority  of  Protestant  critics  are  content  to 
state  this  incomparable  excellence  and  unique  perfec- 
tion of  Jesus'  divine  Sonship.  They  admit  that  the 
Saviour  sets  Himself  apart  from  all  men  in  claiming 
to  be  pre-eminently  "  the  Son  of  God  " ;  they  maintain, 
or  even  imply,  that  such  transcendence  merely  means 
an  unusual  union  between  Christ's  humanity  and  God/ 

But,  as  Dalman  justly  observes,  there  is  nothing 
to  show  that  we  should  restrict  Christ's  divine  Son- 
ship  to  a  simply  moral  union  with  His  Father. 

"  Nowhere,"  he  says,  '*  do  we  find  that  Jesus  called 
Himself  the  Son  of  God  in  such  a  sense  as  to  suggest 
a  merely  religious  and  ethical  relation  to  God, — a  re- 
lation which  others  actually  possessed  or  which  they 
were  capable  of  attaining  or  destined  to  acquire  ".- 

On  the  contrary,  everything  would  indicate  that 
this  incomparably  transcendent  divine  Sonship  has 
its  primary  foundation  in  an  essential  relation  of  the 
human  nature  of  Christ  with  God.  Jesus'  attitude  in 
assuming  special  divine  privileges  and  powers  is  suffi- 
ciently explained  only  by  supposing  that  there  was  a 
substantial  permeation  of  His  human  nature  by  the 

1  Cf.  Lepin,  Jesus  Messie,  p.  230. 

2  Dalman,  op.  cit:,  p.  287. 


342 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


divinity;  so  that  the  exceptional  character  of  Christ's 
intimate  union  with  God  is  reahzed  only  if  this  Man- 
Christ  is  exalted  above  mere  humanity  even  unto  God 
Himself  through  a  mysterious  communication  of  the 
divinity. 

"  We  must  also  admit ",  says  Stevens,  "  that  the 
exegetical  result,  in  the  case  before  us,  raises  a  prob- 
lem respecting  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  with  which 
the  mind  cannot  decline  to  deal.  As  Son  of  God, 
Jesus  stands  in  a  unique  relation  to  the  Father.  The 
title  involves  his  ethical  perfection.  Now  we  cannot 
simply  stop  short  with  these  assertions :  to  do  so  is  to 
decline  the  problem  to  which  this  uniqueness  gives 
rise.  Why  was  Jesus  the  only  sinless  man?  Was  his 
sinlessness  an  accident?  Why  has  it  never  been  re- 
peated? If,  as  is  admitted,  he  possessed  the  clear 
consciousness  of  sinlessness,  what  is  the  explanation 
of  so  exceptional  and  marvelous  a  fact?  We  are  told 
that  His  consciousness  of  perfect  union  with  God  and 
of  sinless  perfection  was  "  purely  human  " ;  if  so,  it 
still  demands  some  explanation  which  the  representa- 
tives of  this  view  have  not  given  and  make  no  effort  to 
furnish.  It  is  open  to  the  radical  theologian  to  say 
that  the  positing  of  a  metaphysical  union  with  God 
as  the  basis  of  the  unique  consciousness  and  charac- 
ter of  Jesus  is  a  subsequent  explanation  which  Paul 
and  John  have  given.  But  it  is  an  explanation,  and  the 
mere  assertion  that  Jesus'  consciousness  was  "  purely 
human  "  is  not.  It  is,  moreover,  an  explanation  which 
these  Apostles  base  upon  the  teaching  and  life  of 
Jesus  as  they  knew  Him  ".^ 

Similarly,  Reuss,  in  referring  to  this  moral  union 
of  Jesus  with  God,  says :  "  The  ethical  relationship,  if 
really  such  as  we  have  described  it,  is  not  self-ex- 
planatory, nor  above  all  is  it  explained  by  the  analogies 
that  can  be  supplied  by  the  historic  experience  of  man- 

1  Stevens,  Theol.  N.  T.,  p.  63 ;  Schmidt;  Hermann,  art. :  In 
Theol.  Stud,  and  Krit.,  1889,  p.  423. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


343 


kind.  We  are  necessarily  led  to  understand  it  as  the 
manifestation  of  a  metaphysical  relationship  which  is 
truly  far  above  and  absolutely  beyond  all  that  this 
world  and  its  history  can  produce  or  explain  for  us  "/ 

The  Eternal  Son  of  God. 

But  in  what  does  the  substantial  union  of  Christ's 
humanity  with  God  exactly  consist?  How  should  we 
describe  this  mysterious  share  in  the  divinity  which 
the  Saviour  must  enjoy  in  the  higher  part  of  His  be- 
ing? In  many  texts  of  the  Synoptists,  Jesus  is  rep- 
resented as  pre-existing  before  His  earthly  birth,  and 
coming  here  below  as  the  Envoy  of  His  Father.  In 
many  texts  it  is  said  that  He  is  "  come  ",  and  "  sent " 
to  preach  the  Gospel  to  Israel,  to  fulfil  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets,  to  heal  and  save  the  souls  of  sinners, 
to  give  His  life  as  a  ransom  for  many.^ 

True,  such  texts  may,  in  part,  refer  merely  to  Jesus' 
entrance  upon  His  public  career ;  for.  He  had  left 
Nazareth,  and  hence  He  comes  to  preach  the  Gospel ; 
and  it  is  in  this  sense  that  He  compares  His  coming 
to  that  of  John  His  precursor.  But  it  is  none  the  less 
true  that,  at  times.  He  seems  to  clearly  indicate  that 
His  earthly  advent  is,  as  it  were,  from  a  higher  region 
where  He  existed  before  His  Incarnation.^ 

Thus,  the  demons  exclaim :  "  What  have  we  to  do 
with  thee,  Jesus  Son  of  God?  Art  thou  come  hither 
to  torment  us  before  the  time?"  Jesus  also  says:"/ 
am  come  to  cast  fire  upon  the  earth,  and  what  will  I 
but  that  it  be  enkindled  ?  Again :  "  Believe  not  that 
/  am  come  to  bring  peace  upon  the  earth  ;  /  am  come  to 
bring,  not  peace,  but  the  sword".     So,  too,  in  S.  Mark, 

1  Reuss,  Hist,  of  Christ.  TheoL,  3rd  ed.,  vol.  i,  p.  234. 

2  Mk.  i.  38;  ii.  17;  ix.  7,6',  x.  45;  Mt.  v.  17;  ix.  13;  x.  34,  40; 
XV.  24;  XX.  28;  Lk.  iv.  43;  V.  32;  ix.  48,  56;  x.  16;  xix.  10; 
cf.  Mk.  i.  24;  Mt.  viii.  29;  Lk.  iv.  34. 

3  Mt.  xi.  18,  19 ;  Lk.  vii,  33-34- 


344 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


there  is  the  same  expression,  "  I  am  come  ",  a  favorite 
term  with  S.  John  to  designate  Jesus'  coming  forth 
from  the  heavenly  Father.  All  the  foregoing  texts, 
indeed,  seem  to  exactly  correspond  v^ith  the  still  more 
formal  and  expHcit  passages  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
wherein  Jesus  expressly  states  that  He  descended 
from  heaven  where  He  abided  with  His  Father,  and 
came  down  upon  earth  in  order  to  teach  and  to  save 
mankind.^ 

The  entire  Synoptic  teaching,  moreover,  fully  agrees 
with  this  idea.  It  portrays  Jesus  as  essentially  sharing 
the  divinity  because  of  a  higher  element  of  His  being; 
it  can  be  realized  only  above  and  beyond  His  human- 
ity ;  it  is  independent  of  His  human  existence ;  it  may 
be  indeed  prior  thereto;  or,  rather,  its  origin  cannot 
arise  in  the  course  of  time.  Christ,  who  is  substan- 
tially united  with  God,  must  necessarily,  from  all 
eternity,  have  subsisted  in  God. 

Previous  to  His  earthly  advent,  He  subsists  eter- 
nally in  God  and,  as  S.  John  describes  the  Word,  He 
is  at  once  God  and  proceeds  from  God,  and,  in  the 
course  of  time,  assumes  human  nature.  This  view  of 
Christ  exactly  accounts  for  all  that  is  transcendent  and 
divine  in  the  Saviour's  historic  personality;  nor  can 
the  Gospel  realities  be  accounted  for  by  any  other  ex- 
planation. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  do  we  not  find  a  basis  for 
attributing  the  formal  quality  of  Son  of  God  to 
Christ  as  a  divine  person  in  the  transcendent  and  su- 
pernatural perfection  of  His  divine  Sonship  even  as 
man,  as  also  in  His  mode  of  appearing  in  all  re- 
spects as  rather  proceeding  from  God  and  subsisting 
in  God  than  purely  and  simply  identical  with  the 
Father? 

We  may  say  that  the  unique  character  of  Jesus' 
divine  filiation,  such  as  we  have  endeavored  to  prove 

1  Mt.  viii.  29 ;  Lk.  xii.  49 ;  Mk.  i.  38. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  345 

it,  affords  the  best  confirmation  of  the  primitive  ac- 
counts which  describe  Him  as  begotten  of  God  in  His 
human  nature.  But  do  we  not  also  find  therein  mo- 
tives for  supposing  a  still  more  excellent  begetting 
whereby  He  really  becomes  a  participant  in  the  divine 
nature?  In  other  words,  is  not  Jesus  who,  even  as 
man,  is  the  Son  of  God,  also  such,  independently  of 
His  human  nature,  because,  prior  to  His  Incarnation, 
and  as  regards  the  higher  part  of  His  being.  He  is  be- 
gotten of  God's  very  substance?  Moreover,  the  real- 
ity of  this  higher  divine  fihation  appears  to  be  in- 
sinuated and  suggested  in  some  way  as  a  necessary  con- 
clusion by  the  incomparable,  transcendent  and  unique 
character  which  Jesus  claims  for  His  relationship 
with  His  Father.  The  most  perfect  relationship 
uniting  Christ's  humanity  with  God  is  rightly  per- 
ceived as  the  human  phase  and  created  expression  of 
that  superior  Sonship  which  Jesus  enjoys  in  virtue 
of  His  divine  nature.^ 

In  referring  to  this  matter,  Sanday  says :  "  It  is 
equally  little  open  to  question  that,  in  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel, Christ  is  conceived  as  pre-existent.  Is  He  pre- 
existent  as  Son  ?  In  the  case  of  S.  John,  there  is  a  clear 
presumption  that  it  is  so  suggested.  It  seems  just  to 
imply  what  the  other  Gospels  lead  us  to  the  verge  of, 
without  directly  supplying  ".^ 

"  The  Son  of  David  ". 

The  foregoing  conclusions  are  confirmed  by  an  at- 
tentive study  of  several  texts  wherein  the  Saviour  dis- 
creetly lifts  the  veil  that  hides  His  divine  origin  and 
His  superior  nature  as  Son  of  God.  Does  not  Jesus, 
it  may  be  asked,  insinuate  the  essential  transcendence 
of  His  divine  filiation  in  asking  the  Scribes :  "  What 
think  ye  of  Christ?     Whose  son  is  He?     They  say  to 

1  Lepin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  72,  211. 

2  Sanday,  art. :  Son  of  God^  H.  D.,  p.  576. 


346  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Him:  David's.  He  saith  to  them:  How  then  doth 
David  in  spirit  call  Him  Lord,  saying:  The  Lord  said 
to  my  Lord:  Sit  on  my  right  hand,  until  I  make  thy 
enemies  thy  footstool?  If  David  then  call  him  Lord, 
how  is  he  his  Son?"  ^ 

The  Saviour  does  not  deny  that  He  is  the  Son  of 
David.  He  had  said  so  equivalently  on  several  occa- 
sions. Thus,  He  healed  the  sick  who  had  invoked 
Him  by  this  name;  He  approved  the  multitude  who 
had  acclaimed  Him  under  this  title.  And,  now,  by 
an  irrefutable  ''  argumentum  ad  hominem  ",  that  is,  by 
accepting  the  authority  of  David  whom  His  ques- 
tioners regarded  as  the  inspired  author  of  Psalm  109, 
which  was  deemed  Messianic,  He  compels  them  to 
realize  that  He  is  more  than  a  mere  son  of  David; 
nay,  that  He  is  even  the  "  Lord  "  of  David,  and  is  to 
sit  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Eternal  as  a  partaker  of 
His  power  and  glory. 

It  may  be  noted  that  the  Hebrew  text  reads :  *'  Word 
of  Jehovah  (laveh)  to  my  Lord  (Adon)";  and  that 
in  the  Greek  text  of  the  Septuagint  version  which 
was  used  in  Palestine  during  the  time  of  Jesus,  the 
word  "  Lord  ",  or  nmoc  is  the  equivalent  both  of  laveh 
and  Adon,  namely,  the  Eternal  and  His  Messiah;  and 
it  was  to  this  Messiah,  according  to  the  traditional  in- 
terpretation of  the  Scribes,  that  the  word  referred.^ 

Jesus,  moreover,  not  only  declares  that  the  Messiah 
shares  the  divine  attributes,  but  He  also  implies  that  if 
He  is  so  especially  associated  with  God,  it  is  precisely 
as  Son  of  God.  Wendt  remarks  that  the  Psalmist's 
language  affords  the  Saviour  "  the  proof  that  what 
forms  the  essential  basis  of  Christ's  Messiahship  is  not 
Davidic  filiation,  but  something  far  higher.  And  to 
Jesus,  this  can  be  solely  the  Messiah's  relation  to  God, 
or  the  divine  Sonship  ".^ 

^  Mk.  xii.  35 ;  Mt.  xxii.  42 ;  Lk.  xx.  41. 

2C/.   Ps.  ex.   I. 

*  Wendtj  op.  cit.,  p.  424,  Ger.  ed. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


347 


"An  unbiased  reader  of  the  statement  of  Jesus 
cannot  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  Messiah  is  in 
reahty  the  son  of  one  more  exalted  than  David,  that  is, 
the  Son  of  God  ".^ 

And  Loisy,  in  referring  to  the  text  of  S.  John  x.  31, 
admits  that  "  all  this  discussion  is  a  counterpart  of  the 
Synoptic  discussion  about  the  Messiah  the  Son  of 
David  who,  indeed,  is  rather  the  Son  of  God  ".^ 

Does  Loisy  mean  that  he  would  not  hesitate  to  as- 
sign the  synoptic  text  also  to  later  tradition?  Surely 
this  could  be  only  owing  to  a  theological  motive  on 
his  part.  The  text,  in  fact,  is  admitted  without  ques- 
tion by  Wendt,  Dalman,  B.  Weiss,  Stapfer,  Wernle, 
and  O.  Holtzmann.  However,  the  last  three  writers 
interpret  it  as  though  Jesus  wished  to  deny  His  Davidic 
descent. 

This  text  is  recognized  also  by  H.  J.  Holtzmann; 
but,  wrongly  enough,  he  apparently  wants  to  attribute 
to  the  account  in  the  First  Gospel  a  metaphysical  sense 
not  encountered  in  the  other  two  Synoptists  and  which 
he  would  attribute  to  the  influence  of  tradition.  "  This 
passage  ",  he  claims,  "  is  dependent  upon  the  confes- 
sion of  S.  Peter.  ...  In  two  instances  does  the  first 
Evangelist  appear  as  the  theologian  who  beholds,  in 
the  Son  of  Man,  the  counter-part  of  the  Son  of  God, 
and  thus  prepares  the  way  for  the  doctrine  on  the  two 
natures  ".^ 

"  The  Synoptic  accounts,  Dalman  observes,  are  here 
in  virtual  agreement.  For  it  is  of  no  real  consequence 
that,  according  to  Mark  and  Luke,  Jesus  should  Him- 
self propound  the  question ;  how  the  Messiah  should 

1  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  285. 

2  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  p.  628;  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  z^4, 
Ger.  ed. ;  Weiss,  Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  ii,  p.  384,  Ger.  ed. ;  Stapfer, 
The  Death  and  Res.  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  29,  Fr.  ed. ;  Wernle, 
op.  cit.,  p.  47;  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  353,  Ger.  ed. 

2  Holtzmann,  H.,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  258. 


348  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

be  called  a  son  of  David,  whereas  in  Matthew  Jesus 
first  causes  the  Pharisees  to  say  that,  from  their  point 
of  view,  the  Messiah  is  a  son  of  David.  The  aim  in 
either  case  is  the  same, — to  awaken  reflection  in  regard 
to  the  origin  of  the  Messiah  rather  than  to  His  dignity 
or  exalted  rank  "/ 

The  evident  comparison  between  the  quality  of  Son 
of  God  and  that  of  Son  of  Man  apparently  warrants 
the  acceptance  of  both  terms  as  analogous.  What 
means  the  title,  "  Son  of  David "  ?  It  is  certainly 
equivalent  to  "  Messiah  " ;  but  to  the  Saviour,  as  to 
traditional  opinion,  it  means  a  real  descendent  of  the 
great  king.  Says  Wendt :  "  Jesus  would  have  hardly 
accepted  this  title  as  His  own,  if  He  had  not  found 
it  verified  in  His  real  descent  from  David.  Indeed, 
apart  from  other  New  Testament  testimonies,  the  way 
that  S.  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  testifies 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  born  of  David  according  to  the 
flesh,  appears  so  decisive  that  we  have  not  the  least 
right  to  doubt  the  reality  of  that  Davidic  origin  ".^ 

Ihe  quality  of  Son  of  God,  therefore,  would  seem 
to  belong  to  the  Saviour  even  in  the  proper  and  natural 
sense.  In  this  title,  and  rightly  so,  Dalman  perceives 
the  proof  that  Jesus  was  aware  of  a  divine  supernat- 
ural intervention  at  His  Incarnation,  to  which,  pre- 
cisely, the  accounts  of  His  miraculous  conception 
bear  witness.  Must  we  not  see  also  in  this  title 
an  indication  of  an  even  closer  divine  Sonship  which 
constitutes  Christ,  even  beyond  His  human  nature, 
the  true  Son  of  God,  sharing  His  Father's  essence,  and 
thus  accounts  for  the  unique  privileges  conferred  upon 
His  humanity? 

The  Wicked  Husbandmen. 
The  exceptional  character  of  the  Saviour's  divine 

1  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  285 ;  cf,  Lepin,  op.  cit.,  p.  18 ;  Wendt, 
op.  cit.,  p.  425,  Ger.  ed. 

2  Op.  cit,  p.  425. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  349 

filiation  is  brought  out  even  more  explicitly  in  the 
Parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen.  God  is  therein 
represented  as  a  rich  father  of  family  who  sends  forth 
into  His  vineyard,  which  typifies  Israel,  servants 
charged  with  the  task  of  gathering  the  fruit  and  who 
represent  the  prophets  of  Israel,  under  the  Old  Law. 
One  after  another  these  servants  are  badly  received, 
covered  with  stripes,  and  some  of  them  killed  by  the 
faithless  people.  At  length,  the  master  decides  to 
send  into  his  vineyard  "  His  own  Son  ",  "  His  well- 
beloved  Son  ",  "  His  heir  ".  But  the  stewards  put 
Him  to  death  just  as  they  had  killed  the  servants ;  and 
in  punishment  for  their  crime  their  city  shall  be  sacked 
and  destroyed;  the  vineyard  shall  be  given  over  to 
other  laborers  who  shall  gather  therefrom  fruits  in 
due  season.^ 

It  is  clear  that,  by  this  son  who  follows  upon  the 
servants,  or  the  Prophets,  and  who,  like  them,  is  to  be 
the  victim  of  the  hatred  of  the  people,  Jesus  signifies 
Himself.  He  is,  therefore  the  Son  of  God.  And 
what  a  Son  of  God  He  was !  Between  Him  and  the 
ancient  Prophets  there  lies  an  essential  divergence. 
He  surpasses  the  most  illustrious  of  them  by  all  the 
distance  lying  between  the  son  of  a  householder  and 
the  common  servants:  while  they  are  simply  God's 
servants,  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  His  only  beloved  Son.- 

Remarkable,  indeed,  are  such  expressions.  Could 
we  account  for  them  in  the  hypothesis  of  Jesus'  pure 
humanity?  Undoubtedly,  the  character  of  Messiah 
itself  is  enough  to  place  the  Saviour  above  the  great- 
est personages  of  the  Old  Law ;  but  would  it  warrant 
Him  in  proclaiming  Himself  the  only  Son  of  God  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  the  Prophets,  looked  upon  as  com- 
mon servants,  if,  like  them,  He  were  at  most  naught 

1  Mt.  xxi.  sy;  Mk.  xii.  6;  Lk.  xx.  13;  Mk.  xii.  7;  Mt.  xxi. 
38;  Lk.  XX.  14. 

2  Heb.  i.  I. 


350  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

more  than  man?  If  God  had  superadded  the  Mes- 
sianic dignity  to  His  mere  humanity,  Christ  would 
have  thereby  become  the  greatest  of  Prophets,  the 
Prophet  par  excellence.  Apparently,  it  would  not 
have  marked  ,Him  as  essentially  different  from  the 
other  Prophets,  or  established  a  distinction  of  nature 
such  as  that  existing  between  common  servants  and 
the  son  of  the  householder.  The  Saviour's  language 
is  intelligible  only  if  we  suppose  that  He  was  aware 
of  being  more  than  man,  and  more  than  a  Prophet; 
that  His  actual  union  with  God  was  not  simply  closer, 
in  the  same  human  and  created  order,  but  of  a  higher 
and  transcendent  character ;  that  He  was  by  nature  the 
true  Son  of  God,  while  even  the  greatest  Prophets 
were,  as  it  were,  only  strangers  and  servants.^ 

This  plainly  confirms  the  reality  of  that  physical 
sonship  which  unites  Christ  to  God  even  in  His  hu- 
manity by  reason  of  His  miraculous  birth.  But,  the 
manner  in  which  Jesus  presents  Himself  as  being  the 
Son  of  God  from  the  time  of  His  mission  to  Israel, 
and  seemingly  prior  thereto,  and  on  the  other  hand, 
the  essential  contrast  established  between  His  precise 
nature  as  Son  of  God  and  the  mere  position  of  ser- 
vants pertaining  to  the  Prophets,  seems  also  to  be  the 
confirmation  of  the  reality  of  this  higher  and  divine 
filiation  which  should  belong  to  Christ  as  pre-existing 
in  God. 

Some  critics,  indeed,  have  attacked  the  authenticity 
of  this  remarkable  Parable.  Loisy,  for  instance,  who 
follows  in  the  lead  of  Jiilicher,  observes .  "  The  story 
of  the  Wicked  Plusbandmen  is  probably  not  to  be 
classed  among  the  Parables  of  Jesus ;  it  is  rather  a  pro- 
duct of  the  influence  exerted  by  the  allegorizing  tra- 
dition upon  the  parables  ".  The  following  summary 
of  Loisy's  views  on  this  matter  may  prove  interesting: 
Jesus  spoke  in  parables,  but  never  in  allegories.     It 

1  Cf.  Mt.  xxii.  2. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  351 

was  only  after  the  Saviour's  death  that  the  Christian 
Church  witnessed  the  development  of  the  allegory 
which,  under  the  transparent  veil  of  figurative  lan- 
guage, directly  describes  the  real  fact  which  it  is  in- 
tended to  illustrate.  Primitive  tradition,  in  its  ef- 
fort to  show  that  the  Master's  discourses  contained 
predictions  of  the  great  events  accomplished  after  His 
death,  imparted  to  His  authentic  parables  some  one 
or  other  allegorical  feature  bearing  upon  a  fact  of 
Church  history,  or  even  made  up  from  beginning  to 
end,  and  placed  upon  the  Saviour's  lips  complete  alle- 
gories based  upon  accomplished  facts.  The  allegori- 
cal features  and  allegories  proper  are,  therefore,  re- 
cognized as  later  additions  to  Jesus'  own  teaching  as 
they  are  met  with  here  and  there  in  the  Synoptics. 
Moreover  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  so  far  the  product  of 
this  allegorizing  tradition  and  so  little  the  authentic 
summary  of  the  Saviour's  discourses  that  "  it  contains 
no  parable  at  all  ",  but  only  allegories.  And  with  re- 
gard to  the  passage  under  discussion,  it  so  minutely 
describes  the  destiny  reserved  to  Jesus  and  the  chas- 
tisement awaiting  Jerusalem  because  of  its  crime,  that 
it  too  is  a  product  of  such  allegorizing  tradition, — a 
kind  of  allegorical  prophecy  which  was  composed  sub- 
sequently, although  its  figurative  features  were  based 
upon  the  accomplished  fact.^ 

To  enter  into  a  complete  discussion  of  the  above 
hypothesis  of  Loisy  would  require  a  special  essay.  It 
will  suffice  to  present  a  few  remarks.  Without  con- 
sidering whether  or  not  Jesus  could  have  foreseen  and 
foretold  His  future  destiny,  and  simply  taking  the 
view-point  of  exegetical  criticism,  we  think  that  Loisy's 
theory  about  the  parable  and  the  allegory,  as  stated 
in  his  method  of  reasoning,  is  greatly  open  to  suspicion. 
The  fact  is  that  there  is  no  such  distinction  as  he 

1  Loisy,  Etudes  Evang.,  pp.  34,  57 ;  Jiilicher,  Die  Gleichnis- 
reden  Jesu,  Introd.,  1886;  Commentary,  1899,  vol.  ii,  p.  385 
et  seq. 


352  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

makes  between  the  parable  and  the  allegory:  the  two 
things,  both  of  them  derived  from  comparison  or  from 
simile,  are  parallel  and  connected,  and  often  inti- 
mately blended. 

The  Saviour,  indeed,  loves  to  present  His  lessons 
under  a  concrete  and  picturesque  form  that  commands 
attention  and  appeals  to  one's  emotions.  Hence  His 
constant  use  of  comparison,  of  metaphor,  of  figures  of 
speech  that  are  drawn  from  daily  experience  and  the 
passing  observation  of  men  and  things.  The  parable, 
and  the  allegory  are  but  a  special  form  of  comparison 
presented  in  a  sHghtly  developed  and  very  vivid 
manner. 

What,  indeed,  is  the  parable  but  an  imaginary  re- 
cital, based  upon  the  ordinary  customs  of  Hfe,  offering 
nothing  unlikely,  and  written  in  view  of  teaching  a 
moral  lesson  by  way  of  comparison?  As  for  the 
allegory,  it  is  intended,  also,  to  afford  instruction.  Its 
peculiar  feature,  however,  is  that  it  does  not  form,  by 
itself,  and  in  its  material  tenor,  an  account  separate 
from  the  moral  lesson  and  merely  placed  side  by  side 
with  the  explanation  to  be  given.  The  very  terms  of 
the  account  represent  directly  and  in  figure  the  object 
intended ;  they  are  used  not  in  their  material  sense, 
but  symbolically;  the  concrete  expression  given  in  the 
account  is  only  a  Hght  covering,  a  transparent  veil, 
through  which  the  entire  symbolized  reality  is  imme- 
diately discovered  and  whence  it  follows  directly. 

Whatever  Loisy  may  say,  the  Fourth  Gospel,  as  we 
shall  see  afterwards,  includes  both  parabolic  and  al- 
legorical elements ;  and  even  in  what  are  usually  called 
"  Johanniiie  allegories  "  these  two  strata  are  closely 
mingled.  If,  however,  the  parable  is  dominant  in  the 
first  three  Gospels,  these  writings  are  not  entirely  with- 
out allegorical  elements,  nor  is  it  possible  to  ascribe 
them  all  to  the  work  of  later  tradition. 

Thus,  to  note  a  few  instances :  "  You  are  the  light 
of  the  world.  .  .  .  You  are  the  salt  of  the  earth.  .  .  . 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  353 

I  shall  make  you  fishers  of  men.  .  .  .  The  harvest  in- 
deed is  great,  but  the  laborers  are  few.  Pray  ye 
therefore  the  Lord  of  the  harvest  that  He  send  forth 
laborers  into  His  harvest.  .  .  .  Thou  art  Peter,  and 
upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church.  .  .  .  Enter  ye 
in  at  the  narrow  gate.  ...  If  any  man  will  follow  me, 
let  him  deny  himself,  and  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow 
me.  .  .  .  Woe  to  you,  scribes  and  pharisees,  hypo- 
crites, because  you  make  clean  the  outside  of  the  cup 
and  of  the  dish,  but  within  you  are  full  of  rapine  and 
uncleanness  ".  Are  not  all  these  figurative  features 
simply  so  many  allegories  in  brief  outline?^ 

To  discover  this  intimate  union  of  parabolic  and  al- 
legoric elements,  it  is  not  even  necessary  to  look  out- 
side of  the  passage  now  under  consideration  and  there 
is  no  reason  either  for  attributing  the  former  to  the 
Saviour  and  the  latter  to  tradition.  In  fact,  the  de- 
tails of  the  metaphor  do  not  always  correspond  with 
parallel  features  in  the  thing  imagined.  Otherwise, 
unless  this  passage  is  really  not  wholly  an  allegory  but 
essentially  a  parable,  why  do  we  find  such  reflexions 
as  these?  "A  certain  man  planted  a  vineyard  and 
made  a  hedge  about  it,  and  dug  a  place  for  the  wine- 
fat,  and  built  a  tower,  and  let  it  to  the  husbandmen; 
and  went  into  a  far  country.  .  .  .  This  is  the  Heir; 
come,  let  us  kill  him,  and  the  inheritance  shall  be 
ours  ".^ 

Therefore  the  principle  of  exegesis  emphasized  by 
Loisy  and  Jiilicher  has  a  very  a  priori  character,  and 
it  leaves  large   room   for   arbitrary  and   imaginative 

1  Mt.  V.  14;  Mt.  V.  13;  cf.  Mk.  ix.  49;  Mk.  xvii. ;  Mt.  iv.  19; 
Lk.  V.  10;  Mt.  ix.  37-38;  Lk.  x.  2;  Mt.  xvi.  18;  Mt.  vii.  13; 
Lk.  xiii.  24;  Mk.  viii.  34;  Mt.  x.  38;  Mt.  xvi.  24;  Lk.  ix.  23; 
xiv.  27;  Mt.  xxiii.  25;  cf.  Mt.  xxv.  32;  Lk.  xx.  17;  xxiii.  31. 

2  Bugge,  Die  Haupt-Parabeln  Jesu,  1903;  Fiebig,  Die  Alt- 
jud.  Gleich.  und  die  Glelch.  Jesu,  1904;  cf.  Wellhausen,  Das 
Evang.  Marci,  1903. 

23 


354  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

conclusions.  It  may  be  remarked,  also,  that  Jiilicher's 
radical  views  on  this  point  have  been  especially  ques- 
tioned by  Bugge  and  Fiebig. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  very  debatable  prin- 
ciple, Loisy  alleges  a  number  of  reasons  that  tend  to 
weaken  the  authenticity  of  this  text.  He  claims  that 
"  before  the  event,  there  was  no  reason  to  show  that 
the  death  of  Jesus  was  the  last  limit  of  divine  pa- 
tience ".  Was  there,  indeed,  no  reason  ?  And  why 
not?  But,  he  continues:  "'  It  is  very  strange  that  this 
discourse  incited  the  auditors  soon  afterwards  to  com- 
mit the  crime  whose  consequences  they  had  just  been 
warned  about ".  As  though  the  pharisees  were  habi- 
tually accustomed  to  regulate  their  conduct  by  the 
words  and  advice  of  Jesus !  ^ 

And  finally,  Loisy  observes :  "  If  Jesus  proclaims 
Himself  the  Son  of  God  in  presence  of  so  many  wit- 
nesses who  understood  what  He  said,  we  do  not  at  all 
see  why  His  case  should  be  difficult  to  present  before 
the  High-Priest  ".  Of  course,  the  Saviour  had  not 
explicitly  declared :  "  I  am  the  Son  of  God ".  He 
was  content  to  insinuate  as  much  by  way  of  parable. 
The  parabolic  method  admirably  suited  His  plan  of 
prudent  and  suggestive  manifestation.  Before  the 
High-Priest,  His  accusers  look  for  a  formal  avowal, 
and  it  is  remarkable  that  the  confession  which  the 
authorities  want  to  draw  from  Him  bears  precisely 
upon  His  character  of  Christ  and  Son  of  God. 
Former  discourses,  significant  enough,  although  not 
absolutely  explicit* can  alone  explain  His  judges'  in- 
sistence in  interrogating  Him  on  the  matter.^ 

It  will  be  admitted,  then,  that  such  reasons  cannot 
suffice  to  cast  suspicion  upon  the  authenticity  of  a  pas- 
sage which  the  three  Synoptists  agree  in  giving  as  the 
very  utterance  of  the  Saviour,  and  which,  moreover, 

1  Loisy,  Etudes  Evang.,  pp.  52,  53. 

2  Lagrange,  Rev.  Bib.,  April,  1903,  p.  304. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  355 

is  admitted  as  authentic  by  critics  in  general.  Schmidt, 
indeed,  Hke  Jiihcher,  maintains  that  the  parable  is  non- 
authentic;  but  B.  Weiss,  Wendt,  Dalman,  O.  Holtz- 
mann,  and  H.  J.  Holtzmann  admit  its  authenticity, 
although  they  do  not  all  interpret  the  text  exactly  in 
the  same  sense.  "  The  Son  ",  says  H.  J.  Holtzmann, 
"  means  merely  the  '  Kronprinz '  who  occupies  a 
special  place  in  the  kingdom.  Still,  this  special 
dignity  as  God's  lieutenant  leads  to  a  specific- 
ally religious  idea.  It  follows,  from  the  outcome  of 
the  parable,  that  Jesus  considered  the  Son  of  God  as 
the  object  of  God's  loving  design."  Wendt  thinks 
that  "  He  was  aware  of  standing  towards  God  in  the 
relation  of  only,  and  well-beloved  Son ".  While 
Dalman  says  that  "  There  is  no  difference  between  '  the 
well-beloved  Son '  and  '  only  Son '  of  John  iii.  16. 
The  position  of  the  only  Son  is,  in  these  cases,  as  in 
Ps.  2,  regarded  as  a  lawful  standing  which  confers  a 
right  to  claim  the  entire  household  property.  In  the 
case  of  the  Son  of  God,  the  reference  can  only  be 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  world,  and  to  such  a  sover- 
eignty as  would  be  exercised,  not  by  a  Jewish  king, 
but  by  God  himself  ".^ 

"  No  One  Knoweth  the  Son  hut  the  Father  ". 

Among  the  most  noteworthy  testimonies  which 
Jesus  Himself  has  given  of  the  transcendence  of  His 
divine  filiation,  we  must  also  adduce  the  following 
utterances  as  found  in  the  gospels  of  SS.  Matthew  and 
Luke:  "  I  confess  to  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven 
and  earth,  because  thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the 
wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  to  little 
ones.  Yea  Father ;  for  so  hath  it  seemed  good  in  thy 
sight.     All  things  are  dehvered  to  me  by  my  Father. 

1  Schmidt,  art. :  Son  of  God,  E.  B.,  par.  16,  col.  4699 ;  Weiss, 
B.,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  423,  Ger.  ed. ;  Holtzmann,  H.,  op.  cit., 
vol.  i,  p.  266 ;  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  419,  Ger.  ed. ;  Dalman,  op. 
cit.,  p.  281 ;  Holtzmann,  op.  cit.,  p.  ZZ2,  Ger.  ed. 


356  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

And  no  one  knoweth  the  Son,  but  the  Father :  neither 
doth  any  one  know  the  Father,  but  the  Son,  and  He 
to  whom  it  shall  please  the  Son  to  reveal  Him  ".^ 
'  While  rejoicing  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  Jesus  first  of  all 
praises  His  Father  for  having  revealed  to  the  humble, 
that  is  to  His  disciples,  what  was  hidden  from  the 
wise  and  the  learned.  Why  so?  Doubtless  because 
of  His  marvelous  Messianic  work.  His  power  of  per- 
forming miracles.  His  influence  over  demons,  all  of 
which  His  chosen  ones  would  be  given  a  share ;  doubt- 
less, too,  because  of  the  secrets  of  the  Messianic  king- 
dom, and  the  very  mystery  of  the  Messiah's  person. 
Addressing  His  Father,  He  exclaims :  "  Yea,  Father ; 
for  so  hath  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight " ;  and  then, 
speaking  for  His  disciples  and  apparently  in  answer  to 
a  question  put  by  them.  He  continues :  ''All  things  are 
delivered  to  me  by  my  Father  ".  The  Saviour  also  re- 
calls the  powers  which  He  has  received  from  His 
heavenly  Father  and  which  He  has  communicated  to 
His  disciples, — powers  over  the  elements  and  over 
evil  spirits.  H  the  demons  obey  His  messengers,  it  is 
because  they  are  also  subject  to  Him;  He  goes  forth 
to  destroy  them  altogether.  The  universal  kingdom 
of  Satan  is  to  be  replaced  by  His  own  kingdom,  the 
kingdom  of  God:  all  things  have  been  delivered  to 
Him  by  His  Father  with  the  view  that  all  may  be  given 
to  Him  in  a  still  more  excellent  manner  and  finally 
on  the  day  of  His  resurrection,  as  He  seems  to  fore- 
see it  prophetically.^ 

What,  moreover,  is  the  source  of  that  supereminent 
dignity  conferred  upon  Jesus?  Why  that  universal 
power  given  to  Him  by  His  Father?  The  Saviour 
seems  to  show  the  reason  for  this  in  the  unique  char- 

1  Mt.  xi.  25-27 ;  Lk.  x.  21-22. 

2Lk.  X.  21;  Lk.  X.  17,  19;  cf.  Lk.  xxiii.  24;  cf.  Mk.  iv.  11; 
Mt.  xiii.  11;  Lk.  viii.  10;  cf.  Mt.  xi.  28-30;  cf.  Lk.  x.  21;  Mt. 
xi.  25;  xvi.  17;  Lk.  x.  19;  cf.  Mk.  iii.  23-27;  Mt.  xii.  25-29; 
Lk.  xi.  17-22;  cf.  Mt.  iv.  8,  9;  Lk.  vi.  5-6;  cf.  Mt.  xxviii.  18. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


357' 


acter  of  His  relations  with  God ;  for,  His  nature  is  so 
exalted  and  His  rank  as  Son  of  God  is,  humanly 
speaking,  so  impenetrable  that,  because  of  this  essen- 
tial relationship  which  He  bears  to  His  Father,  it  is 
clear  that  the  Father  alone  "  knoweth  the  Son  ".  It  is 
only  the  Father  who  knows  all  "  that  the  Son  is  ",  as 
His  Son.  Of  such  divine  Sonship,  the  human  intelli- 
gence can  have  an  insight  only  by  revelation  from  the 
Father  Himself. 

No  less  remarkable,  by  way  of  contrast,  is  the  emi- 
nent Fatherhood  which  God  possesses  as  regards  His 
Son.  For,  the  Son  alone  "  knoweth  the  Father  "  ;  He 
alone  knoweth  "  who  the  Father  is  "  as  His  Father. 
So  humanly  inconceivable  is  the  Fatherhood  of  God 
the  Father  that  it  can  be  really  perceived  only  by  a 
direct  revelation  made  by  the  Son.  This  also  discloses 
what  is  unusual  and  supernatural  in  Jesus'  divine  Son- 
ship.  Not  only  does  He  declare  Himself  the  Son  of 
God,  infinitely  distant  from  other  men  and  inaccessibly 
beyond  the  inquiry  of  the  human  mind;  but  He  is 
moreover  so  closely  related  to  God  as  to  establish  be- 
tween Him,  the  Son  of  God,  and  His  Father,  a  sort  of 
mutual  union  of  mind  that  appears  to  argue  a  likeness 
of  nature  and  a  true  equality.^ 

Protestant  Critics. 

That  there  is  something  extraordinary  about  Christ's 
intellectual  relations  with  God  and  about  the  unique 
character  which  thereby  results  in  His  divine  Sonship, 
is  recognized  by  Protestant  critics,  who,  nevertheless, 
maintain  that  these  extraordinary  relations  and  such 
transcendent  filiation  exist  within  the  limits  of  the 
Saviour's  humanity. 

"  The  apostoHc  source ",  writes  B.  Weiss,  ''  pre- 
serves a  saying  in  which  Jesus  calls  Himself  simply 

1  Mt.  xi.  27 ;  Lk.  x.  22 ;  cf.  Parallelism  of  Lk.  x.  23  and  Mt, 
xvi.  17;  I  Cor.  ii.  10;  Mt.  xi.  2y,  Lk.  x.  22, 


358  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  Son  of  His  Father,  and  undoubtedly  with  the  view 
of  expressing  His  unique  personal  relationship  to 
God.  Such  relationship  is  not  conceived  as  a  relation 
of  essence,  but  as  being  one  of  incomparably  intimate 
familiarity  between  the  one  and  the  other  "/ 

"  Just  as  Father  and  Son  know  and  trust  each  other, 
so  do  God  and  He.  He  takes  the  Messianic  title  as 
the  expression  of  the  closest  intimacy  with  God,  of 
the  most  absolute  trust  in  Him  ",  remarks  Wernle.^ 

"  The  concluding  words  suggest  a  lofty  degree  of 
self-confidence.  Jesus  realizes  that  he  alone  knows 
God ;"  it  is  thus  that  O.  Holtzmann  views  the  matter.^ 

"  He  lives  in  a  sphere  of  religion  so  pure  and  so 
exalted  that  no  human  breath  was  ever  felt  therein  ", 
says  H.  J.  Holtzmann.* 

The  position  that  Christ  holds  towards  God,  both 
mentally  and  morally,  is  assuredly  extraordinary.  If 
not  being  content  with  stating  it,  one  tries  also  to 
explain  it,  its  basis  must  apparently  be  found 
solely  in  a  substantial  relationship  which  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  holds  towards  His  Father.  And,  in  the 
first  place,  such  substantial  relationship  should  af- 
fect Christ's  humanity,  which  is  certainly  united  to 
the  divine  nature  by  reason  of  His  origin  and  the  very 
constitution  of  His  being.  Such  seems  to  be  the  neces- 
sary conclusion  that  results  from  the  character  of  the 
Saviour's  relationship  with  God,  which  critics  recog- 
nize as  both  original  and,  in  a  manner,  essential. 

"  But  in  this  case  of  mutual  understanding,  says 
Dalman,  its  thoroughness  and  absolute  infallibility 
are  assumed.  He  who  stands  in  so  uniquely  close  a 
relation  to  God  is  the  only  possible  mediator  for  the 
knowledge  of  God,  and  also  at  the  same  time  the  ab- 

1  Weiss,  B.,  Bihl  Theol,  vol.  i,  p.  78. 

2  Wernle,  op.  cit.,  p.  53. 

3  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  284. 

4  Holtzmann,  H.,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i.  p.  275. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


359 


solutely  reliable  revealer  of  the  whole  wealth  of  the 
divine  mysteries.  What  a  son  is  to  his  father, 
Jesus  is  directly  with  reference  to  God.  So  that 
the  peculiar  relation  of  Jesus  to  God  is  one  that  can- 
not be  transmitted  to  others  or  be  subject  to  change. 
His  disciples,  indeed,  through  His  means  can  attain 
to  the  knowledge  of  God.  But  their  knowledge  is  de- 
rived through  a  medium  while  His  is  acquired  by  di- 
rect intuition."  ^ 

Wendt  writes :  "  This  mutual  knowledge,  perfect 
and  unique  in  its  way,  is  not  something  accidental  to 
the  Father  and  the  Son ;  but  it  is  necessarily  connected 
with  their  very  being  as  Father  and  Son.  The  love 
uniting  them  as  Father  and  Son  imparts  to  each  an 
understanding  of  the  other  such  as  cannot  be  found 
among  those  who  have  not  the  like  relationship  ".^ 

Bovon  remarks :  "  Christ's  person  reveals  such  a 
vastness  that  God  alone  can  sound  its  depths.  The 
mutual  activity  of  these  two  beings  is  understood  only 
by  means  of  a  relation  of  life  to  which  no  one  besides 
them  has  a  right  to  pretend;  even  here  the  Redeemer 
holds  dominion  over  our  earth  from  on  high;  He  is 
truly  the  only  Son  of  God  ".^ 

Now,  it  seems  indeed  that  so  direct  and  perfect  in- 
tuition of  God  can  be  conceived  as  being  fundamental 
and  in  a  way,  natural  to  the  Saviour,  only  if  we 
suppose  that  His  humanity  was  essentially  elevated 
above  pure  human  nature  by  a  substantial  union  with 
the  divinity. 

On  the  other  hand,  such  is  the  force  of  the  terms 
used  by  Jesus,  so  profound  is  the  meaning  of  His 
declaration,  that  we  may  therein  perceive  evidence  of 
a  knowledge  of  God  which  is  directly  intuitive  and 
adequate,  and  which  appears  to  pertain  to  Him  above 

1  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  283. 

2  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  418,  Ger.  ed. 

3  Bovon,  op.  cit,  vol.  i,  p.  426. 


360  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

and  beyond  His  humanity.  Has  not  Keim  said: 
"  Exclusively  related  to  each  other,  each  being  to  the 
other  a  holy  unveiled  secret,  they  mutually  approach 
with  love  in  order  to  enjoy  each  other  in  the  enjoy- 
ment which  is  based  upon  the  similarity  of  spiritual 
activity,  upon  the  likeness  of  essence  of  nature  ".^ 
Has  not  Wendt,  also,  affirmed :  "  The  context  clearly 
shows  that  Jesus  is  assuredly  the  Son  who,  in  His  very 
being,  is  fully  known  by  the  Father  alone,  just  as  He 
alone  knows  the  essence  of  the  Father  ".^  And  a 
propos  of  this  passage,  have  we  not  been  told  by  Stap- 
fer  of  Jesus'  ''  incomprehensibility ",  in  which  this 
author  discerns  "  one  of  the  most  certain  signs  of  His 
divinity  "  ?  ^  If  this  text  has  impelled  these  critics  to 
thus  express  themselves,  it  must  indeed  insinuate 
something  else  than  the  knowledge  of  God  which 
Jesus  enjoyed  even  as  man,  and  hint  at  a  kind  of  intel- 
lectual compenetration  with  the  divine  essence,  which 
...  is  realized  only  in  the  superior  and  divine  part  of 
His  being. 

That  the  Saviour  had  here  wished  to  give  an  insight 
into  His  metaphysical  relationship  with  God  is  not, 
however,  admitted  by  B.  Weiss,  who  thinks  that  "  this 
is  not  historically  conceivable  and  not,  in  any  manner, 
indicated  in  the  text  ".  Still,  he  cannot  help  finding  in 
Jesus'  declarations  a  certain  indication  that  He  had, 
indeed,  within  the  depths  of  His  consciousness,  the 
idea  of  His  eternal  relationship  to  His  Father. 

''Precisely  in  this  statement,"  he  writes,  ''the  relation 
appears  as  a  pecuHar  love  and  confidence  existing  be- 
tween them  according  to  which  each  knows  the  other 
as  no  one  else  does ;  but  it  is  certainly  permitted,  nay, 
even  commanded  to  stop  and  ask  whether  the  knowl- 

1  Keim,  Jesus  of  Nasara,  vol.  iv,  p.  60. 

2  Wendt,  loc.  cit. 

3  Stapf er,  The  Death  and  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p. 
275. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  361 

edge  of  this  unique  relation  to  God,  on  which  the  con- 
sciousness of  His  calhng  was  founded,  may  not  have 
stretched  beyond  and  over  itself.  He  did  not  become 
possessed  of  His  special  knowledge  through  any  divine 
revelation.  He  had  met  with  it  in  Himself  from  the 
very  beginning;  He  had  not  been  chosen  at  some  mo- 
ment in  His  human  existence  to  reveal  the  same  to  His 
people ;  it  was  the  very  purpose  of  His  life  upon  earth 
in  which  was  fulfilled  the  Eternal  decree  of  the  Father 
regarding  His  people's  salvation.  But  His  knowledge 
of  God,  which  could  not  have  originated  upon  earth, 
must  have  done  so  in  heaven;  His  relation  of  Son- 
ship  did  not  take  its  rise  in  time,  but  only  in  eternity. 
The  duty  of  proclaiming  the  love  of  God  as  the  ground 
of  the  eternal  salvation  promised  to  His  people,  could 
only  have  been  imposed  upon  Him  by  that  same  eter- 
nal love.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  it  may  be  said  that 
even  such  statements  as  these  point  to  the  profound 
secret  of  Jesus'  self-consciousness  ".^ 

The  above  avowal,  despite  its  limitations,  is  a  valu- 
able confirmation  of  our  preceding  inference,  namely, 
that  the  Saviour's  testimony  to  the  intellectual  union 
He  enjoys  with  His  Father  must  refer  to  something 
higher  than  His  human  soul.  Therein  we  can  per- 
ceive the  discreet  witness  given  by  His  human  con- 
science to  a  direct  intuition  of  the  uncreated  essence 
and  to  a  divine,  transcendent  Sonship  which  belongs 
to  Him,  not  only  as  Man  substantially  united  to  God, 
but  even  in  His  superior  and  pre-existent  being,  that 
is,  as  the  Eternal  Son  of  God. 

Harnack's  interpretation  of  this  text,  however  re- 
markable in  certain  respects,  is  different  from  the 
one  we  have  offered.  He  believes  that,  in  Jesus' 
words,  he  finds  the  proof  that  the  entire  reason  for 
the  title,  Son  of  God,  taken  by  the  Saviour,  lies  in  the 

1  Weiss,  B.,  Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  ii,  p.  342. 


362  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

special  knowledge  which  He  had  of  God  as  Father. 
At  the  beginning  of  His  soul-evolution,  then,  Jesus 
would  have  first  of  all  known  God  as  Father.  Next, 
after  becoming  convinced  that  He  knew  God  more  ex- 
cellently than  anyone  else,  and  in  an  incomparable  and 
unique  manner,  He  would  come  to  the  idea  of  God 
as  His  Father.  Thence,  as  a  very  practical  conse- 
quence, He  would  become  aware  of  being  Himself 
the  Son  of  God,  charged  with  the  office  of  imparting 
to  others  a  share  in  His  divine  Sonship  by  the  com- 
munication of  what  formed  the  essential  reason  of  His 
quality  of  Son  of  God,  namely,  the  knowledge  of  God 
as  Father. 

"  Let  us  first  of  all  consider  the  designation,  '  Son 
of  God  V'  observes  Harnack.  "  Jesus  in  one  of  His 
discourses  made  it  specially  clear  why  and  in  what 
sense  he  gave  himself  this  name.  The  saying  is  to 
be  found  in  Matthew,  and  not,  as  might  perhaps  have 
been  expected,  in  John :  '  No  man  knoweth  the  Son 
but  the  Father;  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father, 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son 
will  reveal  him  '.  The  '  knowledge  of  God '  is  the 
sphere  of  the  Divine  Sonship.  While  imparting 
this  knowledge  He  came  to  know  the  sacred  Being 
who  rules  heaven  and  earth  as  Father,  as  His  Father. 
The  consciousness  which  he  possessed  of  being  the 
Son  of  God  is,  therefore,  nothing  but  the  practical 
consequence  of  knowing  God  as  the  Father  and 
as  His  Father.  Rightly  understood,  the  name  of 
Son  means  nothing  but  the  knowledge  of  God.  Here, 
however,  two  observations  are  to  be  made :  Jesus 
is  convinced  that  he  knows  God  in  a  way  in  which 
no  one  ever  knew  Him  before,  and  he  knows  that 
it  is  His  vocation  to  communicate  this  knowledge 
of  God  to  others  by  word  and  by  deed, — and  with 
it  the  knowledge  that  men  are  God's  children.  In 
this  consciousness  He  knows  himself  to  be  the  Son 
called  and  instituted  of  God,  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  and 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  363 

hence  he  can  say:  My  God  and  my  Father,  and  into 
this  invocation  he  puts  something  which  belongs  to  no 
one  but  Himself."  ^ 

"  From  that  additional  proposition :  '  No  man  know- 
eth  the  Son  but  the  Father '  "  says  O.  Holtzmann, 
"  His  disciples  could  infer  that  He  names  Himself 
the  Son  of  God  owing  to  the  so  manifestly  extraordin- 
ary character  of  His  knowledge  of  God  ".^ 

As  regards  the  above  appreciation  given  by  Harnack, 
it  is  certainly  interesting  to  find  him  so  firmly  admit- 
ting, like  most  Protestant  critics,  the  unique  character 
of  Jesus'  divine  Sonship  as  disclosed  by  this  text. 
But  his  interpretation  as  to  what  constitutes  the  es- 
sence of  this  divine  Sonship  apparently  results  from 
an  a  priori  philosophical  method  rather  than  from  a 
purely  critical  examination  of  the  text,  and  it  is  far 
from  corresponding  with  the  whole  significance  of  the 
reality. 

Loisy  himself  has  shown  this  very  clearly :  "  This 
text,"  he  says,  "is  not  put  forward  as  an  explanation  of 
the  Divine  Sonship,  but  as  the  expression  of  a  per- 
manent relation  between  the  Father  and  the  Son." 
That  is,  it  is  not  the  knowledge  of  God  the  Father 
which  forms  the  divine  filiation  of  the  Son,  but  it  is 
this  very  divine  filiation  which  explains  the  knowledge 
which  the  Son  has  of  His  Father.  The  Son  of  God  is 
not  the  Son  of  God  because  He  knows  God  as  His 
Father,  any  more  than  the  Father  is  Father  be- 
cause He  knows  His  Son,  but  the  Son  knows  God  as 
Father  precisely  because  He  is  the  Son  of  God.^ 

"  Obviously  the  text  indicates  a  transcendental  rela- 
tionship ",  Loisy  continues,  "  whence  springs  the  lofty 
dignity  of  Christ,  and  not  a  psychological  reality,  which 
in  regard  to  God  is  clearly  impossible.     Father  and 

^  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  137. 

3  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  91. 

2  Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  221. 


364  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Son  are  not  here  simply  religious  terms,  but  have  al- 
ready become  metaphysical  theological  expressions,  and 
dogmatic  speculation  has  been  able  to  take  possession 
of  them,  without  much  modification  of  their  sense  ".^ 

Again :  "  The  Gospel  conception  of  the  Son  of  God 
is  more  a  psychological  idea  signifying  a  relation  of 
the  soul  with  God  than  is  the  Gospel  conception  of  the 
Kingdom.  There  is  absolutely  nothing  to  prove — and 
even  the  text  quoted  does  not  say  so — that  Jesus  be- 
came the  Son  because  He  was  the  first  to  know  God 
as  the  Father.  The  compiler  of  the  Gospel  has  not 
the  least  intention  of  indicating  that  God  was  not 
known  as  the  Father,  before  the  advent  of  Jesus :  he 
wishes  to  say,  and  says  very  clearly,  that  Christ,  (the 
Son)  alone  knows  perfectly  God  (the  Father),  and 
that,  because  He  is  the  Son;  just  as  the  Father,  God, 
alone  knows  perfectly  Christ  His  Son,  and  that  be- 
cause He  is  the  Father,  because  He  is  God.  The 
thought  is  fundamentally  the  same  that  inspires  the 
passage  of  John :  '  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time ; 
the  only  begotten  Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father,  He  hath  declared  Him  '.  The  special  knowl- 
edge of  the  Son  has  for  its  subject  God  as  He  is,  and 
is  not  merely  concerned  with  the  goodness  of  God,  as 
though  the  hearers  of  Jesus  needed  to  be  taught  that 
God  was  their  Father.  Such  a  thought  is  as  foreign 
to  the  evangelists  as  it  was  to  the  Saviour  Himself. 
It  is  an  artificial  and  superficial  explanation  of  the  Di- 
vine Sonship  of  Jesus."  ^ 

Strangely  enough,  however,  Loisy  thus  defends  the 
true  sense  of  this  text  against  Harnack  simply  in  or- 
der to  cast  doubts  upon  its  authenticity  and  to  ad- 
vance the  hypothesis  that  it  was,  not  a  saying  of  the 
Saviour,  but,  at  least  partly,  a  product  of  Christian 
tradition.     "  It  is  difficult  to  see  in  it  ",  he  writes,  "  the 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  94. 

2  Loisy,   op.   cit.,  pp.  96-97. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  365 

literal  and  exact  expression  of  a  declaration  made  by 
Christ  to  His  disciples.  ...  It  is  fairly  probable  that, 
notwithstanding  its  occurrence  in  the  two  Gospels,  the 
portion  including  the  text  cited  by  Harnack  is,  at  any 
rate  in  its  actual  form,  a  product  of  Christian  tradi- 
tion of  the  earlier  times.  It  is,  however,  a  valuable 
testimony,  as  far  as  concerns  the  development  of 
Christology  in  the  early  age  of  the  Church;  but  a 
critic  must  use  it  with  the  greatest  reserve,  when  it  is  a 
question  of  establishing  the  idea  Christ  in  His  teach- 
ing gave  of  Himself,  His  Divine  Sonship  and  His 
mission."  ^ 

We  should,  indeed,  have  very  weighty  reasons  for 
thus  suspecting  the  authenticity  of  a  passage  so  promi- 
nently presented  by  two  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  which 
even  the  entire  assemblage  of  critics  does  not  think  of 
questioning.  Lagrange  remarks  that  "  this  accord  is 
very  significant;  for  Luke  and  Matthew  are  not 
mutually  dependent  in  their  actual  form.  What  Luke 
has  not  borrowed  from  Mark,  he  owes  to  tradition  or 
to  former  written  documents :  As  the  passage  is  in 
Matthew,  it  was  likely  a  part  of  a  document  underly- 
ing Matthew  and  known,  rightly  or  wrongly, — and 
we  think  wrongly, — as  the  Logia.  Naught  is  more 
venerable  in  Gospel  tradition.  And  right  here  Luke 
and  Matthew  are  very  specially  accordant  as  to  the 
terms,  as  though  they  had  perceived  that  so  important 
a  text  should  be  reproduced  as  it  stood ;  in  any  case  it 
is  impossible  to  distinguish  between  a  primary  and  a 
secondary  form  ".^ 

Its  authenticity,  as  we  have  just  seen  above,  is  ad- 
mitted by  B.  Weiss,  Keim,  Wendt,  Wernle,  Dalman, 
O.  Holtzmann,  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Stapfer,  Bovon,  as 
also  Sanday,  Stevens,  and  even  J.  Weiss  and  Bruce. 

Stapfer,  for  instance  says  that  "  in  one  of  the  most 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  95,  96. 

2  Lagrange,  art. :  Rev.  Bib.,  April,  1903,  p.  304. 


366  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

authentic  passages  in  the  Gospel,  a  passage  drawn 
from  the  primitive  collections  of  the  discourses  of 
Jesus  made  by  the  Apostle  Matthew,  we  find  these 
words :  'All  things  are  delivered  to  me  by  my  Father ' 
.  .  .  etc."  ^ 

"  In  view  of  the  statement  in  Luke's  preface  as  to 
the  method  on  which  he  compiled  his  Gospel,  a  sober 
criticism  will  not  readily  acquiesce  in  the  theory  that 
the  passage  in  which  this  text  is  embodied  is  a  free 
poetical  composition  by  the  evangelist  in  the  spirit  of 
Paulinism.  ...  It  is  much  more  probable  that  both 
evangelists  found  it  in  a  common  source  containing  a 
collection  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  ".^ 

Loisy  says  that  this  Gospel  saying  "  occurs  in  a 
kind  of  psalm,  where  the  influence  of  the  prayer  that 
closes  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus  is  evident  both  in 
the  general  scope  and  in  several  details.  Both  pas- 
sages begin  with  the  praise  of  God,  and  there  is  in 
both  a  marked  preference  for  the  name  of  Father: 
the  declaration  concerning  the  mutual  knowledge  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son  corresponds  to  the  praises  of 
Wisdom :  the  appeal  of  Christ  to  the  weary  and  heavy 
laden  seems  inspired  by  the  invitation  that  Wisdom 
addresses  to  the  ignorant  in  the  last  part  of  the  Prayer 
of  Ben-Sirach.  These  correspondences  are  not  acci- 
dental; and  seeing  that  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  that 
Jesus  should  have  wished  to  imitate  a  passage  of 
Ecclesiasticus  in  an  oration  or  discourse  apparently 
quite  unpremeditated;  seeing  that  the  entire  passage 
possesses  a  rhythm  distinctly  analogous  to  that  of 
the  Canticles  reproduced  in  the  first  chapters  of  Luke ; 
and  seeing  that  another  passage  can  be  found  in 
Matthew,  where  Christ  appears  to  be  identified  with 
Divine   Wisdom,   it  is   fairly  probable  that,  notwith- 

1  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  During  His  Ministry,  p.  234. 

2  Bruce,  art.:  Jesus,  E.  B.,  par.  13,  col.  2441;  Sanday,  art: 
Son  of  God,  H.  D.,  p.  575;  Stevens,  Theol.  N.  T.,  p.  60; 
Weiss,  J.,  Die  Pred.  Jesu,  2d  ed.,  1900. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  7,67 

standing  its  occurrence  in  the  two  Gospels,  the  portion 
including  the  text  cited  by  Harnack  is,  at  any  rate  in 
its  actual  form,  a  product  of  the  Christian  tradition 
of  the  earlier  times  "/ 

In  all  this,  Loisy  follows  Pfleiderer  and  Brandt,  who 
admit  also  that  the  text  has  some  dependence  upon 
I  Ep.  Cor.  Schmidt  thinks  that,  "  Neither  of  these 
views  is  perhaps  capable  of  strict  demonstration.  But 
the  underlying  conviction  that  this  cannot  be  a  genuine 
saying  of  Jesus  is  as  irresistible  as  the  evidences  of  the 
gradual  growth  of  such  formulas  is  conclusive.^ 

To  examine  first  of  all  the  question  of  literary  form, 
we  may  ask  if  it  is  really  true  that  we  have  here  "  a 
kind  of  psalm  ",  and  that  "  the  entire  passage  pos- 
sesses a  rhythm  distinctly  analogous  to  that  of  the 
Canticles  reproduced  in  the  first  chapters  of  Luke  "  ? 

We  may  easily  admit  that  the  Saviour's  tone  is  here 
more  lofty  than  usual;  but  this  is  not  at  all  surprising; 
does  not  St.  Luke  take  care  to  mention  the  inspired 
transport  which  Christ  felt  in  the  ecstatic  contempla- 
tion of  the  designs  of  His  Father's  wisdom?  "  In  that 
same  hour,  He  rejoiced  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  said 
.  .  ."  On  the  other  hand,  it  requires  a  great  deal  of 
good-will  to  find  in  these  verses  a  rhythm  more  accen- 
tuated than  in  many  other  most  authentic  discourses  of 
the  Saviour.  It  is  easy  enough  to  find  instances  where 
the  parallelism  of  members  is  as  clearly,  not  to  say 
more  plainly  marked.  Thus,  we  may  quote  a  few 
texts  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount : 

"  Lay  not  up  to  yourselves  treasures  on  earth : 
Where  the  rust  and  moth  consume, 
And  where  thieves  break  through  and  steal; 
But  lay  up  to  yourselves  treasures  in  heaven : 
Where  neither  the  rust  nor  moth  doth  consume, 
And  where  thieves  do  not  break  through,  nor  steal; 
For  where  thy  treasure  is, 
There  is  thy  heart  also. 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  95-96;  Pfleiderer,  Unchristen'thum,  1887, 
p.   513;    Brandt,   Evangelische   Geschichte,   1893,   pp.   561,   576. 

2  Schmidt,  art. :  Son  of  God,  E.  B.,  par.  13,  col.  4697 ;  Loisy, 
Rev.  d'Hist.,  1903,  p.  303. 


368  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

The  light  of  the  body  is  thy  eye: 

If  thy  eye  be  single, 

Thy  whole  body  shall  be  lightsome; 

But  if  thy  eye  be  evil, 

Thy  whole  body  shall  be  darksome; 

If  then  the  light  that  is  in  thee  be  darkness, 

The  darkness  itself,  how  great  shall  it  be!" 


"  Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you : 
Seek,  and  you  shall  find : 
Knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened  to  you; 
For,  every  one  that  asketh,  receiveth : 
And  he  that  seeketh,  findeth  : 
And  to  him  that  knocketh  it  shall  be  opened."  ^ 

With  regard,  then,  to  the  matter  of  rhythm,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  the  text  of  S.  Matthew  xi.  27  is  in 
no  way  in  marked  contrast  with  the  most  authen- 
tic discourses  of  Jesus.  Naught  warrants  us  in  sup- 
posing that,  on  this  point,  it  is  a  psalm  composed  by 
some  Christian  prophet. 

And  as  for  the  alleged  resemblance  of  this  text  to 
the  Canticle  in  Ecclesiasticus,  we  must  say  that  it  is 
hardly  perceptible,  and  that  we  are  not  to  suppose  that 
this  text  was  borrowed,  still  less  to  doubt  that,  as  it 
stands,  it  was  uttered  by  the  Saviour. ^ 

Loisy  tells  us  that  "  both  passages  begin  with  the 
praise  of  God,  and  there  is  in  both  a  marked  prefer- 
ence for  the  name  of  Father  ".  True  enough.  But 
it  should  be  noted  that  the  mutual  resemblance  bears 
only  upon  one  or  two  essential  terms:  thus  there  is 
far  from  being  a  completely  literal  resemblance  be- 
tween the  saying  of  Jesus  and  the  words  in  the 
Canticle:^ 

1  Mt.  vi.  19-23 ;  Mt.  vii.  7-8 ;  cf.  Mt.  viii.  20 ;  x.  24-42 ;  Mk. 
ix.  41-49;  X.  39-40,  42-45;  Lk.  vi.  39-45;  xii.  22-23;  xvi.  9-13, 
15-18. 

2  Grandmaison,  art. :  Etudes,  January,  1903,  p.  165. 

3  Ecclesiasticus  li.  i,  10. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  369 

Jesus. 
"  I  confess  to  thee,  O  Father, 
Lord  of  heaven  and  earth." 

ECCLESIASTICUS. 

"  I  will  give  glory  to  thee,  O  Lord,  O  King : 
And  I  will  praise  thee,  O  God  my  Saviour. 

I  called  upon  the  Lord, 
The  Father  of  my  Lord." 

On  the  other  hand,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that 
the  motive  for  praising  God  is  totally  different  in  the 
prayer  of  the  Son  of  Sirach  from  what  it  is  in  that  of 
the  Saviour;  the  former  thanks  God  for  having 
deigned  to  withdraw  him  from  a  great  peril;  while 
Jesus  glorifies  His  Father  for  having  revealed  to  little 
ones  what  He  has  hidden  from  the  wise  ones  of  this 
world.  It  remains  that,  in  either  case,  we  find  terms 
expressing  the  praise  of  God  as  Father,  but  such  terms 
are  found  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and,  in  the 
text  at  hand,  they  are  used  so  naturally  by  the 
Saviour,  so  like  those  He  employs  in  several  occasions 
in  invoking  His  heavenly  Father,  that  it  is  quite  use- 
less to  suppose  that  he  borrowed  from  the  above 
text  of  Ecclesiasticus. 

It  may  be  noted,  by  the  way,  that  the  phrase :  "  I 
will  praise  thee  ",  as  an  address  to  the  Lord  is  fre- 
quently met  with  in  the  writings  of  the  Prophets  and 
in  the  Psalms ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  title  of  "Father" 
given  to  God  is  not  at  all  special  to  this  chapter  in  the 
Book  of  Ecclesiasticus;  for  it  is  found  twice  in  the 
same  Book,  as  also  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  and  in 
the  Prophecy  of  Isaiah.  In  the  New  Testament  also, 
and  especially  at  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  we  find 
instances  where  Jesus  often  calls  upon  God  as  His 
Father.^ 

1  Is.  xii.  I ;  Dan.  ii.  23 ;  Ps.  ix.  2 ;  xviii.  50 ;  Ixxxvi.  12 ; 
cxi.  i;  Ecclus.  xxiii.  i,  4;  Wisd.  xiv.  3;  Is.  liii.  16;  Jo.  xi.  42; 
cf.  Mk.  xiv.  36;  Mt.  xxvi.  39;  Lk.  xxii.  42;  Jo.  xii.  27-28; 
Lk.  xxiii.  46. 

24 


370  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Must  it  not  be  a  real  prejudice  on  Loisy's  part, 
therefore,  to  claim  that  *'  the  declaration  concerning 
the  mutual  knowledge  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  cor- 
responds to  the  praises  of  Wisdom  "  ?  Primitive  tra- 
dition, indeed,  in  identifying  Christ  with  the  Word  of 
God,  at  the  same  time  identified  Him  with  Wisdom: 
it  refers  to  Him  in  the  same  terms  as  Proverbs,  Eccles- 
iasticus,  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  had  applied  to 
the  divine  Wisdom,  that  most  perfect  image  of  God, 
formed  in  Him  from  the  beginning,  and  assisting  in 
the  work  of  the  world's  creation.  Note  that  the  mean- 
ing of  the  text  of  Mt.  xxiii.  34-36  is  very  doubtful  as 
compared  with  Lk.  xi.  49-51,  **  where  ",  says  Loisy, 
^'Christ  appears  to  be  identified  with  divine  Wisdom  ".^ 

But,  although  the  identification  of  Christ  with  Wis- 
dom was  very  exactly  conformable  to  the  thought  of 
primitive  tradition,  nay  more,  we  may  say,  to  the 
Saviour's  own  conviction,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  di- 
rectly intended  and  signified  in  this  text,  i.  e.  Mt.  xi. 
2^.  Jesus'  words  themselves  do  not  suggest  that  He 
here  places  Himself  in  relationship  with  the  Eternal 
Wisdom ;  in  fact,  if  we  compare  these  words  with  the 
text  of  Ecclesiasticus  cited  above  there  is  no  indica- 
tion whatever.  The  praise  of  Wisdom,  as  found  in 
the  prayer  of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  confines  itself  to 
proclaiming  the  benefits  which  it  procures  for  those 
who  cultivate  it,  as  also  to  extolling  the  zeal  displayed 
by  the  Son  of  Sirach  himself  in  his  quest  for  wisdom. 
No  allusion  whatever  is  made  to  any  mutual  knowledge 
between  Wisdom  and  God;  nor  is  there  question  of 
Wisdom  as  viewed  in  God,  or  of  its  relation  with 
God.  Where  is,  therefore,  the  correspondence  be- 
tween "  the  praises  of  Wisdom "  as  man's'  intel- 
lectual gift,  and  the  Gospel  "  declaration  concerning 
the  mutual  knowledge  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  "  ? 

1  Col.  i.  15-17;  Heb.  i.  2-3;  Jo.  i.  1-3;  Prov.  viii. ;  Ecclus. 
xxiv. ;  Wisd.  vii;  Mt.  xxiii.  34-36;  Lk.  xi.  49-51. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  371 

Moreover,  what  ground  has  Loisy  to  claim  that  "  the 
intention  of  the  passage  is  not  so  much  to  explain  how 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  as  to  give  prominence  to  the 
Christ  by  identifying  Him,  as  the  Son,  with  eternal 
Wisdom  that  God  alone  knows  in  its  entirety,  although 
it  reveals  itself  to  mankind;  while,  on  its  side,  Wis- 
dom alone  possesses  and  represents  the  full  knowledge 
of  God,  although  it  reveals  God  to  His  creatures  "  ? 
To  speak  thus, — is  it  not  to  lose  sight  of  the  term  of 
comparison  and  to  force  the  texts  to  square  with  a 
preconceived  idea  ?  ^ 

*'  The  appeal  of  Christ  to  the  weary  and  heavy 
laden  ",  we  are  told  by  Loisy,  "  seems  inspired  by  the 
invitation  that  Wisdom  addresses  to  the  ignorant  in 
the  last  part  of  the  prayer  of  Ben-Sirach  ".  There 
is,  indeed,  a  real  resemblance  between  the  words  of 
Wisdom  and  those  of  Jesus.  Thus  we  read :  "  Draw 
near  to  me,  ye  unlearned,  and  gather  yourselves  to- 
gether in  the  house  of  discipline.  .  .  .  And  submit 
your  neck  to  the  yoke,  and  let  your  soul  receive  dis- 
cipline " ;  and  on  the  other  hand :  "  Come  to  me  all  you 
that  labour,  and  are  burdened  and  I  will  refresh  you. 
Take  up  my  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me,  because 
I  am  meek  and  humble  of  heart;  and  you  shall  find 
rest  to  your  souls.  For  my  yoke  is  sweet  and  my  bur- 
den light  ".2 

It  is  remarkable,  too,  that  the  above  verses  are  not 
in  S.  Luke,  but  only  in  S.  Matthew.  Did  the  latter 
insert  them  in  their  proper  place?  As  it  happens  in 
his  Gospel  so  frequently,  may  he  not  have  reunited 
fragments  of  discourses  uttered  in  different  circum- 
stances? We  may  ask  at  least  this  much.  At  all 
events,  the  terms  employed  are  not  special  to  the  fore- 
going text  in  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticu.s.  The  divine 
Master's  request  to  accept  His  doctrine  and  to  submit 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  95-96. 
.    2  Ecclus.  li.  23,  26 ;  Mt.  xi.  28-30. 


372  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

to  His  precepts  are  essentially  similar  to  the  many  in- 
vitations that  the  sages  of  Israel  addressed  to  their 
disciples.^ 

Moreover,  in  Hebrew  literature,  the  terms  *'  yoke  " 
and  "  burden  "  were  in  frequent  use ;  and  even  when 
employed  as  figures  of  speech  to  signify  the  respec- 
tive ideas  of  **  teaching  "  and  ''  discipHne  ",  we  find 
that  they  served  as  equivalent  terms.  Thus  we  read: 
"  Give  ear,  my  son,  and  take  wise  counsel,  and  cast  not 
away  my  advice.  Put  thy  feet  into  her  fetters,  and 
thy  neck  into  her  chains.  .  .  .  For  in  the  latter  end 
thou  shalt  find  rest  in  her,  and  she  shall  be  turned 
to  thy  joy  ".^ 

Such  formulas  were,  in  a  manner,  the  traditional 
and  usual  ones  employed  to  express  solemnly  the  in- 
vitation extended  by  a  teacher  to  his  disciples.  They 
sound,  therefore,  natural  enough  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Saviour.  Did  He  not  declare  Himself  the  only  Mas- 
ter? "  Neither  be  ye  called  masters  ",  He  said,  "  for 
one  is  your  master,  Christ  ".  And  how  different  was 
His  spirit  from  that  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  of 
whom  He  said :  ''  they  bind  heavy  and  insupportable 
burdens,  and  lay  them  on  men's  shoulders ".  Nor 
would  it  be  unlikely  that  the  Master  might  have 
wished  to  apply  to  Himself  even  the  language  of  Wis- 
dom, the  tutor  of  men.  He  personified  it  excellently, 
and,  in  another  circumstance,  He  appears  to  have 
borrowed  the  personification  which  is  used  to  describe 
the  invitation  extended  by  Wisdom  to  men  that  they 
should  attend  the  feast  which  it  had  prepared  for 
them.^ 

"  When  he  says,  '  I  am  meek  and  lowly ',   Bruce 

1  Prov.  i.  8;  ii.  1-2;  iii.  1-2,  21;  iv.  10,  13,  20;  v.  i,  7;  vi. 
20-21;  vii.  I,  3,  24;  xxii.  17;  xxiii.  26;  Wisd.  vi.  i,  12,  27', 
Ecclus.  vi.  18,  24-34;  xvi.  24. 

2  Ecclus.  vi.  24-29. 

3  Mt.  xxiii.  10;  Lk.  xi.  46;  Mt.  xxii.  1-4;  Lk.  xiv.  16-17;  cf. 
Prov.  ix.  I. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


373 


I 


remarks,  Jesus  of  Nazareth  speaks  in  the  name  of 
Wisdom  (one  of  His  self -designations  according  to 
Resch,  Agrapha,  p.  273SS)  as  the  earlier  Jesus  had 
spoken  before  him  ".^ 

But  it  is  quite  remarkable  that  this  invitation  of 
Wisdom  to  its  disciples  is  found  here  and  there  as  an 
habitual  and  favorite  theme  in  the  Sapiential  books; 
and  that  it  is  not  found  in  the  chapter  of  Ecclesiasticus 
alleged  by  Loisy,  wherein  the  only  person  appearing 
on  the  scene  is  the  author  of  the  Book,  namely,  the 
Son  or  Sirach.^ 

In  a  word,  the  similarities  between  this  Gospel  text 
and  the  prayer  of  the  Son  of  Sirach  are  limited  to 
resemblances  that  lie  upon  the  surface ;  they  are  con- 
fined to  expressions  that  are  very  common  and  hardly 
characteristic;  they  do  not  hold  good  for  the  principal 
and  truly  important  point.  Naught,  therefore,  war- 
rants the  conclusion  that  we  have  here  a  real  case  of 
affinity  and  borrowing.  At  most,  we  may  suppose  that 
there  is  but  a  partial  and  somewhat  unconscious  rem- 
iniscence, so  little  is  it  characteristic,  and  in  any  case 
quite  natural. 

..."  It  is  perfectly  conceivable  "  says  Bruce  again, 
"  that  Jesus  was  acquainted  with  Ecclesiasticus,  and 
that  his  utterances  borrowed  its  colouring  from  the 
closing  sentences  of  that  book.^ 

Under  these  conditions,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 
us  from  supposing  that  the  Saviour  may  have  pro- 
nounced the  words  even  as  they  stand  in  the  text. 
And,  furthermore,  they  afford  us  a  very  authentic 
testimony  of  Jesus'  own  belief  in  the  transcendence  of 
His  divine  filiation.  Need  we,  then,  be  reminded  that 
the  Saviour's  declaration  on  this  occasion,  where  He 
refers  to  the  Divine  Son's  knowledge  of  the  Father,  as 

1  Bruce,  loc,  cit.;  Resch,  Agrapha,  p.  273. 

2  Prov.  i.  23;  viii.  4-10,  32-36;  Ecclus.  xxiv.  26-27, 

3  Bruce,  loc.  cit. 


374  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

also  His  parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen,  is  in 
harmony  with  all  His  most  authentic  discourses?  It 
serves  but  to  confirm  what  we  have  seen  Jesus  pro- 
claim, as  it  were,  at  each  instant,  namely,  the  incom- 
parable, extraordinary,  and  unique  character  of  His 
position  as  Son  of  God. 

Jesus'  and  S.  Peter's  Confession. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  Saviour's  response 
to  Simon  Peter  just  after  this  apostle  had  made  His 
profession  of  faith  at  Caesarea.  Jesus  declares  that 
his  apostle  could  not  have  humanly  perceived  His 
quality  as  Messiah  Son  of  God,  but  that  this  knowledge 
was  revealed  to  him  by  the  heavenly  Father.  The 
fact  that  the  Saviour  attributes  a  supernatural  origin 
to  Simon's  faith  fully  shows,  as  we  have  seen,  the  great 
importance  of  his  declaration.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
is  quite  natural  to  think  that  there  is  a  veritable  corre- 
lation between  the  "  Son  of  God "  who  is  revealed 
and  the  ''  heavenly  Father "  the  revealer ;  inasmuch 
as  the  Apostle's  confession  such  as  the  Saviour  sets 
it  off,  must  have  formally  referred  to  the  quaUty  of 
*'  Son  "  which  unites  Christ  to  God.^ 

Now,  if  S.  Peter  directly  attributes  this  divine  Son- 
ship  to  the  Christ-Man,  a  comparison  of  this  text  with 
that  we  have  been  just  studying  seems  to  show  that, 
in  this  divine  Sonship,  the  Apostle  perceived  a  trans- 
cendent reality  and  a  superhuman  element  which  ex- 
pressly belongs  to  the  Christ-God. 

When  Jesus  said :  "  Neither  doth  any  one  know  the 
Father,  but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  it  shall  please  the 
Son  to  reveal  Him  "  He  meant  that  no  one  knows  all 
that  the  Father  is,  and,  in  particular,  all  that  He  is,  as 
Father,  to  the  Son.  Similarly,  "  no  one  knoweth  the 
Son  "  means  all  that  the  Son  is,  and  more  especially 
what  He  is,  as  Son  to  His  Father:  no  one  knows, 
"  except  the  Father  alone  ". 

1  Mt.  xvi.  17. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


375 


The  parallelism  in  this  text  would  seem  to  de- 
mand :  "  and  he  to  whom  it  shall  please  the  Father 
to  reveal  Him  ".  Now,  it  is  precisely  this  parallel 
development  which  the  Saviour  supposes  in  this  pas- 
sage when  He  says  to  His  apostle :  "  Flesh  and  blood 
hath  not  revealed  it  to  thee,  but  my  Father  who  is 
in  heaven  " ;  that  is,  he  knew  it  not  as  man,  by  vir- 
tue of  his  human  nature,  but  from  God.  Why  is 
this  revelation  solemnly  ascribed  to  the  heavenly 
Father  unless  it  be  that  Christ  reveals  it  as  Son  of 
God,  and  that  His  divine  Sonship  is  so  eminent,  so 
divine,  and  so  humanly  impenetrable  as  to  be  know- 
able  only  by  revelation  of  God  the  Father,  who  alone 
knows  His  Son,  and  who  is  fully  known  only  by  His 
Son? 

It  is  not  necessary  that,  at  that  moment,  Peter 
should  have  perceived,  as  plainly  as  did  the  Church 
afterwards,  the  intimate  nature  of  the  metaphysical 
filiation  which  united  Christ  to  God.  He  probably 
felt  in  his  soul  a  sort  of  indescribable  impression,  a 
suspicion,  very  mysterious  indeed,  of  Christ's  trans- 
cendent and  substantial  divinity.  But  it  is  enough 
that,  in  some  way.  His  act  of  faith  should  have  been 
referring  to  the  consubstantial  Son  of  God:  this  suf- 
fices to  warrant  Jesus  in  formally  ascribing  it  to  a 
supernatural  revelation  from  the  Father. 

The  Formula  of  Baptism.  —Is  not,  also,  the  same 
interpretation  to  be  given  of  the  formula  of  Baptism 
which  S.  Matthew  puts  in  the  mouth  of  the  Saviour? 
He  says:  "Going,  teach  all  nations;  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  "  ?  ^ 

Some  critics  have  questioned  the  authenticity  of 
this  formula;  but  we  must  say  that  their  objections 
are  not  very  conclusive.     Conybeare  and  Schmidt,  for 

1  Mt.  xxviii.  19. 


376  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

instance,  claim  that  this  formula  is  not  mentioned  by 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea  in  his  gospel  citations  which 
were  made  before  the  Council  of  Nicea;  and  that 
prior  thereto,  he  always  cited  the  text  thus :  "  Going, 
instruct  all  nations  in  my  name,  teaching  them  to  ob- 
serve all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  ".^ 

This  text,  thinks  Loisy,  reads  more  smoothly  in  its 
Eusebian  than  in  its  usual  form.  Of  the  latter  he 
says :  "  if  the  passage  is  a  gloss,  it  was  suggested  by 
the  liturgical  formula.  The  formula  of  Eusebius  is 
more  in  accord  with  the  texts  of  Paul  and  of  the  Acts, 
which  d^escribe  baptism  as  being  conferred  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ  ".^ 

But  despite  Eusebius'  quotations,  the  usual  text  is 
found  in  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  quoted  by  several 
writers  of  the  early  Church  era.  It  is  given  by  Origen, 
Tertullian,  and  S.  Cyprian,  who  wrote  between  200- 
250  A.  D. ;  by  S.  Irenaeus  who  flourished  towards  the 
end  of  the  second  century;  and  by  the  author  of  the 
Didache,  dated  by  most  critics  at  the  end  of  the  first 
century,  and  which  gives  the  text  in  such  a  manner 
that  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  its  author  had 
in  mind  the  text  of  the  first  gospel  which  is  so  often 
cited. 

Thus  in  Origen's  Scholia  on  the  Gospel  according 
to  S.  Matthew,  ch.  xxviii,  we  read :  "  Baptize  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  ".  And  S.  Cyprian,  in  his  Book  of  Testi- 
monies, says :  "  Likewise  in  the  gospel,  the  Lord  after 
His  resurrection  says  to  His  disciples:  'All  power  is 
given  to  Me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go,  therefore, 
and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 

1  Conybeare,  The  Eusebian  Form  of  the  Text  Mt.  xxviii. 
19;  art.:  Zeitschrift  fur  die  Neut.  Wiss.,  1901,  pp.  275-288; 
Schmidt,  art.:  Son  of  God,  E.  B.,  par.  15,  col.  4698. 

2  Loisy,  Autour  d'un  petit  livre,  pp.  231-232, 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


377 


commanded  you  '  ".  S.  Cyprian,  in  his  Book  of  Testi- 
monies, says :  "  Likewise  in  the  Gospel,  the  Lord  after 
His  resurrection  says  to  His  disciples :  'All  power  is 
given  to  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Go,  therefore, 
and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you ' ".  And,  in  his  Twenty-second 
Epistle,  he  writes :  "  For,  while  the  Lord  has  said  that 
the  nations  are  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ".  .  . 
Tertullian  writes :  "  The  law  of  Baptism  has  been 
imposed,  and  the  formula  prescribed:  '  Go',  He  saith, 
'  teach  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit '  ". 
And  S.  Irenaeus :  "  Giving  to  the  disciples  the  power 
of  regeneration  into  God,  He  said  to  them,  '  Go  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost '  .  .  .". 
In  the  Didache  it  is  stated :  "  Baptize  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ". 
In  his  First  Epistle,  Clement  of  Rome  has  the  expres- 
sion :  "  For  as  God  liveth,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
liveth,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  are  the  faith  and 
the  hope  of  the  elect,  so  surely  shall  he  ...  be  en- 
rolled and  have  a  name  among  the  number  of  them 
that  are  saved  through  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  is 
the  glory  unto  Him  forever  and  ever  Amen  ".^ 

S.  Paul  thus  conveys  the  same  teaching :  "  The 
grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  charity  of 
God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  be  with 
you  all  ".^ 

1  Origen,  Schol.  on  the  Gosp.  ace.  to  S.  Matthew,  c.  xxviii. 
19;  S.  Cyprian,  Ad  Quirinum,  Testimonia,  bk.  ii,  c.  xxvi; 
Epistle,  xxii.,  n.  3;  Tertull,,  Baptism,  c.  xiii ;  S.  Irenaeus, 
Against  Heresies,  bk.  iii,  c.  xvii.,  n.  i;  Teaching  of^  the  Twelve 
Apostles,  n.  7;  S.  Clement  of  Rome,  I  Epistle  Iviii.  2;  Funk, 
Patres  Apostolici,  2d  ed.,  1901,  vol.  i,  p.  172, 

.2  II  Cor.  xiii.  13. 


3/8  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

"  The  single  verse,  II  Cor.  xiii.  13,"  remarks  San- 
day,  "  seems  to  require  something  very  Hke  what  we 
find  in  Matthew  and  John."  ^ 

In  any  supposition,  then,  we  may  infer  that  a 
formula  of  Baptism  so  firmly  established  during  the 
early  Church  epoch  could  not  have  been  independent 
of  the  Saviour's  personal  teachings ;  and  had  it  been  a 
mere  liturgical  formula,  it  could  not  have  crept  into 
this  very  verse  of  S.  Matthew's  Gospel  as  a  later 
gloss. 

If  it  be  true,  indeed,  that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
refer  only  to  the  baptism  which  was  given  "  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  ",  and  of  "  the  Lord  ",  we  must 
not  therefore  attribute  the  formula  given  in  the  Gos- 
pel to  later  tradition.  In  fact,  it  contains  nothing 
that  goes  beyond  or  against  the  most  authentic  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  concerning  His  Father,  and  Himself,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  may  have  been  uttered  by  the 
Master  without  being  utilized  immediately  in  the 
Baptismal  service,  but  moreover,  is  it  not  implicitly 
suggested  in  the  very  formula  as  found  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  ?  ^ 

Robinson  asks  us  to  choose  between  two  hypotheses : 
"Either  Matthew  does  indeed  report  exactly  the  words 
uttered  by  Jesus,  but  those  words  were  not  regarded 
as  prescribing  an  actual  formula  to  be  used  on  every 
occasion,  and  the  spirit  of  them  was  fulfilled  by  bap- 
tism in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus ;  or  Matthew  does 
not  here  report  the  ipsissima  verba  of  Jesus,  but  trans- 
fers to  him  the  famihar  language  of  the  Church  of 
the  evangelist's  own  time  and  locality ".  Robinson 
himself,  prefers  the  latter  supposition,  while  Swete,  on 
the  contrary,  favors  the  former.^ 

1  Sanday,  art.:  Jesus  Christ,  H.  D.,  p.  624;  cf.  I  Pet.  i.  2. 

2  Ac.  ii.  28;  viii.  12,  16,  31-38;  x.  48;  xvi.  31-33;  xix.  5; 
Sanday,  loc.  cit.,  H.  D. 

3  Robinson,  art.:  Baptism,  E.  B.,  col.  474;  Swete,  art.:  Ex- 
positor, Oct.,  1902, 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


379 


While  Plummer  thinks  rather  that  "  when  S.  Luke 
relates  that  the  Gentiles  were  baptized  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  he  does  not  indicate  the  formula  em- 
ployed in  these  baptisms,  but  the  profession  of  faith 
demanded  of  the  new  Christians.  .  .  .  There  is  noth- 
ing to  hinder  us  from  thinking  that  the  formula  em- 
ployed in  this  case  was  also  that  which  Christ  had  pre- 
scribed. ...  It  is  a  radical  hypothesis  to  suppose 
that  words  of  such  importance  were  never  uttered  by 
Christ,  and  nevertheless  they  have  been  attributed  to 
Him  on  the  authority  of  the  first  Gospel  ".^ 

If,  then,  our  text  somehow  corresponds  to  the 
Saviour's  thought,  we  ought  to  deem  it  a  confirmation 
of  all  that  our  Gospel  study  has  thus  far  disclosed. 
Jesus,  along  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  nay  even  prior  to 
Him,  is  associated  with  the  Father  in  a  mysterious 
Trinity,  sharing  the  same  power,  exerting  the  same 
action,  and  in  some  way  enjoying  the  same  unity. 
Thus,  we  read :  "  In  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ".  Would  such  ele- 
vation of  Christ  to  the  plane  of  God's  divinity  be  in- 
telligible, if  Christ's  nature  were  merely  human,  and 
ever  infinitely  distant  from  the  divine  nature?  To  be 
thus  placed  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  heavenly 
Father,  Jesus  must  have  shared  with  His  Divine 
Father  a  real  union  of  being  and  life.  Shall  we  say, 
then,  that  He  stands  beside  the  Father  in  His  quality 
of  Christ  ?  This  indeed  would  imply  that  Christ  is  not 
merely  man,  but  is  united  substantially  to  the  divinity. 
Christ  cannot  thus  be  put  on  an  equality  with  God  un- 
less He  Himself  is  essentially  God. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  manner  in  which  He  is  pre- 
sented between  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  be- 
ing one  of  the  terms  of  the  subsistence  of  the  divine 
essence,  seems  to  indicate  that  He  thus  appears  be- 
tween the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Father  because  He  is 

1  Plummer,  art. :  Baptism,  H.  D.,  pp.  241-242. 


380  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  Son  of  God,  not  only  as  man  united  substantially 
to  God,  but  even  previously  in  His  very  divinity,  and 
as  one  of  the  Eternal  Trinity. 

Resume. — We  may  conclude,  therefore,  that  in 
view  of  the  extraordinary  privileges  and  powers  as- 
sumed by  Jesus,  or  after  interpreting  His  own  declara- 
tions of  His  divine  Sonship  and  relations  with  God, 
His  Father,  Jesus  is  not  only  the  Son  of  God  as  man, 
but  also  apart  from  His  humanity,  in  the  higher  and 
pre-existent  part  of  His  being.  He  is  the  Son  of  God 
not  only  as  the  Man-Messiah  especially  adopted  by 
God,  with  whom  He  enjoys  incomparable  relations  of 
Sonship,  which  exceed  indeed  the  created  order ;  but 
He  is  also,  as  the  God-Messiah,  necessarily  and  really 
begotten  by  God,  eternally  and  substantially  sharing 
God's  very  being. 

To  be  sure,  this  doctrine  is  not  stated  explicitly  nor 
made  fully  evident  by  the  Master  Himself,  and  we 
shall  see  the  reason  for  this  later,  but  all  His  declara- 
tions suppose  it  implicitly  and  suggest  it  logically. 
What  is  clear  is  that,  in  the  Synoptic  gospels,  Jesus 
considers  Himself  the  Son  of  God  in  a  special  sense, 
and  as  having  exceptional  relations  with  God  and  a 
full  share  in  His  most  incommunicable  privileges  and 
powers.  We  must,  therefore,  logically  infer  that 
Jesus  enjoys  more  than  human  nature.  So  essential 
is  His  share  in  the  divine  nature  that  it  argues  a  like 
divinization  of  His  humanity :  He  is  not  merely  God's 
adopted  Son,  but  He  is  truly  the  Son  of  God,  begotten 
of  God's  very  substance. 

IV.  The  Synoptists 

AND  THE  FAITH  OF  THE  EARLY  CHURCH. 

Was  it,  indeed,  thus  that  primitive.  Tradition  under- 
stood Christ  Jesus?  To  get  a  true  and  original  idea 
of  the  Saviour's  person,  we  cannot  do  better  than  to 
inquire  into  the  belief  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  the 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  381 

depository  of  the  faith  of  those  who  had  eaten  and 
drank  with  the  Master,  who  had  heard  His  dis- 
courses and  witnessed  His  miracles,  who  had  beheld 
His  ignominy  and  His  triumph.  We  ask,  then,  does 
the  Apostolic  belief  agree  with  the  testimony  of 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  ?  Does  it  serve  to  confirm,  nay 
even  to  complete  and  determine  our  interpretation 
thereof?  It  will  prove  interesting  to  examine  this 
point  briefly. 

Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

The  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  who  wrote  be- 
tween the  years  62-80  A.  D.,  made  use  of  earlier  docu- 
ments which,  in  turn,  date  from  the  very  cradle  days 
of  the  Church.  This  much  is  admitted  by  all  critics. 
In  particular,  the  discourses  which  the  first  chapters 
present  the  Apostles  as  having  uttered  on  the  day  after 
Pentecost,  display  remarkable  features  that  appear 
to  guarantee  their  full  authenticity.  What  idea,  then, 
do  these  discourses  give  us  of  the  Lord  Jesus? 

Schmiedel  considers  the  Christology  of  S.  Peter's 
discourses  .  .  .  ''  important  in  the  highest  degree  .  .  . 
A  representation  of  Jesus  so  simple,  and  in  such  exact 
agreement  with  the  impression  left  by  the  most  genu- 
ine passage  of  the  first  three  gospels,  is  nowhere  else 
to  be  found  in  the  whole  New  Testament.  It  is  hardly 
possible  not  to  believe  that  the  Christology  of  the 
speeches  of  Peter  must  have  come  from  a  primitive 
source.  It  is  nevertheless  a  fact  sufficiently  surpris- 
ing that  it  has  been  transmitted  to  us  by  a  writer  who 
in  other  places  works  so  freely  with  his  sources  ". 
S.  Luke's  fidelity  in  reproducing  the  discourses  of  the 
chief  of  the  apostles  along  with  their  primitive  Chris- 
tology seems  really,  on  the  contrary,  to  warrant  us  in 
believing  that  he  does  not  retouch  his  documentary 
sources  as  much  as  critics  wish  to  maintain.^ 

1  Schmiedel,  art.:  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  E.  B.,  par.  14, 
col.  48. 


382  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Jiilicher  recognizes  that  *'  the  discourses  of  Peter, 
more  than  those  of  S.  Paul,  give  out  a  Judaic  tone 
that  recalls  the  Old  Testament  ".  But  the  explanation 
which  this  critic  gives  of  it  is  quite  insufficient;  for 
he  says :  "  This  proves  simply  the  good  taste  and 
rather  historic  tact  of  the  author  ".^ 

Headlam  thinks  that  '*  we  cannot  account  for  the 
special  feature  of  these  discourses  unless  we  admit 
that  the  author  has  drawn  from  good  authorities  and 
that  he  was  well  acquainted  with  the  facts  and  the  per- 
sons whom  he  describes.  The  discourses  are  vivid, 
varied,  too  well  suited  to  the  circumstances  to  be 
substantially  mere  exercises  in  rhetoric  ".^ 

What  idea,  therefore,  do  these  discourses  give  us  of 
the  Lord  Jesus?  The  whole  apologetic  endeavor  of 
the  Apostles  is  to  prove  to  the  Jews  that  Jesus  is  truly 
the  Messiah  predicted  by  the  prophets.  We  are 
aware  that  they  need  not  have  insisted  first  of  all 
upon  what  was  possibly  divine  in  the  personality  of 
this  Christ.  As  they  spoke  to  the  very  people  who 
had  known  Him  during  His  earthly  life,  they  pre- 
sented Jesus  to  them  just  as  He  had  appeared  in  His 
humanity :  that  is,  as  a  man  accredited  by  God  because 
of  the  signs  and  wonders  which  God  had  wrought 
through  Him  amongst  His  people;  as  a  servant  of 
God,  who  died  upon  the  cross  after  spending  His  life 
in  performing  miracles,  and  who,  by  His  resurrection, 
entered  into  glory.^ 

But  Jesus'  disciples  call  Him  "  the  Son  of  God  ", 
as  well  as  Christ  the  Servant.  To  Him  are  attributed 
qualities  and  powers  that  place  Him  incomparably 
above  men  and  angels.     He  appears  rather  as  Medi- 

1  Jiilicher,  op.  cit.,  p.  380. 

2  Headlam,  art:  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  H.  D.,  p.  34. 

3  Ac.  ii.  36 ;  iii.  18 ;  v.  42 ;  ix.  20,  22 ;  xvii.  3 ;  xviii.  5,  28 ; 
xxiv.  24;  xxvi.  23;  Ac.  ii.  22;  Ac.  iii,  13,  26;  iv.  27,  30;  Ac. 
ii.  36;  iv.  27;  X.  38;  xiii.  23. 


JBSUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  383 

ator,  standing  between  God  and  the  world,  enjoying 
both  the  nature  of  man  and  of  God.^ 

Thus,  S.  Peter  calls  Him  "  the  author  of  Hfe  ",  the 
''corner-stone"  that  sustains  the  whole  edifice,  the  only 
one  by  whose  name  we  can  be  saved,  for  "  there  is  no 
other  name  under  heaven  given  to  men,  whereby  we 
must  be  saved";  the  "Prince  and  Saviour",  the 
"  Lord  and  Christ ",  the  "  Lord  of  all  ",  the  "  judge 
of  the  living  and  of  the  dead  ".^ 

His  apostles,  moreover,  are  glad  to  suffer  persecu- 
tion for  His  sake,  to  endure  outrages,  to  face  im- 
prisonment and  death.  It  is  to  Him  that  they  ascribe 
their  miracles,  as  it  is  in  His  name  that  they  work  them. 
It  is  also  in  His  name  that  they  administer  the  Baptism 
of  penance  and  of  regeneration;  it  is  into  His  hands 
that  Stephen  the  martyred  deacon  commends  his  soul, 
just  as,  on  the  cross,  Jesus  had  consigned  His  own  to 
His  Father.  So  that  the  Christ  of  the  early  Church 
is  the  Christ-Son  of  God,  intimately  sharing  the 
powers  and  privileges  of  God,  the  wholly  divine 
Christ  of  the  Synoptists.^ 

With  regard  to  the  texts  wherein  Jesus  is  called  the 
"  Son  of  God  ",  it  is  possible  that  the  word  "  ^^k  "  is 
equivalent  to  "  vi6g  "^  and  should  be  translated,  not  as 
"  servant ",  like  the  Hebrew  term  "  ebed ",  but  by 
"  child  "  or  "  son  ".  It  is  employed  in  this  sense  in 
Wisdom,  in  the  Didache,  and  in  the  I  Epistle  of  S. 
Clement  of  Rome.  As  Dalman  remarks,  in  the  Syriac 
text  of  the  Peshito,  we  find  the  word  "  bar  ",which 
means  "  the  son  ".* 

1  Ac.  ix.  20 ;  xiii.  S2- 

2  Thayer,  Lexicon,  N.  T.,  4th  ed.,  p.  yj :  apxvy^Q',  ;  Ac.  iii.  15 ; 
Ac.  iv.  II ;  iv.  12;  v.  31 ;  xv.  11 ;  cf.  Ac.  xiii.  23;  xvi.  31 ;  ii.  36; 
X.  36;  xi.  20;  x.  42. 

3  Ac.  V.  41;  XV.  26;  xxi.  13;  cf.  ix.  15-16;  Ac.  ix.  32;  xii.  6, 
16;  iv.  10;  xvi.  18;  xix.  13;  Ac.  ii.  38;  x.  48;  xix.  5;  cf.  viii. 
12,  16,  37-38;  xvi.  31-33;  Ac.  vii.  59. 

*  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  278;  cf.  Wisd.  ii.  13;  xii.  20;  Teaching 
of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  c.  iv.  2-3;  S.  Clement  of  Rome, 
Epistle  I,  c  lix.  2,  4. 


384  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

B.  Weiss  says  that  ''  the  Messiah  who  is  elevated  to 
that  *  KvptoTjjg '  or  rank  of  lordship  must  evidently  be 
a  divine  being  ".^ 

Colani  writes :  '*  I  do  not  know  of  a  more  striking 
proof  of  the  immense  impression  produced  by  the 
Galilean  than  this  simple  fact:  twenty-five  years  after 
He  had  been  crucified,  a  Pharisee  like  S.  Paul,  could 
see  in  Him  the  judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead:  the 
fact  is  no  less  astonishing  on  the  part  of  S.  Peter,  such 
a  short  time  after  the  Passion."  ^ 

Stevens  says :  "  In  view  of  the  Septuagint  use  of 
kurios  as  a  name  for  Jehovah,  it  is  difficult  to  see 
how  a  Jewish  mind  could  attach  to  the  kuriotes,  which 
is  ascribed  to  Jesus,  any  meaning  not  implying  His 
superhuman  character ".  And  again,  referring  to 
Christ's  personality,  he  writes :  !'  The  absence  of  such 
a  theory  from  these  early  chapters  of  the  Acts  is 
one  of  the  marks  of  verisimilitude  which  they  exhibit. 
But  the  descriptions  which  they  give  of  Christ's  abso- 
lutely unique  character  and  work  appear  to  me  to  be 
quite  irreconcilable  with  the  humanitarian  theory  of 
His  person.  ...  I  believe  that  the  true  conclusion 
is  that  to  which  we  were  led  in  the  study  of  the  self- 
testimony  of  Jesus,  namely,  that  the  facts  of  His  teach- 
ing and  life,  as  His  immediate  disciples  knew  them, 
warrant  the  doctrine  of  His  essential  divinity  which 
was  early  developed  in  the  Apostolic  Church  ".^ 

St.  Paul's  Epistles. 
It  was  about  twenty  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus- 
Christ  that  Saint  Paul  wrote  his  Epistles.  All  these 
writings,  excepting  the  Epistle  of  the  Hebrews  and  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  are  now  generally  recognized  as 
having  been  written  by  the  great  apostle.  Even 
Renan  himself  said  that  the  authenticity  of  the  fol- 

1  Weiss,  B.,  Biblical  Theol.  N.  T.,  pt.  39,  p.  180. 

2  Colani,  op.  cit.,  p.  155. 

3  Stevens,  Theol.  N.  T.,  pp.  266-267. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  385 

lowing  Epistles  ascribed  to  S.  Paul  was  unquestion- 
able and  unquestioned:  i.  e.  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  the  two  to  the  Corinthians,  and  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans.  He  also  thought  that  the  two  Epistles 
to  the  Thessalonians,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Phihppians 
were  certainly  authentic;  while,  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians,  as  also  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  were  prob- 
ably written  by  S.  Paul ;  although  he  had  some  doubts 
whether  this  Apostle  really  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians.  But  he  did  think  that  the  Epistles  to 
Timothy  and  the  Epistle  to  Titus  were  unauthentic; 
in  other  words  that  these,  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  were 
not  written  by  S.  Paul  in  any  sense  of  the  word.^ 

Harnack,  whom  critics  nowadays  look  upon  as  the 
great  historian  of  primitive  Christian  literature,  has 
definitely  settled,  so  to  say,  the  authenticity  of  the 
nine  Great  Epistles ;  and,  of  this  number,  he  assigns 
the  two  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  to  the  years 
48-49  A.  D.,  and  the  others  to  the  years  52-59  A.  D. 
He  thinks  that  S.  Paul, was  their  original  author  in 
the  sense  that  he  left  them  as  the  groundwork  that  was 
later  finished  and  developed  by  a  subsequent  editor.^ 

Jiilicher  does  not  regard  as  decisive  the  objections 
alleged  against  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians, or  against  that  to  the  Ephesians ;  while  he 
readily  admits  the  authenticity  of  all  the  others  ex- 
cepting the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.^ 

B:  Weiss  practically  admits  that  even  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  have  S.  Paul  as  their  author,  and  positively 
rejects  only  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.* 

Zahn,   also,   takes  the   same   stand ;   and   moreover 

1  Renan,  Saint  Paul,  pp.  v-vi. 

2  Harnack,  Die  Chron.  der  Alt.  Christ  Lift.,  pt.  ii.  vol.  i. 
p.  238. 

3  Jiilicher,  op.  cit.,  p.  90. 

*  Weiss,  B.,  Lehrh.  der  Einleit,  N.  T.,  1897;  Das  neue  Test. 
Handausgabe,  1902,  vol.  ii. 

25 


386  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

dates  the  main  Epistles  at  53-63  A.  D.,  and  the  Pas- 
toral Epistles  at  63-66  A.  D.^ 

Jacquier  assigns  the  chief  Epistles  at  50-62  A.  D. 
and  the  Pastoral  Epistles  at  62-67  A.  D.^ 

What,  then,  does  S.  Paul  think  of  Christ-Jesus? 
He  always  speaks  of  Him  as  the  Christ  (or  Anointed), 
the  Saviour  and  Redeemer,  who,  after  giving  His  life 
as  a  ransom  for  sin,  through  His  resurrection  en- 
tered into  the  glory  of  His  Father  in  order  to  come 
again  at  the  end  of  days  to  establish  God's  eternal 
reign.  Yes,  He  is  man:  He  was  born;  He  died  like 
other  men,  and,  even  in  glory.  He  still  possesses  human 
nature  (which  He  had  assumed.)  And  yet.  He  is 
not  only  a  man:  beyond  and  prior  to  His  humanity, 
He  is  the  Son  of  God.  The  Christ  portrayed  by  S. 
Paul  is  the  Son  of  God,  who  had  become  Man  in 
order  to  serve  as  Mediator  between  God  and  men. 

In  the  very  beginning  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
we  are  told  of  that  "  Son  who  was  made  of  the  seed 
of  David,  according  to  the  flesh ;  who  was  predes- 
tinated the  Son  of  God  in  power  ".  And  what  fully 
shows  that  He  was  not  simply  David's  son  as  re- 
gards His  human  appearance,  but  the  very  Son  of 
God,  by  the  real  intervention  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 
the  fact  of  His  resurrection  "  from  the  dead  ".^ 

As  Rose  observes :  *'  We  think  that  the  *  -nvevfia 
dyiuavvTjQ^  here  refers  to  the  divine  nature,  to  that 
divine  nature  which  the  position  and  the  splendor  of 
the  Son  of  God  requires.  .  .  .  The  resurrection  was 
not  its  starting-point.  If  it  has  revealed  and  declared 
Jesus  Christ  as  the  mighty  Son  of  God;  if  it  was  the 
the  day  of  His  enthronement,  it  was  not  the  day  of 
His  divine  birth  ".* 

2  Jacquier,  Hist,  des  Liv.  N.  T.,  vol.  i. 

3  Rom.  i.  3-4. 

4  Rose,  art. :  Rev.  Bib.,  1903,  p.  359 ;  Etudes  sur  la  Theol. 
de  S.  Paul. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  387 

No  less  clearly,  in  the  main  part  of  this  Epistle, 
does  the  Apostle  mention  the  transcendent  Sonship  of 
the  Saviour  as  Son  of  God.  For,  in  speaking  of  God 
as  the  author  of  grace  and  of  glory,  the  Apostle  asks : 
'*  He  that  spared  not  even  His  own  Son,  but  de- 
livered Him  up  for  us  all,  how  hath  He  not  also,  with 
Him,  given  us  all  thmgs?"  Again,  he  tells  us  that 
God  sent  "  His  own  Son,  in  the  likeness  of  sinful 
flesh  and  of  sin  "  in  order  to  condemn  sin  in  the  flesh 
of  this  very  incarnate  Son,  and  to  enable  us  to  "  walk, 
not  according  to  the  flesh,  but  according  to  the  Spirit". 
So  that,  before  His  earthly  appearance,  Jesus  pre- 
existed and  He  pre-existed  with  God  as  His  only 
Son.  "  The  Son,"  says  Sanday,  *'  does  not  become  Son 
by  His  mission,  but  He  is  already  God's  own  Son,  be- 
fore being  sent.^ 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  also,  we  find  the 
same  doctrine :  Before  Christ's  coming,  we  were 
slaves  of  the  Law ;  "  but  when  the  fulness  of  time 
was  come.  God  sent  His  Son  ",  who  was  "  made  of  a 
woman  ",  and  who,  as  He  was  Man,  was  born  "  under 
the  Law,  that  He  might  redeem  them  who  were  un- 
der the  Law  ".  Thus  it  is  that,  from  being  servants, 
we  become  sons;  yea,  the  adopted  Sons  of  God, 
through  Jesus  His  own  Son  by  nature,  and  through 
the  communication  that  He  Himself  has  given  us  of 
His  Spirit.^ 

Similarly,  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
testifies  to  Christ's  pre-existence.  In  appealing  to 
Christ's  example  in  order  to  encourage  the  faithful 
in  almsgiving,  the  Apostle  manifestly  alludes  to  His 
pre-existence  in  God  before  His  birth  in  time :  "  For 
you  know  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that, 

1  Rom.  viii.  32 ;  Rom.  viii.  3. 

2  Sanday,  art.:  Son  of  God,  H.  D.,  p.  577;  Sanday  and 
Headlam,  Com.  on  Ep.  to  Romans;  Gal.  iv.  4-6;  Lightfoot, 
Ep.  to  Galatians,  loth  ed.,  1890. 


388  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

being  rich,  He  became  poor  for  your  sakes;  that, 
through  His  poverty,  you  might  be  rich  ".^ 

But,  before  His  Incarnation,  in  what  relation  did 
this  Son  of  God  stand  to  God  Himself?  S.  Paul  in- 
dicates it  briefly  in  several  places.  Thus,  he  calls 
Christ  "  the  image  of  God ",  "  the  image  of  the  in- 
visible God  ",  a  perfect  representation  of  "  the  wis- 
dom of  God  ",  and  *'  Wisdom  "  itself.  On  the  other 
hand  he  represents  Him  as  a  sort  of  mediator  in  the 
work  of  creation :  He  is  "  the  first-born  of  every 
creature;  for  in  Him  were  all  things  created  in 
heaven  and  earth  " ;  "  all  things  were  created  by  Him 
and  in  Him.  And  He  is  before  all  and  by  Him  all 
things  consist  ".^ 

Such  expressions,  true  enough,  apply  exactly  to 
Christ  as  Man,  as  a  visible  manifestation  of  God's 
power  and  goodness,  the  model  and  archetype  of  all 
creation,  natural  and  supernatural.  Yet,  they  seem 
to  aim  higher  and  to  state  how  Christ  stood  towards 
God  prior  to  becoming  man  and  apart  from  His  hu- 
manity. The  analogy  with  the  Scripture  passages, 
plainly  reproduced  by  S.  Paul,  referring  to  the  eternal 
origin  of  the  Divine  Wisdom,  a  comparison  with  the 
first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which 
seems  to  present  the  same  doctrine  even  more  clearly, 
and,  finally,  the  difficulty  of  understanding  as  a  simple 
ideal  pre-existence  in  God's  thought,  the  Apostle's 
statement  about  Christ's  priority  to  every  creature, 
and  His  share  in  the  creative  work, — all  this  seems 
to  show  that  S.  Paul's  expressions  concerning  the 
Incarnate   Christ  refer  to   the   Son   of  God   as  pre- 

1  2  Cor.  viii.  g ;  Waite,  //  Ep.  to  Corinthians;  Von  Weiz- 
sacker,  The  Apostolic  Age,  vol.  i,  p.  145. 

"2  Cor.  iv.  4;  Col.  i.  15;  i  Cor.  i.  24,  30;  Col.  i.  15-17; 
I  Cor.  viii.  6;  Lightfoot,  Ep.  to  Colossians  and  Philemon, 
8rh  ed.,  1886 ;  Haupt,  Die  Gefangenshaftshriefe,  7th  ed.,  1897 ; 
Stevens,  Theol.  N'.  T.,  p.  395;  Sanday,  art.:  Son  of  God,  H. 
D. ;  Abbott,  Com.  Ep.  Ephes.  and  Col.,  1897. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  389 

existing  to  his  earthly  advent,  and  thus  designate 
Him  as  the  substantial  image  of  God  and  His  veri- 
table collaborator  in  the  work  of  creation. 

In  S.  Paul's  thought,  therefore,  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  the  image  of  God,  who  pre-exists  before  all 
things,  and  who,  along  with  God,  creates  all  things, 
really  shares  the  divine  nature  and  merits  the  name 
of  God.  The  Apostle  clearly  states  this  when,  in  his 
exhortation  to  the  Philippians  to  remain  united  in  the 
charity  of  Christ  by  the  sacrifice  of  self-love  and  of 
personal  interests,  he  appeals  to  the  grand  example 
of  disinterestedness  given  by  the  Saviour :  "  Let  this 
mind  be  in  you ",  he  says,  "  which  was  in  Christ 
Jesus;  who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,"  that  is,  who 
sharing  the  nature  and  enjoying  the  glorious  attributes 
of  God,  "  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God ; 
but  emptied  Himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant, 
and,  in  habit,  found  as  a  man.  He  humbled  Himself, 
becoming  obedient  unto  death,  even  to  the  death  of 
the  cross  ".^ 

We  may  remark  that,  literally  speaking,  the  term 
"robbery",  which  in  Greek  is  called  apirayfibv^ 
means  "  booty  "  which  implies  what  is  taken  by  force, 
and  hence  a  possession  that  is  unjustly  acquired.  Some 
critics,  however,  give  this  text  in  a  slightly  different 
form :  ''  Being  in  the  form  of  God,  He  did  not  re- 
gard this  equality  with  God,  as  "  booty  ",  that  is,  as  a 
rich  and  precious  object  which  people  possess,  which 
they  guard  carefully,  and  refuse  to  part  with.^ 

The  same  teaching  is  found  elsewhere  in  the 
Epistles  of  S.  Paul.  Thus,  we  read :  God  indeed  was 
in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  to  Himself.  ...  In 
Him  (Christ)  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 

1  Phil,  ii,  5-7;  Haupt,  op.  cif.;  Von  Weizsacker,  op.  cit.; 
Vincent,  Commentary  Ep.  to  Philippians  and  Philemon,  1897; 
Labourt,  Notes  D'Exeg.  sur  Ep.  Philippians,  c.  ii.  5-1 1;  Rev. 
Bihl.,  1898,  pp.  402,  553  et  seq. 

2  2  Cor.  V.  19 ;  Col.  ii.  9 ;  Rom.  ix.  5. 


390  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

corporeally ",  that  is  substantially  and  under  bodily 
form.  And  if,  "  according  to  the  flesh  "  He  is  of  the 
race  of  Israel,  He  is  "  over  all  things,  God,  blessed 
forever  ".^ 

The  text  of  Romans  ix.  5,  it  should  be  noted,  is 
thus  rendered  in  the  Tischendorf-Gebhardt  edition: 
''(The  Israelites)  of  whose  race  is  Christ  according 
to  the  flesh:  God,  who  is  over  all  things,  (is)  blessed 
forever.  Amen."  We  have,  in  the  foregoing  cita- 
tions, followed  the  text  of  Nestle's  edition,  which 
agrees  with  those  of  Westcott-Hort,  of  Weymouth, 
and  of  Weiss.2 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  also,  we  find  the 
same  doctrine  stated,  if  not  directly,  at  least  under  a 
derived  form.  That  very  Jesus,  who  is  Christ  and  the 
Son  of  God  made  man,  and  who  is  called  our 
Mediator  and  our  Pontiff  with  Almighty  God,  is  styled, 
"  the  brightness  of  His  glory  and  the  figure  of  His 
substance  ",  as  the  One  "  by  whom  He  also  made  the 
world  " ;  since  to  Him  is  applied  the  Psalmist's  words : 
"  Thou,  in  the  beginning,  O  Lord,  didst  found  the 
earth :  and  the  works  of  Thy  hands  are  the  heavens  ".^ 

To  quote  Renan :  "  Everything  leads  us  to  suppose 
that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  edited  between 
65  A.  D.  and  70  A.  D.,  and  probably  in  the  year  66 
A.  D.  .  .  .  This  writer  .  .  .  represents  himself  as 
having  been  a  hearer,  not  of  Jesus,  but  of  those  who 
had  heard  him,  and  as  a  witness  of  the  '  signs  and 


1  Text  of  Tischendorf-Gebhar.dt,  Westcott-Hort,  Wey- 
mouth, B.  Weiss ;  Weiss,  B.,  Bihl.  Theol.  N.  T.,  par.  76,  vol.  i, 
P-  393;  Sanday  and  Headlam,  Com.  Ep.  to  Romans,  1895; 
Stevens.  Theol.  N.  T.,  p.  397 ;  Durand,  art. :  Rev.  Bihlique, 
1903,  P-  550  •  Eci  Divinite  de  Jesus  Christ  dans  S.  Paul  Ep. 
Rom.,  ix.  5. 

2Heb.  ii.  4;  V.  7;  X.  5;  Heb.  ii.  17;  iv.  14;  v.  1-7;  vii.  24; 
ix.  7,  15,  24;  X.  12;  xii.  2,  24;  xiii.  15;  Heb.  i.  3;  cf.  Wisd, 
vii.  7,  25-26;  Heb.  i.  2;  ii.  10;  i.  10;  cf.  Ps.  cii,  26, 

3  Hebr.   i.   10. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  391 

wonders  '  manifested  by  the  apostles  by  '  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit '.  Still,  he  held  a  high  rank  in  the 
Church.  .  .  .  The  mere  fact  of  addressing  an  Epistle 
to  an  important  Church  shows  him  to  be  a  man  of 
consequence.  .  .  .  The  likeliest  of  all  (authors)  is 
Barnabas  ".^ 

Harnack,  also,  thinks  that  this  Epistle  was  written 
by  S.  Barnabas,  who  edited  it  shortly  after  S.  Paul's 
time,  say  between  65-96  A.  D. 

Such  views  are  not,  of  course,  a  matter  for  dis- 
cussion in  this  book;  but  we  may  remark  that,  from 
the  doctrinal  standpoint,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
is  generally  recognized  as  having  a  relation  to  the 
other  Epistles  of  S.  Paul;  and  that,  to  some  extent, 
this  fact  warrants  us  in  viewing  it  as  the  expression 
of  the  Apostle's  thought.  If,  however,  we  consider 
this  Epistle  as  a  work  that  did  not  have  S.  Paul  as  its 
author  it  would  have,  from  our  point  of  view,  a  still 
greater  value,  as  an  authorized  and  very  clear  con- 
firmation of  the  apostle's  teaching  concerning  the  per- 
sonality of  Christ  Jesus. ^ 

Other  critics'  opinions  about  the  date  of  this  Epistle 
may  be  thus  given:  Zahn  thinks  that  it  was  written 
about  80  A.  D.  and  perhaps  by  the  disciple  named 
Apollo.  Jiilicher  dates  it  at  75-90  A.  D.  and  sees  in 
it  the  work  of  a  Paulinizing  Christian.  B.  Weiss 
claims  that  it  was  written  by  S.  Barnabas  between 
65-66  A.  D. ;  while  Jacquier,  who  dates  it  before  70 
A.  D.,  makes  it  depend  upon  S.  Paul.^ 

Stevens,  also,  in  writing  of  this  Epistle,  says :  "  For 
our  author,  therefore,  Christ  must  have  been  distin- 
guished from  God,  the  fons  et  origo  of  divinity,  but, 
at  the  same  time,  must  have  been  an  eternal  being, 

1  Renan,  Saint  Paul,  p.  Ixi;  cf.  Heb.  ii.  3-4;  Anti-Christ, 
p.  9. 

2  Harnack,  Die  Chronologie,  pt.  ii,  vol.  i,  p.  475. 

3  Zahn,  Einleit  N.  T.,  vol.  ii;  Jiilicher,  op.  cit.;  Weiss,  B., 
Lehrb.  Einleit.  N.  T.;  Jacquier,  Hist,  des  Liv,  N,  T, 


392  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

sharing  the  divine  nature  and  attributes.  His  doc- 
trine is,  in,  substance,  the  same  'higher  Christology ', 
which  we  find  in  Paul  and  John.  Jesus  Christ  is, 
in  the  strict  sense,  divine,  and,  at  the  same  time,  per- 
sonally distinct  from  God,  alike  in  His  historic  mani- 
festation, His  glorified  life  in  heaven,  and  His 
eternal  pre-existence  and  activity  ".^ 

To  resume :  S.  Paul  more  frequently  views  Jesus 
the  Saviour  in  His  humanity;  not  exactly  as  Son  of 
God  pre-existing  in  God,  but  as  the  Son  of  God  in- 
carnate. Hence  it  is  that  he  so  often  distinguishes 
Him  from  God :  "  To  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the 
Father,  of  which  are  all  things,  and  we  unto  Him; 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things, 
and  we  by  Him "...  There  is  one  God  and  one 
mediator  of  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus : 
Who  gave  Himself  a  Redemption  for  all,  a  testimony 
in  due  times.  .  .  .  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism  ", 
as  there  is  but  "  one  only  God  and  Father  of  all,  who 
is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  us  all  ".^ 

In  thus  insisting  upon  the  unity  of  God,  the  Apostle 
does  not  mean  to  exclude  the  divinity  of  Jesus  the 
Saviour.  The  context  proves  that  He  speaks  thus 
only  in  opposition  to  the  manifold  gods  of  paganism 
and  thence  to  infer  the  unity  of  our  Mediator  and 
Lord.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  He  seems  to  place 
Christ  on  a  level  with  God  and  yet  in  contrast  with 
God,  this  does  not  at  all  mean  that  he  judges  His  na- 
ture as  foreign  to  that  of  God.  The  very  titles  of 
Mediator  and  Lord  given  to  Christ  seem  to  suppose 
a  real  participation  in  the  divine  nature;  this  is  sim- 
ply because  he  considers  Him  as  constituted  with  His 
human  nature,  and  because,  in  His  human  nature, 
the  Son  of  God  is  not  so  much  God  equal  to  His 
Father  as  Mediator  between  God  and  men. 

1  Stevens,  Theol.  N.  T.,  p.  504- 

2  I  Cor.  viii.  6 ;  i  Tim.  ii.  5 ;  Eph.  iv.  5-6. 


I 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


393 


Says    Stevens :    "  Not    only    does    Paul    apply    to 

.  Christ    the    term    kurios,    the    Septuagint    name    for 

Jehovah,  but  he  freely  applies  to  Him  passages  from 

the  Old  Testament  which  were  spoken  of  Jehovah."  ^ 

The  Apostle,  then,  may  mention  Christ  apart  from 
God,  and  yet  along  with  Him,  as  he  does  in  the  usual 
formula  of  salutation :  "  The  peace  of  God  the  Father 
be  given  to  you,  and  that  of  His  Son  Christ  Jesus !" 
He  may  present  Him  as  our  Mediator  and  Redeemer, 
as  the  one  by  whom  we  have  been  reconciled  to  God, 
redeemed  and  justified,  by  whom  we  have  access  to 
the  Father,  and  who  intercedes  for  us  at  the  right  hand 
of  God.  But  this  does  not  at  all  keep  him.  from  de- 
claring Jesus  the  Son  of  God  in  the  real  sense,  pre- 
existing before  every  creature,  collaborating  in  the 
work  of  creation,  possessing  the  divine  nature  in  its 
fulness,  constituted  as  God's  equal  even  in  the  very 
form  of  God,  and  God  blessed  forever  above  all 
beings.^ 

"  It  was,  therefore,  very  natural,"  writes  Loisy, 
"  that  men  should  pray  to  God  through  Jesus,  with 
Jesus,  in  Jesus,  and  soon  come  to  pray  to  Jesus  Him- 
self, if,  indeed,  they  did  not  do  so  from  the  beginning, 
since  He  was  always  with  His  own,  ready  to  hear  and 
with  power  to  grant  their  prayers.  .  .  .  The  inter- 
course of  the  Christian  was  in  heaven  with  his  Lord; 
if  he  distinguished  God  from  Christ,  none  the  less  he 
saw  God  in  Christ,  so  close  and  indissoluble  was  the 
union  of  the  two;  praying  to  Christ,  he  prayed  to 
God,  although  the  solemn  prayers  of  the  community 
were  addressed  to  God  through  Christ,  Jesus  was,  as 
it  were,  the  countenance  of  God  turned  toward  hu- 
manity ".     We  may  note,  by  the  way,  that  it  is  this 

1  Stevens,  op.  cit,  p.  390 ;  cf.  Rom.  x.  13 ;  Joel  ii.  32 ;  i  Cor. 
X.  22;  Deut.  xxxii.  34;  Weiss,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  392;  Rose, 
art.  ct. :  Rev.  Bib.,  1903,  p.  345. 

22  Cor.  V.  18-19;  Rom.  iii.  22,  24,  25;  v.  10;  Eph.  ii.  18; 
Rom.  V.  I ;  Col.  iii.  17. 


394  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Christ  Mediator  who  is  more  directly  presented  to 
view  in  the  CathoHc  Epistles  of  S.  Peter,  S.  James,- 
and  S.  Jude.^ 

The  Johannine  Writings. 

If,  now,  we  consider  the  description  given  of  Christ 
in  the  Johannine  writings,  the  Prologue  to  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  the  Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse,  we  will 
find  that  He  is  none  other  than  the  Christ  mentioned 
in  the  Epistles  of  S.  Paul.  He  is  truly  man;  and,  in 
His  humanity.  He  is  our  Reparator  and  Mediator  with 
God.  He  is  mentioned  along  with  God  the  Father, 
whom  He  calls  His  God ;  but  He  also  sits  at  His  right 
hand  and  shares  His  royalty.  On  the  other  hand, 
Christ  is  also  "  the  Son  of  God  "  and  His  only  true 
Son.  He  was  with  His  Father  before  coming  into 
this  world ;  for,  "  in  this  is  shown  the  love  of  God  for 
us,  that  He  has  sent  His  only  Son  into  the  world  in 
order  that  we  may  have  life  by  Him.  .  .  .  The 
Father  hath  sent  His  Son  as  Saviour  of  the  world. 
.  .  .  He  hath  loved  us,  and  He  hath  sent  His  Son  as  a 
victim  of  propitiation  for  our  sins  ".^ 

S.  Paul  identified  Christ,  in  His  divine  life,  with  the 
Wisdom  of  God  described  in  the  Sapiential  Books :  so, 
too,  the  author  of  the  Johannine  writings  identifies 
Him  with  the  Logos,  that  is,  the  Thought,  or  Word, 
of  God,  as  the  Greek  equivalent  read  in  the  philo- 
sophical language  of  His  time.  As  "  Wisdom  ",  the 
Word  was  "  with  God  from  the  beginning  " ;  as  "  Wis- 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  252,  253 ;  Rom. 
viii.  34. 

2 Jo.  i.  14;  I  Ep.  Jo.  iv.  2;  2  Ep.  Jo.  V.  7;  I  Ep.  Jo.  ii.  i; 
iii.  5;  iv.  ID,  14;  Apoc.  v.  9;  iii.  2,  12;  i  Ep.  Jo.  i.  3;  2  Ep.  Jo. 
V.  3;  Apoc.  i.  I,  4-6;  iii.  2,  5,  21;  v.  7,  13;  vi.  16;  vii.  10; 
xi.  15;  xii.  10;  xiv.  4,  12;  xx.  6;  xxi.  22;  xxii.  i;  Jo.  i.  14,  18; 
XX.  31;  I  Ep.  Jo.  ii.  22;  iv.  15;  V.  i,  5 ;  Apoc.  ii.  18;  i  Ep.  Jo. 
iv.  9,  10,  14 ;  cf.  I  Ep.  Jo.  i.  2 ;  iv.  2 ;  iii.  8 ;  v.  6,  20 ;  2  Ep.  Jo. 
v.  7;  Jo.  i.  4. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


395 


dom  ",  He  had  co-operated  in  the  work  of  the  world's 
creation :  "  By  Him  all  things  were  made,  and  without 
Him  was  made  nothing  that  was  made  ".^ 

"As  regards  the  name  and  the  idea  of  the  Logos," 
says  Loisy,  "  S.  John  is  influenced  by  the  Alexandrian 
and  Philonic  philosophy.  He  does  not,  indeed,  bor- 
row Philo's  theory,  but  rather  contradicts  it.  Still, 
he  takes  it  as  his  starting-point,  and  lives  in  its  sphere ; 
he  uses  it  extensively.  He  views  the  Word  as  the 
Oracle,  the  organ  of  creation  and  of  revelation ;  and 
thus  makes  it  agree  with  the  Word  of  God  mentioned 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Instead  of  being  an  abstrac- 
tion, devoid  of  a  well-defined  personahty,  the  Word 
is  portrayed  as  a  personal  power.  It  is  not  an  inter- 
mediary being:  its  nature  is  strictly  divine.  It  is  not 
called  upon  to  fill  up  the  abyss  separating  an  abstract 
God  from  the  world ;  for,  to  S.  John,  God  is  personal 
and  living.  The  relations  of  the  Word  with  God  are 
those  of  person  to  person  ".^ 

Lagrange  thinks  it  certain  "  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnate  Word  is  a  theological  adaptation,  but  one 
which  S.  John  could  have  made  only  by  supposing 
that  the  divinity  of  Jesus  was  admitted  as  indisputable 
— which  would  permit  us  to  give  the  Word  its  true 
character  ".^ 

S.  Paul  had  also  portrayed  Christ,  the  Wisdom  of 
God  and  Son  of  God,  as  true  God:  so  likewise  does 
S.  John  describe  Christ,  the  Word  of  God  and  Son 
of  God,  as  really  sharing  the  divine  essence  and 
meriting  the  name  of  God :  "  He  is  true  God  and 
Eternal  Life.  .  .  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word, 
and  the  Word  was  God,  and  the  Word  was  with 
God  ".  The  Incarnate  Word  of  God,  the  Son  of  God 
made  man,  was  to  be  the  Mediator  between  God  and 

1  Jo.  I,  3,  10 ;  Grill,  op  cit  1902. 

2  Loisy,  Rev.  d'Hist.,  1902,  p.  455. 

3 Lagrange,  art:  Bullet,  de  Lift.  Ecct.,  1904,  p.  8,  n.  I. 


396  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

man;  owing  to  His  pre-existence,  He  participated  in 
the  entire  nature  of  God,  and,  after  His  incarnation, 
in  the  full  nature  of  man :  He  was  true  God  and  true 
man.  Such,  then,  is  the  idea  given  of  the  person  of 
Christ  Jesus  in  the  Epistles  of  S.  Paul  and  in  the  writ- 
ings of  S.  John.^ 

The  Catholic  Church  has  invariably  held  to  this 
idea.  In  recognizing  in  Christ  only  one  divine 
Person,  namely  the  divine  Person  of  the  Word,  the 
Church  has  always  taken  great  care  to  safeguard  the 
reality  and  perfection  of  His  human  nature.  Jesus  is 
true  man,  really  formed  of  a  body  and  soul,  fully  ex- 
ercising His  intelHgence,  free-will,  and  activity;  but, 
because  of  that  union  which  is  termed  hypostatic.  His 
perfect  humanity  is,  from  the  very  first,  possessed  by 
the  divinity  and  under  the  sway  of  the  Person  of  the 
Word.  Hence,  His  entire  human  activity  must  be 
ascribed  to  the  Word  of  God  who  possesses  it:  no 
action  of  His  is  merely  human :  but,  while  all  such 
actions  are  perfectly  human,  in  their  active  principle, 
all  are  also  divine,  and  perfectly  so,  as  regards  their 
principle  of  dignity  and  merit ;  for  Jesus  is  not  merely 
a  man,  but  is  also  God,  and,  in  an  indissoluble  man- 
ner, the  God-Man, 

The  most  perfect  expression  of  this  Christian  dogma 
is  found  in  the  Athanasian  Creed :  "  Now  the  right 
faith  is  that  we  believe  and  confess  that  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  is  both  God  and  man. 
He  is  God,  of  the  substance  of  His  Father,  begotten 
before  the  world;  and  He  is  man  of  the  substance  of 
His  Mother,  born  in  the  world :  Perfect  God  and  per- 
fect man ;  of  rational  soul  and  human  flesh  subsisting ; 
Equal  to  the  Father  according  to  His  Divinity ;  and  less 
than  the  Father  according  to  His  humanity.  Who, 
although  He  be  both  God  and  man,  yet  He  is  not  two, 

^Jo.  i.  i;  I  Ep.  Jo.  i.  1-2;  cf.  Apoc.  xix.  13;  Jo.  i.  3,  10; 
I  Ep,  Jo.  V.  20;  i.  1-2;  Jo.  i.  I. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  397 

but  one  Christ :  One,  not  by  the  conversion  of  the  God- 
head into  flesh,  but  by  the  assuming  of  human  nature 
unto  God:  One  altogether,  not  by  confusion  of  sub- 
stance, but  by  unity  of  person.  For  as  the  rational 
soul  and  the  body  constitutes  one  man,  so  God  and 
man  is  one  Christ."  This  Creed  was  introduced  into 
the  Roman  Breviary  at  an  early  epoch.  Its  origin  is 
generally  assigned  to  Central  France,  and  dated  dur- 
ing the  fifth  or  sixth  century.  Its  authorship  has  been 
ascribed  to  some  one  of  the  writers  belonging  to  the 
School  of  Aries,  as  S.  Caesarius  or  S.  Hilary,  or  to 
that  of  Lerins,  as  S.  Vincent  or  S.  Honoratus.^ 

Of  course,  when  we  try  to  represent  to  ourselves 
just  how  the  hypostatic  union  between  the  two  natures 
of  Christ  in  the  unity  of  the  divine  Person  of  the 
Word,  actually  operates,  we  are  confronting  a  pro- 
found mystery  that  defies  our  human  perception.  It  is 
none  the  less  true  that  the  doctrine  thus  expressed  is 
the  very  interpretation  of  the  data  supplied  by  S.  Paul's 
Epistles  and  the  Johannine  Writings. 

Harnack  claims  that  the  identification  of  Christ 
with  the  Logos  was  due  to  those  Greek  philosophers 
who  were  converted  during  the  second  century.  And 
yet  he  is  obliged  to  admit  that  "  ancient  teachers  be- 
fore them  had  also  called  Christ  the  Logos  among  the 
many  predicates  Avhich  they  ascribed  to  Him ;  nay,  one 
of  them,  John,  had  already  formulated  the  proposition : 
'  The  Logos  is  Jesus  Christ '  ...  It  was,  indeed,  a 
marvelous  formula ;  and  was  not  the  way  prepared  for 
it,  nay,  hastened  by  the  speculative  ideas  about  the 
Messiah  propounded  by  Paul  and  other  ancient  teach- 
ers? "^ 

Renan  had  written  long  before :  "  The  belief  that 
Jesus   was   the   Logos   of   the   Alexandrian   theology 

1  Burn,  The  Athanasian  Creed;  Tixeront,  art.:  Athanase, 
Diet,  de  Theologie  Cath.  de  Vacant. 

2  Harnack,  What  w  Christianity F  p.  218. 


398  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

would  no  doubt  suggest  itself  very  early,  and  that  in 
a  strict  logical  way.  .  .  .  But  in  the  year  68  He  is 
already  called  "  the  Word  of  God  ".  .  .  .  The  doc- 
trine of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  is  much  like 
that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel:  Jesus  is  represented  in 
that  epistle  as  the  "  image  of  the  invisible  God  ",  the 
*  first-born  of  every  creature  ',  through  whom  '  every- 
thing has  been  created ',  who  was  '  before  all  things  ', 
by  whom  '  all  things  consist ',  in  whom  '  dwells  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily '  ".^ 

Again,  we  read :  ''  In  the  later  epistles  "  we  find  "  a 
theory  of  the  Christ,  conceived  as  a  sort  of  divine 
Person,  much  like  the  Logos-theory,  which  later  took 
its  final  form  in  the  writings  ascribed  to  John  .  .  . 
His  earher,  and  doubtless  genuine  writings  have  in 
them  the  germ  of  this  later  style.  In  certain  relations 
the  terms  '  Christ '  and  '  God '  are  almost  interchange- 
able :  Christ  exercises  the  offices  of  divinity ;  like  God, 
His  name  is  invoked  in  prayer;  He  is  the  essential 
mediator  of  approach  to  God.  .  .  .  Veneration  for 
Him,  which  in  James  does  not  go  beyond  dulia  or 
hyperdulia,  extends  with  Paul  to  a  true  latria,  such  as 
no  Jew  had  ever  paid  to  a  man  or  woman  born  ". 
Such  admissions  suffice  to  prove  eloquently  the  perfect 
accord  that  exists  between  the  teaching  of  S.  Paul 
and  that  of  John  on  the  subject  of  the  Person  of 
Christ,  the  Word  of  God.^ 

Harnack  also  holds  that  the  real  divinity  of  Christ 
the  God-Man  was  elaborated  only  during  the  third 
century,  and  deduced  from  the  prevailing  idea  of  the 
mystery  of  the  Redemption  as  a  genuine  elevation  to 
the  very  life  of  God.  With  regard  to  the  formula 
of  the  Logos,  he  says  that  "  in  spite  of  its  sublime 
meaning,  it  could  be  also  so  conceived  as  to  permit  of 

1  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  425;  cf.  Apoc.  xix.  13;  Col.  i.  15; 
ii.  9- 

2  Renan,  Anti-Christ,  pp.  83,  84,  85. 


I 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  399 

the  bearer  of  the  title  not  being  by  any  means  of  a 
truly  divine  nature  but  possessing  one  that  was  only 
half  divine.  .  .  .  But  if  actual  interference  in  the  con- 
stitution of  human  nature  and  its  deification  are  in- 
volved, then  the  Redeemer  must  Himself  be  God  and 
must  become  man.  .  .  .  The  Logos,  then,  must  be 
God  Himself,  and  He  must  have  actually  become 
man  ".^ 

Nevertheless,  in  a  way,  Harnack  is  obliged  to  re- 
cognize that  ''it  is  true  that  this  conception  found 
a  safe  starting-point  in  the  Gospel,  and  a  support  in 
the  Pauline  theology  ".  This  admission  is  quite  signi- 
ficant. But  he  forgets  to  note  that  the  dogma  of  the 
God-Man  existed  in  the  second,  as  well  as  in  the  third 
century.^ 

Thus  S.  Irenaeus,  a  valuable  witness  of  the  tradi- 
tional faith  of  the  chief  centres  of  Church  life  during 
the  latter  half  of  the  second  century,  views  Jesus  as 
the  Incarnate  Word  and  also  gives  Him  the  title  of 
"God"  and  of  "God  Incarnate  ".« 

Tatian,  also,  who,  as  Harnack  admits,  wrote  about 
150  A.  D.,  speaks  to  the  Greeks  of  "  a  God  born  in 
the  form  of  man."  * 

S.  Justin,  writing  at  the  same  period,  proves  from 
the  Scriptures  that  Christ  is  "  God ",  and  that  He 
"  should  be  adored  ".  He  speaks  of  "  God  Incarnate  " 
just  as  did  S.  Irenaeus  and  Tatian.^ 

S.   Ignatius   of   Antioch,   at  the  beginning  of  the 

1  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  pp.  248,  249. 

2  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  249. 

3  S.  Irenaeus,  Against  Heresies,  bk.  i,  c.  viii,  n.  5 ;  bk.  3, 
c.  xviii,  n.  7;  c.  xix,  n.  2;  c.  xx,  n.  4;  c.  xxi,  n.  i :  6  Qebg  ovv  av- 
dpuTTog  eyevero;  bk.  1 7,  n.  3. 

*  Tatian,  Orat.  Against  the  Greeks,  n.  21 :  Qebv  iv  avOp^irov 
fJ-opcpy  yeyovEvai. 

^  S.  Justin,  Dial.  Trypho,  n.  56,  61,  63,  68,  126,  127,  128;  n.  48: 
Qeog  .  TvpoaKVvrjTog  Geof  (,n>  koI  yeykwrjiac  avOpuirog-;  cf.  n. 

34:  Kat  6eoc  .    .     .  Kai  avBpoTroc. 


400  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

second  century,  also  refers  to  Jesus  Christ  as  "  God  ", 
and  as  ''  Our  God  ".  To  the  faithful  at  Ephesus  he 
writes :  "  Our  Physician  is  one  who  is  at  once  flesh 
and  spirit,  begotten  although  unbegotten,  God  incar- 
nate, true  life  in  death,  formed  of  Mary  and  of  God, 
at  first  capable  and  then  incapable  of  suffering, — 
Jesus  Chris't,  our  Lord  ".^ 

It  would  seem,  too,  that  Harnack  forgets  that  the 
dogma  of  the  God-Man  was  taught  implicitly  in  all 
S.  Paul's  Epistles  and  in  the  writings  traditionally 
ascribed  to  S.  John;  so  that  the  formal  identification 
of  Christ  with  God  was  for  later  Tradition  what  Renan 
called  "  a  mere  matter  of  words  ".^ 

Nor  did  the  Fathers  of  the  Early  Church  invent 
this  formula  of  the  Logos.  S.  John  had  said :  "  The 
Word  was  God.  .  .  .  And  the  Word  was  made  flesh  ". 
And  again :  ''  He  is  true  God  and  eternal  Mie  ".  And 
he  had  also  described  S.  Thomas  the  Apostle  as  ex- 
claiming to  the  Risen  Saviour :  "  My  Lord  and  my 
God".  And  had  not  S.  Paul  called  Christ:  "He 
who  is  above  all,  God  blessing  forever  "  ?  ^ 

Agreement  zvith  the  Facts  of  History. 

The  foregoing  data  are  not  only  a  matter  of  un- 
questionable belief  for  the  faithful ;  but  must  be 
deemed  by  any  impartial  critic  as  in  full  accord  with 
historical  truth.  In  fact,  the  data  found  in  S.  Paul's 
Epistles  cannot  be  due  to  a  personal  and  inexact  view 
on  his  part.  They  must  surely  agree  with  the  faith 
of  the  Church  in  his  day,  with  the  still  vital  tra- 
dition of  Christ  and  His  Apostles.  S.  Paul  wrote 
scarcely  twenty  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  and 

1  S.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  Epist.  to  Ephesians,  n.  15,  18;  to 
Romans,  n.  3,  6;  to  Polycarp,  n.  8;  to  Thall.  n.  7;  to  Smyr- 
neans,  n,  i,  10;  to  Ephesians,  n.  7. 

2  Renan,  Saint  Paul,  p.  164. 

3  Jo.  i.  I,  14;  I  Ep.  Jo.  V.  20;  Jo.  XX.  28;  Rom.  ix.  5. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  401 

many  persons  were  then  living  who  had  known  the 
Master,  who  had  hved  with  Him,  heard  His  discourses, 
witnessed  His  death  and  resurrection.  Of  the  risen 
Christ  the  Apostle  could  say :  *'  He  was  seen  by 
more  than  five  hundred  brethren  at  once:  of  whom 
many  remain  until  this  present  time,  and  some  have 
fallen  asleep  ".^ 

Harnack,  however,  apparently  thinks  that  S.  Paul's 
statements  disclose  the  personal  and  inexact  character 
of  His  private  opinions ;  for  he  says :  ''  Under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Messianic  theology,  and  greatly  im- 
pressed by  the  personality  of  Christ,  Paul  became  the 
author  of  the  speculative  idea  that,  not  only  was  God 
in  Christ,  but  that  Christ  Himself  was  possessed  of 
a  peculiar  nature  of  a  heavenly  kind  ".^ 

Renan's  opinion,  of  which  Harnack's  here  as  else- 
where is  but  the  reproduction,  is  thus  stated :  "  Paul 
became  mystical,  theological,  speculative  after  having 
been  at  first  practical.  .  .  .  His  idea  of  Christ  is 
changed.  He  dreams  thenceforth  less  about  the  Son 
of  God  appearing  in  the  clouds  and  presiding  over 
the  general  resurrection,  than  of  a  Christ  established 
as  an  active  participant  in  the  divinity.  .  .  .  What  is 
certain  is  that  the  great  images  of  the  first  Apocalypse 
and  of  the  resurrection,  otherwise  so  familiar  to  Paul 
and  in  some  manner  represented  in  each  page  of  the 
Epistles  belonging  to  the  second  and  third  journeys, 
and  even  of  that  to  the  Philippians,  hold  a  secondary 
place  in  the  last  writings  of  his  captivity.  The  views 
there  given  are  supplanted  by  a  theory  that  views 
Christ  as  a  sort  of  divine  Person — a  theory  very  anal- 
ogous to  that  of  the  Logos,  which  is  to  attain  definite 
form  in  the  writings  ascribed  to  S.  John."  ^ 

1  I   Cor.  XV.  6. 

2  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  199. 

3  Renan,  The  Apocalypse,  pp.  75,  76. 

26 


402  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Elsewhere  he  says :  "  The  theory  of  the  Logos  na- 
turally resulted  from  the  disappointments  of  the  first 
Christian  generation.  What  m.en  had  hoped  to  see 
realized  in  the  actual  order  of  events  was  transferred 
to  the  ideal.  Every  delay  in  the  coming  of  Jesus  was 
one  step  more  towards  His  deification;  and  this  is  so 
true  that,  at  the  very  hour  when  the  last  Adventist 
dream  vanished,  the  absolute  divinity  of  Jesus  was 
proclaimed  "  ?  ^ 

Thus  does  Renan  feel  compelled  to  estabHsh  a  doc- 
trinal contrast  between  S.  Paul's  earlier  and  later 
Epistles,  which  he  apparently  supposes  as  separated 
by  a  considerable  period  of  time.  But  the  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians,  written  in  62  A.  D.,  did  in  reality  ap- 
pear shortly  after  those  to  the  Romans  and  Corin- 
thians which  were  respectively  written  in  58  and  57 
A.  D.  Harnack's  chronology  is  :  Col.  57-59,  or  56-58 : 
Rom.  53-54,  or,  52-53 ;  Cor.  and  Galatians  53  or  52. 
S.  Paul's  later  Epistles,  however,  should  be  dated  still 
earher,  say  from  8  to  10  years  before  the  Fall  of  Jeru- 
salem in  70  A.  D.  Now,  had  the  Church,  in  that  ter- 
rible year,  ceased  to  await  the  coming  of  Christ  for 
the  last  judgment?  Is  it  not  in  the  year  68  A.  D.  that 
Renan  himself  dates  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
wherein  we  read :  *'  For  yet  a  little  while,  and  a  very 
little  while,  and  He  that  is  to  come  will  come,  and 
will  not  delay  "  ?  And,  as  for  the  Apocalypse,  while 
most  modern  critics  assign  it  to  95  A.  D.,  he  dates  it 
in  68  A.  D.2 

H,  finally,  we  compare  S.  Paul's  earlier  with  his 
later  Epistles,  we  must  recognize  that  they  contain  the 
same  doctrine  about  Christ's  person.  Christ,  the  true 
Son  of  God,  pre-existing  before  His  Incarnation,  is 
not  only  the  Christ  portrayed  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  is  also  the  Christ  de- 

1  Renan,  Life  of  Jestis,  p.  126. 

2  Heb.  X.  27. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


403 


\ 


scribed  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  Galatians, 
PhiHppians  and  Romans.^ 

Curiously  enough  this  is  also  admitted  by  Renan 
who  says :  ''  The  most  energetic  expressions  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians  were  only  a  short  advance 
upon  those  of  the  anterior  Epistles  " ;  and,  in  a  note, 
he  refers  to  very  characteristic  passages :  "  See  es- 
pecially Rom.  ix.  5;  I  Cor.  viii.  6;  II  Cor.  v.  19". 
(S.  Paul,  p.  X  and  note).  Elsewhere  when  speaking 
of  the  Christ  of  the  early  Epistles,  which  were  written 
about  54  A.  D.,  he  observes :  "  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  the 
Christ,  a  personage  entirely  superhuman,  not  yet  God 
(  !)  but  very  near  being  it  (  !).  One  hves  in  Him, 
one  dies  in  Him,  one  rises  in  Him.  He  was  in  truth 
already  a  divine  personality,  and  when  the  time  comes 
to  identify  Him  with  God,  it  is  only  a  question  of 
words,  a  mere  *  communication  of  idioms ',  as  the 
theologians  say.  We  shall  see  that  Paul  himself  at- 
tained to  this :  the  most  advanced  formulas  that  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  existed 
already  in  germ  in  the  older  Epistles.  '  For  to  us  there 
is  but  one  God,  the  Father  of  whom  are  all  things 
and  we  in  Him,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom 
are  all  things  and  we  by  Him'  (I  Cor.  viii.  6).  A 
few  words  more,  and  Jesus  shall  be  the  Logos,  Creator, 
and  the  most  exaggerated  formulas  of  the  consubstan- 
tialists  of  the  fourth  century  can  already  be  fore- 
seen    .^ 

S.  Paul,  let  us  remember,  keeps  in  permanent  touch 
with  the  Church  of  the  Apostolic  age.  During  his 
first  missionary  journey,  his  companion  was  S.  Barna- 
bas, one  of  the  most  eminent  members  of  the  flourish- 
ing Church  centre  at  Jerusalem,  and  one  of  the  ori- 
ginal disciples  of  Christ's  apostles.  From  Antioch, 
where  they  had  founded  a  numerous  Christian  com- 

1  Lepin,  Jesus  Messie,  p.  343.    Engl.  tr.  p.  386. 

2  Rom.  ix.  5 ;  i  Cor.  viii.  6 ;  2  Cor.  v.  19 ;  Renan,  Saint  Paul, 
pp.  ix,  164;  I  Cor.  viii.  6;  Col.  i.  16;  Jo.  i.  3. 


404 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


munity,  S.  Paul  and  S.  Barnabas  go  to  Jerusalem  for 
the  purpose  of  consulting  the  Twelve  Apostles,  and, 
these  authorized  guardians  of  the  Saviour's  teachings 
do  not  at  all  reprimand  him  for  his  doctrines.  On  his 
return  from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch,  S.  Paul  was  ac- 
companied by  two  disciples  of  the  apostles,  namely 
Judas  and  Silas,  the  latter  eventually  settling  down  at 
Antioch  and  becoming  the  Apostle's  companion  on 
new  missions/ 

There  is,  then,  a  constant  interchange  of  courtesies 
and  the  utmost  harmony  between  the  two  Christian 
churches  of  Jerusalem  and  Antioch.  Necessarily  the 
relations  were  equally  frequent  and  seemingly  just  as 
cordial,  between  the  divers  communities  evangelized 
by  S.  Paul  and  the  members  of  those  Church  centres 
founded  by  the  other  apostles.  Thus  he  writes  to 
the  Romans;  and  although  he  had  hitherto  been  un- 
able to  visit  them  as  he  had  desired,  and  hence  did  not 
claim  them  as  his  peculiar  children  in  Christ,  never- 
theless he  feels  assured  that  their  faith,  whose  fame 
is  world-wide,  is  the  same  as  his  own ;  and,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  when  he  reaches  Rome  as  a  captive,  the  breth- 
ren there  greet  him  gladly.^ 

As  to  the  Apostle's  visit  to  Jerusalem,  Sabatier  says : 
"  Is  it  too  hazardous  a  conjecture  to  suppose  that, 
during  the  fifteen-day  visit  he  paid  to  S.  Peter  in 
Jerusalem,  after  his  conversion,  he  had  carefully  asked 
him  about  the  Hfe  of  their  common  Master?  Are  we 
not  inclined  to  think  so  from  S.  Paul's  remark?  Else 
how  did  this  zealous  servant  of  Jesus-Christ  obtain 
the  full  mastery  of  all  that  valuable  Gospel  tradition 
so  piously  guarded  by  the  early  Christian  communities 
and  the  source  whence  the  first  three  Gospels  have 
issued?"^ 

1  Ac.  XV.;  Gal.  ii.  i-io. 

2  Ac.  XV.  22,  32-34;  cf.  Ac.  xi.  22,  27;  xxi.  18;  i.  11-15; 
XV.  2-24;  i.  8,  11;  xxviii.  14-15. 

3  Sabatier,  L'Apotre  Paul,  3rd  ed.,  p.  66;  Gal.  i.  18:  IcToprjaaL 
Kv(pav.  Weiss,  B.,  op.  cit,  vol.  i,  p.  279;  Von  Weizsacker,  op, 
cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  35. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


405 


It  is  remarkable,  too,  that,  as  is  plain  from  the  last 
chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  S.  Paul  sends 
his  greetings,  or  salutations,  to  many  brethren  and 
kinsmen  who  were  living  at  Rome  prior  to  his  visit 
to  that  city.  Of  course,  critics  insist  that  this  chapter 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  really  belongs  to  an 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  which  he  had  sometime 
written  and  addressed  to  the  Church  in  Ephesus. 
This  was  the  impression  of  Renan,  and  is  also  that  of 
Jiilicher.  But  this  view  has  been  recently  questioned 
by  Spitta.  This  author  proves,  in  the  light  of  recent 
inscriptions,  that  the  Apostle  salutes  persons  who,  as 
far  as  their  names  are  concerned,  more  probably  be- 
long to  the  Church  of  Rome  than  to  that  of  Ephesus. 
On  the  other  hand,  Spitta  thinks  that  the  extant 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  really  composed  of  two 
parts,  and  that  the  second  part,  which  includes  the 
last  chapter  of  the  received  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  was 
written  by  the  Apostle  at  a  time  when  he  had  already 
become  personally  acquainted  with  the  members  of 
the  Church  in  Rome.  What  shall  we  say  to  this? 
Simply  that  the  thesis  advanced  by  Spitta  is  far  from 
being  proved.^ 

If,  then,  we  ask:  what  did  S.  Paul  think  of  Christ? 
there  is  no  lack  of  testimony  on  this  point.  And, 
moreover,  we  are  well  aware  of  his  opposition  to  every 
unwarranted  innovation  in  doctrinal  matters.  So  that 
we  may  rest  assured  that,  on  so  essential  a  point  as  that 
of  Christ's  divine  personahty,  S.  Paul  has  not  given  a 
teaching  different  from  that  of  the  other  Apostles, 
and,  at  all  events,  the  faith  that  he  imparted  to  his 
Christian  followers  was  of  truly  apostolic  origin. 

"  What  strikes  us  in  all  these  statements  about 
Christ's  pre-existence  ",  says  Beyschlag,  "  i^s  that  the 
apostle  nowhere  really  establishes  or  teaches  the  pre- 


1  Rom.  xvi. ;   Renan,  Saint  Paul,  p.  Ixix;  Julicher,  op.  cit., 
p.  140;  Spitta,  op.  cit,  1901, 


4o6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

existence  of  Christ;  but,  especially  in  his  earlier 
Epistles,  presupposes  it  as  familiar  to  his  readers  and 
disputed  by  no  one.  It  must,  therefore,  have  been  a 
notion  which  was  not  in  the  least  strange  even  to  the 
primitive  apostolic  Christians  before  Paul,  such  for 
example  as  the  readers  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  ".^ 

Moreover,  the  testimony  of  the  Johannine  writings 
present,  as  many  critics  admit,  either  his  own  teach- 
ing, or,  at  least,  the  tradition  which  the  beloved  dis- 
ciple had  handed  down  to  his  immediate  followers. 
We  will,  then,  find  in  the  sum-total  of  his  testimony 
just  exactly  what  an  Apostle  thought  of  the  person  of 
the  Master  of  whom  he  had  been  an  assiduous  wit- 
ness. This  is  a  valuable  confirmation  of  S.  Paul's 
testimony.  Of  course,  we  cannot  suppose  that  the 
data  supplied  by  the  Johannine  writings  depend  upon 
those  given  by  S.  Paul.  For,  how  could  we  believe 
that  the  Beloved  Disciple  allowed  his  appreciation  of 
the  Master's  personality  to  be  influenced  by  the  views 
of  a  new-comer  like  the  convert  of  Damascus? 

If,  however,  the  Epistles  of  S.  Paul,  as  also  the 
Johannine  writings,  give  us  the  same  idea  of  Jesus' 
personality  that  His  apostles  and  disciples  had  treas- 
ured, we  cannot  help  seeing  in  the  Christ  of  the 
Early  Church,  the  Incarnate  Word,  the  Son  of  God 
made  man,  the  true  Christ  of  history. 

As  regards  the  writings  attributed  to  S.  John,  Renan, 
for  instance,  accepts  the  Apocalypse,  or  Revelation,  as 
the  authentic  work  of  that  Apostle ;  and  thinks  that  it 
was  written  in  68  A.  D. ;  while  such  Johannine  writ- 
ings as  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles  were  written  by 
one  of  his  disciples, — probably  by  the  one  whom 
Papias  calls  John  the  Elder,  that  is,  by  one  of  the 
Ancients  of  the  Church  in  Ephesus.^ 

Harnack  says  that  all  the  Johannine  writings  were 

1  Beyschlag.  N  T.   Theol.  II,  p.  76. 

2  Julicher,  op.  cit,  pp.  375,  389- 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


407 


written  by  the  same  disciple  who  had  recorded  the 
ApostoHc  tradition  early  in  the  second  century/ 

Jiilicher  regards  as  worthless  the  assignment  of  the 
Johannine  compositions  to  John  the  Presbyter,  of 
whom  we  have  no  reliable  information ;  while  he  thinks 
that  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  composed  by  a  Christian 
who  lived  during  the  early  part  of  the  second  century, 
and  who  wrote  this  work  in  dependence  upon  S.  John. 
"  This  writer  ",  he  says,  "  was  convinced  that  he  re- 
produced the  portrait  of  Christ  exactly  as  he  had  re- 
ceived it  from  John ".  It  was  to  John  that  ''  he 
owed,  as  did  the  entire  Asiatic  church  of  his  time 
his  knowledge  of  the  Lamb  of  God,  of  His  divine 
character,  of  the  absolute  character  of  His  re- 
demption "." 

Wendt  and  Soltau  think  that  the  final  editor  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  employed  an  earlier  document  written 
by  S.  John  himself.^ 

Lately,  the  full  authenticity  of  the  Johannine  writ- 
ings has  been  upheld  by  B.  Weiss,  Zahn,  Reynolds,  J. 
Drummond,  Sanday,  and  Calmes.* 

So  that,  in  rejecting  even  the  partial  authenticity  of 
the  Johannine  writings,  H.  Holtzmann,  J.  Reville, 
Schmiedel,  and  Loisy  advance  merely  their  personal 
theories  and  thus  do  not  merit  the  approval  of  most 
critics.^ 

iHarn.  Chronol.  Pt.  II.  vol.  I,  p.  656. 

'^Einleit  in  das  N.   T.,  1901,  p.  324- 

3  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  2nd  ed.,  Ger. ;  Soltau,  art. :  Zeit.  fur  N,  T. 
IViss.,  vol.  i,  pp.  140-149. 

4  Weiss,  Lehrb.  der  Einleit.  N.  T.,  3rd  ed.,  1897;  Zahn, 
Einl.  in  das  N.  T.,  vol.  ii,  1899 ;  Reynolds,  art. :  John,  Gospel 
of,  H.  D. ;  Drummond,  J.,  The  Fourth  Gospel,  1903;  Sanday, 
The  Criticism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  1904;  Calmes,  L'Evang. 
Selon  S.  Jean,  1904. 

^  Holtzmann,  H..  op.  cit.,  3rd  ed.,  1892 ;  Reville,  J.,  Le 
Quatr.  Evang.,  1901 ;  Schmiedel,  art, :  John's  Gospel,  E,  B. ; 
Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  1903. 


4o8  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

In  referring  to  the  attitude  of  Christian  thought 
during  the  ApostoUc  age,  Harnack  says :  "  Where 
can  we  find,  in  the  history  of  mankind,  any  similar 
instance  of  men  eating  and  drinking  with  their  master, 
seeing  him  in  the  characteristic  aspects  of  his  human- 
ity, and  then  proclaiming  him  not  only  as  the  great 
prophet  and  revealer  of  God,  but  as  the  divine  disposer 
of  history,  as  the  '  beginning '  of  God's  creation,  and 
as  the  inner  strength  of  a  new  life?  .  .  .  That,  in 
spite  of  suffering  and  death,  it  was  possible  to  see  in 
him  the  promised  Messiah,  and  that,  side  by  side  with 
the  vulgar  Messianic  image  of  him,  men  should  have 
regarded  him  as  the  present  Lord  and  Saviour, — ^this 
is  what  is  astonishing !  ^ 

Harnack  further  remarks  that,  "  besides  the  four 
written  Gospels,  we  possess  a  fifth,  unwritten;  and, 
in  many  respects,  its  voice  is  clearer  and  more  effective 
than  that  of  the  other  four, — I  mean  the  united  testi- 
mony of  the  first  Christian  community.  It  enables  us 
to  gather  what  was  the  prevailing  impression  made  by 
this  personality,  and  in  what  sense  His  disciples  under- 
stood His  words  and  the  testimony  which  He  gave  of 
Himself  ".2 

It  is  indeed  surprising,  if  not  inconceivable,  that 
the  direct  witnesses  of  Christ's  words  and  works,  the 
immediate  inheritors  of  the  tradition  held  by  such 
witnesses, — persons  whose  powers  of  observation  and 
practical  turn  of  mind  had  been  fully  borne  out  by 
the  events  of  history; — it  is  improbable  that  Apostles 
and  disciples  could  have  erred  so  strangely,  so  egre- 
giously,  as  to  regard  as  the  true  Son  of  God  that 
Master  who  had  so  plainly  asserted  His  humanity,  and 
as  to  ascribe  a  divine  origin  and  nature  to  Him  whose 
sufferings  and  death  were  a  scandal  to  the  Jews,  un- 
less all  His  words  and  deeds  were  meant  to  authorize, 

1  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity  f  pp.  166-167. 

2  Harnack,  Christianity  and  History,  p.  57. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  409 

nay  more,  to  force  upon  them  such  a  belief.  The  im- 
partial critic  must  admit  that  the  early  Christfahs'  be- 
lief in  Christ's  divinity  can  have  no  basis  except  the 
facts  of  history. 

Wernle,  however,  insists  that  "  Jesus  Christ  is  op- 
posed to  the  old  gods  as  the  new  and  stronger  God. 
That  is  the  meaning  of  the  '  Divinity  of  Christ '.  The 
idea  arose  amongst  the  heathen,  and  must  be  conceived 
as  an  antithesis  to  the  heathen  gods.  The  notion  is 
as  little  Jewish  as  it  possibly  can  be.  The  Jews  sim- 
ply have  no  room  for  a  second  being  called  God  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  word.  .  .  .  But  among  the  heathen, 
apotheosis  was  exceedingly  common.  The  number  of 
their  deities  is  not  limited.  .  .  .  The  Gentile  Christian 
immediately  gives  Jesus  a  place  in  his  worship.  He 
sings  his  '  carmen  Christo  quasi  Deo  ',  .  .  .  The  new 
God,  Christ,  is  contrasted  with  the  heathen  gods  '  .^ 

Schmidt,  in  fact,  ascribes  the  origin  of  this  dogma 
to  the  Hellenic  circles  wherein  the  Jewish  mode  of 
thought  was  "  influenced  by  Greek  speculation  "  and 
by  the  religious  habits  of  the  Greco-Roman  world.^ 

Such  views  do  not  square  with  fact ;  for,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  dogma  of  Christ's  divinity  was  a  part  of  the 
belief  of  the  early  Christians  in  Palestine,  of  Jesus' 
own  disciples :  it  is  found  in  is  own  statements  and 
impHed  in  His  very  Hfe. 

The  superhuman  character  of  Jesus'  own  testi- 
mony and  His  true  position  as  an  historical  person- 
age is,  indeed,  expressly  admitted  by  Wernle.  Whilst 
Schmidt  says  that  as  "  the  conception  of  '  the  Son  of 
God ',  who  is  Himself  God,  which  comes  distinctly  to 
view  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  so  this  itself  is  the  pro- 
duct of  a  long  development  of  thought.  .  .  .  The  con- 
tribution of  Jesus  Himself  to  this  development  was 
the   indelible    expression    of    His    own   personality ". 

1  Wernle,  op.  cit.,  pp.  114,  115,  116;  above  p.  271. 

2  Schmidt,  art. :  Son  of  God,  E,  B.,  par,  22,  col.  4702, 


4IO  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

And  Bousset,  like  Harnack,  extols  Jesus'  transcendent 
personality  and  wondrous  influence,  His  position  as 
the  Son  of  God  in  a  unique  manner,  as  the  Founder 
of  the  final  religion,  as  "  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the 
life  ".^ 

A  study  of  the  faith  of  the  early  Christians,  as 
also  the  content  of  the  Synoptic  gospels,  should  there- 
fore suffice  to  show  the  agreement  between  these 
sources  of  testimony.  Christ,  the  Incarnate  Son  of 
God,  who,  as  the  Second  divine  Person,  essentially 
shares  the  divine  nature,  just  as  He  really  shares  all 
human  nature  after  the  moment  of  His  Incarnation: 
such  truly  is  Christ  Jesus,  as  we  behold  Him  after 
studying  the  first  three  gospels.  And  the  faith  of  the 
early  Church  corresponds  exactly  with  the  data  thus 
presented,  which  are  the  faithful  reproduction,  the 
authentic  interpretation  of  the  intricate  combination 
of  human  and  divine  elements  so  evidently  manifest 
in  the  personality  of  our  Saviour. 

V.  Christ's  Reserve  in  Revealing  His  Divinity. 

I.    A   RESULT   OF   THE  SAVIOUR's   POSITION. 

Why,  we  may  ask,  is  not  the  transcendent  character 
of  Jesus'  really  divine  filiation  more  expressly  revealed, 
nor  more  formally  stated  in  His  own  sayings?  Rea- 
soning from  His  reserve  in  manifesting  His  Messianic 
dignity,  we  have  previously  inferred  that  this  was  to 
be  expected.  The  motive  lies  in  the  Saviour's  very 
position  itself,  so  extraordinary  and  unusual.  To 
consider  the  actual  conditions :  We  behold  the  Word, 
true  Son  of  God  and  true  God,  forsaking  the  abode  of 
His  Heavenly  Father  in  order  to  become  man,  as 
other  men,  and,  whilst  living  among  men,  devoting 
Himself  to  the  work  of   teaching  and   saving  souls. 

1  Lepin,  Jesus  Messie,  p.  229 ;  Engl,  tr,  p.  272 ;  Schmidt, 
art. :   Son   of  God,   E.   B.,   par.  25,   col.   4704 ;    Bousset,    Was 

wissen   wir   von    Jesiisf     1904. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  411 

What  an  exceptionally  complex  and  delicate  position! 
Could  He,  with  any  good  reason,  reveal  His  divinity 
openly  ?  Could  He  declare  directly  and  undisguisedly : 
"  I  am  to  all  appearances  a  man  like  other  men ;  but 
really  I  am  the  Son  of  God,  eternally  begotten  of 
God:  I  am  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth:  I  am 
God!"  A  well-nigh  impossible  situation,  let  us  say; 
and  were  we  to  search  the  Gospels  for  such  explicit 
declarations,  we  might  rightly  suspect  their  authen- 
ticity, inasmuch  as  they  would  be  untimely  and  out  of 
place. 

If,  as  we  believe,  Jesus  was  the  Incarnate  Son  of 
God,  He  could  not  have  well  revealed  His  personality 
to  men  otherwise  than  He  actually  did  make  it  known. 
He  wanted  to  reveal  His  Messianic  dignity  indirectly 
and  progressively  to  men :  with  greater  reason  He  had 
to  thus  act  as  regards  His  divinity.  He  could  not 
have  acted  with  greater  wisdom  nor  more  opportunely. 
By  His  whole  life  He  had  suggested  and  insinuated 
that  supernatural  reality;  His  discourses  were  full  of 
allusions  to  His  transcendent  privileges  and  powers, 
to  the  unique  character  of  His  quality  as  Son  of  God. 
Although  it  was  not  expressed  in  a  dogmatic  formula, 
like  a  definition  of  faith,  the  true  divinity  of  His  per- 
son was,  none  the  less,  easily  perceived  behind  all  His 
declarations.  It  followed  as  a  certain  theological  con- 
clusion, and  His  disciples  must  have  found  it  impos- 
sible, especially  after  His  resurrection,  to  be  mistaken 
about  the  true  meaning  of  His  manifestation. 

The  declarations  given  in  the  Gospels,  moreover,  are 
not  the  utterances  of  the  Son  of  God  as  subsisting  sim- 
ply in  the  divine  essence ;  but  as  constituted  in  human 
nature.  Not  only  did  Jesus  have  the  lips  and  speech 
of  men,  but  also  a  human  mind  and  thoughts.  What 
He  says  of  His  person,  of  His  dealings  with  His 
heavenly  Father,  of  His  powers,  of  His  destiny,  He 
says  as  man,  united  truly  to  the  divinity,  but  directly 
and  properly  speaking  as  man,  as  giving  human  ex- 


412 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


pression  to  His  human  thought.  So  that  it  was  to  be 
expected  that  he  would  refer  to  Himself  such  as  He 
was  in  His  humanity,  and  not  as  He  existed  prior  to 
His  humanity  and  independently  thereof.  The  same 
Jesus  could  undoubtedly  testify  to  His  eternal  pre- 
existence  in  the  bosom  of  the  Eternal  Father  as  Son  of 
God  and  God;  and  nevertheless,  let  us  say  it  again^ 
His  human  discourse  concerning  Himself  must  have 
more  naturally  viewed  Him  as  the  Son  of  God  In- 
carnate in  His  human  nature. 

Was  not  this  the  motive  that  led  Jesus  to  designate 
Himself  more  habitually  as  "  the  Son  of  Man "  ? 
And  this  also  explains  the  following  propositions,  at 
first  sight  so  strange,  wherein  the  Saviour  seems  to 
mark  Himself  as  really  distinct  from  God :  "  Why 
callest  thou  Me  good?  He  says  to  the  young  ruler, 
"  None  is  good  but  One,  that  is  God "'.  The 
Divine  Master,  no  doubt  appeared  to  the  youth 
as  simply  an  ordinary  Jewish  Rabbi.  Seemingly, 
Jesus  rejects,  as  belonging  to  God  alone,  a  title 
which  is  given  to  Him  only  as  though  He  were  merely 
man.  Perhaps,  however,  He  did  not  absolutely  re- 
fuse it,  and  prudently  wished  to  suggest  to  His  ques- 
tioner, or  to  the  assembled  disciples,  that  He  to  whom 
this  title  of  "  good  "  is  applied,  and  who,  as  they  well 
know,  merits  it  so  deservedly,  is  not  only  and  solely 
man,  but  God.  Indeed,  there  is  naught  to  show  us 
that  the  Saviour  wants  to  formally  reject  this  title  of 
"  good  " :  it  would,  indeed,  be  strange  and  out  of  keep- 
ing with  His  usual  manner.  Had  He  not  said: 
"  Learn  of  Me,  for  I  am  meek  and  humble  of  heart "? 
His  reply,  then,  to  the  young  man :  "  Why  callest 
thou  Me  good?"  seems  rather  intended  to  make  him 
reflect  upon  the  unconscious  but  perfect  exactness 
of  the  title.  So  too,  at  another  time,  the  divine  Mas- 
ter had  asked  the  Jews :  "  How  do  the  Scribes  say 
that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  David?"  And  the  Saviour's 
later  remark  may  recall. His  way  of  acting  in  remitting 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  413 

the  sins  of  the  paralytic:  God  alone  forgives  sins,  as 
you  say  yourselves.  As  for  Me,  I  also  forgive  sins 
and  I  prove  my  right  to  do  so.  And  here  He  says : 
You  call  Me  good?  That  title  is  deserved:  thou 
thyself  hast  judged  Me  by  way  of  comparison  with 
other  Masters;  so  that  I  do  not  decline  the  title;  but, 
remember,  none  is  good  but  God  alone !  ^ 

Again,  speaking  of  the  last  advent,  Jesus  said:  "  Of 
that  day  and  hour  no  one  knoweth,  no,  not  the  angels 
of  heaven,  but  the  Father  alone ".  This  very  Son 
who  is  unaware  of  the  time  of  the  final  advent,  is  the 
Son  of  God,  but  the  Son  of  God  as  constituted  in  His 
humanity  and  undoubtedly  he  is  unaware  of  the  date 
of  that  event  only  and  simply  as  man.  The  idea,  in 
fact,  that  Jesus  wants  to  bring  out  is  that  the  hour  of 
judgment  is  as  such  impenetrable  to  the  human  mind, 
and  is  known  only  to  God  alone :  no  creature,  whether 
the  most  excellent  and  most  perfect,  not  even  the  angels 
of  heaven,  not  even  the  Son  of  God  as  regards  His 
created  human  nature,  can  naturally  know  that  hour: 
properly  speaking,  it  is  the  secret  of  God.^ 

And  from  the  Cross  we  hear  that  agonizing  cry  of 
the  dying  Son  of  God  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast 
thou  forsaken  me?"  Surely  this  is  the  utterance  of 
the  Son  of  God  as  constituted  in  His  human  nature. 
As  a  human  creature.  He  can  appeal  to  God  as  "  My 
God  ",  just  as  He  can  call  Him  "  My  Father  ".  As 
man.  He  can  be  tried  and  abandoned  by  His  God,  as 
long  as  God,  in  His  wisdom,  deems  this  good,  in  view 
of  the  redemptive  mission  confided  to  Him.^ 

As  man,  then,  as  the  Man-God  indeed  but  still  as 
created  and  mortal  man,  Jesus  maintains  towards  His 
Father  the  attitude  of  a  suppHant  and  inferior.     So 

1  Mt.  xix.  17;  Mk.  X.  18;  Lk.  xviii.  19;  Mt.  xi.  28;  Mk.  xii. 
35-37;  Mt.  xxii.  41-46;  Lk.  XX.  41-44. 

2  Mk.  X.  18;  Mt.  xix.  17;  Lk.  viii.  19;  cf.  Lepin,  Jesus 
Messie,  p.  414;   Engl.  tr.  p.  463. 

3  Mk,  XV.   34;   Mt.  xxvii.  46. 


414 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


also,  He  marks  the  difference  between  a  blasphemy  ut- 
tered against  Himself,  the  Son  of  Man,  and  one  against 
the  Holy  Ghost  who  operates  in  Him;  thus  He  de- 
clares He  fulfills  His  exorcisms  by  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  God ;  thus  He  attributes  His  miraculous 
cures  to  God.  It  is  also,  in  a  certain  sense,  in  His 
humanity  that  He  apparently  enjoys  more  than  all 
others  the  filial  relations  which  He  claims  to  have  with 
His  heavenly  Father,  and  the  Messianic  powers  which 
He  holds  as  a  gift  of  His  Father's  liberality.^ 

We  may  note,  too,  the  significant  turn  which  the 
Evangelists  give  to  Jesus'  words :  "  Go  into  thy  house 
to  thy  friends,  and  tell  them  how  great  things  the  Lord 
hath  done  for  thee,  and  hath  had  mercy  on  thee. 
And  he  went  his  way,  and  began  to  publish  in  Deca- 
polis  how  great  things  Jesus  had  done  for  him  "... 
The  text  of  verse  39  in  S.  Luke  even  has  "  how 
great  things  God  hath  done  for  thee."  Thus,  between 
Jesus  and  God,  there  is  established  a  remarkable  iden- 
tity like  that  noticeable  in  the  accounts  of  Our  Lord's 
Infancy.^ 

If,  moreover,  the  Saviour  "  could  not  do  any 
miracles  "  at  Nazareth,  it  was  only  "  because  of  their 
unbelief  ",  inasmuch  as  faith  from  them  was  demanded 
as  a  condition  for  Him  to  exert  His  power  as  a  won- 
der-worker. So  too,  if,  in  order  to  cure  the  deaf-mute 
of  Decapolis,  Jesus  wanted  to  make  use  of  His  saliva 
and  to  touch  him  with  His  fingers;  if  He  restored 
sight  to  the  bhnd  man  of  Bethsaida  only  by  degrees 
and  progressively;  there  is,  in  this  circumstance,  a 
particular  design  which  does  not  at  all  imply  that  His 
power  was  defective.  He  who  restored  to  life  the  son 
of  the  widow  of  Naim  and  the  daughter  of  Jairus; 
who  on  two  occasions  so  profusely  multiplied  the 
loaves  of  bread;  who  by  an  act  of  His  will  healed, 

1  Cf.  Lepin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  222,  291 ;  Mt.  xii.  32 ;  cf.  Mk.  iii.  29. 

2  Mk.  V.  19-20;  Lk.  viii.  39;  cf.  Lepin,  op.  cit.,  p.  73; 
Engl.  tr.  p.   125   sq. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  415 

even  at  a  distance,  the  Centurion's  servant,  the  daugh- 
ter of  the  Canaanite  woman,  and  the  ten  lepers,  could 
not  feel  Himself  powerless  when  confronting  a  blind 
man  or  a  deaf-mute.^ 

2.   A    GUARANTEE   OF    SYNOPTIC    HISTORICITY. 

As  remarked  in  our  Introduction  to  this  book,  the 
prominence  given  to  the  humanity  of  the  Son  of  God 
and  the  veiling  of  His  divinity  throughout  the 
Synoptic  account,  are  not  the  least  guaranty  of  the 
truthfulness  of  our  Evangelists.  They  wrote  at  a 
time  when  the  dogma  of  Christ's  pre-existence  as  God's 
eternal  and  real  Son  was,  as  it  is  now,  firmly  held  as  an 
article  of  faith.  If,  therefore,  the  Synoptists  refrained 
from  attributing  to  their  divine  Master  more  explicit 
declarations  in  keeping  with  the  current  belief,  if  they 
did  not  fear  to  set  forth  the  Saviour's  humanity  so 
forcefully  and  accredit  Him  with  sayings  apparently 
at  variance  with  the  dogma  of  His  divinity,  their  pro- 
cedure is  a  very  convincing  argument  in  behalf  of  their 
sincerity  as  chroniclers.  Historians  who  are  able  to 
abstract,  to  such  a  degree,  from  the  prevaihng  views 
of  their  time,  as  also  from  their  particular  beliefs, — 
such  as  S.  Luke  the  Evangelist,  who  was  also  S.  Paul's 
disciple  and  who  fully  understood  his  master's  teach- 
ings,)— in  order  to  write  history  as  it  actually  hap- 
pened, are  evidently  men  who  merit  the  entire  con- 
fidence of  the  most  exacting  critic.  So  that,  if  one 
accepts  as  incontestably  historic  their  testimony  to 
Christ's  real  humanity,  one  has  no  right  to  reject,  at 
the  same  time,  their  testimony  to  His  divinity.^ 

In  observing  that  the  Synoptic  Gospels  were  edited 
some  years  after  S.  Paul's  Epistles,  Loisy  says  that 

1  Mk.  vi.  5-6;  Mt.  xiii.  58;  Mk.  vii.  33;  Mk.  viii.  23-25;  cf. 
Mk.  ix.  24-26;  Jo,  ix.  6;  Mk.  viii.  13;  Lk.  vii.  10;  Mk.  vii.  29; 
Mt.  XV.  28;  Lk.  xvii.  14. 

2  Cf.  Lepin,  op.  cit.,  Introd.,  p.  Ixvii ;  Engl.  tr.  p.  52. 


4i6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  Apostle  **  affirms  the  eternal  pre-existence  of  the 
Messiah  ",  that  ''  he  comes  to  identify  Christ,  more 
or  less,  with  Eternal  Wisdom,  attributing  to  Him  a 
cosmological  function  "  that  "  this  double  theory  of 
Christ,  in  His  relations  to  the  universe  and  to  human- 
ity, could  not  fail  to  enter  into  the  evangelical  tradi- 
tion, and  did  in  fact  enter  ".^ 

Such,  indeed,  is  the  logical  and  necessary  inference 
from  Loisy's  general  conception  of  the  mode  in  which 
the  Gospels  were  compiled.  And  it  is  interesting  to 
see  to  what  extent  this  inference  is  verified.  Loisy 
further  adds  that  the  cosmological  theory  which  identi- 
fies Christ  with  Eternal  Wisdom,  has  been  actually 
allowed  to  enter  into  the  Gospel  tradition.  But  how 
far,  indeed  ?  Loisy  writes  :  ''  The  doctrine  of  the  Re- 
demption appears  in  Mark ;  that  of  the  Eternal  Christ, 
Wisdom  of  the  Father,  agent  of  all  Divine  Works,  is 
hinted  at  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  finds  its  definite 
statement  in  the  Gospel  of  John  ".^ 

But  the  critic  should  say  just  in  what  texts  this  doc- 
trine is  hinted  at ;  we  are  referred  to  one  text,  a  single 
text,  the  famous  text  which  is  common  to  S.  Matthew 
and  S.  Luke  :  ''  Neither  doth  any  one  know  the  Father, 
but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  it  shall  please  the  Son  to 
reveal  Him  ".  But  as  we  have  seen  above,  this  very 
text  is  far  from  supporting  Loisy's  hypothesis,  and,  in 
particular,  its  relation  to  the  idea  of  ''  Wisdom  of  the 
Father,  agent  of  all  the  divine  works  ",  can  be  estab- 
lished only  by  means  of  an  arbitrary  and  hazardous 
exegesis.  Even  in  Loisy's  view,  this  isolated  and  un- 
specific  text  would  be  also  exceptional.  So  that  he 
feels  bound  to  say  with  some  reserve :  "  It  must  be  said, 
however,  that  the  Messianic  element,  dominant  in 
Mark,  is  still  the  element  most  in  evidence  in  Matthew 
and  in  Luke ;  the  theory  of  universal  salvation,  ex- 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  45. 

2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  46. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  417 

pressed  in  the  Synoptics,  influences  them  only  to  a 
slight  degree ;  and  the  theory  of  the  Eternal  Christ, 
of  Divine  Wisdom  revealed  in  Jesus,  appears  still 
more  discreetly ".  This,  v^e  think,  is  the  best  con- 
demnation of  Loisy's  conclusion,  and  hence  of  the 
general  system  that  led  him  thereto,  namely,  his  theory 
of  the  influence  exerted  on  the  Gospel  contents  by  a 
process  of  elaboration  and  of  idealization  of  the  primi- 
tive impressions,  a  process  that  went  on  in  the  depths 
of  the  Christian  mind.^ 

Again,  with  regard  to  the  Synoptist  assertion  of 
Jesus'  divinity,  we  must  say  that  modern  critics  who 
claim  to  be  most  independent  in  their  views  betray  a 
manifest  Rationalistic  party  spirit.  Thus,  Wrede 
thinks  that  Christ  as  portrayed  in  S.  Mark,  that  is  in 
the  Gospel  which  is  considered  as  reproducing  the  best 
primitive  Tradition,  seems  to  be  endowed  with  a 
mysterious  and  supernatural  quality  and  exerting  a 
miraculous  influence  like  the  Christ  described  by  S. 
John.  Wrede,  however,  infers  that  S.  Mark  himself 
loses  sight  of  what  is  real  and  historical.  Why  so? 
Because,  forsooth,  history  cannot  admit  of  super- 
natural facts  such  as  Miracles  and  Prophecy.  In  reply 
to  Wrede,  we  might  allege  the  very  criticism  which  he 
had  himself  passed  upon  the  Rationalistic  method,  too 
often  employed  in  Germany :  "  Each  author  preserves 
the  traditional  sayings  suitable  to  his  view  of  facts  and 
to  his  view  of  historic  possibility ;  the  rest  is  rejected  ".^ 

The  twofold  testimony  is,  therefore,  inseparable. 
What  shows  that  Christ  truly  shared  the  divinity  is  in- 
dissolubly  connected  with  whatever  proves  His  real 
share  of  humanity,  and  affords  the  same  guarantees  of 
historic  truth.     Christ's  identity,  as  true  God  and  true 

1  Mt.  xi.  27 ;  Lk.  x.  22 ;  cf.  Lepin,  op.  cit.,  p.  328 ;  Loisy, 
op.  cit.,  p.  46. 

2  Wrede,  op.  cit.,  p.  86 ;  cf.  Rev.  Bib.,  1903,  pp.  300,  625 ; 
cf.  Lepin,  op.  cit.  Introd.,  p.  Ixvi,  n.  i ;  p.  Ixx,  n.  3 ;  Engl, 
tr.  p.  51. 

27 


4i8  Christ  and  the  gospel 

Man,  such  as  His  portrait  is  sketched  in  the  Synop- 
tists,  appears  from  many  scattered  details,  from  oc- 
casional features,  the  main  and  sole  purpose  being  to 
narrate  history.  A  critical  comparison  will  show  that 
all  such  features  are  in  wonderful  agreement  and  so 
complete  one  another  as  to  afiford  a  perspective  that  is 
consistent  and  harmonious.  Such  narratives  as  these 
are  not  due  to  mere  invention,  whether  conscious  or 
not:  they  can  be  only  the  authentic  reproduction,  the 
exact  photograph  of  a  sublime,  but  truly  living  reality. 
Besides,  what  confirms  this  inference  is  a  comparison 
of  the  three  Synoptic  Gospels,  at  once  so  different 
and  yet  so  closely  identical,  as  also  a  comparison  of 
these  with  the  Fourth  Gospel,  which  in  turn  is  so 
apparently  unlike  these,  but,  as  we  shall  see  later,  so 
fundamentally  equivalent. 

Finally,  let  us  not  fear  to  repeat  it,  these  very 
special  details  that  assure  the  historical  character  of 
the  Synoptic  narratives,  are  at  the  same  time  one  of 
the  most  persuasive  proofs  of  the  Saviour's  sincerity, 
and  of  the  truth  of  His  claims  to  be  the  true  Son  of 
God.  The  deeper  we  study  the  Gospel,  the  further 
we  study  the  method  followed  by  Jesus  in  revealing 
and  manifesting  Himself,  the  more  we  are  impressed 
with  the  wisdom  of  His  plan,  with  His  marvelous 
opportunism,  with  His  incomparably  prudent  and  pro- 
gressively suggestive  manner  in  disclosing,  under  His 
really  Hving  human  nature,  His  quality  of  true  God 
and  true  man.  There  is  never  the  slightest  thing  to 
dazzle  the  view,  nor  a  declaration  which,  so  to  speak, 
forces  faith  upon  one:  all  serves  to  leave  the  pro- 
found impression  of  sweet  and  charming  light.  To 
quote  a  remark  in  the  Revue  Biblique :  *'  The  decisive 
feature  in  the  comparison  between  S.  Paul  and  Jesus 
Christ  is  that,  although  so  great,  one  is  never  tempted 
to  see  in  the  author  of  the  Epistles  anything  else  than 
a  man,  while,  in  reading  the  Gospel,  we  cannot  resist 
the  mysterious  charm  of  something  higher  ".     The  In- 


lESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  419 

carnate  Son  of  God  could  not  have  acted  more  hap- 
pily; on  the  one  hand,  veiling  his  divinity  sufficiently, 
in  order  not  to  frighten  his  followers  nor  crush  them, 
as  it  were,  under  the  weight  of  His  majesty;  on  the 
other  hand,  letting  it  be  sufficiently  surmised,  render- 
ing it  sufficiently  perceptible,  reveahng  it  slowly  and 
progressively,  so  that  the  faith  in  the  same  divinity 
might  enter  the  souls  of  His  disciples,  might  therein 
become  gradually  grounded,  and  at  last,  confirmed,  per- 
fected, and  completed  when  the  hour  should  arrive  for 
the  supreme  manifestation  and  the  great  revelation 
wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit.^ 

VI.  The  Perfection  of  Christ's  Knowledge. 
I.  general  survey. 

Before  concluding  this  essay,  we  must  examine  the 
hitherto  deferred  question  of  the  progressive  character 
of  Christ's  human  knowledge  and,  in  particular,  of 
that  consciousness  which  He  had  of  His  Messianic 
role  and  relationship  with  God.  As  we  have  seen, 
Christ  is  man.  The  entire  Gospel  attests  the  com- 
pleteness of  His  human  nature.  He  had  a  body  and 
soul  like  ours,  a  soul  endowed  with  the  same  powers, 
— of  intelligence,  of  sensible  perception,  and  of  will. 
His  body  was  submitted  to  the  ordinary  conditions  of 
physical  growth.  Thus,  seemingly.  His  soul-forces 
must  have  been  under  the  law  of  intellectual  and  moral 
development.  His  sensibility  is  aroused  by  contact 
with  men  and  things.  His  will  is  exerted  under  the 
influence  of  events  and  circumstances.  Why  should 
not  his  intelligence  have  acted  in  the  same  active  and 
efficacious  manner?  Why  should  not  self-reflexion, 
and  daily  experience  with  life,  have  constantly  in- 
creased His  mental  perceptions  and  imparted  to  His 
human  knowledge  a  veritable  and  continuous  progress  ? 

1  Rev.  Biblique,  1899,  p.  633. 


420  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

The  Gospel,  in  fact,  seems  to  indicate  that  the 
Saviour  enjoyed  an  intellectual  and  moral  development 
parallel  to  His  physical  growth.  As  we  read :  ''  Jesus 
advanced  in  wisdom  and  age  and  grace  with  God  and 
men  ".  It  is  thus  that  many  Fathers  of  the  Church 
interpret  this  text;  and,  taking  it  as  his  basis,  S. 
Thomas  Aquinas  gives  the  following  explanation: 
"Acquired  knowledge  is  due  to  the  activity  of  the  in- 
tellect, which  is  exercised,  not  all  at  once,  but  suc- 
cessively ;  so  that,  with  this  knowledge,  Christ  did  not 
know  everything  at  first,  but  gradually  and  in  due 
time,  that  is,  after  reaching  His  maturity.  This  is 
plain;  for  the  Evangelist  says  that  He  advanced  in 
wisdom  as  in  age  ".^ 

Christ,  however,  is  not  merely  man  like  other  men. 
His  humanity  is  closely  united  to  the  divinity.  His 
human  nature  is  penetrated  by  God's  power,  endowed 
with  an  ineffable  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  nay 
more,  uniquely  united  to  God's  very  essence  by  a 
union  that  is  substantial  and  personal.  What  is  the 
resultant  of  that  mysterious  union?  Has  not  this  un- 
usual contact  with  the  divinity  imparted  to  the 
Saviour's  body  and  soul  a  special  reflection  of  the 
divine  glory  and  a  special  share  in  the  divine  power? 

2.  Christ's  supernatural  and  experimental 
knowledge. 

As  the  Gospel  clearly  shows,  the  Sacred  body  of 
Christ  was  endowed  with  a  supernatural  power.  He 
walks  serenely  upon  the  waters.  He  appears  re- 
splendently  and  divinely  bright  upon  the  Mount  of 
Transfiguration ;  moreover,  the  sick  daily  crowd  about 
Him  and  are  cured  by  contact  with  Him.  His  very 
touch  heals  every  infirmity;  His  person  possesses  a 
hidden  and  mysterious  power  that  makes  its  influence 
felt  by  all  who  approach  Him. 

1  Lk.  ii.  40,  52 ;  Vacant,  art. :  Agnuctes,  V.  D.,  val.  i,  col. 
590 ;  S.  Thomas  Aquinas,  Summa  TheoL,  pt.  iii,  art.  2,  ad.  i  m. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


421 


His  soul,  also,  enjoys  vast  powers  and  manifests  a 
superhuman  force.  In  His  will  there  abides  a  superior 
power.  By  a  word,  by  a  gesture,  by  a  wish  He  heals 
maladies;  He  raises  the  dead;  He  commands  the  ele- 
ments. He  seems  to  have  at  His  disposal  the  divine 
power  itself,  the  faculty  to  employ  it  at  will  and  in  a 
sense  to  participate  in  God's  omnipotence.^ 

The  same  feature  is  noticeable  in  His  intelligence. 
Thus  He  knows  hidden  and  secret  things ;  He  reads 
the  deepest  thoughts  of  His  followers ;  He  announces 
the  various  circumstances  of  His  death  and  ensuing 
resurrection.  Throughout  all  the  incidents  that  led  to 
it,  He  shows  that  He  certainly  knows  its  exact  mo- 
ment and  precise  details.  He  tells  His  apostles  that 
He  will  make  them  fishers  of  men ;  and,  by  the  symbol 
of  the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes,  enables  them  to 
foresee  the  marvelous  results  of  their  apostolate.  He 
foretells  the  ruin  of  Capharnaum,  the  fall  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  gives  men  to  understand  that  the  chastise- 
ment of  the  Holy  City  would  occur  during  the  present 
generation.  He  also  announces  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  through  the  whole  world,  the  conversion  of 
the  Gentiles,  and  the  eternal  duration  of  the  Church 
which  He  founded  upon  the  rock  of  Peter.  Thus 
Christ  participates  in  the  divine  knowledge  as  well  as 
the  divine  power :  His  soul  is  permeated  and  illumined 
by  a  supernal  light. - 

We  are  not  to  imagine  that  the  Saviour's  various 
questions  argue  an  ignorance  of  the  point  at  issue ;  they 
are  rather  a  manner  of  speaking  that  conforms  to  His 
usual  method  of  instruction  and  teaching.  Thus,  of 
the  possessed  man  from  Gerasa,  He  asked :  "  What  is 

^Lepin,  Jesus  Messie,  p.  269;  Engl.  tr.  p.  307. 

2  Mk.  xiv.  13  and  par.;  xiv.  42;  Lk.  vii.  39,  47;  xvii.  17; 
Mk.  ii.  6-8  and  par.;  viii.  16-17;  Mt.  xvi.  7-8;  Lk.  vii.  39-40; 
xi.  38-39;  cf.  Lepin,  op.  cit.,  p.  194;  Mk.  xiii.  10;  cf.  Mt.  xxiv. 
14;  Mk.  xiv.  9;  cf.  Mt.  xxvi.  13:  cf.  Lepin,  op.  cit.,  p=  387; 
Engl.   tr.  p.   436. 


422  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

thy  name  ?"  Of  the  infirm  woman :  ''  Who  hath 
touched  me?" — "Who  hath  touched  my  garment?" 
Of  the  lunatic :  "  How  often  hath  this  happened  to 
thee?"  Of  His  disciples  at  the  miracles  of  the  loaves : 
"  How  many  have  you  ?"  And  at  Capharnaum,  after 
asking  His  disciples :  "  What  did  you  treat  of  in  the 
way  ?"  as  they  dare  not  admit  that  they  had  been  dis- 
cussing the  topic  of  precedence  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  He  replies  directly  to  their  hidden  preoccu- 
pations by  telling  that  whoever  wishes  to  be  first  should 
take  the  lowest  place  and  become  the  servant  of  all/ 

Jesus'  human  intelligence  therefore,  was  apparently 
endowed  with  two  kinds  of  knowledge:  the  one  in- 
ferior and  experimental,  acquired  by  the  exercise  of 
His  natural  powers,  conditioned  by  the  time  and  place 
in  which  He  happened  to  live,  and,  like  that  of  other 
men,  under  the  law  of  successive  improvement:  the 
other,  superior  and  supernatural,  independent  of  bodily 
organs,  of  environment  and  personal  experience,  and 
immediately  derived  from  the  divine  light  illuminat- 
ing His  spirit. 

3.    THE    PERFECTION     OF    JESUS'     SUPERNATURAL 
KNOWLEDGE. 

To  what  extent,  it  may  be  asked,  was  this  super- 
natural knowledge  imparted  to  Jesus  ?  It  could  hardly 
have  been  an  infinite  perfection ;  for  the  infinite  is  the 
privilege  of  God  alone.  If,  in  His  divine  nature, 
Christ's  knowledge  is  divine  absolutely  speaking,  in 
His  human  nature,  it  could  be  but  finite  and  limited. 
Theologians,  however,  admit  that  in  virtue  of  the 
Hypostatic  Union,  His  supernatural  knowledge  was 
most  extensive  and  supremely  perfect  in  a  degree 
knowable   and  perceivable  by   God   alone,   either  be- 

1  Mk.  V.  9 ;  Lk.  viii.  30 ;  Mk.  v.  30  and  par. ;  Mk.  ix.  20 ; 
Mk.  vi.  38;  cf.  Mk.  ix.  15;  Lk.  xxiv.  18;  Mk.  ix.  32-35  and 
par.;  cf.  Jo,  iv.  16;  vi.  5-6. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  423 

cause  from  the  moment  of  His  Incarnation,  His  in- 
telligence enjoyed  the  immediate  and  constant  in- 
tuition of  all  things  in  the  divine  essence,  or  because 
it  beheld  successively  and  at  will  the  same  objects 
through  the  medium  of  a  specially  divine  light  directly 
issuing  from  the  divine  being/ 

"  Jesus  Christ  and  His  disciples "  says  Harnack, 
"  lived  in  their  day  just  as  we  live  in  ours ;  that  is  to 
say,  their  feelings,  their  thoughts,  their  judgments  and 
their  efforts  were  bounded  by  the  horizon  and  the 
surroundings  in  which  their  own  nation  was  set  and 
by  its  condition  at  the  time.  Had  it  been  otherwise, 
they  would  not  have  been  men  of  flesh  and  blood,  but 
spectral  beings.  ...  To  be  a  man  means,  in  the  first 
place,  to  possess  a  certain  mental  and  spiritual  dis- 
position, determined  in  such  and  such  a  way,  and 
thereby  limited  and  circumscribed;  and,  in  the  second 
place,  it  means  to  be  situated,  with  this  disposition, 
in  an  historical  environment  which  in  its  turn  is  also 
limited  and  circumscribed.  Outside  of  this  there  are 
no  such  things  as  '  men  '.  It  at  once  follows  that  a 
man  can  think,  speak,  and  do  absolutely  nothing  at 
all  in  which  his  peculiar  disposition  and  his  own  age 
are  not  co-efficients."  ^ 

Similarly,  it  is  because  he  forgets  what  can  and 
should  produce  the  substantial  union  of  Christ's  hu- 
manity with  His  divinity,  and  because  he  seems  to 
suppose  as  fully  sustained  the  hypothesis  that  Christ's 
knowledge  was  infinite  in  character,  that  Loisy  thus 
inveighs  against  theologians :  "  They  represent  the 
Saviour  as  dissimulating  His  infinite  knowledge  and 
leaving  His  followers  in  their  ignorance.  But,  be- 
fore affirming  this  without  proof,  would  it  not  be 
better  to  verify  the  soundness  of  the  theory,  and  to 
consider  whether   a   human   brain   is   capable  of  the 

^Vacant,  op.  cit,  V.  D.,  col.  593, 

2  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity  f  p.  13. 


424  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

knowledge  ascribed  to  Jesus ;  whether  it  is  possible 
in  an  earthly  being;  whether  it  is  compatible  with  the 
conditions  of  present  existence,  of  moral  life,  of  hu- 
man merit?  .  .  .  When  theologians  say  that  Christ's 
person,  in  virtue  of  His  divine  knowledge,  had  al- 
ways known  what  His  human  knowledge  could  pos- 
sibly ignore,  so  that,  at  least,  in  the  higher  part  of 
His  being,  Jesus  could  not  be  ignorant  of  anything  at 
all, — I  fear  that  true  philosophers  realize  that  they 
are  confronted  by  a  mechanical  and  artificial  arrange- 
ment, not  by  a  rational  conception  of  the  matter,  and 
that  the  sublimity  of  the  theory  does  not  seem  to 
them  to  be  free  from  weakness  ".^ 

But,  whatever  Loisy  may  say,  the  theological  teach- 
ing that  ascribes  to  Christ's  humanity  both  an  acquired 
and  a  higher  knowledge  beyond  the  capabilities  of 
human  nature,  is  not  a  "  mechanical  and  artificial  "  ar- 
rangement but  rather  a  "  rational  and  logical  "  one. 
Its  basis  lies  in  the  data  of  integral  and  unbiased 
criticism  which  presents  in  the  historical  Christ  "  a 
quite  special  relation  of  union  "  with  God,  a  "  sub- 
stantial communication  with  the  divine  Spirit,  that  is, 
God  Himself  ", — such  are  Loisy's  terms, — and  on  the 
other  hand,  manifold  signs  of  a  supernatural  knowl- 
edge.^ 

Loisy,  it  is  true,  asserts  that  "  all  went  on,  during 
the  Saviour's  career,  as  if  this  extraordinary  knowl- 
edge did  not  exist ".  But  to  reach  this  conclusion, 
we  must  eliminate,  on  set  purpose,  the  whole  assem- 
blage of  Gospel  facts  that  prove  the  contrary,  and, 
this  having  been  done,  there  would  still  remain,  in 
Jesus'  entire  Gospel  personality,  what  Loisy  calls 
"  something  divine  that  raises  Him  above  common  hu- 
manity, even  the  best  ".^ 

1  Loisy,  Autour  d'un  petit  livre,  pp.  139,  140. 

2  Cf.  Lepin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  246-247. 

3  Loisy,  Autour,  p.  140;  cf.  Lepin,  op.  cit.,  p.  375;  Loisy, 
Le  Quat.  Ev.,  p.  38.. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


425 


4.    THE   END  OF   THE   WORLD. 

It  seems  that  these  theological  conclusions  do  not 
meet  with  the  opposition  of  critics.  The  Gospel  tes- 
timony, in  fact,  argues  in  the  Saviour  some  partici- 
pation in  God's  omniscience,  in  this  sense  that  human 
intelligence  seemed  susceptible  of  receiving  indefi- 
nitely, as  it  were,  the  communication  of  divine  knowl- 
edge; just  as,  in  a  way,  divine  omnipotence  is  at  the 
disposal  of  His  will.  In  this  respect  we  truly  find  a 
positive  basis  for  the  current  conclusions  of  theology; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  does  not  seem  that  the 
critical  data  are  formally  opposed  to  them. 

Some  critics,  indeed,  object  that  the  Saviour  did 
not  know  the  time  of  His  final  advent,  and  also  that 
He  was  really  mistaken  about  the  exact  moment  of 
its  occurrence.  We  are  told  that  He  believed  the 
world  would  end  during  the  course  of  His  own  genera- 
tion; that  He  did  not  foresee  the  existence  of  that 
Church  which,  for  centuries,  was  to  be  the  preparation 
for  the  Kingdom  of  heaven.  Such  is  the  view  of  the 
extreme  Rationalists  like  Renan,  and  is  adopted  by 
such  Liberal  Protestants  as  Vernes,  Stapfer,  Schwartz- 
kopf,  H.  J.  and  O.  Holtzmann,  as  also  by  Loisy.^ 

But,  a  priori,  nothing  is  more  unlikely  than  such  a 
hypothesis.  If  Jesus  is  truly  the  Messiah  and  Founder 
of  the  new  kingdom,  of  the  final  religion,  the  supreme 
mediator  between  God  and  man,  united  substan- 
tially to  God,  is  it  probable  that  He  should  have  been 
formally  wrong  on  a  point  of  such  vital  importance 
and  of  such  influence  upon  His  mission?  Is  it  likely 
that  He  was  mistaken  about  the  very  character  of  His 
work,  that  the   Church   which   considers   Him   as  its 


1  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  284,  288 ;  Vernes,  Hist,  des 
Idees  Mess.,  p.  192;,  Stapfer,  The  Death  and  Res.  of  Jesus 
Christ,  p.  48;  Schwartzhopff,  Die  Weissagungen  Jesu  Christi, 
1895 ;  Holtzmann,  H.,  Lehrh.  der  N.  T.  TheoL,  1897,  vol.  i,  p. 
312;  Holtzmann,  O.,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  358,  Ger.  ed.,  Loisy, 
The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  2,  53,  123;  Autour,  p.  141. 


426  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

founder  and  head  could  have  been  estabUshed  without 
His  intervention  and  foresight?  This,  indeed,  seems 
impossible  to  grant.  His  very  position  as  head  of  the 
future  Kingdom  can  hardly  be  reconciled  with  a  posi- 
tive error  about  the  epoch  at  which  He  was  to  inau- 
gurate His  triumphal  royalty.  His  very  position  as 
chief  of  the  Christian  Church  compels  us  to  think  that 
He  has  not  altogether  overlooked  the  future  destiny 
of  the  Christian  movement:  a  fortiori,  His  substan- 
tial and  personal  union  with  the  divinity  prevents 
us  from  supposing  that  His  human  soul  was  the  vic- 
tim of  an  error  of  such  character  and  importance.  It 
is  a  question  of  fitness  and  dignity,  but,  it  seems  in- 
deed, of  essential  dignity  and  of  necessary  fitness.  It 
must  be  said  that  this  a  priori  consideration  is  singu- 
larly confirmed  by  the  proofs  which  we  have  given, 
to  the  effect  that,  on  a  number  of  less  important  points, 
the  Saviour  possessed  a  superhuman  knowledge  which 
prejudice  alone  could  refuse  to  recognize  in  Him. 

5.    PROPHECY    OF    THE    FALL    OF     JERUSALEM. 

If  we  now  submit  to  a  critical  examination  the  texts 
wherein,  it  is  alleged,  Christ  affirms  the  near  approach 
of  His  last  advent,  we  can  assure  ourselves  that  they 
demand  a  quite  different  interpretation.  What  is  very 
apparent  at  first  sight  in  the  sayings  and  discourses 
on  the  last  things,  is  that  the  Saviour  announces,  as 
about  to  happen,  a  final  catastrophe  which  would  de- 
stroy His  own  nation.  He  frequently  reproves  the 
perverse  generation,  which,  turning  a  deaf  ear  to  His 
teachings,  is  going  to  put  Him  and  His  disciples  to 
death,  just  as  they  have  killed  the  prophets  and  holy 
ones  of  ancient  Israel.  To  the  guilty  generation  of 
His  time  He  foretells  a  terrible  chastisement,  the  spe- 
cial feature  of  which  is  the  ruin  of  the  Holy  City.  As 
Jonas  had  been  sent  to  Nineveh  to  preach  penance 
under  threat  of  the  destruction  of  the  city  after  forty 
days :  so  Christ  also  is  come  on  a  mission  of  pardon ; 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


427 


but  He  gives  the  people  to  understand  that,  if  Israel 
remains  deaf  to  His  voice,  the  fate  with  which  Nine- 
veh was  threatened  shall  befall  its  capital  city.  Jeru- 
salem shall  be  laid  waste ;  its  homes  desolated  and  de- 
stroyed; its  children  killed,  because  it  has  rejected  its 
Saviour  and  unheeded  the  time  of  mercy.  Yea,  upon 
the  present  generation  shall  the  scourge  of  God  fall; 
it  is  upon  that  ungrateful  generation  which  rejected 
Christ  and  persecuted  His  disciples  that  shall  fall  the 
chastisement  of  Israel  for  its  bygone  crimes.^ 

Such  was  Jesus'  prediction.  In  its  general  tenor, 
its  authenticity  is  undeniable;  and  to  claim  that  it  is 
based  upon  the  catastrophe  of  70  A.  D.,  which  is 
plainly  its  realization,  is  erroneous.  Nor  is  the  pro- 
phecy recorded  in  some  isolated  text,  but  in  many 
passages  that  describe  the  Saviour's  public  ministry, 
and  in  a  context  which  suggests  the  idea  that  the  words 
were  taken  down  just  as  they  were  uttered  and  noted 
as  circumstances  arose.  The  declarations  are  found 
notably  in  SS.  Matthew  and  Luke;  and  a  comparison 
of  these  two  Synoptic  accounts  shows  that  these  par- 
ticular narratives  are  independent,  and  both  derived 
from  the  early  collections  of  Sayings,  or  Logia. 

The  three  Synoptic  Gospels  mention  in  connec- 
tion with  the  principal  one  of  these  declarations,  a 
feature  so  characteristic  as  to  be  beyond  suspicion: 
Jesus  leaves  the  Temple,  where  he  has  just  com- 
mended the  poor  widow  who  had  dropped  two  small 
coins  into  the  box  standing  at  the  vestibule  of  the 
Temple.     He  goes  on  His  way,  followed  by  His  dis- 

1  The  word  eschatological — relating  to  the  end,  from  the 
Greek  eaxarog,  last ;  Mt.  viii.  12 ;  Mt.  xii.  39,  42,  45 ;  Mt.  xvi. 
4;  Lk.  xi.  29,  31,  32;  Mk.  viii.  28;  Mk.  ix.  18;  Mt.  xvii.  16; 
Lk.  ix.  41;  Mt.  xi.  16;  Lk.  vii.  31;  xvii.  25;  Mt.  xii.  39-45; 
Mt.  xvi.  4;  Lk.  xi.  29-32;  Mk.  xiii.  2,  3;  Mt.  xxiv.  2,  34; 
Lk.  xxi.  6,  32;  Mt.  xxiii.  33-39;  Lk.  xi.  50-51;  Mk.  xii.  9;  Mt. 
xxi.  41;  Lk.  XX.  16;  Mt.  xxii.  7;  Lk.  xiii.  34-35;  xix.  41-44; 
xxiii.  28-31. 


428  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ciples  and  passes  through  the  gate  leading  to  the 
Mount  of  OUves.  "  Master,"  one  of  the  disciples  ex- 
claims, "  behold  what  manner  of  stones,  and  what 
.  buildings  are  here !"  And  He  replies :  "  Seest  thou 
all  these  great  buildings?  There  shall  not  be  left  a 
stone  upon  a  stone,  that  shall  not  be  thrown  down  ". 
And  whilst  standing  upon  the  Mount  and  facing 
towards  the  Temple,  He  gives  them  to  understand  that 
what  He  has  just  foretold  shall  happen  before  the  end 
of  that  generation.^ 

The  reality  of  the  predictions  of  the  Saviour  is 
also  confirmed  by  the  unquestionable  apprehensions  of 
members  of  the  early  Church,  which  are  so  strikingly 
attested  in  S.  Paul's  Epistles  written  long  before  the 
Judaeo-Roman  war.  The  general  expectancy  of  an 
approaching  catastrophe  and  of  a  great  upheaval, 
wherein  was  perceived  the  near  inauguration  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  necessarily  supposes  that  Jesus'  de- 
clarations were  analogous  to  those  given  in  the  Synop- 
tic accounts.  The  very  charge  brought  against  S. 
Stephen — a  charge  whose  historical  value  is  well  guar- 
anteed, since  the  episode  in  which  he  figures  and  the 
terms  in  which  it  is  expressed  are  so  characteristic — 
certainly  seems  to  refer  to  authentic  statements 
whereby  Christ  had  announced  a  real  destruction  of 
the  Temple,  leading  to  a  complete  revolution  in  re- 
ligious worship  and  traditions. 

Thus  we  read :  "  We  have  heard  Him  say,  that  this 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  shall  destroy  this  place,  and  shall 
change  the  traditions  which  Moses  delivered  unto  us." 
The  terms  of  this  charge  would  appear  to  suppose 
something  besides  the  mere  word  uttered  by  Jesus 
when  expelling  the  sellers  from  the  Temple,  and  re- 
called by  the  false  witnesses  in  presence  of  the  San- 
hedrin.^' 

1  Mk.  xiii.  I ;  Mt.  xxiv.  i ;  Lk.  xxi.  5. 

2  Ac.  vi.  14;  Jo.  ii.  19;  Mk.  xiv.  58;  Mt.  xxvi.  61;  Weiss, 
B.,  Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  ii,  p.  439,  Ger.  ed. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  429 

Even  the  most  independent  critics,  indeed,  recog- 
nize in  a  general  way  the  authenticity  of  the  predic- 
tions made  by  Jesus  concerning  the  Palestinian  dis- 
aster. It  is  admitted  not  only  by  such  scholars  as  B. 
Weiss,  Wendt,  O.  Holtzmann,  but  also  by  Vernes, 
Stapfer,  Wernle,  Wellhausen,  Schmiedel,  and  Renan. 
In  his  turn  Loisy  agrees  that  "  the  prophecies  in  the 
Synoptics  concerning  the  ruin  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the 
Temple  may  have  their  starting-point  in  the  teaching 
of  the  Saviour  ".^ 

B.  Weiss  remark  with  reference  to  the  saying 
*'  There  shall  not  be  left  a  stone  upon  a  stone  " :  *'  All 
doubts  about  the  authenticity  of  this  prophetic  utter- 
ance must  be  put  aside.  .  .  .  Although  S.  Mark  wrote 
after  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem,  nevertheless  the  prophecy 
which  he  relates  is  in  no  way  the  mere  recording  of  a 
past  event ;  for  the  Temple  was  really  destroyed  by  the 
fire  and  not  by  the  hand  of  man.''  ■ 

"  Jesus  was  certain,"  says  Wendt,  "  that  His  own 
generation  would  witness  the  great  chastisement.  .  .  . 
In  truth  He  announced  a  divine  judgment  against 
Jerusalem."  ^ 

O.  Holtzmann  also  affirms  the  authenticity  of  the 
declarations  made  by  Christ  with  reference  to  the 
punishment  of  His  own  generation,  and  of  the  text  of 
S.  Mark  xiii.  2,  and  parallel  passages.* 

Vernes  writes:  ''One  of  these  elements  (of  the 
Discourses  on  the  Last  Things)  emanates  from  Jesus. 
It  contains  a  prediction  of  the  ruin  of  Jerusalem  and 
of  the  trials  to  which  the  disciples  will  be  submitted 
before  the  advent  of  the  Kingdom  of  God."  ° 

Stapfer  admits  the  authentic  character  of  the  pro- 

1  Loisy,  Le  Quatr.  Evang.,  p.  296. 

2  Weiss,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  422,  437,  439,  Ger.  ed. 

3  Wendt,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  p.  594,  Ger.  ed. 
*  Holtzmann.  O.,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  145. 

5  Vernes,  op.  cit.,  p.  237. 


430  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

phecies  about  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  and  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem.  Referring  to  the  discourse  in  ques- 
tion, he  says :  "  Its  authenticity,  as  a  whole,  appears 
to  me  beyond  dispute.  Who,  indeed,  could  have  in- 
vented Mark's  account  ?  "  ^ 

Wernle  says :  "  It  is  true  that  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple  of  Jerusalem  confirms  the  prophetic  utter- 
ance of  Jesus."  2 

Wellhausen  grants  that  Jesus  had  prophesied  the 
ruin  of  the  Temple  and  that  the  event  itself  has  jus- 
tified his  prophecy.^ 

Schmiedel  thinks  that  "  Jesus  could  have  foreseen 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem."  But  we  do  not  see 
how  this  critic  can  add  "  even  without  supernatural 
knowledge  ".* 

**  One  day,"  says  Renan,  "  some  of  His  disciples, 
who  were  better  acquainted  with  Jerusalem  than  He, 
wished  to  draw  His  attention  on  the  beauty  of  the 
Temple's  buildings,  the  admirable  choice  of  ma- 
terials, and  the  wealth  of  votive  offerings  that  cov- 
ered the  walls.  '  You  see  all  these  buildings,'  said 
He ;  '  but  I  tell  you  there  shall  not  be  left  one  stone 
upon  another ! '  .  .  .  A  profound  feeling  of  sadness 
marred  for  Jesus  the  beauty  of  the  spectacle  that 
filled  all  other  Israelites  with  joy  and  pride:  '  O  Jeru- 
salem, Jerusalem,  thou  that  killest  the  prophets,  and 
stonest  those  who  are  sent  to  thee !'...!  tell  you 
that  all  this  blood  will  be  required  of  this  generation !  ' 
.  .  .  The  terrible  dogma  of  the  substitution  of  the 
Gentiles — the  idea  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  to  be 
transferred  to  others,  because  those  for  whom  it  was 

1  Stapfer,  The  Death  and  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ, 
PP-  53-54,  6o,  n.  i,  Fr.  ed. 

2  Wernle,  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  p.  370,  Ger.  ed. 

3  Wellhausen,  Das  Evang.  Marci,  1903. 

*  Schmiedel,  art. :  Gospels,  E.  B.,  par.  145,  col.  1888. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  431 

destined  would  not  receive  it — recurs  as  a  bloody 
menace  against  the  aristocracy."  ^ 

Naught,  indeed,  is  more  extraordinary  than  this 
prediction,  naught  more  remarkable  than  its  fulfilment. 
The  humble  Galilean  goes  about  announcing  a  fright- 
ful cataclysm  soon  to  befall  His  country.  It  is  a  dis- 
aster to  which  nothing  can  be  compared  in  the  history 
of  mankind;  it  is  the  destruction  of  the  theocratic 
capital  as  also  the  towns  of  the  country  districts  along 
the  lake  of  Genesereth :  it  is  the  collapse  of  this  Temple 
wherein  the  nation's  religious  life  is  centered.  The 
chastisement  is  imminent :  it  shall  happen  during  the 
course  of  the  present  generation  and  apparently 
towards  its  end,  when  there  shall  still  be  Hving  many 
of  those  who  surround  the  Saviour.  And  lo,  forty 
years  later,  the  Roman  armies  sacked  Palestine,  put- 
ting everything  to  fire  and  sword,  laying  waste  the 
Holy  City,  reducing  its  Temple  to  a  heap  of  ruins. 
The  national  and  religious  life  of  Israel  is  no  more. 
The  sacrifices  have  ceased  forever.  Jerusalem  no 
longer  exists  as  the  city  of  the  great  King.  Ages  shall 
come  and  go  over  the  tomb  of  the  ancient  people  of 
God. 

Is  there  not  a  marvelous  agreement  with  the  Sa- 
viour's prophecy  in  the  unusual  grandeur  of  that  revo- 
lution and  the  precise  epoch  of  its  occurrence,  and 
should  we  not  see  therein  the  proof  of  His  super- 
human knowledge?  Naught  in  the  nation's  poUtical 
and  social  situation  could  enable  Him  to  foresee 
that  approaching  catastrophe ;  naught,  especially,  could 
give  to  Him,  concerning  the  exact  moment  when  it 
would  come,  the  astounding  certainty  of  which  He  gave 
proof.  The  alleged  familiarity  which  He  enjoyed 
with  the  ancient  apocalyptic  writings  does  not  at  all 
explain  the  precise  and  assured  character  of  His  af- 
firmation concerning  the  epoch  and  the  importance  of 

1  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  330,  333,  341 ;  Antichrist,  pp. 
259,  292. 


432  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  revolution.  Still  less  can  we  ascribe  it  to  a  happy 
coincidence  that  the  event  foretold  should  occur  at  the 
very  moment  announced ;  that,  in  accordance  with  the 
Saviour's  words,  it  should  plainly  bear  the  character 
of  a  chastisement  meted  out  by  a  God  who  rejected 
His  people;  and  that,  in  harmony  with  the  ensemble 
of  His  declarations,  it  should  mark  the  beginning  of 
a  new  religious  era  in  human  history.  Nineteen  cen- 
turies have  only  served  to  prove,  in  an  exceptional 
manner,  the  unusual  import  and  superhuman  char- 
acter of  this  prophecy  of  Jesus. 

Now,  if  the  Saviour  could  so  clearly  foresee  and  fore- 
tell with  so  great  an  assurance  an  event  so  unique,  so 
far  beyond  human  foresight,  is  it  not  very  unlikely 
that  He  was  formally  mistaken,  as  some  claim,  con- 
cerning the  final  epoch  of  the  world?  The  reality  of 
Christ's  supernatural  knowledge  on  the  subject  of  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem  is,  to  all  appearances,  logically  ir- 
reconcilable with  the  theory  of  positive  error  concern- 
ing the  nearness  of  the  last  advent. 

The  supposition  that  Jesus  was  positively  mistaken 
on  this  matter  is  expressly  rejected,  not  only  by  all 
Cathohc  authors,  but  also  by  Protestant  critics  such  as 
Godet,  Bovon,  and  Briggs,  as  also  by  the  eminent  An- 
glicans Swete,  Plummer,  Stevens,  Salmond,  Brown, 
and  Sanday.  It  is  also  noteworthy  that  various  Pro- 
testant authors,  while  fully  admitting  that  the  Saviour 
may  hqve  believed  that  He  would  return  during  the 
course  of  His  own  generation,  nevertheless  decline  to 
charge  Him  with  an  error  properly  speaking,  and  sup- 
pose only  a  kind  of  conditional  belief  on  His  part. 
Among  such  writers  are  B.  Weiss,  Wendt,  and 
Charles.^ 

1  Mangenot,  art. :  Fin  du  Monde,  V.  D.,  col.  2272 ;  Godet, 
Com.  sur  L'Ev.  de  S.  Luc,  3rd  ed.,  vol.  ii,  p.  430;  Bovon, 
Theol.  du  N.  T.,  2d  ed.,  vol.  i,  p.  483;  Briggs,  The  Messiah 
of  the  Gospels,  p.  157;  Swete,  The  Gospel  According  to  S. 
Mark,  p.  310;    Plummer,  Com.   on  the  Gospel  According  to 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  433 

6.    THE  EXPANSION   OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

Another  fact  that  tends  to  confirm  the  correctness 
of  the  foregoing  conclusion  is  that  Jesus  really  an- 
nounced, as  especially  inevitable  before  His  final  ad- 
vent, a  number  of  events  which  would  require  consid- 
erable time  for  their  fulfilment,  and  which  are  unintel- 
ligible if  the  Saviour  thought  the  world  was  to  end 
after  a  single  generation. 

From  all  the  teachings  of  Christ,  in  fact,  it  follows 
that,  in  His  view,  the  advent  of  the  final  Kingdom 
would  be  preceded  by  a  time  of  preparation  wherein 
the  Gospel,  which  is  not  only  the  announcement  of 
the  future  Kingdom,  but  a  full  and  practical  code  of 
moral  and  religious  life,  completing  and  perfecting 
the  Old  Law,  was  to  penetrate  the  souls  of  men,  to 
Tegenerate  and  transform  them  in  view  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  On  the  other  hand,  the  assembly  of  souls 
thus  permeated  with  the  new  life,  was  to  form  a  true 
society,  preluding  to  the  company  of  the  elect  who 
shall  reign  in  heaven ;  it  was  to  be  an  anticipation  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  or,  rather,  it  is  already  that  very 
Kingdom',  realized  in  an  initial  and  preparatory  phase 
and  awaiting  that  final  and  perfect  stage  which  shall 
mark  its  consummation  at  the  end  of  time. 

Loisy  thinks  that  the  Gospel  presents  the  Kingdom 
of  God  only  as  destined  to  be  inaugurated  at  the  last 
advent.  Even  in  that  supposition,  the  coming  of 
the  real  Kingdom  would  be  preceded  by  a  period  of 
preparation,  namely,  the  period  of  the  Gospel  preach- 
ing. He  says  himself,  when  speaking  of  the  Kingdom, 
"  its  root  is  within ;  it  lies  like  a  precious  seed  in  the 
soul  of  each  believer  ".    And  referring  to  the  Parable 

S.  Luke,  3rd  ed.,  p.  485 ;  Stevens,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus, 
p.  169;  Salmond,  art.:  Eschatology,  H.  D.,  p.  750;  Brown, 
art:  Parousia,  H.  D.,  p.  677;  Sanday,  art.:  Jesus  Christ, 
H.  D.,  p.  620;  Weiss,  B.,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  446,  Ger.  ed. ; 
Biblical  Theol.  N.  T.,  vol.  i,  p.  149;  Wendt,  op.  cif.,  p.  581, 
Ger.  ed. ;  Charles,  art. :  Eschatology,  E.  B.,  par.  84,  col.  1373. 

28 


434  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

of  the  Seed  which  grows  without  the  farmer's  heeding, 
he  says  that  "  in  reahty,  the  comparison  bears  on  the 
Kingdom  as  being  preached  to  m_en  and  the  Kingdom 
made  manifest,  the  first  corresponding  to  the  sowing- 
time,  the  second  to  the  harvest;  between  the  two  Hes 
the  time  when  the  seed  germinates  and  the  Gospel 
spreads.  The  parables  of  the  mustard  seed  and  of  the 
leaven,  which  emphasizes  the  contrast  between  a  small 
beginning  and  a  great  final  result,  refer  also  to  the 
antithesis  between  the  Kingdom  started  by  the  evan- 
gelical teaching  and  the  Kingdom  developed  in  its  de- 
finitive manifestation."  ^ 

It  also  appears  to  follow  from  numerous  Gospel 
texts  that  the  Saviour  really  described  the  Kingdom  as 
being  anticipated  in  an  initial  phase  that  was  but  pre- 
paratory to  its  completion.  Whatever  Loisy  may 
think,  the  parables  of  the  seed,  of  the  mustard  seed, 
and  of  the  leaven  do  not  simply  refer  to  the  Kingdom 
in  its  preparatory  stage :  they  show  it  as  an  already 
existing  and  concrete  reality,  in  process  of  formation, 
of  improvement,  and  of  extension.  With  relation  to 
the  future,  it  is  a  preparation ;  but,  in  itself  and  under 
a  particular  form,  it  is  already  realized.  The  Saviour's 
parables  are  fully  intelligible  only  if  we  suppose  that 
He  wished  to  announce  the  Kingdom  as  a  present  real- 
ity, established  slowly  and  gradually,  alike  in  the  souls 
of  individuals  as  in  the  world  at  large,  and  which,  at 
the  end  of  time  shall  expand  into  a  glorious  revelation 
and  a  shining  transformation. 

Again,  it  is  impossible  to  give  any  other  satisfactory 
interpretation  than  this  in  the  case  of  the  following 
texts :  "  The  Kingdom  of  God  is  within  you  " ;  "  if  I, 
by  the  spirit  of  God,  cast  out  devils,  then  is  the  King- 
dom of  God  come  upon  you  " ;  "  Woe  to  you.  Scribes 
and  Pharisees,  hypocrites ;  because  you  shut  the  King- 

1  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  pp.  57,  ^2,  67 ;  Vernes, 
op.  cit.,  p.  198. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  435 

dom  of  heaven  against  men :  for  you  yourselves  do  not 
enter  in;  and  those  that  are  going  in,  you  suffer  not 
to  enter  " ;  "  And  from  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist 
until  now,  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  suffereth  violence, 
and  the  violent  bear  it  away  ".^ 

The  same  opinion  is  held  by  numerous  critics,  such 
as  Sanday,  Stevens,  Bovon,  B.  Weiss,  Wendt,  O. 
Holtzmann,  and  Harnack.  Wernle,  also,  while  claim- 
ing that  Jesus'  view-point  was  strictly  eschatological, 
recognizes  that  this  view-point,  both  in  S.  Mark  and 
in  S.  Matthew,  is  not  exclusive  of  the  presence  of  the 
Kingdom  in  an  initial  stage,  and  that  we  must  trace  to 
the  Saviour  the  germ  of  the  idea,  found  in  S.  Paul 
and  in  the  Apocalypse,  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  real- 
ized in  the  Church.^ 

Remarkable,  indeed,  it  is  that  the  Saviour  should 
emphasize  the  idea  that  the  Christian  life  would  grow 
slowly  in  the  hearts  of  the  faithful,  that  the  Gospel 
preaching  would  spread  gradually  in  the  world,  like 
the  grain  of  wheat  which,  after  being  put  into  the 
ground,  takes  root  invisibly  and  grows  silently.  So, 
too,  the  mustard-seed  becomes  a  large  tree  where  the 
birds  of  the  air  gather  together;  and  the  lump  of 
leaven  transforms  the  whole  mass ;  and  the  field  sown 
by  the  sower  is  at  length  covered  with  wheat,  which, 
along  with  the  tares,  keeps  growing  until  the  harvest : 
thus  the  Church  of  the  Gospel,  or  the  Kingdom  of  God 
in  its  primal  phase,  was  to  grow  slowly  and  gradually 
expand  until  its  supreme  completion  should  come.^ 

1  Lk.  xvii.  21;  Mt.  xii.  28;  Mt.  xxiii.  13;  Mt.  xi.  12. 

2  Sanday,  op.  cit.,  p.  620;  Stevens,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus, 
p.  165 ;  Bovon,  op.  cit.,  2d  ed.,  p.  400 ;  Weiss,  B.,  Bibl.  TheoL 
N.  T.,  vol.  i,  par.  14,  p.  68;  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  249,  Ger.  ed., 
Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  pp.  196,  199,  334,  Ger.  ed. ;  Harnack, 
What  is  Christianity F  p.  42;  Wernle,  Die  Reichgoitteshoffnung, 
1903 ;  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  132,  165 ;  Rose,  Studies  on  the 
Gospels,  p.  106 ;  Lagrange,  art. :  Rcz.  Bibl..  1903,  p.  307 ; 
Bat'ifol.  art.:  Bullet,  de  Litt.  EccL,  1904,  p.  38. 

3  Mk.  iv.  3,  20;  Mt.  xiii.  3;  Lk.  viii.  5;  Mk.  iv.  30;  Mt.  xiii. 
31;  Lk.  xiii.  18;  Mt.  xiii.  24,  27. 


436  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Bruce  alludes  to  "  the  parables  which  represent  the 
Kingdom  as  under  the  law  of  growth  "  and  ''  seem  to 
imply  a  Christian  era  indefinitely  prolonged  "  and  he 
adds :  "  although  some  of  these  Logia  pertain  to  a 
later  period  and  one  less  guaranteed  by  tradition,  there 
is  no  reason  to  doubt  about  their  authenticity  ",^ 

The  work  of  preaching  the  Gospel,  moreover,  ac- 
cording to  Jesus'  intention,  was  to  be  carried  beyond 
the  frontiers  of  Palestine,  the  Christian  life  commu- 
nicated to  the  Gentiles,  and  the  New  Society  extended 
throughout  the  whole  world.  After  His  resurrection 
He  said  to  His  apostles :  *'  Go  .  .  .  preach  the  Gospel 
to  every  creature  ".  This  declaration  is  found  in  the 
three  Synoptic  accounts  which,  when  compared,  prove 
to  be  mutually  independent  and  confirmatory.  Nor, 
again,  is  the  triple  passage  isolated;  for,  in  two  in- 
stances, SS.  Matthew  and  Mark  attribute  this  an- 
nouncement to  Jesus,  namely,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
great  discourse  concerning  the  ruin  of  the  Temple, 
and  of  the  repast  at  Bethany.  The  meaning  of  the 
Saviour's  saying  is  also  found  in  His  own  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Parable  of  the  Seed :  "  The  field  "  sown 
by  the  Son  of  Man  "  is  the  world  ".  Many  critics 
consider  that  S.  Mark  xvi.  9-20  is  an  addition  to  the 
primitive  work,  and  written  very  early,  if  not  imme- 
diately, after  the  main  portion.  Such  is  the  view  of 
Salmond  and  Swete.  But  we  think  that  even  in  that 
case,  the  text  mentioned  may  still  reproduce  an  au- 
thentic primitive  tradition. ^ 

Similarly,  the  various  texts  wherein  Christ  an- 
nounces the  repudiation  of  the  Jewish  people  and  the 
call  of  the  Gentiles  serve  to  confirm  the  Gospel  testi- 

1  Bruce,  art. :  Jesus,  E.  B.,  par.  2,2,  col.  2454. 

2  Mk.  xvi.  5 ;  Mt.  xxviii,  19 ;  Lk.  xxiv.  47 ;  cf.  Ac.  i.  8 ; 
Salmond,  art.:  Mark,  Gospel  of,  H.  D.,  p.  252;  Swete,  Gospel 
ace.  to  St.  Mark,  p.  cxiii;  cf.  Mt.  xvi.  15  and  Col.  i.  6,  23; 
Mk.  xiv.  19;  Mt.  xxvi.  13;  Mk.  xiii.  10;  Mt.  xxiv.  14;  cf. 
Lk.  xxi.  24;  Mk.  xiii.  38;  cf.  Mt.  v.  13  and  14. 


lESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


437 


mony.  Thus,  there  is  the  Parable  of  the  Wicked  Hus- 
bandmen as  recorded  by  the  three  Synoptists;  the 
Parable  of  the  Feast  in  SS.  Matthew  and  Luke;  the 
text  given  by  S.  Matthew,  as  a  saying  of  Jesus,  in 
recognition  of  the  Centurion's  faith  and  also  presented 
by  S.  Luke  in  another  context :  "  I  say  to  you  that 
many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  shall 
sit  down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob  in  the 
Kingdom  of  heaven ;  But  the  children  of  the  Kingdom 
shall  be  cast  out  into  the  exterior  darkness  ".^ 

Even  Jesus'  declaration :  "  I  was  not  sent  but  to  the 
sheep  that  are  lost  of  the  house  of  Israel  ",  and  His 
command  to  the  twelve :  "  Go  ye  not  into  the  way  of 
the  Gentiles,  and  into  the  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter 
ye  not.  But  go  ye  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house 
of  Israel  ",  are  fully  understood  only  if  we  perceive 
in  them  a  secret  allusion  to  a  less  restricted  mission 
which  the  Master  reserves  it  as  His  right  to  confide 
later  to  His  apostles,  and  which  He  will  manifest  to 
them,  at  the  destined  time,  by  new  and  final  directions.^ 

How,  in  presence  of  all  these  testimonies,  is  it  pos- 
sible to  maintain,  as  it  has  been  by  Harnack  and  Holtz- 
mann,  that  Christ  never  thought  of  attempting  the  re- 
ligious conquest  of  the  world,  and  that  we  must  at- 
tribute to  the  initiative  of  the  disciples,  impelled  by 
circumstances,  the  fact  that  they  ceased  preaching  to 
the  Jews  and  began  evangelizing  the  Gentiles?  The 
mind  of  Jesus  contemplates  a  universal  expansion,  and 
this  very  feature  pervades  the  entire  synoptic  docu- 
ments, and  its  impress  is  therein  so  deep  that  it  is  im- 
possible for  a  wise  and  reasonable  critic  to  efface  it.^ 

1  Mk.  xii.  9;  Mt.  xxi.  42;  Lk.  xx.  16;  Mt.  xxii.  i  et  seq.; 
Lk.  xiv.  16  et  seq.;  Mt.  viii.  11;  Lk.  xiii.  29. 

2  Mt.  XV.  24;  Mk.  vii.  27;  Mt.  x.  5;  Wendt,  op.  cif.,  p.  584, 
Ger.  ed. 

^Harnack,  Die  Miss,  and  Ausbreit.  des  Christutum,  p.  25; 
Holtzmann,  O.,  op.  cit.,  p.  159;  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  583;  Stevens. 
Theol,  N.  T.,  p.  147;  Rose,  Studies  on  the  Gospels,  p.  117; 


438  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Nor,  indeed,  in  the  history  of  the  early  Church  is 
there  any  ground  for  asserting  that  the  universal  ex- 
pansion of  the  new  religion  was  wholly  independent 
of  its  Founder's  wish.  Although  the  Apostles  may 
have  been  slow  to  carry  out  their  Master's  desire, 
although  they  preached  first  to  the  Jews,  and  went  to 
the  Gentiles  only  after  their  relative  failure  with  their 
own  countrymen,  compelled,  as  it  were,  by  the  events 
narrated  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  such  as  S.  Peter's  vision 
at  Joppa  and  the  unusual  manifestation  made  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  behalf  of  the  pagans — nevertheless, 
in  all  this  there  is  naught  against  the  authenticity  of 
the  Gospel  testimony.^ 

The  Saviour's  utterance  about  the  evangelization  of 
the  Gentiles  was  rather  a  prediction  and  a  direction 
bearing  upon  the  future  activity  of  the  Apostles  than 
a  really  urgent  and  immediate  command.  Notice  that 
the  account  in  S.  Luke  and  in  the  Acts  conveys  the 
idea  of  a  merely  prophetic  future ;  whilst  the  impera- 
tive mood  is  found  only  in  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark, 
and  thus  likely  denotes  an  exhortatory  and  directive 
future,  as  would  be  in  accordance  with  the  very  genius 
of  the  Semitic  languages.^ 

Christ,  in  fact,  had  told  His  disciples  to  begin  their 
preaching  in  Jerusalem,  Judea,  and  Samaria.  From 
this  field  they  were  to  go  forth  unto  the  ends  of  the 
world  when  favorable  circumstances  and  providential 
indications  would  enable  them  to  realize  their  Master's 
commission,  and  to  overcome  forever  their  hesitancy 
about  imparting  the  new  faith  to  the  Gentiles.  Such 
were  the  Apostles'  native  prejudices,  such  were  their 
natural  tendencies  to  national  exclusiveness,  that  they 
would  have  never  thought  of  a  universal  preaching 

Grandmaison,  art. :  L'Expan.  du  Christianisme,  Etudes,  1903, 
vol.  xcvi,  pp.  300,  459  et  seq.;  Battifol,  art.:  Bullet,  de  Lift. 
EccL,  1904,  p.  54. 

1  Ac.  X.  9  et  seq.,  44  et  seq. 

2Lk.  xxiv.  47;  Ac.  i.  8;  cf.  Mt.  xxviii.  19;  Mk.  xvi.  15. 


lESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


439 


of  the  Gospel  if  they  had  not  been  somewhat  con- 
strained by  the  Saviour's  will.  One  entering  the  vine- 
yard at  the  "  eleventh  hour  ",  like  S.  Paul,  could  never 
have  compelled  Christ's  immediate  apostles  to  adopt 
on  this  matter  a  program  that  was  not  conformable 
to  the  authentic  ideas  of  the  Master. 

The  mere  fact,  then,  that  Jesus  had  planned  a  slow 
and  progressive  development  of  Christian  life  in  the 
hearts  of  men  and  in  the  world  at  large  seems  hardly 
in  agreement  with  the  idea  that  the  period  assigned 
to  such  diffusion  was  to  end  after  one  generation. 
Such  agreement  is  manifestly  impossible  if  it  be  cer- 
tain that  Christ  intended  a  true  religious  conquest 
that  would  extend  to  all  the  nations  of  the  world. 

True  it  is,  as  known  to  the  ancients,  the  world  was 
far  from  being  as  extensive  as  we  know  it  to  be.  But 
leaving  aside  the  fact  that  Christ  speaks,  in  an  abso- 
lute sense,  of  all  peoples  and  all  creatures,  was  not  this 
ancient  world  still  too  vast  to  be,  in  His  estimation, 
evangehzed  within  the  space  of  one  generation?  In 
fact,  to  the  north  and  west  of  Palestine,  there  extended 
all  that  vast  Empire  which  encircled  the  Mediterra- 
nean: Asia  Minor,  Greece,  Italy,  Gaul,  Spain,  Egypt. 
There  extended  toward  the  south  and  the  east  the 
great  territories  of  Arabia,  Ethiopia,  Abyssinia,  and 
Babylon.  If  less  than  thirty  years  were  going  to  suf- 
fice for  the  spread  of  the  Gospel  over  the  principal 
parts  of  these  countries,  what  else  was  this  but  the 
first  and  partial  growth  of  the  divine  seed,  the  primal 
working  of  the  mysterious  leaven  amidst  the  mass  of 
human  nature?  How  much  more  time  would  it  not 
take,  before  the  world  could  witness  the  advent,  from 
the  four  parts  of  the  earth,  of  that  multitude  of  souls 
who,  as  the  Master  had  said,  were  to  sit  at  table  in 
the  Kingdom;  or,  again,  as  the  Apostle  expressed  it, 
before  "  the  fulness  of  the  nations  could  be  seen  en- 
tering into  the  Church  "  ?  Had  not  Christ  foretold 
that  the  Gospel  would  be  widely  spread  oyer  the  earth, 


440  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

as  also  fully  operative  within  the  souls  of  men  ?  And 
were  not  these  prophetic  ideals  a  long  way  off — the 
world-spreading  harvest,  the  mighty  tree  wherein  the 
birds  of  the  air  would  find  shelter,  and  the  measures 
of  meal  fully  fermented  by  the  leaven  ?  ^ 

S.  Paul,  it  is  true,  applies  to  the  preachers  of  the 
Gospel  the  text  of  Psalm  xviii.  5,  as  we  see  from  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Again,  in  Colossians,  he  men- 
tions the  Gospel  as  being  "  announced  in  the  whole 
world  .  .  .  preached  to  every  creature  under  heaven." 
But  it  is  visible  that  the  Apostle  wants  chiefly  to  em- 
phasize the  fact  that  the  Gospel  was,  in  principle,  in- 
tended for  all  men,  and  that  it  had  already  begun  to 
make  its  way  into  every  land.  His  words  were  an 
echo  of  the  Gospel,  an  allusion  to  Christ's  teaching, 
and  an  early  evidence  of  its  accomplishment.^ 

Let  us,  therefore,  accept  the  expansion  of  Chris- 
tianity as  an  historical  fact.  In  the  conquering  march 
of  the  Gospel  throughout  the  world,  is  there  not,  from 
first  to  last,  a  striking  correspondence  with  Christ's 
predictions  viewed  in  their  full  bearing  and  in  their 
proper  and  natural  sense?  Must  we  not  see,  in  the 
astonishing  agreement  between  Christ's  declarations 
and  the  actually  accomplished  fact,  a  proof  of  His 
having  really  intended  a  diffusion  of  the  Gospel,  more 
complete,  more  general,  than  could  be  actually  wrought 
during  one  generation  ?  It  would  be  useless  to  ascribe 
to  a  later  tradition  those  Gospel  features  which  are 
the  more  significant  from  the  view-point  of  universal 
expansion ;  for,  at  the  very  period  of  the  formation  of 
the  Gosp.els,  people  could  hardly  foresee  the  marvelous 
fact  which  would  be  fulfilled  ages  afterwards.  There 
can  be  no  warrant  for  rejecting  Christ's  declarations. 
It  follows,  too,  that  His  idea  has  its  true  interpretation 
in  history,  and  that,  therefore,  He  could  not  assign  to 

1  Rom.  xi.  25. 

2  Rom.  X.  18;  Col.  i.  6,  23. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  441 

the  end  of  His  own  generation  the  completion  of  the 
preparatory  stage  of  the  Kingdom. 

R.  H.  Charles  finds  in  the  Gospel  facts  a  proof  that 
''  the  Kingdom  developed  outwardly  and  also  from 
within ;  outwardly,  until  its  final  expansion  was  to  be 
out  of  all  proportion  with  its  slight  beginning;  in- 
wardly, until  it  would  transform  and  regenerate  the 
national  life,  nay,  the  world  itself.  .  .  .  The  Gospel 
was  to  be  preached  even  to  the  non-Israelites.  Years 
hence,  the  Kingdom  shall  be  taken  from  the  Jews  and 
given  over  to  others  who  shall  make  it  prosper.  .  .  . 
The  thought  of  the  future  plainly  implies  a  prolonged 
period  of  time.  Like  the  approaching  Advent,  it  is 
traced  back  to  Jesus  ".^ 

7.    DELAY  OF  THE  FINAL  ADVENT. 

From  the  texts  wherein  Jesus  gives  prominence  to 
the  slow,  progressive  character  of  the  Gospel's  dif- 
fusion, we  may  direct  our  attention  to  those  in  which 
He  insists  upon  the  prolonged  delay  of  the  last  advent. 
To  the  multitudes  who  looked  for  an  immediate  mani- 
festation of  the  Kingdom.  He  addresses  the  Parable 
of  the  Prince  who  returned  with  the  royal  investiture 
only  after  having  sought  it  in  a  distant  land.  The 
Master  mentioned  in  the  Parable  of  the  Talents  leaves 
His  servants  and  undertakes  a  long  voyage  and  will 
not  return  for  the  reckoning  until  after  a  long 
period.  In  the  Parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins,  also,  the 
Spouse  is  late  in  coming,  and  arrives  only  at  midnight 
when  the  virgins,  weary  of  watching,  have  fallen 
asleep.  Thus,  too,  the  Master  who  entrusts  the  care 
of  His  house  to  his  overseer,  prolongs  his  absence  and 
returns  only  when  he  is  not  expected  any  more.^ 

"  The    two    points    continually    emphasized,"    says 

1  Charles,  Eschatology,  E.  B.,  par.  84,  col.  1374. 
2Lk.  xix.   12;   Mt.  xxiv.   14,   19;   Mt.  xxv.  5,  6;   Mt.  xxiv. 
48,  50;  Lk,  xii.  36-40,  45;  xviii.  8, 


442  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Brown,  "  are  the  necessity  of  watchfulness,  since  the 
hour  of  the  Parousia  is  uncertain,  and  the  necessity 
of  faithfulness,  since,  though  the  Lord  seems  to  de- 
lay, He  will  surely  come  and  reward  His  servants  ac- 
cording to  their  works.  It  thus  appears  that  the  Syn- 
optics represent  Jesus  as  predicting  His  own  return 
now  within  His  own  generation,  now  after  an  indefi- 
nite future."  ^ 

To  attribute  all  the  above  characteristics  to  tradition 
would  be  too  arbitrary :  they  are  presented  in  such  wise 
that  an  impartial  critic  cannot  think  of  thus  acting. 
If,  then,  the  length  of  time  is  not  specified  which 
should  precede  the  advent  of  the  Kingdom ;  if  there  is 
no  positive  indication  that  Christ's  advent  was  to  be 
delayed  beyond  one  generation.  His  insistance  in 
speaking  of  unforeseen  lateness,  of  prolonged  delay, 
fits  in  well  with  the  reality  of  history  and  warrants  us 
in  believing  that  He  had  foreseen  what  actually  hap- 
pened. It  seems  that  the  Gospel  expressions  quite 
naturally  call  for  the  comment  found  in  S.  Peter's 
Second  Epistle :  "  One  day,  with  the  Lord,  is  as  a  thou- 
sand years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day  ".^ 

In  two  other  Parables,  also,  Christ  suggests  that 
it  is  after  the  complete  rejection  and  final  chastise- 
ment of  the  Jewish  people  that  there  shall  be  truly 
realized  the  accession  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  Gospel 
and  to  the  Kingdom  announced  during  His  ministry. 
In  the  Parable  of  the  Wedding  Feast,  those  who  were 
the  first  to  be  invited  and  refused  to  come,  behold 
their  city  burned  by  the  armies  of  the  King,  and  are 
themselves  exterminated.  The  allusion  is  plainly  to 
the  ruin  of  Jerusalem — a  fate  which  was  to  be  the 
Jews'  punishment  because  of  their  hardness  of  heart. 
Now,  the  invitation  extended  to  the  chance  guests 
seems  to  follow  upon  the  chastisement  of  those  who 

^  Brown,  art. :   Parousia,   H.  D.,  p.  6yy, 
2  2  Pet.  iii.  a 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  443 

were  first  invited.  Is  this  not  an  indication  that  the 
general  accession  of  the  Gentiles  would  happen  after 
the  great  catastrophe  that  was  to  signalize  the  final 
repudiation  of  the  ancient  people  of  God/ 

The  Parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen  as  given 
in  the  Synoptists  is  in  a  like  strain.  The  vine  repre- 
sents the  condition  of  the  Kingdom  in  its  preparatory 
period — the  Old  Law  and  the  Gospel — of  which  the 
Husbandmen  would  have  to  give  the  fruit  in  due 
time.  Because  the  Jews  had  killed  the  Prophets  and 
rejected  the  Son  of  God,  they  were  to  be  chastized: 
the  vine  shall  be  taken  away  and  given  to  another  and 
more  faithful  people.  It  seems  also  to  be  insinuated 
here  that  between  the  chastisement  of  the  Jews  by 
the  great  Palestinian  disaster  and  the  reckoning  which 
shall  be  made  at  the  final  advent  of  the  Kingdom, 
there  shall  be  a  long  interval  during  which  many 
Gentiles  shall  come  from  the  four  parts  of  the  earth 
in  order  to  replace  the  Jews  in  the  bosom  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  and  to  make  the  Gospel  of  Christ  flourish 
throughout  the  world.- 

All  these  features,  when  compared,  specify,  explain, 
and  complete  one  another.  Taken  in  their  entirety, 
they  cannot  be  done  away  wnth.  The  most  character- 
istic indications  are  presented  in  a  manner  so  natural 
and  so  accordant  with  the  rest  that  they  are  quite  in- 
separable therefrom.  It  would  indeed  be  a  strange 
proceeding  to  remove  from  documents  whatever  sig- 
nificant data  they  contain,  and  then,  after  such  an 
a  priori  curtailment  to  solemnly  declare  that  one  can- 
not find  in  them  what  has  been  carefully  eliminated. 

8.    TEXTS    IXDICATIXG   THE   EPOCH    OF   THE    SECOND 
ADVENT. 

It  is  in  the  light  of  these  preliminary  remarks,  there- 

^  Mt.  xxii.  7,  8  et  seq. 

2  Mk.  xii.  9 ;   Mt.  xxi.  43 ;  Lk.  xx.  16. 


444 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


fore,  that  we  have  the  right  and  the  duty  to  examine 
the  texts  wherein  Jesus  apparently  indicates  the  epoch 
of  His  second  advent.  In  His  famous  discourse  on 
the  last  things,  He  declares  the  signs  that  will  herald 
the  Palestinian  catastrophe  and  the  coming  of  the  Son 
of  Man,  and  then  adds :  '*'  This  generation  shall  not 
pass  till  all  these  things  be  done  ".  What  is  the  exact 
meaning  of  this  declaration  ?  ^ 

As  the  context  seems  to  show,  "  all  these  things  '* 
that  are  to  be  realized  during  the  present  generation, 
are  the  very  warning  signs  mentioned  by  Jesus.  For, 
He  has  just  said:  "  When  you  shall  see  all  these  things 
happening,  know  ye  that  the  kingdom  is  near  ".  And 
it  is  plain  that  what  marks  simply  the  nearness  of  the 
Kingdom  is  not  the  advent  of  the  Kingdom  itself.^ 

Some  critics  think  that  the  term  "  all  things  "  refers 
to  all  that  the  Saviour  has  just  described,  including 
the  final  advent  of  the  Son  of  Man.  This  interpreta- 
tion, however,  can  hardly  agree  with  the  context ;  for, 
in  the  verses  in  question,  we  read :  "  When  you  shall 
see  these  things  come  to  pass,  know  ye  that  it  is  very 
nigh,  even  at  the  doors  " ;  and  then  immediately  after 
"  Amen,  I  say  to  you,  that  this  generation  shall  not 
pass,  until  all  these  things  be  done  ".  Nevertheless,  we 
shall  take  this  interpretation  into  account  later.  But 
what  signs  did  Jesus  make  known  to  his  disciples  ?  In 
order  to  ascertain  this,  we  should  bear  in  mind  the  oc- 
casion and  purpose  of  the  discourse.  Remarkably 
enough,  it  is  linked  with  a  little  episode  which  views 
directly  the  destruction  of  the  Temple.  The  disciples 
admire  the  sacred  edifice,  and  try  to  provoke  the  ad- 
miration of  their  Master.  Jesus,  in  reply,  declares 
that  of  this  Temple  there  shall  not  remam  a  stone  upon 
a  stone.  The  impression  made  upon  the  disciples  is 
that  they  are  facing  an  extraordinary  and  unique  event 

1  Mk.  xiii.  30;  Mt.  xxiv.  34;  Lk.  xxi.  32 

2  Mk.  xiii.  29;  Mt.  xxiv.  33;  Lk.  xxi.  31;  Briggs,  op.  cit., 
p.   159. 


jBsvs  thu  son  of  god  445 

which  they  think  is  closely  allied  with  the  striking 
coming  of  the  Kingdom.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  they 
question  Jesus ;  but  naught  indicates  at  first  that  this 
connection  between  the  ruin  of  the  Temple  and  the 
end  of  the  world  was  also  in  the  mind  of  Christ.  Nay 
more,  the  fact  that  He  had  first  predicted  the  ruin  of 
the  Temple  so  greatly  admired  by  the  Apostles,  and 
the  fact  that  SS.  Mark  and  Luke  state  that  the 
Apostles  simply  asked  when  such  a  great  event  would 
occur,  and  what  would  be  the  visible  marks  of  its  ap- 
proach, warrant  us  in  believing  that  Christ's  imme- 
diate purpose  was  to  point  out  to  His  disciples  the 
warning  signs  of  that  catastrophe  which  He  had  just 
foretold.^ 

What  further  strengthens  this  interpretation  is  a 
comparison  made  of  this  passage  with  the  former  ones 
wherein  Christ  uses  the  same  kind  of  language  with 
regard  to  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem.  After  declaring  that 
the  Pharisees  have  exceeded  the  crimes  of  their 
Fathers,  He  says  that  the  final  chastisement  shall  be- 
fall them :  "  Amen,  I  say  to  you,  all  these  things  shall 
come  upon  this  generation  ".  The  words  *'  all  these 
things "  which  refer  to  this  generation  expressly 
mark  the  scourge  that  shall  punish  Christ's  contem- 
poraries. We  have  good  reason  to  believe  that  in 
again  using  the  same  expression  in  His  discourse  suc- 
ceeding the  one  delivered  on  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple,  Christ  also  directly  and  immediately  referred 
to  the  ruin  of  Jerusalem  itself.  Hence  the  advent  of 
the  Son  of  Man  would  be  above  all  presented  as  es- 
pecially to  come  after  the  signs  mentioned,  and,  as  it 
were,  in  the  wake  of  that  catastrophe  which,  it  is 
stated,  will  surely  arrive  before  the  end  of  the  present 
generation.^ 

1  Mk.  xiii.  1-4;  Mt.  xxiv.  1-3;  Lk.  xxi.  5-7. 

2  Mt.  xxiii.  36;  cf.  Lk,  xi.  51;  Beyschlag,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i.  p. 
197;  Godet,  Com.  sur  L'Ev.  de  S.  Luc,  vol.  ii,  p.  427;  Swete, 
Gospel  ace.  to  S.  Mark,  p.  315;  Plummer,  op.  cit.,  p.  485;  Rose, 


446  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Swete  observes  that  **  the  passage  is  similar  to  that 
of  Matthew  xxiii.  36,  the  meaning  of  which  is  not 
doubtful.  The  people  actually  living  at  that  time  shall 
see  the  fulfilment  of  the  sentence  pronounced  against 
Jerusalem."  ^ 

Plummer  says :  "  The  saying  refers  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  viewed  as  the  type  of  the  end  of  the 
world  ".    Such  was  also  the  opinion  of  Calmet.^ 

It  is,  to  tell  the  truth,  immediately  after  the  catas- 
trophe that  the  last  advent  seems  to  be  placed.  After 
describing  the  trials  of  the  period  preceding  the  ruin  of 
Jerusalem,  its  capture,  and  the  flight  of  the  Christians, 
the  Evangelists  at  once  present  the  picture  of  the  last 
judgment.  S.  Luke,  indeed,  seems  to  imply  an  in- 
definite interval  of  time;  while  S.  Mark  suggests  a 
mere  transition,  and  S.  Matthew  employs  the  phrase: 
"  immediately  after  the  tribulation  of  those  days." 
Thus,  in  S.  Luke  we  read :  "  And  they  shall  fall  by 
the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  shall  be  led  away  captives 
into  all  nations ;  and  Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  down 
by  the  Gentiles,  till  the  times  of  the  nations  he  ful- 
filled." In  S.  Mark :  ''  But  in  those  days,  after  that 
tribulation,  the  sun  shall  be  darkened  and  the  moon 
shall  not  give  her  light  ".  In  S.  Matthew :  "  And  im- 
mediately after  the  tribulation  of  those  days,  the  sun 
shall  be  darkened  and  the  moon  shall  not  give  her 
light  ".^ 

Swete  says  that  "  the  Lord  simply  predicts  that  His 
personal  advent  shall  follow  the  taking  of  Jerusalem, 
instead  of  preceding  and  preluding  it,  as  certain  per- 
sons may  have  been  tempted  to  hope."  * 

Evang.  selon  S.  Marc,  p.  135;  selon  S.  Matth.,  p.  186;  selon 
S.  Luc,  p.  201;  Calmet,  Com.  Litteral,  vol.  xix;  LEv.  de 
S.  Math.,  p.  532. 

1  Swete,  loc.  cit. 

2  Plummer,  loc.   cit. 
^  Lk.  xxi.  24. 

*  Mk.  xiii.  24;  Swete,  op.  cit.,  p.  311;  Mt.  xxiv.  29. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  447 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Parable  of  the  Fig-Tree  ap- 
pears really  to  present  the  events  described  by  the 
Saviour,  the  accomplishment  of  "  all  these  things  '' 
which  the  present  generation  shall  surely  see,  as  the 
sign  of  the  proximity  of  the  Son  of  Man  and  of  the 
Kingdom,  so  that  the  naming  of  the  time  by  Jesus, 
although  referring  directly  to  the  warning  signs  of  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem,  also  refers  indirectly  to  that  glorious 
advent  of  the  Son  of  Man  to  which  it  is  closely  allied. 

This  may  be  all  true;  but  it  is  worth  while  to  look 
at  the  matter  more  closely.  If,  from  the  view-point 
of  composition,  considering  the  literary  features  of 
Prophecies,  we  take  into  account  the  particular  condi- 
tions of  our  Synoptic  writings,  it  does  not  seem  that 
we  can  derive  a  very  positive  conclusion  from  the  fact 
that  the  description  of  the  last  advent  is  closely  related 
to  the  Palestinian  disaster,  even  admitting  the  particle 
evdeuc  added  by  S.  Matthew. 

Possibly,  here  as  elsewhere,  notably  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  we  are  dealing  with  collected  fragments 
of  the  Savior's  discourses  rather  than  with  a  single, 
entire  discourse,  presenting  a  really  homogeneous  char- 
acter. Thus  certain  portions  of  this  discourse  as 
given  in  S.  Matthew  are  related  by  S.  Luke  in  con- 
nection with  different  circumstances ;  others,  again, 
which  SS.  Mark  and  Luke  insert  in  this  place,  are 
placed  elsewhere  by  the  first  Evangelist.^ 

There  is,  then,  some  critical  basis  for  supposing  that 
certain  sentences,  pronounced  on  different  occasions, 
were  used  to  enlarge  the  great  discourse  on  the  last 
things ;  that  sentences  are  separated  which  should  be 
connected;  that  others,  originally  united  by  inter- 
mediary  remarks  or  joined  to  some  incident  which 

1  Mt.  v-vii;  Lk.  vi.  20-49;  xi.  1-13,  xii.  22-24;  xiii.  24-27; 
cf.  Mt.  xxiv.  23,  27,  28;  Mk.  xiii.  21  and  Lk.  xvii.  23,  24,  27; 
cf.  Mt.  xxiv.  17-18,  37-41 ;  Mk.  xiii.  15-16  and  Lk.  xvii.  21-26, 
35;  cf.  Mk.  xiii.  9,  11-13;  Lk.  xxi.  12-17  and  Mt.  x.  17-22; 
Lk.  xii.  1 1- 12. 


448  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

specified  their  sense,  have  been  grouped  together  with- 
out any  transition  or  with  artificial  transitions  that  may 
be  somewhat  misleading  as  to  the  real  and  primitive 
view-point.  Perhaps  this  holds  good  for  the  particle, 
"  immediately  "  in  the  above  text  of  S.  Matthew ;  and, 
if  so,  it  should  be  considered  rather  as  a  logical  transi- 
tion than  as  a  strictly  chronological  connection.  At  all 
events,  it  may  be  that,  in  the  original  discourse  de- 
Hvered  by  the  Saviour,  the  diversity  of  view-points 
and  of  perspectives  was  more  clearly  defined  than  in 
our  extant  documents.^ 

That  the  different  parts  of  the  discourse  on  the  last 
things,  viz:  Matt.  xxiv.  4-14,  15-22,  23-28,  29-31,  do 
not  really  follow  each  other  in  the  order  of  time,  but 
are  rather  a  series  of  more  or  less  parallel  tableaux,  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that,  in  the  closing  verse  of  the 
first  section,  v.  14,  the  author  refers  to  the  final  "  con- 
summation ".  Before  this  consummation  occurs,  how- 
ever, it  is  expressly  stated  that  there  will  be  a  period 
of  universal  evangelization.  Possibly  this  verse  14 
corresponds  to  the  expression  "  times  of  the  Gentiles  " 
mentioned  by  S.  Luke  who,  in  stating  that  the  times  of 
the  Gentiles  were  to  intervene  between  the  Fall  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  final  consummation,  merely  gave 
prominence  to  a  feature  already  contained  in  the 
Synoptic  documents  and  made  its  true  and  authentic 
signification  evident.^ 

All  that  we  say  is :  possibly  the  Synoptic  accounts, 
particularly  that  of  S.  Matthew,  do  not  reproduce  this 
discourse  of  Jesus  with  all  the  transitions  or  distinc- 
tions whereby  the  Saviour  may  have  suggested  the 
different  perspectives.  Some  critics,  indeed,  go  farther, 
which  we  believe  we  cannot  do,  and  claim  that  the 

1  Mt.  xxiv.  28,  41 ;  Lk.  xvii.  35-37 ;  Schmiedel,  art. :  Gospel, 
E.  B.  par.  145,  col.  1885 ;  Godet,  Com.  sur.  I'Evang  de  S.  Luc, 
vol.  ii,  p.  427,  436;  Battifol,  art:  In  Bullet,  de  Litt.  EccL, 
1904,  p.  59. 

2C/.  Rom.  xi.  25. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


449 


Evangelists  misrepresented  the  Master's  thought  and 
transmitted  their  own  ideas,  in  thus  immediately  con- 
necting the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  with  the  fall 
of  Jerusalem.  Others  have  even  held  that  the  Evan- 
gelists merged  with  the  discourse  originally  pro- 
nounced by  Jesus  an  Apocalypse  written  by  a  Judaiz- 
ing  Christian ;  the  assertion,  then,  that  the  Son  of  Man 
was  to  come  again  during  the  course  of  the  present 
generation  would  belong  to  this  Apocalypse;  the 
Savior  Himself  having  simply  announced  that  the  ruin 
of  Jerusalem  was  near,  and  that  His  own  return  would 
occur  at  an  unknown  moment.^ 

Still  others  maintain  that  Jesus  never  spoke  of  His 
second  advent  in  the  sense  of  a  personal  return  upon 
the  clouds  of  heaven  in  order  to  judge  the  world  and 
to  finally  establish  the  Kingdom ;  and  that  He  meant  a 
spiritual  and  ideal  advent  which  His  disciples  had  mis- 
understood, materialized,  and  distorted,  owing  to  their 
false  Jewish  views. ^ 

These  several  theories  are,  however,  irreconcilable 
with  the  Synoptic  tradition,  so  full  and  firm,  as  also 
with  the  dependence  of  the  beliefs  of  the  primitive 
Church  upon  the  Saviour's  teachings.  The  tenor  of 
the  discourse  harmonizes  with  many  details  scattered 
through  the  first  three  Gospels,  as  we  shall  see  later. 
Naught  of  the  Synoptic  records;  naught  of  the 
beginnings  of  Christianity  is  intelligible  if  we  do  not 
admit  that  Jesus  spoke  as  the  Evangelists  make  Him 
speak,  and  that,  in  particular,  He  predicted  His  final 
advent  in  the  form  given  substantially  in  our  docu- 

1  Haupt,  Die  Eschat.  Aussagen  Jesu,  1895;  Stevens,  The 
Teachings  of  Jesus,  p.  166;  Theol  N.  T.,  p.  160;  Bovon, 
Theol.  N.  T.,  2  ed.,  vol.  i,  p.  483;  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  17; 
Charles,  art.:  Eschatology,  E.  B.  par.  84,  col.  1373;  Schmiedel, 
art. :  Gospels,  E.  B.  par.  124,  col.  1857 ;  Holtzmann,  H.,  op. 
cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  327. 

2Renss,  JJist.  of  Christ.  Theol,  vol.  i,  p.  249;  Colani, 
op.  cit.,  p.  145;  Bruston,  Les  Predictions  de  Jesus,  1899. 

2Q 


450  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ments,  and  placed  it  in  special  connection  with  the 
ruin  of  Jerusalem. 

Lagrange  proposes  the  following  hypothesis:  '*  May 
we  not  admit  that  the  Evangehsts,  while  faithfully  re- 
producing Jesus'  words,  had  expressed  some  of  their 
personal  apprehensions  concerning  the  end  of  the 
world?  .  .  .  The  discourses  on  the  last  things  reveal 
a  two-fold  thought:  that  of  Jesus,  and  that  of  the 
Apostles,  who  were  led  to  beUeve  in  a  near  and  bril- 
liant parousia ;  that  of  Jesus  is  alone  taught  explicitly ; 
while  that  of  the  Apostles  is  only  suspected  through 
their  expressions  and  their  arrangement  of  the  Mas- 
ter's words."  ^ 

Battifol  also  remarks :  "  That  Jesus'  hearers  had 
materialized  His  advent  as  they  had  also  the  Kingdom  ; 
that  they  had  applied  to  the  circumstances  of  that  ad- 
vent certain  features  borrowed  from  Jesus'  predictions 
concerning  the  chastisement  of  Jerusalem;  that  they 
had  overcrowded  the  panorama  with  terrifying  signs 
suggested  by  the  Jewish  apocalypses ;  that  they  had 
represented  that  end  as  imminent ;  and  that  this  dis- 
turbing conception  of  coming  events  had  disturbed  the 
written  tradition  of  Jesus'  '  sayings  '  concerning  His 
advent,  had  confused  the  perspectives  and  exaggerated 
their  features — all  this  is  undeniable  by  anyone  that 
examines  these  Logia  concerning  the  last  things."  ^ 

We  ourselves  merely  say  that  the  difference  of  per- 
spectives, which  is  only  insinuated,  in  Jesus'  discourses 
— we  shall  see  the  reason  very  soon — was  not,  perhaps, 
understood  and  remembered  by  -  the  disciples  in  its 
original  reality,  precisely  because  the  Divine  Master 
had  only  suggested  it  and  had  desired  to  give  the  gen- 
eral impression  that  His  advent  was  nigh. 

The  lack  of  perspective,  indeed,  is  a  feature  of  that 

1  Lagrange,  Rev.  BibL,  1896,  p.  475 ;  1903,  p.  309 ;  Godet, 
Com.  Sur.  L'Ev.  de  S.  Luc,  vol.  ii,  p.  427,  436,  439. 

2  Battifol,  Bullet,  de  Lift.  EccL,  1904,  p.  47. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  451 

class  of  literature  of  which  the  above  selection  is  a 
sample;  so  that  this  fact  must  be  considered  even  if 
we  admit  that  the  discourse  mentioned  is  an  integral 
and  homogeneous  utterance  of  Jesus.  Sacred  pro- 
phecy usually  resorts  to  descriptive  tableaux  of  the 
future,  each  following  the  other  without  transitions, 
despite  the  divergence  of  the  periods  of  time  re- 
corded, and  especially  when  the  events  are  related  one 
to  the  other  as  cause  to  effect,  or  as  symbol  to  the 
thing  prefigured.  Hence,  we  may  rightly  think  that 
the  Saviour's  discourse  on  the  last  things  is  a  series  of 
prophetic  portrayals  that  refer  either  to  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  or  to  the  end  of  the  world  with  a  certain 
confusion  of  perspectives :  a  picture  of  the  final  com- 
ing might  follow  a  description  of  the  destruction  of 
Palestine  without  it  being  stated  that  a  considerable 
space  of  time  should  elapse  between  the  two  events, 
and  without  one  being  able  to  infer  from  mere  literary 
juxtaposition,  that  there  was  an  immediate  chronolog- 
ical succession.^ 

But  there  is,  no  doubt,  more  than  a  juxtaposition  of 
prophetic  views  of  unequal  extent.  We  may  say,  in- 
deed, that,  generally  speaking,  the  traits  belonging  to 
the  different  perspectives  are  intimately  merged,  or 
rather  that  the  double  perspective  is  sketched  through- 
out the  prophecy  in  such  a  manner  that  the  descrip- 
tions given  by  the  Saviour  appear  to  refer  at  once  to 
the  Palestinian  occurrence  and  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

Nor  is  this  surprising,  if  we  but  view  the  former 
event  as  a  symbol  and  a  figurative  anticipation  of  the 
latter.  Christ's  final  advent  is  to  be  above  all  else  a 
judgment,  the  judgmen*t  against  the  guilty  world  which 
shall  be  condemned  and  destroyed.  But,  before  the 
end  of  the  present  generation,  this  final  judgment  shall 

1  Salmond,  art. :  Eschatology,  H.  D.,  p.  750 ;  Briggs,  Mes- 
sianic Prophecy,  p.  52;  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  156; 
Davidson,  art. :  Prophecy  and  Prophets,  H.  D.,  p.  121, 


452  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

be  anticipated  and  its  first  act,  as  it  were,  performed: 
The  unfaithful  nation  shall  receive  the  chastisement 
for  its  crimes;  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  to  begin 
the  exercise  of  His  authority  as  great  Judge;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  judgment  which  is  to  occur  at 
the  end  of  time  shall  prepare  the  way  for  the  King- 
dom of  God  iri  glory. 

Is  it  not  indeed,  this  establishment  of  the  Kingdom 
that  we  must  see  figured  and  anticipated  in  the  Pales- 
tinian catastrophe?  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  of  the  Temple,  in  forever  putting  an  end  to  the 
ancient  order  of  things,  actually  marks  the  final  repu- 
diation of  the  Synagogue,  and  in  a  way  the  real  be- 
ginning of  the  Church,  as  visibly  constituted  Mistress 
of  the  world  and  conqueror  of  the  universe.  It  is  the 
"  new  nation  "  which  takes  the  place  of  the  ancient 
people  of  God;  it  is  Rome  that  becomes  officially  the 
new  Jerusalem :  It  is  truly  the  inauguration  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  on  earth  in  the  form  of  a  universal 
society,  publicly  and  definitely  organized.  Is  it  not, 
then,  the  symbol  and  the  prelude  of  that  glorious  in- 
auguration of  the  Kingdom  which  shall  follow  the  last 
advent  ?  ^ 

In  this  hypothesis,  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  warning 
signs  described  by  Jesus  may,  taken  altogether  and 
from  a  two-fold  prophetic  viewpoint,  refer  both  to  the 
Palestinian  upheaval  and  to  the  end  of  the  world.  The 
same  phenomena  which  were  to  precede  the  ruin  of 
Jerusalem  may  have  been  adapted,  transposed,  and 
enlarged  in  order  to  represent  the  approach  of  the 
final  cataclysm.  Thus,  that  feature,  "  the  Gospel 
preached  to  all  nations  ",  first  realized  before  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  inasmuch  as  the  Gospel  was 

1  Mt.  xxi.  43 ;  Maldonat,  Com.  In  Quat.  Evang.,  in  Mt.  xxiv. 
5;  Calmet,  op.  cit.,  vol.  xix :  VEv.  de  S.  Mt.,  p.  510;  Fillion, 
Ev.  de  S.  Mt.,  p.  469;  Plummer,  Com.  Gosp.  of  S.  Luke,  p. 
477;  Rose,  Ev.  selon  S.  Marc,  p.  125;  Lagrange,  Rev.  Bib., 
1896,  p.  475.  


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  453 

first  carried  to  all  parts  of  the  ancient  world  previous 
to  that  event  shall  be  finally  accomplished  by  the  really 
universal  evangelization  which  is  to  take  place  before 
the  end  of  time.  Perhaps,  when  the  Saviour  prefaced 
His  description  of  the  final  advent  by  the  words,  ''  im- 
mediately after  the  tribulation  ",  He  referred  chiefly 
to  His  former  descriptions,  in  so  far  as  they  repre- 
sented, under  the  figurative  form  of  warning-signs  of 
the  Jewish  catastrophe,  the  signs  of  the  end  of  the 
world  itself. 

It  is  also  easy  to  understand  that,  viewing  the  Pal- 
estinian disaster  as  a  first  act  of  judgment  and  a  de- 
cisive moment  for  establishing  the  Kingdom  of  God 
as  a  society,  Jesus  may  have  had  more  or  less  directly 
in  mind  this  particular  calamity  although  apparently 
describing  only  the  world's  final  drama,  and  may  have 
in  some  way  represented  the  approaching  ruin  of  Jeru- 
salem under  the  symbolic  coloring  of  the  great  event 
that  it  prefigured.  "  When  you  shall  see  all  these 
things  come  to  pass,"  said  the  Saviour,  "  know  ye 
that  the  Son  of  Man  is  at  the  doors,  and  that  the  King- 
dom of  God  is  nigh."  This  imminent  arrival  of  the 
Son  of  Man,  this  approaching  establishment  of  the 
Kingdom  is  undoubtedly  Christ's  judgment  against  the 
sinful  generation  which  had  persecuted  Him  and  His 
disciples;  it  is  the  chastisement  of  the  theocratic  city, 
indicating  the  end  of  the  ancient  law  and  the  public 
inauguration  of  the  new  religious  state :  it  is,  so  to 
say,  the  first  reahzation  of  that  last  judgment  and  of 
that  final  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  which  the 
Saviour  had  also  suggested.^ 

It  is  thus  that  we  should  interpret  the  verse :  "  This 
generation  shall  not  pass,  until  all  these  things  be 
done,"  if  we  suppose  that  the  expression  "  all  these 
things  "  refers,  not  only  to  the  signs  that  herald  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,  but  to  that  very  advent 

1  Mk.  xiii.  29;   Mt.  xxiv.  35;  Lk.  xxi.  31. 


454  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

itself.  In  affirming  that  His  advent  would  occur  dur- 
ing the  present  generation,  the  Saviour  had  directly 
in  mind  the  chastisement  of  Jerusalem  but  depicted  it 
with  expressions  characteristic  of  the  last  advent,  of 
which  the  Palestinian  catastrophe  was  the  symbol. 
What  tends  to  establish  this  point  is,  as  previously 
noted,  the  comparison  made  between  this  text  and  the 
analogous  passages  wherein  Jesus  simply  announces 
the  chastisement  that  is  particular  to  this  "  sinful  and 
unbeheving  generation "  and  the  special  misfortune 
of  Jerusalem. 

Some  critics  have  carried  this  interpretation  to  ex 
tremes  and  have  claimed  that  Christ  announced  no 
other  advent  than  that  which  was  accomplished  in  a 
figurative  manner  in  70  A.  D.  So  that,  in  their  view, 
the  Parousia  as  the  Saviour  had  conceived  it,  should 
be  considered  as  an  event  wholly  passed,  and  nobody 
should  look  for  a  personal  advent  of  the  Son  of  Man 
at  the  end  of  time.^ 

To  thus  limit  the  idea  that  Jesus  had  in  mmd,  as 
stated  in  the  entire  Synoptic  declarations,  and  in  the 
belief  of  the  early  Church,  which  depends  upon  His 
teachings,  is  impossible.  The  divine  Master,  in  refer- 
ring to  what  was  to  happen  during  His  own  genera- 
tion, may  have  directly  contemplated  the  punishment 
of  the  Jewish  nation  in  particular  when  employing 
terms  that  referred  to  the  last  judgment.  But  His 
way  of  depicting  this  final  judgment  as  something  uni- 
versal, as  extending  to  all  men  and  to  all  nations, 
plainly  shows  that  His  thoughts  extend  beyond  the 
mere  symbol,  and  that,  beyond  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
which  expressly  symbolized  the  end  of  the  world  as 
also  the  beginning  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  a  so- 
ciety, He  beheld  a  final  catastrophe  incomparably 
greater,  a  judgment  far  more  extensive,  a  final  estab- 

1  Russel,  The  Parousia,  2  ed.,  1887. 


lESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  455 

lishment  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  glory  at  some 
period  still  uncertain.^ 

We  may  interpret  in  the  same  sense  the  similar  sen- 
tence found  in  S.  Luke's  Gospel :  "  When  these  things 
begin  to  come  to  pass,  look  up  and  lift  up  your  heads ; 
for  your  redemption  is  at  hand."  This  approaching 
deliverance  is  an  image  and  a  prelude  to  the  great 
Messianic  deliverance  which  shall  take  place  at  the  end 
of  time.  So  too,  at  the  last  day,  the  triumphant  Christ 
shall  put  down  every  powerful  enemy,  shall  soon  ex- 
terminate those  who  have  oppressed  His  disciples.  The 
last  convulsions  of  the  period  just  about  to  close,  com- 
pared to  the  renewed  world  of  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
shall  be  Hke  unto  the  travails  of  a  child-bearing 
mother :  thus  the  approaching  crisis  would  prepare  the 
way  for  the  new  order  of  things  inaugurated  by  the 
ruin  of  the  ancient  alliance  and  by  the  establishment 
of  the  Church  as  a  society.  In  this  chastisement  of 
the  persecuting  Jews,  and  in  the  inauguration  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  taking  possession  of  the  world. 
Christians  will  have  a  presage  and  an  assurance  of 
that  perfect  deliverance,  of  that  ideal  regeneration 
which  shall  one  day  be  realized  in  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven.  2 

We  may  discover  the  same  sense  in  a  saying  found 
elsewhere  in  S.  Matthew,  and  which  must  belong  to 
an  eschatological  discourse  like  the  one  we  have  just 
been  examining :  "  When  they  §hall  persecute  you  in 
this  city,  flee  into  another.  Amen,  I  say  to  you,  you 
shall  not  finish  all  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son  of 
Man  come."  This  remark  follows  in  the  course  of  the 
tableau  in  which  the  Saviour  outlines  the  trials  and 
the  persecutions  awaiting  the  Apostles.  This  picture 
is  identical  with  that  found  in  the  great  discourse  on 

1  Mt.  xxiv.  30,  31;  Mk.  xiii.  27;  Mt.  xxv.  31  et  seq.;  Calmet, 
op.  cit.,  p.  510. 

2Lk.  xxi.  28;  I  Cor.  xv.  24  et  seq.;  cf.  Lk.  xviii.  7-8;  Mk. 
xiii.  8;  Mt.  xxiv.  8;  xix.  28. 


456  •      CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  last  things :  there  is  good  reason  to  beheve  that,  in 
either  case,  by  the  near  advent  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
which  shall  terminate  the  persecution  waged  by  the 
Jews  by  inaugurating  against  them  the  final  judgment, 
Jesus  directly  refers  to  the  chastisement  of  Jerusalem.' 

It  is  in  the  same  sense,  finally,  that  we  should  under- 
stand the  saying  related,  in  the  course  of  S.  Peter's 
profession  of  faith,  by  the  three  Synoptists :  "  Amen 
I  say  to  you,  that  there  are  some  of  them  that  stand 
here,  who  shall  not  taste  death  till  they  see  the  King- 
dom of  God  coming  in  power."  The  Saviour,  it  seems, 
desires  to  give  His  disciples  a  glimpse  of  that  per- 
spective of  the  universal  judgment  which  shall  be  held 
at  His  last  advent :  *'  He  that  shall  be  ashamed  of  me, 
and  of  my  words,  in  this  adulterous  and  sinful  genera- 
tion: the  Son  of  Man  also  will  be  ashamed  of  him, 
when  He  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  His  Father  with 
the  holy  angels."  ^ 

But,  supposing  that  the  Saviour,  in  thus  speaking, 
referred  only  to  His  last  coming,  we  need  not  think 
that,  in  the  remainder  of  His  discourse.  He  speaks  of 
His  approaching  advent  in  exactly  the  same  sense. 
S.  Mark  clearly  separates  the  two  statements  by  means 
of  the  short  transition :  *'  And  He  said  to  them."  In 
the  text  of  the  three  Synoptists,  they  may  very  well 
reproduce  two  sentences  pronounced  by  the  Master  in 
the  same  circumstance ;  the  second,  however,  denoting 
a  special  progress  in  His  thought,  a  different  point  of 
view,  as  an  answer,  no  doubt,  to  one  of  these  questions 
with  which  His  disciples  were  familiar,  or  to  a  secret 
anxiety  that  disturbed  their  minds  as  to  the  epoch  of 
the  great  event. 

But  the  manner  in  which  S.  Mark's  account  intro- 
duces into  the  first  saying  the  idea  of  "  that  adulterous 

1  Mt.  X.  23 ;  cf.  Calmet  and  Fillion ;  Mangenot,  art. :  Fin 
du  Monde,  V.  D.,  col.  2268. 

2Lk.  ix.  27;  Mk.  ix.  i  {Vulgate,  Mk.  viii.  39)  ;  Mt.  xvi.  28; 
Mk.  viii.  38;  Mt.  xvi.  27;  Lk.  ix.  26. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


457 


and  sinful  generation/'  leads  one  to  think  that  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  order  to  "  render  to 
every  man  according  to  his  works,"  and  especially  to 
confound  those  who  might  be  ashamed  of  Him,  such 
as  the  Pharisees,  refers  not  only  to  His  last  advent, 
but  also  and  directly  to  His  approaching  judgment  on 
Jerusalem  which  is  symbolically  represented  with 
colours  that  suggest  the  final  advent.  The  advent 
which  the  disciples  anxiously  await,  the  establishment 
of  the  Kingdom,  the  precise  moment  of  which  they 
were  so  eager  to  know,  shall  be  first  realized  during 
the  present  generation :  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come 
like  a  king;  He  shall  be  the  supreme  judge  of  that 
guilty  generation,  and,  by  the  terrible  chastisement 
inflicted  upon  Jerusalem,  He  shall  reveal  "with 
power  "  the  final  establishment  of  His  first  Kingdom 
here  below.  This  will  be  a  sort  or  visible  prelude  and 
a  real  guarantee  of  what  shall  be  realized  at  the  end 
of  time.^ 

Plummer  remarks :  "  The  expression  *  shall  not  taste 
death  '  .  .  .  implies  that  some  people  shall  actually 
die  after  witnessing  the  advent  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God:  which  cannot  refer  to  the  Parousia,"  i.  e.,  the 
Second  Advent.^ 

If  this  be  so,  the  Saviour  does  not  fail  to  indicate, 
in  a  remarkable  manner,  the  epoch  of  his  first  judicial 
advent.  He  appears  to  express  Himself  as  if  the 
catastrophe  which  menaces  Palestine  was  to  happen 
towards  the  end  of  the  present  generation,  when  only 
a  few  of  His  disciples  would  be  alive.  The  expres- 
sion found  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  presents  exactly  the 
same  signification.  After  announcing  to  S.  Peter  the 
kind  of  death  whereby  He  would  glorify  God,  Jesus 
responds  to  his  question  about  the  Beloved  Disciple: 

1  Mt.  xvi.  27 ;  Calmet,  L'Ev.  selon  St.  Mt.,  p.  273 ;  Fillion, 
Ev.  selon  S.  Mt.,  p.  332;  Rose,  Ev.  selon  S.  Mt.,  p.  80. 

2  Plummer  Com.  Gospel  ace.  to  S.  Luke,  p.  250 ;  Godet, 
Com.  sur  I'Ev.  de  S.  Luc,  vol.  i,  p.  593. 


458  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

"  So  I  will  have  him  to  remain  till  I  come :  what  is 
it  to  thee  ? ''  In  fact,  the  Palestinian  catastrophe  was 
to  occur  forty  years  after  the  Saviour's  prediction. 
Most  of  those  who  had  heard  Him  would  be  no 
longer  living.  Peter  himself  would  have  then  just 
shed  his  blood  in  that  very  Rome  which,  upon  the 
violent  disparition  of  Jerusalem,  was  to  become  mani- 
festly what  it  had  been  in  germ,  the  capital  of  the 
new  Christian  world.  Nevertheless,  many  had  not 
tasted  death.  And  of  this  number,  was  the  Beloved 
Apostle,  S.  John,  who  could  welcome,  in  the  Chris- 
tian church,  arising  from  the  ruins  of  the  Synagogue, 
the  anticipation  of  that  final  Kingdom  of  Christ  to 
which  he  did  not  cease  to  aspire  with  all  his  heart."^ 

It  is,  then,  by  no  means  certain  that  what  Jesus  an- 
nounced as  about  to  occur,  in  the  course  of  His  own 
generation,  was  His  final  advent.  Yet,  it  seems  to 
follow  from  all  His  declarations  that  He  wished  to 
impress  His  disciples  with  the  fact  that  this  final  ad- 
vent was  near.  If  He  insists  upon  the  unexpected- 
ness of  His  last  coming;  if  He  gives  to  understand 
that  it  might  be  delayed  longer  than  was  expected, 
that  a  long  period  of  preparation  would  possibly  in- 
tervene before  the  complete  establishment  of  the  King- 
dom ;  it  is  no  less  true  that  the  manner  in  which  He 
seems  to  present  the  two  events  under  one  view,  as 
projected  upon  the  same  screen  and  regardless  of  per- 
spective ;  the  way  in  which  He  seems  to  present  the 
Palestinian  disaster  under  features  recalling  His  com- 
ing for  final  judgment — all  this  suggests  that  He  Him- 
self had  wished  to  allow  His  disciples  to  continue  in 
their  behef  in  the  proximity  of  the  end  of  the  world. 

8.    PERSUASION    OF    THE    EARLY    CHURCH. 

This  attitude  of  Christ,  which  we  cannot  ascribe 
to  error  on  His  part,  displays  nothing  more  than  we 

^  Jo.  xxi.  22;  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  150; 
Apoc.  xxi,  and  xxii. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


459 


could  reasonably  expect.  We  may  rightly  suppose,  in- 
deed, that  it  was  no  part  of  His  mission  to  reveal  the 
distant  date  of  His  final  advent,  and  that  He  had  pro- 
vidential reasons  for  allowing  His  disciples  to  think 
that  His  coming  was  near  at  hand. 

Loisy,  therefore,  exaggerates  when  he  thus  sets  forth 
the  usual  theological  interpretation :  "  Christ,  as  man, 
possessed  divine  knowledge,  and  He  deliberately  left 
His  disciples  and  posterity  in  ignorance  and  in  error 
concerning  a  great  many  things  that  He  could  reveal 
without  the  least  trouble  " ;  also  when  he  qualifies  that 
hypothesis  as  being  "  historically  inconceivable  ",  and 
as  "  disconcerting  to  the  moral  sense  ".^ 

On  the  contrary,  the  impression  that  Christ's  coming 
was  near  at  hand  was  a  source  of  extraordinary  moral 
strength  for  the  primitive  Christian  Church.  The 
disciples  lived  with  their  eyes  turned  toward  heaven, 
watching  the  signs  of  the  times  so  as  not  to  be  sur- 
prised by  the  arrival  of  the  Lord ;  ordering  their  con- 
duct in  accordance  with  their  conviction  of  expected 
judgment,  fully  heading  the  Master's  teachings,  freely 
breathing  the  Gospel  life  as  a  preparation  for  the 
Kingdom;  drawing  from  the  very  intensity  of  their 
hope  an  heroic  sanctity,  a  generous  spirit  of  sacrifice, 
an  intense  zeal  for  the  expansion  of  that  new  life 
which  would  give  access  to  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

If  nothing  unusual  had  happened  before  the  end  of 
the  first  Christian  generation,  Jesus'  prophecy  would 
have  been  given  the  lie  in  the  most  striking  manner. 
But  there  came  the  great  Palestinian  catastrophe ! 
And  what  an  unheard-of  event  it  was !  In  what 
striking  accord  with  the  Master's  predictions !  Such 
a  marvelous  fulfilment  of  His  word  on  this  point  fully 
served  to  assure  people  that  the  future  kingdom  also 
would  come.  The  prospect  of  that  Kingdom  was, 
above  all,  a  great  hope  which  could  only  be  strength- 

1  Loisy,  Autour,  p.  139. 


460  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ened  by  the  terrible  fate  which  befell  Jerusalem.  If, 
then,  the  glorious  Kingdom  was  slow  in  coming;  if 
the  Son  of  Man  did  not  as  yet  appear  in  triumph, 
people  were  naturally  led  to  conclude  that  Christ,  un- 
doubtedly, had  not,  as  closely  as  it  seemed,  connected 
His  last  appearance  with  that  disaster ;  that  the  chastise- 
ment of  the  Holy  City  may  have  been  the  first  advent 
of  Christ  the  Avenger;  that  the  Kingdom  may  have 
been  already  realized  in  the  Church ;  that  all  this  great 
tragedy  was  a  symbol,  a  prelude,  and  a  sure  warrant 
of  that  grand  drama  to  be  reaHzed  at  the  end  of  time. 
From  S.  Paul's  Epistles,  indeed,  as  also  from  the 
Apocalypse,  it  seems  to  follow  that,  in  a  way,  the  King- 
dom of  God  is  viewed  as  something  already  realized 
and  recognized.^ 

Such  a  method  of  reasoning  was  logical  and  in 
keeping  with  the  reality.  The  announcement  of  the 
end  of  the  world  during  the  present  generation  was 
taught  more  apparently  than  explicitly  in  the  Saviour's 
discourses.  What  was  certain  is,  that  the  ruin  of 
Jerusalem  served  to  confirm  His  word  decisively. 
What  was  certain  also  is  that  His  teaching  could  apply 
to  a  world  destined  to  endure,  as  well  as  to  a  world 
about  to  end. 

So  true  is  this  that  Renan  could  write :  "  If  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  had  been  simply  the  belief  in  an  ap- 
proaching end  of  the  world,  it  would  certainly  now 
be  sleeping  in  oblivion.  What,  then,  has  saved  it? 
The  great  breadth  of  the  Gospel  view,  which  has  al- 
lowed men  to  find,  under  the  same  symbol,  ideas  suited 
to  widely  different  moods  of  mind."  Shall  we  say 
that  the  Saviour  had  not  at  all  foreseen  the  adapta- 
tion of  His  Gospel  to  a  world  "  continuing  to  endure?" 
Renan  again  makes  this  significant  admission :  "  The 
world  has  not  ended.  .  .  .  But  it  has  been  renewed, 
and  in  a  measure  renewed  as  Jesus  wished.     It  is  be- 

^Rom.  xiv.  17;  I  Cor.  iv.  20;  Col.  i.  13;  iv.  11;  Gal.  vi.  15; 
2  Cor.  V.  17. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  461 

cause  His  thought  was  two-sided  that  it  has  been  fruit- 
ful. This  true  Kingdom  of  God — this  Kingdom  of  the 
spirit,  which  makes  each  man  king  and  priest;  tliis 
Kingdom  which,  hke  the  grain  of  mustard-seed  has 
become  a  tree  overshadowing  the  world,  among  whose 
branches  the  birds  have  their  nests — was  understood, 
wished  for,  founded  by  Him.  .  .  .  We  must,  then, 
attach  several  meanings  to  the  City  of  God  as  con- 
ceived by  Jesus.  .  .  .  He  proposed  to  Himself  to 
create  a  new  moral  condition  of  mankind,  and  not 
merely  to  prepare  for  the  end  of  that  which  exists."  ^ 
The  Church,  therefore,  was  right  in  not  calling  in 
doubt  the  veracity  of  her  Christ ;  nor  has  she  ceased 
to  be  faithful  to  Him.  Confiding  in  His  word,  she 
keeps  marching  onward,  her  eyes  uplifted  towards 
heaven,  awaiting  the  Kingdom  of  God  who  shall  come 
one  day  in  His  glory  and  of  which,  in  its  present 
preparatory  stage,  she  is  an  actual  realization.  The 
prospect  of  the  Son  of  Man's  coming  for  the  last 
judgment  is,  as  it  were,,  resting  on  the  horizon  of  each 
Christian  generation,  and  continues  to  produce  the 
same  salutary  impression.  The  dread  of  the  last  day, 
surely  to  come,  as  also  the  hope  of  the  promised  King- 
dom, is  for  the  Church  an  ever  fruitful  source  of 
strength,  of  fervor,  and  of  generosity.  What  holds, 
moreover,  for  the  entire  Church  is  constantly  realized 
by  each  individual.  The  Christian  also  lives  for  Him, 
his  glance  raised  on  high,  uncertain  of  the  moment  of 
death,  but  assured  of  eternal  life,  and  finding,  in  his 
incertitude  about  the  coming  of  that  last  hour,  a  con- 
stant motive  for  vigilance,  in  the  certainty  of  the 
final  judgment  a  salutary  fear,  in  his  assurance  about 
the  Kingdom  a  consolation  for  the  evils  of  life,  as  well 
as  an  effectual  impulse  along  the  way  of  holiness.^ 

^  Renan,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  288-289. 

2Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  178;  Autour,  p.  158 
ei  seq. 


462  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  details  of  our  in- 
terpretation, a  close  examination  of  the  Saviour's  dis- 
courses, in  accordance  with  the  rules  regulating  pro- 
phetic utterances,  and  in  the  light  of  events,  seems  to 
guarantee  its  correctness  as  a  whole.  The  unques- 
tionable fact  of  the  Palestinian  disaster,  so  remarkably 
serving  to  confirm  Jesus'  word,  and  the  no  less  mar- 
velous fact  of  the  development  of  the  Church,  con- 
formably to  the  Saviour's  thought  such  as  an  impartial 
study  of  the  Gospel  makes  it  known  to  us,  absolutely 
forbids  us  to  impute  to  Him  the  formal  error  which 
has  been  alleged. 

What  no  less  prevents  us  from  supposing  such  error 
is  the  Saviour's  remark  uttered  after  His  great  dis- 
course on  the  last  things :  "  Of  that  daj  and  that  hour, 
no  one  knoweth,  neither  the  angels  in  heaven,  nor  the 
Son,  but  only  the  Father."  Even  supposing  that  this 
text  implies  a  real  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the  Son 
concerning  the  precise  moment  of  the  last  advent,  the 
declaration  would  at  least  prove  that  Jesus  was  aware 
of  what  He  knew  and  of  what  He  did  not  know ;  and 
that  His  statements  do  not  go  beyond  His  positive 
knowledge.^ 

Naught  is  more  remarkable  than  the  Saviour's  in- 
sistance  upon  the  truth  of  His  former  prediction: 
"  Of  a  truth  I  say  to  you :  heaven  and  earth  shall  pass 
away,  but  my  word  shall  not  pass."  An  assurance  so 
firm  and  so  strongly  expressed  necessarily  implies 
that  Jesus  possessed  a  supernatural  kind  of  knowledge 
of  which  He  was  fully  conscious.  The  Saviour's  for- 
cible assertion,  then,  is  inteUigible  only  from  the  view- 
point oi  our  theory,  namely,  that  His  discourse  di- 
rectly refers  to  the  ruin  of  Jerusalem.  The  text  is 
inexplicable  if  we  do  not  admit  that,  in  the  first  place, 
He  asserts  the  imminence  of  the  Jewish  calamity,  and 

1  Mk.  xiii.  2>^;  Mt.  xxiv.  Z'^'y  Mk.  xiii.  30,  31;  Mt.  xxiv.  34, 
35 ;  Lk.  xxi.  32,  zz- 


lESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  463 

that,  by  such  an  immediate  display  of  His  judicial 
and  kingly  power,  He  wishes  to  guarantee  the  cer- 
tainty of  the  final  advent  of  the  Kingdom  in  glory.^ 

The  Saviour's  utterance,  at  all  events,  as  we  have 
remarked  before,  does  not  compel  us  to  suppose  that 
He  was  absolutely  ignorant  of  the  epoch  of  the  final 
advent.  The  Son  who  is  ignorant  of  the  last  day  is 
indeed  the  Man-Christ  united  substantially  to  the  di- 
vinity ;  but  doubtless  He  is  ignorant  only  as  far  as  His 
humanity  is  concerned,  because  He  cannot  know  that 
day  by  mere  human  science  acquired  by  the  natural 
process  of  His  created  intellect.  Such  knowledge  may 
exist  in  His  human  intelligence,  but  only  in  virtue  of 
a  higher  light  cast  upon  it  by  the  divinity ;  and  of  this 
transcendent  science  the  Saviour  takes  no  account  in 
the  present  case :  it  was  not  His  mission  to  reveal  this 
secret,  nay  it  was  His  duty  to  practically  ignore  it 
because  it  was,  and  was  to  remain,  the  exclusive  secret 
of  His  Father.  The  critics  who  admit  that,  in  general, 
Christ  was  mistaken  about  the  time  of  the  last  advent, 
interpret  the  fact  referred  to  above  as  implying  an 
absolute  and  real  ignorance.  Among  Catholics,  Schell 
has  maintained  such  an  interpretation  and  has  been 
followed  by  Loisy.^ 

Jesus'  declaration  had  essentially  the  same  sense  as 
that  which  He  made  at  the  moment  of  His  ascension. 
He  was  asked  if  He  were  then  going  to  restore  again 
the  Kingdom  to  Israel.  But,  leaving  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  the  task  of  clearing  His  disciples'  minds  of 
their  prejudices  about  the  nature  of  the  Kingdom,  He 
merely  answers :  "  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times 
or  moments,  which  the  Father  hath  put  in  His  own 

^  Lepin,  Jesus  Messie,  p.  367.     Above,  p.  413. 

2Lepin,  op.  cit.,  p.  378;  Schell,  KatoUsche  Dogmatik,  1892, 
vol.  iii,  p.  142  et  seq.;  Loisy  art.:  Rev.  Bib.:  L'Apoc.  Synop- 
tique,  1896,  p.  341 ;  Maldonat,  Com.  In  Math.,  xxiv,  36 ;  Calmet. 
L'Ev.  S.  Mt.,  p.  533 ;  FilHon.  Ev.  selon  S.  Mk.,  p.  188 ;  Knaben- 
bauer,  Ev.  sec.  Marcum,  p.  355 ;  Rose,  Ev.  selon  S.  Mk.,  p.  136. 


464  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

power."  He  did  not  say  that  He  was  ignorant  about 
the  matter;  but  He  gave  them  to  understand  that  it 
was  not  His  part  to  reveal  it.^ 

Nor  is  there  anything  to  warrant  us  in  believing 
that  Christ  had  acquired,  by  His  resurrection,  a  knowl- 
edge which  He  had  not  at  all  enjoyed  as  mortal  man: 
remarkably  enough,  even  in  this  instance  He  did  not 
specify  any  more  than  He  had  done  hitherto,  what 
His  disciples  had  no  reason  to  know;  and  there  is  a 
perfect  harmony  between  the  discourses  of  the  Risen 
Christ  and  those  uttered  before  His  resurrection.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  specially  characteristic  expressions 
found  in  the  Apostles'  question,  which  we  can  in  no 
way  ascribe  to  the  Evangelist  nor  to  Christian  tradi- 
tion, seem  to  fully  guarantee  the  historical  truth  of  the 
episode,  and,  in  particular,  of  the  Saviour's  reply.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  this  statement  supplies  an  au- 
thentic basis  for  our  interpretation  of  Jesus'  utter- 
ance.^ 

We  may  compare  this  text  with  Jesus'  words  to  the 
Sons  of  Zebedee :  ''  To  sit  on  my  right  hand,  or  on  my 
left,  is  not  mine  to  give  to  you,  but  to  them  for  whom 
it  is  prepared  by  my  Father."  The  Saviour  was  to 
possess  absolute  power  in  the  Kingdom;  He  was  to 
preside  at  the  last  judgment;  to  pronounce  sentence 
of  admission  or  exclusion;  to  render  to  each  one  ac- 
cording to  his  works.  But,  as  man,  He  enjoyed  this 
power  only  by  delegation  from  His  Father,  in  virtue 
of  His  participation  in  the  divine  nature  and  divine 
dignity;  and  in  this  sense  it  is  that  He  may  say  that 
such  power  did  not  belong  to  Him  but  only  to  His 
Father :  He  exercises  it  in  His  humanity,  but  He  holds 
it  only  by  reason  of  His  union  with  the  divinity.^ 

1  Ac.  i.  6,  7. 

2  Lepin,  op.  cit.,  p.  61,  62.     Above,  p.  114-115. 

3  Mk.  X.  40 ;  Mt.  XX.  23 ;  Mt.  vli.  23 ;  Lk.  xiii.  27 ;  Mt,  xvi. 
27;  Lk.  ix.  26;  Mt.  XX.  8;  xxiv.  51;  xxv.  14;  Lk.  xix.  12  sq.; 
Mt.  xxv.  31 ;  Maldonat,  Com.  In,  Mt.  xxiv.  36. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  465 

The  words  of  the  divine  Master  are  perhaps  better 
understood,  however,  if  we  admit  that,  as  Man,  His 
ignorance  of  the  last  judgment  was  real,  indeed,  al- 
though only  partial  and  relative.  In  fact,  may  we  not 
suppose  that  the  Saviour's  supernatural  knowledge, 
embracing  all  things — the  last  advent  included — de- 
rivable from  the  divine  light  into  a  created  intelli- 
gence, remained,  in  some  manner,  within  a  superior 
sphere  of  His  soul,  whence  it  had  only  a  partial  and 
discreet  influence  upon  that  knowledge  which  was 
practically  to  regulate  His  acts  and  to  inspire  His 
words  ? 

The  glory  which,  in  virtue  of  the  hypostatic  union, 
should  have  fully  clothed  the  Saviour's  sacred  body, 
was,  in  fact,  held  in  abeyance  by  His  oblation  of  Him- 
self as  the  victim  for  sin  upon  His  entrance  into  this 
world;  it  was,  for  an  instant  only,  revealed  at  the 
glorious  transfiguration.  In  spite  of  the  supernatural 
power  inherent  to  His  sacred  humanity  Jesus  allowed 
free  play  to  the  outrages  in  the  Praetorium  and  to  the 
tortures  on  Calvary;  just  as  the  supreme  beatitude, 
which  should  have  permeated  His  soul  so  substan- 
tially united  to  the  divinity,  did  not  prevent  His  bitter 
sadness  in  the  garden  of  Olives  nor  the  anguish  of 
His  last  agony  upon  the  Cross.  As  S.  Paul  says :  "  He 
emptied  Himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant."  May 
we  not  admit  that,  Hkewise,  Christ's  infused  and  most 
perfect  knowledge,  co-existed  with  an  ordinary  and 
practical  knowledge  which  although  assuredly  excel- 
lent was  still  limited,  incompatible  with  error,  and  yet 
susceptible  of  ignorance,  influenced  by  the  higher  light 
to  the  extent  required  by  His  mission,  and  for  the  rest, 
more  or  less  dependent  upon  its  human  resources  ?  ^ 

This  hypothesis,  we  think,  furnishes  a  good  explana- 
tion of  Jesus'  word  concerning  His  ignorance  of  the 
last  day;  it  explains  the  lack  of  precision  and  the  re- 

^  Philippians  ii.  7, 
30 


466  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

serve  noticeable  in  the  eschatological  discourses ;  it 
preserves  the  value  of  the  testimonies  which  argue  an 
experimental  and  progressive  knowledge  in  the 
Saviour's  mind,  nor  does  it  at  all  lessen  that  higher 
knowledge  required  by  the  hypostatic  union,  which, 
moreover,  is  attested  by  the  entire  history  of  Christ. 

Assuredly,  it  is  hard  to  comprehend  how  there  could 
exist  in  the  Saviour's  soul  both  a  knowledge  that  was 
infused,  independent  of  physical  organs  and  of  time, 
and  a  knowledge  that  was  experimental,  acquired,  and 
maintaining,  in  ordinary  life,  its  normal  role  and 
free  exercise.  But  is  it  surprising  to  find  mysterious 
features  in  Jesus'  unique  humanity  ?  Is  it  strange  that 
our  paltry  psychology  cannot  analyse  the  intellectual 
operations  of  the  Man-God?  Since  we  are  justified 
in  admitting  that  the  Saviour  possessed  two  species 
of  knowledge,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  there 
was  between  these  two  sorts  of  knowledge  an  extra- 
ordinary and  impenetrable  relation.  And  is  not  the 
relation  we  have  described  in  better  accord  with  the 
Gospel  facts,  taking  into  account  all  the  complex  ele- 
ments displayed  in  Jesus'  attitude  and  language? 

In  any  case,  however  limited  and  imperfect  be  the 
Saviour's  ordinary  knowledge,  the  especially  important 
feature,  which  any  impartial  critic  must  admit,  is  that 
Christ  possessed,  in  His  humanity,  a  most  perfect 
superior  knowledge,  in  which,  absolutely  speaking,  no 
kind  of  error  is  admissible. 

The  hypothesis  proposed  above  appears  to  us  as 
suited  to  harmonize  the  exigencies  of  the  hypostatic 
union,  proper  to  the  Saviour's  humanity  with  the  lit- 
eral sense  of  the  text.  It  would  also  shed  an  abundant 
light  upon  some  remarkable  statements  of  several 
Fathers  of  the  Church,  especially  S.  Athanasius.^ 

It  has  been  thus  expressed  by  M.  Olier:  "  The  higher 

IS.  Athanasius,  Against  the  Avians,  or.  3,  n.  43;  Epistle 
to  Serapion,  n.  9 ;  Vacant,  art. :  Agnoetes,  V.  D.,  vol.  i,  col.  590. 


lESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  467 

portion  of  the  soul  of  our  Lord,  the  understanding, 
the  memory,  and  the  will,  was,  so  to  say,  divided  in  two, 
i.  e.,  it  acted  in  two  different  ways.  By  God's  abso- 
lute power,  one  section  of  this  higher  sphere  enjoyed 
God  in  the  light  of  glory;  and  yet  that  very  power 
so  operated,  that  the  soul  was  not  absorbed  in  glory 
to  such  an  extent  that  there  remained  nothing  of  that 
reasoning  part  which  reasons  about  things  even  when 
despoiled  or  deprived  of  the  light  of  glory.  .  .  .  The 
part  which  did  not  enjoy  the  glory  was  aware  of  things 
past,  present,  and  future,  as  we,  here  below,  enjoy  the 
revelation  of  God's  mysteries,  but  only  in  so  far  as 
is  allowed  during  this  passing  life,  in  which  we  could 
not  bear  a  full  revelation  of  hidden  mysteries.  So 
God  in  some  way  desired  to  keep  them  hidden  from 
His  Son,  as  though  He  were  a  pilgrim  on  earth,  and 
to  reveal  them  to  Him  fully  only  after  His  resur- 
rection. It  was  a  knowledge  which  His  condition  of 
Victim  for  the  sins  of  men  and  His  state  of  servitude 
had  kept  far  from  Him,  and  of  which  He  had  been  de- 
prived hitherto.  Hence  it  was  as  a  pilgrim  and  as  the 
Servant  of  His  Father,  that  our  Lord  said  to  His 
disciples :  "  I  know  not  such  thing.  ...  I  know  not 
the  judgment  day."  It  is  in  this  quality  that  He  is 
ignorant  of  it.  The  Servant  knoweth  not  what  His 
Master  doth,  he  is  ignorant  of  His  secrets.  So,  too, 
our  Lord  said  to  SS.  James  and  John,  before  His  re- 
surrection, when  still  a  victim  for  sin :  "  To  sit  on  my 
right  hand,  or  on  my  left,  is  not  mine  to  give  to  you,  but 
to  them  for  w^hom  it  is  prepared."  But  I  can,  in  my 
present  condition,  distribute  the  crosses,  although  not 
the  glory.  My  Father  has  reserved  that  right  to  Him- 
self." ^ 

In  a  slightly  different  sense,  Lagrange  says :  "  If 
S.  Matthew  clearly  affirms  that  the  Son  does  not 
know  the  hour  of  judgment,  to  deny  it  on  the  pretext 

1  Olier,  Memoir e^  Mqnuscrits,  March  16,  1641, 


468  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

that  Christ  knew  all  things,  is  to  go  counter  to  the 
principle  of  S.  Thomas :  we  must  abide  by  the  au- 
thority of  Scripture.  But  to  conclude  from  this  par- 
ticular ignorance  before  the  resurrection  that  Christ 
did  not,  even  then,  enjoy  the  beatific  vision,  is  another 
paralogism ;  for  is  it  not  possible  to  behold  the  essence 
of  God  without  penetrating  the  secrets  of  His  will  ?  "  ^ 

9.    JESUS  CONSCIOUS  OF  HIS  PERSONALITY  AND  DESTINY. 

To  apply,  then,  the  foregoing  principles  to  Jesus' 
consciousness  of  His  own  personality  and  of  His  des- 
tiny. Since  we  must  admit  that  the  Saviour  possessed 
supernatural  knowledge,  derived  from  the  divine  light, 
it  is  hard  to  suppose  that  this  supernatural  knowledge 
did  not  have  for  its  primary  object  the  character  of 
His  own  very  being  and  the  precise  role  which  He  had 
to  play.  Indeed,  the  hypostatic  union,  if  it  does  not  ab- 
solutely require,  at  least  demands  it  as  quite  fitting, 
that  He  should  be  fully  conscious  of  His  relation  with 
God  and  of  His  mission  to  men.  Nor  can  we  help 
thinking  that,  from  His  Incarnation,  before  He  en- 
joyed the  use  of  His  bodily  organs,  before  He  had  any 
experience.  He  perceived,  by  supernatural  and  infused 
knowledge.  His  substantial  union  with  the  divinity 
and  His  destiny  as  the  Messiah-Redeemer. 

If,  then,  there  was  any  progress  in  His  conscious- 
ness of  being  the  Son  of  God  and  Messiah,  it  could 
take  place  only  in  the  experimental  and  inferior  part 
of  His  consciousness.  The  fact  that  the  Saviour  pos- 
sessed a  knowledge  that  was  really  human  and  ac- 
quired, subordinate  to  His  higher  knowledge  while 
maintaining  its  natural  exercise,  warrants  us  in  sup- 
posing that,  as  He  grew  in  age,  as  His  organs  devel- 
oped, as  His  thoughts  became  deeper,  and  His  experi- 
ence wider,   He  secured  a  more  complete  and  more 

1  Lagrange,  Rev.  Bib.,  1896,  p.  454;  cf.  Bullet,  Litf,  Eccl.y 
1904,  p.  15: 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD  469 

perfect  understanding  of  that  transcendent  union 
which  He  enjoyed  with  God  and  of  that  mission 
which  He  was  destined  to  achieve  among  men.  It  is 
only  in  this  sense  that  we  may  claim  that  events  like 
the  Baptism,  the  Temptation,  the  persecutions  of  the 
Pharisees,  influenced  His  appreciation  of  His  Mes- 
sianic vocation,  of  the  character  of  His  mission,  and 
of  His  sufferings. 

Yet,  we  must  not  fail  to  remark  that  in  no  way  do 
these  events  seem  to  play,  in  the  formation  of  Christ's 
experimental  consciousness,  the  important  and  decisive 
part  which  has  been  alleged.  The  Baptism,  as  pre- 
viously seen,  does  not  appear  to  have  led  to  an  im- 
portant progress  in  the  Saviour's  own  ideas  about  His 
Messiahship:  it  was  rather  the  providential  event 
which  determined  Him  to  undertake  a  mission  which 
He  knew  fully  before.  Jesus  did  not  then  receive  the 
final  revelation  of  His  vocation,  but  rather  the  solemn 
invitation  which  He  had  expected  from  His  Father 
in  order  to  enter  upon  His  Messianic  career,  and  a  par- 
ticular communication  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  view  of 
the  perfect  fulfilment  of  His  ministry.  So,  too,  the 
Temptation  in  the  desert  did  not  apparently  change  at 
all  the  Saviour's  ideas  about  His  Messianic  office,  nor 
did  the  Pharisaic  persecution  really  reveal  to  Him 
His  destiny  of  death. 

Moreover,  the  truly  important  thing  in  this  matter 
is  that  the  existence,  in  the  sacred  Humanity  of  Jesus, 
of  a  higher  and  most  perfect  consciousness,  apart 
from  His  acquired  knowledge,  is  unquestionable,  alike 
from  the  standpoint  of  Gospel  criticism  and  of  the- 
ology. As  a  matter  of  fact  the  Gospel  represents 
Him  as  being  conscious,  long  before  the  events,  of 
the  precise  epoch  and  of  the  exact  circumstances  of 
His  death:  and  it  is  impossible  to  ascribe  to  this 
knowledge  a  human  origin.  It  is  also  a  fact  that, 
from  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  Christ  is  repre- 
sented as  being  fully  aware  of  His  Messianic  dignity 


470 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


and  of  the  spiritual  character  of  His  mission.  And 
the  Saviour,  finally,  appears  to  us  enlightened  from 
above,  at  the  age  of  twelve  years,  concerning  His  di- 
vine filiation  and  vocation,  and  such  is  the  inward  con- 
viction to  which  He  bears  witness,  so  extremely  deep 
is  His  persuasion,  that,  as  we  have  seen,  the  most 
independent  critics  recognize  a  kind  of  inborn  quality 
in  His  consciousness.^ 

Are  we  not,  therefore,  logically  led  to  believe  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  when  he  de- 
scribes Christ,  from  the  very  first  moment  of  His  en- 
trance into  the  world,  as  offering  Himself,  body  and 
soul,  to  His  Father,  in  order  to  supplant  the  ancient 
sacrifices  and  to  redeem  mankind? 

CONCLUSION. 

In  his  book  entitled  ''  The  Gospel  and  the  Church," 
Loisy  claims  to  take  '*  the  point  of  view  of  history." 
He  also  stated  later  that  "  he  had  endeavored  to  de- 
pict the  historic  physiognomy  of  the  Saviour  .  .  .  the 
historic  form  of  Christ's  appearance."  Now,  in  as- 
suming that  position,  he  thought  he  was  warranted  in 
asserting  that,  theologically  speaking,  Christ  was  not 
conscious  of  being  the  Son  of  God.  "  It  is  simply  a 
question  of  ascertaining,"  says  he,  "  if  the  representa- 
tion of  the  Gospel  fact,  in  the  *  Gospel  and  the 
Church,'  sufficiently  conforms  to  the  reality."  Again, 
he  remarks:  "  If  that  explanation  is  defective,  it  is  by 
writings  of  the  same  class,  but  more  satisfactory,  that 
his  imperfections  will  be  corrected.  .  .  .  The  be- 
lievers in  the  divinity  of  Christ  must  be  reassured  by 
an  interpretation  of  the  Gospel  and  of  the  documents 
of  ecclesiastical  antiquity,  according  to  the  rules  which 
are  now  usually  applied  to  all  human  texts,  due  atten- 
tion being  also  paid  to  the  movement  of  contemporary 
thought  in  the  philosophic  order."  ^ 

^Lepin,  op.  cit.,  p.  200.     Above,  p.  244. 
2  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  2 ;  Autour,  p.  viii. 
112,  114;  xxviii. 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF  GOD 


471 


This  is  what  we  have  sought  to  do  in  the  present 
work;  and  yet,  in  taking  the  position  indicated  by 
Loisy,  we  have  reached  quite  different  conclusions. 
We  have  seen  that  the  facts,  since  it  is  a  question  of 
facts,  are  not  such  as  he  has  represented  in  his  work 
on  "  The  Gospel  and  the  Church  " ;  that  his  "  represen- 
tation of  the  Gospel  facts,"  is  narrow,  incomplete; 
that  it  does  not  square  with  the  entire  sacred  testi- 
mony, and  consequently  does  not  conform  to  the  whole 
reality.  In  interpreting  the  Gospels  according  to  the 
rules  of  the  most  serious  criticism,  we  have  shown 
that  Jesus  was  truly  aware  of  His  divinity,  and  that 
He  revealed  it  prudently,  although  sufficiently,  in  His 
words  and  deeds. 

The  dogma  of  Christ's  divinity,  as  afterwards  for- 
mulated in  the  Christian  Church,  does  not  come, 
therefore,  solely  from  the  faith  of  Christians :  it 
truly  has  its  foundation  and  its  principle  in  the  Gospel , 
it  is  but  the  true  expression,  the  exact  translation  of 
the  testimony  of  history. 

Our  conclusions  are,  indeed,  such  as  can  truly  re- 
assure ''  the  believers  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  " ;  and 
if  it  be  admitted  that  those  conclusions  are  firmly 
established  in  the  foregoing  pages,  it  would  seem  that, 
with  better  right  than  "  The  Gospel  and  the  Church  ", 
this  present  work  might  be  deemed  ''  an  homage  to 
the  Christ-God  ".  To  quote  a  phrase  Loisy  used  in 
referring  to  "  The  Gospel  and  the  Church  ",  the  little 
book,  despite  its  faults  and  with  all  its  didactic  aridity, 
is  an  homage  to  the  Christ-God  ".^ 

Loisy  thinks  that,  "  in  the  matter  of  hypotheses  or 
of  theories  corresponding  to  the  data  of  human  science 
at  a  given  period  of  history,  we  refute  only  what 
we  are  able  to  replace  by  something  better."  It  is  for 
the  reader  to  judge  if  our  presentation  of  the  Gospel 
testimony  may   claim  to   supplant   the   one  given  by 

1  Loisy,  Autour  d'un  Petit  Livre,  p.  22,  ihid.,  p.  8. 


472  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Loisy.  We  would  be  glad  if  we  had  succeeded  in 
showing  that,  viewed  in  the  light  of  exact  and  com- 
plete criticism,  the  Gospel  really  portrays  the  Christ 
of  the  Church:  Jesus-Messiah,  Son  of  God  and  Son 
of  Man,  both  true  God  and  true  Man. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Recent  Theories  of  Loisy  on  Jesus  Messiah  and 
Son  of  God. 

The  ideas  which  were  sketched  out  in  the  "  Gospel 
and  the  Church  ",  and  in  '*  About  a  Httle  book  ",  on 
the  messiahship  and  divinity  of  Jesus,  have  recently 
been  taken  up  again  and  developed  by  Loisy  in  his 
large  commentary  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  What 
change  have  the  opinions  of  our  critic  undergone  con- 
cerning this  capital  subject?  And  what  judgment 
must  we  pass  upon  his  hypotheses,  now  that  he  gives 
of  them  a  complete  exposition  which,  very  likely,  em- 
bodies his  final  conclusions  ?  ^ 

expose  of  loisy's  theories. 

Loisy  continues  to  affirm  that,  undoubtedly,  Jesus 
has  believed  and  proclaimed  Himself  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah. 

Messianic  Manifestations  and  Declarations. — 

"  The  radical  hypothesis  of  some  critics,^  he  says, 
who  claim  that  Jesus  Himself  never  thought  He  was 
the  Christ,  and  that  His  disciples  believed  Him  to  be 
so  only  after  they  had  acquired  faith  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  their  Master,  seems  inadmissible.  If  Jesus 
has  not  been  condemned  as  King  of  the  Jews,  that  is 
to  say  as  Messiah,  we  might  as  well  contend  that  He 
never  existed.  And  did  not  the  disciples  rather  believe 
that  Jesus  rose  again  from  the  dead  because  they  had 

1  Cf.,  above,  pp.  136,  174,  233-235,  280-305 ;  Loisy,  Les  Evan- 
giles  Synoptiques,  vol.  i,  pub.  by  the  author,  1907;  in  8°, 
p.  1014;  vol.  ii,  1908,  p.  818. 

2  Brandt,  Wrede.  Wellhausen  expresses  almost  the  same 
opinion.    Cf.  above,  pp.  129- 131. 

(473) 


474  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

previously  believed  that  He  was  the  Christ  ?  "  *'  All 
subsequent  speculations,  including  the  most  recent 
analyses  of  the  messianic  consciousness  of  Jesus,  van- 
ish before  these  simple  words :  '  Art  thou  the  Christ  ? 
Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews?  Thou  hast  said  it.' 
Although  His  conception  of  the  Kingdom  was  a  purely 
religious  and  moral  one,  Jesus  none  the  less  looked 
upon  Himself  as  the  Messiah  promised  to  Israel  and 
the  future  King  of  the  elect."  ^ 

This  first  point  being  thus  settled,  critics  ask  them- 
selves when  and  how  did  Jesus  manifest  His  quality  of 
Messiah.  ''  From  the  point  of  view  of  history,  Loisy 
declares,  two  things  seem  to  be  certain,  which  con- 
tradict and  set  at  naught  most  of  the  explicit  indica- 
tions that  are  now  to  be  found  in  the  texts :  Jesus  re- 
frained from  declaring  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah 
until  a  rather  late  period  of  His  ministry,  and  He 
avoided  giving  Himself  as  such  during  the  whole  of 
the  Galilean  mission ;  in  going  to  Jerusalem,  He  had 
the  intention  of  proclaiming  Himself  the  Christ,  or 
the  hope  of  being  pointed  out  as  such  by  the  manifes- 
tation of  the  heavenly  Kingdom ;  at  least,  it  is  in  His 
quality  of  Messiah  and  because  He  acknowledged  it, 
that  He  was  condemned  to  death  by  Pilate,  upon  the 
denunciation  of  the  Sanhedrin."  - 

But,  if  we  must  admit  that  the  explicit  and  direct 
manifestation  of  His  Messiahship  took  place  at  a 
rather  late  period  of  His  public  life,  it  remains  true, 
none  the  less,  that  the  Saviour  was  conscious  of  His 
dignity   from  the  very  beginning  of   His  ministry. 

"  Several  critics,^  Loisy  remarks,  have  thought  that 
Jesus  began  to  preach  without  being  conscious  of  His 
messianic    vocation,   and   that    He   became   aware   of 

1  Loisy,  Les  Evang.  Synopt.,  vol.  i,  p.  212;  Id.  ibid.,  p.  192; 
cf.  above,  pp.   132-136. 

2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  192. 

3  Renan  among  others.     Cf.  above,  pp.  200-204. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OP  GOD  475 

this  vocation  during  the  course  of  His  ministry,  a 
short  time  before  the  disciples  recognized  it  through 
St.  Peter's  confession.  Such  a  hypothesis  is  in  itself 
neither  impossible  nor  unlikely.  Yet,  it  is  not  easy 
to  see  how  Jesus*  experiences  could  have  led  Him  to 
believe  He  was  the  Messiah,  if  He  had  not  been  con- 
vinced of  it  at  first.  The  difficulties  which  very  soon 
began  to  counterbalance  His  success,  would  have  sug- 
gested doubt  rather  than  certitude  concerning  the  great 
advent  and  all  that  was  connected  with  it.  The  Gos- 
pels do  not  really  bear  witness  to  any  evolution  taking 
place  in  the  conscience  of  the  Saviour  and  in  His  ap- 
preciation of  the  role  which  was  assigned  to  Him  by 
Providence.  There  is  hardly  any  room  for  such  an 
evolution  in  the  short  space  of  His  public  career.  The 
most  natural  explanation  of  the  initiative  He  took 
after  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist,  does  not 
seem  to  be  that  He  thought  it  necessary  to  substitute 
Himself  for  the  captive  prophet,  but  that  He  thought 
He  was  qualified  to  prepare  the  approaching  inaugura- 
tion of  the  Kingdom,  since  He  was  the  predestinated 
Head  thereof.  The  very  simple  fundamental  ideas 
and  sentiments  which  constitute  His  Gospel  seem  to 
be  firmly  rooted  in  His  mind  from  the  very  beginning : 
namely,  a  purely  moral  and  religious  conception  ot 
the  Kingdom  and  of  the  conditions  of  admittance 
into  it ;  an  intimate  consciousness  of  possessing  a 
unique  authority  to  set  off  those  ideas  in  His  preach- 
ing and  to  bring  about  their  realization.  So  Jesus  is 
fully  prepared  for  His  role  when  He  begins  to  teach. "^ 
"  The  Kingdom  of  God,"  Loisy  goes  on,  "  is  not  a 
political  institution,  and  the  establishment  thereof  is 
not  to  be  brought  about  by  those  means  which  serve 
to  found  monarchies,  or  to  promote,  guarantee  and 
protect  the  independence  of  nations.  The  joys  of 
the  heavenly  Kingdom  belong  essentially  to  the  moral 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  212-213. 


476  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

order,  its  law  is  justice.  .  .  .  The  Gospel  therefore 
shall  not  be  the  undertaking  of  a  holy  war,  with  a  view 
of  securing,  through  rehgious  motives,  the  national 
freedom ;  it  shall  be  a  preparation  of  the  hearts  of  men 
for  the  establishment  of  that  justice  which  God  de- 
mands from  His  faithful  before  manifesting  His  glory 
to  them."  ^ 

But,  if  Jesus  was  thus  conscious  of  His  vocation 
from  the  time  He  entered  upon  His  pubHc  career,  why 
did  He  not  im.mediately  proclaim  Himself  the  Mes- 
siah, and  how  is  it  that  He  still  wishes  to  make  a 
secret  of  this  quality  even  after  the  disciples  have  ac- 
knowledged it  in  Him?  Loisy  continues  to  explain 
this  fact  by  the  hypothesis  that  Jesus  believed  Him- 
self to  be,  not  the  acting,  but  only  the  future  Messiah, 
the  Messiah  by  destination. 

He  says :  "  If  Jesus,  in  the  discourses  which  we  may 
look  upon  as  the*  most  authentic  expression  of  His 
thought,  seems  to  be  concerned  chiefly  about  the  King- 
dom, and  not  about  His  person  and  role,  if  He  rather 
avoids  proclaiming  Himself  the  Messiah,  if  He  im- 
poses upon  His  disciples  the  reserve  which  He  Him- 
self keeps,  it  is  because  He  was  not  yet  playing  that 
role  of  Messiah,  it  is  because  the  present  conditions 
of  His  existence  and  of  His  action  were  not  such  as 
became  the  Vicar  of  God  on  earth.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  there  was  no  Messiah  as  long  as  there  was  no 
Kingdom.  It  was  not  Jesus'  but  the  Father's  part  to 
manifest  the  Christ.  The  Messiah  was  to  be  revealed 
to  all  in  the  advent  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  An  un- 
timely and  premature  declaration  could  not  fail  to  pro- 
voke a  conflict  with  the  civil  authorities,  and  would 
undoubtedly  be  understood  by  many  as  a  direct  ap- 
peal to  national  independence.  But  these  two  motives 
would  not  suffice  to  explain  the  attitude  and  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Saviour.    If  He  does  not  proclaim  Him- 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  231-232. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  477 

self  the  Messiah,  it  is  because  there  is  no  reason  for 
it;  in  one  sense  He  is  not  yet  truly  the  Messiah,  He 
only  expects  to  become  such ;  an  absolute  claim  would 
therefore  be  at  variance  with  His  present  condition, 
with  the  idea  He  Himself  has  of  the  messianic  func- 
tions. He  is  the  person  to  whom  these  functions  are 
reserved:  Peter's  confession  has  no  other  meaning."  ^ 

"  As  the  messianic  King,"  Loisy  writes,  "  Jesus 
will  be  the  Vicar  of  God;  as  long  as  He  is  preaching 
the  coming  of  the  Kingdom,  He  has  not  yet  entered 
upon  His  providential  functions.  He  is  not  yet  estab- 
lished in  the  relations  which  that  role  will  create  be- 
tween Him  and  the  Creator.  It  must  be  taken  for 
granted  that,  with  due  proportion,  His  own  condition 
was  to  be  altered  just  as  much  as  that  of  all  the  pre- 
destinated inhabitants  of  the  Kingdom;  He  Himself, 
indeed,  was  no  more  Christ  than  those  who  believed 
in  His  word  were  actually  citizens  of  the  Heavenly 
Kingdom;  just  as  they  did,  so  was  He  also  expecting 
from  the  Father  the  fulfilment  of  His  promises ;  in 
the  meanwhile,  He  was  acting  as  a  son,  He  was  prac- 
ticing that  absolute  confidence  which  He  recommended 
to  His  disciples  as  being  the  first,  and  we  may  say  the 
only  duty  towards  God."  " 

But,  the  main  point  is  to  know  whence  did  Jesus 
draw  the  conviction,  found  in  Him  from  the  very  be- 
ginning of  His  ministry,  that  the  messianic  dignity 
belonged  to  Him.  If  we  may  believe  Loisy,  who  is 
but  an  echo  of  Strauss,  the  Saviour  from  His  early 
boyhood,  had  cherished  in  His  soul  the  sentiment  of  a 
particularly  close  union  with  God;  very  early,  too.  He 
believed  He  was  destined  to  devote  His  life  to  God  by 
the  fulfilment  of  a  special  religious  mission;  for,  on 
the  day  of  His  baptism  by  John  the  Baptist,  we  see 
Him,  free  from  all  human  ties,  ready  to  entQr  upon 

^  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  213. 

2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol,  i,  p.  242;  above,  pp.  174-175, 


478  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

His  public  career;  yet,  it  is  on  that  day  only  that  He 
seems  to  have  had  a  complete  revelation  of  the  mes- 
sianic role  that  was  awaiting  Him. 

Says  our  critic :  "  Religious  feelings  together  with 
the  hopes  of  the  Jewish  people  must  have  got  hold  of 
His  soul  from  His  most  tender  years  and  predomi- 
nated in  Him  during  His  youth,  since  we  see  Him,  in 
His  thirtieth  year,  free  from  all  human  bonds,  ready 
to  obey  the  call  that  impels  Him  to  leave  His  work- 
shop, His  home,  His  native  land."  "  It  was  probably 
John  the  Baptist  who,  unknown  to  himself,  awakened 
the  Saviour's  vocation.  The  crisis  through  which 
Judsea  was  passing  had  given  rise  to  a  Prophet.  John 
was  preaching  penance  and  administering  baptism  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  in  view  of  the  great  judgment 
that  was  about  to  take  place,  and  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God  that  was  about  to  come.  .  .  .  Jesus  was  attracted 
like  the  others,  but  perhaps  was  He  drawn,  as  nobody 
else  was,  by  a  deeper  interest  in  that  reign  of  justice 
which  John  the  Baptist  said  was  so  near  at  hand.  He 
caused  Himself  to  be  baptized  and  then  remained  for 
some  time  in  the  wilderness."  ^ 

Long  before  Loisy,  Strauss  had  written  in  his  Life 
of  Jesus:  "  It  was  not  from  the  prophecies  relating  to 
the  Messiah,  or  the  conviction  that  He  was  the  Mes- 
siah that  the  peculiar  self-consciousness  of  Jesus  de- 
veloped itself,  but,  conversely,  it  was  from  His  own 
self-consciousness  that  He  came  to  the  conviction  that 
in  the  messianic  prophecies  no  one  could  be  meant  but 
He;  the  consciousness,  therefore,  that  He  was  the 
Messiah  was,  looking  at  His  general  religious  con- 
sciousness, not  the  first  thing,  but  the  second,  not  the 
original,  but  the  derived  consciousness."  Again :  "  It 
was  natural  for  Jesus  to  be  induced  to  undertake  the 
journey  to  the  Jordan  by  what  He  heard  of  the  Bap- 
tist, since  He  also  was  dissatisfied  with  the  existing 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  206-207, 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  479 

system  of  religion ;"  and  finally :  "  Jesus  was  bound 
by  no  domestic  or  social  ties."  ^ 
The  Part   Played  by  Jesus'  Baptism. — "  If   it 

be  permitted,"  Loisy  says  in  another  passage,  *'  to 
venture  upon  a  hypothesis  in  so  obscure  a  matter, 
one  could  say  that  Jesus,  in  the  humble  house  of 
Nazareth,  had  grown  up  as  a  Son  of  God  through 
piety,  unfolding  His  pure  soul  under  the  eyes  of  the 
Heavenly  Father,  although  the  thought  of  the  great 
role  which  the  Messiah  was  to  play  in  the  world  did 
not  at  first  have  any  place  in  the  intimate  intercourse 
of  that  soul  with  God.  This  preoccupation  probably 
entered  His  mind  later  on,  either  under  the  influence 
of  the  current  messianic  ideas,  or  as  a  result  of  the 
preaching  of  John  announcing  the  near  advent  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  Be  it  as  it  may,  the  meeting  with 
John  was  a  circumstance  eminently  suited  for  a  divine 
revelation ;  it  was  there,  by  the  side  of  the  Prophet  who 
gave  himself  as  the  precursor  of  the  Messiah,  or  at 
least  as  the  herald  of  the  Heavenly  Kingdom,  that 
Jesus,  who  was  already  Son  of  God  through  the  inti- 
mate consciousness  of  His  union  with  the  celestial 
Father,  received  the  supreme  intuition  of  His  provi- 
dential mission,  and  that  He  felt  He  was  the  Son  of 
God,  the  Messiah  promised  to  Israel."  - 

The  baptism,  therefore,  has  been  ''a  capital  fact"  in 
the  earthly  career  of  Jesus.  Loisy,  of  course,  does  not 
wish  us  to  take  the  evangelical  narrative  literally ;  the 
tendency  of  tradition  ''in  this,  as  well  as  in  other  cases, 
has  b^en  to  transform  into  a  visible  scene,  into  a  ma- 
terial fact,  what  was  chiefly,  and  one  may  say  exclu- 
sively, an  internal  phenomenon,  which  the  historian 
must  not  think  of  describing;  "  tradition  seems  to  have 
"  condensed  into  one  fact  a  whole  psychological  pro- 

1  Strauss,  A   New  Life   of  Jesus,  Eng.  transl.,   1865,  vol.  i, 
I.  264,  265,   268. 
Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  408;  above,  p.  234 


PP 
2 


48o  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

cess  which  it  could  not,  any  more  than  we  can,  at- 
tempt to  analyze."  It  remains  none  the  less  true  that 
he  regards  the  episode  of  the  baptism  as  a  decisive 
moment  in  the  formation  of  the  messianic  conscious- 
ness of  the  Saviour,  although  this  consciousness,  it 
goes  without  saying,  was  still  capable  of  more  pre- 
cision and  development.^ 

"  That  Jesus,"  he  declares,  "  found  in  His  bap- 
tism the  decisive  revelation  of  His  messianic  role, 
that  the  consciousness  of  His  divine  filiation  got  hold 
of  Him  with  a  force  hitherto  unknown  and  never  to 
be  lost  afterwards,  this  at  least  may  be  considered  as 
the  solid  foundation  of  the  traditional  narrative.  But 
that  this  revelation  was  the  first,  absolutely  speaking; 
that  it  was  not  prepared  by  the  whole  anterior  life  of 
Jesus  and  that  it  was  not  completed  later  on,  this  the 
critics  cannot  admit,  and  tradition,  strictly  speaking, 
never  held.  The  revelation  connected  with  the  baptism 
could  be  made  only  to  a  soul  disposed  to  receive  it; 
on  the  other  hand,  the  historical  meaning  of  the  ac- 
count of  the  temptation  is  that  Jesus  must  have  en- 
deavored to  learn  more  about  the  providential  con- 
ditions of  His  vocation;  and  one  may  say  that  this 
progressive  education,  which  was  partly  the  result  of 
experience,  went  on  up  to  the  time  of  His  death."  ^ 

Thus,  His  stay  in  the  wilderness,  after  His  baptism, 
threw,  it  is  assumed,  a  new  and  clear  light,  upon  the 
moral  conditions  of  His  role.  Such  is,  in  fact,  the 
meaning  of  our  actual  narratives.  "  Jesus  more  and 
more  completely  influenced  by  the  idea  of  the  Heavenly 
Kingdom,  spent  some  time  in  the  wilderness;  there 
He  was  haunted  by  the  consciousness,  growing  con- 
stantly clearer,  of  His  own  vocation."  ^ 

"  Had  not  tradition  mentioned  this  retreat  in  the 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  409;  above,  pp.  140-141. 
^Id.  ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  408;  above,  pp.  234-235. 
^Jd.  ibid.,  p.  207. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  481 

wilderness,"  Loisy  observes,  "  we  should  almost  pre- 
suppose it.  ...  A  time  for  reflection  and  for  prepara- 
tion was  indispensable  between  the  carpenter's  Hfe  and 
the  manifestation  of  the  evangelical  preacher.  We  may 
admit  that  Jesus'  vocation  manifested  itself  on  the 
occasion  of  His  baptism,  but,  to  follow  this  vocation, 
it  was  necessary,  first  of  all,  to  weigh  the  conditions 
thereof ;  the  Spirit  by  whom  Jesus  was  made  the 
Christ  could  not  fail  to  lead  Him  into  the  wilderness ; 
and  Jesus  in  the  wilderness  was  to  be  tempted  by  the 
Devil  and  agitated  by  opposite  ideas :  on  the  one  hand, 
the  ideal  of  simple,  genuine  piety  which  had  been,  so 
far,  the  food  of  His  soul,  together  with  the  spiritual 
elements  of  the  Jewish  messianic  conceptions ;  on  the 
other  hand,  the  current  fancies,  the  ideas  of  earthly 
triumph.  The  solution  of  the  conflict  is  in  the  pro- 
gramme which  Jesus  has  deliberately  followed,  and 
which  asserted  itself,  in  presence  of  the  same  tempta- 
tions, during  the  whole  length  of  His  ministry:  to 
prepare  men  to  the  advent  of  the  Kingdom  by  the 
conversion  of  the  heart,  and  to  rely  entirely  upon  God 
for  the  determination  of  the  day  and  manner  in  which 
the  great  advent  was  to  be  brought  about."  ^ 

Illusions  Concerning  the  Future. — But,  though 
He  had  definite  ideas  on  the  spiritual  character  of 
His  vocation,  Jesus  was  very  far  from  having  an 
equally  clear  consciousness  of  His  suffering  destiny. 
If  we  may  believe  Loisy,  the  Saviour's  mind  was 
running  in  a  quite  opposite  direction,  and  He  never 
foresaw  with  any  degree  of  certitude  what  the  future 
had  in  store  for  Him.  The  Kingdom  whose  advent 
He  was  announcing  was  to  come.  He  thought,  without 
delay;  it  was  going  to  manifest  itself  shortly,  unex- 
pectedly; He  Himself,  therefore,  was  about  to  enter 
into  His  messianic  glory. 

Such   was    His   hope   while    He   was    repairing   to 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  427;  cf.  pp.  423-424;  above,  p.  141. 
31 


482  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

the  Jewish  capital :  "  He  was  not  going  to  Jerusalem 
to  die;  He  was  going  thither  to  prepare  and  bring 
about,  at  the  risk  of  His  own  life,  the  advent  of  God." 
The  obstacles  which  He  had  met  so  far,  had  simply 
caused  Him  to  "  surmise  "  and  *'  this,  perhaps,  only 
at  rare  intervals  and  in  a  vague  manner,  that  the  Mes- 
siah was  running  the  risk  of  not  entering  into  His 
glory  except  through  the  door  of  death."  After  the 
bold  manifestation  of  His  triumphal  entry  into  Jeru- 
salem and  His  many  challenges  to'  the  religious  leaders 
of  the  nation,  the  situation  became  such  that  "  no 
denouement  was  possible,  except  through  a  miracle 
or  a  catastrophe,  and  it  was  the  latter  which  happened 
to  pass.  Jesus  had  not  failed  to  foresee  it,  but  He  had 
not  ceased  either  to  hope  for  the  miracle,  because  He 
had  not  ceased  to  count  upon  the  advent  of  the  King- 
dom." ^ 

The  same  illusion  He  kept  until  the  last  Supper, 
until  His  agony  in  the  Garden,  until  His  last  moment 
upon  the  Cross. ^ 

Thus  '*  Jesus  considered  death  as  being  possible, 
and,  in  case  it  should  come  to  pass,  as  being  the  provi- 
dential condition  for  the  realization  of  the  Kingdom 
about  to  come,  but  not  as  being  in  itself  a  necessary 
element  of  His  messianic  functions :  He  looked  upon 
it  as  a  risk  He  had  to  run,  as  a  danger  He  had  to  face, 
but  not  as  the  salutary  action  by  excellence,  the  ac- 
tion to  which  His  ministry  must  tend  and  upon  which 
the  future  essentially  depended."  ^ 

"  Jesus,"  says  Strauss,  "  might  certainly  have  had  a 
foreboding  of  His  own  fall  and  prepared  Himself 
for  the  worst,  but  still,  as  an  intelligent  man.  He  must 
have  had  a  scheme  in  readiness  in  case  of  His  success, 
though    that    became    more    improbable    every    day." 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  213,  214,  218. 

2  Id.  ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  219-222 ;  above,  pp.  234,  242. 
^Id.  ibid.,  p.  243. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  483 

And  again :  "  Jesus  might  have  foreseen  that  His  end 
was  approaching,  He  might,  indeed,  have  had  His 
suspicion  against  the  faith  of  one,  the  constancy  of 
another  of  His  disciples,  and  not  have  concealed  them. 
But  He  is  said  also  to  have  known  decidedly  before- 
hand, and  to  have  declared  that  on  this  very  night  His 
destiny  will  be  fulfilled,  to  have  expressly  pointed  out 
Judas  as  the  traitor,  to  have  predicted  to  Peter  a  three- 
fold denial  of  Him  before  the  next  crowing  of  the 
cock.  .  .  Every  part  of  this  is  as  difficult  to  conceive 
historically  as  it  is  easy  to  explain  psychologically."  ^ 

Such  would  be,  then,  according  to  Loisy,  the  reality 
of  history.  Any  detail  which,  in  the  Gospels,  con- 
tradicts these  simple  data  or  in  any  way  disagrees 
with  them,  is  supposed  to  be  the  work  of  Christian 
tradition,  the  product  of  primitive  faith  or  apologetics. 

The  Work  of  Tradition  —If  we  may  believe  him, 
Christian  apologists  first  of  all  endeavored  to  do  away 
with  the  scandal  caused  by  the  death  of  Christ,  by 
representing  it  as  determined  upon  by  a  divine  decree, 
and  foreseen  and  foretold  by  the  Saviour  Himself. 
But  it  was  not  enough  that  death  should  be  for  Jesus 
something  more  than  the  end  of  a  grand  illusion ;  "  it 
was  necessary  also  that  His  ministry,  including  both 
His  actions  and  His  teachings  should  be  in  keeping 
with  the  messianic  dignity."  ^ 

Jesus  had  confessed  His  messianic  dignity  only 
towards  the  end  of  His  ministry:  by  anticipation,  the 
apologists  ascribed  to  the  beginning  of  His  career 
messianic  manifestations  in  great  number.  At  the 
same  time,  the  miracles,  the  cures  of  those  possessed 
by  the  devils  and  others  cures  of  a  different  kind,  were 
appealed  to  and  made  use  of  as  a  direct  evidence  of 

1  Strauss,  A  New  Life  of  Jesus,  authorized  transl.,  vol.  i, 
pp.  384,  388. 

2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  180;  cf.  p.  iii.  See  Les  theories 
de  Mr.  Loisy,  Expose  et  critique,  Paris,  Beauchesne,  1908, 
pp.  201-209. 


484  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

His  messiahship :  they  "  became  both  a  proof  of  His 
power  and  a  messianic  manifestation."  "  Thus  primi- 
tive recollections  took  an  ideal  turn,  received  mes- 
sianic coloring,  and  were  completed  and  enlarged  into 
symbols  of  doctrine,  of  power,  of  divinity."  ^ 

But  "  since  the  messianic  manifestation  was  ante- 
dated and  ascribed  to  the  beginning  of  His  ministry, 
it  became  indispensable  to  mark  out  the  starting-point 
thereof,  and  it  was  of  great  importance  that  this  start- 
ing-point should  be  significant.  Thus  are  explained 
the  theatrical  scene  of  the  baptism  and  the  christian 
interpretations  of  the  relations  which  had  united  Jesus 
and  John.  ...  It  was  admitted  that  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  by  John  had  been  really  the  baptism  of  Christy 
His  consecration  as  the  Messiah  through  the  commg 
upon  Him  of  the  Divine  Spirit  who  had  from  that 
moment  taken  possession  of  Him."  ^ 

Later  on,  when  tradition  reached  the  end  of  its  evo- 
lution, this  messianic  consecration  "  was  ascribed  even 
to  the  time  of  Jesus'  conception."  ^ 

"When  the  messianic  dignity  of  Jesus,"  says  Strauss, 
"  began  to  be  acknowledged  among  the  Jews,  it  was 
thought  appropriate  to  connect  His  coming  into  pos- 
session of  the  requisite  gifts,  with  the  epoch  from 
which  He  was  in  some  degree  known,  and  which,  from 
the  ceremony  that  marked  it,  was  also  best  adapted  to 
represent  that  anointing  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  ex- 
pected by  the  Jews  for  their  Messiah ;  and  from  this 
point  of  view  was  formed  the  legend  of  the  occurrences 
at  the  baptism.  But,  as  reverence  for  Jesus  was 
heightened,  and  men  appeared  in  the  Christian  Church 
who  were  acquainted  with  more  exalted  messianic 
ideas,  this  tardy  manifestation  of  messiahship  was  no 
longer  sufficient;  His  relation  with  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  referred  to  His  conception;  and  from  this  point 

1  Loisy,  op.   cit.,  pp.   182-185,   192. 

2M  ihid.,  p.  185;   cf.  p.   196;  above,  p.   140. 

3  Id.  ihid.,  pp.  196,  197 ;  above,  107,  108. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  485 

of  view  was  founded  the  tradition  of  the  supernatural 
conception  of  Jesus."  ^ 

Concerning  the  fact  of  the  virginal  conception  of 
Jesus,  Loisy  now  upholds  frankly  the  theory  that  it 
was  a  late  belief,  elaborated  in  hellenistic  Christian 
communities  towards  the  end  of  the  first  century;  it 
was  first  adopted  by  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel; 
then,  through  his  influence  it  was  introduced  into  the 
primitive  documents  used  by  St.  Luke  who  embodied 
it  in  his  Gospel,  i.  34-35.  This  is  also  the  hypothesis 
suggested  by  Usener,  Schmiedel,  Harnack  and  others.- 

While  the  christological  theology  was  thus  pro- 
gressively developing,  the  dogma  of  the  Saviour's  di- 
vinity was,  it  is  assumed,  being  elaborated. 

No  Claim  of  Sharing  the  Nature  of  God. — 
According  to  Loisy,  "  Jesus  never  pretended  to  be 
the  historical  manifestation  of  a  being  existing  in  God 
before  revealing  Himself  to  men."  When  He  called 
Himself  the  Son  of  God,  He  meant  that  He  was  such 
because  predestinated  to  be  the  Messiah  King;  and 
because  of  the  interior  feeling  which  united  Him  to 
God,  author  of  His  vocation,"  but  not  because  of  a 
real  participation  in  the  divine  nature.  The  only  title 
which  He  distinctly  claims  for  Himself  is  that  of 
Messiah,  not  that  of  Son  of  God.  If  "  He  considers 
God  as  His  Father  and  all  men  as  His  children,  if 
He  looks  upon  Himself  as  Son  of  God  in  a  special  and 
unique  manner,  nevertheless  it  does  not  appear  that 
He  appropriated  that  quality  of  Son  as  one  that  would 
best  sum  up  the  idea  He  had  of  Himself  and  the  con- 
ception He  wanted  others  to  form  of  His  vocation. 
The  sentiment  of  His  Sonship  is  rather  a  general  char- 
acteristic  of  these  personal  ideas  than  the  direct  and 
proper  expression  thereof."  ^ 

1  The  Life  of  Jesus,  Eng.  transl.,  1846,  vol.  i,  p.  368 ;  cf. 
A  New  Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  ii,  p.  39  et  seq. 

2  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  169,  170,  195-198,  290-294,  339;  cf. 
above,  pp.  123,  124. 

s  Id.   ibid.,  pp.   193,  241,  244. 


486  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Therefore  we  have  no  conclusive  statements  of  the 
Saviour  affirming  His  own  divinity.  '*  The  passages  in 
which  Jesus  speaks  of  His  Father  who  is  in  Heaven, 
or  simply  of  His  Father,  are  very  numerous,  but  do 
not  contain  an  explicit  definition  of  His  Sonship.  The 
passages  in  which  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  men- 
tioned without  an  epithet  of  any  kind,  would  be  more 
significant  indeed,  but  their  authenticity  is  open  to 
question."  ^ 

Such  is  the  word :  "  No  one  knoweth  the  Son  but 
the  Father,  neither  doth  any  one  know  the  Father  but 
the  Son,"  in  which  the  identification  of  Christ  with 
the  eternal  Wisdom  is  implicitly  formulated.  "  Al- 
though the  words  Father  and  Son  are  not  merely  meta- 
physical expressions,  but  represent,  in  this  passage, 
God  and  Christ,  the  use  of  the  term  Son,  without  addi- 
tion of  any  sort,  is  extraordinary  in  Jesus'  mouth ;  but 
this  is  the  language  of  tradition,  not  the  language  of 
Jesus,  it  designates  the  immortal,  we  may  say,  the 
eternal  Christ.  The  reciprocal  knowledge  of  Father 
and  Son  is  not,  moreover,  represented  as  a  relation 
which  began  in  the  course  of  time  and  is  actually  being 
realized;  it  has  the  supra-historical  character  of  the 
similar  statements  to  be  found  in  the  fourth  Gospel; 
it  does  not  express  the  idea  of  pre-existence,  but  it  pre- 
supposes it.  It  is  an  affirmation  interpreting  the  faith 
of  the  Christian  community."  ^ 

Strauss  had  said  in  a  similar  vein :  "  We  may  indeed 
conceive  how  Jesus,  by  means  of  the  knowledge  of 
God  as  the  Father  .  .  .  which  had  sprung  within  Him 
in  consequence  of  a  state  of  mind  in  which  every  form 
of  opposition  between  His  own  consciousness  and  the 
consciousness  of  God  had  been  removed,  might  feel 
Himself  to  stand  in  a  quite  pecuHar  relation  to  God; 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  243,  note  i. 

2C/.  above,  pp.  355,  356;  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  194;  Id.  ibid., 
vol.  i,  p.  909;  above,  pp.  363,  364. 


TESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  Of  GOD  487 

He  might  feel  that  no  one  but  He  knew  God  aright, 
namely,  as  the  Father,  and  that  in  the  case  of  every 
one  else,  this  knowledge  was  one  which  He  had  been 
the  means  of  imparting  to  them.  But  why,  then,  does 
He  add  that  no  one  but  the  Father  knows  the  Son? 
Was  then  the  Son,  i.  c,  He  Himself,  Jesus,  so  mys- 
terious a  being  as  to  be  capable  of  being  known  by 
God  alone?  Not  so  if  He  was  a  human  being,  but  only 
in  the  case  of  His  being  somehow  a  superhuman  being ; 
so  that  this  speech  which  stands  quite  isolated  in  the 
first  and  third  Gospel,  refers  us  to  a  principle  re- 
sembling that  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  appears,  con- 
sequently, to  be  an  addition  intended  to  exalt  the  con- 
ception of  Jesus  above  the  naturally  human,  a  step 
higher  than  is  elsewhere  made  in  those  Gospels."  ^ 

There  is  another  passage  which  Loisy  thinks  may  be 
a  later  gloss  introduced  by  tradition,  namely :  *'  But  of 
that  day  and  hour  no  man  knoweth,  neither  the  angels 
in  Heaven,  nor  the  Son,  but  the  Father  (alone)." 
"  Considering  the  circumstances  in  which  the  Gospel 
was  preached,  the  assertion  that,  the  knowledge  of  that 
day  and  hour  was  the  secret  of  the  Father,  should  have 
been  sufficient,  and  the  absolute  use  of  the  word  Son, 
to  designate  the  Saviour,  does  not  belong  to  the  lan- 
guage of  Jesus  nor  to  that  of  the  primitive  evangelical 
tradition.  Had  not  this  word  been  added  by  the  Evan- 
gelist, then  the  whole  passage  would  be  open  to  sus- 
picion." ^ 

The  same  remark  apphes  to  the  parable  of  the 
Wicked  Husbandmen,  in  which  Jesus  is  represented 
as  the  Son,  sent  by  God  to  the  tenants  of  His  Vineyard, 
i.  e.,  to  the  Jews  who  put  Him  to  death  and  will  there- 
fore be  rejected  and  severely  punished.  "  The  narra- 
tive," says  Loisy,  "  is  not  a  parable  rightly  speaking, 

i  Strauss,  A  New  Life  of  Jesus,  author,  transl.,  vol.  i,  pp. 
527s,  276. 

?  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol  ii,  p.  483;  above,  pp.  364,  365. 


488  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

but  an  allegory  completed  by  a  prophecy.  It  is  true 
that  the  allegory  and  the  prophetical  utterance  which 
completes  it  belong  to  an  old  tradition,  anterior  to  the 
final  redaction  of  our  Gospels ;  there  is,  however,  no 
guaranty  that  they  are  authentic  words  of  Christ.  The 
allegory  and  the  prophecy  express  the  idea  which  the 
men  of  apostolic  times  had  formed  concerning  the 
mission  of  Christ :  He  was  in  their  eyes  the  Son  of 
God,  sent  by  the  Father,  killed  by  the  leaders  of  the 
Jewish  people  and  glorified  in  Heaven  by  His  resur- 
rection. In  its  present  traditional  form,  the  allegory 
of  the  Husbandmen  seems  to  be  a  fragment  of  Chris- 
tian apologetics ;  it  betrays  the  same  tendency,  and 
perhaps  did  it  receive  its  final  literary  expression  at 
the  same  time  as  the  passages  in  which  the  Saviour 
describes  the  circumstances  of  His  own  death  and  re- 
surrection." ^ 

As  regards  the  account  given  by  St.  Matthew  of 
Peter's  confession  at  Csesarea,  it  is  likewise  to  the 
Evangelist  that  we  must  ascribe  "  the  antithesis  we 
notice  between  the  Son  of  man,  as  spoken  of  by  Jesus 
in  His  question,  and  the  Son  of  the  living  God  spoken 
of  by  Simon  Peter  in  his  answer.  Matthew  is  anxious 
to  intimate  that  the  Son  of  man  is  also  the  Son  of  God, 
and  that  the  real  human  nature  of  the  Saviour  is  com- 
patible with  His  divine  origin:  an  antithesis  which 
throws  a  good  deal  of  light  on  Matthew's  theology, 
and  on  his  particular  way  of  interpreting  the  mes- 
sianic title  of  '  Son  of  man.'  "  ^ 

The  same  interpretation  holds  good  with  reference 
to  the  question  which  Jesus  is  supposed  to  put  to  the 
Scribes  concerning  Christ  the  Son  of  David.  We 
may  well  believe  that  the  Saviour  had  contented  Him- 
self with  insinuating  that  "  the  Christ  needs  not  be 
son   of   David,    and   that    His    dignity   has   a   higher 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  318,  319;  above,  pp.  350,  351. 
^  Above,  p.  322 ;  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  3, 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  489 

origin."  But  "  the  Evangelists  are  not  content  with 
that.  Matthew,  in  this  passage  as  well  as  in  the  ac- 
count of  Peter's  confession,  seems  to  contrast  the  Son 
of  David  or  Son  of  Man  with  the  Son  of  God,  who 
is  the  Lord,  who  is  the  Christ,  just  because  He  is  the 
Son  of  God.  Although  he  does  not  expressly  use  the 
same  antithesis,  St.  Luke  seems  to  have  had  almost  the 
same  idea:  according  to  him,  Jesus  is  the  Son,  not  of 
David  only,  but  of  God,  and  the  latter  filiation  sur- 
passes the  former."  ^ 

To  Christian  tradition  we  are  also  to  ascribe  the 
scene  of  the  trial  before  Caiphas,  in  which  we  see 
Jesus  accused  of  blasphemy  for  having  declared  Him- 
self the  Son  of  God.  "  According  to  the  two  first 
Evangelists,  Jesus'  answer  is  considered  by  the  high 
priest  as  blasphemous."  Now,  "  to  say :  '  I  am  the 
Christ,'  was  not  a  blasphemy ;  to  say :  '  I  am  the  Son 
of  God,'  was  not  a  sacrilegious  use  of  the  name  of 
God,  except  the  speaker,  going  beyond  the  moral  and 
religious  meaning  contained  in  the  idea  of  such  filia- 
tion, intended  to  add  to  it  some  metaphysical  import, 
more  conformable  to  the  spirit  of  paganism  than  to 
that  of  Judaism;  except,  again,  he  meant  thereby  the 
incarnation  of  a  being  who  was,  so  to  speak,  a  part  of 
God,  so  that  the  claim,  on  the  part  of  Jesus,  to  such 
a  relation  with  God,  could  be  interpreted  as  an  insult 
to  the  Divine  Majesty.  Nothing  is  easier  to  explain, 
if  the  scene  has  been  imagined  by  the  Evangelist  or 
is  due  to  christian  tradition."  ^ 

At  any  rate,  the  accusation  of  blasphemy  "  is  much 
more  easily  accounted  for  in  the  light  of  Matthew's 
and  Mark's  theology  than  in  the  light  of  historical  veri- 
similitude. For,  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  are 
said  to  have  agreed  with  Caiphas  on  the  question  of 
blasphemy,  and  to  have  condemned  Jesus  to  death  in 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  z^s  \  above,  p.  348. 
^Id.  ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  609, 


490  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

conformity  with  the  law  of  Leviticus.  Now,  according 
to  that  law,  the  blasphemer  was  to  be  stoned:  and 
Jesus  was  crucified;  he  suffered  that  kind  of  punish- 
ment because  He  had  been  condemned  by  the  Roman 
authorities,  in  a  regular  trial,  in  which  the  accusa- 
tion brought  forward  was,  not  that  of  blasphemy 
against  God  because  of  a  claim  to  a  divine  privilege, 
but  that  of  pretending  to  be  the  Messiah,  King  of 
Israel."  Therefore,  the  trial  before  the  Sanhedrim 
has  been  altogether  invented  by  Christian  tradition, 
with  a  view  of  shifting,  from  the  Roman  authorities  to 
the  Jews,  the  responsibility  of  the  judgment  rendered 
against  Jesus.  Tradition  has  made  the  Sanhedrim 
accountable  for  a  "  condemnation  which  it  did  not 
really  pronounce  " ;  and  "  it  is  perfectly  likely  that 
the  idea  of  blasphemy  as  well  as  the  whole  theatrical 
scene  before  Caiphas  was  invented  in  view  of  that 
condemnation."  ^ 

As  to  the  formula  of  baptism  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  its 
value  and  import  are,  in  the  eyes  of  our  critic,  rather 
limited.^ 

First  of  all,  "  the  doctrine  of  Trinity,  i.  e.,  the  per- 
fect equality  of  the  three  persons  in  the  unity  of  divine 
nature,  is  not  taught  in  this  passage,  for  the  word 
name  is  understood  before  the  mention  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  it  is  not  meant  that  only 
one  name,  that  is  to  say,  only  one  essence,  belongs  to 
the  Father,  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
Father  is  God  who  has  sent  His  Son;  the  Son  is  the 
Messiah  sent  by  God  for  the  salvation  of  men ;  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  the  messianic  gift  granted  by  God  to 
the  faithful,  in  view  of  the  Son's  merits.*'  ^ 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  possible  that  the  clause: 

1  Lolsy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  609,  610. 

2  Above,  p.  Z7^. 

3  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  751, 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


491 


'*  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  was  not  to  be  found  in 
the  primitive  text  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  but  was 
inserted  therein  only  at  the  time  of  its  final  redaction, 
under  the  influence  of  the  liturgical  usage  which  is 
recorded  in  the  Didache,  and  was  probably  universal 
in  the  Christian  Church  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century.  Be  it  as  it  may,  we  have  not,  in  the  passage 
in  question,  an  authentic  utterance  of  Christ.  Should 
we  suppress  the  clause  now  under  discussion,  we 
would  have,  even  then,  to  maintain  that  the  directions 
recorded  in  the  last  page  of  the  first  Gospel  have  not, 
historically  speaking,  been  addressed  to  the  Apostles. 
"  The  whole  discourse  is  an  utterance  of  Christ  con- 
sidered as  living  in  the  Church ;  it  is  the  voice  of  the 
Christian  conscience  speaking  through  the  glorified 
Christ.  The  Evangelist  himself  gives  expression  to  a 
general  view  of  religious  philosophy  concerning  the 
earthly  mission  of  Christ  and  that  of  the  Church."  ^ 

Jesus,  therefore,  never  proclaimed  Himself  the  Son 
of  God,  except  in  this  sense  that  He  was  the  chosen 
one  to  be  endowed  with  the  messianic  dignity,  and 
that  He  was  united  to  God  by  relations  of  intimate 
affection.     Such  is  Loisy's  assumption. 

No  Claim  of  Divine  Privileges.— So  also  He  never 
claimed  for  Himself  privileges  that  cannot  belong  to 
mere  humanity. 

In  the  way  of  miracles.  He  accomplished  "  but  a 
certain  number  of  marvelous  cures,  which  in  no  degree 
demanded  the  intervention  of  divine  power,  and  were 
generally  wrought  in  favor  of  poor  wretches  afflicted 
with  nervous  diseases  and  cerebral  troubles."  Never 
did  He  give  to  His  apostles  the  power  of  performing 
miracles  spoken  of  by  the  first  Gospel  and  inserted  in 
the  discourse  He  pronounced  when  sending  His  dis- 
ciples to  their  missionary  labors.^ 

1  Loisy,   op.   cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  749. 

2/c?.  ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  182,  207,  867;  above,  p.  309, 


492  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Again,  He  did  not  pretend  to  remit  sins  by  His  own 
authority,  nor  did  He  grant  that  power  to  others.  The 
narrative  of  the  cure  of  the  man  sick  with  the  palsy 
which,  in  so  striking  a  manner,  bears  witness  to  the 
contrary,  is  somewhat  open  to  question  from  the  point 
of  view  of  authenticity.  "  The  assurance  that  sins 
are  forgiven  introduces  an  argument  in  favor  of  Jesus' 
messiahship;  but  this  argument  is,  as  it  were,  super- 
added to  the  narrative  itself."  Hence  it  is  probable 
that  we  are  in  the  presence  of  "  a  later,  intentional  ad- 
dition, tending  to  transform  an  extraordinary  cure 
into  a  theological  proof."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  ''  the 
idea  of  remission  of  sins  by  Christ  fits  more  naturally 
into  the  circle  of  Christian  beliefs  than  into  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus."  The  account  of  the  pardon  granted  to 
the  sinful  woman  in  St.  Luke  presents  likewise  arti- 
ficial features  and  must,  therefore,  be  attributed  en- 
tirely to  the  Evangelist.  *'  For,  he  reproduces  the 
words  which  Jesus  is  supposed  to  have  addressed  to 
the  man  sick  of  the  palsy  in  Capharnaum,  and  he 
attributes  to  the  bystanders  the  scandalized  feelings 
which  the  Pharisees  manifested  on  that  occasion,  in 
order  to  attribute  to  Jesus.  Himself  the  pardon  of  the 
sinful  woman."  ^ 

The  texts  of  the  first  Gospel  in  which  we  see  the 
Saviour  granting  to  Peter  or  to  the  Apostles  the  power 
"  to  bind  or  to  loose,"  are  supposed  to  refer  indeed  to 
the  disciplinary  authority  of  the  Church,  and  the  power 
of  remitting  sins,  but  it  is  impossible  to  recognize  in 
them  an  authentic  discourse  of  Jesus  ;  they  simply  refer 
to  the  situation  of  the  Christian  communities  in  the 
time  of  the  Evangelist.^ 

Again,  in  the  reality  of  history,  the  Saviour  did  not 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  689 ;  above,  p.  154. 

2  Matt,  xvi,  19;  xviii,  18;  above,  p.  310;  Loisy,  op.  cit., 
vol.  ii,  pp.  12,  13,  90,  91 ;  cf.,  Strauss,  A  New  Life  of  Jesus, 
vol.  i,  p.  2>77  ^t  seq. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


493 


place  Himself  above  the  temple  nor  declare  that  He 
was  the  Master  of  the  Sabbath. 

The  first  of  these  two  statements  is  found  in  St. 
Matthew  alone,  and  was  likely  introduced  by  the  Evan- 
gelist. ''  For,  we  may  well  doubt  that  Jesus,  at  any 
period  of  His  ministry,  but  especially  in  the  beginning, 
ever  used  such  an  expression  in  a  public  discourse, 
with  reference  to  His  personal  dignity  and  authority. 
It  would  have  been  looked  upon  as  a  blasphemy,  since 
the  temple,  in  the  speech  referred  to,  stands  for  the 
service  of  God.  It  is  probable  that  the  words :  "  There 
is  here  a  greater  than  the  temple,"  are  an  imitation  of 
those  we  read  a  little  farther :  "  Behold  a  greater  than 
Jonas,  a  greater  than  Solomon  here."  ^ 

The  other  sentence  is  to  be  found  in  the  three  Evan- 
gelists, and  in  St.  Mark  himself;  but  it  is  not  an  in- 
dispensable part  of  the  narrative,  and  even  may  be  said 
to  be  an  unnecessary  addition  to  a  remark  previously 
made  "  on  the  Sabbath,  which  was  made  for  man,  not 
man  for  the  Sabbath."  "  The  second  remark  seems, 
therefore,  to  be  a  later  addition,"  the  more  so  that  "  it 
appears  to  be  pointing  to  another  direction,  namely  to 
the  personal  authority  of  Christ."  ^ 

The  absolute  statement  found  at  the  end  of  the  great 
eschatological  discourse  concerning  "  the  words  that 
shall  not  pass  away,"  has  no  greater  degree  of  au- 
thenticity. The  historical  Christ  would  never  have 
said :  "  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  my  words 
shall  not  pass  away  " ;  these  words  formed  probably 
the  conclusion  of  the  apocalyptic  document  which  must 
underlie  the  discourse  as  it  is  recorded  in  our  Gospels, 
and  "  they  were  supposed  to  be  said  by  God  Himself," 
not  by  Christ.^ 

iLoisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  510;  above,  p.  153. 
^Id.  ibid.,  pp.  511,  512;  above,  ibid. 

3  Mark  xiii.  31;  Matt.  xxiv.  35;  Luke  xxi.  33;  Loisy, 
op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  99;  cf.,  vol.  ii,  p.  436. 


494  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Finally,  the  Saviour  never  pretended  He  was  des- 
tined to  judge  one  day  the  living  and  the  dead.  "  As 
far  as  we  are  able  to  surmise,  Jesus  did  not  picture  to 
Himself  the  judgment  of  God  as  a  great  seance  in 
which  the  fate  of  the  whole  human  race  would  be  dis- 
cussed, and  in  which  every  man  would  hear,  in  pres- 
ence of  all,  the  verdict  that  would  settle  his  fate  for 
eternity.  He  conceived  it  rather  as  a  sort  of  selection 
which  would  be  made  suddenly,  in  the  twinkling  of 
an  eye,  among  men  living  at  that  time ;  the  just  would 
be,  as  it  were,  ravished  up  to  God,  transported  into  the 
place  of  messianic  happiness,  changed  into  immortal 
beings,  while  the  others  would  be,  no  doubt,  left  to 
their  chastisement,  in  a  state  of  death  which  would  not 
exclude  pain.  The  just  who  were  dead  would  rise 
again  at  the  same  time."  ^ 

Jesus,  therefore,  did  not,  at  any  time,  speak  of  send- 
ing ''  the  angels  ",  "  His  own  angels  ",  to  gather  the 
elect,  as  He  is  supposed  to  have  said  several  times, 
according  to  the  Evangelists.  Neither  did  He  give 
Himself  as  the  supreme  judge  of  the  human  race. 
"  In  the  act  preliminary  to  the  institution  of  the  King- 
dom, i.  e.,  the  selection  of  the  elect,  He  does  not  seem 
to  have  claimed  for  Himself  any  special  function.  God 
alone  is  the  supreme  judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead. 
At  most,  Jesus  presents  Himself  as  a  witness  who 
recognizes,  when  needed,  those  who,  by  their  attitude 
towards  Him,  have  deserved  eternal  reward  or  eternal 
chastisement."  "  The  final  description  of  the  great 
judgment,  as  it  is  found  in  St.  Matthew,  must  have 
been  conceived  by  the  Evangelist  himself."  ^ 

Strauss  has  formulated  the  problem  in  pretty  much 
the  same  terms,  without  reaching,  however,  such  a 
completely  negative  conclusion :  "  Jesus  speaks  in  the 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  237. 

2  Above,  p.  307;  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  779;  vol.  ii,  pp.  21-36, 
431;  vol.  i,  pp.  241,  242;  Matt.  XXV.  31-46;  above,  p.  311; 
Loisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  134. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  495 

Gospels  ...  of  His  own  second  coming  .  .  .  when 
He  will  appear  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  in  divine  glory, 
and  accompanied  by  angels  to  awake  the  dead,  to  judge 
the  quick  and  the  dead,  and  to  open  His  Kingdom, 
the  Kingdom  of  God  or  Heaven.  Here  we  stand  face 
to  face  with  a  decisive  point.  .  .  .  For  us,  Jesus  has 
either  no  existence  at  all,  or  exists  only  as  a  human 
being ;  to  a  human  being  no  such  thing  as  He  here  pro- 
phesied of  Himself  could  happen,  li  He  did  prophesy 
it  of  Himself  and  expect  it  Himself,  He  is  for  us  noth- 
ing but  a  fanatic.  .  .  .  There  is  only  a  trifling  differ- 
ence between  this  and  the  pretended  utterances  of 
Jesus  about  His  pre-existence  .  .  .  :  He  who  expects 
to  come  again  after  His  death,  as  no  human  being  has 
ever  done,  is,  in  our  opinion,  not  exactly  a  madman, 
because,  in  reference  to  the  future,  imagination  is 
more  possible,  but  still  an  arrant  enthusiast."  Again : 
."  The  expectation  of  such  a  thing  on  one's  behalf  is 
something  quite  different  from  a  general  expectation 
of  it,  and  he  who  expects  it  of  himself  and  for  him- 
self will  not  only  appear  to  us  in  the  light  of  a  fanatic, 
but  we  see  also  an  unallowable  self -exaltation  in  a 
man's  (and  it  is  only  of  a  human  being  that  we  are 
everywhere  speaking)  so  putting  himself  above  every 
one  else  as  to  contrast  himself  with  them  as  their 
future  judge.  .  .  ."  ''  If,  indeed,  Jesus  w^as  convinced 
that  He  was  the  Messiah,  and  referred  the  prophecy 
in  Daniel  to  the  Messiah,  He  must  have  expected,  in 
accordance  with  it,  some  time  or  other  to  come  with 
the  clouds  of  Heaven.  ...  It  might  well  be  that 
together  with  the  conception  of  Jehovah  as  the  sole 
judge  of  all,  that  of  the  transference  of  the  office  to 
the  Messiah,  as  His  representative,  might  have  been 
in  existence  even  before  the  time  of  Jesus,  and  only 
have  been  adopted  by  Him  as  an  appendage  to  the 
conception  of  the  Messiah.  He  had  preached  the  word 
of  God  to  mankind,  and  according  to  that  word  they 
were  to  be  judged.     If  this  was  so,  the  natural  infer- 


496  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ence  was  that  the  preacher  Himself  would  have  a 
principal  part  in  that  judgment  to  come."  ^ 

Conclusion. — To  sum  up  Loisy's  teaching:  Jesus  in 
no  way  pretended  to  rise  above  mere  humanity:  He 
said  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  but  did  not  thereby  put 
Himself  personally  on  a  level  with  God,  nor  did  He 
really  claim  powers  which  belong  to  God  alone. 

But,  after  the  Saviour's  death,  when  people  pic- 
tured Him  to  themselves  as  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of 
God,  in  the  midst  of  glory,  the  behef  in  His  divinity 
came  slowly  into  existence. 

"  Paul  already  conceives  a  Christ  existing  previous 
to  His  earthly  mission,  a  superior  man,  a  heavenly 
man,  a  divine  man,  who  becomes  the  historical  Mes- 
siah in  the  person  of  Jesus ;  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colos- 
sians,  this  Christ  plays  a  part  in  the  foundation  of  the 
world;  He  is  not  only  the  antitype  of  Adam,  He  is 
the  mediator  between  God  and  the  world,  just  as  be- 
tween God  and  man:  He  is  Creator  just  as  well  as 
Redeemer.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  find, 
closely  associated,  the  idea  of  the  only  Son,  Word  of 
Wisdom  and  power,  by  whom  the  world  was  made, 
and  the  idea  of  Christ,  the  High  Priest,  who  recon- 
ciles with  God  the  whole  human  race.  The  identifica- 
tion of  Jesus  with  the  Logos  of  Philo  was  now  but  a 
matter  of  time  and  a  question  of  words :  we  find  it 
realized  in  the  Apocalypse  and  in  the  fourth  Gospel."  ^ 

"  We  should  not,  however,  look  upon  the  elaboration 
of  Christian  thought  as  an  attempt  to  disfigure  history 
for  the  sake  of  abstract  opinions.  It  is  the  opinions 
themselves  that  are  carried  along  in  the  progress  of 
faith.  Paul  and  the  other  theologians  of  the  primitive 
period   are   unacquainted   with   scientific   research   or 

1  Strauss,  A  New  Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  i,  pp.  322,  331-332. 

2  I  Cor.  XV.  44-49;  2  Cor.  viii.  9;  Gal.  iv.  4;  Phil.  ii.  8;  Col. 
i.  15-20;  ii.  3,  9;  Hebr.  i.  1-4;  iv.  14;  v.  10;  vii.,  viii.,  ix., 
X.  18;  Ap.  xix.  13;  Joan.  i.  1-18;  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  194; 
above,  p.  388  et  seq. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AXD  SON  OF  GOD 


497 


even  philosophical  reflection ;  their  theories  are  mere 
visions.  .  .  .  Owing  to  the  state  of  exaltation  in  which 
the  first  Christians  lived,  all  this  evolution  whose  com- 
plexity baffles  all  attempts  of  an  analysis,  worked  itself 
out,  spontaneously  and  rapidly,  in  that  subconscious 
region  of  the  soul  in  which  are  elaborated  the  dreams 
of  all  men,  the  hallucinations  of  some,  and  the  intui- 
tions of  genius.  It  is  hardly  possible  to  doubt  that 
certain  utterances  attributed  to  Christ  were  heard  by 
some  enthusiasts  in  the  rapture  of  their  ecstatic  prayer. 
The  same  remark  applies  to  certain  narratives  of  mir- 
acles, and,  in  a  way,  to  all  of  them,  since  the  invol- 
untary idealization  of  past  memories  in  the  imagination 
of  a  believer  is  a  sort  of  vision."  ^ 

Such  is  the  present  position  of  Loisy  regarding  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  He  himself  has  taken  the  trouble 
of  remarking  that  his  attitude  is  essentially  the  same 
as  before :  "  In  general,"  he  says,  "  I  have  in  my  last 
writings  followed  the  same  lines  as  in  the  preceding 
ones.  My  chief  endeavor  has  been  to  determine  the 
historical  position  of  the  questions  at  hand,  and  to 
show,  consequently,  the  necessity  of  modifying,  more 
or  less,  the  traditional  views.  As  regards  the  divinity 
of  Jesus-Christ,  I  have  said  nothing  which  does  not 
agree  with  the  ideas  expressed  in  the  fourth  letter 
found  in  Aiitour  d'lin  petit  lizre,"  ^ 

We  see  thereby  how  far  advanced  were  our  critic's 
ideas,  even  in  those  days.^ 

However  he  adds:  "  If  I  had  to  discuss  that  subject 
again,  I  would,  with  still  greater  insistence,  call  the 
readers'  attention  upon  the  inadequacy  of  the  dog- 
matic formula,  upon  the  ambiguity  of  the  idea  of  per- 

1  Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp  194,  195 ;  cf.  Strauss,  A  Neiv 
Life,  vol.  i,  p.  412  et  seq. 

^  Loisy,  Quelques  Lettres  sur  des  Questions  Actuelles,  publ. 
by  the  author,  1908,  p.  252;  letter  Ixii,  Febr.  17,  1908,  to 
Baron  Von  Hiigel. 

3  Above,  pp.  287-306. 

32 


498  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

sonality  when  we  try  to  apply  it,  in  the  same  sense, 
to  both  God  and  man;  finally,  upon  the  partly  sym- 
bolical character  of  the  theological  data:  by  which  I 
mean  that  the  general  relations  of  mankind  with  God 
are  prefigured  in  the  special  relations  which  are  said 
to  exist  between  God  and  Christ."  ^ 

And  here  is  the  explanation  now  given  by  Loisy 
of  his  position :  "  It  seems  to  me,  he  says,  that  the 
dogma  of  Christ's  divinity  has  never  been  and  is  not, 
even  now,  anything  more  than  a  symbol,  more  or  less 
perfect,  destined  to  signify  the  relations  existing  be- 
tween God  and  mankind  personified  in  Jesus.  The 
contradiction  implied  in  the  theological  formula  re- 
ferring to  the  God-man,  corresponds  to  the  antinomy 
which  has  proved  the  stumbling-block  of  philosophical 
speculation,  namely :  God  is  nothing  if  He  is  not 
everything ;  and  yet,  the  world  and  man  cannot  be  said 
simply  to  be  God :  they  exist  in  Him,  yet  really  dis- 
tinct from  Him.  None  the  less,  every  conscious  indi- 
vidual may  be  represented  either  as  the  living  con- 
sciousness of  God  in  the  world  through  a  sort  of  an 
Incarnation  of  God  in  man,  or,  in  turn,  as  the  living 
consciousness  of  the  world  subsisting  in  God,  as  though 
the  world  were  all  summed-up  in  man.  It  is  the  whole 
human  race  that  is  a  daughter  of  God,  proceeds  from 
Him,  is  immanent  in  Him  and  in  which  He  is  imma- 
nent, through  that  circumincession  spoken  of  by  theo- 
logians with  regard  to  the  divine  Trinity.  Jesus  was 
deeply  conscious  of  this  relation  which  mankind,  we. 
may  say,  has  for  the  first  time  perceived  in  Him  and 
through  Him  with  such  an  intensity  of  light.  Chris- 
tian speculation  got  hold  of  the  christological  idea, 
and,  just  as  the  Messiah  of  Israel  was,  in  a  certain 
sense,  the  religious  personification  of  the  nation,  so 
also  Jesus  Christ  became  the  divine  personification  of 
mankind."  ^ 

1  Loisy,  loc.  cit. 

2  Loisy,  Quelques  Lettres,  pp.  149,  150;  letter  xliv,  June 
17,  1907,  to  Mr.  I'Abbe  X,  cure. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


499 


This  is,  as  far  as  ideas  and  their  expression  are 
concerned,  the  very  theory  of  Strauss  and  Renan.  So 
that  our  so-called  Catholic  critic  was  simply  trying  to 
induce  the  Church  to  reform  her  dogma  after  the  most 
genuine  principles  of  rationalistic  philosophy.  The 
following  quotation  from  Strauss'  Life  of  Jesus  will 
amply  suffice  to  prove  it :  *'  This  is  the  key  to  the 
whole  of  Christology  that,  as  subject  of  the  predicate 
which  the  Church  assigns  to  Christ,  we  place,  instead 
of  an  individual,  an  idea ;  but  an  idea  which  has  an  ex- 
istence in  reality,  not  in  the  mind  only.  In  an  indi- 
vidual, a  God-man,  the  properties  and  functions  which 
the  Church  ascribes  to  Christ  contradict  themselves; 
in  the  idea  of  the  race,  they  perfectly  agree.  Human- 
ity is  the  union  of  the  two  natures — God  become  man, 
the  infinite  manifesting  itself  in  the  finite,  and  the 
finite  spirit  remembering  its  infinitude;  it  is  the  child 
of  the  visible  Mother  and  the  invisible  Father,  Nature 
and  Spirit;  it  is  the  worker  of  miracles,  in  so  far  as 
in  the  course  of  human  history,  the  Spirit  more  and 
more  completely  subjugates  nature,  both  within  and 
around  man,  until  it  lies  before  him  as  the  inert  matter 
on  which  he  exercises  his  active  power.  It  is  the  sin- 
less existence,  for  the  course  of  its  development  is  a 
blameless  one ;  pollution  cleaves  to  the  individual  only, 
and  does  not  touch  the  race  or  its  history.  It  is  hu- 
manity that  dies,  rises  and  ascends  to  heaven,  for  from 
the  negation  of  its  phenomenal  life  there  ever  proceeds 
a  higher  spiritual  Hfe;  from  the  suppression  of  its 
mortality  as  a  personal,  national,  and  terrestrial  spirit, 
arises  its  union  with  the  infinite  spirit  of  the  heavens. 
By  faith  in  this  Christ,  especially  in  his  death  and 
resurrection,  man  is  justified  before  God :  that  is,  by 
the  kindling  within  him  of  the  idea  of  Humanity,  the 
individual  man  participates  in  the  divinely  human  life 
of  the  species.'.'  ^ 

1  Strauss.  Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  iii,  pp.  437,  438 ;  cf.  A  New 
Life,  vol.  ii,  pp.  435-439- 


500  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   LOISY's   THEORIES. 

What  should  we  think  of  these  diverse  theories  from 
the  point  of  view  of  an  impartial  exegesis? 

Noteworthy  Admissions.  —  First  of  all,  thanks 
are  due  to  Loisy  for  having  explicitly  rejected,  because 
it  renders  inexplicable  the  origin  of  Christianity,  the 
opinion  which  maintains  that  Jesus  never  believed  or 
proclaimed  He  w^as  the  Messiah ;  also  for  having  dis- 
carded, as  being  groundless  and  practically  unten- 
able, the  hypotheses  which  represent  the  Savior  as 
sharing,  in  the  beginning  of  his  career,  the  prejudices 
of  the  Jews  regarding  the  temporal  character  of 
the  Messiah's  mission.  We  do  not  find  in  the 
Gospels  any  serious  foundation  for  the  evolutionary 
theories  which  claim  to  draw  up  a  picture  of  the 
messianic  consciousness  of  Jesus  in  the  process  of 
its  development.  Such  a  verdict  is  worth  remem- 
bering. It  had  been,  long  before,  the  verdict  of  Strauss 
himself :  *'  Nowhere  in  our  evangelical  narratives  is 
there  a  trace  of  Jesus  having  sought  to  form  a  political 
party.  ...  If  we  ask  how  this  harmonious  mental 
constitution  had  come  to  exist  in  Jesus,  there  is  no- 
where in  the  accounts  of  his  life  that  lie  before  us  any 
intimation  of  severe  mental  struggles  from  which  it 
proceeded.  It  is  indeed  well  known  that  .  .  .  those 
accounts  embrace  only  the  short  period  of  His  public 
ministry,  and  represent  Him  moreover  from  a  point 
of  view  excluding  all  human  peccability;  hence  one 
might  suppose  that  that  period  of  cheerful  unity  with 
himself  might  have  been  preceded  by  another  of 
gloomy  struggle  and  also  of  numerous  deviations  from 
the  right  way.  But,  unless  all  analogies  deceive  us, 
traces  of  this  must  have  been  discoverable  in  His 
later  life,  regarding  which  we  are  not  without  informa- 
tion. In  all  those  natures  which  were  not  purified 
until  they  had  gone  through  struggles  and  violent  dis- 
ruption (think  only  of  a  Paul,  an  Augustin,  and  a 
Luther),   the   shadowy  colors  of  this   exist   forever, 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


501 


and  something  harsh,  severe  and  gloomy  clings  to  them 
all  their  lives;  but  of  this  in  Jesus  no  trace  is  found. 
Jesus  appears  as  a  beautiful  nature  from  the  first, 
which  had  only  to  develop  itself  out  of  itself,  to  be- 
come more  clearly  conscious  of  itself,  ever  firmer  in 
itself,  but  not  to  change  and  begin  a  new  Hfe."  ^ 

Questionable  Theories.  —  More  questionable  is 
the  explanation  which  Loisy  gives  of  Jesus'  reserve 
in  manifesting  His  messianic  character.  Our  critic 
grants  that  the  reason  of  this  reserve  is  to  be 
sought  neither  in  ignorance  nor  in  uncertainty,  on 
the  Savior's  part,  concerning  His  own  vocation.  This 
is  the  most  important  point  and,  hence,  such  a  con- 
cession must  be  duly  noted.  But  Loisy  claims  that 
he  can  successfully  account  for  that  discretion  by 
the  fact  that  Jesus  believed  He  was  only  destined 
to  be  endowed  with  the  messianic  dignity  at  som.e 
distant  date,  and  that,  for  the  present.  He  looked 
upon  Himself  as  being  only  a  future  Messiah.  Now, 
such  an  explanation  is  wholly  inadequate.  For,  in 
presence  of  His  disciples  from  the  time  of  the  episode 
at  Csesarea,  and  before  Pilate  at  the  time  of  His  trial, 
Jesus  confesses  Himself  to  be  the  Christ,  the  King  of 
the  Jews.  But,  if  the  fact  that  He  was  not  yet  ex- 
ercising the  full  and  definitive  functions  pertaining 
to  His  role  did  not  prevent  the  Saviour,  during  that 
period  of  His  ministry,  from  proclaiming  Himself 
the  Christ,  why  should  He  have  hesitated  to  manifest 
Himself  as  such  before,  since  we  take  for  granted 
that  His  intimate  consciousness  had  not  changed  since 
the  beginning  of  His  public  career?  We  are  con- 
fronted by  this  alternative :  if  He  really  intended  not 
to  claim  the  messianic  dignity  before  the  striking 
manifestation  of  the  Kingdom,  then  we  are  at  a  loss 
to  account  for  His  admissions,  made  with  no  restric- 
tion whatever,  at  Csesarea  and  afterwards ;  if,  on  the 

1  Strauss.  A  Nezv  Life  of  Christ,  vol.  i,  pp.  282-283 ;  cf. 
Harnack,  cited  above,  pp.  232,  233,  259. 


502 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


Other  hand,  His  poHcy  of  expectancy  was  not  really 
decided  upon  in  His  mind,  then  we  are  not  warranted 
in  giving  it  as  a  motive  of  His  discretion. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Gospel  texts  reveal  to  us 
other  motives  which,  precisely,  have  the  best  chances 
to  be  the  true  ones,  and  agree  with  the  most  certain 
facts  of  history.  Jesus  had  to  take  into  account  the 
state  of  mind  of  the  multitudes  and  of  His  own  dis- 
ciples. The  mission  which  He  had  in  view  was  purely 
spiritual  and  moral :  the  Kingdom  of  God  which  He 
intended  to  establish  was  exclusively  of  the  religious 
order.  And  yet,  the  word  "  Messiah  "  aroused  in  the 
souls  of  men  a  whole  world  of  national  and  earthly 
ambitions.  Hence,  before  He  could  openly  proclaim 
Himself  the  Messiah,  Jesus  had,  first  of  all,  to  work 
out  a  deep  change  in  the  ideas  of  those  around  Him, 
to  convince  His  disciples  of  His  true  character,  but 
rather  by  His  works  and  by  progressive  declarations 
than  by  an  overt  and  positive  proclamation.^ 

On  this  point  we  may  well  accept  the  judgment  of 
Strauss :  nobody  will  suspect  him  of  partiality  in  our 
favor :  "  It  is  conceivable  that  Jesus,  though  already 
fully  convinced  of  His  own  Messiahship,  did  never- 
theless, in  reference  to  others,  select,  to  designate  Him- 
self, an  expression  not  yet  stamped  as  a  title  of  the 
Messiah,  in  order  not  to  force  anything  from  without 
upon  His  disciples  and  the  people,  but  to  allow  the  con- 
viction that  He  was  the  Messiah  to  arise  spontaneously 
within  them ;  hence  also  His  visible  rejoicing  when  He 
had  got  so  far,  at  least  with  His  nearest  friends,  that 
He  saw  the  germ  of  the  right  view  of  His  character 
springing  up  in  the  mind  of  one  of  them."  ^ 

The  rest  of  Loisy's  assertions  refer  to  Jesus'  illu- 
sions concerning  the  realization  of  the  messianic  King- 
dom before  His  death,  His  anticipated  messianic  glori- 
fication and  consecration,  during  His  earthly  career, 

1  Above,  pp.    146-150. 

2  Strauss,  A  New  Life,  vol.  i,  p.  310, 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


503 


finally  concerning  the  fact  that  his  messianic  con- 
sciousness was  posterior  to  the  consciousness  of  His 
filial  relations  with  God.  But,  the  statements  of  our 
critic  on  these  various  points  constitute  a  collection  of 
mere  hypotheses  grounded  upon  rationalistic  pre- 
judices and  contradicted  by  the  precise  data  of  our 
documents. 

Mere  Hypotheses.  —  Loisy,  for  instance,  main- 
tains that  Jesus  believed  in  the  imminent  coming 
of  the  Kingdom  and  did  not  foresee  that  He  would 
have  to  suffer  and  die  before  its  realization.  This 
hypothesis  closely  resembles  the  one  imagined  by 
Reimarus  in  the  eighteenth  century;  the  work  of 
the  old  German  critic  was  first  partly  published  by 
Lessing  in  1774,  under  the  title :  "  Fragments  from 
an  Unknown  Man  '* ;  in  the  last  Fragment,  published 
in  1778,  it  is  asserted  that  Jesus'  aim  was  to  re- 
establish the  Kingdom  of  David  and  Solomon.  All 
that  which,  in  the  Gospels,  does  not  agree  with  this 
plan,  has  been  invented  by  the  Apostles,  who  have 
thus  tried  to  lessen  the  failure  of  their  Master.  Jesus 
had  an  accomplice  in  the  person  of  John  the  Baptist; 
they  had  secretly  agreed  that  they  would  praise  and 
commend  each  other.  The  day  chosen  for  the  insur- 
rection destined  to  bring  back  to  life  the  ancient  Jew- 
ish Kingdom  was  Easter  day;  but  the  scenes  which 
took  place  in  Jerusalem  when  Jesus  entered  trium- 
phantly in  the  city,  caused  the  complete  collapse  of 
the  plans ;  for,  the  Master's  revolutionary  triumph 
stirred  up  the  multitude  against  the  legitimate  authori- 
ties; moreover,  he  violated  the  majesty  of  the  Temple 
by  an  act  of  unheard-of  audacity,  as  though  He  was 
persuaded  He  could  do  anything  He  pleased.  Being 
arrested  by  the  leaders  of  His  own  people,  He  found  a 
cross  instead  of  a  crown.  This  denouement  He  had 
not  foreseen,  and  His  disappointment  and  despair 
manifested  themselves  with  a  strange  bitterness  at  His 
last  moments;  H?  repented  while  dying,  and  on  the 


504  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

instrument  of  His  death,  He  declared  He  was  aban- 
doned by  God.  His  disciples,  after  His  death,  gave  a 
spiritual  turn  to  his  statements  on  the  Kingdom  of 
God  and  an  ideal  setting  to  His  life  and  doctrine."  ^ 
That  Loisy  practically  agrees  with  Reimarus  is  shown 
by  a  remark  we  borrow  from  an  article  in  the  Revue 
d'histoire  et  de  litterature  religieuse;  reviewing  the 
work  of  A.  Schweitzer,  Von  Reimarus  zu  Wrede,  he 
says  significantly :  "  Schweitzer  shows  very  clearly  that 
Reimarus'  work  betrays  a  remarkable  insight." 

The  only  difference  between  Loisy  and  Reimarus 
is  that,  in  the  eyes  of  the  old  German  critic,  the  King- 
dom which  Jesus  purposed  to  re-establish  while  going 
to  Jerusalem  for  the  Passover,  was  the  temporal  King- 
dom of  David,  while  Loisy,  together  with  Strauss, 
maintains  that  the  Saviour  was  only  thinking  of  a  sud- 
den catastrophe  which  was  to  upset  the  world  and  to 
establish  therein  the  conditions  of  a  new  life,  favorable 
to  the  eternal  reign  of  God  and  of  His  elect. 

But  such  an  opinion  can  be  maintained  only  by  one 
who  makes  from  among  the  evangelical  documents  a 
very  special  and  limited  selection,  and  gives  of  the 
texts  thus  set  apart  an  arbitrary  and  exaggerated  in- 
terpretation. 

Jesus'  acceptance  of  the  triumphal  reception  ten- 
dered Him  by  the  people  of  Jerusalem  can  be  easily 
accounted  for  otherwise  than  by  His  firm  belief  in 
the  imminent  coming  of  the  Kingdom.  The  Saviour 
knows  that  His  last  hour  is  near  at  hand;  the  Jewish 
leaders  are  about  to  deliver  Him  into  the  hands  of  the 
Roman  authorities;  the  multitude  which  appears  now 
so  sympathetic  will  soon  clamor  for  His  crucifixion. 
The  Passion  is  imminent  with  its  retinue  of  shameful 
outrages,  with  death  upon  the  cross,  marking  the  utter 
ruin  of  the  messianic  dream.  So  that  the  Saviour  may 
well  now  accept  the  ovation  which  He  had  up  to  this 

1 F.  Vigouroux,  Les  livres  saints  et  la  critique  .... 
3d  edit,  1890,  vol,  ii,  p.  418. 


lESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  505 

time  so  carefully  avoided.  And  then,  spontaneously, 
He  accepts  that  ephemeral  glorification,  as  an  antici- 
pated protest  against  the  scandalous  events  about  to 
happen.  Such  conduct  on  the  Saviour's  part  is  cer- 
tainly easy  to  understand. 

Jesus  affects  to  represent  the  coming  of  the  King- 
dom as  being  near  at  hand:  but  this  does  not  neces- 
sarily mean  it  will  come  in  an  immediate  future;  the 
language  of  the  Saviour  is  easy  enough  to  understand 
if,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Kingdom  is  to  be  realized 
in  its  initial,  earthly  phase,  as  a  preparation  for  its 
final  consummation,  and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  Jesus 
wants  to  show  that  the  supreme  advent  of  the  Son  of 
man  is  prefigured,  and  in  a  certain  sense  anticipated, 
in  the  catastrophe  which  threatens  Jerusalem.^ 

None  of  the  texts,  none  of  the  facts,  referred  to, 
really  proves  that  Jesus  considered  the  realization  of 
the  eschatological  Kingdom  as  being  imminent:  the 
complete  and  definitive  interpretation  of  these  texts 
and  facts  must  be  subordinated  to  the  meaning  of  the 
clearest  data  furnished  by  the  Gospels.  Now,  it  is 
certain  that  the  Gospels  contain  a  mass  of  facts  which 
are  at  absolute  variance  with  the  hypothesis  main- 
tained by  Loisy. 

Facts  against  Loisy's  Theories. — First  of  all, 
there  are  all  the  texts  in  which  is  announced  the  event 
spoken  of  by  Jesus  under  the  image  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  and  seemingly  identical  with  the  Palestinian 
catastrophe  which  was  to  inaugurate  the  social  reign 
of  Christ :  it  shall  happen  before  the  end  of  the  present 
generation,  at  a  time  when  only  a  few  of  the  Saviour's 
hearers  shall  survive.^ 

Again,  there  are  the  numerous  passages  in  which 
Jesus  expressly  warns  His  disciples  not  to  be  surprised 
if  there  is  a  delay  in  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom,  and 
to  be  always  ready,  because  it  shall  come  unex- 
pectedly.^ 

1  Above,  p.  453  cf  seq.  2  Above,  p.  443  ef  seq.,  p.  453  et  seq. 

3  Above,  p.  441  et  seq. 


5o6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Then,  we  have  the  different  parables  intended  to 
teach  us  how  Christian  hfe  must  progress  slowly  in 
the  hearts  of  men,  how  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
is  to  spread  little  by  little  in  the  world.  Nay  more, 
in  the  Saviour's  intention,  the  Gospel  is  to  go  beyond 
the  borders  of  Palestine,  to  be  communicated  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  finally  spread  over  the  whole  universe.^ 

''In  these  passages  (Matt.  xi.  12;  Luke  xvi.  16;  Matt, 
xii.  28),"  says  Strauss  himself,  ''the  Kingdom  is  repre- 
sented as  that  which  is  already  here  present,  that  has 
been  founded  and  opened  by  Jesus  during  His  life 
on  earth.  If,  moreover,  we  compare  the  parables  of 
the  grain  of  mustard-seed,  and  particularly  of  the 
leaven,  where  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  upon  earth  is 
compared  with  the  gradual  leavening  of  a  mass  of 
dough,  then  Jesus  appears  to  have  contemplated  a 
perfectly  natural  and  gradual  development  of  the 
Kingdom.  One  view  does  not  quite  exclude  the  other 
.  .  .  an  invisible  presence  of  Jesus  must  be  distin- 
guished from  His  visible  second  coming,  as,  in  the 
parable  of  the  tares,  the  presence  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God  in  an  imperfect  condition  of  preparation  and  de- 
velopment, must  be  distinguished  from  its  perfect  re- 
alization in  the  future."  ^ 

The  Master,  moreover,  does  not  fail  to  foretell  to 
His  Apostles  the  trials,  the  persecutions,  the  sacrifices 
implied  in  such  a  work  of  universal  evangelization: 
"  He  that  findeth  his  life  shall  lose  it,  and  he  that  shall 
lose  his  Hfe  for  me  shall  find  it."  Loisy  is  of  the  opin- 
ion that  this  sentence  is  incontestably  authentic,  and 
he  himself  thus  comments  on  it :  "  He  who  shall  lose 
his  life,  that  is  to  say,  he  who  shall  be  put  to  death 
for  the  sake  of  the  Gospel,  shall  truly  find  it,  because 
he  shall  thus  attain  a  blessed  Hfe  in  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven."  ^ 

i  Above,  pp.   436,  437. 

2  A  New  Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  i,  p.  329,  330. 

•^  Loisy,   op.  cit.,  vol,  i,  p.  896. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


507 


In  another  passage,  Jesus  gives  His  disciples  to 
understand  that  they  must  consider  themselves  as  men 
condemned  to  death,  carrying  their  cross  behind  Him ; 
they  must  expect  to  be  hated,  persecuted,  ill-treated, 
put  to  death. ^ 

All  these  statements,  which  hold  such  an  important 
place  in  the  Gospels,  are  incompatible  with  the  hy- 
pothesis according  to  which  the  Saviour  was  persuaded 
of  the  imminent  coming  of  the  Kingdom.  Moreover, 
is  not  such  a  hypothesis  contradicted  by  the  very 
manner  in  which  Jesus  constantly  speaks  of  His  com- 
ing or  of  the  Parousia  ? 

"  You  shall  not  finish  all  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the 
Son  of  man  come."  "  He  that  shall  be  ashamed  of 
me  and  of  my  words  in  this  adulterous  and  sinful  gen- 
eration, the  Son  of  man  also  will  be  ashamed  of  him 
when  He  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  His  Father  with 
the  holy  angels."  "  There  are  some  of  them  that  stand 
here  who  shall  not  taste  death  till  they  see  the  King- 
dom of  God  coming  in  power."  "  Be  you  also  ready; 
for  at  what  hour  you  think  not,  the  Son  of  man  will 
come."  Noah's  contemporaries  were  caught  unaware 
by  the  deluge :  "  so  shall  also  be  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  man."  The  Son  of  man  is  Hke  unto  a  prince 
"  who  went  into  a  far  country  to  receive  for  himself 
a  Kingdom  and  to  return  " ;  he  may  be  compared  to 
the  bridegroom  who  went  to  receive  the  bride  and  for 
whose  return  his  servants  are  watching,  that  they  may 
open  to  him  immediately,  or  whose  coming  the  vir- 
gins are  awaiting,  in  order  to  accompany  him  to  the 
wedding  banquet;  again,  he  may  be  likened  to  a 
master  who,  going  into  a  far  country,  delivered  his 
goods  to  his  servants,  and  who  comes  back  after  a  long 
time  and  reckons  with  them.  On  that  last  day,  the 
Son  of  man  shall  be  seen  "  coming  in  the  clouds,  with 

1  Mark  viii.  34;  Matt,  xvi.  24;  Luke  ix.  23;  Matt,  x.  38; 
Luke  xiv.  27. 


5o8  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

great  power  and  glory."  He  shall  be  seen  "  sitting 
on  the  right  hand  of  the  power  of  God,  and  coming 
with  the  clouds  of  Heaven."  "  When  the  Son  of  man 
shall  come  in  His  majesty  and  all  the  angels  with  Him, 
then  shall  He  sit  upon  the  seat  of  His  majesty  and  all 
the  nations  shall  be  gathered  together  before  Him."  ^ 

Such  a  way  of  speaking,  usual  with  the  Saviour, 
cannot  be  reasonably  understood,  except  we  admit 
that  He  had  in  His  mind  that  He  must,  first  of  all, 
leave  this  world,  go  to  His  Father,  and  take  possession 
of  His  Heavenly  Kingdom  in  order  to  return  in  the 
day  of  His  final  advent.  Strauss  admits  it  unhesi- 
tatingly :  "  Jesus,  he  says,  separated  from  the  present, 
as  a  time  of  preparation,  a  future,  as  that  of  perfec- 
tion; from  this  life,  as  a  period  of  service,  a  fife  to 
come,  as  that  of  recompense ;  and  with  the  beginning 
of  this  perfection  he  connected  a  change  in  the  world 
to  be  brought  about  by  God.  This  appears  in  all  the 
Gospels  in  the  most  decided  manner,  if  these  are  to 
be  supposed  to  have  any  historical  validity  whatever."  ^ 

Thus  we  are  led  to  conclude  that  not  only  the 
Master  was  not  mistaken  about  His  messianic  destiny, 
but  that  He  also  positively  foresaw  His  disappearance 
from  among  His  own  and  His  death. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Gospels  abound  in  testi- 
monies to  that  effect.  In  the  very  beginning  of  His 
ministry,  Jesus  mysteriously  gives  His  disciples  to 
understand  that  the  "  bridegroom  shall  be  taken  away 
from  his  friends,"  and  this  sentence  is  connected  with 
an  episode  whose  authenticity  is  not  doubtful  in  the 
least.     The  exhortation  which,  on  another  occasion, 

1  Matt.  X.  23 ;  Mark  viii.  38 ;  Matt.  xvi.  27 ;  Luke  ix.  26 ; 
Mark  viii.  39;  Matt.  xvi.  28;  Luke  ix.  27;  Luke  xii.  40;  Malt, 
xxiv.  44;  Matt.  xxiv.  2>7  \  Luke  xvii.  30;  Luke  xix.  12,  13,  15; 
xii.  36  et  seq.;  Matt  xxv.  i,  6,  10,  14,  19;  Mark  xiii.  26; 
Matt.  xxiv.  30;  Luke  xxi.  27;  Mark  xiv.  62;  Matt.  xxvi.  64; 
Luke  xxii.  69;  Matt.  xxv.  31. 

2  Strauss,  A  New  Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  i,  p.  330. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  509 

He  addresses  to  them,  to  carry  their  cross  after  Him, 
"  has  no  meaning,  Loisy  thinks,  except  in  connection 
with  the  Passion,  and  except  we  bear  in  mind  the  cir- 
cumstances of  Jesus'  death."  Now,  this  exhortation 
is  closely  connected  with  the  sentence  concerning  the 
life  to  be  saved  or  to  be  lost,  which,  according  to  the 
same  critic,  is  undoubtedly  authentic/ 

Moreover,  this  last  sentence  does  not  refer  to  the 
disciples  alone.  Loisy  is  obliged  to  admit  it :  "  Jesus 
had  said  for  Himself  as  well  as  for  His  disciples : 
'  Whosoever  will  save  his  life  shall  lose  it,  and  whoso- 
ever shall  lose  his  life  shall  save  it.'  "  Now,  it  is  ar- 
bitrary to  claim  that  Jesus  thereby  considered  the  mere 
possibility  of  being  put  to  death  for  the  sake  of  the 
Kingdom.  And,  above  all,  how  could  we  account  for 
the  fact  that  He  considered  that  eventuality  so  seriously 
as  to  refer  to  it  publicly,  in  the  explicit  terms  men- 
tioned above,  if  He  had  been  so  deeply  convinced,  as 
critics  want  Him  to  be,  of  the  imminent  manifestation 
of  the  Kingdom,  at  the  time  of  His  journey  to  Jeru- 
salem ? 

Finally,  at  Csesarea  Philippi,  in  Galilee,  on  the  way 
to  Jerusalem,  at  the  banquet  in  which  He  was 
anointed,  in  the  parable  of  the  wicked  Husbandmen, 
at  the  last  Supper,  everywhere  does  the  Master  appear 
fully  conscious  of  His  approaching  death.^ 

How  is  it  possible  to  set  aside  such  a  mass  of  tes- 
timonies, namely,  those  referring  to  the  delay  of  the 
last  Advent,  and  those  who  bear  out  Jesus'  prevision 
of  His  suffering  destiny?  Loisy  eliminates  them  all 
systematically,  because  compelled  by  the  necessity  of 
giving  a  basis  to  his  preconceived  hypothesis. 

Radical  Views  on  the  Gospels'  Historicity. — 
True  it  is  that  in  his  recent  work,  the  two  tableaux 

1  Above,  pp.  240,  241 ;  Loisy,  op.  cif.,  vol.  i,  p.  895 ;  above, 
p.  506. 

2Loisy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  215 ;  cf.  The  Gospel  and  the  Church, 
p.  20;  quoted  above,  p.  242. 


5io  CHRIST  AND  TUn  GOSPEL 

entitled  *'  The  Career  of  Jesus  "  and  *'  The  Teaching 
of  Jesus  "  are  prefaced  by  a  long  study  on  each  of  the 
three  synoptic  Gospels,  and  on  the  character  and  de- 
velopment of  evangelical  tradition/  in  which  the 
author  is  supposed  to  examine  in  the  most  impartial 
spirit  the  guarantees  of  authenticity  offered  by  the 
Gospels:  the  distinction  which  he  makes  between  the 
authentic  primitive  data  and  the  later  additions  due 
to  the  pen  of  the  final  compiler,  the  considerations  he 
makes  on  the  manner  in  which  tradition  has  worked 
upon  and  transformed  history,  seem  all  drawn  from 
an  impartial  study  of  the  documents ;  consequently,  his 
general  views  on  the  ministry  and  teaching  of  the 
Saviour  appear  to  be  but  the  conclusion  of  a  scientific 
criticism  of  the  texts.  But  this  is  a  mere  illusion. 
One  w^ho  follows  attentively  Loisy's  analysis  of  the 
evangelical  writings,  and  weighs  carefully  the  reasons 
for  which  this  statement  is  declared  to  be  authentic 
and  that  one  to  have  been  invented  by  the  compilers 
or  by  tradition — comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the  dis- 
tinctions are  the  outcome  of  a  systematic  and  partisan 
spirit. 

We  may  remark  that,  in  spite  of  contrary  appear- 
ances, the  judgments  of  Loisy  on  the  historicity  of 
the  Gospel  narratives,  are  independent  from  the  ques- 
tion of  the  relations  existing  between  the  three  synop- 
tic Gospels.  The  proof  is  that,  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  details,  his  conclusions  are,  from  beginning 
to  end,  identical  with  those  of  Strauss.  And  yet,  while 
Strauss  adopted  the  hypothesis  of  Griesbach,  accord- 
ing to  which  Luke  and  Mark  were  dependent  upon 
Matthew,  Loisy  adopts  the  theory,  more  current  now- 
adays, which  maintains  that  Mark  was  the  chief  source 
of  the  two  others.  Moreover,  his  conclusions  do  not 
rest  at  all  upon  a  previous  examination  of  the  guar- 
antees of  historicity  which  the  Gospels  are  supposed 

1  Op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  84-174,  175-202,  203-224,  225-253. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  511 

to  owe  to  their  origin.  In  his  Synoptic  Gospels,  vol. 
i,  p.  65,  Loisy  praises  Strauss  for  having  "  subordi- 
nated the  critical  examination  of  the  Gospel  records 
to  the  critical  examination  of  the  evangelical  history. 
For,  if  the  narratives  concerning  Christ  v^ere  myths, 
they  could  not  come  from  eye-v^itnesses  or  v^ell-in- 
formed  chroniclers,  and  therefore  the  question  of  com- 
position had  but  a  secondary  importance."  Following 
the  example  of  the  Tiibingen  Doctor,  Loisy  begins 
with  an  examination  of  the  evangelical  records  from 
the  rationalistic  point  of  view,  and  finding  them  full 
of  supernatural  features,  he  proclaims  them  legendary 
and  concludes  that  they  do  not  come  from  the  par- 
ticularly well-informed  authors,  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke, 
pointed  out  by  tradition.  This  is  exactly  the  reverse 
of  a  truly  critical  examination ;  in  good  logic,  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  books  must  be  inquired  into  before 
their  historical  value  is  examined.  As  Renan  himself 
justly  said :  "  At  what  time,  by  what  hands,  in  what 
conditions  were  the  Gospels  written?  This  is  the 
capital  question  upon  which  depends  the  opinion  we 
must  form  of  their  credibility."  ^ 

The  Question  of  the  Parousia.— To  return  to 
the  question  of  the  Parousia:  our  critic  centres  his 
attention  upon  the  passages  in  which  Jesus  seems  to 
announce  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  as  being  im- 
minent; these  passages,  interpreted  in  the  strictest 
manner,  are  carefully  set  forth  and  brought  into 
prominence;  Jesus'  illusions,  supposedly  proved  by 
these  texts,  are  asserted  as  an  absolute,  intangible 
truth,;  this  is,  of  course,  logically  demanded  by  Loisy's 
philosophical  system,  according  to  which  Jesus'  science 
must  be  purely  natural,  and  His  messiahship  chimer- 
ical. All  the  portions  of  our  texts  which  square  with 
those  so-called  facts,  thus  boldly  asserted,  are  pro- 
claimed genuine;  all  that  which  does  not  fit  into  the 

'^Vie  de  Jesus,  13th  ed.,  p.  xlviii;  cf.  Les  theories  de  Mr. 
Loisy,  Expose,  1908,  pp.  219-226. 


512 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


system  is  declared  to  be  a  later  addition,  and  therefore 
unhesitatingly  eliminated.  It  is  the  most  arbitrary  and 
intolerant  method,  called  upon  to  foster  the  cause  of 
the  most  rationalistic  criticism/    • 

Now,  such  a  method  must  be  rejected  both  on  ac- 
count of  its  arbitrary  character  and  of  the  violence  it 
does  to  documents  whose  historical  value  seems  so 
strongly  established,  when  they  are  studied  without 
prejudice.  It  is  not  in  a  few  isolated  and  doubtful 
texts  that  Jesus'  foreknowledge  of  His  death  and  of 
the  Kingdom's  delay  is  attested:  it  is  to  be  found  in 
every  one  of  our  four  Gospels,  it  permeates  every  page 
of  them,  and  in  many  a  passage  it  offers  particularly 
significant  proofs  of  authenticity. 

We  have  seen,  in  particular,  how  more  definite  an- 
nouncements of  Christ's  passion  are  repeated  in  a  sort 
of  gradation  after  St.  Peter's  confession,  and  coun- 
terbalance, as  it  were,  the  more  striking  manifesta- 
tions of  Jesus'  dignity.  From  the  point  of  view  of 
history,  nothing  is  easier  to  understand,  but  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  later  compilation,  nothing  is  more 
unlikely  than  this  sort  of  compensation  by  which  the 
shining  eclat  of  the  Saviour's  messiahship  is  dis- 
creetly overshadowed  by  the  dark  vision  of  His  cru- 
cifixion, pointed  out  by  Himself.  The  authenticity  of 
the  prediction  made  at  Csesarea  receives  a  very  special 
confirmation  from  the  spontaneous  protest  which  it 
draws  from  St.  Peter,  and  from  the  severe  rebuke 
with  which  this  same  protest  is  met  by  Jesus.  "  There 
is  every  probability,  remarks  Strauss,  in  favor  of  the 
fact  that  the  first  revelation  of  this  kind  which  Jesus 
made  to  His  disciples  was  most  displeasing  and  re- 
pulsive to  them.  .  .  .  For,  they  shared  the  common 
conception  of  the  Messiah,  which,  up  to  this  time, 
Jesus  had  attempted  rather  to  modify  indirectly  and 
virtually  than  to  combat  expressly;  and  to  this  con- 

^C/.  Theories  de  Mr.  Loisy,  p.  243  et  seq. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


513 


ception,  sufferings  and  the  death  of  a  criminal  formed 
the  most  glaring  contrast  ...  so  that  the  inevitable 
result  (viz.  Jesus'  death)  might  have  come  upon  them 
before  they  had  familiarized  themselves  with  the 
thought  of  it.''  Finally  we  find  no  less  significant 
guarantees  of  truthfulness  in  the  remarks  referring 
to  the  surprise,  the  sadness,  the  mysterious  fear  with 
which  other  predictions  inspire  the  Apostles.^ 

It  seems  by  far  more  logical,  or,  let  us  say  it  plainly, 
more  critical,  to  take  into  account  the  ensemble  of  the 
characteristic  features  found  in  our  writings,  including 
all  these  texts,  so  numerous  and  whose  genuineness  is 
so  well  established,  than  to  base  an  opinion  upon  a 
category  of  passages  skilfully  set  apart  from  the  rest. 
In  the  name  of  the  Gospels,  in  the  name  of  history^  we 
have  a  right  to  affirm  that  the  Saviour  did  not,  con- 
cerning His  immediate  messianic  destiny,  labor  under 
the  delusion  attributed  to  Him. 

The  Messianic  Consecration.  —  According  to 
Loisy,  the  primitive  Christian  tradition  connected  the 
messianic  consecration  of  Jesus  with  His  resurrec- 
tion; soon  after,  the  glory  of  the  Messiah  was,  by 
anticipation,  traced  back  to  His  earthly  career;  this 
was  done  by  multiplying  His  declarations  concerning 
His  quality  of  Christ  and  by  turning  His  miracles 
into  evidences  of  His  dignity ;  at  the  same  time  tradi- 
tion is  supposed  to  have  put  the  messianic  consecra- 
tion in  immediate  connection  with  the  baptism  that 
marked  the  beginning  of  the  Saviour's  career,  and 
finally  to  have  traced  it  back  to  the  very  origin  of 
His  Hfe. 

This  theory  offers,  indeed,  a  seducing  appearance; 
it  presents  itself  as  a  system  not  only  very  simple  but 
also  well  balanced  and  perfectly  consistent.     But  we 

1  Above,  pp.  239,  243 ;  Strauss,  A  New  Life  of  Jesus,  vol,  i, 
pp.  320,  321. 

33 


514  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

must  confess  that  the  system  is  very  arbitrary  and 
built  up  without  regard  to  the  texts. 

Our  critic  admits  that,  in  the  episode  at  Caesarea, 
Jesus  was  spontaneously  hailed  as  Messiah  by  Simon 
Peter;  now,  the  assurance  with  which  the  chief  of  the 
Apostles  expresses  the  conviction  of  the  Twelve  at 
that  time  can  be  accounted  for  only  if  we  admit  that 
the  Saviour  had,  previously  to  this  incident,  manifested 
His  messianic  character  in  a  discreet  but  sufficiently 
significant  manner.  Was  there  not  a  real  need  of 
quite  decisive  revelations,  in  order  to  overcome  com- 
pletely the  very  serious  objection  which  the  Jews  had 
against  recognizing  God's  Messiah  in  a  man  whose 
claims  and  conduct  were  giving  the  lie  to  all  their  ex- 
pectations? If  Jesus  Himself  provoked  His  own  to 
a  profession  of  faith,  it  must  be  because  He  was  con- 
scious of  having  done  enough  to  beget  it  and  bring  it 
to  maturity  in  their  hearts.  Loisy  has  made,  in  that 
regard,  very  significant  admissions :  *'  Jesus  also,  he 
says,  announced  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  near 
at  hand;  but  His  hearers  must  have  felt,  from  the 
very  beginning,  that  He  was  attributing  to  Himself, 
in  that  Advent,  an  important  place  which  John  did 
not  claim ;"  .  .  .  "  During  those  days  of  common  and 
intimate  life,  the  disciples,  no  doubt,  got  a  deeper  in- 
sight into  Jesus'  true  character  and  attached  them- 
selves more  and  more  to  His  person.  ...  It  is  thus 
that  the  role  which  was  to  be  His  in  the  supreme 
manifestation  appeared  more  clearly  to  the  eyes  of  the 
Twelve,  and  that  they  felt  disposed  to  hail  Him  as 
Christ,  without  His  having  expressly  declared  that 
He  was  the  Messiah."  ^ 

The  things  being  so,  it  is  easy  to  understand  that, 
from  the  very  beginning  of  His  ministry,  He  did  not 
hesitate  to  allude  to  His  quality  of  Messiah,  as  the 
Gospels   testify  He  did,  especially  by  revealing  His 

'^Les  Evang.  Synopt.,  vol.  i,  p.  207. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  515 

unique  relations  with  God;  easy  also  to  understand 
that  He  habitually  turned  His  miracles  into  as  many 
implicit  arguments  in  favor  of  His  messianic  charac- 
ter. Again  we  can  understand  why  it  pleased  Him 
to  designate  Himself  by  the  name  of  Son  of  man, 
which  conveyed  a  mysteriously  messianic  meaning, 
while,  at  the  same  time,  He  proclaimed  Himself  the 
Son  of  God  by  excellence.  Nay  more,  we  should  not 
be  surprised  to  see  that,  here  and  there,  more  explicit 
recognitions  of  His  messianic  quality  are  interwoven 
in  the  rest  of  His  more  discreet  manifestations :  these 
recognitions  are  destined,  as  it  were,  to  stimulate  the 
hearers'  curiosity,  to  call  more  vividly  upon  the  mes- 
sianic idea  the  attention  of  minds  which  the  humble 
conditions  of  Jesus'  ministry  were  certainly  calculated 
to  baffle.  The  declarations  of  those  possessed  by  the 
devil,  which  were  indeed  very  discreet  and  checked 
by  Jesus  as  soon  as  permitted,  form  a  part  of  that 
programme  of  progressive  messianic  pedagogy  which 
has  every  chance  to  agree  with  the  exact  data  of  his- 
tory. "  Jesus,  remarks  Strauss,  might  feel  Himself 
induced  to  choose  this  method  the  more  He  must  have 
feared,  by  declaring  Himself  from  the  first  to  be  the 
Messiah,  to  excite  all  those  political  hopes  of  the  na- 
tion which  ran  directly  counter  to  that  sense  in  which 
alone  He  thought  of  being  the  Messiah."  ^ 

Did  christian  tradition  at  first  represent  Jesus  as 
Messiah  consecrated  by  His  resurrection?  This  is  not 
really  intimated  by  the  texts.  The  Saviour  had  pro- 
claimed Himself  Messiah  during  His  hfe  and  He  had 
been  recognized  as  such.  Then,  we  are  facing  this  al- 
ternative :  people  thought  that  this  dignity  was  to  be  be- 
stowed upon  Him  only  at  the  time  of  the  inauguration 
of  the  Kingdom :  in  that  case  one  cannot  see  why 
christian  tradition  would  have  thought  of  represent- 

'^  A  New  Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  i,  p.  310;  above,  pp.  157-165, 
143-167. 


5i6  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

ing  Him  clothed  in  His  messianic  dignity  from  the 
very  moment  of  His  resurrection.  Or  again — and 
this  is,  as  we  have  seen,  the  only  plausible  hypothesis 
— He  was  thought  to  be  the  Messiah  from  the  time 
of  His  earthly  career,  although  He  might  postpone 
until  later  days  the  decisive  manifestation  of  His  role ; 
in  that  case,  the  first  thought  of  tradition — if  tradition 
was  ever  anxious  to  mark  out  the  exact  moment  of  the 
messianic  consecration — must  have  been  to  assign  it 
to  a  time  long  preceding  the  resurrection.^ 

Moreover,  it  is  not  very  likely  that,  considering  the 
high  idea  which  people  immediately  formed  of  Christ, 
they  would  imagine  there  was  a  moment  in  His  life 
when  He  was  consecrated  as  Messiah,  not  being 
clothed  in  that  dignity  before.  Even  from  the  point 
of  view  considered  by  the  critics,  the  very  first  ten- 
dency of  Christian  piety  must  have  been  to  look  upon 
the  Saviour  as  Christ  from  the  beginning;  which  is 
equivalent  to  say  that  our  narratives  of  the  Baptism 
and  of  the  childhood  do  not  represent  the  progressive 
developments  of  a  traditional  process,  working  upon 
the  idea  of  Jesus-Messiah. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  official  recognition  of  Jesus 
as  Messiah  at  the  time  of  His  baptism  fits  very  well 
into  the  reality  of  history;  it  is  in  keeping  with  John 
the  Baptist's  role,  for  whom  the  celestial  vision  and 
voices  seem  to  be  intended,  and  with  the  role  of  Jesus 
whose  entry  upon  His  public  career  is  thus  marked 
out.2 

This  messianic  meaning  of  Jesus'  baptism  does  not 
impair  in  the  least  the  significance  which  we  attach 
to  the  evangelical  records  of  His  birth.  St.  Mark, 
it  is  true,  begins  the  story  of  Christ's  life  with  the 
scene  enacted  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan  river;  but 
nothing  permits  us  to  believe  that,  in  his  eyes  or  in 

1  Above,  p.  178-183. 

2  Above,  pp.  249-253. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  517 

the  eyes  of  the  particular  tradition  upon  which  his 
narrative  depends,  the  Saviour  begins  to  be  Christ  at 
that  moment,  and  that,  only  then,  He  is  set  apart 
from  ordinary  mankind  in  order  to  be  consecrated 
Son  of  God  and  Messiah.  The  two  other  Synoptists 
relate  the  birth  of  Jesus  and  present  Him  as  Christ 
from  that  very  moment;  yet,  they  do  not  fail  to  de- 
scribe His  baptism  and  to  attribute  to  it  exactly  the 
same  significance  which  St.  Mark  gives  it:  hence 
they  do  not  think  that  either  of  those  two  events  could 
possibly  impair  the  meaning  of  the  other,  and  the  bap- 
tism did  not  appear  to  them  as  the  true  consecration 
of  the  ]\Iessiah.  Are  we  to  believe  that  their  view  on 
the  subject  differed  from  those  of  primitive  tradition? 
St.  John  himself  gives  to  the  baptism  full  prominence, 
and  yet,  we  cannot  doubt  that,  in  his  eyes.  He  whose 
baptism  he  relates  is  the  Incarnate  Word,  the  only  Son 
of  God,  and  that  from  His  very  birth.^ 

One  has  no  right,  therefore,  to  maintain  that  the 
evangelical  narratives  in  which  the  Saviour  appears 
clothed  in  His  messianic  dignity  from  the  beginning 
of  His  ministry  and  from  the  origin  of  His  life,  are 
the  outcome  of  christian  speculation. 

The  hypothesis  representing  Jesus  as  living  at  first 
with  the  consciousness  of  a  particularly  intimate  union 
with  God,  and  becoming,  slowly  and  by  degrees,  aware 
of  His  vocation  to  the  role  of  Messiah,  such  a  hy- 
pothesis is  due  to  the  desire  of  giving  a  natural  explan- 
ation of  that  messianic  consciousness,  but  it  is,  in  all 
other  respects,  purely  gratuitous. 

Origin  of  the  Messianic  Consciousness. —  For 
the  texts,  in  fact,  show  that  Jesus  was  conscious  of  His 
messianic  dignity  even  before  His  baptism,  and  simul- 
taneously He  believes  Himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God. 
Loisy  himself  points  it  out  as  a  thing  worth  mention- 
ing that  Jesus,  in  His  thirtieth  year,     "is  free  from 

1  Above,  pp.  123,  124. 


5i8  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

every  social  bond,  all  ready  to  follow  His  vocation." 
Our  critic  even  goes  so  far  as  to  admit  that  the  re- 
ligious sentiments  and  hopes  of  Israel,  which  underlie 
His  conviction  of  being  the  Messiah,  must  have  taken 
possession  of  His  soul  "  from  His  most  tender  age." 
This  is  equivalent  to  recognizing  that  one  who  is  free 
from  rationalistic  prejudices  is  led  by  all  our  texts  to 
declare  the  messianic  consciousness  of  Jesus  to  be  as 
old  as  He  Himself  was. 

This  is  not  all.  Taken  as  it  stands,  the  naturalistic 
hypothesis  contains  features  gravely  inconsistent  with 
historical  likelihood,  and  throws  us  into  mysteries  by 
far  more  repugnant  to  reason  than  the  traditional 
dogma. 

How  imagine  that  Jesus,  at  a  certain  moment  of 
His  hfe,  after  beheving  that,  so  far.  He  simply  had 
familiar  relations  with  God,  suddenly  passed  to  the 
idea  that  He  must  be  the  Messiah?  Let  it  be  care- 
fully noticed  that  there  is  no  question  of  a  vulgar 
messiahship  such  as  the  common  people  imagined. 
That  such  a  vocation  to  be  a  temporal  Messiah,  a  Mes- 
siah liberator  of  His  own  people,  could  have  sprung 
up  in  a  mind  exalted  by  patriotic  feelings,  excited  by 
the  glorious  memories  of  Israel,  anxious  to  avenge  the 
honor  of  the  chosen  people  by  shaking  off  the  hated 
yoke  of  its  pagan  enemies,  this  is  quite  easy  to  under- 
stand. But  Jesus  has  nothing  in  common  with  a  politi- 
cal and  conquering  Messiah !  His  messiahship  belongs 
entirely  to  the  moral  and  religious  order.  And  what 
an  extraordinary  idea  He  has  of  it !  He  is  no  common 
preacher  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  no  mere  converter 
of  souls  as  John  the  Baptist  was,  nor  even  an  author- 
ized interpreter  of  the  Almighty's  will,  as  were  the 
old  seers  of  Israel ;  in  His  relations  with  God,  He 
places  Himself  above  the  greatest  prophets,  above  all 
men;  He  claims  for  Himself  an  absolute  authority, 
He  considers  Himself  the  Head  of  mankind  and  af- 
firms  that   one   day   He    shall   judge  the   living  and 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


519 


the  dead;  it  is  He  who  shall  pronounce  over  everyone 
the  sentence  of  eternal  life  or  of  eternal  damnation, 
He  who  shall  introduce  men  into  the  Kingdom  or 
exclude  them  therefrom,  He  who  shall  be  forever  the 
supreme  ruler  thereof ;  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Almighty  and  sharing  forever  His  glory. 

That  the  idea  of  such  a  vocation  might  have  arisen 
from  the  previous  sentiment  of  His  union  with  the 
Heavenly  Father,  this  sentiment  itself  should  have 
been  of  an  absolutely  unheard  of  character.  What 
intimacy  with  God  must  a  man  be  conscious  of,  to 
think  himself  called  upon  to  receive  such  a  transcend- 
ent, such  a  truly  superhuman  and  divine  dignity  ?  The 
problem,  then,  is  only  put  off;  and  one  continues  to 
strike  against  this  enigma:  how  did  it  happen  that  a 
mere  carpenter  in  a  small  Galilean  village  believed 
Himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God  to  a  degree  that  elevates 
Him  incomparably  above  the  rest  of  men  and  war- 
rants Him  in  proclaiming  Himself  the  Lieutenant  of 
God  by  excellence,  the  supreme  Head  of  mankind, 
the  sovereign  Judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead,  the 
President  of  the  eternal  Kingdom  of  God?  Illusion 
in  this  case  would  imply  such  a  disorderly  imagination, 
such  an  extravagant  pride  as  are  in  no  way  shown  by 
all  we  know  about  the  natural  conditions  in  which  the 
Saviour  lived,  about  the  tendencies  of  those  around 
Him,  as  also  about  the  uprightness,  the  modesty,  the 
mental  balance  which  characterize  His  intellectual  and 
moral  temper. 

"  The  interior  light  of  His  conscience,  Loisy  re- 
marks, seems  to  have  been  His  principal  master,  the 
teacher  that  helped  Him  to  understand  the  world,  to 
judge  men,  to  perceive  the  deep  meaning  of  that  King- 
dom of  God  which  everybody  was  awaiting,  and  whose 
realization  He  felt,  one  day,  He  was  called  upon  to 
bring"  about."  ^ 

1  Op,  cit.,  vol  i,  p.  206;  cf.  Retian,  quoted  above,  p.  201. 


520 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


The  origin  of  the  messianic  consciousness  of  Jesus, 
such  as  we  ought  to  represent  it  to  ourselves  in  the 
reahty  of  things,  cannot,  then,  be  accounted  for  by 
any  natural  explanation,  that  is  to  say  by  the  hy- 
pothesis of  an  illusion.  Whatever  may  be  the  part 
played  by  experience  and  personal  reflection  in  the 
formation,  in  Jesus,  of  the  interior  consciousness  of 
His  dignity,  His  JNIessiahship  has  its  foundation  in  the 
divine  order  of  things :  it  has  its  origin  in  the  very 
reality  of  the  being  which  Jesus  owes  to  His  birth  and 
to  His  relations  with  God. 

This  is  what  the  Gospels  bear  witness  to ;  and  is  not 
their  testimony  truly  confirmed  by  all  we  know  about 
the  Saviour's  hfe?  about  His  teaching  which  forces  ad- 
miration on  the  mind;  about  His  works  which  it  is 
impossible  to  reasonably  deprive  of  their  miraculous 
character ;  about  His  resurrection  which  one  cannot 
deny  without  doing  violence  to  history  and  without 
rendering  the  origin  of  the  Christian  Church  really 
incomprehensible;  finally,  about  the  destinies  of  the 
religion  of  which  He  is  the  founder  and  which  is  still 
living  under  our  eyes  ? 

The  new  explanation  which  Loisy,  following  in  the 
wake  of  Strauss  and  Renan,  proposes  of  the  dogma  of 
Christ's  divinity,  is  prompted  by  his  pantheistic  the- 
ories. He  affects  to  give  a  certain  religious  setting, 
he  takes  care  to  distinguish  it  from  purely  material- 
istic rationalism,  and  claims  that  his  ultimate  conclu- 
sions are  not  leading  to  the  belief  in  a  complete  an- 
nihilation ;  but  elegant  formulas  do  not  create  realities, 
and  no  man  of  sense,  no  thinking  man  can  seriously 
and  sincerely  declare  that  he  is  satisfied  with  them.^ 

This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the  philosophical 
consequences  of  such  a  theory.  The  only  question 
we  are  now  concerned  with  is  to  know  whether,  from 

1  See,  Les  theories  de  Mr.  Loisy,  pp.  1 16-120. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


52J 


the  point  of  view  of  evangelical  history,  it  is  exact  to 
say  that  Jesus  always  and  absolutely  distinguished 
Himself  from  God,  and  that  He  never  pretended  in 
any  way  to  be  on  an  equality  with  God. 

The  Faith  of  the  First  Christian  Generation. — 
Loisy  is  obliged  to  recognize  that  the  dogma  of  Christ's 
divinity  is  clearly  formulated  in  the  fourth  Gospel, 
and  expressed  equivalently  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  It 
is,  indeed,  an  undeniable  fact.^ 

Now,  the  fourth  Gospel  remains  for  us  a  first-class 
document,  not  only  as  a  source  of  precise  information 
concerning  the  belief  of  the  Church  at  the  end  of  the 
first  century,  but  also  as  an  authoritative  record  of 
Jesus'  life  and  doctrine.^ 

As  to  St.  Paul,  he  lived  during  the  first  christian 
generation  and  was  in  contact  with  the  immediate 
disciples  of  Christ.  It  is  impossible  to  believe  that, 
concerning  the  personality  of  Christ,  he  could  have 
openly  and  persistently  put  forward  a  teaching  dif- 
ferent from  and  opposed  to  theirs.  The  doctrine  of 
the  great  Apostle  on  such  a  matter  must  have  corres- 
ponded to  the  sayings  and  teachings  of  the  witnesses ; 
his  faith  must  have  been  identical  with  that  of  the 
direct  Apostles  of  Jesus.^ 

But  such  a  faith  is  inconceivable  on  the  part  of  the 
Apostles,  if  Jesus  distinguished  Himself  from  God  as 
absolutely  as  critics  claim  He  did.  It  cannot  be  rea- 
sonably accounted  for,  except  we  admit  that  the 
Master  insinuated  and  suggested  the  idea  of  His  di- 
vinity in  a  manner  significant  enough ;  so  that  His  own 
suggestions,  together  with  the  memories  of  His  works 
and  the  miracle  of  His  resurrection,  might  give  rise 
to  that  firm  belief  concerning  His  person,  which  we 
find  current  in  the  earHest  days  of  the  Church. 

1  Above,  p.  384  et  seq. 

2  See  La  valeur  historique  du  quatri^me  Evangile,  (M, 
Lepin,  1909), 

3  Above,  pp.  400-410. 


522 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


We  are  not  in  the  present  case,  groping  about  in 
the  obscure  domain  of  legend.  Thanks  to  St.  Paul's 
Epistles,  we  have  under  our  eyes  the  very  life  of  the 
primitive  Christian  community,  cradle  of  that  great 
Church  of  the  second  century  which  appears  to  us  in 
the  full  light  of  history.  In  the  time  of  the  Apostles 
as  well  as  in  the  days  of  St.  Ignatius,  of  St  Polycarp 
and  Irenseus,  the  intense  spiritual  life  of  the  Church 
is  guided  and  permeated  by  faith  in  Christ  the  Re- 
deemer, eternal  Son  of  God  and  true  God  Himself: 
it  is  logical  to  conclude  from  this  fact  that  Jesus  Him- 
self must  have,  in  some  way,  suggested  the  idea  of 
His  divinity. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  what  do  the  Gospels  say?  Loisy 
admits  that  the  Synoptics  bear  witness  to  the  divine 
nature  of  Jesus  and  put  on  His  lips  significant  declara- 
tions bearing  on  this  point.  I  mean  the  passages  in 
which  Christ  calls  Himself  the  Son,  side  by  side  with 
the  Father,  without  adding  a  word;  or  the  Son  of 
God  by  excellence  and  in  an  absolute  manner :  such  is, 
for  instance,  the  sentence  on  the  Father  who  alone 
knows  the  Son  and  on  the  Son  who  alone  knows  the 
Father;  again,  the  statement  concerning  Christ,  Son 
of  one  greater  than  David,  the  answer  to  Peter's  con- 
fession in  St.  Matthew,  the  parable  of  the  Wicked  Hus- 
bandmen, the  declaration  of  Christ  before  Caiphas,  the 
trinitarian  formula  of  Baptism.  And  besides,  there 
are  all  the  texts  which  show  us  the  Saviour  claiming 
the  right  of  remitting  sins,  pretending  to  be  greater 
than  the  temple.  Master  of  the  Sabbath,  Lord  of  the 
Angels,  supreme  judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead. 

Value  of  the  Texts.— Now,  what  right  have  the 
critics  to  declare  all  these  texts  unauthentic?  Are 
their  claims  based  upon  a  critical  analysis  of  the  docu- 
ments ?    Not  in  the  least. 

True  it  is  that  the  trinitarian  formula  of  Baptism 
and  the  answer  to  the  title  of  Son  of  God  given  by 
Simon  Peter  at  Caesarea,  are  to  be  found  in  St.  Mat- 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  523 

thew  alone ;  but  the  sentence  on  the  reciprocal  knowl- 
edge of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  is  in  both  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Luke;  now,  as  the  two  Evangelists  are  in- 
dependent from  each  other,  this  sentence  undoubtedly 
belongs  to  the  fundamental  and  primitive  documents 
utihzed  by  both.  As  for  the  sentence  on  Christ,  Son 
of  David,  the  parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen,  the 
declaration  before  Caiphas,  they  are  common  to  the 
three  Synoptists  and  belong  therefore  to  the  primitive 
tradition. 

Almost  everyone  of  these  passages  had  already  been 
called  in  doubt  by  Loisy  in  his  former  works,  and 
we  had,  in  a  previous  chapter  of  this  book,  to  vindi- 
cate their  authenticity,  which  is,  by  the  way,  admitted 
by  the  majority  of  critics,  even  the  most  independent: 
in  his  last  work,  Loisy  brings  forward  no  new  argu- 
ment to  support  his  negations.^ 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  is  not  so  positive  as  regards 
the  interpolation  of  the  trinitarian  formula  of  Bap- 
tism into  St.  Matthew's  primitive  text.  Referring  to 
the  quotations  from  Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  in  which 
the  formula  is  wanting,  he  contents  himself  with  re- 
marking :  "  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  account  for 
that  particular  feature  of  Eusebius'  testimony;  but 
it  does  not  seem  that  the  objection  drawn  therefrom 
against  the  authenticity  of  the  trinitarian  formula  in 
Matthew's  xxviii  chapter,  has  been  completely  and 
successfully  solved."  Let  us  remark  in  connection 
therewith,  that,  in  reality,  the  abnormal  citations  of 
Eusebius  cannot  give  rise  to  any  serious  objection, 
since  the  words  omitted  by  him  are  certainly  known  by 
more  ancient  writers  and,  moreover,  quoted  by  the 
bishop  of  Caesarea  himself  in  another  passage  of  his 
works.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  in  vain  that  our  critic 
remarks  that  "  the  perfect  equality  of  the  three  per- 
sons is  not  taught  in  the  passage  in  question";  for 

1  Cf.  above,  pp.  324,  325,  350-355.  364-379- 


524  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

he  is  obliged  to  admit  that  the  mention  of  the  Son  side 
by  side  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  none 
the  less  extraordinary,  and  suggests  something  which 
very  closely  resembles  the  doctrine  of  Trinity.  "  It  is 
undeniable,  he  says,  that  the  personal  mention  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  the  juxtaposition  of  the  three  persons 
imply  the  existence  between  them — independently 
from  the  part  they  play  in  the  economy  of  salvation — 
of  a  fundamental  relation  whose  nature  is  to  be  de- 
termined by  considerations  different  from  those  which 
the  Gospel  betrays  in  this  passage."  ^ 

Let  us  now  say  a  word  about  the  two  passages  which 
Loisy  seemed  to  admit  up  to  this  time,  or  which  he 
had  no  occasion  of  expressly  rejecting. 

He  had  previously  contented  himself  with  insinu- 
ating that  the  discussion  concerning  Christ,  Son  of 
David,  might  possibly  have  been  imagined  by  tradition. 
To-day  he  positively  asserts  it:  but  his  affirmation  is 
as  gratuitous  as  ever.  The  passage  in  question,  re- 
produced by  the  three  synoptists,  is  a  part  of  a  series 
of  episodes  which  offer  a  strikingly  historical  charac- 
ter ;  they  refer  to  discussions  between  Jesus  and  His 
adversaries,  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  who  have  united 
themselves  in  order  to  ensnare  Him  by  their  insidious 
questions  and  impair  His  authority  in  the  eyes  of  the 
multitude.  But  Jesus  foils  His  enemies'  efforts ;  His 
answers  throw  them  into  confusion,  and  He  Himself 
does  not  hesitate  to  take  the  offensive.  It  is  what  He 
does,  in  particular,  in  the  circumstance  now  under  ex- 
amination.^ 

He  asks  the  Pharisees :  whose  son  should  Christ  be, 
according  to  the  teaching  of  their  Scribes?    They  an- 

1  Op.^  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  752,  n.  i;  ibid.,  p.  751;  cf.  above  p.  375; 
Th.  Riggenbach,  Dei-  Trinitarische  Taufhefehl  nach  seiner 
ursprungUchen    Textgestalt,    1903 ;    F.   E.    Chase,    The   Lord's 

.Command  to  Baptize,  in  Journal  of  Theolog.  Studies,  1905, 
pp.   481-521. 

2  Above,  p.  347. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


525 


swer:  David's.  This  answer  gives  to  the  Saviour  an 
opportunity  to  show,  from  the  very  Scripture  to  whose 
testimony  they  cannot  take  exception  that  Christ  is 
not  merely  a  descendant  from  the  great  King.  Noth- 
ing is  more  conformable  to  the  usual  method  of  the 
Master  than  this  way  of  arguing,  consisting,  as  it  does, 
in  asking  a  question,  in  obtaining  an  admission  on  some 
point,  and  in  grounding  a  lesson  on  the  principle  thus 
recognized  as  true/ 

The  very  terms  of  the  discussion  can  be  properly 
understood  only  if  we  admit  the  reality  of  the  evan- 
gelical history,  but  would  be  incomprehensible  from 
the  point  of  view  of  a  subsequent  tradition.  For,  it 
seems,  at  first  sight,  that  the  Saviour  intends  to  refuse 
the  title  of  Son  of  David ;  several  critics  have  thought, 
wrongly  indeed,  that  such  was  really  His  intention. 
Now,  we  know  that,  from  the  very  time  of  St.  Paul, 
in  the  early  Church,  the  belief  in  the  Davidic  origin  of 
Christ  was  firmly  established.  How  could  we  com- 
prehend that  tradition  would  have  imagined  a  scene 
in  which  Christ  seems  Himself  to  deny  that  origin? 

Strauss  who  also  admits  the  authenticity  of  the 
passage^  thinks  that  Jesus  ''  indirectly  refused  the 
title."  *'In  this  case,  he  says,  only  one  of  two  things 
is  conceivable.  Either  Jesus  had  a  solution  in  reserve 
which  reconciled  the  relation  of  subordination  involved 
in  the  appellation  of  the  Messiah  as  David's  Son  with 
the  relation  of  superiority  involved  in  the  description 
of  Him  as  David's  Lord ;  but  this  could  only  have  been 
the  supposition  of  a  higher  nature  in  the  Messiah,  by 
means  of  which  He  was,  according  to  the  flesh  or 
according  to  the  Law,  a  descendant  of  David,  but 
according  to  the  spirit  a  higher  being  proceeding  im- 
mediately from  God.  .  .  .  The  only  remaining  suppo- 
sition therefore  is  that  Jesus  considered  the  contra- 

1  Mark  ii.  9,  25 ;  iii.  4 ;  Luke  vii.  42 ;  Mark  iii.  23,  S3 ',  Luke 
X.  36;  Matt.  xxi.  31;  Mark  xi.  30;  xii.  9,  16. 


526  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

diction  as  really  insoluble,  and  therefore,  as  he  evi- 
dently sided  with  the  Psalms,  .  .  intended  to  de- 
clare the  theory  of  His  being  the  Son  of  David  as  in- 
admissible." ^ 

Someone  will  say,  perhaps,  that  tradition  chiefly 
intended  to  insinuate  that  Davidic  sonship  is  nothing 
in  comparison  with  the  divine  filiation  that  belongs  to 
Christ.  But  this  difficulty  remains,  that  the  Davidic 
origin  is,  as  it  were,  set  aside,  and  this  would  be  in- 
comprehensible at  a  time  when  controversies  with  the 
Synagogue  were  most  acute,  when  the  chief  point  was 
precisely  to  prove,  against  the  Jews,  the  quality  of 
Messiah  belonging  to  Jesus,  when,  therefore,  it  was 
supremely  important  to  bring  into  prominence  the  fact 
that  Jesus  was,  through  His  ancestors,  connected  with 
the  great  King  of  Israel.  On  the  other  hand,  it  would 
be  inexplicable  that,  concerning  the  idea  of  Christ, 
Son  of  God,  tradition  should  have  contented  itself 
with  such  a  discreet  insinuation.  The  mysterious 
fashion  in  which  Christ  suggests  that  He  is  the  Son 
of  one  greater  than  David  is  easier  to  understand  on 
the  part  of  the  historical  Christ  than  on  the  part  of 
Christian  piety. 

The  Interrogatory  before  Caiphas.—  Loisy  is 
still  less  justified  in  attributing  to  tradition  the  in- 
vention of  the  scene  of  the  interrogatory  before 
Caiphas,  the  authenticity  of  which  he  had  admitted 
until  now,  in  agreement  with  all  the  critics.  The 
episode  is  related  by  the  three  Synoptists,  it  is  an 
integral  part  of  the  history  of  the  Saviour's  last  days, 
and  it  ofifers  such  guarantees  of  authenticity  as  can- 
not be  rejected  except  on  set  purpose.- 

First  of  all,  the  hypothesis  that  the  scene  is  an  in- 
vention of  the  apologists  destined  to  shift  the  respon- 
sibility of  Jesus'  death  from  the  Roman  authorities  to 

1  A  New  Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  i,  p.  304 ;  above,  p.  347. 

2  Above,  pp.  320,  321. 


I 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  527 

the  Synagogue:  such  a  hypothesis  cannot  be  main- 
tained. Extenuated  though  it  be,  Pilate's  responsi- 
bihty  is  none  the  less  clearly  set  forth  in  our  actual  nar- 
ratives :  the  governor  did  not  act  on  his  own  initiative, 
it  is  true ;  he  was  willing  to  absolve,  but  he  was  forced 
to  act  against  his  own  will :  it  remains  true,  however, 
that  he  condemned  Jesus ;  it  is  he  who,  after  all,  de- 
livered Him  unto  death ;  it  is  his  own  soldiers  who 
executed  the  sentence.  His  resistance  previous  to  the 
pressure  of  the  Sanhedrists  serves  only  to  bring  into 
greater  prominence  his  weakness  and  cowardice. 
Now,  could  we  comprehend  a  narrative  built  along 
those  lines,  if  the  author  really  had  the  apologetical 
views  attributed  to  him?  If  the  redactor  really  in 
tended  to  disengage  the  Roman  responsibility,  he 
would  have  adopted  an  altogether  different  method. 
Christians,  capable  of  inventing  a  condemnation  by 
the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  would  not  have  stopped  mid- 
way; it  would  have  been  quite  easy  for  them  to  com- 
pletely dissimulate  the  part  played  by  Pilate  in  the 
tragedy  of  Calvary. 

Moreover,  the  apologetical  tendencies  which,  in  the 
judgment  of  critics,  gave  rise  to  this  narrative,  have 
no  probability  in  their  favor.  The  episode  is  related 
by  the  three  Evangelists :  it  belongs  therefore  to  the 
ancient  tradition  which  underlies  their  documents. 

Now,  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  this  fundamental 
primitive  tradition  originated  in  a  country  and  among 
people  so  very  favorable  to  the  Roman  Empire.  It 
originated  in  the  early  Palestinian  Church :  can  we 
believe  that,  amidst  such  surroundings  and  at  such  a 
time,  the  desire  of  flattering  Rome  was  so  keen  as  to 
prompt  such  a  scheme  ?  No  doubt,  the  first  converts 
had  it  at  heart  to  win  over  new  adepts  to  the  Gospel ; 
but  were  their  hearers  so  devoted  to  the  honor  of 
Rome  that  a  condemnation  of  Christ  by  a  Roman 
procurator  would  have  scandalized  them?  There  is 
not  the  slightest  probability  in  favor  of  such  a  thesis. 


528  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

It  seems  impossible  to  admit  that  Pilate's  participation 
in  the  death  of  Jesus  should  appear  to  the  first  preach- 
ers as  an  obstacle  to  the  conversion  of  the  non-Jewish 
element  or  even  of  the  Roman  citizens,  and  especially 
such  an  obstacle  as  to  prompt  them  to  alter  unhesi- 
tatingly the  facts  of  history  in  order  to  overcome  it. 

The  Gospel  narrative,  on  the  contrary,  has  in  its 
favor  every  historical  probability,  and  we  may  say, 
offers  the  best  guarantees  of  certitude  from  the  point 
of  view  of  history.  Jesus  was  crucified;  this  kind  of 
death  proves  that  He  was  condemned  and  executed 
by  the  Roman  authorities :  this  is  perfectly  exact.  But 
it  is  equally  certain  that  the  Roman  government  did 
not  take  the  initiative  of  that  condemnation;  the 
Saviour's  teachings  did  not  present  any  feature  cap- 
able of  disturbing  public  order  or  of  alarming  the 
Procurator.  Pilate  judged  and  condemned  only  as  a 
consequence  of  a  previous  intervention  of  the  Jews. 

And  for  what  reason  did  the  Jews  deliver  the 
Master  unto  him  ?  They  could  not  arraign  him  except 
as  a  malefactor  and  a  seditious  man;  and  this  is,  in- 
deed, what  the  Gospels  tell  us.  But  was  this  really 
their  charge  against  Him?  No;  for  they  knew  that 
Jesus  did  not  plan  any  enterprise  against  the  existing 
authorities,  and  had  nothing  in  common  with  their 
ordinary  messiahs ;  moreover,  if  He  had  really  mani- 
fested such  pretensions,  which  corresponded  so  well  to 
their  own  desires,  would  they  have  thought  of  de- 
nouncing Him  to  the  Roman  representative?  The 
charge  which  they  bring  forward  in  Pilate's  presence 
is,  therefore,  a  mere  formality. 

The  true  motive  of  their  hatred — their  constant  atti- 
tude during  the  Saviour's  ministry  bears  witness  to 
it — is  that  this  obscure  and  ignorant  Galilean  has  as- 
sumed an  extraordinary  religious  mission ;  he  has 
claimed  for  himself  superhuman  privileges  and 
powers ;  he  has  presented  himself  as  a  man  of  God 
sharing  the  power  of  the  Almighty  and  realizing  the 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  529 

ancient  messianic  prophecies  in  their  most  transcen- 
dental features;  and  that,  indeed,  in  defiance  of  the 
authorities  estabhshed  at  Jerusalem,  nay  more,  in  mak- 
ing it  his  business  on  every  occasion  to  discredit  and  to 
impair  the  prestige  of  the  same  authorities.  Such  is 
their  personal  grievance  against  the  Saviour.  It  has 
an  essentially  religious  character.  The  case  being  so 
nothing  agrees  better  with  historical  probabilities  than 
this  solemn  session  in  which  Jesus  appears  before  the 
Sanhedrim  to  answer  for  His  claims. 

The  Saviour  professes  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  the 
Messiah  Son  of  God.  For  this  reason  He  is  declared 
to  be  "  guilty  of  death  ''.  Why  is  not  the  sentence  ex- 
ecuted by  the  Sanhedrin  itself,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
deacon  Stephen?  Why,  instead  of  being  stoned  after 
the  Jewish  fashion,  in  punishment  of  His  blasphemy,  is 
Jesus  crucified  after  the  Roman  way,  as  though  He 
were  paying  the  penalty  for  His  claims  to  a  royal, 
title?  The  reason  must  be  found  in  the  very  circum- 
stances which  surround  the  fatal  tragedy. 

Upon  the  unexpected  offer  of  Judas,  the  Jews  de- 
cided to  seize  Jesus  during  the  paschal  festivities,  at 
a  time  when  His  Galilean  followers  were  in  great  num- 
bers in  Jerusalem,  and  when  the  Roman  Procurator 
resided  personally  in  the  capital  with  his  cohort.  In 
such  circumstances,  the  arrest  of  the  Saviour  ran  the 
risk  of  causing  a  commotion  and  even  of  provoking 
troubles ;  it  could  not  be  made  without  the  knowledge 
of  the  Roman  authorities.  Nay  more,  it  was  advan- 
tageous to  secure  the  help  of  the  public  forces,  either 
to  make  sure  the  success  of  the  arrest,  as  we  are  ex- 
pressly told  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  or,  before  all,  to 
bring  to  a  successful  issue  the  prearranged  plan  of 
death,  according  to  the  testimony  of  all  our  documents. 
It  is,  therefore,  easy  to  understand  why  the  Sanhe- 
drists,  instead  of  keeping  the  affair  for  themselves, 
refer  it  to  Pilate's  tribunal, — although  they  are  obliged 
to  modify  the  expression  of  their  grievances, — and 
34 


530  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

why,  before  the  Roman  governor  they  hasten  to  give 
up  their  rights,  in  order  to  induce  him  to  pronounce 
the  sentence  himself  and  to  charge  his  soldiers  with 
the  execution  thereof.^ 

To  sum  up:  the  episode  of  the  judgment  presided 
over  by  Caiphas^  and  in  which  Jesus  makes  a  solemn 
declaration  concerning  His  title  of  Son  of  God,  has  in 
its  favor  every  historical  probability,  and  its  authen- 
ticity seems  to  be  admitted  even  by  Strauss.^  It  is, 
therefore,  the  very  sum  total  of  the  texts  called  in 
question  by  Loisy,  that  present  themselves  with  the 
most  serious  guarantees  of  authenticity.  Their  signifi- 
cance in  favor  of  Christ's  divinity  is  admitted,  and  one 
cannot  refuse  to  see  in  them  the  personal  testimony  of 
Jesus,  except  one  gives  up  all  objective  and  impartial 
criticism. 

Moreover,  the  texts  under  discussion  are  in  close 
harmony  with  others  which  Loisy  himself  is  forced  to 
receive  as  authentic. 

The  Title  of  Son  of  God  —Formerly  our  critic 
absolutely  maintained  that  in  the  authentic  portions 
of  the  Gospels,  the  title  of  Son  of  God  was  simply 
equivalent  to  that  of  Messiah.  It  is  in  that  sense 
that  he  tried  to  explain,  in  particular,  the  answer  of 
Jesus  before  Caiphas.  Since  then,  he  came  to  realize 
that  this  last  declaration  has  a  higher  meaning,  which 
is  one  of  the  reasons  why  he  now  rejects  the  entire 
episode  whose  authenticity  he  had  at  first  admitted 
together  with  the  majority  of  critics.  But  it  is  im- 
possible to  eliminate  in  that  fashion  the  mass  of  texts 
in  which  Jesus  speaks  of  His  Father  who  is  in  Heaven 
and  of  His  relations  with  Him:  they  hold  too  large 
a  place  in  the  Gospels.  How,  then,  must  we  estimate 
them  ?  ^ 

1  Cf.  Jo.  xviii.  3. 

"Life  of  Jesus,  Engl,  trans.,  vol.  iii,  p.  210  ei  seq;  New 
Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  ii,  p.  342  et  seq. 
3  Above,  pp.  281,  320. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


531 


Loisy  slips  in  a  mere  foot-note  this  remark  that, 
"  many  as  they  are  "  on  Jesus'  lips,  these  passages 
"  do  not  contain  an  express  definition  of  His  Son- 
ship,"  and  he  contents  himself  with  acknowledging 
that  Jesus  "  regards  himself  as  the  Son  of  God  in  a 
very  special  and  unique  manner,"  not  only  ''  because 
he  is  predestined  to  be  the  messianic  king,  but  also 
on  account  of  the  interior  feelings  by  which  He  was 
united  to  God,  author  of  that  vocation."  This  admis- 
sion is  worth  remembering.  But  it  is  necessary  to  con- 
sider this  matter  still  more  closely.^ 

From  the  many  texts  in  which  Jesus  speaks  of  His 
Father,  it  follows  that  He,  the  humble,  the  meek  and 
condescending  Master,  never  places  Himself  on  a  level 
with  His  disciples,  when  He  speaks  of  the  Heavenly 
Father,  but  always  on  a  plane  apart,  as  though  He  had 
with  God  incomparable  and  incommunicable  relations, 
as  though  God  were  His  Father,  and  He  His  Son, 
in  a  unique  sense.  That  such  a  way  of  speaking  does 
not  contain  an  '*  express  definition  "  of  His  sonship 
everybody  will  readily  confess ;  but  is  it  not  also  true 
that  it  is  inexplicable  on  Jesus'  part,  if  He  was  con- 
scious of  nothing  more  than  a  relation  of  intimacy 
with  God,  howev-er  deep  that  intimacy  might  have 
been;  if,  again,  the  bond  that  connected  Him  with  the 
Father,  peculiar  as  it  was,  presented  essentially  the 
same  characters,  religious  and  moral,  as  the  relations 
of  other  men  with  God?  The  very  special  language 
constantly  found  on  the  Saviour's  lips,  positively  sug- 
gests the  idea  of  a  superior  divine  sonship.^ 

Besides  the  many  texts  in  which  Christ  represents 
Himself  as  the  Son  of  God,  there  is  the  series  of 
declarations  referring  to  His  privileges  and  extraordi- 
nary powers.  These  passages  are  not  less  significant 
and  their  authenticity  offers  the  same  guarantees.    To 

1  Above,  pp.  485-486. 
^  Above,  pp.   336-343. 


532 


CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


claim  that  the  formula :  *'  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass 
away,  but  my  words  shall  not  pass  away,"  must  belong 
to  the  ancient  apocalypse  which  is  supposed  to  under- 
he  the  discourse  in  the  three  synoptic  Gospels,  and 
that  the  words  in  question  are  God's,  not  Jesus'  words, 
is  a  hypothesis  not  only  gratuitous  but  devoid  of  all 
probability.  The  contested  text  comes  after  the  sen- 
tence :  "  Amen,  I  say  to  you  that  this  generation  shall 
not  pass  until  all  these  things  take  place."  Now,  this 
sentence  expresses,  beyond  doubt,  the  Saviour's 
thought,  as  is  shown  by  many  other  evangelical  texts; 
on  the  other  hand,  the  declaration  on  the  words  that 
shall  not  pass  away,  is  evidently  a  complement  to  the 
formula :  *'  Amen,  I  say  to  you,"  which  surely  does 
not  belong  to  a  foreign  apocalypse,  and  it  gives  an  ex- 
cellent conclusion  to  the  authentic  discourse  of  the 
Saviour/ 

Very  extraordinary  also  is  the  Saviour's  language 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount:  ""You  have  heard  that 
it  was  said  to  them  of  old  .  .  .  but  /  say  to  you." 
Strauss  himself  did  not  fail  to  remark  it.^ 

Likewise  it  is  in  the  three  synoptic  Gospels  that 
we  find  the  sentence  on  the  Son  of  Man  who  is  Master 
of  the  Sabbath.  No  exegetical  argument  warrants  us 
in  rejecting  it.  It  is  added  to  a  previous  remark:  "  The 
Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sab- 
bath " ;  but  the  two  sentences  are  not  exclusive  of  each 
other.  Each  one  conveys  a  lesson.  This  happens 
often  in  our  synoptic  documents,  in  which  the 
Saviour's  instructions  are  thus  grouped  and  summed 
up  in  a  short  account  that  gives  us  nothing  but  the 
most  salient  features,  set  forth  in  mere  juxtaposition. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  title  of  "  Son  of  Man  "  given 
to  Jesus  in  this  passage  is  in  itself,  whatever  Loisy 

1  Above,  p.  457. 

-  Above,  p.  308 ;  Strauss,  A  New  Life,  vol.  i,  p.  283  et  seq. 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


533 


may  say  to  the  contrary,  a  sure  guarantee  of  authen- 
ticity.^ 

We  cannot  think  of  discussing  here  in  detail  the 
question  of  the  miracles  attributed  to  the  Divine 
Master.  Suffice  it  to  remark  that  the  Synoptists  relate, 
as  having  been  accomplished  by  the  Saviour,  a  great 
many  marvelous  cures,  several  raisings  from  the  dead, 
and  various  striking  prodigies  wrought  on  material 
elements.  Prejudice  alone  and  not  exegesis  prompts 
Loisy  to  call  in  question  the  miraculous  character  of 
the  cures  whose  reality  he  is  obliged  to  admit,  to  deny 
that  the  raising  of  Jairus'  daughter  was  a  resurrection 
properly  so-called  and  that  of  the  widow  of  Naim*s 
son  a  reality,  and  finally  to  interpret  as  mere  symbols 
the  evidently  supernatural  prodigies  wrought  by  Jesus 
on  natural  elements.  Now  it  is  certain  that  this  fac- 
ulty of  performing  miracles  presents  itself  as  inherent 
to  the  Saviour  and  in  no  wise  borrowed  from  outside.^ 

Moreover,  it  is  hard  to  deny  that  Jesus  bestowed 
upon  His  disciples  the.  power  of  performing  the  same 
miracles  in  His  own  name.  Loisy,  however,  calls  this 
in  question  on  the  plea  that  the  passage  of  the  dis- 
course— previous  to  the  mission  of  the  disciples — 
which  expresses  the  communication  of  this  privilege, 
is  to  be  found  in  St.  Matthew  alone  and  is  wanting  in 
the  parallel  passages  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke.  But 
those  two  Synoptists  do  not  fail  to  recall  elsewhere 
the  same  fact.  And  moreover,  is  it  not  sufficiently 
attested  by  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  one  may  say  even 
by  the  whole  succession  of  Christian  history  ?  ^ 

The  episode  of  the  paralytic  of  Capharnaum,  in 
which  Jesus  so  manifestly  proves  His  power  of  re- 
mitting sins,  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  authentic 
facts  to  be  found  in  the  Gospels.     Here  again,  preju- 

1  Above,  p.  54. 

2  C/.  Les  Theories  de  Mr.  Loisy,  pp.  314-320;  above,  p.  309. 

3  Mark  vi.  13;  Luke  ix.  6;  x.  17;  Mark  xvi.  17;  above,  p.  309. 


534  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

dice  prompts  Loisy  to  cut  off  from  the  text,  as  con- 
tradicting his  theory,  all  that  which  refers  to  this 
power  of  divine  forgiveness  claimed  by  Christ.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  instruction  given  by  the  Saviour 
presents  itself  in  the  most  natural  fashion,  in  full  con- 
formity with  His  usual  pedagogical  method.  He 
begins  by  telling  the  paralytic  that  his  sins  are  for- 
given; the  Pharisees  are  scandalized  by  such  a  pre- 
tension, but  Jesus  justifies  it  by  the  sudden  cure  of  the 
patient.  Such  a  way  of  acting,  so  delicate  and  so  re- 
served, becomes  the  Christ  of  history  far  better  than 
it  does  tradition.  Tradition  would  have  imagined 
a  more  express  declaration  and  it  would  have  avoided 
making  Christ  assume  the  title  of  "  Son  of  Man." 

The  episode  of  the  sinful  woman  related  by  St. 
Luke  has  the  same  significance  and  it  is  no  less  trust- 
worthy. Christian  tradition  would  not  have  invented 
such  a  meeting.  All  critics  unanimously  recognize 
that  the  scene  has  a  decidedly  historical  character. 
Now,  it  is  most  arbitrary  to  attribute  to  the  imagina- 
tion of  the  Evangelist  the  account  of  the  pardon 
granted  to  the  woman.  If  tradition  has  recorded  such 
an  episode,  it  must  be  owing  to  the  significance  that 
was  attached  to  it.  There  is  no  doubt  that  this  sig- 
nificance lies  in  the  kindness  shown  by  Christ  to  the 
sinful  woman,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suspect  that 
this  kindness  found  an  expression  different  from  that 
recorded  by  the  Evangelist. 

Not  being  content  with  thus  remitting  sins  on  His 
own  accord,  in  His  own  name,  did  Jesus  also  grant 
this  power  to  His  apostles?  Loisy  admits  that  such 
is  the  meaning  of  the  words  addressed  to  Simon  Peter 
and  to  the  twelve  according  to  St.  Matthew's  Gospel, 
He  thinks,  however,  that  these  words  simply  express 
the  situation  of  the  Christian  communities  in  the  time 
of  the  Evangelist.  We  must  recognize,  then,  that, 
even  in  those  early  days,  it  was  admitted  that  the 
Church  leaders  possessed  absolute  authority  in  matters 


JESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD 


535 


I 


pertaining  to  penitence.  Now,  it  does  not  seem  that 
this  can  be  accounted  for  except  by  a  tradition  based 
on  the  words  of  Christ;  the  power  of  remittnig  sins 
could  not  exist  in  early  Christian  communities  except 
as  the  result  of  a  formal  concession  or  of  a  positive 
order  of  the  Saviour. 

Finally,  it  is  impossible  to  reasonably  deny  that 
Christ  claimed  for  Himself  the  right  of  judging  one 
day  the  living  and  the  dead.  If  we  may  believe  Loisy, 
Jesus  simply  thought  of  a  separation  of  the  elect  that 
would,  as  it  were,  take  place  spontaneously,  without 
any  special  intervention  on  His  part ;  at  most,  He  pos- 
sibly reserved  to  Himself  the  right  of  bearing  witness 
to  those  who  will  have  shown  themselves  worthy  of 
Him,  and  of  rejecting  those  who  shall  have  despised 
Him.  But  here  again,  the  arbitrary  method  of  our 
critic  betrays  itself. 

Two  passages  from  St.  Matthew,  quoted  by  him, 
may,  strictly  speaking,  fit  into  his  interpretation : 
"  Every  one  that  shall  confess  me  before  men,  I  will 
also  confess  him  before  my  Father  who  is  in  Heaven, 
but  he  that  shall  deny  me  before  men,  I  will  also 
deny  him  before  my  Father  who  is  in  Heaven." 
"  Many  will  say  to  me  in  that  day :  Lord,  Lord,  have 
we  not  prophesied  in  thy  name,  and  cast  out  devils 
in  thy  name,  and  done  many  miracles  in  thy  name? 
And  then  I  will  profess  unto  them :  I  never  knew  you ; 
depart  from  me,  you  that  work  iniquity."  We  must 
confess,  however,  that  these  passages  are  susceptible 
of  an  entirely  different  explanation  and  that  they  fit 
very  well  into  the  scene  of  the  last  judgment.  Very 
significant  indeed  is  the  part  attributed  to  Christ :  why 
does  He  assume  such  an  attitude  of  authority  in  pres- 
ence of  His  Father,  if  the  Father  is  the  only  judge? 
And  then,  can  the  sentence :  "  Depart  from  me  "  be 
understood  in  such  a  hypothesis  ?  ^ 

1  Matt.  X.  32,  ss ;  vii.  22,  23 ;  cf.  Luke  xiii.  26,  27 ;  Matt. 
XXV.   12, 


536  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

In  the  many  similar  passages,  the  idea  of  Christ, 
Judge  of  men,  appears  clearly,  and  it  is  these  passages 
that  reveal  the  true  meaning  of  the  former  ones.  The 
idea  does  not  only  underlie  the  whole  description  of 
the  judgment  given  by  St.  Matthew ;  it  is  to  be  found 
clearly  expressed  in  many  isolated  sentences  like  this 
one :  "  The  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  His 
Father  with  His  angels ;  and  then  will  He  render  to 
every  man  according  to  his  works ;  "  and  equivalently 
in  the  texts  of  St.  Mark  parallel  to  the  first  passage 
from  St.  Matthew  quoted  by  our  critic :  ''  And  I  say 
to  you :  whosoever  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him 
shall  the  Son  of  Man  also  confess  before  the  angels  of 
God;  but  he  that  shall  deny  me  before  men,  shall  be 
denied  before  the  angels  of  God."  ''  He  that  shall  be 
ashamed  of  me  and  of  my  words  in  this  adulterous 
and  sinful  generation,  the  Son  of  Man  also  will  be 
ashamed  of  him,  when  He  shall  come  in  the  glory  of 
His  Father,  with  the  holy  angels." " 

This  last  text  is  from  St.  Mark.  Loisy  recognizes 
its  special  significance :  ''  Jesus,"  he  says,  ''  appears  as 
a  judge,  not  as  a  witness;  He  does  not  present  men  to 
His  Father,  He  comes  in  the  glory  of  His  Father,  and 
accompanied  by  the  angels.  .  .  Christ  the  Judge  is 
not  to  bear  witness  any  longer ;  His  attitude  toward 
those  whom  the  scandal  of  His  cross  will  have  caused 
to  fall,  shall  be  that  of  a  divine  King  whose  dignity 
has  been  offended."  But,  the  language  of  the  second 
EvangeHst  does  not  fit  into  the  hypothesis  of  our 
critic ;  he  concludes  that  it  does  not  correspond  to  the 
authentic  utterances  of  Jesus ;  and  as  the  hypothesis 
agrees  better  with  the  text  reproduced,  in  a  slightly 
different  form,  by  the  first  Evangelist,  Loisy  declares 
that  the  "  primitive  form  "  of  the  sentence  "  has  very 
Hkely  been  preserved  by  St.  Matthew.^'  And  yet,  ac- 
cording to  Loisy's  theory,  Mark  has  been  the  founda- 

^  Mark  viii.  38 ;  Luke  ix.  26, 


lESUS  MESSIAH  AND  SON  OF  GOD  537 

tion  of  Matthew,  and  whenever  the  data  of  the  second 
Gospel  fit  into  his  system,  he  does  not  fail  to  em- 
phasize the  more  primitive  character  thereof.  The  ar- 
bitrariness of  the  method  appears  at  once.^ 

It  is  needless  to  remark  that  the  idea  of  the  judg- 
ment being  presided  over  by  the  Son  of  Man  is  not 
really  at  variance  with  the  sentences  or  parables  that 
show  Him  sending  His  angels  to  separate  the  good 
from  the  wicked.^ 

Conclusion.  —  We  have,  then,  in  our  Synoptic 
Gospels  a  whole  series  of  texts  referring  to  the  super- 
natural privileges  of  Jesus,  and  which,  being  the 
counterpart  of  the  passages  that  reveal  the  trans- 
cendency of  His  divine  filiation,  are  a  confirmation  of 
them,  and,  together  with  them,  contribute  to  establish 
the  reality  of  His  divinity. 

Loisy  systematically  rejects  that  mass  of  testimonies 
whose  deep  significance  he  cannot  deny.  It  is  preju- 
dice that  inspires  his  criticism.  There  is  no  more 
question  of  scientific  exegesis  or  of  dispassionate  ap- 
preciation of  documents ;  conclusions  are  determined 
upon  beforehand  by  philosophical  preconceptions.  No 
impartial  critic  can  approve  such  an  arbitrary  method. 

When  one  studies  without  bias  the  origin  of  our 
documents,  when  one  tries  to  determine  from  the 
texts  themselves,  from  their  literary  character,  from 
the  peculiarities  of  the  narratives,  what  guarantees 
of  authenticity  they  possess;  or  again,  when  one  en- 
deavors to  ascertain,  on  the  most  significant  points, 
their  relations  with  the  faith  of  the  primitive  Christian 
Church,  one  cannot  make  up  one's  mind  to  see  in  them 
the  outcome  of  tradition  working  upon  historical  recol- 
lections, to  the  extent  and  in  the  manner  Loisy  claims 
that  it  was  done.  When  we  remember  that  the  testi- 
monies in  question  are  to  be  found  in  the  most  ancient 

1  Loisy,  Les  Evangiles  Synopf.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  25,  26. 

2  Matt.  xiii.  41,  49;  Mark  xiii.  27;  Matt.  xxiv.  31. 


538  CHRIST  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

Gospels  which  record  the  earliest  traditions ;  that  they 
furnish  us  with  the  adequate  and  necessary  explana- 
tion of  the  immediate  belief  of  the  Church  in  Christ, 
Son  of  God,  we  are  forced  to  acknowledge  it  as  a 
fully  historical  fact  that  Jesus  Himself  has  asserted 
His  divinity  before  the  world.^ 

Thus,  Jesus  believed  and  really  declared  Himself 
to  be  the  Messiah ;  from  the  very  beginning  of  His 
pubHc  career,  He  regarded  His  mission,  contrary  to 
all  Jewish  prejudices,  as  a  purely  spiritual  and  moral 
one,  He  even  foresaw  that  He  would  have  to  suffer 
and  die,  and  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  would  be  real- 
ized only  after  that.  All  attempts  to  explain  His  con- 
sciousness of  being  the  Messiah  by  a  natural  evolution 
of  His  conviction  that  He  had  filial  relations  with  God, 
are  arbitrary  and  contrary  to  facts  and  even  to  histori- 
cal probabilities.  Finally,  the  Saviour  did  not  fail  to 
manifest  discreetly  and  to  reveal  in  a  sufficiently  clear 
manner.  His  properly  so-called  divinity. 

Such  are  the  conclusions  which,  after  as  before  the 
publication  of  Loisy's  new  books,  are  the  necessary 
outcome  of  a  prudent  and  impartial  criticism  of  the 
Gospels. 

1  Above,  p.  48-56, 


LIST  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  REFERENCES 


Saint  Matthew— 

i".   IS    p.  247 

iii.  16,  17  pp.   137-142 

iv.   3.    10    p.   139 

vi.  9    pp.  336,  2>Z7 

vii.  22,  23 p.  536 

viii.   II    P-  437 

viii.    29    pp.   144,   145 

ix.    1-8    pp.  154,  310,  492,  533 

ix.   15    pp.  170,  238,  508 

X.    5    p.   437 

X.  2Z  pp.  456,  507 

X.  Z2-ZZ   p.  535 

X.  39  pp.  242,  505,  506 

xi.  3    pp.    156,   185 

xi.   25-30    pp.  356,  374,  416,  486 

xii,  5,  6   pp.    153,   493,   532 

xii.  8 pp.   153,  493,  532 

xii.  28 p.   156 

xii.  Z2  pp.  54,  414 

xiii.  58  p.  415 

XV.  24  pp.  437,  438 

xvi.    13-16    pp.  167,  321-327,  488 

xvi.   17-19    pp.  325,  492 

xvi.  21-23    p.  243 

xvi.  27,  28   pp.  456,  457,  507,  536 

xvii.   5    p.  168 

xvii.  21.  22   p.  243 

xviii.  18  pp.  310,  492,  534 

xix.  16,  17 pp.  265,  291,  412 

XX.   18,  19   p.  243 

XX.   23    p.   246 

xxi.  33-43    PP-  348-355,  443,  4^7 

xxii.   41-46    pp.   345-348,  488,  524    ' 

xxiii.  36  p.  445 

xxiv.    isq pp.  428-432 

xxiv.  29-35    PP-   444,  448 

xxiv.    35    pp.  493,  532 

xxiv.  36   pp.  462-468 

XXV.  31-46 pp.  311.  495,  508,  536-538 

xxvi.  28  p.  246 

(539) 


540  NEW  TESTAMENT  REFERENCES 

Saint  Matthew — 

xxvi.  57-66  pp.  489,  526-528 

xxvi.  63   pp.  61,  173,  194,  327 

XXVI.  64  pp.  173,  194 

xxvi.  65,  66   p.  328 

xxvii.   II    p.    474 

xxvii.  46    pp.  54,  413 

xxviii.  19  pp.  375-380,  436-439,  490 

Saint  Mark — 

i.  10,  II   p.    137 

1-   24    pp.  143-145,  185 

?:  34   pp.  143-145,  185 

H-  ^-^2   PP-  154,  310,  492,  533 

11;  19.  20 •  •  •  pp.   170,  239,  508 

iii-    12    pp.  143-145 

lii.   23-29    pp.  156,  265,  414 

V.  7   pp.  143-145 

V.  19,  20 pp.  414  415 

vi.  5,  6  p.  415 

vii.  31-33   pp.  88,  149,  243 

vii.  33  p.  415 

viii.  23-25    p.  415 

viii.  27-29    pp.  167,  189,  321,  322 

viii.  38-ix,  I  pp.  456,  457,  507,  536 

ix.  6   p.  168 

ix.  9,  30,  31  P-  243 

X.  17,  18 pp.  54,  265,  291,  412 

X.  33,  34 P-  243 

X.    40    p.  416 

X.    45    pp.  246,  311 

xii.  1-9   pp.  348-355,  443,  487 

xii.  35-37  PP-  345-348,   488,  489,   524,   525 

xiii.    isq pp.  427-432 

xiii.  24-30    pp.  444-456 

xiii.    27    p.  307 

xiii.  31    PP-  493,  532 

xiii.  32    pp.  54,  265,  307,   313,  413,  463-468, 

487 

xiv.  24   p.  246 

xiv.  35,  36,  39 PP-  266,  291 

xiv.    53-64    pp.  489,  526,  530 

xiv.  61    pp.  173,  191,  194,  327 

xiv.  62    pp.  173,  194  474,  508 

xiv.  63    *. p.  328 

XV.  2   p.  474 

XV.  34  pp.  54  413 

xvi.  15   pp.  436-439 


NEW  TESTAMENT  REFERENCES  541 

Saint  Luke — 

i.  1-4 p.  109 

i.  34sq. pp.  124,  48s 

i;   35    p.  123 

ii.  40,  52 p.  420 

".  49 p.  257 

ill.  21.  22  pp.  137-143 

iv,  3-12  pp.  138,  139 

iv.  18,  19  p.   152 

iv.  34,  41   pp.  144,  185 

V.   17-26   pp.  154,  310,  492,  533 

V.  34,  35  PP-    170,   239,    S08 

vi.   5    pp.   153,  493,  532 

vii.  19  pp.  156,  185 

vii.    36-50    pp.  154,  492,  534 

viii.  28   p.    144 

viii-  39   p.  414 

ix.    18-20    pp.  320,  321 

ix.  22    p.  243 

ix.  26,  27  pp.  456,   507 

ix.  35    p.    168 

ix.  44,  45  p.  243 

X.  21-24 pp.  356,  374,  416,  486 

xi.  2 p.  337 

XI.  20   pp.  156,  265,  413 

xii.  8,  9 p.  536 

xiii.  29   p.  437 

xviii.  18,  19  p.  412 

xviii.  31-34   p.  243 

xix.  38   pp.  73,  173 

XX.  9-16  pp.   349-355,  443,  487 

XX.  41-44  pp.   346-348,  488,  524 

xxi.    5sq pp.  427-432 

xxi.  25-33    pp.  444-455 

xxi.  32   pp.    493,    532 

xxii.  19,  20  p.  246 

xxii.  66-71   pp.  489,  526-530 

xxii.  66 p.  327 

xxii.   69    pp.  173,  194 

xxii.  70,  71    pp.  173,  191,  194,  327-328 

xxiii.  3  p.  474 

xxiv.  47  pp.  436-439 

Saint  John — 

i.  1-3,  10   pp.  400,  401,  496 

i.   26    p.  252 

vi.   14    PP-  72,  77,  147,  167,  191 

XX.  22 p.  310 

xxi.  22  p.  458 


542  NEW  TESTAMENT  REFERENCES 

Acts  of  the  Apostles — 

i.  6,  7  pp.  147,  463 

ii.    36    pp.  179-183 

X.    38    pp.  138,  141 

Romans — 

i.  3    p.  386 

viii.  3   p.  387 

viii.  32   p.  387 

ix.  5   pp.  390,  400 

I  Corinthians — 

i.  24,  30  p.  388 

ii.  10-12   p.  314 

viii.  6   pp.  388 

II  Corinthians — 

iv.  4   p.  388 

V.  19  p.  389 

viii.  9   pp.  388,  496 

Galatians — 

iv.  4-6    pp.  387,  496 

Ephesians — 

iv.  5»  6 p.  392 

Philippians — 

ii.  5-7   pp.  389,  46s 

Colossians — 

i.  1S-17  pp.  388,  496 

ii.  9  pp.  389,  496 

I  Timothy — 

ii.  5  P-  392 

Hebrews — 

i.  2,  3,  10  pp.  390,  496 

X.    5    pp.  262,  496 

I  John— 

iv.  9,  10,  14  P-  394 

V.  20  pp.  394,  400 

Apocalypse — 

iii.   II    p.  178 

xix.    10    p.  318 

xxii.  8,  9   p.  318 

xxii.  17,  20  p.  178 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Aal,  Geschichte  der  Logosidee,  vol.  I,  1896. 

Abbott,  T,  K.,  Commentary  on  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  1897. 

Adams  Brown,  art.     Parousia  in  Hasting's  Diet,  of  the  Bible, 

vol.  Ill,  1900. 
Alexandre,  Oracula  Sibyllina,  2  Vol.,  1841-1856. 
Allard,  Histoire  des  persecutions,  vol.   I,   1885. 
Bacuez  et  Vigouroux,  Manuel  biblique,  vol.  Ill,  10  ed.,  1900. 
Baldensperger,     W.,     Die     messianish-apokalyptischen     Hoff- 

nungen  des  Judentums,  1903. 

Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu,  2d  ed.,  1892. 

Bardenhewer,  Les  Peres  de  1'  figlise,  French  ed.,  "3  vol.    1898. 

Engl,  transl.  by  Rev.  T,  J.  Shahan,  D.  D.,  i  vol.,  1908. 

Batiffol,    Anciennes    litteratures    chretiennes.      La    litterature 

grecque,   1897. 

Six  legons  sur  les  fivangiles,  4th  ed.,  1897. 

Jesus  et  r  histoire,  2d  ed.,  1904. 

art.  in  the  Bulletin  de  litterature  ecclesiastique. 

Beer,  Das  Buch  Henoch  in  Kautzsch's  Collection :  Die  Apo- 
cryphen  und  Pseudepigraphen  des  Alten  Testaments, 
vol.  II,  1900. 

Beet  (J.  Agar),  art.  Christology  in  the  Diet,  of  the  Bible, 
vol.  I,  1898. 

Bensly,  The  Missing  Fragment  of  the  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra. 

and  James,  The  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra,  the  Latin  Ver- 

sion edited,  1895. 
Berliner,  Targum  Onkelos  herausgegeben  und  erlautert,  2  vol, 

1884. 
Bertholet,  Zu  lesaja  53,  1899. 
Beyschlag,  W.,  New  Testament  Theology,  translated,  2  vol., 

1895. 
Blass,    F.,    Acta    Apostolorum,    sive    Lucae    ad    Theophilum 

Liber  alter,  1895. 
Boehmer,    J.,    Reich    Gottes    und    Menschensohn    im    Buche 

Daniel,  1899. 
Bousset,  W.,   Die   Religion  des  Judentums  im  neutestament- 

lichen  Zeitalter,  1903. 

Was  wissen  wir  von  Jesus?     1904.     Engl.   tr.   1905. 

art.  in  the  Theologische  Rundschau. 

Bovon,  J.,  Theologie  du  Nouveau  Testament,  2  vol.,  1893. 
Brandt,  Evangelische  Geschichte,  1893. 

(543) 


544  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Briggs,  C.  A.   Messianic  Prophecy,  1886. 

The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  1894. 

Bruce,  A.  B..  art.  Jesus  in  the  Encyclopaedia  biblica  of  Cheyne, 

vol.  II,  1901 
Bruston,  C,  Les  predictions  de  Jesus,  1899. 
Budde.  K.,  Die  Sogenannten  Ebed  Jahwe-Lieder,  1900. 
Bugge,  A.,  Die  Haupt-Parabeln  Jesu,   1903. 
Bulletin  de  litterature  ecclesias.ique,  1903,  1904. 
Burn,  A.,  The  Athanasian  Creed,  1896. 
Buxtorf,  J.,  Lexicon  chaldaicum  talmudicum  et  rabbinicum, 

1639. 
Calmes,  Le  question  des  fivangiles  synoptiques,  1898, 

L'  fivangile  selon  Saint  Jean,  1904. 

Calmet    (Dom   A.)    Commen^aire  litteral   sur   tous   les    livres 

de  I'Ancien  et  du  Nouveau  Testament,   1725. 
Ceriani,  Monumenta  sacra  et  profana,  1861  sq. 
Charles,  R.  H.,  The  Book  of  Enoch,  translated,  1893. 

The  Book  of  Jubilees,  or  the  little  Genesis,  translated, 

1902, 

The  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  translated  from  the  Syriac, 

1890. 

The  Ethiopic  Version  of  the  Hebrew  Book  of  Jubilees, 

1895. 
art.  Apocalyptic  literature,  in  Encycl.  bibl.,  vol.  I,  1899. 

art.  Enoch  in  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  vol.  I,  1898. 

art.  Eschatology,  in  Encycl.  bibl.  vol.  II,  1901. 

Chase,  F.  E.,  art.  in  Journal  of  theological  studies,  1905. 

art.  Servant  of  the  Lord,  in  Encycl.  bibl.  vol.  IV,  1903. 

Colani,  T.,  Jesus-Christ  et  les  esperances  messianiques  de  son 

temps,  1864. 
Conybeare,  The  Eusebian  form  of  the  Text  Matth.  xxviii,  19, 

in    Zeitschrift    fiir    die    neutestamentliche    Wissenschaft, 

1901. 
Cornely,    Introductio   in   utriusque   Testamenti   libros    sacros, 

vol.  III.,  1886. 
Dalman,  G.,  Die  Worte  Jesu,  1898.     Engl.  tr.  by  D.  M.  Kay, 

1902. 
Davidson,  A.  B.,  Old  Testament  Prophecy,  1904. 

art.  Angel  in  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  vol.  I,  1898. 

art.  Prophecy  and  Prophets,  ihid.,  vol.  IV,  1902. 

Dictionnaire  de   la   Bible,  published  by   F.   Vigouroux,    S.   S. 

Paris,  189s  sq. 
Dictionnaire  de  Theologie,  edited  by  A.  Vacant  and  continued 

by  E.  Mangenot. 
Dic'ionary  of  the  Bible    (A)    edited  by  T.   Hastings,  5  vol. 

1898-1904. 
Dillmann,  Liber  Henoch  aethiopice  ad  quinque  codicum  fidem 

editus,  185 1. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


545 


Driver,  art.  Son  of  man,  in  Diet,  of  the  Bible  vol.  IV,  1902. 
Drummond,  T.,  The  Jewish  Messiah,  1877. 

Phiio   Judaeus,   or  the   Jewish   Alexandrian    Philosophy, 

2  vol.,  1888. 
Duhm,  Das  Buch  Jesaia,  2d  ed.,  1902. 
Durand,  A.,  La  divinite  de  J.  C.  dans  St.  Paul,  Rom,  ix,  5, 

in  Revue  Biblique,  1903. 
Encyclopaedia    Biblica,    edi.ed    by   T.    K.    Cheyne    and    J.    S. 

Black,  4  vol.,  1899-1903. 
fitudes   publiees   par   des    Peres   de   la   Compagnie   de  Jesus, 

annee  1903. 
Expositor,  1902, 
Fiebig,  P.,  Der  Menschensohn,  1901. 

Al  jiidische  Gleichnisse  und  die  Gleichnisse  Jesu,  1904. 

Pillion,   fivangile   selon   St.   Matthieu,   1879. 

Flemming,  J.,  Das  Buch  Henoch   aethicp.    Text,  1902. 

und    Radermacher,   Das   Buch    Henoch,    herausgegeben, 

1901. 
Funk,  Patres  Apostolici,  2  vol.,  2d  ed.,  1901. 
Geffcken,  J.,  Oracula  SilDyllina,  1902. 
Godet,  F.,  Introduction  au  Nouveau  Testament,  2  vol.,  1898. 

Com.mentaire  sur  1'   fivangile  de  St.  Luc,  2  vol.,  3d  ed., 

1888.     Engl,  transl. 

Commentaire  sur  1'  fivangile  de  St.  Jean,  3  vol.,  4th  ed., 

1902.     Engl,  transl. 
Gore,  C.,  Dissertations  on  subjects  connected  with  the  Incar- 
nation, 1895. 
Grill,   T.,   Untersuchungen   uber   die  Entstehung  des   vierten 

Evangeliums,  1902. 
Grandmaison    (Lecnce  de)  ;   art.  in  fitudes,  Jan.,  Aug.,   and 

Sept.,  1903:  L'expansion  du  Chrislianisme. 
Hackspill,    L.,    fitudes    sur   le   milieu    religieux   et   intellectuel 

contemporain  du  N.  T.  in  Revue  biblique,    Jul.  1901,  Jan. 

1902. 
Harnack,   A.,   Die   Chronologic  des   altchristlichen   Literatur, 

part   II,  vol.   1,    1897:   Engl,  trans.     The  history  of   old 

Christian  Literature. 

Das  Wesen  des  Christentums,  1903.     Engl,  trans. :  What 

is    Christianity?    by    T.    B.    Saunders,    1900.      French 
trans. :  L'essence  du  Christianisme.   1902. 

Die   Mission  und  Ausbreitung  des   Christentums  in  den 

ersten    drei    Jahrhunder'en,    1902.      Engl,    trans. :    The 
Exoansicn  of  Christianity  in  the  first  three  centuries, 
by  J.  Moffatt,  2  vol. 
— —  Das  Christen^um  und  die  Geschichte.  5  ed.,  1904.     Engl, 
trans. :  Christianity  and  History  by  T.  B.  Saunders. 

art.    Zu    Luc,    I.    34   sq.    in    Zeitschrift    fiir   die    neutesr. 

Wissenschaft,  1901. 


546  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Haupt,  E,,  Die  Gefangenschaftsbriefe,  7  ed.,  1897. 

Die  eschatologischen  Aussagen  Jesu,  1895. 

Headlam,  A.  C,  art.  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  Diction,  of  the 

Bible,  vol.  I,  1898. 
Heinze,  Die  Lehre  von  Logos,  1872. 
Hillmann,  J.,  art.  Die  Kindheitsgeschichte  Jesu  nach  Luc,  in 

Jahrbiicher  fiir  protestantliche  Theologie,  1891. 
Holtzmann  (H.  J.),  Enleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  1885; 

3  ed.,  1892. 

Lehrbuch  des  neutestamentlichen  Theologie,  2  vol.,  1897. 

Die    Synoptiker    (Hand-Commentar   zum   N.   T.)    3   ed.. 

1901 
Holtzmann  (O.);  Neutestamentaliche  Zeitgeschichte,  1895. 

Leben  Jesu,  1901.     Engl,  trans,  by  Bealby  and  Canney, 

1904. 

War  Jesus  Ecstatiker?  1903. 

Icard,  Doctrine  de  M.  Olier,  1889. 

Jacquier,  E.,  Histoire  des  Livres  du  Nouveau  Testament,  t.  I, 
2  ed.,  1903.     Engl,  trans,  by  Rev.  J.  Duggan,  1907. 

James,  art.  Esdras  (Fourth  Book  of)  in  Encycl.  biblica,  vol. 
II,  1901. 

Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  1905. 

Jiilicher,  A.,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  1894,  3  ed., 
1901.    Engl,  trans,  by  Rose  Janet  Ward,  1904. 

Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu,  2  vol.  1886  and  1889. 

Keim,  Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara,  2  vol.  1867.     Engl,  trans. 
Kittel,  Zur  Theologie  des  Alten  Testaments,  1899. 
Knabenbauer,  Evangelium  secundum  Marcum,  1894. 

Commentarius  in  Actus  Apostolorum,  1899. 

Labourt,  J.,    Notes   d'exegese  sur   Philip,   II,  5-1 1,   in  Revue 

biblique,  1898. 
Lagarde,  Prophetae  chaldaice,  1872. 
Lagrange,  Jesus  et  la  critique  des   fivangiles  in   Bulletin  de 

litterature  ecclesiastique,  1904. 

art.   Les   propheties   messianiques   de  Daniel,   in   Revue 

biblique  Oct.,   1904. 

Other  articles  and  Book  Reviews  in  Revue  Biblique. 

Lepin,  M.,  art.  L'origine  du  Magnificat  in  I'Universite  Catho- 

lique,  1903. 
Liddcn,  H.  P.,  The  Divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 

Christ,  1866. 
Lie^zmann,  Der  Menschensohn,  1896. 
Lightfoot,  J    B.,   St.   Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,   10  ed., 

1890. 

St.    Paul's   Epistle  to  the   Colossians   and  to   Philemon, 

8  ed..  1886. 
Loisy,  A.,  Histoire  du  Canon  du  Nouveau  Testament,  1891. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  547 

Les  fivangiles  Synoptiques,  vol.  I,  1893-1894. 

Etudes  evangeliques.  1902. 

V  fivangile  et  V  Eglise,   i  ed.,  1902;  2  ed.,  1903;  Engl. 

trans :  The  Gospel  and  the  Church  by  Chr.  Home,  2  ed., 
1908. 

Autour  d'un  petit  liyre,  1903. 

Le  quatrieme  fivangile,  1903. 

art.  L'  Apocalypse  Synopiique  in  Revue  biblique,  1896. 

art.   Le  second  fivangile  in   Revue  d'  histcire  et  de  lit- 

terature  religieuse    1903. 

Chronique  biblique  in  same  Review. 

Les  fivangiles  synoptiques,  2  vcl.  in  8°,  1907-1908. 

Quelques   lettres   sur   des  questions  actuelles   et   sur   des 

evenements  recents,  1908. 
Maldonat,  Commentarii  in  quatuor  Evangelistas,   1595 
Manen  (Van),  art.  in  Theologisch  Tijdschrift,  1894. 
Mangenot,  E..  art.  Chronologic  biblique,  in  Diet,  de  la  Bible, 
vol.  II,  1899. 

art.  Fin  du  monde,  ibid. 

Mangey,  Th..  Philonis  Judaei  opera.    London,  1742. 

Marti,  K.,  Das  Buch  Jesaja,  1900. 

Minocchi,    S.,   II   Nuovo   Testamento  tradotto   e  annotate,   I, 

Vangeli,  1900. 
Moffa:t,  J.,  The  historical  New  Testament,  1901. 
Nes.le,  E.,  Novum  Testamentum  graece,  4  ed.,  1903. 
Noldeke,  art.  Aramaic  language  in  Encycl.  bibl.  vol.  I,  1899. 
Nowack,  W.,  Hand-Commentar  Zum  Alt.  Test.,  1902. 
Olier,  J.  J.,  Memoires  manuscrits,  1641. 

Vie  interieure  de  la  tres  Sainte  Vierge,  2  vol..  1866. 

Oltley,  R.  L.,  art.  Incarnation  in  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  vol,  II, 

1899. 
Pfleiderer,  O.,  Urchristenthum,  1887.     Engl,  trans.  4  vol.,  by 

Montgomery. 
Philonis  Judaei  opera,  edited  by  Th.  Mangey,  London,  1762. 
Piepenbrig,  Theologie  de  I'Ancien  Testament,  1886. 
Plummer,  A.,  A  critical  and  exegetical   Commentary  on  the 

Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  3  ed.,  1900. 

art.  Baptism,  in  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  vol.  I,  1898. 

Preuschen,  E.,  Analecta,  1893. 

Protestantische  Monatshefte,  1900. 
Rackham,  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  1901. 
Ramsay,  W.,  Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem?  1898. 
Raymond,  Martini,  Pugio  fidei  adversus  Mauras  et  Judaeos, 

1687. 
Reimarus,    H.    S.,   Fragmente   eines   Ungenannten,   edited   by 

Lessing,  1774- 1778. 
Renan,   E.,  Vie  de  Jesus,  13  ed.   1867;  engi.  trans,  by  T.  H. 

Allen,  1895. 


548  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Les  Apotres,  1866;  Engl,  trans.,  1898. 

Saint  Paul,  1869;  Engl,  trans..  1899. 

— —  L'Antechrist,  1873;  Engl,  trans.,  1897. 

Les  fivangiles,  2  ed.,  1877;  Engl,  trans.,  1885. 

L'  £glise  chretienne  2  ed.,  1879 ;  Engl,  trans.,  1886. 

Resch,  A.,  Agrapha. 

Das  Kindheits  Evangelium  nach  Lucas   und   Matthoeus, 

1897. 
Reuss.  E.,  Histoire  de  la  theologie  chretienne  au  siecle  apos- 

tolique,  2  vol.  3  ed.,  1864. 
Reville,  J.,  Le  Logos  d'  apres  Philon  d'  Alexandrie,  1877. 

Le   quatrieme   fivangile,    son    origine    et    sa  valeur   his- 

torique,  1901. 
Revue  biblique,  1892  sq. 

Revue    d'  histoire  et  de  litterature  religieuse,  1896-1908. 
Reynolds,   H.    R.,  art.   John's   Gospel   in   Diet,   of   the  Bible, 

vol.  II,  1899. 
Riggenbach,   Th.,   Der  Trinitarische   Taufbefehl   nach   seiner 

urspriinglichen  Tex'.gestalt,  1903. 
Robinson,  J.,  Ar.,  art.  Baptism  in  Encycl.  biblica,  vol.  I,  1899. 
Roerich,  E.,  La  composition  des  fivangiles,  1897. 
Rose,  v.,  fitudes  sur  les  fivangiles,  2  ed.,  1902.     Engl,  trans : 

Studies  on  the  Gospels  by  Robert  Eraser,  1902. 

£vangile  selon  saint  Matlhieu,  1904. 

fivangile  selon  saint  Marc,  1904. 

fivangile  selon  saint  Luc,  1904. 

art.  fitudes  sur  la  theologie  de  St   Paul  in  Revue  biblique, 

1903. 
Russel,  J.  S.,  The  Parousia,  2  ed.,  1887. 
Ryle  and  James,  Psalms  of  the  Pharisees,  commonly  called 

the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  1891. 
Rzach,  Oracula  sibyllina,  1891. 
Sabatier,  A.,  L'  Apotre  Paul,  3  ed.,  1896. 
Salmon,    F.,   art.    Mark    (Gospel   of)    in  Diet,   of   the    Bible, 

vol.  Ill,  1900. 

art.  Eschatology,  ibid.,  vol.  I,  1898. 

Sanday,  W.,  The  Criticism  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  1905. 
art.  Jesus  Christ,  in  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  vol.  II,  1899. 

art.  Son  of  God,  ibid.,  vol.  IV.  1902. 

Schell,  H.,  Katolische  Dogmatik,  3  vol.,  1892. 

Schmidt,  H.,  art.  in  Theologische  Studies  und  Kritiken,  1889. 
Schmid^  N.,  art.  Son  of  man  in  Encycl.  biblica,  vol.  IV,  1903. 
Schmiedel,  O.,  Die  Hauptprobleme  der  Leben  Jesu  Forschung, 

1902. 
Schmiedel,  P.  W.,  art.  Gospels  in  Encycl.  biblica,  vol.  II,  1901- 

art.  John's  Gospel,  ibid. 

art.  Mary,  ibid.,  vol.  Ill,  1902. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  549 

art.  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  ibid.,  vol.  I,  1899. 

art.  in  Protestantische  Monatshefte,  1900. 

Schiirer,  E.,  Geschichte  des  judischen  Volkes  im  Zeitalter 
Jesu-Christi,  3  vol.  3  ed..  1898-1901.  Engl,  trans:  A  his- 
tory of  the  Jewish  people  in  the  time  of  Jesus-Christy 
by  Taylor  and  Christie,  5  vol. 

art.  in  Theol.  litt.  Zeitung,  1903. 

Schwartzkopff.  P.,  Die  Weissagungen  Jesu  Christi,  1895.   Engl. 

trans :  The  Prophecies  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Schwei.zer,  A.,  Von  Reimarus  zu  Wrede,  1906. 
Sellin,  Serubbabel,  1898. 

Studien    zur    Entstehungsgeschichte    der    jiidischen    Ge- 

meinde  nach   dem   babylonischen   Exil.   I,   Der   Knecht 
Gottes  bei  Deuterojesaia,  1901. 
Shahan,    T.    J.,    Patrology;    Engl,    trans,    of    Bardenhewer's 

Patrologie,  1908. 
Soden   (von)    art.  Chronology,  N.  T.,  in  Encycl.  bibl.  vol.  I, 

1899. 
Soltau,  Unsere  Evangelien,  ihre  Quellen  und  ihr  Quellenwert, 
1901.- 

art.  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  neutest.  Wissenschaft,  1901. 

Soulier,  La  doctrine  du  Logos  chez  Philcn  d'  Alexandrie.  1876. 
Spitta.  F.,  Untersuchungen  iiber  den  Brief  des  Paulus  an  die 

Romer,  1901. 
Stanton,  V.  H.,  art.  Gospels,  in  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  vol.  II, 
1899. 

art.  Messiah,  ibid.,  vol.-  Ill,  1900. 

The  Jew'sh  and  the  Christian  Messiah,   1886. 

Stapfer,  E.,  Jesus-Christ  avant  son  ministere,  2  ed..  1897. 

Jesus-Christ  pendant  son  ministere,  2  ed.,  1897. 

La  mort  et  la  resurrection  de  Jesus-Christ,  2  ed.,  1898. 

Engl,  trans,  by  Louise  Houghton,  3  vol. 
Stevens,  G.  B.,  The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  1901. 

The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  1902. 

Strauss,  F.,  Vie  de  Jesus,  trans,  from  the  3d  German  ed.  by 
E.  Littre.  2  vol.  2  ed.,  1854;  Engl,  trans.:  Life  of  Jesus, 
3  vol.,  1848. 

Nouvelle  vie  de  Jesus,  trans.  Nefftzer  et  Dollfus,  2  vol." 

1866;  Engl,  trans.;  New  Life  of  Jesus,  2  ed.,  1879.  2  vol. 

Swete,  H.  B.,  The  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  3  vol.,  3  ed.,  1901. 

The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark,  1902. 

art.  in  Expositor,  Oct.  1902. 

Thackeray,   art.   Esdras    (Second   Book  of)    in  Diet,   of  the 

Bible,  vol.  I,  1858. 
Theologische  Literaturzeitung,  1903. 
Theologische  Rrndschau,  1902. 
Theologisch  Tijdschrift,   1894. 


550  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Tixeront.  J.,  art.  Athanase    (Symbole  de   Saint)    in  Diet,  de 

theol.  cath.  edited  by  Vacant,  vol.  I. 
Turner,  C.  H..  art.  Chronology  of  the  N.  T.,  in  Diet,  of  the 

Bible,  vol.'  I,  1898. 
Usener.    H.,    Religionsgeschichtliche   Untersuehungen,    I,   Das 

Weihna'chtsfest,  1889. 

art.  Nativity  in  Encycl,  bibl.  vol.  Ill,  1902. 

Vacant,  A.,  art.  Agnoetes  in  Diet,  de  theol.  cath.  vol.  I. 

VerneS;  M.,  Histoire  des  idees  messianiques,  1874. 

Vincent,  M.,   Commentary  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Philippians 

and  to  Philemon,   1897. 
Vclz,  P.,  Jiidische  Eskatologie  von  Daniel  bis  Akiba,  1903. 
Waite,    J...    The    second    Epis'.le    to    the    Corinthians     (The 

Speaker's  Commentary),  1881. 
Walker,  art.  Targum,  in  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  vol.  IV,  1902. 
Weiss,  B.,  Lehrbuch  der  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament, 

3  ed.,  1897.    Engl,  trans. :  Introduction  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 1886. 

Das  Leben  Jesu,  2  vol.,  4  ed.,  1902 ;   Engl,  trans. :   The 

Life  of  Christ,  3  vol.  1888. 

Lehrbuch    des    b^blischen    Theologie    des    N.    T.,    7    ed., 

1903 ;  Engl,  trans. :  Biblical  Theology  of  the  N.  T.,  2 
vol.,  1892. 
Weiss,  J.,  Die  Predigt  Jesu  vom  Reiche  Gottes,  2  ed.,  1900. 

Das  aLeste  Evangelium,  1903. 

Weizsacker   (C.  von),  Untersuehungen  iiber  die  evangelische 
Geschichte,  2  ed.,  1901. 

Das  apostolische  Zeitalter  der  chrisllichen  Kirche,  3  ed., 

1902;  Engl,  trans.:  The  Apes  olic  Age  of  the  Christian 
Church,  by  James  Millar,  1894. 
Wellhausen,   J.,    Israelilische   und   Jiidische   Geschichte,    1894, 
3  ed.,  1897- 

Skizzen  und  Vorarbei'en,  VI,  1899. 

Das  Evangelium  Marei,  1903. 

Wendt,  H.,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  2  vol.,  2  ed.,  1901 ;  Engl,  trans. : 

The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  2  vol.,  1907. 
Wernle,  P.,  Die  Synop'.isehe  Frage,   1899. 

Die  Anfange  unserer  Religion,   1901 ;  Engl,  trans. :  The 

beginnings  of  Christianity:  The  Rise  of  the  Religion, 

by  G.  Bienemann,  2  vol. 
Wrede.  W.,  Das  Messiasgeheimniss  in  den  Evangelien,  1901. 
Zahn,  Th.,  Geschichte  des  neutestamentlichen  Kanons,  2  vol.. 

E'nleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  2  vol.,  1899. 

7ei^schrift    f^'r   neutestamentliche   Wissenschaft,    1901. 
Zeller,  Die  Philosophic  der  Grieehen,  vol.  Ill,  1881. 


ALPHABETICAL  INDEX 


Acis  of  the  Apostles,   Historical  value   of,  pp.  22,    132,   133, 

134,   381;    Christology,   pp.   381-384. 
Adoration  of  Christ,  pp.  316-320. 

Advent,  the  final,  pp.  198-206;  epoch,  pp.  425-468,  482,  503-513. 
Allegory  and  Parable,  pp.  350-353- 
Angel  of  Jehovah,  p.  99. 

Angels,  relation  of  Christ  with  the,  306,  307,  313. 
Apocalypse,  pp.  20,  406. 
Assumption  of  Moses,  The,  pp.  65-66. 
Athanashts,  Creed  of  Saint,  pp.  396-397. 
Authority  of  Jesus  as  a  Teacher,  pp.  150,  151,  307,  493,  531- 

533- 
Autour  d'  un  petit  livre,  p.  287. 
Baptism  of  Jesus,  significance  of  the,  pp.   137,   138,   184,  225- 

227,  244-253,  258,  259,  288,  331,  469,  479-481,  484,  516,  517; 

historici.y    of    the    Gospel    narratives    recording    the,    pp 

139-141. 
Baptism,  the  triniarian  formula  of,  pp.  375-380,  490,  522,  523. 
Barnabas,  The  Epistle  of  Saint,  p.  5. 
Bariich,  The  Apocalypse  of,  p.  67. 
Batiffol:  on  the  authorship  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  13,  23,  25,  29- 

30,  42,  55,  56;   on  the  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  435;   on  the 

eschatological  discourses,  p.  450. 
Birth  of  Christ,  the  virginal,  p.  485. 
Bousset :  on  the  "  Sen  of  Man"  in  Daniel,  p.  94;  on  Christ's 

transcendence,  p.  329,  410. 
Bovon :  on  Christ's  divinity,  pp.  313,  359;  on  Christ's  knowl- 
edge,  p.   432;    on  the   Kingdom   of   God,   p.   435;    on   the 

eschatological   discourses,   p.  449. 
Bruce :  on  the  authenticity  of  some  Gospel  texts,  pp.  366,  2)73  '■, 

on    Christ's    humanity,    p.    271 ;    on    Christ's    teaching,    p. 

208;  on  the  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  436. 
Calmes :  on  the  authorship  of  the  Gospels,  p.  29. 
Canon  of  Muratori,  pp.  6,  9. 
Celsus,  p.   13. 
Childhood  of   Christ,   historicity  of   the  narratives   recording 

the.  pp.  107-117,  123-124. 
Christology,  the  doctrinal  development  of,  pp.  282,  395-403- 
Chronology  of  Christ's  ministry,  pp.  143,  144. 
Church,  the  divinity  and  authori'y  of  the,  pp,  3-4,  267-268, 

(551) 


552  ALPHABETICAL  INDEX 

Church,  the  early:  its  belief  in  Jesus'  Messiahship,  pp.  132- 
134,  176-183;  its  belief  in  Jesus'  divinity,  pp.  267,  268, 
380-410. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  pp.  6,  7,  8,  11. 

Colani :  his  opinion  on  the  impression  made  by  Christ,  p.  384. 

Confession  of  Saint  Peter,  pp.  160,  162,  167,  320-327,  374. 

Consciousness  of  Jesus,  the  divine,  pp.  282,  291,  468,  469;  the 
filial :  its  relation  to  the  messianic,  pp.  253-255 ;  the  source 
of  the,  pp.  255-261,  519;  the  messianic,  pp.  128,  129,  198- 
262,  468,  469,  477-481,  517-520.  Cf.  Divinity  of  Christ, 
Son  of  God,  Messiah. 

Creed  of  Saint  Athanasius,  The,  pp.  396,  397. 

Dalman:  on  the  messianic  hope,  pp.  91,  94,  97;  on  Christ's 
messianic  consciausness,  pp.  256,  259;  on  the  "Son  of 
Man,"  pp.  159,  161-164;  on  the  "Son  of  God,"  pp.  z^Z^ 
328,  336,  ZZ7,  340,,  341,  345-347,  355,  3S6,  358. 

Demoniacs,  the  messianic  declarations  of  the,  pp.  130,  138, 
i^-i4(>,  156,  185. 

Disciples'  (the),  opinion  of  their  Master,  pp.  166,  188-190. 

Discourses  on  the  end  of  the  world :  cf.  End  of  the  world. 

Divini'y  of  Jesus  Christ :  contemporary  criticism,  pp.  263-306, 
485-499;  testimony  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  p.  122: 
personal  testimony  of  the  synop'.ic  Christ,  pp.  306-380; 
reserved  expression  thereof,  pp.  305,  306,  410-419;  source 
of  the  dogma  of  Chris I's  divinity,  pp.  282,  283,  290,  295, 
396-400,  408-410,  495-497,  520-522. 

Divinity  of  the  expected  Messiah,  pp.  90-106. 

Dogma,  the  christological ;  cf.  Christology,  Divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

End  of  the  world,  Christ's  discourses  on  the,  pp.  443-462;  cf. 
Final   Advent,   Last   Judgment. 

Enoch,  The  Book  of,  pp.  62,  62,. 

Eschatology;  cf.  Final  Advent,  End  of  the  World,  Last 
Judgment. 

Esdras,  The  fourth  Book  of,  p.  6y. 

Eusebius,  pp.  11,  12. 

Godet:  on  the  first  chapt.  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  pp.  116,  117; 
on  Christ's  divinity,  p.  280;  on  the  eschatology  of  the 
Gospels,  p.  432. 

Gore :  on  Christ's  divinity,  p.  280. 

Harnack:  on  the  transcendence  of  Christiani'y,  pp.  i,  2;  on 
the  messianic  hope,  p.  75 ;  on  the  value  and  authorship  of 
the  Synoptic  Gospels,  pp.  21,  32,  2>3'y  on  the  authorship  of 
the  Johannine  Wri  ings.  p.  407;  on  the  Gospel  of  the  In- 
fancy, p.  108;  on  Christ's  virginal  birth  in  St.  Luke's 
Gospel,  p.  124;  on  Christ's  humanity,  p.  272;  on  His 
knowledge,    p.    423 ;    on    the    messianic    consciousness    of 


I 

I 


ALPHABETICAL  INDEX  553 

Jesus:  its  reality,  pp.  133,  134;  its  source  and  evolution, 
pp.  140,  226.  227,  229,  232,  233,  245,  255,  259;  on  the  title 
"  Son  of  Man,"  p.  163 ;  on  Christ's  moral  temperament, 
p.  212;  on  His  humility  and  extraordinary  claims,  p.  209; 
on  His  teaching,  pp.  210,  211;  on  His  influence,  pp.  214, 
408;  on  His  transcendence,  pp.  273,  274,  275,  276,  334, 
362,  363,  397-399,  408;  on  the  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  435; 
on  Jesus'  view  concerning  the  universal  expansion  of 
the  Gospel,  p.  437. 
Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the:  authorship  and  Christology,  pp.  390- 

399. 

Holtzmann,  H.  J. :  on  the  authorship  of  the  Gospels,  p.  21  ; 
on  the  messianic  hope,  pp.  91,  98;  on  the  title  "Son  of 
Man,"  pp.  159,  162,  197;  on  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  pp. 
324,  329,  330,  338,  347,  355,  358;  on  Christ's  knowledge, 
p.  425;  on  His  eschatological  discourse,  p.  449. 

Holtzmann,  O. :  on  the  Gospels,  p.  40;  on  the  messianic  hope, 
PP-  76,  77;  on  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  p.  108;  on  the 
significance  of  Christ's  baptism,  pp.  138-140;  on  the  evo- 
lution of  Christ's  messianic  consciousness,  pp.  225,  227, 
228,  232,  257,  258,  261,  355;  on  Christ's  character,  p.  212; 
on  His  knowledge,  p.  425 ;  on  His  transcendence,  pp.  276, 
277.  355,  358. 

Holy  Spirit,  the.  His  relation  to  Jesus,  pp.  122,  123-125,  137- 
139,  224,  225,  244,  250,  288,  330-332;  subject  to  Jesus' 
power,  p.  311. 

Humani;y  of  Christ,  the,  pp.  263-266,  271,  272,  279,  411-415, 
419,  420. 

Humility  of  Jesus,  the,  pp.  209,  210,  272,  273. 

Husbandmen,  the  parable  of  the  wicked,  pp.  348-355,  487,  488. 

Ignatius  of  An'ioch,  Saint,  on  Christ  God,  pp.  399,  400. 

Ignorance  of  the  Son  of  God  concerning  the  last  judgment, 
pp.  413,  462-468. 

Illusion,  Hypothesis  of  Christ's  messianic,  pp.  198-204. 

Imposture,  Hypothesis  of  Christ's,  pp.  198,  199. 

Influence  of  Jesus,  the,  pp.  212-215. 

Irenaeus,  Saint,  on  the  Gospels,  pp.  7,  10;  on  Christ  God,  p. 

399.  . 
John,  Samt,  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of :  authorship,  pp.  8-10, 

19,  20,  23,  289,  521 ;  Christology,  pp.  394-396,  406,  407. 
John  the  Baptist,  Saint,  pp.   137,   156,   157,   185,   186,  237,  247, 

248,  249,  478,  479. 
Jerusalem,   the   Fall  of,  pp.    16,  ^\   cf.   Prediction;    Christ'c 

en'ry  into;  cf.  Palm  Sunday. 
Jubilees,  the  Book  of,  p.  66. 
Judgment  of  Christ  by  Caiphas,  pp.   173,   191,   194,    195,  207, 

327-330,  489,  526-530. 


554  ALPHABETICAL  INDEX 

Judgment,  the  last,  Christ's  part  in,  pp.  169,  170,  207,  310, 
311,  494,  535-537. 

Jiilicher:  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  pp.  28,  36,  39,  50,  51-55; 
on  the  first  chapter  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  p.  iii;  on  the 
parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen,  p.  351 ;  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  p.  391 ;  on  the  Gospel  of  St. 
John,  p.  407. 

Justin  Martyr,  Saint,  on  the  Gospels,  pp.  5,  12;  on  the  Mes- 
siah expected  by  the  Jews,  pp.  79,  89,  104,  105;  on  the 
Christ  God,  p.  399. 

Keim :  on  the  reciprocal  knowledge  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  p.  360. 

Kingdom  of  God,  Jewish  views  of  the,  pp.  80-87;  Jesus' 
teaching  on  the,  pp.  175,  176;  spiritual  character  of  the, 
pp.  475,  476,  500. 

Knowledge  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the  reciprocal,  pp. 
355-357,  486. 

Lagrange:  on  the  Synop'.ic  Gospels,  pp.  25,  29,  42,  56;  en  the 
messianic  hope,  p.  106;  en  the  "Sen  of  Man"  in  Daniel, 
pp.  94,  95;  en  the  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  435;  on  Christ's 
eschatolcgical  discourse,  p.  450;  on  Christ's  knowledge, 
pp.  467,  468. 

Logos,  pp.  100-103;  the  Incarnate  Logos,  pp.  394-400, 

Loisy:  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  pp.  17,  21,  22,  25,  26,  29,  36, 
2,7,  38,  40,  47,  52,  509-511;  on  the  fourlh  Gospel,  p.  407; 
on  the  authenticity  of  some  texts  from  the  Synoptics, 
pp.  145,  160,  162,  241,  242,  246,  290,  347,  350,  351,  353, 
354,  364-367,  376,  415,  416,  483,  485-494;  on  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  pp.  107,  108;  on 
Christ's,  virginal  conception,  pp.  123,  124,  484;  on  the  his- 
toricity of  the  records  of  Christ's  baptism,  pp.  140,  141, 
479,  480;  on  the  significance  of  Christ's  baptism,  pp.  140 
246,  251,  252,  479-481,  484;  on  Christ's  temptation,  pp. 
141,  470,  471 ;  en  the  duration  of  Christ's  public  ministry, 
p.  144;  on  Christ's  messianic  manifestation,  pp.  135,  136, 
145,  149,  150,  183,  184,  473;  on  the  title  "Son  of  Man," 
pp.  160,  162;  on  the  escha'.ological  Messiah,  pp.  174,  175, 
183,  184,  476,  477;  on  the  source  of  the  messianic  con- 
sciousness, pp.  140,  478,  479;  on  its  evolution,  pp.  233-23^, 
252,  254,  260,  261,  479-484;  on  Christ's  foresight  of  His 
passion,  pp.  242  246,  482,  483;  en  Christ  the  Redeemer, 
p.  246;  on  Christ's  prediction  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
p.  429;  on  His  knowledp^e  of  the  end  of  the  world,  pp. 
423,  424,  425,  j=?9,  463,  481;  on  the  Kingdom  of  Gcd,  pp. 
^2,3,  434;  on  Christ's  miracles,  p.  4QI ;  on  His  divinity, 
pp.  280-306,  A17,  485-496;  on  ^he  title  "Son  of  God," 
pp.  320-330,  485-491 ;   on  Christ's   transfiguration,  p.   141 ; 


ALPHABETICAL  INDEX 


555 


on  His  grandeur,  pp.  246,  519;  on  the  worship  of  Christ, 
PP-  319.  320,  393;  on  St.  John  the  Baptist,  pp.  187,  478; 
on  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter,  p.  326;  on  the  Chris. ology 
of  St.  Paul  and  St,  John,  pp.  283,  290,  296,  496;  on  the 
meaning  of  the  dogma  of  Christ's  divinity,  p.  498;  on 
Loisy's  method  of  criticism,  pp.  509-512,  537,  538. 

Luke,  the  Gospel  of  Saint,  pp.  8-10,  19,  21,  22,  24,  25,  26, 
30,  31,  42,  43.  50. 

Mark,  the  Gospel  of  Saint,  pp.  8-10,  19,  20,  21,  24-29,  31,  47; 
its  final  chapter,  p.  436. 

Matthew,  the  Gospel  of  Saint,  pp.  8-10,  19,  20,  21,  23-29,  31, 
32. 

Memra,  or  the  Word  of  God,  pp.  100-103;  cf.  Logos, 

Messiah,  the;  the  messianic  hcpe,  pp.  59-72;  the  Jewish  idea 
of  his  character  and  mission,  pp.  72-77;  his  kingly  des- 
tiny, pp.  77-87;  the  suffering  Servant,  pp.  87-89;  his  pre- 
existence,  pp.  90-106;  sources  of  early  Christian  belief 
in  the  Messiah,  pp.  132-134;  the  messianic  manifes'.a^ion 
of  Jesus  in  His  infancy,  pp.  117-121;  the  messianic  con- 
sciousness, pp.  128,  129,  198;  Jesus'  personal  manifesta- 
tion of  His  messiahship,  pp.  128-173,  473-475,  484,  513- 
515;  His  reserve  in  this  manifestation,  pp.  129-131,  143- 
150,  165,  167,  168,  183,  235,  236;  popular  messianic  pre- 
judices, pp.  146,  147,  502;  idea  of  the  eschatclogical  Mes- 
siah, pp.  131,  174-197,  281,  476;  basis  of  the  messianic 
ccnscicusness,  pp.  198-215;  i:s  source  and  evolution,  pp. 
198-262,  469,  470,  477-485,  517-520. 

Ministry  of  Jesus,  the  duration  of  the ;  cf.  Chronology. 

Miracles :  their  existence  denied  by  Rationalists,  pp.  34,  35 ; 
miracles  wrought  by  Christ,  pp.  151,  152,  309,  491,  533; 
by  His  disciples,  pp.  154,  15=;,  309,  491,  533. 

Mcses,  the  Assumpiicn  of,  pp.  65,  66. 

Ori^en :  on  the  Gospels,  p.  7. 

Palm  Sunday,  pp.  172,  173. 

Papias :  on  the  Gospels,  p.  12. 

Parable  and  allegory,  pp.  350-353. 

Parables  cf  the  Kingdom  of  God,  pp.  433-435. 

Passion,  Christ's  foresight  of  the,  pp.  170,  171,  202-204,  220, 
221,  230-233,  234,  235,  238-244,  482,  5o8-_5i3- 

Paul,  the  Epistles  of  Saint,  their  authenticity,  pp.  384-386; 
their  Christclogy,  pp.  384-410.  415,  416,  496;  the'r  idea 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  460;  value  of  St.  Paul's  tes- 
timony concerning  Christ,  pp.  400-410,  522 ;  difference 
between  S\  Paul  and  Jesus,  p.  418. 

Peter,  Saint,  his  confession  of  faith,  pp.  167,  168,  188,  189,  193, 
194,  243.  322-327,  374,  375;  his  primacy,  pp.  324-327- 

Philo,  pp.  80,  82,  102,  104,  105. 


556  ALPHABETICAL  INDEX 

Portrait  of   Christ's  moral  character,  pp.  209-212. 

Preaching  of  the  Gospel,  the  universal,  pp.  436-441,  442,  443. 

Predictions  of  Jesus,  p.  421;  concerning  ^he  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
p.  426-432,  444-460 ;  concerning  His  Passion ;  cf.  Pas- 
sion; concerning  the  end  of  the  World;  cf.  End  of  the 
World. 

Pre-existence  of  the  Messiah :  according  to  Jewish  traditions, 
pp.  90-95;  according  to  the  Johannine  Writings,  pp.  345, 
394-396;  according  to  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  pp.  387-394;  ac- 
cording to  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  pp.  343-345. 

Privileges  and  powers  claimed  by  Jesus,  pp.  152-155,  168-172, 
306-315,  491-494,  531.-536.  _ 

Protestants,  liberal :  their  opinion  on  the  origin  of  the  mes- 
sianic consciousness  of  Jesus,  pp.  215-233;  on  Christ's 
divinity,  pp.  271-279,  341,  357:363. 

Protestants,  conservative :  on  Christ's  divinity,  pp.  279,  280. 

Psalms  of  Solomon,  fhe^  pp.  6^,  64. 

Quatrieme  Evangile,  Le,  p.  289. 

Quelques  lettres,  p.  497. 

Rationalists :  on  miracles,  pp.  34,  35 ;  on  the  Gospel  of  the 
Infancy,  p.  107;  on  Christ's  baplism  and  tempta'ion,  p. 
139;  on  Christ's  messianic  consciousness,  pp.  128,  129;  on 
His  person,  pp.  266-271,  537. 

Redemption,  the  idea  of:  is  connection  with  the  personal 
teaching  of  Jesus,  pp.  246,  394,  398,  399. 

Reimarus :  his  system,  p.  503. 

Renan:  on  miracles,  p.  34;  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  pp.  19, 
21,  30-32,  34,  35,  109;  on  the  Johannine  Writings,  p.  406; 
on  the  source  of  the  messianic  consciousness,  pp.  163,  198- 
206;  en  the  title  "  Son  of  Man,"  p.  163;  on  the  Kingdom 
preached  by  Jesus,  pp.  200-203,  460,  461 ;  on  Christ's  fore- 
sight of  His  passion,  p.  204;  en  the  end  of  the  world,  pp. 
425,  461 ;  on  Christ's  humanity,  pp.  266,  267 ;  on  the  title 
"Son  cf  God,"  pp.  200,  201,  334;  on  Jesus'  transcendence, 
pp.  163,  210,  212-214,  267,  269,  270,.  397,  398,  401,  402. 

Resurreclicn  cf  Christ:  relation  to  His  messiahship,  pp.  129, 
133,  176-183,  515;  relation  to  the  divine  sonship,  p.  386. 

Reuss :  on  Christ's  transcendence,  pp.  342,  343. 

Sabbath,  Christ's  authority  over  the,  pp.  153,  308,  493,  532. 

Sanday:  en  the  Gospels,  pp.  50,  51,  407;  on  the  messianic  con- 
sciousness, p.  237;  on  Christ's  baptism,  pp.  248,  249,  250; 
en  the  title  "Son  of  Man,"  p.  164;  on  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  p.  435;  on  Christ's  knowledge,  p.  433;  on  His  di- 
vinity, pp.  280,  335,  34S,  387. 

S chemoneh  Esreh,  pp.  67-69. 

Schmid%  N. :  on  the  Logos  in  Philo,  p.  104;  on  Jesus'  claim 
to  messiahship,  p.  130;  on  the  title  "Son  of  God,"  pp. 
324,  338,  340,  355,  367;  on  Christ's  divinity,  p.  409. 


ALPHABETICAL  INDEX  557 

Schmiedel,  Otto:  on  the  source  of  the  messianic  conscious- 
ness, p.  203. 

Schmiedel,  P.  W. :  on  miracles,  p.  51;  on  the  Gospels,  pp.  21, 
28,  36,  407;  on  Christ's  virginal  birth,  pp.  123,  124;  on 
Christ's  humanity,  p.  54;  on  the  prophecy  of  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  p.  430;  on  the  escha^ologcal  discourse,  p.  449. 

Schiirer:  on  the  hypostatic  wisdom,  p.  100;  on  the  Jewish 
belief  in  a  suffering  Messiah,  p.  91. 

Servant  of  Jehovah,  the,  pp.  87,  88. 

S.bylline  Books,  the,  p.  65. 

Sincerity  of  Jesus'  claims,  the,  pp.  198,  199, 

Son  of  David,  the  Messiah,  pp.  y2,  JZ',  Jesus,  pp.  172,  173, 
345-348,  488,  524-526. 

Son  of  God,  primary  meaning,  pp.  95-97 ;  Jewish  application 
to  the  Messiah,  pp.  97-99;  messianic  import,  pp.  137-139, 
253-255.  281,  282,  293,  320-330,  ZZZ,  336,  486,  530;  divine 
sonship,  pp.  200,  201,  217.  218,  222,  225,  226,  2ZZ,  234,  330- 
ZZ^,  Zo7-Z^Z,  486,  530;  special  sense,  pp.  200,  226,  27Z, 
274,  336-340,  361-363,  409,  410;  consubstantial  union,  pp. 
321,  322,  346,  375,  386-392,  486-489,  521-538. 

Son  of  Man:  the  Messiah,  pp.  93-95;  Jesus,  pp.  54,  130,  157- 
165. 

Stanton:  on  the  Gospels,  pp.  22,  2y,  28,  55. 

Stapfer:  on  the  messianic  consciousness,  pp.  216-222,  245; 
on  Christ's  humanity,  pp.  271,  272;  on  His  knowledge, 
p.  425;  on  His  prophecy  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  p.  430; 
on  His  divinity,  pp.  271-273,  277-279. 

Stevens:  on  the  messianic  manifestation,  p.  134;  on  the  tile 
"Son  of  Man,"  p.  164;  on  Christ's  knowledge,  p.  432;  on 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  435 ;  on  the  expansion  of  the 
Gospel,  p.  437;  on  Chris.'s  eschatological  discourse,  p. 
499 ;  on  His  divinity,  pp.  280,  335,  339,^  342,  384,  393. 

Strauss:  on  the  Gospels,  p.  2Z\  on  the  spiritual  character  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  500;  on  Christ's  reserve  in  His 
messianic  manifestation,  pp.  502,  515;  on  (he  source  of 
His  messianic  consciousness,  pp.  478,  479;  on  His  fore- 
sight of  His  passion,  pp.  482,  512,  513;  significance  of  His 
baptism,  p.  484;  on  the  Kingdom  of  God.  p.  508;  on 
Jesus'  claims  to  divinity,  pp.  486,  487,  494-496,  525,  530; 
on  the  meaning  of  the  dogma  of  His  divinity,  p.  499. 

Synop'ic  Gospels,  the:  authorship  and  historicity,  pp.  2-56; 
the  Synoptic  problem,  pp    24-29. 

Talmud,  the,  pp.  78,  83,  86,  87.  89. 

Targums,  the,  p.  69. 

Tatian:  on  the  Gospels,  p.  6;  on  the  Christ  God,  p.  399. 

Teaching  of  Jesi^s.  pp.  210-212,  308. 

Tem.ptation  of  Christ,  pp.  i37-i43,  220,  227-229,  236-238,  480, 
481. 


558  ALPHABETICAL  INDEX 

Tertullian:  on  the  Gospels,  pp.  7,  9. 

Transfiguration  of  Christ,  pp.  141,  166,  168,  185. 

Universality  of  the  Gospel;  cf.  Preaching  of  the  Gospel. 

Virginity  of  Mary;  cf.  BirLh  of  Christ,  the  virginal. 

Von  Weizsacker :  on  the  Gospels,  p.  27. 

Weiss,  B. :  on  the  Gospels,  pp.  21,  26,  407;  on  the  source 
and  evolution  of  the  messianic  consciousness,  pp.  225 
226,  229,  231,  232,  246,  247,  249,  250,  251,  334;  on  the 
title  "Son  of  Man,"  pp.  164,  165;  on  Christ's  knowledge, 
p.  432;  on  His  prophecy  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  p.  429; 
on  the  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  435 ;  on  Christ's  divinity,  pp. 
.274,  275,  334,  339,  358,  360,  361. 

Weiss,  J. :  on  the  Gospels,  pp.  26,  47 ;  on  the  messianic  mani- 
festation, p.  134;  on  the  eschatological  Messiah,  p.  174; 
on  Christ's  transcendence,  pp.  277,  329. 

Wendt:  on  the  messianic  hope,  p.  106;  on  the  messianic  mani- 
festation, p.  148;  on  the  source  and  evolution  of  the  mes- 
sianic consciousness,  pp.  222,  224,  228,  229,  230,  231,  246, 
247,  256,  257,  334,  335;  on  the  title  "  Son  of  Man,"  p.  165; 
on  Christ's  knowledge,  p.  432;  on  His  prophecy  of  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem,  p.  429;  on  His  eschatological  dis- 
course, p.  449;  on  the  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  435;  on  the 
expansion  of  the  Gospel,  p.  437;  on  Christ's  divinity,  p. 
.   275. 

Wernle:  on  the  source  and  evolu'.ion  of  the  messianic  con- 
sciousness, pp.  221,  222,  259,  260;  on  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
p.  432;  on  Jesus'  moral  character,  p.  210;  on  His  hu- 
mility and  extraordinary  claims,  p.  212;  on  His  transcend- 
ence, pp.  272,  273,  276,  358,  409. 

Word,  the;  cf.  Logos. 

Wrede:  on  miracles,  pp.  51,  52,  417;  on  the  messianic  secret, 
p.  131 ;  on  Christ's  divini  y,  p.  417. 

Zahn :  on  the  Gospels,  pp.  21,  27,  407. 


(\- 


T1l« 


".V*  ^ 


^^-n^. 


.0' 


'^^  ** 


V       * 


^^  <-^      ^i^^^^mPk'^     -^MrS       ^is^M^^^^      -^^  ci>' 


-bV 


,Ho^ 


^oK 


^^-^^^ 


**\'^'%'e,      /,.-^;4i,^°o     o**.:^:'''-^ 


,  •»  <L* 


.«' 


.v*^. 


^>^c 


:  .v^^^  ^.wmm;:  ^v^^^  \wmw:  .v^. 


o  V 


0-7^^.      >^i^':^^^.*      ^Hq^      :^i5^>o'       iOv: 


'oK 


ll-RAHy  BINOlilO       V  <^ 

^§m   FLA.     ^?1S^  •  ^  Or 


y  ^^ 


<^>    •»