232.3
Keep Your Car din This Pocket
. Books will be issued only on presentation of proper
library cards. . ,
Unto labeled otherwise, books may be retetoyd
for four weeks, Borrowers finding boob marked, de* ,
fecd or mutilated i expected to report me a ft
library desk otherwise the last borrower will be held
responsible tor all imperfections dioovered,
^hSoari holder ^responsible for all books drawn
<m1 p5wUy'te overdue books 2o a diy plus cjot of
l!10ti< Lost cards and change of resldenoe muit here-
ported promptly.
Public Library
Kansas City, Mo.
KeepYourCardmTbisPocket
JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
OTHER JBOOKS BY
DR. 71NCENT TAYLOR
THE FORMATION OF THE GOSPEL
TRADITION. 78. 6d. net,
Macmlllan and Co*
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE
VIRGIN BIRTH. 123. 6d. not.
BEHIND THE THIRD GOSPEL. i6a. net.
Oxford University Press
*
THE FIRST DRAFT OF ST. LUKE'S
GOSPEL, is, net.
Society for Promoting Christian Kn&tuledgt
*
THE GOSPELS: A SHORT INTRODUC-
TION. 28. 6d. net
Tkt Epworth Press
JESUS AND
A STUDY OF THE PASSIOlX^SA-YINGS
IN THE GOSPELS
BY
VINCENT TAYLOR, PH.D., D.D. (LOND.)
PRINCIPAL AND FKRKNS PROFESSOR OP NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND
LITERATURE AT WESLKY COLLEGE, HBADIKGLEY, LEEDS
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
1937
TO
E. T. AND M. M. T.
PREFACE
AFTER devoting something like twenty-five years to
the study of the problems of literary and historical
criticism in connexion with the Gospels, and es-
pecially to the minutiae of source criticism, lam conscious of
a strong desire to investigate some more vital issue, arising
out of these studies, which bears intimately upon Christian
life and practice. For this reason during the last four
years, in the intervals of a busy life spent in teaching and
administration, I have endeavoured to make a careful in-
vestigation of the Passion-sayings, with a view to discover-
ing how Jesus interpreted His suffering and death. The
results of this inquiry are published in the present volume.
Portions of the work were included in a course of Lectures
given at University College, Bangor, in May, 1936, and
I gladly take this opportunity of expressing my deep grati-
tude to Principal D. Emrys Evans and the members of the
University Staff for the wonderful kindness I received
during my visit to Wales. I also recall with the greatest
pleasure the keen interest which is taken by Welsh mini-
sters and students in theological studies.
The plan of the work is simple. In Part I, I have exa-
mined the outstanding Old Testament ideas which form
a necessary background to the sayings of Jesus, and in the
light of which alone they can be understood. Part II con-
tains the critical investigation of the sayings themselves,
in Mark, Luke, I Cor. xi, 23-5, and the Fourth Gospel.
Here I have thought it well to give special attention to
questions of genuineness, as well as of interpretation,
in consequence of the most recent phase of Gospel re-
search represented by Form-Criticism in Germany, Great
vii
viii PREFACE
Britain, and the United States of America. Part 1 1 1 is con-
structive. It is devoted to an attempt to state the results
to which the investigation leads. I am well aware that, in
this section, my work reaches its most vulnerable point.
Differences of opinion on these matters are inevitable, and
I cannot expect that the views I have outlined will com-
mend themselves to every reader. There is a not un-
natural inclination on the part of many Gospel critics to
avoid discussing ultimate questions. The critic comforts
himself with the opinion that these are not his province;
they are the responsibility of the theologian, whereas his
own duty is to observe the wisdom of the proverb which
warns us that the shoemaker must stick to his last. There
can be no doubt at all that the observance of this principle
has made possible a vast amount of learned research to
which all students are indebted. It was, however, always a
dangerous principle, since, in the limited province within
which the expert must work, it is easy to see results out of
focus. Many examples of this peril could easily be given,
especially the attempts of the Liberal School to understand
and explain the beginnings of Christianity. But, how-
ever hazardous it may have been, this method is doubly
dangerous to-day, when the fortunes of the Christian reli-
gion in the world approach a kind of Armageddon in
which its immense claims must finally be tried in the fires
of conflict. The critic of to-day must live in two worlds,
the academic region of his particular interests and the
larger world of contemporary religion. At least once in
his life he should be compelled to come out into the open
and declare the bearing of his tentative results upon the
larger problems of Christian belief and worship. Only in
this way can he discover whether his work is worth while,
or whether it is nothing more than academic trifling. It ia
in this persuasion that I have written Part III, and in par-
PREFACE iz
ticular the last chapter, in which I have sketched a theory
of the Atonement in harmony with the conclusions
reached in Parts I and II.
A sacrificial interpretation of the doctrine of the Atone-
ment is regarded with hesitation by some theologians, in
view of popular misconceptions about sacrifice, and the
variety of opinion current among anthropologists as to its
origins. I should therefore like to take the opportunity
of saying that my discussion is not necessarily bound up
with any one explanation, although I have not disguised
my preference for the communion-theory of Robertson
Smith rather than the gift-theory supported by G. Bucha-
nan Gray, My argument, however, does not depend on
a particular rationale of sacrifice, but is based rather on
what is undoubtedly the highest expression of sacrificial
worship as we find it in the Old Testament. I understand
this to be the idea of an offering which man can make his
own, and it is this conception which I have specially in
mind when I speak of the sacrificial principle.
For the most part the references in footnotes will, I
think, be sufficiently clear, but I ought perhaps to explain
that when well-known commentaries are mentioned, I
have simply given the page number after the author's
name, A list of these commentaries is supplied on p, xiii.
It remains for me to express my deep sense of gratitude
to my friends and colleagues who have so generously
helped me by reading the typescript and proof sheets ; to
Dr. J. W* Lightley, formerly Principal of Wesley College,
and to my present colleagues, Dr. H. Watkin- Jones, Dr.
Harold Roberts, the Rev. N. H* Snaith, M,A.> and the
Rev. P* S. Watson, M,A. I am also very grateful for the
help of one of my students, Mr* G, T. Roberts, M,A,
who has compiled the Index of Proper Names and cor-
rected the proof sheets, I desire also to thank the mem-
x PREFACE
bers of the firm of Robert MacLehose & Co., The Uni-
versity Press, Glasgow, for their patience, skill, and accur-
acy. The responsibility for any errors which may remain
rests, of course, with myself. I send out this book in the
hope that it may make some small contribution to the
study of one of the most important doctrines of the Chris-
tian Faith.
VINCENT TAYLOR.
College House,
Wesley College,
Headingley, Leeds.
th, 1937.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE -------- vii
ABBREVIATIONS ------- xiii
P4RT I: THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION- ------- 3
1. THE KINGDOM OF GOD ----- 6
2. THE MESSIANIC HOPE 12
3. THE SON OF MAN 21
4. THE SON "33
5. THE SERVANT OF YAHWEH ----- 39
6. SACRIFICE -----.--
PdRT II: CRITICAL
THE PJSSION-SdriNGS IN THE GOSPELS
INTRODUCTION "79
i- THE MARKAN SAYINGS 82
2, THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION - * - 164
3, THE SAYINGS IN THE PAULINE NARRATIVE OF THE LAST
SUPPBR * - - - - - - -201
4, THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 218
xi
xii CONTENTS
PJRT III: DOCTRINAL
INTRODUCTION - - - - - - -
1. THE IMMEDIATE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PASSION-SAYINGS 254
2. ULTIMATE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PASSION-SAYINGS 274
3. THE ATONEMENT .--.--- 299
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES - 325
INDEX OF SUBJECTS ------- 333
INDEX OF PROPER NAMES .---. 336
ABBREVIATIONS
The following commentaries are cited by the page number after the
author's name:
J. H. Bernard:
A.W.F.Blunt:
A. E. Brooke:
J, M. Creed:
B. S. Easton:
E. P. Gould:
E. Klostermann:
P*-M. Lagrange:
H.K.Luce:
H, A, W. Meyer:
A, Hummer:
A. E, J. Rawlinson;
A. Robertson and
A. Plummet:
B.T.D. Smith:
H* B* Swcte:
H.G.Wood:
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to St. John.
The Gospel according to St. Mark (The Clarendon
Bible).
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johan-
nine Epistles.
The Gospel according to St. Luke.
The Gospel according to St. Luke.
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to St. Mark.
Das Matthausevangelium; Das Markusevangelium;
Das Lukasevangelium.
T&vangile selon saint Man; fivangile selon saint Jean.
The Gospel according to St. Luke (Cambridge Greek
Testament}*
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testa-
ment (The Epistles to the Corinthians).
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to St. Luke.
St. Mark (Westminster Commentaries).
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on tht First
Epistle ofSL Paul to the Corinthians.
The Gospel according to St. Matthew (Cambridge Greek
Testament}.
The Gospel according to St. Mark.
Mark (Peake's Commentary on the Bibli).
PART I
THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
A-TUDY of the attitude of Jesus to His suffering and
death naturally demands a close investigation of His
sayings in the Gospels. It is, however, undesirable in
the highest degree to proceed to the interpretation of these
sayings without giving careful attention to the problems of
sources, of language, and of text, to the history of exege-
sis, to the causes which led to the emergence of the Gos-
pels, the conditions out of which they came and the ends
they were intended to serve. It is necessary also to con-
sider the relationship between the recorded words of
Jesus and the things He actually taught and said. How
far, for example, have later ideas and beliefs coloured the
record, and with what qualifications can we depend upon
its genuineness?
These are obviously complicated and difficult ques-
tions, but of their importance and necessity there can be
no doubt. Their difficulty is enhanced by the fact that
many of them involve still further inquiries. It is neces-
sary, for example, to have regard to that which is taught
concerning the Atonement in the rest of the New Testa-
ment, and to the history of the doctrine in the succeeding
centuries down to the present day, for otherwise the dis-
tinctiveness of the sayings of Jesus cannot be justly ap-
praised. Equally important is it to study the sayings
against the background of thought and action found in the
Old Testament. The thought of Jesus is steeped in that
of the Old Testament and cannot be understood apart
from it. It follows, therefore, that to attempt to under-
stand His words without a preliminary study of such con-
4 INTRODUCTION
ceptions as the Kingdom of God, the Messianic Hope, the
Son of Man, the Son, the Suffering Servant, and the idea
of Sacrifice, is disastrous.
The importance of a study of the Old Testament is
especially clear from the history of the attempts to interpret
the life and thought of Jesus during the last fifty years.
Many curious theories have gained a lively, if shortlived
currency. Jesus has been represented as an Essene, or a
Buddhist, or -a Socialist, or as an Eastern mystic. It has
even been questioned if He ever lived at all ; and, where
the extremer fashions have been successfully resisted, the
tendency has been to modernize His figure, to dress Him
in the clothes of a twentieth-century teacher, and to repre-
sent His teaching as a kind of genial morality suitable to
the needs of an enlightened bourgeoisie. These pictures
were shattered by the artillery of Albert Schweitzer who
forced us to look upon a Jesus strange to our time** Step
by step we have been driven back, behind the Apocalyptic
Literature, to the Old Testament itself, and compelled to
see Jesus in its light. The New Testament scholar
has shown that Aramaic tradition lies behind the Gos-
pel record; the Old Testament scholar, with the added
discipline of Comparative Religion, has continued to elu-
cidate the ideas and practices of Hebrew religion ; and the
student of the Rabbinical Literature has expounded the
ideas of later Judaism. In consequence, we have redis-
covered the obvious: the Old Testament, we find, is of
vital significance for our understanding of the mind and
thought of Jesus. We perceive that, while we may be
hampered by a limited acquaintance with the New Psycho-
logy, we are entirely disqualified for the investigation if we
do not know the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.
It is in this persuasion that Part I of the present inquiry
*See The Quest ofth* Historical Jtsus.
1JNTKODUCT1UJN 5
is devoted to the study of the Old Testament background
of the thought of Jesus. It is necessary, however, to em-
phasize the fact that this part of the investigation is only a
preliminary stage. We do not possess the key to the
mind of Jesus when we know the relevant Old Testament
concepts; all we have gained is the right to approach the
door. Such is His originality that it is never safe to as-
sume that He simply appropriated whatever lay ready to
hand. He takes over traditional ideas and makes them
His own. If He is to speak at all, they are necessary to
Him, but almost always they are an embarrassment; they
clothe His thoughts, but need to be stretched, patched,
and refashioned, because the life they hide is too strong.
I
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
THE first theme which claims attention is that of
the Kingdom of God.
Although the expression 'Kingdom of God* is not
found in the Old Testament, the idea is there, rooted in
the concept of Yahweh as 'King'. 1 The locu$ classicus is
Ex. xv. 1 8 : 'The Lord shall reign for ever and ever/ This
idea appears also in the prophetical literature: in Isaiah's
vision of 'the King, the Lord of hosts' (vi. 5), and his pro-
clamation: 'The Lord is our King' (xxxiii. 22); in Jere-
miah's question : 'Is not the Lord in Zion? is not her King
in her?' (viii. 19); and in the message of the Second
Isaiah: 'I am the Lord, your Holy One, the Creator of
Israel, your King' (xliii. 15).* The term *Kingdom\ in
relation to God, is found in later passages: in Psa, xxii. 28 :
'For the kingdom is the Lord's* ; Psa. xlv. 6 : 'A sceptre of
equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom'; Psa- ciii, 19 : 'I iis
kingdom ruleth over all'; Psa. cxlv. 1 3 : 'Thy kingdom is
an everlasting kingdom' (cf. Dan. iv. 3); and in I Chrcm.
xxix. 1 i : 'Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art
exalted as head above all'. In Dan. ii. 44 it is prophesied
that 'the God of heaven' shall *set up a kingdom, which
1 Cf, G. Gloege, Reich Gottes und Kirche im Neutn Testament 9 6fH; th*
article on jSaonAcifc in Kittel's Theohgisches W8rterhttch> i, 56afF.j H. M.
Hughes, The Kingdom of Heaven, I3ff.; E. F. Scott, The Kingdom 0/6W,
nff.
2 Cf, also Isa, xli. 21, xliv. 6; Psa. r. 2, bcxxiy, 3, Ixxxix. *8. For a din*
cussion of the 'Coronation Psalms' (xlvii., xciii*, xcv.-c*) atjc Mowm<:Jutl>
Psalmemtudien, ii; N. H. Snaith, Studies in the Psalter, 88ff,
6
THE KINGDOM OF GOD 7
shall never be destroyed', and in Dan. vii. 27 it is said that
'the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the
kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the
people of the saints of the Most High/ 'His kingdom/ it
is declared, 'is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions
shall serve and obey him*.
The idea of the Kingdom is not limited to the passages
in which the term actually appears; it is present in all the
forecasts of a new order in which God's rule should be
supreme. No doubt bitter experiences of the monarchy
fostered these hopes, but their core is always belief in God
as King. It lay in the nature of things that the idea
should become eschatological, and it is not surprising that
sometimes it is that of a restored and triumphant nation
and sometimes that of a supernatural order established
either directly by God Himself or mediately through the
person of His Messiah. More significant are the
spiritual forecasts early and late as in Hos. xiv. and Zeph.
iii. 20, and especially those which are universalistic in their
range (cf. Isa. xlix* 6, Mic, iv. 1-5, Isa. ii. 2-4). In the
medley of dreams and hopes present in the Apocalyptic
Literature Babylonian and Persian influences supplement
religious beliefs derived from the Old Testament. Some-
times the picture of the Age to Come follows that of a tem-
porary Messianic Kingdom, and there is a marked ten-
dency to calculate times and seasons and to depict in lurid
colours a succession of events which include Messianic
Woes, the Coming of the Son of Man, the Resurrection
of the Dead, the Last Judgment, and the Final Restora-
tion of all things.
For our special purpose it is not necessary to describe
the hope of the Kingdom in greater detail; the more im-
portant question is the attitude of Jesus to this expecta-
tion. Of its centrality in His teaching there can be no
doubt; it dominates His thought both in relation to His
person and with regard to His mission and work.
According to Mark, Jesus began His mission with the
announcement: 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of
God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the good news'
(i. 15). What is this 'kingdom', and how did He con-
ceive it?
The difficulty of translating pm&eta is well known.
At present there is a strong tendency, illustrated in the
discussions of K. L. Schmidt, G. Gloege, and others, to
render it by 'kingly rule' or 'reign' rather than by 'king-
dom' or 'realm'. 1 This tendency is well justified. The
idea of a community underlies the sayings of Jesus, 2 for
the Basileia is not simply a spiritual experience, or a sum-
mum bonum reached by man's efforts; but the communal
idea is secondary and derivative, since the 'kingly rule'
necessarily implies and demands the association of those
among whom it is exercised. It is a misinterpretation of
the teaching of Jesus to speak of the Kingdom, with
Ritschl, as 'the organisation of humanity through action
inspired by love', 3 although, naturally, such a state of
affairs would follow from the presence of the Kingdom,
Primarily, the Basileia is the Rule of God exercised
among men and accepted by them.
If we examine the sixty 4 sayings and parables in which
l< Die wesentliche Bedcutung nicht ReicA, sondern Htrrschaft i*t\
K. L. Schmidt, TAeologiscAcs W$rterbuch> i, 582, TAtoiogy, May, i$*7\
G. Gloege, op. rf/., 49-58; R. N, Flew, TAt Idta of Perfection in Christian
Theology* 8-40,
% this lie the roots of the conception of the Church.
* Justification and Reconciliation (Eng- IV.), 12. Cf. R, N* Flew, who
instances Herrmann's definition: *the universal moral community, thu
aspect under which humanity is included in God's purpose for HinwelP,
Expository Times, xlvi, 214,
Excluding parallel versions of the same saying*
THE KINGDOM OF GOD 9
Jesus speaks of the Basileia^ we shall find that in less than
a sixth of them is the thought of a community prominent
or distinctive. Significantly enough five of the excep-
tions are sayings which, on other grounds, are widely be-
lieved to be spurious or corrupted in the course of trans-
mission. Three of these sayings appear in the interpreta-
tion of the parable of the Tares (Mt. xiii. 38, 41, 43); a
fourth is the saying: 'Whosoever therefore shall break one
of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall
be called least in the kingdom of heaven' (Mt. v, 19); the
fifth is the difficult passage: 4 I will give unto thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven* (Mt. xvi. 1 9). 1 Other sayings
where the communal idea may be primary are : Mk. ix. 47 ;
Lk. vii. 28, xvi. r6; Mt. vii. 21. In the overwhelming
majority the thought is that of the Reign or Rule of God.
Even in passages which speak of 'entering into* or 'sitting
down* in the Basileia the thought is that of a fellowship in
which God's Will is supreme. 2 If this is so, discussions
as to whether the Kingdom is present or future are barren ;
it is obviously both. In several sayings the idea is de-
finitely eschatological ; it is that of the consummated Rule
of God. 3 No saying, however, in which the Basileia is
expressly mentioned, is apocalyptic.
The contrary opinion is due to various causes. Secon-
dary passages, like Mt. xvi. a8, 4 which speaks of 'the Son
of man coming in his kingdom', and sayings of doubtful
authenticity, like Mt. xiii. 41, which describes the sending
forth of the angels by the Son of Man to gather sinners out
of His Kingdom to be cast into the furnace of fire, still
*Cf. B. H. Streeter, TAe Four Gospe/s, 258.
*Cf. Mk. x, 23-5; Lk* xiii. 28f., rdi, 30.
a Cf. Mk. xiv. 25? Lk>xi. 2, xiii. 28f., oil 16, 18, 30.
4 Mk. ix, x, on which Mt, xvi. 28 is based, reads: 'till they see the king-
dom of God come with power 7 .
io JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
continue to haunt the mind. Or, it is assumed that the
ideas found in the Apocalyptic Literature and the preach-
ing of the Baptist, somewhat modified and spiritualized,
are the ideas of Jesus. Or again, genuine sayings about
the coming of the Son of Man are connected in thought
with other sayings concerning the Basileia. Not one of
these assumptions is justified. Mt. xvi. 28 and xiii. 41
obscure rather than reveal the thought of Jesus. The
phantasies of Apocalyptic have no place in His sayings.
'Jesus', says Bultmann, 'rejects the whole content of apo-
calyptic speculation, as he rejects also the calculation of
time and the watching for signs'. 1 In His teaching there
is nothing corresponding to a passage like 4 Ezra v. 4-9
which speaks of the sun shining by night, trees dripping
blood, fire bursting forth, women bearing monsters, and
the like. 2 As for the sayings concerning the Son of Man,
it is a fact too little noticed that Jesus never refers to the
Kingdom when He mentions the Parousia, and never
associates either its emergence or its consummation with
His Coming. His teaching has certainly an eschatologi-
cal element in it, but it is not an apocalyptic concept.
One important feature His teaching docs share with
Apocalyptic: from first to last the Basileia is supernatural;
man does not strive for it or bring it into being. Our
modern idea of labouring for the coming of the Kingdom
is a noble conception, fully bapteed into Christ and ex-
pressive of His spirit; but it is not I lis teaching regarding
the Basileia* He does indeed ask men to pray for it8
coming (Lk. xi, 2), and it is likened to a merchant seeking
goodly pearls (Mt. xiii. 45f.), but always the coming h
sheer miracle (cf. Mk. iv. 26-9). It is God's gift (IJk.
xii, 32), and man's unexpected discovery, as when one
suddenly lights upon treasure hid in a field (Mt. xiii* 44),
*yesus and the Word, 39. *0/. f//., 3<;f,
THE KINGDOM OF GOD n
It does not come 'with observation* (Lk. xvii. 20), but is
present already in the Messianic work and ministry of
Jesus. 'If I by the finger of God cast out devils', He says,
'then is the kingdom of God come upon you' (Lk. xi. 20).
Its fulfilment awaits the good pleasure of God (cf, Lk,
xi. 2).
From what has been said it is plain that, while Jesus
borrowed from the past, He remoulded the idea of the
Kingdom and gave it a distinctive character* 1 This is a
fact which obviously cannot be ignored in thinking of His
suffering and death. Jesus lived and died contemplating
and speaking of the Rule of God among men. This ideal,
and nothing less, is the constant assumption of His teach-
ing and action.
l Cf. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 34-80,
II
THE MESSIANIC HOPE
THE attitude of Jesus to His suffering was of neces-
sity deeply influenced by His estimate of His
Person, and, inasmuch as in the Gospels He is re-
presented as, and as claiming to be, the Messiah of Jewish
expectation, it is necessary to describe the Messianic Hope
of Israel.
Like other Old Testament ideas that of the Messianic
hope has a history. 1 Its simplest beginnings are to be
seen in the use of the term 'anointed' which in various
ways is used to designate offices of divine appointment.
This description, for example, is used of kings. Saul is
anointed to be prince over Israel (i Sam. ix. 1 6), and when
David appears before Samuel the word of Yahweh to the
prophet is: 'Arise, anoint him: for this is he' (i Sam. xvL
1 2). Even of a heathen king like Cyrus it is said : 'Thus
saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand
I have holden' (Isa. xlv. i). In Psa, cv. if the patri-
archs are spoken of as 'mine anointed ones', and in I lab,
iii. 1 3 the same language is used of the people as a whole. 1 *
These passages illustrate the wide uses of which the idea
which lies at the root of the term 'Messiah* was capable*
In course of time, however, it came to be applied in a
special sense in connexion with the expectation of the
Scion of David whom God would raise up for the rule and
deliverance of Israel, This hope was based on the belief
^Cf. P. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, Tit Btginnfags oj
Christianity, vol. i* part i. 346-68,
*Cf, abo Psa. xxviii. 8, bwociv, 9, Ixxxix. 38, 51,
THE MESSIANIC HOPE 13
in the permanency of David's dynasty which is expressed in
2 Sam. vii. 1 6, and which persisted in spite of the evil for-
tunes of his house and even after the monarchy ceased to
exist. Its real foundation, however, was religious ; it rested
in the unwavering conviction regarding the faithfulness of
Yahweh to His purpose of founding a Kingdom of righteous-
ness of which Israel would be the expression and symbol.
Prophecies which originally may have had another ap-
plication came to be read in the light of this hope. Isa. ix.
2-7, for example, speaks of the birth of a child for whom
an almost semi-divine greatness is reserved, and Isa, xL
1-9 describes the coming forth of 4 a shoot out of the stock
of Jesse' on whom 'the spirit of Yahweh' shall rest, and the
dawn of a golden age when 'the wolf shall dwell with the
^nab, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid'. 'The
'earth', it is said, 'shall be full of the knowledge of
Yahweh, as the waters cover the sea'. These passages
illustrate the close connexion between the Messiah and the
Kingdom, and this is a characteristic of the Messianic
Hope throughout its later history.
Jen xxiii. f. expresses the hope, although here, it has
>been said, 'the idea has lost something of the glamour of
its first inception'; 1 'Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh,
that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he
shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute
judgement and justice in the land. In his days Judah
shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his
name whereby he shall be called, Yahweh our righteous-
ness.' 2 A similar expectation appears in Ezek, xxxiv.
23f,: 'And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he
shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed
them, and he shall be their shepherd* And I, Yahweh,
will be their God, and my servant David prince among
*J, Skinner, PropAecy anJRetigion> 3x9. a Cf, also Jcr. xociii* HfE
I 4 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
them. I,Yahweh, have spoken it.' 1 Other passages of like
tenor are Isa. Iv. tf., Psa. Ixxviii. yoff., Ixxxix. 20-37. Psa.
xviii. 50 illustrates the use of the term 'anointed' : 'Great
deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth loving-
kindness to his anointed, to David and to his seed, for ever-
more'. The same expression also appears in Psa. ii. 2,
which, whatever its original application may have been,
came to be interpreted in line with popular expectations. 2
The hope of the Messianic Age was not killed by the
bitter experiences of the Exile; indeed, it is to the post-
Exilic period that much of the evidence for the belief be-
longs. A new form is given to the expectation in Zech.
ix. 9f. which is of great interest because it is quoted in
Mt. xxi. 5 and Jn. xii. 15 in connexion with the story of
the Entry into Jerusalem. In this passage the unknown
prophet portrays a Messiah-King who is 'lowly' or 'afflic-
ted', who rides upon an ass and whose mission it is to
bring universal peace : $
'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zionj
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem:
Behold, thy king cometh unto thee:
'He is just, and having salvation;
Lowly, and riding upon an ass,
Even upon a colt the foal of an ass.
'And I will cut off the chariot from Kphraim,
And the horse from Jerusalem,
And the battle bow shall be cut off,
*C also Ezek. xxxvil 24.
2 Cf. The Beginnings of * Christianity ', vol. i. part i, 353.
3 The prophecy may probably be dated shortly after May 23, 141,
when the citadel of Jerusalem surrendered', R. H. Kcnnctt, Pctato'*
Commentary, 580. For the theory of a fourth century date e H. <*.
Mitchell, /.C.C,, Zechariah, 253; J. E, McFadyen, The dbixgdm Riklt
Commentary, 826. See also R. S. Cripps, The Prophets and thf Atone-
ment, 30.
THE MESSIANIC HOPE 15
'And he shall speak peace unto the nations:
And his dominion shall be from sea to sea.
And from the River to the ends of the earth.'
The Similitudes of Enoch and the Psalms of Solomon
show how the belief persisted in the century preceding the
birth of Jesus. The teaching of the former, with refer-
ence to the Son of Man, must be considered in the next
chapter, but the descriptive passage in Ixii. 2f. may with
advantage be quoted here :
'And the Lord of Spirits seated him on the throne of His glory,
And the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him,
And the word of his mouth slays all the sinners,
And all the unrighteous are destroyed from before his face,
And there shall stand up in that day all the kings and the mighty.
And the exalted and those who hold the earth,
And they shall see and recognize
How he sits on the throne of his glory,
And righteousness is judged before him,
And no lying word is spoken before him.'
It is clear that in this description the Messianic idea has
passed from the historical to the supramundane sphere.
In the Psalms of Solomon, however, there is a closer ap-
proximation to earlier ideas under the influence of the
cruel times in which these poems were written. In xvii.
23ff. prayer is made that God will raise up 'the Son of
David', and that he may be girded with strength 'that he
may shatter unrighteous rulers** His task is to destroy
the pride of the sinner 'as a potter's vessel', and to break
in pieces their substance 'with a rod of iron'. A nobler
note is struck in xvii. a8f. where it is said:
*And he shall gather together a holy people, whom he shall lead in
righteousness,
And he shall judge the tribes of the people that has been sancti-
fied by the Lord his God.
16 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
'And he shall not suffer unrighteousness to lodge any more in
their midst,
Nor shall there dwell with them any man that knoweth
wickedness,
For he shall know them, that they are all sons of their God.' 1
The Gospels testify to the existence and strength of the
hope in the first half of the first century A.D. There must
have been many righteous and devout men like Simeon
'looking for the consolation of Israel' (Lk. ii. 25), and
many women like Anna who spoke 'to all them that were
looking for the redemption of Jerusalem* (Lk. ii. 38), The
expectation is further attested by the fact that Jesus (Mk.
xiv. 61) and John the Baptist (Jn. i. 19-28) were ques-
tioned as to their claims, and also in the confession of
Peter near Caesarea Philippi (Mk. viii. 29). In 4 Ezra
the Eagle Vision (xi-xii. 39)% and the Vision of the Man
rising from the Sea (xiii.) 3 , show that the belief was current
at the end of the first century A.D.; and its persistence is
illustrated by the fact that Akiba recognized the Messiah
in Bar-Cochba, the ill-fated leader of the revolt against
Hadrian in 132-5 A,D.
It is not possible to reduce all the ideas which gather
round the figure of the Messiah to a single conception.
The outstanding portrait is that of an expected Scion of
David, a Prince of the Royal House, whose work it is to
1 Cf. R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and P^uJeptgrapAa y it, 649.
2 The Lion which predicts the destruction of the Eagle (Rome) is de-
scribed as 'the Messiah, whom the Most High has kept until the end of
days, who will spring from the race of David, and will come,* Cf, <?, P.
Moore, Judaism, ii* 338.
8 Before the Man rising from the sea everything quakes and his enemfc*
are burned to ashes by a fiery stream from his mouth. Afterwards he ealb
to himself 'another multitude which was peaceable** Cf, xiii. t;if,
W. O. E. Oesterley thinks that both visions represent a transcendental
Messiah, and that they are earlier than 4 Ezra itself* Cf. An
to the Books of the Apocrypha, 148-55,
THE MESSIANIC HOPE 17
restore the ancient glories of Israel, to execute justice on
her heathen oppressors, and to inaugurate the reign of
peace and of righteousness. Sometimes, however, the
emphasis is so much on the Kingdom to be established
that the figure of the Davidic King fades away into the
background, and even, as for example in Isa. xlff., is not
mentioned at all. When the Messiah is introduced into
the picture, his work is that of an Agent; he is the divinely
chosen instrument of God who Himself effects the deliver-
ance. G. F, Moore, however, maintains that more fre-
quently 'he appears on the scene only after the great deli-
verance has been wrought by God himself, as the ruler of
a redeemed and regenerated Israel/ 1 In the later Apo-
calypses the Messianic Age is not final. In 4 Ezra, for
example, it lasts four hundred years, and after a silence of
seven days the Last Judgment follows (vii. 28-35). &
conception similar in certain respects appears in the Chris-
tian Apocalypse of John (cf. xx).
In these Jewish forecasts the figure of the Messiah,
however great in respect of his authority and power, re-
mains essentially human, and his work is predominantly
political and nationalistic. As we have seen, a very
different conception appears in the Similitudes of Enoch
in the portraiture of a Supernatural Being whose home is
on high, and who waits the divinely appointed hour for his
emergence in glory and in power upon the plane of human
history. These two very different conceptions continued
to exist side by side. The Fourth Gospel is only echoing
current diversities of thought when it voices the opinion
of those who held that the Christ would come from Bethle-
hem, 'the village where David was' (vii. 42) and the ideas
of others who held that the Messiah would be of unknown
and mysterious origin(vu. 27). It is abundantly manifest
ii 3306
ig JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
that in the days of Jesus the way stood open for a Messia-
nic claimant to select from among existing conceptions
and, according to the degree of his insight, to make of
them a symbol of redemptive activity at once old and new.
Such an exercise of creative thinking is precisely what
Jesus accomplished in connexion with the Messianic
Hope of Israel as centred in Himself and in His ministry
of suffering, death, and exaltation.
That Jesus claimed to be the Messiah has been re-
peatedly denied, and, in modern times, by no one more
trenchantly than by W. Wrede in his Das Messiasge/iMmnis
in den Evangelien (i 90 1 ; 2nd ed. 1913). His arguments
have been answered by many scholars including Jttlicher, 1
Schweitzer, 2 Sanday, 3 Peake, 4 and Rawlinson 5 ; but they
have been given a new importance by the leading Form-
Critics, Dibelius 6 and Bultmann, 7 and by R. H. Lightfoot
in his recent Bampton Lectures. 8
In brief, Wrede's position is that Jesus did not claim to
be the Messiah, that He was not recognized as such until
after the Resurrection, and that in Mark's Gospel Mes-
siahship is read back into the story of Jesus by means of
the theory of 'the Messianic Secret*. Much is made of
the injunctions to secrecy in Mark, Silence, we arc re-
minded, is enjoined when the devils seek to make Jesus
known (i. 23ff,, 34, iii. nf., v. 6, ix. 20); after notable
l Neue Linien in der Kritik der wangeiischen IJberliffentng.
*The Quest of the Historical 'Jesus ', 336-48.
*Thc Life of Christ in Recent Research, 69*76.
*Thc Messiah and the Son ofMan> an essay printed from The Bulletin of
the John Rytands Liirary, vol. 8, no. r, Jan. 1924*
*Thc Gospel according to St. Mark, 258-62,
*From Tradition to Gospel, 55, 73*!, 94, 22jf., azgf., 360, 297*
^Die Geschickte der synoptittAen Tradition, 371 f.
^History and Interpretation in the Gospctt, 16-22, 57-88, 220*
THE MESSIANIC HOPE xg
miracles (i. 44, v. 43, vii. 36, viii. 26); after Peter's Con-
fession (viii. 30); and when Jesus speaks of His Messianic
Mission (ix. 9). Jesus also withdraws from the crowd on
secret journeys (vii. 24, ix. 30), and gives private instruc-
tion to His disciples concerning the 'mystery of the king-
dom'. His Person, and destiny (iv. 10-3, 34, vii. 17-23,
ix. 28f., xiii. 3ff.). The purpose of this representation,
it is argued, is to show why Jesus was not recognized as
the Messiah during His earthly life.
It may be that, in points of detail, Mark has over-
pressed the idea of the Messianic Secret; but, in sub-
stance, Wrede's explanation is quite unconvincing.
Everything is based on the effect of Visions' of the Risen
Christ; but it is in the highest degree improbable that such
experiences would have taken place if Jesus had made no
Messianic claims. Moreover, belief in resurrection does
not of necessity suggest Messiahship; it did not in the case
of the Baptist (cf. Mk. vi. 14-6), Again, the first Chris-
tians would not have created for themselves the most
formidable of difficulties by preaching a Crucified Mes-
siah, unless Jesus had been condemned as a Messianic
pretender. Further, as Schweitzer observes, 'a creative
tradition would have carried out the theory of the Messia-
nic secret in the life of Jesus much more boldly and logi-
cally, that is to say, at once more arbitrarily and more con-
sistently/ 1 Finally, the Markan representation is credibly
explained as historical. A record which begins with a
story of revelation (i. 9-11) followed by temptation (i,
I2f.), which describes efforts to conceal the secret from
popular misconception, to reveal it to intimate followers,
to express it, albeit in a veiled form, in the events of the
Entry (xi* i-i i), and, finally, to confess it when the claim
is extorted by the high priest's question (xiv* 6 if.), has
20 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
every right to be accepted as trustworthy. There can be
no reasonable doubt that Jesus believed He was, and
claimed to be, the Messiah.
But what Messiah? The Gospels clearly show that to
Jesus Messiahship was a burden; no conception of it, cur-
rent among His contemporaries, answered to His own.
It is highly doubtful if He ever used the term 'Christ' of
Himself, and it is significant that, according to Matthew
(xxvi. 63f.) and Luke (xxii. 70), His reply to the question
of Caiaphas is: 'Ton say it', 'the word is yours'. 1 It is as
if He were accepting a title under constraint. How ori-
ginal and distinctive is the thought of Jesus is shown by
His preference for the term, 'Son of Man', and still more
by His bold reinterpretation of this title by the idea of the
Suffering Servant.
1 Cf. J. H, Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Qrcck^ i. 86.
Ill
THE SON OF MAN
THE frequency of this title in the sayings of Jesus,
in respect of both the Parousia and the Passion, is
in itself a sufficient justification for giving careful
consideration to its meaning and usage.
The Jewish doctrine of the Son of Man begins with the
book of Daniel (c. 165 B.C.), for while the term is used
earlier, by Ezekiel (ii. I, Sec.) and in Psa, viii. 4, in these
passages it is no more than a synonym for 'man'.
In Dan. vii., after the description of the four great
beasts, the seer describes the coming of 'one like unto a
son of man' with the clouds of heaven who is brought be-
fore 'the Ancient of Days', and continues: 'And there was
given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all
the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him : his
dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass
away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed'
(vii. 14). The seer makes it plain that this is not the de-
scription of an individual, for he remarks that the four
beasts are four kings, and then says : 'But the saints of the
Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the
kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever' (vii. 1 8). Again,
after a fuller description of the fourth beast, which repre-
sents the Greek Empire of Antiochus Epiphanes, he
writes: *And the kingdom and the dominion, and the
greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall
be given to the people of the saints of the Most High'
(vii. 27), It is clear that the 'one like unto a son of man' is
a human figure which represents the purified Jewish race.
21
22 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
But, however definite the seer's meaning may be, it is
equally apparent that, once his description is read apart
from the framework in which it stands, and without the
interpretation he gives, the portrait is capable of being
presented as that of an individual of supernatural dignity
and power. The rough print is discernible in vii, 13 : 'I
saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the
clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came
even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near
before him.' It is a widely accepted opinion that the en-
largement is to be found in the Similitudes of Enoch
written in the first half of the first century B.C. In
Daniel, R. H. Charles observes, 'the phrase ("Son of
Man") seems merely symbolical of Israel, but in Enoch it
denotes a supernatural person.' 1
This view is so important that it is necessary to consider
the most relevant passages in some detail.
The description in xlvi. i undoubtedly rests on Dan,
vii. 9 and 13.
'And there I saw One, who had a head of days,
And His head was white like wool,
And with Him was another being whose countenance had the
appearance of a man,
And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angel*).'
Enoch asks 'concerning that Son of Man, who he
and whence he was, (and) why he went with the I lead of
Days ', and receives the answer :
'This is the Son of Man who hath righteousness,
With whom dwelleth righteousness,
And who revealeth all the treasures of that which b hidden,
1 The Book of Enoch, 307. For an exhaustive auiwnary of critical
opinion regarding the interpretation of Dan* vii* 13 aee H. H. Rowley*
Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in iht Bwk of
THE SON OF MAN 23
Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him,
And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits
in uprightness for ever' (xlvi. 3).
In xlviii. 3 it is said that his name was before the Lord of
Spirits 'before the stars of the heaven were made', and in
verse 6 he is described as chosen and hidden before Him
'before the creation of the world and for evermore'. Of
him it is said :
*He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves
and not fall,
And he shall be a light of the Gentiles,
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart' (xlviii. 4).
Days are spoken of in which he will sit on God's throne,
and 'his mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom
and counsel' (li. 3). He is also described as 'the Elect
One' (li. 3). The same name is used in Ixii. I , and it is said :
'And the Lord of Spirits seated him on the throne of His glory,
And the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him,
And the word of his mouth slays all the sinners,
And all the unrighteous are destroyed from before his face'
(bcii. 2).
The prophecy is made that the kings and the mighty and
all who possess the earth shall bless and glorify and extol
'him who rules over all, who was hidden' (Ixii. 6).
Tor from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden,
And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might,
And revealed him to the elect' (Ixii. 7).
Finally, he is given the power of universal judgment :
*And he sat on the throne of his glory,
And the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man,
And he caused the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from off
the face of the earth,
And those who have led the world astray
24 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
'With chains shall they be bound.
And in their assemblage-place of destruction shall they be im-
prisoned,
And all their works vanish from the face of the earth.
And from henceforth there shall be nothing corruptible.
Tor that Son of Man has appeared,
Arid has seated himself on the throne of his glory,
And all evil shall pass away before his face,
And the word of that Son of Man shall go forth
And be strong before the Lord of Spirits' (Ixix, 27-9).
It can scarcely awaken surprise that one who sits on
God's throne, who is chosen before the creation, possesses
universal dominion, and has authority to judge all men,
should be looked upon by most students of the Similitudes
as a Supernatural Being. In the seer's Messianic Hope
the human Scion of David is replaced by the supramun-
dane Son of Man.
This view has not passed without challenge. Its most
recent critic is T. W. Manson in his valuable book, Th&
Teaching of Jesus (1931). Manson reminds us that be-
sides the terms 'the Elect one* and 'the Righteous one*
there are frequent references in the Book of Enoch to 'the
(my) Righteous ones' and 'the (my) Elect ones' in the
plural; and he suggests that 'it is at least arguable that the
singular term in these cases is the name for the body made
up by the individuals included in the plural term 1 . *The
faithful Remnant', he says, 'may be personified as the
Elect one and the Righteous one or regarded as the com-
munity of the Elect and the Righteous/ 1 This sugges-
tion is interesting, but it does not seem necessary to inter-
pret in this way passages in which 'the Righteous' arc
mentioned (cf. xxxviii, a, xxxix, 6, Iviii. if-, Ixi. 13,
IxiL iaf., 15). Indeed, in IxiL 13 f, they appear to be
l TAt
THE SON OF MAN 25
expressly distinguished from the Son of Man in a
way which emphasizes the personal character of the
latter:
* And the righteous and the elect shall be saved on that day,,
And they shall never thenceforward see the face of the sinners
and unrighteous.
And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them,
And with that Son of Man shall they eat
And lie down and rise up for ever and ever.'
Manson further argues that even a title like 'the Anointed
one' need not be construed of a personal Messiah; and
that 'it is natural to take "Son of Man" in the same
sense.' 1 One must feel considerable hesitation about this
suggestion. No doubt there are many places in Jewish
writings where what appears to be the portraiture of an
individual is really the description of a community; but
there must be limits to this possibility; otherwise, the
power to describe an individual is lost. And the descrip-
tion of the Son of Man in the Similitudes is so full, and the
functions of judgment are such, that the personal inter-
pretation is much the more probable view. Man-
son also contends that his explanation 'would allow the
reconciliation of Chapters Ixx. and Ixxi. with the rest of
this part of Enoch', since in Ixxi. 14 Enoch himself is
identified with 'that Son of Man'. R. H, Charles, how-
ever, has forcibly argued that the text is corrupt 2 and that
the true reading must have been :
*And he (i.e. the angel) came to me and greeted me with His
voice, and said unto me:
I 0f. Cit. t 228f.
2 As it stands the text reads: 'Thou art the Son of Man who art born . , .
thce . . . thee,' Charles (op. tit., 144-6) maintains that originally verse 1 3
spoke of the Son of Man as accompanying the Head of Days, and that the
loss of this passage has led some scribe to change the text of 14 and 16 and
26 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
"This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness;
And righteousness abides over him,
And the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes him
not".'
This is a point on which certainty is not attainable, but it
is not safe to interpret the figure of the Son of Man in
Enoch xxxvii.-lxix. by the present text of Ixxi. 14. For
these reasons it is best to conclude that the Son of Man of
the Similitudes is not the 'faithful Remnant* but a person
of superhuman dignity and power.
How far Jesus was influenced by this conception is a
difficult question. It has often been maintained that the
Book of Enoch is the source from which He derived His
use of the title 'Son of Man*. It may be doubted, how-
ever, if a close study of that Book encourages this theory,
and all the more since, in reply to the high priest's ques-
tion: 'Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' (Mk.
xiv. 61), Jesus quotes a passage with reference to the Son
of Man, not from Enoch, but from Dan. vii. 13 : *l am:
and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand
of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven* (Mk,
xiv. 62). In all His references to the Son of Man there is
no certain trace of dependence upon the ideas of Enoch,
A very attractive suggestion to the contrary has recently
been put forward by Rudolf Otto in his Reich (xottes und
Menschensohn (1934). Otto draws attention to the fact
that Enoch is first shown the Son of Man who has been
hidden from the beginning (xlvi. i), and that then, after u
long interval, he is told, in Ixxi, 14, by the angel that he
himself is the Son of Man. This representation, he sir-
make it apply to Enoch. This suggestion, he points out, is supported by
17 where the scribe has 'forgotten to make the necessary change**:
'And so there shall be length of days with that Son
And the righteous shall have peace and an upright way,
In the name of the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever**
THE SON OF MAN 27
gues, presents a remarkable parallel to the sayings in the
Gospels regarding the Son of Man. 1 At first Jesus
speaks objectively of the Son of Man; in due time the
secret of His identity is revealed by God to Peter (cf. Mt.
xvi. 17); and finally it is confessed by Jesus before the
high priest (cf. Mk. xiv. 60-2).
The difficulty of this suggestion is that many scholars
regard chapters Ixx. and Ixxi. as a later appendix to the
Book of Enoch, while, as we have seen, Charles thinks
that the text of Ixxi. 1 4 is corrupt. Otto thinks otherwise,
and, accepting the existing text, argues that it is only in
these chapters that Enoch receives an answer to his ques-
tion, asked in xlvi. 2, who and whence 'that Son of Man'
was. This question is now answered in Ixxi. 14: 'Thou
art the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness'.
'This point', says Otto, 'is of quite decisive importance for
the question whether Jesus' consciousness of a mission
could have been, indeed must have been, itself determined
Messianically,' 2
It is too early to say whether Otto's fascinating sugges-
tion will make any impression on the sobriety of critical
opinion. In spite of all that he urges so persuasively, it
may well be that Jesus independently took the term from
Dan. vii. 13 and read into it His own meaning. In this
case the Book of Enoch represents a different line of
development. Other examples illustrate a similar pro-
cess. As we have already seen, this is true of the Vision
of the Man rising from the Sea (4 Ezra xiii,), whose glance
strikes terror into all whom he beholds and whose fiery
breath destroys his enemies, G. F. Moore has pointed
out that at the beginning of the second century A.D. Akiba
assigned one of the thrones mentioned in Dan. vii. 9 to
the Messiah, and in the first half of the third century R,
I 0j>. tit>, 165, 181-7. *OA # * 6 $-
28 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
Joshua ben Levi harmonized the lowly figure of the
Messiah in Zech. ix. 9 with the description of Dan. vii.
I3- 1 A further Messianic interpretation of Dan. vii, 13
appears in the Sibylline Oracles (v. 414): 'There came
from the wide heavenly spaces a blessed man, holding in
his hands a sceptre which God put in his grasp, and he
brought all into subjection'. 2 Both before and after the
times of Jesus the tendency to ascribe supernatural func-
tions to the Messiah is evident, and there is no reason why
Jesus Himself should not have developed a conception
gained from the Book of Daniel.
More important than the problem whence Jesus do-
rived the title, 'Son of Man 7 , is the question whether He
used it of Himself, and with what meaning. The philo-
logical objections can no longer be said to be insuperable, 5 *
and the question turns on the interpretation we give to
His sayings. In some cases the title is probably an edi-
torial addition, and in others it has replaced, in the course
of transmission, the personal pronoun T, but it is quite
impossible to explain the majority of instances in this
way. 4
In the sayings which refer to the Parousia it often seems
as if Jesus were speaking of some one other than 1 Himself,
as in Mk. viii. 38, where He says that the Son of Man,
when he comes 'in the glory of his Father*, will be ashamed
of those who now are ashamed of I Hmself and I (is words.
Even in this case, however, the inference is far from cer-
tain. The fact that Jesus is speaking of the Parousia
^Judaism, ii. 3 j+ff. *0f. '/., 33$,
3 Cf. A. S. Peake, The Messiah and the Son of Man, 22-4; W. Bouwwt,
Kyrios Christos 2 , 10-3.
4 Among doubtful passages of the kind arc Mk, xiit, 26; Mt. x. 23,
xiii. 37, 41, xxiv. 30, xxv. 31, xxvL 2; Lk. v!- 22, xi. 30, xii. H, ro* and
perhaps ML ii. 10, 28.
THE SON OF MAN 29
makes it equally possible that He is describing Himself
as He will then be manifested. 1
This view is strongly supported by His reply to the
high priest's question: 'Art thou the Christ?'. Jesus
gives an affirmative answer, and then says : 'And ye shall
see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and
coming with the clouds of heaven' (Mk. xiv. 62). It is
extremely difficult to think that He is distinguishing the
Son of Man from Himself.
Similarly, in the Passion-sayings, 2 when Jesus declares
that 'the Son of man must suffer many things', He is
speaking of Himself. T. W. Manson's view, that in
these sayings, as in the Book of Enoch, the title describes
the faithful Remnant, 'the Kingdom of the saints of the
Most High', 3 does not seem to me to be necessary or even
probable. But it is the less necessary to discuss this in-
teresting suggestion since Manson maintains that, in the
course of His prophetic ministry, Jesus came to restrict
the denotation of the title until it became a designation of
Himself. 'Finally', he says, 'when it becomes apparent
that not even the disciples are ready to rise to the demands
of the ideal, he stands alone, embodying in his own person
the perfect human response to the regal claims of God.' 4
Besides the sayings which refer to the Parousia or to
the Passion, there are others of a more general character.
For example, Jesus speaks of the Son of Man who came
'eating and drinking' (Lk, vii* 34), who 'hath not where to
lay his head' (Lk. ix. 58), and whose mission it is 'to seek
*Cf. also Lk. xii. 40, xvii. 22, 24, 26, 30, xviii. 8b, xxi. 36, and Mt xix.
28.
*Mk. viii. 31, ix X2b 31, x. 336, 45, xiv* ^l (tis) 9 4r, 62; Lk. xvii. 25,
xxii, 48, 69.
Teaching of Jesus*
t<> 228.
30 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
and to save that which was lost' (Lk. xix. 10). Here
again it is best to conclude that Jesus is speaking of Him-
self. In these sayings the title is not a simple equivalent
of the pronoun T, or an editorial modification. In each
case the point of the assertion is that it is made of One who
is 'the Son of Man' ; and in view of the fact that Jesus used
the term in a distinctive but unfamiliar way, the indirect
form of the sayings is natural upon His lips. This con-
clusion, both in respect of these more general sayings and
those relating to the Passion, strengthens the probability
that in the Parousia-sayings Jesus speaks of His own
future manifestation as the Son of Man.
To these arguments more general considerations may
be added. Outside the Gospels the title appears only
once in the whole of the New Testament (Acts vii. 56).
In the Gospels, it appears in all the principal sources laid
bare by Criticism, and is employed by Jesus alone pre-
dominantly in the later part of His mission and in a strik-
ing and original manner. A title so employed has every
right to be regarded as an authentic element in the tradi-
tion. Jesus certainly described Himself us the Son of
Man, and the Messianic consciousness it expresses is the
foundation of His estimate of His Person and Work. 1
In view of this conclusion it is important to ask which
use of the title stands at the centre in the thought of Jesus- 8
Not, I suggest, that of the Parousia-saytngs; other-
wise they would be more detailed. In these sayings the
1 Cf. Ed. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfiingt dc$ Christtntumx, ii. 345; R.
Reiteenstcin, Das Iranischc Erttisungsmysterium, n fff. Kwn W, Bwianct,
who reduces the number of these sayings as far as possible, down not deny
that Jesus ever used the title with reference to Himself. Cf. Kyriw
i of.
2 I do not think that we can answer this question by counting pamgf* or
by dwelling on the fact that Passion-sayings about the Son of Man urc not
found in Q or M.
THE SON OF MAN 31
ideas emphasized are those of suddenness and glory. The
Son of Man comes 'in an hour that ye think not* (Lk. xii.
40), 'in the glory of his father *(Mk. viii. 38), 'at the right
hand of power 7 and 'with the clouds of heaven' (Mk. xiv.
62). His Coming is as a flash of lightning (Lk. xvii. 24),
unexpected as the deluge (Lk. xvii. 26), swift as the de-
struction of Sodom (Lk. xvii. 30). We have only to
compare these sayings with the commonplaces of Apoca-
lyptic to be conscious of an enormous difference. Jesus
does not say of the Son of Man, as in the Book of
Enoch, that 'the word of his mouth slays all the sinners'
(Ixii. 2), or that 'all evil shall pass away before his face*
(Ixix. 29), and still less, as in the Vision of the Man from
the Sea in the Ezra-Apocalypse, does He speak of 'a
flaming breath* out of his lips whereby his adversaries are
reduced to 'dust of ashes and smell of smoke' (xiii. rof,).
Indeed, He is surprisingly silent about His functions at
the Parousia; and even the sayings which are open to the
suspicion of contamination add little beyond conventional
references to 'a great sound of a trumpet* and the gather-
ing 'of his elect from the four winds* (Mt. xxiv. 31; cf.
xiii. 41). The bareness of the genuine sayings suggests
that, while Jesus foretold His Coming in power and glory,
He did not ascribe to this event the place it had in con-
temporary Apocalyptic. His thought is nearer Dan. vii.
14 where the Son of Man receives 'dominion, and glory,
and a kingdom*. The Parousia of which He thinks is not
a coming for Judgment, the setting up of the Kingdom,
and the Final Restoration of all things; it is rather en-
trance upon a kingship which is the Father's gift (cf. Lk.
xxii, 29). It includes all that is meant by the Resurrec-
tion, 1 but is a more ultimate and inclusive concept.
The more immediate centre of interest, when Jesus
*Cf. C. J, Cadoux, The Resurrection and Second Advent of Jem$> 13-7.
32 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
speaks of Himself as the Son of Man, is the destiny of
suffering and death He is to fulfil. The Parousia-sayings
describe the culmination, when suffering is crowned with
victory and death is lost in triumph. This is a complete
transformation of the doctrine of the Son of Man, and is
an entirely original conception of Jesus, based upon the
Old Testament idea of the Suffering Servant.
IV
THE SON
A this point, before considering the idea of the Suffer-
ing Servant, it will be of advantage to discuss the title
'the Son', which in the Old Testament 1 is used of
Israel, of kings, and of the Messiah. The title rarely
appears in the Passion-sayings, 2 but its use by Jesus else-
where must of necessity, if the relevant sayings are
genuine, throw light on His estimate of His Person, and,
in consequence, on His view of His mission and destiny.
When Moses is sent to Pharaoh, he is commanded of
God to say : 'Israel is my son, my firstborn : and I have said
unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me* (Ex. iv.
22f.). Here, the term is used of the nation in its relation
to God, The same usage appears in the well-known
words of Hos. xi. i :
'When Israel was a child, then I loved him.
And called my son out of Egypt.'
Besides this use of the term it is also applied to indivi-
duals. This is done by implication in the case of David
inPsa. Ixxxix. 26f.:
*He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father,
My God, and the rock of my salvation.
I will also make him my firstborn,
The highest of the kings of the earth/
a The strange phrase, 'the sons of Elohim', in Gen. vi. 4 (cf. Job i. 6,
xxxviii. 7) is used either of divinities or, in later times, of angels. Cf. The
Beginnings of Christianity, vol. i. part i, 392-403.
2 Cf. Mk. xii. 6: 'He had yet one, a beloved son: he sent him last unto
them, saying, They will reverence my son.' See kter, p. io6F.
c 33
34 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
and explicitly with reference to Solomon in 2 Sam. vii. 14 :
*I will be his father, and he shall be my son'. In later
Jewish writings similar language is used to describe the
typically righteous man, as in Ecclus. iv. 10:
'Be as a iather unto the fatherless.
And instead of a husband unto their mother:
So shalt thou be as a son of the Most High,
And he shall love thee more than thy mother doth',
and again in Psa. Sol. xvii. 30: 'For he shall know them,
that they are all sons of their God'.
The Messianic use of the title is both late and sporadic.
Psa. ii. 7 probably referred originally to an earthly king,
but already by the time of Jesus the words :
'I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said unto me, Thou art my son;
This day have I begotten thee',
had come to be interpreted Messianically. 1 Later, in
4 Ezra vii. 28f., the expression: 'My Son the Messiah,'
appears. 2 If Jesus spoke of Himself as 'the Son', He
may well have been influenced by Psa. ii. 7, just as He was
indebted for the phrase 'Son of Man' to Dan. vii. 13,
In Mark the term is used of Jesus in several passages,
of which the most important are the saying : 'But of that
day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in
heaven, neither the Son, but the Father' (xiii. 32), and the
words of the heavenly voice in the stories of the Baptism
(i. n) and the Transfiguration (ix. 7). The saying in
xiii. 32 is one of Schmieders nine 'foundation-pillars for a
truly scientific life of Jesus'. 8 Its genuineness has been
1 Cf. J. A. Be-tyer, The Literature of the Old Testament in its Historical
Development) 370.
2 Cf. W. O. E. Oesterley, 2 Esdras, 70.
col.
contested by the Editors of The Beginnings of Christianity
who think that the phrase, 'neither the Son', may be a
scribal gloss, or may have replaced an original reference
to the Son of Man. 1 Schmiedel's insight was truer, for
it is hardly likely that words which limit the knowledge of
Jesus would have been invented. The saying is con-
clusive proof that Jesus spoke of Himself as 'the Son'.
In Q the same usage appears in the saying concerning
the Father and the Son in Lk. x. 2 if. = Mt xi. 25-7, and
the term 'Son of God' is used in the story of the Tempta-
tion (Lk. iv. 1-13 = ML iv. i-n). The opinion of
Albertz is that the Temptation story is the work of an
artist who 'is to be sought in Jesus Himself; 2 and, if
this is so, the story confirms the view that Jesus ex-
pressed His sense of vocation in the title 'Son of God'.
The former passage, however, is more important. In its
Lukan form it is as follows :
A I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth.
That thou didst hide these things from the wise and understand-
ing?
And didst reveal them unto babes:
Yea, Father; for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight
'All things have been delivered unto me of my Father:
And no one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father \
And who the Father is, save the Son,
And he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.'
The text and interpretation of this passage have often been
the subject of learned discussion. 3 The attempts to ob-
"Vol. i., part I, 396.
2 Die synoptischen Streitgesprache, 48.
3 Cf. Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus, 272-310; Dom Chapman, The
Journal of Theological Studies, x. 552-66; A. E. J. Rawlinson, The New
Testament Doctrine of the Christ, 251-64; T. W. Manson, The Teaching
of Jesus, 109-12; B. S. Easton, 164-7; J. M. Creed, H7-S5 B - T - D
Smith, 127-9; H. K. Luce, 2O2f.
36 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
tain a more original text, 1 by omitting either the second or
the third line in the second strophe, and by reading 'knew'
instead of 'knoweth', have not proved successful. The
reading 'knew', which appears in many quotations
of the early Fathers and in two Old Latin MSS.
(a and b), is probably due to assimilation to the preceding
aorists, while the case for omission is weakened by the
fact that it is exceedingly difficult to quote the saying
correctly. 2
The genuineness of the saying is often questioned be-
cause of its similarity to the sayings in the Fourth Gospel, 8
or because it is doubted that Jesus can have claimed to be
the sole revealer of the Father. Bousset, for example,
explains the passage as a word of Jesus which has been
transformed by the piety of Hellenistic-Christian circles, 4
and he cites parallels from the Hermetic Literature of the
early Christian centuries. Probably, such doubts are
largely due to the habit of reading the saying in the light
of later Christological developments. The knowledge of
God implied is nearer to that which is described in the
Old Testament 5 than it is to the utterances of Hellenistic
piety. There is no real parallel, for example, in the
mystical prayer: *I know thee, Hermes, and thou me. I
am Thou, and Thou I,' which is the first parallel cited by
Bousset; 6 and still less close are the examples in the extra-
canonical literature and the Odes of Solomon which are
1 See the discussions of Harnack and Easton.
2 As an experiment easily shows. In most cases clauses are quoted in the
wrong order or one of them is omitted.
3 Compare the famous phrase of Hase: 'an aerolite from the Johannine
heaven*, Geschichte Jesu, 527.
Christos 2 , 50.
5 Cf. Jer. xxxi. 34; Hos. iv. I; Amos iii. 2.
6 0/. /., 48.
THE SON 37
quoted by Dibelius. 1 If we allow for the influence of the
Old Testament, and perhaps also of Ecclesiasticus li,
upon the mind of Jesus, there is no adequate reason why
the genuineness of the saying should be doubted. 2 The
words describe the intimate communion with the Father
which Jesus knew and which He was able to make known
to others ; and the sense of Sonship which is revealed is
fundamentally ethical and religious. Whether it is not
also metaphysical is a question which depends on our esti-
mate of the Person of Jesus. A metaphysical relationship
is not expressed in the saying, and there is no reason to
think that the mind of Jesus moved in such realms of
thought. What is expressed is the consciousness of a
unique filial relationship to the Father, and it is in this re-
lationship that we must find the foundation of His Mes-
sianic convictions.
This sense of Sonship is also expressed by the words
*my Father' in the saying (x. 22), and in many other say-
ings in which Jesus speaks of 'the Father*, 'my Father*,
and 'my heavenly Father*. It lies behind the prayer:
'Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee' (Mk. xiv.
36), and is implied in the words 'but the Father* which
follow the denial of the Son's knowledge in Mk. xiii. 32.
It also appears in several sayings in the M source in which
Jesus speaks of the Father. 3 Some of these passages
1 Cf. From Tradition to Gospel, 279-83. Dibelius cites, for example, the
ninth Ode of Solomon: 'Open your ears and I will speak to you. Give me
your souls that I also may give my soul to you. The Word of the Lord
and His good pleasures, the holy thought that He has thought concerning
His Messiah. ... Be enriched in God the Father, and receive the
intention of the Most High. . . .*
2 Cf. W. F. Howard, The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Inter-
pretation, 221; T. W. Manson, op. cit. 9 1 lof. ; W. F. Lofthouse, The Father
ana* the Son,
3 Cf. Mt. vii. 21, xv. 13, xvi. 17, xviii. ro, 19, 35, xxvi. 53.
38 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
could not be pressed if they stood alone, since Jesus also
speaks, with reference to men, of 'your Father" and 'your
heavenly Father'. 1 If, however, we take the sayings of
Jesus with reference to the Father as a whole, and relate
them to those in which He speaks of Himself as 'the Son',
a filial consciousness is revealed which, for the want of a
better word, can only be described as unique. If the
term 'Son of Man' expresses a vocational consciousness
closely related to the idea of the Reign of God, the title
'the Son' points to an intimate personal relationship to
God out of which the sense of vocation springs. It is be-
cause Jesus is the Son that He accepts the rSle of the Son
of Man, and it is probably for the same reason that He
recasts the form of the Son of Man in terms suggested by
the figure of the Suffering Servant. The ultimate truth
about Jesus is that He is the Son of God. The Synoptic
Gospels do not tell us what that title means, and the best
answers of Christian theology are incomplete. What can
be said with confidence is that a filial relationship with the
Father, to which there is a parallel nowhere else, is the
secret of the ministry and work of Jesus.
1 Cf. LL vi. 36, xii. 32; Mt. v. 16, vi. i, 14, 15, &c.
THE SERVANT OF YAHWEH
IN turning from the subject of the Messianic Hope to
that of the Servant of Yahweh we enter a different
world. In Jewish teaching the Servant is not identi-
fied with the Messiah, 1 and this identification is not the
thought of the original writer. For our purpose it does
not matter whether the Servant is an individual, or the
nation, 2 the righteous element in the nation, or the ideal
Israel, or whether, in line with the doctrine of corporate
personality expounded by H. Wheeler Robinson, he is
sometimes one and sometimes another of these entities. 3
The more important questions are the nature of the Ser-
vant-conception, the theology implicit in it, and its in-
fluence upon the mind of Jesus.
The Servant-passages include Isa. xlii. 1-4, xlix. 1-6,
1. 4-9 and Hi. 13 liii. 12. In these poems the Servant is
the chosen messenger of God. In the third poem the in-
dignities and the suffering he has endured in the course of
his mission are mentioned, but it is in the fourth poem
x ln the Targum on Isa. xlii. i, the rendering is given: 'Behold my Ser-
vant the Anointed (Messiah), I will draw him near, my Chosen in whom
my word delights; I will put my holy spirit upon him, and he shall reveal
my judgment to the nations.' Cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism, ii. 327. See
later, p. 45f.
2 Cf. A. S. Peake, 'The Servant is not an ideal Israel, distinct from the
empirical Israel, he is the empirical Israel regarded from an ideal point of
view,' The Servant ofTahweh, 67.
*The Cross of the Servant, 32-7; W. L. Wardle, London Quarterly and
Holborn Review, Oct., 1935, p. 437 Robinson argues that on this view
of the Songs of the Servant 'we are able to explain the perplexing variety of
interpretations offered by modern scholarship,' op. cit., 36.
39
40 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
that this aspect of his work is presented fully. In Hi. 1 3
liii. 12 the Servant's suffering is not only his experience,
but the achievement in which his supreme task consists.
In this poem the Servant's figure stands out with such
solitary grandeur that one may easily miss some of the
most important features in the representation as a whole.
It is necessary, for example, to observe the peculiar relation
which exists between the Servant and those for whom his
service is rendered, and also the distinctive attitude of
Yahweh to the Servant's work. The attitude of the on-
lookers is first presented as one of amazement. As-
tonished at the promised exaltation of the Servant, they
explain their failure to recognize the true facts. They
had received no revelation from God, and the appearance
of the Servant had in no way suggested the nature of his
work. 1
Tor he grew up as a sapling before us,
And as a root out of a dry ground,
He had no form that we should look upon him,
No visage that we should desire him,
'Despised and forsaken of men,
A man of pains and familiar with sickness,
And as one from whom men hide the face,
Despised, and we regarded him not.'
Nevertheless, illumination has now come to them; they
see that the Servant has suffered for their own sins.
'But it was our sickness that he bore,
And our pains, he carried them,
While we regarded him as stricken,
Smitten of God and afflicted.
'But he was pierced through our rebellions,
Crushed through our sins,
^The translation followed is that of A. S. Peake, The Problem of Suffer-
ing,^.
THE SERVANT OF YAHWEH 41
The chastisement to win our peace was upon him.
And by his stripes was healing wrought for us.
*We had all gone astray like sheep,
We had turned each his own way.
And Yahweh made to light on him
The sin of us all.'
This confession of sin and recognition of the redemptive
character of the Servant's suffering is followed by a further
description of his innocence and the indifference of his
contemporaries. Then follows a statement concerning
the judgment of Yahweh Himself: 1
'But Yahweh was pleased to justify him,
And rescued his soul from trouble,
Caused him to see light and be satisfied,
A posterity that prolonged its life.'
Finally, Yahweh declares the future exaltation and glory of
the Servant:
'Righteous shall my Servant appear to many,
Since he bears their iniquities;
Therefore shall he inherit among the many,
And with the strong he shall divide the spoil.
'Inasmuch as he poured out his soul unto death,
And was numbered with the rebellious,
Though he bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the rebellious/
The theology implicit in this splendid conception is a
1 Peake says that liii. xof. are justly regarded by many scholars as almost
incurably corrupt, op. tit., 58. He omits the familiar phrase: 'when thou
shalt make his soul an offering for sin.* The term ^Asharn ('guilt-offering'),
while post-Exilic, may have been current before the Exile, and, in any case,
is implied in liii. 10 by the LXX. Cf. G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old
Testament, 67. If the text has been interpolated, the interpolation is
pre-Christian. The term also appears in i Sam. vi. 3, 4, 8, 17, where the
Philistines send a 'trespass-offering' of golden mice to compensate for the
wrong done to the Ark. Cf. also 2 Sam. xiv. 1 3 .
42 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
doctrine of representative suffering. The ideas are not
those of crude substitution; for it is not by the simple
transference of punishment that healing comes to the reci-
pients of divine grace. There is, however, a substitu-
tionaiy element in the delineation, in the sense that the
Servant bears the consequences of the sins of others. This
view is implied, not only in the fact that he is pierced
through the rebellions and crushed through the sins of
others, but especially in the statement: 'Yahweh made to
light on him the sins of us all,' and the declaration: 'He
bore the sin of many/ This representation, however, is
only part of the poet's conception. It is a point of cardi-
nal importance to his view, not only that the Servant bears
what others ought to suffer, but that these perceive this
fact, and so recognize and confess their own sin. In this
sense, they participate in the Servant's oblation and make
it their own, and it is the complete act, including the
Servant's offering and the onlooker's response, which
constitutes the sacrifice presented to God. This infer-
ence is confirmed by the fact that it is only at the end,
when both aspects have been described, that the poet de-
clares that Tahweh was pleased to justify' His Servant,
and puts into His mouth the cry: 'Righteous shall my
Servant appear to many'. The picture is clearly a poet-
ical representation in which ancient Hebrew ideas of sacri-
fice are refined and sublimated.
It is obviously a question of first importance, how far
Jesus was influenced by the Servant-conception and what
effect it had upon His view of His suffering" and death.
Before, however, this question can be rightly answered, it
is desirable to consider analogous ideas in the Old Testa-
ment and later Jewish Literature.
The story of the death of Achan (Jos. vii. 16-26) be-
longs to a different realm of ideas, for Achan dies for his
THE SERVANT OF YAHWEH 43
own sins, and the destruction of his family and his posses-
sions simply illustrates the solidarity of the Israelitish clan.
In the story of the sacrifice of the eldest son of the king of
Moab (2 Kings iii. 27) there is, for all its revolting fea-
tures, at least the idea of an offering which avails for
others ; but the predominant conception is that of averting
the wrath of Chemosh in order to bring about the destruc-
tion of Israel. A nobler spirit breathes in the prayer of
Moses in Ex. xxxji. 3 if.: 'Oh, this people have sinned a
great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now,
if thou wilt forgive their sin ; and if not, blot me, I pray
thee, out of thy book which thou hast written' ; and also in
the words of David in 2 Sam. xxiv. 17 : *Lo, I have sinned,
and I have done perversely: but these sheep, what have
they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and
against my father's house.' But, great as they are, these
passages only illustrate the spirit of self-sacrifice which is
willing to bear the sins of others, and throw into relief the
solitary grandeur of the Servant's achievement.
The nearest parallel to the ideas of Isa. liii. is found in
the life and sufferings of Jeremiah. It is possible that the
words : *I was like a gentle lamb that is led to the slaughter'
(Jer, xi. 1 9), have suggested thoughts which are developed
in the description of the Servant, although the context
does not suggest vicarious suffering but the murderous in-
tentions of Jeremiah's enemies. More to the point are
passages which express Jeremiah's sorrow for the sins of
his people and his self-identification with them in their
sin : 'For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt :
I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me. . . . Oh
that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of
tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the
daughter of my people!' (viii. 2i-ix. i). There is good
reason to accept the claim of A. S. Peake that, while Jere-
44 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
miah is not to be identified with the Servant, 'some fea-
tures in this delineation of Israel were drawn from his
career.' 1
If anticipations of the Servant-conception are few, later
echoes are more surprisingly faint. Possible examples
are Psa. xxii, Zech. ix. yf and xii. 9-14. Psa. xxii. con-
tains the same contrast between suffering (w. 1-21) and
exaltation (w. 22-3 i), and there are parallel phrases in the
Psalmist's description of the sufferer as 'a reproach of
men, and despised of the people' (v. 6), and in his affirma-
tion that Yahweh 'hath not despised nor abhorred the
affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from
him' (v. 24). There are also verbal similarities in Zech.
xii. 10 : 'And they shall look unto him whom they have
pierced: and they shall mourn for him. . . .' 2 But the
most interesting possibility is that the picture of the
Messianic King in Zech. ix. <)L may have been influenced
in the use of the terms 'just' (or 'righteous' ; cf. Isa. liii. 1 1)
and 'lowly' (or 'afflicted'), and in the description of the
'unostentatious royalty' of the King. 3 If this inference is
justified, we are afforded a pre-Christian example of the
modification of the traditional picture of the Messiah by
means of ideas derived from the Servant-conception. The
inference, however, is far from being certain, and in no
sense is the King a vicarious sufferer. There is more to
be said for the suggestion that Zech. ix. <)L and Psa. xxii.
may have influenced the mind of Jesus in identifying
the Son of Man with the Suffering Servant. 4
3 -Jeremiah) i. 28.
2 Cf. R. S. Cripps, The Prophets and the Atonement, 29-32. Cripps
points out that the common reading, though strongly attested, can hardly
be correct, op. cit., 3 in.
8 Cf. Cripps, op. tit., 31.
4 Cf. ML xi. i- 10, xv. 34.
THE SERVANT OF YAHWEH 45
In later Jewish thought the idea of the propitiatory
value of the sufferings of the righteous appears. In
2 Mace. vii. 37f. the youngest of the martyr-brothers
prays that with him and his brothers 'the wrath of the Al-
mighty may cease', which, he says, 'has justly fallen upon
our race'; and in 4 Mace. vi. 27-9 Eleazar prays that his
blood may be a sacrifice for the purification of the people,
and that his life may be taken c as a substitute (avrfyvxpv)
for theirs'; while in 4 Mace, xvii, 22 the sufferings of the
martyrs are characterized as a vicarious expiation, 1 The
ideas of these passages transcend those of Isa. liiu, inas-
much as they introduce the thought of a God whose wrath
is appeased by suffering. This conception is absent from
the Servant-poems; for the words: Tahweh made to light
on him the sin of us all,' express no more than the charac-
teristic Hebrew tendency to trace events to their ultimate
cause in the purpose of God.
High ethical importance is ascribed to suffering in the
teaching of Rabbinical Judaism, but in the time of Jesus
no suffering Messiah was expected. 2 Suffering, it is held,
leads men to repentance and is a means of expiation; it is
the chastisement of love, intended to increase man's de-
serts and, in consequence, his reward. Where, in the
case of the righteous, it is undeserved, it atones for the sin
of the people. Billerbeck explains the fact that the
Messiah is not thought of in this connexion by the expec-
tation that the Messianic time would bring in complete
blessedness. 3 The Messiah strikes down all the enemies
Wote what is said of the sacrifice of Isaac in the Jewish Prayers, some of
which are ancient. Cf. Josephus, Ant., i. xiii. 3.
2< The old synagogue knows a suffering Messiah, to whom, however,
death is not allotted; that is the Messiah ben David: and it knows a dying
Messiah, but of whom no suffering is asserted; that is the Messiah ben
Joseph,' Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, n. 27 3 f.
3 O/>. /.,n. 282.
46 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
of Israel with his word, brings all peoples under Israel's
yoke, and from his throne rules the kings and powers of
the earth. Such conceptions ruled out the thought of a
suffering Messiah. 1 Only very gradually in later times
did a few Rabbinical teachers pass over to the idea of
bringing the Messiah into connexion with this and that
suffering, and most teachers held fast to the older concep-
tions. 2 It is notable that, while the Targum Jonathan
understands Isa. Hi. 13 liii. Messianically, everything
which could have relation to the suffering and death of the
Messiah is artificially explained away. 'The idea that the
Messiah bears the sin of the world, and so also that of non-
Israelites, nowhere meets us in the old Rabbinical
Literature.' 3
From this summary survey of later Jewish thought, it is
clear that a high ethical and religious conception of Mes-
sianic suffering lay waiting to be appropriated by any one
who could approach the Servant-poems with insight and
understanding, and with a mind free from the bondage of
nationalistic and apocalyptic expectations. Such a mind
was that of Jesus Himself. Antecedently, it is much
more likely that it was He who first made use of the
Servant-conception rather than the later Christian com-
munity. This opinion is contrary to that held by many
modern New Testament critics who explain its presence
in the Gospels by the beliefs of Hellenistic Christianity. 4
There is no doubt that Luke, 5 Matthew, 6 and the authors
I 0f. cit., ii. 282. 2 0p. tit., ii. 284. *0p. cit., n. 292.
4 Cf. Bousset, Kyrios Christos 2 , 69-72; Bultmann, Die Geschichte der
synoptischen Tradition, 303^; die Editors of The Beginnings of Christianity,
i. 383f.; Burkitt, Christian Beginnings, 35-9. On the other side see
Rawlinson, St. Mark, 255!"., The New Testament Doctrine of the Christ,
238-41; Otto, Reich Gottes und Menschensohn, 203-14.
5 Cf. Lk. xxiv. 26f.; Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30, viii, 32-5.
6 Cf. Mt. viii. 17, xii. 18-21.
THE SERVANT OF YAHWEH 47
of i Peter 1 and Hebrews 2 read the story of Jesus in the
light of Isa. liii., and that the ideas of this chapter rarely
appear in Paul's letters, 8 in the Fourth Gospel, 4 and
in the Apocalypse of John. 5 It is this distribution of the
evidence which led Burkitt to trace the application of the
Servant-conception to the work of Gentile Christians. 6
Rawlinson, however, is better justified in describing the
process as 'pre-Pauline', and in thinking that 'behind the
ambiguous passages in the Acts there lurks an original
Aramaic tradition (whether written or oral), in which the
Messiah was described unambiguously as the "Servant"
of the Lord'. 7
The question turns in the end upon the opinion we
form concerning several sayings of Jesus which, as they
stand in the Gospels, reflect the ideas of the Servant-con-
ception. Only once, in Lk. xxii. 37, is Isa. liii. expressly
quoted, but its echoes are unmistakable in the prophecies
of suffering and death, in Mk. viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 33f.;
in Mk. ix. iib\ in the 'ransom-passage', Mk. x. 45, and
the prophecy of the Betrayal, Mk. xiv. 2 1 . There are
also traces of Isa. xlii. I in Mk. i. 1 1. With the excep-
tion of Mk. i. n, all these passages are Passion-sayings,
and they must be examined in detail in Part II. Such an
examination, I believe, leads to a belief in their genuine-
ness, and thus to the conclusion that Jesus was profoundly
influenced by the Servant-conception. Apart from ques-
tions of detail, the broad fact that the passages are allu-
iQF. i Pet. ii. 22. 2 Cf. Heb. ix. 28.
3 But see Rom. iv. 2551 Cor. xv. 3, and Phil. ii. 5-8.
*Cf. Jn. i. 29, 36, xii. 38.
6 Cf. Apoc. v. 6, xiii. 8, xiv. 5.
^Christian Beginnings^ 38f.
^The New Testament Doctrine of the Christ, 241.
48 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
sions rather than quotations is significant. When later
writers read back their own ideas into an earlier time, they
are not, as a rule, content with echoes ; and it is probable
that the Servant-conception would be much more obvious
in the Gospel tradition if it were not an authentic element
which goes back to Jesus Himself.
The conclusion that Jesus interpreted His suffering and
death in the light of the ideas of Isa. Hi. 13-liii. is of the
utmost importance, and especially if the conception of
representative suffering which it contains is based ulti-
mately on beliefs which are implicit in the Old Testament
sacrifices. If to our Western eyes this is the character of
the Servant-conception, how much more must its nature
have been evident to the mind of Jesus ! The conclusion
is suggested that, if He reinterpreted the doctrine of the
Son of Man in terms of Isa. liii., and saw His own destiny
in the light of this perception, He must have thought of
His suffering as a sacrificial offering in which men might
participate. This is a conclusion of such moment, and
is exposed to so many misconceptions, that it is essential
to examine closely the Hebrew idea of sacrifice and the
the attitude of Jesus thereto.
VI
SACRIFICE
SACRIFICE as an idea and an institution is deeply rooted
in Old Testament thought and has profoundly in-
fluenced the development of Christian beliefs and
practices. Terms like 'blood', 'covenant', 'atonement',
and 'expiation', which appear repeatedly in the New Tes-
tament and in later doctrinal discussions, are all related to
sacrificial conceptions, and need to be examined against
the background of Old Testament religion and worship*
Nowhere in the Old Testament is the rationale of
sacrifice explained. The institution is taken for granted
as a divine ordinance, and the only principle laid down is
that 'the blood is the life'. 1 This attitude was main-
tained in Rabbinical Judaism, 2 and only in comparatively
modern times have attempts been made to ascertain its
underlying idea. Robertson Smith held that predomi-
nantly sacrifice is 'an act of social fellowship between the
deity and his worshippers'; it is *an act of communion, in
which the god and his worshippers unite by partaking
together of the flesh and blood of a sacred victim'. 3 The
alternative view is that sacrifice is essentially a gift to God. 4
1 Gen. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. 10-2; Deut. xii. 23.
2 C The Jewish Encyclopedia, x. 628; G. F. Moore, Article on 'Sacri-
fice', EncycL Bi&lica, col. 4226.
*Thc Religion of the Semites, (1927), 224, 226f.
*Cf. G. B. Gray: 'Whenever in later times the Jew sacrificed, he was
consciously intending his sacrifice to be a gift to God', Sacrifice in the Old
Testament, 20; G. F. Moore: 'The prevailing conception of sacrifice and
offering in the O.T. is that of a gift or present to God', Encycl. Biblica^
col. 4216.
o 49
50 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
It may be doubted whether these theories are mutually
exclusive, and it is possible that a more vaguely defined
purpose of establishing healthful relations with the gods
represents the extent to which the original purpose of
sacrifice can be defined. 1
Popular misconceptions regarding the Old Testament
sacrifices are still widespread. It is still widely believed,
for example, that the sacrifice was a propitiatory offering
intended to appease the anger of Yahweh. It cannot be
denied that there are Old Testament stories which give
ground for this opinion. An outstanding illustration
appears in the words of David when pursued by Saul: 'If
it be Yahweh that hath stirred thee up against me, let
him smell an offering' (i Sam. xxvi. 19). Here the im-
plication is that the odour of burning flesh placates the
wrath of God. The same idea is implicit in the story of
Noah's sacrifice (Gen. viii. 21), and in the account of the
numbering of the people by David (2 Sam. xxiv. 25).
There was also a reversion to propitiatory human sacrifices
in later times, as, for example, in the seventh century B.C.
(cf. Jer. xix. 5). This evidence illustrates a persistent
tendency in primitive worship, but it cannot be said to
reveal the true nature of the Old Testament sacrifices.
The idea that the sacrifice is a substitutionary rite is
largely due to a misunderstanding of the act of the wor-
shipper in laying his hands on the head of the victim.
This ritual act does not signify the transference of guilt,
for the offering is still regarded as holy; it is the wor-
shipper's acknowledgment that the offering is his own,
and that he identifies himself with it. 2 Confusion has
1 Among recent discussions see E. O. James, Origins of Sacrifice, 2 iff.,
255?.; A. C.Welch, Prophet and Priest in Qldlsrael,
2 Cf. G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, raf.j W. F.
Lofthouse, Altar, Cross and Community ', 107, 113.
SACRIFICE 51
also arisen in connexion with the ritual of the scapegoat
on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev. xvi.). A long history
lies behind the idea of transferring sins to an animal
which bears them away into the wilderness. 1 The ideas
are more primitive than those reflected in the Old Testa-
ment sacrifices, and it is important to observe that in the
ceremonies of the Day of Atonement the scapegoat is not
sacrificed. 2
The distinctive character of the earlier Old Testament
sacrifices, the burnt-offering^ the meal-offering, and the
peace-offering, is their tributary, eucharistic, and concilia-
tory nature; they are often an expression of joy as well as
of contrition. 8 The sin-offering and the guilt-offering be-
long to the post-exilic period, 4 but so far from atoning for
mortal sins, their scope was mainly ceremonial, the sin-
offering covering inadvertent transgressions and acts of
ritual defilement and the guilt-offering offences where
restitution was not possible. 5 In general, the sacrifices
are expiatory rather than propitiatory; they are appointed
means whereby sin is covered, so that it no longer stands
1 Cf. J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, ii. 3, vi.; G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in
the Old Testament, 313-8; E. O. James, Origins of Sacrifice, 196-201.
2< And Aaron shall ky both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and
confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their
transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of
the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a man that is in readiness
into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities
unto a solitary land* (Lev, xvi. 2 if,).
3 Cf. G. B. Gray: 'Sacrifice was more often eucharistic than propitiatory,
and it was more often offered with feelings of joy and security than in fear
or contrition', op. cit., 95.
4 Cf. R. H. Kennett: There is no instance of this class of sacrifice in the
older strata of the Pentateuchal legislation; not probably because such
piacular sacrifices were never offered, but because the older strata deal with
what is normal,' The Church of Israel, 1 1 if.
5 So far as the two can be distinguished. Cf. A* C, Welch, Post-Exilic
Judaism, 292.
52 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
as an obstacle between the worshipper and God. This
fact is illustrated by the many examples of the use of
kipper, the Piel form of the verb kaphar, 'to cover' or 'to
wipe away'.
The linguistic usage of kipper is one of great interest.
In cases where it means 'to appease* or 'pacify', the refer-
ence is to man. 1 In other passages it is used of expiation
for sin apart from sacrifice, 2 and where God is the subject
the meaning is 'to forgive' or 'to purge away'. 8 The
commonest use of the verb is in connexion with the sacri-
ficial rites, and here the thought is that of covering ritual
imperfections or of expiating sins. The illustrations of
this usage are far too numerous to be given in full, and the
following must serve as examples.
Lev. xvi. 33: 'And he shall make atonement for the holy
sanctuary/
Ezek. xliii. 26: 'Seven days shall they make atonement for the
altar and purify it.'
Lev. i. 4: 'And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt
offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for
him/
Numb. xv. 25 : 'And the priest shall make atonement for all
the congregation of the children of Israel, and they shall be for-
given/
2 Chroru xxix. 24: 'And they made a sin offering with their
blood upon the altar to make atonement for all Israel/
It would not be safe in all passages of this kind to press
the root meanings of 'covering' or 'wiping away', for the
verb comes to be used conventionally, like the English
'make atonement for' ; but echoes of these ideas, especially
1 Cf. Gen. xxxii. 20 and Prov. xvi. 14.
2 Cf. Ex. xxxii. 30; Num. xvi. 46f., xxv. 13; 2 Sam. xxi. 3.
8 Cf. Dent. xxi. 8, xxxii. 43; 2 Chron. xxx. 18; Psa. Ixv. 3, Ixxviii, 38,
Ixxix. 9; Jer. xviii. 23; Ezek* xvi. 63; Dan. ix. 24.
SACRIFICE 53
that of 'covering'^ can be found in most cases. 1 The idea
of 'cleansing' is expressed in Lev. xvi. 30: 'On this day
shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you : from all
your sins shall ye be clean before the Lord/ In an in-
valuable study of lXd(7Ka9ou, and cognate words C. H.
Dodd has shown that 'the LXX translators did not regard
kipper (when used as a religious term) as conveying the
sense of propitiating the Deity, but the sense of perform-
ing an act whereby guilt or defilement is removed'. 2
'Thus', he adds, 'Hellenistic Judaism, as represented by
the LXX, does not regard the cultus as a means of pacify-
ing the displeasure of the Deity, but as a means of deliver-
ing man from sin, and it looks in the last resort to God
himself to perform that deliverance, thus evolving a
meaning of tXdaKcaQ&t, strange to non-biblical Greek.' 3
In addition to the indications supplied by the linguistic
usage, the representative and inclusive character of the
Old Testament sacrifices reveals the true nature of the
cultus as a means of maintaining or restoring fellowship
with God. The sacrifices are vehicles of self-expression;
they make possible religious activities with which the
worshipper can associate himself, and so in a very real
sense make his own. This aspect of the sacrifices is evi-
dent in the various elements which enter into the ritual.
Bishop Hicks 4 has distinguished six stages which may be
summarized briefly as follows: (i) The worshipper 'draws
near' with his offering; (2) He lays his hands (or leans or
rests them) on the victim's head; (3) He himself, and not
^Underlying all these offerings there is the conception that the persons
offering are covered by that which is regarded as sufficient and satisfactory
by Yahweh', Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown,
Driver, Briggs, 498.
*The Bible and the Greeks* 93.
4 Cf. The Fullness of Sacrifice, 1 1-4.
54 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
the priest, slays the victim; (4) The priest presents the
blood to God by pouring it upon, or dashing it against, the
altar; (5) The flesh, or part of it, is burnt, and so is trans-
formed in order that it may ascend to heaven, the dwelling-
place of God; (6) A portion of the offering is eaten by the
priests and the worshipper, except in the case of the burnt-
offering, while the flesh of the sin-offering and the guilt-
offering is reserved for the priests, except when atonement
is made for their own sins. 1 This is, of course, a com-
posite and idealized picture. We cannot suppose that
the significance of the various stages was always present
to the mind of the worshippers, since the tendency was to
fulfil the prescribed rites because they were ordained by
God. But the value of the description is that it shows
how inclusive the rite was; it is not any one of the six
stages which are distinguished; the whole is the sacrifice.
Its representative character is also manifest; the wor-
shipper identifies himself with his offering,- and while it is
presented to God, he participates in it himself.
From what has already been said it is apparent how
erroneous it is to limit the idea of sacrifice to that of the
death and destruction of a victim. This popular belief 2
isolates one element in the ritual and misconceives its pur-
pose, for destruction is not the primary intention. The
victim is slain in order that its life, in the form of blood,
may be released, and its flesh is burnt in order that it may
be transformed or etherialized; and in both cases the aim
1 Cf. Lev. v. 13, x. 16-20*
2 The "man in the street", and many who are more familiar with
theology than he, would still, if they were asked to describe a sacrifice,
suggest an altar, with a living victim bound upon it, and a priest standing
over it with a knife in his uplifted hand. Translated into the language of
the Christian Sacrifice, that is the conception of Christ offering Himself
upon, the Altar of the Cross, of sacrifice as equivalent to, and completed in,
death,' F. C. N, Hicks, The Fullness of Sacrifice, 327.
SACRIFICE 55
is to make it possible for life to be presented as an offering
to the Deity. More and more students of comparative
religion, and of Old Testament worship in particular, are
insisting that the bestowal of life is the fundamental idea
in sacrificial worship. 1
At this point it will be useful to summarize the princi-
pal defects and advantages of the sacrificial system.
A marked weakness of the system was the passive char-
acter of the victim or offering. Its purity and innocence
were non-moral; the qualities of purity and innocence
were merely symbolized. In consequence, the wor-
shipper could identify himself only with objects which
1 suggested ethical qualities; there could be no personal
bond between himself and his offering; the moral value of
his sacrifice was limited by its cost and by the degree to
which an external object could focus, discipline, and
direct his penitence Godwards. A second defect of the
system was its liability to abuse. It is always easy scru-
pulously to fulfil the external requirements of a cultus
without genuine repentance, and even to make costly
gifts a cover for extortion and wrong. The ritual may
evoke no spiritual response; it may foster unethical con-
ceptions of God and of sin, and encourage unhealthy de-
pendence upon a priesthood. The story of Israel and the
protests of the prophets show how serious these dangers
were. A third weakness of the sacrificial system was its
limited range. It had to do mainly with ritual trans-
fundamental principle throughout is the same; the giving of life l
to promote or preserve life, death being merely a means of liberating
vitality. Consequently, the destruction of the victim, to which many
writers have given a central position in the rite, assumes a position of
secondary importance in comparison with the transmission of the soul-
substance to the supernatural being to whom it is offered,' E. O. James,
Origins of Sacrifice, 256. 'Life its recovery, uplifting, and communica-
tion is the ruling conception of sacrifice: life as shared between God and
man, and between man and man . . .,* F. C. N. Hicks, op. cit. 9 177.
56 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
gressions, with sins which the modern man would hardly
regard as sins at all; whereas for sins done 'with a high
hand* there was no provision save in the special rites of the
Day of Atonement. The exception is significant; for, in
adopting the ancient rite of the scapegoat, those who
shaped the Levitical system departed from its basic prin-
ciples. In admitting that sins could be put upon the head
of an animal and borne away into the wilderness, they con-
fessed the inadequacy of the existing system. Uneasi-
ness with the system, as well as spiritual perception, is also
revealed in the emphasis which the later Rabbis laid upon
repentance as the sine qua non of sacrifice. It is note-
worthy that it is the New Testament writer who more than
all others has seized upon and utilized the sacrificial prin-
ciple, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who
emphatically says: 'It is impossible that the blood of bulls
and goats should take away sins' (x. 4). By its limitations
the Old Testament system was driven into an impasse and
failed where its help was needed most.
These defects are so obvious that it is easy to overlook
the many excellent features in the cultus, but the merits
are as certain as the defects and include elements which
are of imperishable value to religion and to the practice of
the devotional life.
The most notable advantage of the cultus was that it
held out to the worshipper the possibility of fellowship
with God. Its aim was to make that fellowship actual by
overcoming the obstacles which prevented its attainment.
Frequent failure cannot hide the greatness of the objective
or obscure the fact that it was often realized. A further
merit was that, within its limitations, the system sharpened
the conscience of the worshipper. Sin was felt to be
something which must be treated seriously; it could not
be dismissed with a wave of the hand, but must be ex-
SACRIFICE 57
plated before fellowship with God could be perfected.
Again, the cultus gave real help in focussing and directing
penitence towards God. Passive though the offering
might be, it served to create a centre in the mind around
which a strong and healthy sentiment of penitence might
be established* The worshipper was not left to struggle
alone with fugitive and fitful feelings of remorse. On the
contrary, there was at his disposal a medium, material
though it was, through which his contrition could be
offered and his longing for better things could be ex-
pressed. Further, the cultus brought home to the mind
the thought of reconciliation as a costly process. Doubt-
less there was a real danger that the worshipper might
count the cost of his offering as a thing of merit, but at all
events he was delivered from the easy belief that recon-
ciliation can be taken for granted as an axiom of religious
experience. More important still, the sacrificial system
suggested that a surrendered and dedicated life was the
basis of true fellowship with God. The writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews grasped this principle when he
wrote: 'And according to the law, I may almost say, all
things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding
of blood there is no remission' (ix. 22). No doubt the
shed blood might be regarded as if it were endowed with
magical properties, but the instructed and thoughtful
worshipper knew that it was the symbol of dedicated life
and of a life with which he could identify himself. Thus,
the way was prepared for richer applications of the sacri-
ficial principle in Christianity. Finally, the system made
possible a social, as well as an individual, approach to God.
In the sacra fublica the worshipper was reminded of com-
mon needs and communal sins in which he was involved
a s an individual within a clan, while in the sacred meal,
w hich he celebrated with his family, his neighbours, and
58 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
his guests, he enjoyed in common with others the sense of
God's presence and favour.
In estimating the relative significance of these defects
and advantages Old Testament scholars are divided.
Much depends on whether the sacrificial system is re-
garded in the light of its origins, which to the modern man
often appear revolting, or whether it is viewed from the
standpoint of its religious possibilities. It is from the
former point of view that G. B. Gray says: 'The truth is
whatever is the root idea . . . that root idea belongs to a
grossly material view of religion and of man's relation to
God/ 1 It is from the latter standpoint that the same
writer says that the real movement of Old Testament reli-
gion is upward towards a completely spiritual goal. 'It
rises', he observes, 'to the conception that there is a gift
which man can make to God, a gift of something that is
his own and that God desires to receive; man can give
himself; his will is his own, he can make it his present to
God.' 2
Each of the standpoints indicated is required if history
is to be more than a summary of facts. Each, moreover,
has its characteristic dangers. In recording facts the in-
vestigator will mark the gross beginnings of sacrifice, the
different stages in the growth of the cultus, and the signi-
ficance they appear to have borne for the ordinary wor-
shipper. If, however, his study is to be complete, he
must try to assign to sacrifice its real place in the story of
man's religious development; and for this purpose he will
need to examine the facts revealed by archaeology and
ancient literature with insight and imagination. It is
part of his task to note implications which may have been
recognized by few in ancient times, but which are full of
meaning for the story of later religious developments.
^Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 54. *Uid.
SACRIFICE 59
If this is the nature of a scientific investigation, those
scholars are justified who insist that the most significant
conception in sacrifice is that of life offered to God, with
which the worshipper can associate himself through ap-
propriate ritual acts. This conception unquestionably
leads to an exalted estimate of the value of sacrificial wor-
ship, for, in the last analysis, it means that sin is expiated
because, by the aid of a traditional cultus, the worshipper
has presented to God in penitence and faith nothing less
than himself.
It would be folly to pretend that this conception of
sacrifice is taught in the Old Testament or was a theme of
Rabbinical teaching. There are reasons for this. In
part, the absence of explanation is due to the lack of an
adequate religious and psychological terminology, but to
a greater degree it is accounted for by the belief that sacri-
fice was a system of divine appointment. Such an idea
does not encourage reflection; still less when it is associ-
ated with a strong belief in the sovereignty of God and the
inscrutability of His will. These beliefs gave stability
to the sacrificial system, but they discouraged speculation
and threatened the ethical and spiritual development of
the cultus. None the less, the evidence afforded by the
Psalms proves that the barrier was not insurmountable.
The significance of a ritual must be found in itself and
in the religious spirit with which it is accompanied, and
not merely in traditional explanations. If this is so, we
are far from idealizing unduly the Old Testament sacri-
ficial system if we assert that for many worshippers it was
the vehicle of a truly spiritual approach to God and an
opportunity for self-offering and surrender.
The use of a ritual does not preclude the possibility of a
spiritual approach to God; it certainly was not so in the
case of Old Testament religion. Far from being an un-
60 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
worthy substitute for self-surrender to God, the ritual pro-
vided at the time the only means whereby the idea could
live in an ethical and spiritual form. No Hebrew could
think of offering himself as he was, frail and sinful to a
holy and a righteous God, 1 while the idea of a purely
spiritual offering would have seemed to him abstract and
meaningless. The life offered must be that of another,
innocent and pure, free from all impurity and sin, and yet
withal the symbol of an ideal life to which he aspired and
with which he could identify himself. It is because of
this fundamental conviction that the idea of self-sacrifice
is wanting, or is present only in germ, in the Old Testa-
ment. Ideas, however, are often implicit in a ritual be-
fore they gain an independent existence. In Old Testa-
ment worship the idea of self-sacrifice was waiting to be
born, secured by its bonds from the cheap and attenuated
expressions it has often suffered in later religious systems.
The main obstacle to a healthy development was the pas-
sive character of the Levitical offering; the worshipper
faced the demand of identifying himself with that which
could neither will nor experience the glory of vicarious
sacrifice. If the system could have supplied this want, in
a form which was at once both ethical and spiritual, it
would have been able to furnish a perfect ritual of expia-
tion, available not only for ceremonial defects, but also for
desperate sins done Vith a high hand'. To say this is
only to make the just acknowledgment that underlying
the Old Testament sacrificial system lay noble spiritual
ideas, capable of being enlarged and purified, which
belong to any doctrine of atonement worthy of the
name.
Before examining the attitude of Jesus to the sacrificial
principle it is necessary to consider the significance of the
l Cf. Isa* vi. 5-8,
SACRIFICE 61
prophetic reaction to the cultus. 1 This inquiry is neces-
sary because the two questions are closely related in cur-
rent discussions; it is also required in view of the opinions
stated above.
While a study of the Old Testament reveals a noble idea
at the heart of sacrifice, it no less clearly shows how easily
sacrificial worship can be perverted and debased, so that it
becomes a moral opiate and a substitute for righteousness.
This danger is manifest from the protests of the prophets
of the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. which in some
cases are carried so far as to amount to a repudiation of the
cultus. Amos declares that God will not accept the
burnt-offerings and sacrifices of the people, and indig-
nantly asks : 'Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings
in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?' (v. 2 1-6).
'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of
God more than 2 burnt offerings' is the message of Hosea
(vi. 6). Isaiah denounces the Temple treading of men
whose hands are full of blood, and cries : 'To what purpose
is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord :
I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed
beasts ; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of
lambs, or of he-goats' (i. 1 1). In a well-known passage
Micah, or a later writer, asks whether Yahweh will be
pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousands of
rivers of oil, and shows that what He requires is 'to do
justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy
God' (vi. 7f.). Similar views are expressed in some of the
1 Among recent discussions see R. H. Kennett, The Church of Israel,
120-8; J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, I78ff; W. Eichrodt, Theologie
des Alten Testaments, i. 64-82; F. N. C Hicks, The Fullness of Sacrifice,
55-91; W. L. Wardle, History and Religion of Israel, i8o; C. R. North,
Expository Times, xlvii. 252f.; T. H. Robinson, Hebrew Religion, 201 ;
A. C. Welch, Prophet and Priest in Old Israel, 47f., 76-102.
2 Or 'apart from'. Cf. J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, 179; R. H.
Kennett, op. cit., 12 in,
62 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
later Psalms, notably in Psa. xl. 6, L 13, and Ii.i6 f, 1 but
the most pronounced opposition to sacrifice is that voiced
by Jeremiah who sarcastically bids the people eat their
burnt-offerings as well as the flesh they are accustomed to
eat when offering sacrifice, and then roundly declares as
his message: Tor I spake not unto your fathers, nor com-
manded them in the day that I brought them out of the
land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices :
but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto
my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my
people: and walk ye in all the way that I command you,
that it may be well with you' (vii. 22f.). In these words, 2
and perhaps also in those of Amos, 3 the sacrificial system
is expressly rejected, and the demands of a purely spiritual
and ethical religion are set in its place. All the prophets
place the ethical requirements of God in the foreground,
but in the case of Jeremiah they are made a substitute for
the cultus. Thus, when he announces the new covenant
which Yahweh will make with the house of Israel, it is de-
scribed in significant contrast with the covenant of Sinai.
It is 'not according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring
them out of the land of Egypt' (Jer. xxxi. 32). Yahweh's
law will be put 'in their inward parts' and written 'in their
heart'. No mention is made of sacrifices or of 'the blood
x But see the comments of C. A. Briggs, I.C.C., The Book of Psalms
i. 354,419, ii. 9.
2 Cf. J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, 183; R. H. Kennett, of. tit.,
lajf.; G. A. Smith, Jeremiah, I58f.
3 Cf. E. A. Edghill, The Book of^mos, 57; R. S. Cripps, The Book of
Amos, 27. Cripps points out that in the wilderness wanderings there was
little opportunity for sacrifice, and says that the words of Amos Tall short
of the implication of those of Jeremiah,' op. cit., 339. See also W. O. E.
Oesterley and T. H. Robinson, Hebrew Religion, its Origin and Develop-
ment\ 'But that Amos contemplated the entire abrogation of the sacrificial
system at the time at which he lived ... is difficult to believe,' p. 299.
SACRIFICE 63
of the covenant', as in Exodus xxiv. 8, and the forgiveness
of God is promised directly. 'And they shall teach no
more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,
saying. Know the Lord : for they shall all know me, from
the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord:
for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remem-
ber no more' (Jer. xxxi. 34).
The greatness of this conception and of the personality
of Jeremiah are undoubted, and there is no need to speak
of the blessings which have attended the 're-discovery of
the prophets'. These things are plain to read for him
who runs. In life, however, as it exists, advantages are
not unaccompanied by corresponding disadvantages, and
in return for its unbalanced appreciation of the teaching
of Jeremiah modern theology has paid a heavy price. It
is astonishing that it has been so little observed that Jere-
miah makes impossible demands on human nature and too
easily assumes that man can fulfil the demands of a holy
God. Of the symbolism of sacrifice and its value for
frail and erring men he has no appreciation, nor can he
penetrate beneath pagan excesses to those underlying
principles which find a sublimated expression in the figure
of the Servant of Yahweh. The truth is that Jeremiah
identified sacrifice, with its abuses, and in this he displays
the characteristic vice of an ardent reformer. His true
greatness lies in his splendid affirmations and in his un-
sparing condemnation of magical practices; his failure is
his inability to see the greatness of the system he con-
demns. It is not too much to say that his rough rejection
of sacrifice, as endorsed by many commentators, has not a
little to do with the widespread modern assumption that
an objective Atonement is unnecessary, for, if his teaching
is valid, the sole function of the Cross of Christ is that it
gives a final revelation of the love of God.
64 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
With the exception of Jeremiah, and possibly also of
Amos, the teaching of the pre-exilic prophets does not
amount to a repudiation of the sacrificial system, 1 but is
a vigorous and healthy protest against its patent abuses,
This protest did not go unregarded, and in the post-exilic
period every effort is made to establish and commend a
purified system. Thus, Ezekiel who speaks of 'a new
heart' which God will give to His people and 'a new spirit*
which He will put within them (xxxvi. 26), puts sacrifice
at the very centre of Jewish ritual in his picture of the wor-
ship of the restored Temple (cf. xl.-xlviii.) ; and Haggai
and Zechariah urge upon the people the supreme necessity
of the rebuilding of the Temple (Hag. i. 4-11; Zech, i.
i6f.). This change of attitude is partly to be explained
by the fact that the abuses against which Amos, Isaiah,
and Jeremiah had thundered were now a thing of the past,
but it is also due to growing conceptions of the divine holi-
ness (cf. Ezek. i. 26-8). The later Psalms not only re-
echo the teaching of the pre-exilic prophets, but also reveal
the joy with which sacrifice was offered and the spiritual
ideas with which it was associated. The writer of Psa.
xxvi, desires to wash his hands in innocency and to com-
pass Yahweh's altar, and says :
*Lord, I love the habitation of thy house,
And the place where thy glory dwelleth/
Psa. xxvii. speaks of offering in God's tabernacle 'sacri-
fices of joy' and of singing praises unto Yahweh (verse 6),
and the same spirit appears in Psa. Ixvi. 1 3-5 :
*I will come into thy house with burnt offerings,
I will pay thee my vows,
Which my lips have uttered,
the important article of A. R. Johnson, 'The Prophet in Israelite
Worship', Expository Times, xlvii. 312-9,
SACRIFICE 65
And my mouth hath spoken, when I was in distress.
I will offer unto thee burnt offerings of fadings.
With the incense of rams;
I will offer bullocks with goats,'
and in Psa. cvii. 2 1 f. :
*Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness,
And for his wonderful works to the children of men !
And let them offer the sacrifices of thanksgiving,
And declare his works with singing.*
In Ecclesiasticus the son of Sirach emphasizes the ethical
demands of righteousness in the spirit of the earlier pro-
phets, when he says (xxxiv. 1 8f.) :
*He that sacrificed! of a thing wrongfully gotten,
His offering is made in mockery;
And the mockeries of wicked men are not well-pleasing.
The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly;
Neither is he pacified for sins by the multitude of sacrifices/
but he also exalts the priesthood of Aaron who was chosen,
'To offer sacrifice to the Lord,
Incense, and a sweet savour, for a memorial,
To make reconciliation for thy people' (xlv, 16),
and describes at length and with enthusiasm the glory of
the high priest Simon, the son of Onias, the way in which
he received the portions out of the priests' hands while his
brethren were 'as a garland round about him', and how
afterwards the sons of Aaron shouted and sounded trum-
pets of beaten work, while the people fell down upon the
earth on their faces 'to worship their Lord, the Almighty,
God Most High' (1. 1-2 1).
In the Rabbinical writings the importance of repentance
as a necessary condition in sacrificial worship is stressed.
In the Mishnah it is laid down that 'death and the Day of
66 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
Atonement effect atonement if there is repentance' (Toma,
8). A man is not to presume on the possibility of expia-
tion by saying 'I will sin and the Day of Atonement will
effect atonement'; if he does so, 'then the Day of Atone-
ment effects no atonement'. It is also said that 'for trans-
gressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day
of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased
his fellow* (Toma^ 9). 1 The destruction of the Temple in
A.D. 70 naturally raised the greatest problems in Jewish
minds regarding sacrifice, A well-known story tells that
when R. Joshua ben Hananiah saw the Temple in ruins,
he said to his teacher, R. Johanan ben Zakkai, 'Woe to us,
for the place where the iniquities of Israel were atoned for
us is destroyed!' 'Do not grieve', was the reply of Joha-
nan, 'for we have an atonement which is equal to it, name-
ly, deeds of mercy, as the Scripture says, "For I desire
mercy and not sacrifice"/ 2 A saying of R. Nehemiah ex-
plains that sufferings 'are a better atonement than sacri-
fice, for sacrifices are of a man's property, sufferings in his
person, and "all that a man hath will he give for his life'*
(Job ii. 4)', 3 These noble sayings show how deeply the
ethical teaching of the prophets had influenced the minds of
Jewish thinkers in later times ; it would be a mistake, how-
ever, to suppose that they came to repudiate the sacrificial
cultus. In the 'amidah the devout Jew prays: 'Mayest
Thou bring back the sacrifice to Thy holy house, and the
fire-offerings as well as their prayers receive with favour' 4 ,
and in the additional 'amidah for sabbaths, new moon, and
festivals he asks that 'the prayers of our lips may be ac-
z Cf. H. Danby, TheMishnah, 172.
2 Cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism, ii. 172.
3 See Strack-Billerbeck, ii. 277.
*Cf. F. C. N. Hicks, The Fullness of Sacrifice, 107.
SACRIFICE 67
counted, accepted, and esteemed before Thee, as if we had
offered the daily sacrifice at its appointed time, and had
been represented by our delegation*. 1
The question : What was the attitude of Jesus to the
sacrificial system? must now be faced. This question is
of great importance because it is bound up with the fur-
ther question whether He thought of His suffering and
death in terms of sacrifice.
The variety of critical opinion upon these questions is
in itself a sufficient warning that the true answer is not
easy to find. Our previous discussion of such themes as
the Kingdom of God, Messiahship, and the Suffering Ser-
vant predisposes us to expect that His attitude to sacrifice
will display the same originality and distinctiveness we
have found elsewhere. This, in fact, proves to be the
case.
On the one hand, an attitude of detachment from the
cultus on the part of Jesus is visible in the Gospel records.
It is remarkable that there is no evidence to show that He
ever participated in the Temple sacrifices. Not even in
the Fourth Gospel, where there are several references to
'feasts' at Jerusalem, 2 is it said that Jesus offered sacrifice
or was present at the time of offering. The only evidence
which might suggest that He did take part in the sacrifices
is the story of Preparations for the Passover (Mk. xiv.
12-6) and the saying: 'With desire I have desired to eat
this passover with you before I suffer' (Lk. xxii. 1 5). This
evidence, however, is uncertain because, while the Pass-
over counted as a sacrifice, 8 its character at the time was
1 M. Gaster, The Prayer Book and Order of Service of the Spanish aad
Portuguese Jews, i. 1 1, cited by E. O. James, Origins of Sacrifice, 264.
2 Cf. Jn. ii. 13, v. i, vi. 4, vii. 2, 10, x. 22.
3 Cf. G. B. Gray, op. tit., 352.
68 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
mainly that of a memorial meal. 1 Moreover, the offering
of the lamb is not mentioned. The argument from silence
always needs to be stated with care, and it may be acciden-
tal that no positive tradition has survived, but the proba-
bilities are that Jesus stood apart from the Temple rites
without questioning their validity. This attitude is fur-
ther illustrated in the story of the Cleansing of the Temple
(Mk. xi, 1 5-7). It is probably too sweeping a conclusion
to infer, with R. H. Kennett, 2 that the story implies an
attack by Jesus upon the cultus, but there is in His action
an implicit condemnation of the traffic in victims insepar-
ably connected with the sacrifices, as well as a protest
against the greed and the secular spirit which turns 'a
house of prayer' into 'a den of robbers* (Mk. xi. 1 7). 8
On the other hand there is no sufficient evidence to
show that Jesus shared the attitude of some of the pre-
exilic prophets in repudiating the sacrificial system. The
only passages which might seem to point in this direction
are Mt. ix. 13^, xii. 7 and Mk. xiL 33f.
Of these passages, the first two are quotations of Hos.
vi. 6: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' Both are
Matthaean insertions in Markan stories, Mt. ix. 130 in
the story about Eating with Publicans and Sinners (Mk.
ii. 1 6), and Mt. xii. 7 in the story of Cornfields on the
Sabbath Day (Mk. ii. 23-8). It would be a rash inter-
pretation to say that in using this quotation Jesus was re-
pudiating the cultus. The attitude implied is that of
Isaiah, Hosea, and other prophets who condemned un-
ethical sacrificial practices. There is a bold assertion of
the superiority of moral claims over those of ritual, but
nothing parallel to the root and branch rejection charac-
iCf. G. B. Gray, op. cit. 9 376; R. H. Kennett, op. cit., 135.
fy./., 133.
3 Cf. A. E. J. Rawlinson, St. Mark, 156.
SACRIFICE 69
teristic of Jeremiah. This view is confirmed by the more
important passage in Mk. xii. 33f. where Jesus agrees
with the scribe who says concerning God : 'To love him
with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with
all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is
much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.'
Again, there is the same healthy recognition of the supre-
macy of the ethical over the ceremonial, shown by the
reply of Jesus : 'Thou art not far from the kingdom of
God.' No one, however, would suppose that the scribe
meant his words as a rejection of the Old Testament sacri-
ficial system, nor can the reply of Jesus be interpreted in
such a sense. The point of view is bold and detached,
but it is not one of repudiation.
Far from rejecting the cultus, Jesus on occasion com-
manded its observance. When He healed the leper, He
said: 'Go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for
thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a
testimony unto them' (Mk. i. 44), and in the story of the
Ten Lepers He says : 'Go and shew yourselves unto the
priests' (Lk. xvii. 14). The significance of these words is
seen only when it is remembered that the requirement of
the Levitical Law included the sacrifice of lambs and a
meal offering of fine flour mingled with oil (Lev. xiv. 10).
If it is said that only by fulfilling the commands of the Law
could lepers be certified as clean, it remains true that re-
course to the cultus could never have been enjoined by one
who repudiated it, unless he had made it clear that his ad-
vice was merely in the interests of conventional prudence.
Of this attitude, however, there is no evidence in the re-
cords, and the suggestion is not in accord with the mind
and spirit of Jesus.
Even more significant is the saying recorded in Mt. v.
f.: 'If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar,
7 o JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught
against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go
thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come
and offer thy gift/ These would be strange words on the
lips of one who rejected the sacrificial system ! Not only
is the spirit in which sacrifices are to be offered indicated,
but a command or, at least, an invitation to 'come and
offer' is given.
In view of these passages the conclusion must be drawn
that, in relation to the sacrificial system, the attitude of
Jesus was not that of an iconoclast, but rather that of one
who, while alive to its limitations, recognized its place in
the religious life of the nation. It may safely be said that,
if Jesus had condemned the sacrificial system, early Chris-
tian tradition would not be as silent as it is, for the Gospels
faithfully record His condemnation of scribal teaching in
relation to the Sabbath, Korban, fasting, tithing, and cere-
monial washings. But no word of His in opposition to
that system can be cited, other than the inconclusive pas-
sages already examined, while, as we have seen, other say-
ings point in the opposite direction. It is therefore im-
possible to agree with the opinion of R. H. Kennett, that
'our Lord accepted and indeed "fulfilled" the teaching of
the great pre-exilic prophets on the subject of sacrifice'. 1
Apart from the quotation from Hosea in Mt. ix. 13^,
xii. 7, it is just the well-known anti-sacrificial Old Testa-
ment sayings which are so markedly wanting in the quota-
tions of Jesus ; and it is worth noting that, while He quotes
the words of Isaiah freely, 2 His use of Jeremiah is sparing. 8
*0p.ctt. 9 135.
3 Cf. Mk. iv. 12, yii. 6f., ix. 48, xi. 17, xii. r, xiii. 8, 24f.; Mt. v. 4, 35,
vi. 6, xi. 5 ( = Lk. vii. 22), xi. 23 ( Lk. x. 15); Lk. iv. i8, xxii. 37.
3 Cf. Mk. xi. 17 ('a den of robbers'); Mt. vii. 22 ('prophesy by thy
name/) xxiii. 38 ( = Lk. xiii. 35, Tour house is left unto you desolate').
SACRIFICE 71
It is often said that, when Jesus spoke of a 'new cove-
nant', He was referring to Jer. xxxL 31. If, as is prob-
able, this assertion is true, it must be inferred that He
was correcting, or at least adding to, Jeremiah's teaching;
for He spoke of 'the new covenant in my blood \ or of 'the
blood ot the covenant', an idea which is quite foreign to the
prophet's forecast, and for which it is necessary to go to
the account of the institution of the Covenant, with its
accompanying sacrifices, described in Exodus xxiv. 8 - 1
The respect with which Jesus regarded the cultus is in
harmony with His attitude to the Temple. While He
foretold the destruction of the Temple (Mk. xiii. if.), it is
clear from the evidence supplied by the Gospels, and espe-
cially the M source, that He held it in high esteem. He
was often to be found teaching in the Temple-courts
(Mk. xi. 27, xii. 35, xiv. 49; Lk. xix. 47, xxi. 37f.)> and
paid the annual tax of half a shekel for its support (Mt.
xvii. 24). He spoke of the Temple as sanctifying the
gold by which it was adorned (Mt. xxiii. 1 7), and of the
altar as sanctifying the gift that was brought to it (Mt.
xxiii. 19). The Temple was for Him the dwelling-place
of God (Mt. xxiii. 2 1), and Jerusalem was 'the city of the
great King' (Mt. v. 35), In consequence, it must be con-
cluded that when He spoke of the doom of the Temple
buildings, it was with the sorrow of a patriot rather than
with the wrath of an iconoclast. 2
The attitude of Jesus to the sacrificial system is entirely
lc And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said,
Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you
concerning all these words.' See further the discussion in Part II, p. 1 3 6f.
2 Cf. B. H. Branscomb: 'Whatever the facts may be as to the charge that
he threatened to destroy the Temple, we may be sure that he spoke of its
coming destruction rather in the prophetic manner of a punishment to
come upon the nation than as a divine judgment against the Temple itself,'
Jesus and the Law of Moses > 1 14.
72 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
in keeping with His attitude to the Law of which that sys-
tem formed part. On the one hand, there is unmistak-
able evidence that His attitude to the Law, both oral and
written, was singularly free and even revolutionary in its
implications; on the other hand, it is equally clear that He
reverenced the Torah and estimated its principles and its
commands in the highest terms. He subordinated the
claims of the law of the Sabbath to the demands of com-
passion (cf. Mk. ii. 23-8, iii. 1-5); He reinterpreted the
law of divorce (cf. Mk. x. 2-12; Lk. xvi. 18); He repudi-
ated the growing demand that laymen should be cere-
monially pure before partaking of food (cf. Mk. vii. 5-8);
He condemned oaths which stood in the way of duties to-
wards parents (cf. Mk. vii. 9-13); He roundly assailed the
principle fundamental to taboos on food when He de-
clared: 'There is nothing from without the man, that go-
ing into him can defile him : but the things which proceed
out of the man are those that defile the man' (Mk. vii. 1 5).*
In these passages the stage is set for those who would con-
tend that Jesus rejected the Torah, but such a conclusion
would be entirely erroneous, for both in Q and in M there
are sayings of a totally different kind. From Q comes the
saying on tithing at the expense of judgment and the love
of God, which ends with the words : 'But these ought ye to
have done, and not to leave the other undone* (Lk. xi. 42 ;
Mt. xxiii. 23); and the declaration: 'It is easier for heaven
and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall'
(Lk. xvi. 17 ; cf. Mt. v. 1 8). 2 Even more striking are the
sayings taken from M the claim of Jesus that He came,
not to destroy, but to fulfil the law and the prophets (Mt.
v, 17); the assertion that the man who breaks one of the
least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be
a Mark adds to the similar saying in vii. i8f.: 'making all meats clean.'
2 The Matthaean form of this saying may be derived from M.
SACRIFICE 73
called least in the kingdom of heaven (Mt. v. 1 9) ; the say-
ing which sets the righteousness of the scribes and Phari-
sees as a standard to be exceeded if men are to enter into
the kingdom (Mt. v. 20); and, most remarkable of all, the
recognition that the scribes and the Pharisees 'sit on
Moses' seat', and the command: 'All things therefore
whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe : but do not
after their works; for they say, and do not' (Mt. xxiii. 2f.).
It is reasonable to urge that some of these sayings have
been sharpened in the course of transmission, and have
been given a definiteness which originally they did not
possess, 1 but it is in the highest degree unlikely that they
are inventions, without any historical basis in the actual
teaching of Jesus. The conflict between the more liberal
section in the primitive Church, represented by Paul, and
the more conservative party at Jerusalem, represented by
James, is inexplicable if both sides could not appeal to
sayings of Jesus which, taken in isolation, supported the
claims of each. It is impossible, therefore, to argue with
any justice that Jesus rejected the Torah; on the con-
trary, we must conclude, with B. H. Branscomb, that
while 'Paul stands out in a new and stronger light as an
interpreter and exponent of the teachings of Jesus', yet,
at the same time, 'Jesus had been no iconoclast', but 'had
spoken of the Torah in terms of deepest appreciation'. 2
In the present argument it would be right to claim that
the greater includes the less, and that the attitude of Jesus
to the Law excludes the suggestion that He repudiated
the sacrificial system. Investigation, however, yields a
more positive result; it shows that in both cases His atti-
tude was actually the same. Accordingly, we must con-
1 Cf. B. H. Branscomb, Jesus and the Law of Moses* pp. 212, 23ifl;
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 2$6.
*Op. cit. 279^
74 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
elude that, while perceiving the limitations of sacrificial
worship, Jesus was no less conscious of its abiding reli-
gious values.
This conclusion raises a presumption in favour of the
view that Jesus thought of His death in terms of sacrifice.
The two passages which are usually cited in this con-
nexion are Mk. x. 45 : 'The Son of man came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a
ransom for many* (Xvrpov dvrl TroAAcDv), and Mk. xiv. 24:
'This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for
many/ 1 These sayings must receive detailed consider-
ation later. Here it is sufficient to say that certainly
the second, and probably also the first saying, indi-
cates that, when Jesus spoke of His death, His thought
was influenced by Old Testament teaching regarding
sacrifice. In the case of the first passage, this conclusion
cannot be established on linguistic grounds, but depends
on whether the phrase 'a ransom for many' reflects the in-
fluence of Isa. liii., and whether the idea of the Servant, as
Jesus understood it, was a sacrificial concept. In the
second passage the sacrificial interpretation is inescapable.
The term 'blood' does not simply indicate a violent death;
its association with the idea of a 'covenant* in all the
variant forms in which this saying appears fixes its mean-
ing as blood poured out in sacrifice, and this interpretation
is confirmed by the words 'which is shed for many'.
Whatever explanation of the death of Jesus we may give
to-day, there can be no doubt at all that Jesus Himself
understood its meaning in terms of sacrifice.
Is it possible to express this broad conclusion more
precisely? It is quite improbable that Jesus thought of
^-Matthew adds: 'unto remission of sins' (xxvi. 28). In I Cor. xi. 25 the
saying appears in the form: 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood.'
Cf, LL xxii. 20.
SACRIFICE 75
His death as a higher substitute for any one of the Old
Testament sacrifices, such as, for example, the sin-offering
or the guilt-offering. This would be altogether too crude
an explanation of His thought and would do justice
neither to His detached attitude to the cultus nor to the
character of these particular sacrifices. It is much more
likely that the ideas implicit in sacrificial worship influ-
enced His thinking, and, in particular, the idea of a rep-
resentative offering to God in which men might share.
Whether He entertained this belief depends on whether
He thought of His death as representative and as mediat-
orial; and this question depends in turn upon the inter-
pretation we give to His sayings and to the character of
His mission and destiny as He saw them in the course
of His ministry.
PART II
THE PASSION-SAYINGS IN THE
GOSPELS
INTRODUCTION
A ideal method of studying the sayings of Jesus with
reference to His death would be to examine them
in their historical context in the story of His life, to
consider them in the light of events, and to relate them to
any development it may be possible to trace in the pro-
gress of His thought concerning His mission and destiny.
Unfortunately, our sources are such that only in part can
we do this ; some of the most important sayings have come
down to us without any historical context, and the Markan
order is itself a subject of controversy and debate. It is
true that Form-criticism, which rightly emphasizes the fact
that much of the earliest tradition circulated in the form of
isolated units, has treated the Markan order in much too
cavalier a fashion ; but even when this criticism is admitted,
the fact remains that it is no more than an outline in which
many gaps are visible, and within which it is impossible to
insert all the separate sayings in question. In these cir-
cumstances, it is better to study them in the order in which
they appear in the sources.
Most of the sayings are found in Mark and in the L
tradition which is peculiar to Luke; no Passion-saying can
be traced to the M source, and probably the same is true
of Q. This distribution of the evidence is not surprising
if we have regard to the nature of M and Q. These
sources are, in the main, collections of ethical and religious
precepts bearing on life and conduct; and it is not in such
collections that we should expect to find sayings of Jesus
relative to His Passion. Sayings of this kind naturally
appear in Pronouncement-stories, Passion-narratives, and
79
80 INTRODUCTION
Stories about Jesus; and this means that we must find
them in Mark and in the tradition peculiar to Luke. Of
course, nearly all the Markan sayings have parallels in
Matthew and in Luke, and these too must be considered,
in order to see what changes have taken place in the course
of transmission; but primary consideration must obviously
be given to the sayings in Mark. Those peculiar to
Luke are fewer in number; some of them are parallel
versions of Markan sayings, others are new traditions of
great importance to the inquiry.
Besides the Synoptic sayings, those preserved in the
Pauline narrative of the Last Supper, in i Cor. xi. 23-5,
must be considered, for these are some of the most impor-
tant utterances of Jesus relative to His Passion. The
Johannine sayings also call for investigation. Their
peculiar character is well known, but even as 'interpreta-
tions' and as utterances expressed in another 'idiom',
they cannot safely be neglected by any one who seeks to
know how Jesus viewed His death. We shall consider
then: (i) the Markan sayings; (2) the sayings in the L
tradition; (3) the sayings in i Cor. xi. 23-5; and (4) the
Johannine sayings.
One point regarding method is worthy of special notice.
It not infrequently happens that Passion-sayings appear in
two or more sources in a rudimentary narrative frame-
work, and that a saying, or a portion of one, is found in
one source but is wanting in another. Very often this
fact is looked upon as a serious disqualification. Rash-
dall's treatment of the narratives of the Supper furnishes
a good example. 1 He points out that the phrase 'which
is for you', attached to the words: 'This is my body,' in
i Cor. xi. 24, is wanting in Mk. xiv. 22 and in the shorter
text of Luke (cf. xxii. 14-9^). On this ground he rejects
*The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology 41, 43,
INTRODUCTION 81
the phrase. Similarly, he questions the words : 'which is
shed for many" (Mk.xiv. 24), 'as these words are not found
in St. Paul or in the shorter text of St. Luke*. This was
never a good argument, and the principles of Form-
criticism ought to render it less cogent still, for it assumes
that the narratives are reports and that only the common
element is genuine. If, however, as the new criticism is
emphasizing, narratives owe their form to the special in-
terests of those who shaped them, this assumption is base-
less. A phrase wanting in an original narrative may not
be original, but this cannot immediately be assumed; it
may fail to appear in a particular account simply because
it does not lie on the high-road of the narrator's interest,
or because its substance is taken for granted. In other
words, without neglecting 'omissions, ' narratives must be
judged mainly by what they contain, and not by what
they omit. Even if a peculiar phrase is an addition, it needs
to be considered, whether it merely 'brings out' what is
already implied, or whether it adds something alien to
the meaning of the original saying. A gloss may be a
valuable comment which it is folly to ignore, and a textual
variation indicates how the original was understood at an
early time. These considerations enhance the delicacy
of Synoptic Criticism and are a salutary warning against
the perils of doctrinaire assumptions.
T
THE MARKAN SAYINGS
HE Markan sayings relating to the Passion may be
grouped as follows :
(1) The Saying about the Removal of the Bride-
groom.
(2) The Sayings regarding the Suffering of the Son of
Man.
(3) The Saying at the Descent from the Mount of Trans-
figuration.
(4) The Saying about the Cup and Baptism.
(5) The 'Ransom' Passage.
(6) The Parable of the Vineyard.
(7) The Saying in the Story of the Anointing.
(8) The Prophecy of the Betrayal.
(9) The Sayings at the Last Supper.
(10) Two Old Testament Quotations: The Stone, The
Shepherd.
(i i) The Gethsemane Sayings.
(12) The Cry from the Cross.
(i) THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE BRIDEGROOM
(Mk. ii. igf.; cf. Mt. ix. 155 Lk. v. 34f.)-
19*2. 'Can the sons of the bride-chamber fast, while bridegroom is
with them?
iqb. jts long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot
fast.
82
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 83
20a. But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken
away from them,
2,ob. jfnd then will they fast in that day*
The agreement of Matthew and Luke with Mark is almost
verbatim, except that both Evangelists omit Mk. ii. 19^. The
omission of 19^ by D W a b e &c. has probably no significance, and
may be an assimilation to the text of Mt. and Lk.
This saying of Jesus is of great interest since it is the
earliest recorded reference to His death in the Markan
story. It raises many difficulties just because it appears
so early in Mark, and also because it seems to reflect two
different attitudes to the question of fasting. On these
grounds many critics regard 19^, 20 as a later addition,
in which the Christian community justifies its existing
practice in respect of fasting. 1 The structure of the two
verses is against this view. 19^ merely repeats the
thought of 1 9 a in another form and the verse is a clear
example of Semitic parallelism. The parallelism, indeed,
is continued in 20, since there is an obvious contrast
between iya and 20^, and between 19^ and 20^. This
fact, so far as it goes, favours the originality of the entire
saying; as a later construction of the community, it is too
neat to be convincing. Again, the whole saying is natur-
ally expressed; one thought leads to another. The idea
of the removal of the bridegroom in 20 is already implicit
in 19^, and indeed in 19^, in the words: * while the bride-
groom is with them/ 2 Thus, the section is a unity.
Further, there is no convincing reason why 19^, 20, as
well as 1 9#, should not come from the lips of Jesus. It is
a Cf. W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos 2 , 40^; R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte
der synopttschen Tradition, 17; M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, 65.
See the important note in C. H. DodcTs The Parables of the Kingdom, 1 16.
2 It is perhaps a perception of this fact which led Bousset to recast 190,
and to suggest that originally the question ran: 'Can wedding-guests fast?',
84 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
unnecessary to assume that in iga He is defending a mode
of life without fasting, and hence to infer that 20, which
contemplates fasting, cannot be genuine. What He
opposes is not fasting in general, 1 but fasting under the
special conditions of the Messianic time in which the
disciples are living in company with Himself. The ab-
sence of the bridegroom from the feast must obviously
make a difference to their joy, and it is to express this that
Jesus repeats the reference to fasting. The primary in-
tention is not to prophesy the practice of fasting, but to
describe the change which the removal of the bridegroom
must bring. Now there is joy ; then there will be sorrow !
The saying indicates that during the Galilean Ministry
Jesus faced the eventuality of death and its effect upon His
disciples. 2
It is unfortunate that the saying cannot be dated with
any precision, since it belongs to a section (Mk. ii. i-iii. 6)
which is arranged topically, and which probably existed
as a connected whole at the time when Mark wrote his
Gospel. 3 Whether it really belongs to a point so early as
that suggested by the Markan outline, we cannot tell, but
the Evangelist is probably right in placing it well before
the account of Peter's Confession near Caesarea Philippi;
it obviously belongs to a time when the liberal spirit of
Jesus and His disciples was beginning to arouse comment
and opposition. Its importance is great, not only because
it indicates that in the full tide of the Galilean Mission
Jesus faced the possibility of death, but also because it
shows that already He was confronted with the enigma
1 Cf.Mt.vi.i6.
2 A. E. J. Rawlinson thinks that the story is quite intelligible as it stands,
if we assume that the episode happened soon after the Baptist's death, St.
Mark, 31.
8 Cf. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, 16, 177.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 85
present in the thought of the death of the Messiah. The
term 'Bridegroom' is a descriptive title used with reference
to the Messiah 1 in Mt. xxv. I ; Jn. iii. 28f., and recalls the
ideas of Hos. ii. igf., and its use by Jesus proves that He
was alive to the problem which is solved by Him in the
sayings of Mk. viii. 3 1, ix. 3 1, x. 33. These are the pas-
sages which speak of the suffering and rejection of the Son
of Man.
(2) THE SAYINGS ON THE SUFFERING AND REJECTION OF THE SON
OF MAN (Mk. viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 33f.).
(a) 'And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must
suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief
priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again'
(c Mt. xvi. 215 Lk. ix. 22).
(4) Tor he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of
man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him;
and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again* (cf. Mt.
xvii. 22f5 Lk. ix. 44).
(c) 'Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be
delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn
him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles: and they shall
mock him, and shall spit upon htm, and shall scourge him, and shall
kill him; and after three days he shall rise again* (cf. Mt. xx. i8f.;
Lk. xviii. 31-3).
Matthew and Luke reproduce these passages with very
considerable fidelity. The changes are of minor import-
ance, but are of much interest in connexion with the ques-
tion of the genuineness of Mark's version. The altera-
tions, made it should be remembered some fifteen or
twenty years after Mark was written, may be summarized
as follows :
1 Cf. also Eph. v. 28ff. and Apoc. xix. 7, and see Strack-BiHerbeck,
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud nnd Midrasch, i. 517;
E, Klostermann, Da s Markusevangelium, 33.
86 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
The kter Evangelists change 'after three days' into 'the third
day' (Lk. omits the phrase in (by). In (a) after 'must' Matthew
inserts 'go unto Jerusalem', and omits 'rejected'; Luke turns the
passage into direct speech. In (b) Matthew omits 'when he is
killed'; Luke merely gives the first part of the saying, and omits the
references to killing and rising again. In (c) Matthew deletes the
phrase about spitting, and instead of 'kill' has 'crucify'; Luke
summarizes the first part of the passage in the words: 'Behold, we
go up to Jerusalem, and all the things that are written by the pro-
phets shall be accomplished unto the Son of man,' and after 'mocked'
adds 'and shamefully entreated'.
In the light of the use which Matthew and Luke have
made of their source, the opinion that the Markan sayings
are prophecies 'after the event' and products of early
Christian reflection, 1 ought to be received with some de-
gree of scepticism. After half a generation of further
Christian experience, the sayings reappear in the later
Gospels with less important alterations than might be ex-
pected. Most of the changes are omissions ; there are
few expansions; and the only alterations which are due to
a knowledge of the Passion Story are the substitution of
the phrase 'the third day' for 'after three days', the use by
Matthew of the word 'crucify', and the reference by Luke
to 'the prophets' and his employment of the words 'and
shamefully entreated'. These changes are secondary
modifications, introduced perhaps unconsciously because
of a knowledge of what had happened. There does not
seem to be adequate reason to suspect more in the case of
the Markan sayings. Some modifications may well have
been made in the course of transmission, but they are not
1 Cf. Ed. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums, i. nyf.; W.
Bousset, op. dt. 9 16; K. L. Schmidt, DerRahmen der Geschichte Jesu 9 218;
M. Dibelius: 'What Mark reproduced therefore in these words is in brief
the preaching of the Church about the Son of Man,' From Tradition to
Gospel, 226; B. H. Branscomb, The Gospel of Mark, 157.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 87
likely to have been such as to transform radically the
meaning of the original announcement.
A very interesting attempt has recently been made by
Rudolf Otto to trace the history of these sayings. 1 Otto
finds the simplest and most original anticipations of suffer-
ing and death in such sayings as Lk. xii. 50: 'I have a
baptism to be baptised with; and how am I straitened till
it be accomplished!'; Mk. ix. 12: 'How is it written of the
Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be set
at nought?'; and Lk. xvii. 25: 'But first must he suffer
many things and be rejected of this generation.' To this
type belong the opening words of Mk. ix. 3 1 : 'The Son
of man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they
shall kill him.' Here, observes Otto, nothing is said of
being delivered into the hands of the Romans, nothing
about details, nothing of crucifixion. Jesus, indeed, is
probably thinking of stoning at the hands of a mob rather
than crucifixion; and this may be suggested by His refer-
ence to Jerusalem which 'stoneth them that are sent to her'
(Mt. xxiii. 37), and by His comparison, at the Supper, of
His body with broken bread (Mk, xiv, 22), The doc-
trinal ideas of the community (GemeindedogmatiK) appear
in the latter part of Mk. ix, 3 1 , in the words : 'and when he
is killed, after three days he shall rise again.' There is a
further addition in Mk. viii. 3 1 in the reference to 'the
elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes', and still
more supplements in Mk. x. 33^, in the allusions to con-
demnation, delivering over to the Gentiles, mocking,
spitting, scourging, and execution. Finally, the most
complete form appears in Mt. xx. 19 where the word
'crucify' is expressly employed. While tracing this de-
velopment, Otto argues that it points to the genuineness of
the original forms (Lk. xii. 50, xvii, 2 5 ; Mk. ix. 1 2^, 3 1 a) y
Gottes und Mcnschemohn, 311-4.
88 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
since no one would have invented these at a later time
Jesus, therefore, actually foresaw His suffering; He pos-
sessed the charism of prophecy and exercised it in relatior
to Himself. 1
There is undoubtedly much that is attractive in this
critical reconstruction. Otto is not afraid of making con-
cessions and can press them into the service of apologetics,
He has a shorter line to defend and the citadel appears tc
be impregnable. Nevertheless, it should be considered
whether the advantages are not purchased too dearly,
whether the concessions are not made at the expense of
history in the interests of a theoretical scheme. Is it neces-
sary, for example, to dismiss the references to 'rising
again'? By so doing, one escapes the severest strictures
to which the sayings are exposed, for it has frequently
been claimed that, since the disciples were completely
overwhelmed by the events of the Passion and did not ex-
pect the Resurrection, these phrases cannot be authentic. 2
This argument cannot be said to be conclusive, if we have
regard to the ideas of the disciples regarding Messiahship
and remember how effectively attention to plain state-
ments is limited by strong preconceptions. Moreover, if,
as Otto powerfully contends, 8 Jesus was deeply influenced
in His prophecies of suffering by Isa. liii., it is improbable
that He would content Himself with dark allusions to
suffering, and nothing more. Isa. liii. 12 definitely
speaks of the triumph and exaltation of the Servant who
'poured out his soul unto death'. He is to 'see of the
travail of his soul' (liii. 1 1) and to 'divide the spoil with the
I Of. /., 3i3f. Otto has already observed that it is a mark of the
Charismatiker to prophesy his fate, and compares the case of Paul (cf. Acts
xx. 22fF.), op. tit., 310.
2 C K. L. Schmidt, Dtr RaAmen der Geschichte Jeus, 218.
t.) 203-20.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 89
strong* (KiL 1 2). It is reasonable, therefore, to believe that
Jesus spoke, not only of His suffering and death, but also
of His vindication and of His victory over death. Fur-
ther, the phrase 'after three days', found in all the Markan
passages, is worthy of note. Although C, H. Turner 1
has shown that in the Septuagint 'after three days' can be
the equivalent of 'the third day', the fact that both
Matthew and Luke independently alter their common
source, suggests their uneasiness with the Markan expres-
sion and strengthens the possibility that, as used by Jesus,
'after three days' means a short undefined interval like the
phrase *on the third day' in Hos. vi. 2. 2 In this case the
language is distinctive and is not likely to be a later
addition.
The other points raised by Otto are opinions less open
to close discussion. The suggestion that Jesus antici-
pated stoning is an interesting speculation, but one can
hardly say more. There is no good reason why Jesus
should not have referred to 'the elders, and the chief
priests, and the scribes' (viii. 31), and the details men-
tioned in x. 33f. cannot be thought impossible in the mind
of one who faced the certainty of suffering and rejection
with any degree of imagination. At the same time the
close agreement of the series condemnation, surrender
to the Gentiles, mocking, spitting, scourging, killing, and
resurrection with the events narrated in Mk. xiv. 53-
xvi. 8, leaves room for hesitation, and it is in this saying,
and still more in Mt. xx. 19 where crucifixion is men-
tioned, that there is most reason to infer the presence of
modifications. As regards the sayings as a whole the
opinion expressed at the beginning of this discussion
seems well justified. In substance the sayings are not
l St. Mark, 4of. Turner refers to Gen. xlii. i jL and z Chron. x. 5, 1 2.
2 Cf. also Lk. xiii. 32, and see the discussion on p. 168.
9 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
vatidnia ex eventu, and such modifications as may have
been made are not serious or important. 1
The great importance of the sayings is beyond ques-
tion. 2 The word 'must' (Se?) indicates that Jesus saw
His suffering, death, and rising again as inward and
divinely conditioned necessities. In Mk. ii. 1 9f. He con-
templates the possibility of the 'taking away' of the Bride-
groom; here He implies that this is no mere stroke of fate,
but is an essential part of His mission. This conviction
is announced as a new disclosure, but not as something of
which Jesus thought for the first time after Peter's Con-
fession. What is disclosed is a new interpretation of the
mission and destiny of the Son of Man. Instead of the
ideas of rule and dominion present in Dan. vii. 14, a rSle
of rejection and suffering is assigned to him, and, although
a time of conflict is described in Dan. vii. 2 1, 25, it is from
Isa. liii. that the darker colours in the portraiture are de-
rived. No reference, however, is made to any Old Testa-
ment passage, and this implies that before Caesarea
Philippi Jesus had fused together diverse elements into
the composite picture of the Suffering Son of Man in
whose form He saw Himself. But this perception means
that, besides facing the possibilities of rejection and death,
Jesus had reached a solution. He did not see His death
as a catastrophe, but as an essential part of His Messianic
achievement. He had to suffer and to rise again; such
was the Divine purpose He had made His own. Why
rejection and death were necessary, and what purpose
x The opinion that the three Markan passages are variant forms of the
same saying would, if true, strengthen its attestation, but this opinion (cf.
A. T. Cadoux, The Sources of the Second Gospel, 2jf.) has little in its favour
and has difficulties of its own. Cf. Rawlinson, 143; Wood, 694.
2 For an interesting and detailed account of the discussion which has
arisen on the question, why Jesus went to Jerusalem, see Montefiore, The
Synoptic Gospels, i. 190-3.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 91
they would fulfil, the sayings do not explain; but it is
certain that Jesus must have found in His sufferings pro-
found ethical and spiritual meaning. Other sayings may
throw light upon that meaning, but it is probable that its
secret lies in the sense in which He interpreted His
mission, and the relationship in which He believed Him-
self to stand both to God and to men.
(3) THE SAYING AT THE DESCENT FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANS-
FIGURATION (Mk, ix. I2i; Mt. xvii. I2b).
*jind how is it written of the Son ofman^ that he should suffer many
things and be set at nought^
Luke does not make use of ML ix. 9-135 but cf. Lk. xvii. 25:
'But first must he suffer many things and be rejected of this
generation/ Matthew alters the position of the saying and
records it after the two references to Elijah in the form: 'Even so
shall the Son of man also suffer of them.'
Like the sayings already examined, this passage speaks
of the suffering of the Son of Man, but it differs from Mk.
viii. 31, ix. 3 1, x. 33 f. in that there is an explicit reference
to Scripture, but no direct mention of death and resurrec-
tion. The critical questions which arise can be ade-
quately treated only when the passage is studied in rela-
tion to its context. Only then can it be decided whether
the words are a query of Jesus, a question of the disciples
or of others, a statement of the Evangelist, or a com-
munity-saying. As they stand in Mk., the words are
spoken by Jesus during the descent from the Mount of
Transfiguration. Mark says that as they came down
Jesus charged His disciples that they should tell no one
of what they had seen 'save when the Son of man should
have risen again from the dead'. He records that
they kept the saying, 'questioning among themselves
92 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
what the rising from the dead should mean/ and then
continues :
ii. *And they asked him, saying. How is it that the scribes say
that Elijah must first come ? (R. V nag.). And he said unto
them, Elijah indeed cometh first, and restoreth all things:
and how is it written of the Son ofman, that he should suffer
1 3. many things and be set at nought? But I say unto you, that
Elijah is come, and they have done unto him whatsoever
they listed, even as it is written of him.*
The difficulties raised by lib are manifest: it does not
appear to be related to the disciples' question; it separates
the references to Elijah; and as a question put by Jesus it
reads strangely. It is not surprising, therefore, that
various transpositions have been suggested, and that in
these reconstructions the complex 12^ + 13 * s a common
feature. An attractive view, supported by Bousset, 1
Bultmann, 2 Klostermann, 8 and Sundwall, 4 is that origin-
ally, in whole or in part, 11-3 followed ix. i, and that
the connexion has been broken by Mark's insertion of the
story of the Transfiguration (ix. 2-10). Bousset 5 solves
the difficulties of 12^ by cancelling it as a redactional addi-
tion, 6 but Sundwall transposes it with 12^, and in this
way obtains the following rearrangement: i, n, 12^,
I2#, 13, This suggestion furnishes little help. Two
references to Elijah are brought together, but the diffi-
^Kyrios Christos 2 , 6in 2; cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, i. 208.
2 Z>/> Geschickte der synoptischen Tradition, 1 3 if,
*DasMarku$evangelium, 98, 101.
4 D/V Zusammensetzung des Markusevangetiums 9 57.
*Op. tit., 7.
6 Bultmann explains the entire complex (ix. i. 11-3) as a community-
product: 'Its origin out of the theological debates of the community should
be clear,' op. cit. t 131. The question of genuineness is discussed later.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 93
culties of 1 2 3 are increased, since now the question is that
of the bystanders, whereas, according to Mk. viii. 31,
ix. 31, x. 33f., the teaching is given to the disciples alone. 1
A better reconstruction is the transposition suggested by
C. H. Turner, 2 that lib should follow 10. In this case,
lib is a statement of the Evangelist describing the
disciples' perplexity; it assumes a question pondered, and
perhaps asked, by them. This rearrangement has been
received with much favour, and is perhaps the best of
those which have been suggested. 8
It may be doubted, however, if any transposition is
likely to prove satisfactory; each solves some difficulties
only to create others. The combination of iia and 13,
which is the common element in the various proposals,
fatally obscures the remark about Elijah in 13 : 'they have
also done unto him whatsoever they listed, even as it is
written of him, 7 which is prompted by the reference to the
suffering of the Son of Man. Swete, therefore, is justified
when he says that 'it is unnecessary to suppose that the
order of Mark has here been disturbed, the true sequence
being 1 1, 12^, I2^\ 4 If this is so, a fresh effort should
be made to see if the existing order does not supply the
best meaning.
The problem is the appearance of the question, *How is
it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many
things and be set at nought?' when the disciples have
asked, 'How is it that the scribes say that Elijah must
first come?' (Mk. ix, 1 1). Jesus concedes this scribal in-
1 For Sundwall the question is only one of community-tradition.
*TAe Study of the New Testament, 61.
3 K. L. Sclunidt thinks that the question in 1 1 may have been asked by
any one, or by the scribes and Pharisees. Cf. Der Rahmen der Qeschichte
Jesu> 2261". He takes Mk. ix. 1 1-3 as a self-contained unit.
194.
94 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
terpretation, which is based on Mai. iv. jf., 1 but He does
not believe that this is the only occurrence, still less the
principal event, preceding the Parousia. For Him, there-
fore, a bare agreement is not possible, and this is indicated
in the form of His reply: 'Elijah, it is true (/*&), cometh
first, and restoreth all things' (i2#). a The situation is
one in which He found Himself not infrequently (cf. xii
I4f., 19-23, xiv. 6 if.), and, as elsewhere, He meets it by
asking a counter-question: 'And how is it written of the
Son of Man, that he should suffer many things and be set
at nought?' (12*). For Him this is the decisive issue on
which the coming of the Kingdom waits.
It is not, of course, written anywhere that the Son of
Man should suffer. The question presupposes the
teaching given to the disciples in Mk. viii. 31, and implies
the identification in the mind of Jesus of the Son of Man
and the Suffering Servant of Isa. liii. The suggestion
that before the Parousia, not only must Elijah first come,
but also the Son of Man must suffer, is made allusively; it
is the protest of a teacher whose lesson has not been
learnt. The question asked by the disciples is not ig-
nored. It is answered again (ix. 1 3) ; but in such a man-
ner that the idea of suffering is thrust into the foreground.
'Elijah has actually come; but consider how he fared!
They have also done unto him whatsoever they would, even
as it is written of him/ Jesus is speaking of John the Bap-
tist, 3 as Matthew records (xvii. 13), and the reference to
^Behold, I will send 7011 Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible
day of the Lord come. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the
children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and
smite the earth with a curse.' Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum
Neuen Testament aus Talmud undMidrasch, i. 597, 729, 753-8.
2 Cf. Swete, 193.
3 Cf. also Mt. xi. 14: 'And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah,
which is to come.'
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 95
Scripture is to passages like i Kings xix. 2, 1 ro, and pos-
sibly to the traditions lying behind Apoc. xi. 3- 13*; but
the unspoken suggestion is that what is true of John
( = Elijah) is true also of the Son of Man. Matthew
states this in so many words: 'Even so shall the Son of
man also suffer of them' (xvii. 12). In writing thus,
Matthew is recasting his source, but he correctly ex-
presses what Jesus meant.
The kind of exegesis present in Mk. ix. 1 2f. is not that
of a scientific modern commentator. It is possibly this
fact which predisposes many critics to recast the section.
A relative amount of consistency is thereby imparted to it,
but at the cost of those marks of originality which are to
be found where Jesus uses the Old Testament. Jesus is
not a modern interpreter and cannot, without violence to
His words, be made modern. His methods are His own.
In His treatment of the Elijah-tradition, He follows pre-
cisely the method pursued in His treatment of the problem
of the Messianic sufferings of the Son of Man. Just as
He identifies the Son of Man and the Servant, so here He
identifies John and Elijah; and as He ascribes the suffer-
ing of the Servant to the Son of Man, so He applies what
is said of Elijah to the case of John. The difference is
that Isa. liii. 12 speaks of the death of the Servant whereas
the Old Testament does not mention the martyrdom of
Elijah. This difference, however, is not ignored by
Jesus; He restricts the parallelism in Mk, ix. I2# to the
thought of suffering: 'How is it written of the Son of man,
that he should suffer many things and be set at nought?*
Those commentators are right who see in this saying a
1 C Swete, 194. John 'had found his Jezebel in Herodias'.
2 Cf. Charles, i. 280-92.
8 It is therefore beside the point when Montefiore asks: 'Where is the
martyrdom of Elijah redivivus predicted in Scriptures?', op. ctt. 9 i. 209.
96 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
genuine utterance of Jesus. 1 If we have correctly inter-
preted the meaning of the words, it is needless to consider
the suggestion that Mk. ix. lib is a 'community-saying'.
That a community could so exactly reproduce the manner
of using the Old Testament characteristic of Jesus, and
could create the atmosphere which surrounds His mode of
interpretation, is not credible. R. H. Lightfoot's sugges-
tion that in Mk. ix. 11-3 'we may perhaps see the church
striving to construct some kind of a philosophy of history,
in the light of its convictions about the person and office
of its Master, and of his work and its results', 2 is not con-
vincing. Churches do not construct philosophies of his-
tory, although individuals under their influence may do
so; but, in this case, the result normally has a smoother
form, and lacks the note of reality characteristic of this
passage. F. C. Burkitt shows a truer appreciation of its
nature when he says: 'The passage Mark ix. 9-13, so
abrupt, so unliterary, so obscure in detail, however clear
may be the general meaning, reads to me like remin-
iscences of a real conversation.' 3
The saying is of the greatest importance. It confirms
the view that Jesus believed He must suffer as the Son of
Man, and that He had taught this truth to His disciples.
Further, it is not open, as other passages are often said to
be, to the charge that its words reflect a knowledge of sub-
sequent events. A bare reference to suffering and being
set at nought is a disappointing vaticinium posf eventum \
In one important respect the saying goes farther than the
other passages. In these there is no express reference to
1 Cf. Goguel, Jean-Baptiste, 59; Otto, Reich Gottes und Mensckensohn,
209, 311. Otto remarks: *It is appropriate only in His own mouth, not
in the mouth of a later community/ op. "/., 209,
^History and Interpretation in the Gospels, 92.
^Christian Beginnings, 33f.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 97
Scripture: here it is definitely said that suffering 'is written
of the Son of man'. Moreover, the reference to Scripture
appears naturally; it is occasioned by the question con-
cerning Elijah. Isa. liii. is not mentioned, but it is
hypercriticism to doubt that this Scripture is in mind.
Thus, a probable reference in Mk. viii, 31, ix. 31, x. 33f.,
is confirmed in Mk. ix. 12^. Finally, by reason of its
association with the question concerning Elijah, the saying
shows that Jesus thought of His Messianic suffering in
relation to the coming of the Kingdom. He had faced
the problem created by the expectation of the return of
Elijah before the Parousia, and had solved it by identifying
Elijah with John; but He had also faced a problem not
contemplated in the thought of the time the necessity of
the suffering of the Son of Man before the perfecting of
Rule of God. This problem He had solved in the cer-
tainty of His own suffering and rejection.
(4) THE SAYING ON THE CUP AND THE BAPTISM (Mk. x. 38; cf.
Mt. xx. 22).
* Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the
baptism that I am baptized with?*
Matthew has 'the cup that I am about to drink', and omits the
reference to the baptism (xx. 22). Luke does not make use of
Mk. x. 35-415 but see the similar saying in Lk. xii. 50: 'But I have
a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be
accomplished!* See pp. i&5flF.
The figure of the cup of suffering is common in Old
Testament usage (cf. Psa. Ixxv. 8 ; Isa. 1L I yff. ; Jer. xlix.
12; Lam. iv. 21 ; Ezek. xxiii. 3 iff.)* The symbolism of
baptism is not used in this sense, but the idea of water as
a symbol of calamity appears in such passages as Psa. xlii.
7 ('All thy waves ... are gone over me*), Ixix. 2 ('I am
come into deep waters'), 15 ('Let not the waterflood over-
9 8 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
whelm me'), Isa. xliii. 2 ('When thou passest through th<
waters . . /). 1 Moreover, there is good reason to thinl
that in popular Greek p<x.<7rriad<u was used meta-
phorically in the sense of being 'flooded' or overwhelmed
with calamities. 2 It is, therefore, unnecessary to think oJ
the reference of baptism as the addition of any early tran-
scriber 3 in a Hellenistic environment. 4 Matthew's omis-
sion of the clause is probably no more than an example oi
abbreviation, and Lk. xii. 50 furnishes independent testi-
mony to the use of this imagery by Jesus.
The saying in the following verse, Mk. x. 39, 'The
cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that
I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized/ is involved in the
controversy regarding the 'alleged Papias tradition', that
James and John suffered martyrdom at the hands of the
Jews; and in consequence its genuineness is often ques-
tioned. It is impossible to discuss this problem here. I
have treated it elsewhere, and can only repeat the convic-
tion that the tradition 'ought unhesitatingly to be dis-
missed', 5 and with it the suspicions against Mk. x. 39. In
any case, the problem does not affect Mk. x. 38, unless it
is held to involve the entire narrative. There can be no
reasonable doubt that Jesus did speak of a cup which He
must drink and a baptism that He had to endure, and that,
in particular, He was thinking of His Passion when He
used these metaphors. It is wrong, however, to limit the
z Cf. also Psa. xviii. 16, crsiv, 4f.
2 Moulton and Milligan cite a use of the verb in this sense in a papyrus
document ^.153 B.C., and say: 'That the word was already in use in this
metaphorical sense (c Diod., i. 73. 6), even among uneducated people,
strikingly illustrates our Lord's speaking of His Passion as a "baptism",*
The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 102.
3 Cf. B. W. Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, 148.
4 Cf. A. Oepke, Kittd's Theologisches Worterbuch zum N.T., 536.
6 Cf. TAe Gospels: A Short Introduction^ 117.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 99
reference in the saying to the thought of death. In a true
sense Jesus is already drinking the cup; it includes the
whole of His Messianic sufferings of which death is the
climax.
An additional suggestion calls for notice. Jesus asks
James and John if they are able to drink the cup and to
endure the baptism; and, if x. 39 is accepted, He promises
that they shall do so. The implication is that there is a
sense in which His disciples can share in His Messianic
sufferings. Martyrdom may be contemplated, but it is
improbable that this is the only, or even the chief thought
in the mind of Jesus. Participation of a more spiritual
kind is suggested. The suggestion is that the destiny of
James and John has a parallel in His own experience. We
cannot suppose, however, that Jesus interpreted His own
Cup and Baptism only in terms of martyrdom; such an
inference would be altogether too narrow an explanation
of His thought. But, if this be so, it is also too narrow an
explanation of the promise to James and John. What-
ever the suffering and death of Jesus may be found to
mean, some part in that experience is intended for them.
The nature of the sharing is not disclosed in the enigmatic
words, but its reality is clear. If the same conclusion is
suggested by other sayings, it is a matter of first import-
ance for our understanding of the manner in which Jesus
viewed His suffering and death.
(5) THE 'RANSOM' PASSAGE (ML x. 455 cf. Mt. xx. 28).
'For verily the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but
to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many*
Matthew reproduces the saying with a small stylistic alteration
('Even as the Son of man . . /). Luke omits it probably because
he regards xxii. 24-7 (True Greatness) as an equivalent.
zoo JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
If the genuineness of the passages already examined ha;
often been contested, this is still more true of the presen
saying. 1 Its treatment has suffered gravely from the effect
of doctrinal bias at the hands of both conservative and radi-
cal scholars. For this reason it is necessary to examine its
meaning with great care and, as far as possible, apart froir
the theological implications which appear to be involved.
One of the most notable discussions in modern times is
that of H. Rashdall in The Idea of Atonement in Christian
Theology? His view is that the words about a ransom arc
a 'doctrinally coloured insertion' and were probably 'nevei
uttered by our Lord'. He argues that the passage is
wanting in Q, is irrelevant to its context, and is paralleled
by other examples of later ecclesiastical and dogmatic
language in Mark. He does not deny, however, that the
words 'possibly represent a genuine saying', and therefore
inquires what the original meaning may have been. He
thinks that there is something to be said for taking the
words quite literally: 'in some way this death of His would
save their lives at least for the present/ Such a mean-
ing, he says, would suit the context well. Rashdall, how-
ever, is not satisfied with this explanation. He admits
that, if they are genuine, the words are an echo of Isa. liii.
The thought is that the death would accomplish 'some
kind of spiritual service' which would have 'a liberating,
releasing effect'. Again, the idea may be that the death
would benefit others 'just as the sufferings of other
righteous men had done and might yet do', perhaps as
F. C. Burkitt suggested, 'by causing the Lord of the Vine-
yard to hasten the judgement'; or, less definitely, that the
death would procure benefits for many 'just as the prayers
x See the summary of critical opinion in RashdalTs The Idea of Atonement, .
49-56.
2 Pp. 29-37, 49-56.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 101
and intercessions of the righteous might do'. The only
doctrine of the Atonement, he says, which can trace itself
back to Jesus Himself is 'the simple doctrine that His
death, like His life, was a piece of service or self-sacrifice
for His followers, such as they themselves might very well
make for one another*.
It must be allowed, I think, that this exposition yields
little satisfaction to any one who takes the passage
seriously; it is an example of grasping at straws, at any-
thing, in short, which renders the words as mild and in-
offensive as possible. The assumption is that only a
broad humanitarian interpretation, tinctured with a reli-
gious flavour, is historically conceivable. This assump-
tion throws off all disguise in the assertion that the self-
sacrifice of Jesus for His followers is 'such as they might
very well make for one another'. There is nothing
unique, or even distinctive, in the saying; it is a common-
place of religious experience ! In sum, RashdalPs inter-
pretation is that, either the words are not genuine, or else
represent a passing reflection 1 ; and it is to his credit that
he preferred the former alternative. His views have been
examined because The Idea of Atonement is one of the best
known discussions of modern times. That, in his foun-
dation chapter, he should have accorded such cavalier
treatment to Mk. x. 45 is strange, and only stranger is the
fact that his exposition has been so rarely challenged.
Whatever may be thought of Rashdall's interpretation,
it has the merit of subjecting the Ransom-passage to de-
tailed discussion. More commonly it is rejected, as a
dogmatic insertion, almost without argument. The only
scientific approach is to investigate the saying without
prejudice to the question of genuineness.
There can be little doubt that the ideas which lie behind
102 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
the saying are those of Isa. liii. 1 This is implied in the
declaration that 'the Son of man came ... to serve' '; it is
the same synthesis of ideas which appears in Mk. viii. 3 1
and parallel passages. Further the words 'for many 9
(dvrl TroAAoDv) are suggested by Isa. liii. nf. where the
word 'many ' is found no less than three times :
1 1 . 'By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many\
1 2# . 'Therefore will I divide him a portion among many*f
1 2c. 'Yet he bare the sin of many''.
The phrase 'to give himself and the use of the meta-
phor of a ransom are also probably suggested by the de-
scription of the Suffering Servant. They describe a fate
like that which in the poem is characterized as that of being
'taken away' and 'cut off out of the land of the living' (cf.
Isa. liii. 8) ; and they interpret a service which entails bear-
ing the griefs of others, carrying their sorrows, receiving
the stroke of God and the chastisement by which peace is
won (cf. Isa. liii. 4f.). The service is costly; it demands
a ministry which the many cannot render for themselves ;
and its effect is their deliverance. As such, it is well de-
scribed as one which provides 'a ransom for many'. The
actual word 'ransom' is not found in Isa. liii., but it may
have been taken from Psa. xlix. yf. by one who had
brooded on the nature of the Servant's task. 8 The
Psalmist had said :
'None of them can by any means redeem his brother,
Nor give to God a ransom (kopher) for him:
For the redemption of their soul is costly.
And must be let alone for ever.'
1 Cf. Swete, 24of.; Rawlinson, I46f.; R. Otto, Reich Gottes und Mep-
sckensokn, 207-19. With reference to Mk. x. 45, Otto says: 'Wieder
haben wir hier die deutliche Synthese zwischen Menschensohn und
jesaianischem Gottesknecht', op, cit^ 210.
2 The R.V., in view of the parallelism (cf. the reference to 'the strong*
in the next line), translates: 'the great'; but the same word is used in all
three cases in the Hebrew and the LXX.
s Cf. also Job xxxiii. 23f.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 103
Jesus may well have reflected that this was to be the
Servant's achievement, and that He, as the Suffering Son
of Man, had come to effect the deliverance.
In seeking to understand the meaning of the saying it
is necessary to examine its terminology, even if the pro-
blem cannot be settled in this way alone. The word
rendered 'ransom' is Xvrpov which, as Deissmann has
shown, was used in the Greek world of the first century of
'the purchase-money for manumitting slaves' ; it was also
used of 'sacral manumission', a process whereby, in re-
gaining his freedom, the slave became the property or
-protege of some particular god. 1 Kopher y its commonest
Hebrew equivalent, is also used of a 'payment' or 're-
quital'. Otto thinks that sacrificial ideas lie behind the
word; 2 and, although in the Old Testament it is not used
in connexion with the sacrifices, except perhaps in Ex.
xxx. 12, its derivation, like that ofkaphar, 'to cover' or 'to
wipe away', supports this view. In any case, both the
Greek and the Hebrew words describe something which
is counted as an equivalent for purposes of deliverance or
redemption. There is thus a definitely substitutionary
idea in the terminology, although, of course, not one that
is necessarily mechanical, or which demands a theory of
vicarious punishment.
The meaning of Xvrpov determines that of avrL in
the phrase avrl TroAAoiv ('for many'). This use of the
rarer preposition, instead of what Moulton calls 'the more
colourless uTrep', 8 can hardly be accidental, and its com-
monest meaning 'instead of, rather than 'on behalf of,
is probably required in this passage. 4 The 'ransom' is
^Lightfrom the Ancient East, Revised ed., 3 zyf,
*Reick Gottes und Memchensokn, 214-20.
^Grammar of the New Testament, i. 105.
*Cfl F. Btichsel in KitteTs Theologisches Worterbuch, i. 373.
104 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
provided 'instead of or 'in the place of the 'many'. The
word 'many', it need scarcely be said, does not exclude
the meaning 'all', but is naturally used, as in Isa. liii. I if.,
in contrast to the One who lays down His life for
men.
It is wrong to conclude from this linguistic study that
the saying must be interpreted in a crudely substitutionary
sense. Undoubtedly, it contains a substitutionary idea,
since something is done for the many which they cannot
do for themselves. But the word 'ransom' is used as a
metaphor, and ought not to be treated as if it were a fixed
scientific term. Even if the language is metaphorical, it
must not be explained away, as indicating some vague kind
of spiritual service. After all, a metaphor is used in order
to say something forcibly. At the least the saying means
that, by the willing surrender of His life, Jesus, as the Son
of Man, comes to provide a means of deliverance for men.
It is difficult, however, to escape the conviction that Jesus
regarded His death as in some way an act of requital. The
activity is not on this account mechanical and external.
Our knowledge of Jesus and of His teaching is enough to
show that He can never have contemplated an act which
should be operative of itself. If the thought is sacrificial,
the offering of Jesus is to be appropriated actively by the
spiritual participation which is an essential element in a
true sacrifice. It should be frankly recognized, however,
that, whether we find a sacrificial meaning in the saying
depends ultimately upon other sayings of His, especially
those connected with the Supper; it is also determined
by our view of the relation of Jesus to the sacrificial prin-
ciple.
The difficulty of the saying is that it stands apart among
the recorded words of Jesus. It ought not to be dismissed
on that account. Rather the question should be asked
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 105
whether it is not organically related to His conceptions of
God, of sacrifice, and of the nature of His Messianic task.
It is in favour of the saying that its fundamental ideas are
those of Isa. liii. Further, in spite of opinions to the con-
trary, it moves naturally to its climax. A new idea is cer-
tainly introduced at the end in the thought of a 'ransom*
given by the Son of Man; but it cannot be described as
irrelevant in a context which speaks of service, or impos-
sible as a word of Jesus. Again, the idea that no act of
requital is due to a Holy God, or is needed by men, is a
modern notion which it would be a libel to attribute to the
ancient world; and to say that Jesus cannot have spoken
of His death in this way is to modernize His figure and
His thought. Jesus is a stranger to the thought-world of
the twentieth century. Finally, the restraint of the saying
is in its favour. It is the duty of a dogmatic addition to be
reasonably explicit; but, as we have seen, the saying leaves
many important points open, and in no way characterizes
the need or condition of the 'many'. As a 'community-
product', the saying is much too discreet; as an utterance
of Jesus, it has just that air of mystery, and the note of pro-
vocativeness, constantly found in His words. For these
reasons it is better to conclude that Jesus has furnished a
theme for later Pauline developments rather than that
Mark has introduced a Pauline sentiment into the words
of Jesus. This is the opinion of Lagrange, 1 and it is well
based. The theologian has every reason to take the say-
ing into serious consideration in his attempt to discover the
secret of the Cross. 2
^Evangile selon Saint Marc, jthed., 283.
2 Dibelius includes Mk. x. 35-45 among his 'Paradigms of a less pure
type'. Cf. From Tradition to Gospel, 43, 51. Bultmann also includes it
among his 'Apophthegmata*, but regards w. 41-5 as a Markan supple-
ment. Cf. Die Gcschichtt der synoptiscfan Tradition, 23.
io6 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
(6) THE PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD (Mk. xii. 1-125 cf. Mt. xxi.
33-45 5 Lk. xx. 9- 1 9).
6. 'He had yet one^ a beloved son: he sent him last unto them, saying^
7. They will reverence my son. But those husbandmen said among
themselves^ This is the heir; come^ let us kill him, and the inheri-
8. tance shall be ours. And they took him^ and killed him^ and cast
him forth out of the vineyard?
Matthew and Luke reproduce these verses with but slight varia-
tions. Both alter the order in 8. Luke reads: 'And they cast him
forth out of the vineyard, and killed him' (xx. 15; cf. Mt. xxi. 39).
Luke's version of 6 is: 'And the lord of the vineyard said. What
shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence
him*(xx. 13).
This parable is based on the allegory of the Vineyard in
Isa. v. if,, 1 and has several peculiar features. It is an
allegory rather than a parable; it includes a direct allusion
to the death of Christ; and some of its details, the sending
of the son when the servants have been beaten and killed,
and the argument that if the son is killed the vineyard will
be the property of the husbandmen, seem artificial. On
these grounds objections have frequently been brought
against its authenticity. Since Jiilicher wrote his Die
Gleichnisreden Jesu (i 899) it has frequently been held that
Jesus did not use allegory, and that Mk. xii. 1-12 is a
doctrinal construction of the Christian community. 2 This
view is not convincing. While it is not the habit of Jesus
to use allegory, we cannot be certain that He never did so.
Moreover, the allegorical element in Mk. xii. 1-12 is
partial; the lord of the vineyard is God, the husbandmen
lf My wellbeloved had a vineyard in a very fruitful hill; and he made a
trench about it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and pknted it with the
choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also hewed out a
winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it
brought forth wild grapes.'
2 Cf. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition^ 191.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 107
are the Jewish leaders, the servants the prophets, and the
heir Jesus; but there is no allegorical significance in the
hedge, the pit, the winepress, and the tower, or in the
departure to "another country'. Further, Isa. v. if., the
model on which Mk. xii. 1-12 is built, is allegorical and
itself suggests the further use of allegory, while the use of
this literary form is well adapted to the situation in which
Jesus found Himself. Again, an early Christian writer
would have been strongly tempted to bring the story into
closer contact with the facts of history, by inserting a refer-
ence to the Resurrection, 1 or by mentioning the death
after the casting from the vineyard, 2 in view of the idea
that Christ suffered 'without the gate' (cf. Heb. xiii. 12).
Finally, the alleged inconsistencies are permissible in a
story, and indicate that the allegory is incomplete. One
of them, the improbability that the heir would have been
sent after the beating and killing of the servants, illustrates
a point Jesus desires to make, the divine reluctance to
believe that human obduracy can resist the supreme appeal
of love : 'they will reverence my son'. With the eye of an
artist Luke perceives this suggestion when he writes: *//
may be they will reverence him.' The difficulties are real,
but they are less than those of the theory of invention by
the community; the design is new, but the workmanship
bears its own signature.
No explanation of the purpose of the death of Jesus is
given in the parable, but there are several implications of
the greatest importance in forming an opinion upon this
question : the position superior to the prophets which is
quietly assumed by Jesus, the consciousness of a unique
relationship of Sonship, the conviction that He has been
1 Cf. F. C. Burkitt, Transactions of the Third International Congress for
the History of Religion, ii. 321-8.
2 So many commentators. See the Synoptic parallels.
io8 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
sent by God as a final envoy to Israel, the recognition that
rejection and death await Him. There is present also the
consciousness that the rejection involves the judgment of
Israel, which is voiced less as a menace than as a sorrowful
recognition of the inevitable course of history: 'What
therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? he will come
and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard
to others' (Mk. xii. 9). The restraint of these words is
matched only by their poignant sadness.
(7) THE SAYING IN THE STORY OF THE ANOINTING (Mk. xiv. 8;
cf. Mt. xxvi. 12).
'She hath anointed my body aforehand for the burying*
Matthew recasts the form of the saying, but does not alter its
meaning: Tor in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she
did it to prepare me for burial' (xxvi. 1 2). Luke does not record
the Markan story in view of his similar narrative in vii. 36-50.
This saying, and still more the prophecy in the follow-
ing verse, is widely interpreted as a subsequent expansion
of the story of the Anointing. The addition, it is held, is
part of the editorial process by means of which the isolated
and self-contained story was fitted into the continuous
Passion-narrative. This, for example, is the opinion of
Dibelius who classifies the story as a Paradigm?- and of
Bultmann who includes it among the Biographical Apoph-
thegmata? These scholars argue that the story reaches
its climax in the words: 'Let her alone; why trouble ye
her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have
the poor always with you, and whensoever ye will ye can
do them good: but me ye have not always. She hath
J Cf. From Tradition to Gospel, 43, 60, 178.
2 C Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 37, 59, 283; see also
Klostermann, DasMarkusevangelium,
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 109
done what she could' (xiv. 6-8 a). Its purpose is to show
that there are circumstances in which social duties must
give place to the claims of religion.
Bultmann is unusually sympathetic to the historical
value of the story as thus reconstructed. He denies that
it is merely the symbolical clothing of the idea just men-
tioned, 1 and accepts the reference to Bethany (xiv. 3) as
original. 2
The opinion of these scholars, that in the oral period
the story circulated as a self-contained narrative, must, I
think, be accepted; for it is complete in itself, and it gives
expression to a thought of practical importance in the life
of the primitive communities. It is also possible, and
even probable, that the prophecy that the woman's deed
would be made known wherever 'the gospel' should be
preached 'for a memorial of her' (xiv. 9) is an addition; for
the words have a later ring, and, as it has frequently been
observed, the woman's name is not mentioned. It is,
however, a much less convincing suggestion that the story
ended with the words: 'she hath done what she could/
In this case, the only points in the narrative which make
it suitable for insertion in the Passion-narrative are the
reference to Bethany and the words: 'me ye have not
always.' But once the story is read apart from its con-
text, and the reference to anointing for burial is cancelled,
these words are less suggestive of death, although pro-
bably they imply it. 3 A reason for including the story in
the framework of the Passion-narrative is obviously more
apparent if Jesus expressly said : 'she hath anointed my
body aforehand for the burying.'
. tit. 9 37. 2 0p. tit., 69.
8 Klostermann observes that originally the words need not be a prophecy
of death, op. cit., 158. But this is not probable. Cf. Montefiore, The
Synoptic Gospels, i.
no JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
The motive for the alleged expansion of the original
story is variously explained. It is not, of course, of a
doctrinal character; the intention is either to sharpen the
allusion to death, or to suggest that the anointing which
the three women failed to accomplish at the tomb (xvi. r)
had been done in Bethany by anticipation. 1 The latter
suggestion seems unnecessarily subtle, and the former
does not exclude the possibility that Jesus Himself
sharpened the allusion to death. That Jesus spoke the
words is the simplest and most convincing explanation.
The manner in which the indignation of the guests is
countered, and the woman's action is interpreted, has
characteristics present in other stories about Jesus, as, for
example, when He meets the question of the Pharisees by
the request for a denarius (Mk. xii. 15), or suggests that
John the Baptist is EKjah-redivivus (Mt. xi. 14). The
objection of Montefiore, that nobody is astonished, is
without foundation, for we do not know what effect it
produced, and in any case Jesus often mystified His
hearers.
For theology the saying under review has little import-
ance, for it reveals nothing of the meaning which Jesus
saw in His death, but for historical purposes the words
are significant. They show how strongly the thought of
death occupied His mind. Anointing is primarily a mark
of courtesy, 2 and to anoint the head is in certain circum-
stances an act of kingly homage; 3 but neither of these
associations is uppermost in the thought of Jesus. While
recognizing the woman's reverence, He relates her action
to His death. Only a dominating interest can account
for this reference. In this respect the saying is impor-
1 C Montefiore, op. cif., i. 3 1 8.
2 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, op. dt. 9 i. 427.
3 Cf. i Sam. x. i, xvi. r, 13.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS in
tant, and it bears on the question of the historical value
of other sayings. If we are right in taking into account
the interest of the primitive communities in Christ's
death, we are no less bound to recognize its supreme
significance for Jesus Himself. In the last days of His
ministry it was the central point in His thinking and His
words and actions were determined by it.
(8) THE PROPHECY OF THE BETRAYAL (Mfc. xiv. 17-21).
17. 'And when it was evening, he cometh with the twelve.
1 8. And as they sat and were eating, Jesus said, Verily I say unto
you^ One of you shall betray me^ even he that eateth with me.
1 9. They began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one,
20. Is it I ? And he said unto them, // is one of the twelve^ he
21. that dippeth with me in the dish. For the Son of man goeth^
even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through
whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man
if he had not been bom*
In recording the sayings Matthew follows his source closely.
In 1 8 he omits the quotation: 'even he that eateth with me' (cf.
Psa. xli. 9). In 20 he omits 'it is one of the twelve', and adds 'the
same shall betray me'. After 21, which is repeated verbatim, he
adds: 'And Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Is it I,
Rabbi ? He saith unto him, Thou has said' (Mt* xxvi. 20-5).
Luke's version in xxii. 21, 23, is probably independent. 1 In
xxii. 22, which is based on Mk., he substitutes 'as it hath been
determined' for 'even as it is written of him', and omits the
words: 'good were it ... not been born.*
In the corresponding Johannine story (Jn. xiii. 21-30), Mk.
xiv. 1 8 reappears in the form: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, that
one of you shall betray me'. It is peculiar to this account that
Jesus secretly indicates to the Beloved Disciple who the traitor is
(xiii, 25f.). The suppositions of the disciples, when Judas goes
out, are also mentioned (xiii. 28f.).
!Cf. Behind the Third Gospel,
JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
Apart from such variations as are merely stylistic or
editorial, the parallels are instructive. If Lk. xxiu 21,23
is independent of Mk., it is an additional authority for the
incident Jn. xiiL 21-30 may also reflect an independent
tradition which has been developed by the art of the
Fourth Evangelist. There is therefore good ground for
believing the prophecy to be historical.
It will be seen that there is an increasing definiteness in
the later narratives. In Mt. xxvi. 25 Judas asks: 'Is it I,
Rabbi?' and Jesus replies: 'Thou hast said'; while in
Jn. xiii. 25-9 the traitor is secretly indicated and, when he
departs, the surmises of the disciples are given. These
added details throw into relief the greater simplicity of the
Markan story where Judas is neither named nor indicated.
It is, however, a fair question whether even this narrative
does not reflect a knowledge of subsequent events. This,
I think, is apparent in Mk. xiv. 20. The words : 'It is
one of the twelve, * may be the words of Mark, influenced
by xiv. 1 7 ('with the twelve'). If this surmise is justified,
the reply of Jesus to the question: 'Is it I?' was no more
than a further allusion to Psa. xli. 9. 1 It is highly im-
probable that He can have remained blind to the defection
of Judas, and the narrative has characteristic notes of re-
serve and appeal. The 'Woe' (Mk. xiv. 21) is not a
curse 2 (cf. Mk. xiii. 17), but an expression of deep sadness
and of warning. The objection that Judas would not
have returned after his visit to the authorities 3 is not con-
vincing; it was essential to his plan that he should return
and continue as before. 4 Further, there is no force in the
le Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my
bread,
Hath lifted up his heel against me.'
2 C Swete, 333; Jtewlinson, 203.
3 C Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, i. 324. 4 Cf. Rawlinson, 2026,
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 113
plea that no indication is given of how and when Judas
made his exit from the Upper Room. 1 The Markan
narrative is not a detailed report, and ought not to be
treated as such. Moreover, as we have seen, in this
narrative Jesus does not identify Judas as the traitor,
but contents Himself with a veiled allusion, couched in
the language of Scripture. All these considerations
strengthen confidence in the story as a historical
record.
The important saying in Mk. xiv. 2 1 occupies a natural
place in such a context. The use of the term, 'Son of
Man*, and the belief of Jesus that His fate is the fulfil-
ment of Divine purpose, are found in Mk. viii. 31, ix.
12^, 31, x. 33f., 45; and these points have been discussed
in connexion with these passages. Mk. xiv. 21 re-
sembles Mk. ix. 12^ in that, while the Old Testament is
referred to, no citation is made, or indeed is possible. It
is perhaps a recognition of this which led Luke to modify
his source in the phrase 'as it hath been determined' (xxii.
22). This is probably the sense in which Jesus used the
words *as it hath been written of him*. Behind this utter-
ance lies His identification of the Son of Man with the
Suffering Servant; it is so firmly established in His
thought that He can say of the Son of Man what, so far as
the text of Scripture is concerned, is true only of the Ser-
vant. Each successive example of this identification re-
veals how deep-rooted it is in the Markan tradition; it be-
comes more and more difficult to believe that, while it was
an accepted idea in the earliest Christian communities, it
was unknown to Jesus Himself.
The knowledge that He will be betrayed by one of the
Twelve is an element in His Messianic sufferings. It is
clear, however, that Jesus does not think of Judas as the
1 Cf. B. W. Bacon, The B eginnings of Gospel Story, 2ozf.
H
114 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
blind instrument of fate; in that case the atmosphere of the
story would be different, and there would be no occasion
for the warning which He gives. On the other hand,
Jesus does not interpret His approaching death as simply
the result of human action. He is to be betrayed, and
men will do their worst, but it is still true that He is fulfill-
ing a Divine purpose with which He has completely iden-
tified Himself. Herein is revealed the antinomy which
appears whenever such a purpose is associated with human
activity. Jesus does not discuss the antinomy; it is
not His method to deal with philosophical questions.
He neither renounces the idea of a Divine destiny to
be fulfilled through suffering and death, nor ignores
human responsibility for evil deeds, although later He
prays, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they
do/ 1 He will go 'as it hath been written of him', but
alas ! for men like Judas ! It is this tension which gives to
the scene the 'solemnity and impressiveness' which
Montefiore says 'cannot be denied'. 2 Surely, we must
add that it is the tension of historical realism, not the pro-
duct of later invention.
(9) THE SAYINGS AT THE LAST SUPPER (Mk. xiv. 22-55 cf. Mt.
xxvi. 26-9; LLxxii. 14-20; i Cor. xi. 23-5).
Since our main interest is in the Markan sayings, the
complicated historical problems connected with the Sup-
per need be discussed only in so far as they affect questions
of exegesis.
The date of the Supper is a problem of very great diffi-
culty. The Synoptists appear to look on the Supper as
1 For a discussion of the textual problem of Lk. xxiii. 34 see Streeter, The
Four Gospels 9 89, 123, 138.
*O/./., .325.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 115
the Passover Meal, 1 but the Fourth Evangelist implies
that it was eaten before the Passover. 2 Critics in general
are rather evenly divided 3 in their attempts to solve this
riddle, but in Great Britain it is perhaps the majority view
to-day that the Supper preceded the Passover. Among
other arguments it is strongly maintained that this view is
implied, not only in the Fourth Gospel, but also by state-
ments in the Synoptic Gospels themselves such as Mk.
xiv. 2 ('Not during the feast 7 ) and Lk. xxii. i^f. 4 and by
such indications as the fact that the disciples bore arms
(Mk. xiv. 47), and that Simon is described as 'coming
from the country* (Mk. xv. 2 1). Not all these arguments
are equally cogent, and recently they have been keenly
contested by Dalman 5 and by J. Jeremias 6 who identify
the Supper with the Passover MeaL The whole question
calls for renewed examination and must be regarded as
still subjudice.
Those scholars who think that the Supper preceded the
Passover try to identify the meal in various ways. G. H.
Box 7 and others have argued that it was the Sabbath-
Kiddfish, or the sanctification of the Sabbath when wine
was blessed and bread was broken ; W. O. E. Oesterley, 8
G. H. C. Macgregor, 9 and others prefer to identify it with
the Passover-Kiddushy or the ritual sanctification of the
^Cf. Mk. xiv. 12-6 and parallels.
2 Cf. Jn. xviii. 28, xix. 14.
3 A very full summary of critical opinion is given by J. Jeremias in Die
Abendmahlsworte Jesu, 8-13.
4 Seepp. 180-3.
*Je$us-Jeshua, 86-106.
6 O/. /., 5-39.
^The Journal of Theological Studies, ill. 357-69, x. io6f.
*The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy, 1 56-93.
*Eucharistic Origins, 37 if.
n6 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
Passover, Unfortunately, in neither of these cases was
the meal in question eaten on a Thursday, and it is still
necessary to assume that it was anticipated by a day. 1 At
the same time these suggestions are valuable as showing
that, in addition to the Passover Meal, there existed in
contemporary Judaism quasi-religious meals which, in
certain respects, are not unlike the Last Supper. The
same may also perhaps be said of the theory of H. Lietz-
mann, 2 R. Otto, 3 and others, who see in the HaMroth^ or
groups of associates who assembled in order to celebrate
religious meals, a type to which the Supper conforms. 4
Otto, indeed, maintains that the Supper was not a new in-
vention, but that, on the contrary, Jesus was repeating
familiar table-rites to which He gave a special significance,
in the circumstances in which He found Himself, by
means of the words which He spoke over the bread and
the wine. 5 It may well be that, if the Supper preceded
the Passover, no precise identification is necessary, and
that it was a hurried anticipation of the Passover Meal to
which Jesus had looked forward so eagerly (cf. Lk. xxii.
15*0-
These questions are obviously of great interest and im-
portance, but their significance can be exaggerated.
Whether the Supper was the Passover Meal or not, Pas-
chal ideas and associations must have occupied the mind of
1 F. C. Burkitt pointed out that 'Kiddush immediately precedes tie
actual celebration of the day, e.g. kiddush for Sabbath is done on what we
call Friday evening, not twenty-four hours earlier,' The Journal of Theo-
logical Studies, xvii. 294.
2 Messe und Herrenmahl, 210.
Gottes und Menschensohn, 234-41. Otto ascribes a sacramental
character to these meals.
4 This suggestion, and Otto's views in particular, are strongly criticised
by Jeremias, op, cit., 20.
*Op.cit., 241.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 117
Jesus on this occasion; and this is the important fact to
remember in studying both the narratives and the sayings.
A second question to which preliminary consideration
must be given is whether the stories of the Supper are
'cult-narratives'. This question is partly a matter of ter-
minology. If by 'cult-narratives' are meant stories freely
invented to explain or justify an existing rule, none of the
stories can justly be so described; they are too restrained
in statement, too limited in detail, to be of this character.
Moreover, such a usage leaves the cult itself unexplained.
For its explanation it is necessary, either to postulate a
tradition very much like that found in the existing narra-
tives, or to have recourse to inferences suggested by the
Mystery-religions, which break down when they are sub-
jected to close examination. If, however, by a 'cult-
narrative' is meant a story influenced by the practice of
worship, it is probable that all the stories of the Supper
are of this character. Nothing is more natural than that
it should be so. Even in the Lukan story liturgical in-
terests may lie behind the statement that Jesus received
the cup and gave thanks (xxii. 17); they are more evident
in the Markan narrative in the great detail of the story and
the words: 'and they all drank of it' (Mk. xiv. 23); and
most of all are they to be seen in the Matthaean account
where the commands to eat and to drink are explicit (Mt.
xxvi. 26). Naturally, the question arises whether such
influences have corrupted the original tradition, and this
point must be considered especially in connexion with 'the
words of institution 7 . In general, I believe it is true to
say that, while liturgical interests may have determined
what is told or emphasized in the Gospel narratives, unhis-
torical elements have not been imposed upon the primitive
tradition in any important degree.
The sayings in the Markan narrative are three in num-
n8 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
her and relate to (a) the bread, (ft) the wine, and (V) the
future Messianic Feast. These sayings must now be
examined*
(a) 'Take ye; this is my body' (ML xiv. 22).
Matthew has: 'Take eat' Paul adds: 'which is for you*. The
interpolation in Lk. xxii. if)b has: 'which is given for you?
The words: 'This is my body/ can be understood only
in the light of the statement that 4 as they were eating, he
took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave
to them, and said' (xiv. 22).
The fraction of the loaf is symbolic and recalls the prac-
tice of the Old Testament prophets who sometimes in
similar ways dramatized their words. Isaiah walks naked
and barefoot (xx. 2), and gives to his son a significant name
(viii. 3). Jeremiah is commanded to break a potter's
bottle (xix, 10), and wears a yoke (xxviii. 10). Ezekiel
takes a tile and uses it to depict a besieged city as 'a sign to
the house of Israel' (iv. 3). In the New Testament Aga-
bus binds his feet and hands with Paul's girdle, and de-
clares that so the Jews will bind its owner at Jerusalem
(Acts xxi. 1 i). The action of Jesus at the Supper is of the
same character. The intention is to suggest that, as the
loaf is broken, so His body will be broken in the near
future. The words are interpretative and invest the
fraction with dramatic significance.
This explanation, however, is only partial, and it may be
that prophetic action provides a further parallel. It is
now recognized that often the actions have more than a
symbolic meaning; they are 'effective representations' for
bringing about that which is depicted. The prophet be-
lieves that by wearing the yoke the Babylonian conquest is
made inevitable, and when his rival breaks the yoke he
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 119
imagines that he is rendering it ineffective (cf. Jen xxvii.,
xxviii.). 'When Zedekiah equips himself with horns of
iron (i Kings xxii. 1 i), and thrusts with them like an
angry bull, he is doing something that will help to achieve
the thrusting of the Syrians which he predicts/ 1 'The
spoken word in the thought of the Hebrews has a real
power and energy which fulfils itself. . . . And if a mere
word can bring about its own fulfilment, how much more
certainly will an acted parable ensure the coming about of
what it symbolizes!' 2
Otto's recent treatment of the significance of the Supper
is of great interest in this connexion. 3 He thinks that the
action of Jesus is not only a prophecy of impending death,
but is also an 'effective representation' for the purpose of
imparting a share in that which is represented. This
corresponds, he says, to the ancient view, that through the
use of a representation one can carry over and appropriate
the nature, the power, the influence, the individuality, the
curse or the blessing, which belongs to a thing or an event,
in consequence of the will of him who makes the repre-
sentation. He admits that this idea can be the basis of
magical manipulation, but holds that it can rise into the
religious sphere when it is the foundation of the 'sacra-
ment', and it can be 'completely spiritualized', as in the
action of Christ; 'then it is the foundation of the signifi-
cant, symbolic act*. Otto traces the presence of this con-
ception in Israel, in the story of Isaiah whose lips are
cleansed by the touch of a live coal from off the altar (Isa.
vi. 6f.), and in the Old Testament belief that the altar itself
represents the numen as 'effective' (cf. Mt* xxiiL 1 9). The
action of Jesus at the Supper is in line with these ancient
X W. L. Wardle, History and Religion of Israel, 178. Cf. Otto, Reich
GottesundMenschensohn, 253^
2 Wardle, ibid. 3 O/>. /., 2 5 yff.
120 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
ideas; 'it is the gift of a share (Anteilgabe) in the power of
that which is represented, namely, the expiatory power of
the broken Christ/ 1 This interpretation does not mean
that there is any change in the substance of the bread;
such ideas, Otto maintains, lie wholly distant from this
gift and experience of sharing. 2 The thought is that of
Psa. xvL 4fl, where the Psalmist speaks of Yahweh as 'the
portion' of his 'cup,' 3 and it is expressed in the ancient
Hebrew custom of 'eating before God' (cf. Ex. xviiL 12).
St. Paul, therefore, is not under Hellenistic influences
when he speaks of the bread and of the cup as *a com-
munion of the body' and 'of the blood of Christ' (i Cor.
x. 1 6), or when he asks concerning 'Israel after the flesh' :
'Have not they which eat the sacrifices communion with
the altar?' (i Cor. x. i8). 4
These extremely interesting suggestions take us beyond
the question of the significance of the fraction, and empha-
size the necessity of examining closely the words by which
it is accompanied. In point of fact, in the Old Testament
examples of symbolic action it is the prophet's word which
determines the significance and forceof what is represented.
We turn, then, to the words: 'Take ye: this is my body.'
The word, 'this', undoubtedly refers to the bread, and
not to Christ Himself. 5 The predicate, 'my body', does
not mean Christ's flesh, still less the Church, but the body
Wp. cit., 257.
*Cf. Dalman: There is no suggestion of a mystic food for the soul in the
words of the Institution, and the connexion with Judaism is perfectly clear.
The latter offered the usage which our Lord Himself, when He ate with
His disciples, always observed,' Jesus-Jeshua, 144.
3 Cf. Psa. zi. 6, where fire and brimstone and burning wind are spoken of
as 'the portion* of the *cup' of the wicked; also Psa. cxvi. 13:*! will take the
cup of salvation. 5
4 They are in fellowship with the altar, and therefore with the unseen
God, whose altar it is,' Robertson and Plummer, 215.
5 C Lagrange, fivangile scion saint Marc 9 378.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 121
which is surrendered to death for men* In a true sense
the phrase describes Christ Himself; but this explanation
may prove misleading unless it is understood as meaning
Christ offering Himself in death. 1 The term, 'body', is
used partly because the fraction easily suggests a body
dissolved in death, and partly because it is a natural cor-
relative to the term, 'blood', used in connexion with the
wine. But there is probably a deeper reason. The use
of the word is better explained if Jesus has sacrificial prac-
tice in mind. In reading His words it is difficult not to
think of the sacred meal which normally was the final
stage in the Old Testament sacrifices, when the wor-
shipper participated in that which he offered or in that
which was offered on his behalf. If these are the associa-
tions of the saying and our views upon this matter are
inevitably coloured by our estimate of the attitude of
Jesus to sacrifice we must infer that Jesus uses the term
'body' because He looks upon His Passion as an offering
for men in which they are invited to share.
This interpretation, which is in line with that of Otto,
raises the question of the copula which defines the relation
between 'this' and *my body'. It is not easy to find an
Salman, gives as tlie Aramaic equivalent of TOVTO scrrw ro ovS/ia /zou,
the phrase den hu gtipM. Cf. Jesus-Jeshua, 14.1. Otto renders this:
Dies bin ich setter (op. tit., 250, 253). See also Rashdall, op. tit*, 42.
While, however, DaJbnan admits that </> can express the idea of 'self*, he
thinks that the early Christians did not take it with this meaning, especially
in view of the similar reference to the blood, and he prefers the familiar
rendering: *This is my body/ At the same time he brings the words into
the closest relation with the person of Jesus. To give the body for some-
one, he says, naturally means to die; in the Semitic idiom to give one's
soul; it was 'because of the bread, in this case the yet unbroken loaf, our
Lord spoke of the Body instead of the Soul.* Among other references he
mentions the description of Jassa bar Halputa (Pirke Aboth, 42^) as one
who *gave his soul for circumcision,' and to Isa. Hi. 12, 'where the Servant
of God is promised a reward when he gives up his soul unto death'. Op.
cit.,
122 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
exact English equivalent for the Greek larw. In the
Aramaic form of the saying there would be no copula, but,
of course, one is implied, and the question is whether it is
best rendered by 'is', or by some such word as 'represents',
'signifies', or 'means'. 1
The translation 'is' suggests a relationship of identity
which can, it is true, be interpreted spiritually, but is only
too easily conceived materially. The saying is explained
with reference to Christ's 'risen and ascended body', 2 or,
in refined forms of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, it
is urged that Catholic Doctrine leaves 'substance' unde-
fined, 3 but in popular belief the materialistic interpretation
becomes common. If such ideas are avoided, there is
much to be said for the rendering: 'This is my body,' inas-
much as it indicates a vital relationship between the bread
and the offering of Christ.
On the other hand, such renderings as 'represents',
'signifies', 'symbolizes', suggest an almost casual and ex-
ternal relationship between the bread and the body.
Usually, they are defended by citing passages in which the
copula indicates 'parabolic or symbolic parallelism', as, for
example, Gen. xli. 26; Ezek. v. 5; Dan. vii. 17; Lk. viii.
1 1 ; Mt. xiii. 38, xvi. 18 ; Gal. iv. 24; I Cor. x. 4; Apoc. i.
20. 4 These passages show that the copula can have the
meanings mentioned, but it is doubtful if they give the
guidance desired. After all, in interpreting the words:
1 Cf. C. J. Cadoux, Christianity and Catholicism, 399; J. W. Hunkin,
The Evangelical Doctrine of Holy Communion (ed. A. J. Macdonald), 14;
C. A. Anderson Scott, Christianity according to St. Paul, 189; Foot-Notes to
St. Paul, 115. Anderson Scott recalls Lietzmann's declaration that the
rendering 'signifies' or 'represents* 'ought never to .have been disputed'.
2 Cfl Darwell Stone, Art. 'Lord's Supper', Hastings Dictionary of Christ
and the Gospels, ii. 73.
3 C W. E. Orchard, From Faith to Faith, 280.
4 Cf. Cadoux, op. cit., 399.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 123
'This is my body/ limited help is afforded by passages
about cows, hair, beasts, seeds, fields, rocks, stars, candle-
sticks, and the mother of Ishmael. In the end the deci-
sion turns, not on the copula, but on the subject and the
predicate in any particular case. If the bread is a symbol
alone, we may well translate: 'This represents my body';
but if it is also a means whereby faith appropriates the
blessings of Christ's Sacrifice, the least unsatisfactory
rendering is: 'This means my body.' 1 Since the fraction
probably suggests more than a bare symbol, the choice
lies between this rendering and the more ambiguous
translation : 'This is my body/ and for purposes of theo-
logy the former is the better. 2
It is in harmony with the ideas suggested by the rest of
the saying that Jesus says : 'Take ye/ The disciples are
invited to receive the broken bread in the sense in which
it is interpreted by His act and word. Eating is a physi-
cal action which on the spiritual side corresponds to the
appropriation of life, although the distinction between the
material and the spiritual is much clearer to us to-day than
it was in the ancient world. 3 The fact that the disciples
are directed to eat suggests strongly that the bread is more
than an adventitious symbol. Otherwise, it would have
been enough to say: 'This is my body'; there would have
been no need for the words : 'Take ye,' and no occasion for
the Matthaean amplification : 'Take, eat.' 4
1 C Mofiatt's translation: 'Take this, it means my body/
2 For the same reasons Mk. xiv. 24. should be read: 'This means my blood
of the covenant, which is shed for man/. Cf. Moflatt: 'This means my
covenant-blood which is shed for many*.
3< And yet even we moderns believe in the dose relation of these two; for
we hold that with the material elements of the bread and wine spiritual
gifts are imparted to the faithful in the Holy Communion/ R. H. Charles,
7.C.C., Revelation, i. 268.
4 The Matthaean form merely brings out what is implied in Mk.
124 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
If we now have regard to the saying as a whole, it be-
comes clear that by His action and word Jesus intends the
bread to be a means whereby the disciples may participate
in the power of His surrendered life. There is no sug-
gestion of any intention to transform the bread into a
quasi-material or mystic 'food of the soul'. Materially,
it is unchanged; spiritually, it becomes a means for the
communication of life, because it is invested by Jesus with
new meaning and power. The life is His own, offered
for men and made available for them. As the gift is
spiritual, so its appropriation is spiritual, although a
broken loaf, among the commonest of material things, is
the vehicle of the one and the medium for the other.
If we are right in interpreting the saying in this way,
there is no justification for explaining it as a 'community-
product' which owes its origin to Hellenistic circles in
early Christianity. 1 This question must obviously re-
ceive further consideration when the parallel saying : 'This
is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many/
comes under review, for it is mainly in relation to this
saying that the influence of ideas connected with the
Mystery-religions has been alleged. As regards the say-
ing immediately in question several considerations favour
its genuineness. The underlying ideas are fundamentally
Jewish. The practice of symbolic action, the use of the
imagery of bread, the idea of eating in connexion with a
sacrificial offering, are all found in the Old Testament and
were perfectly familiar to Jesus. Further, what is dis-
tinctive in the words bespeaks creative originality, for it
1 C Bultmarm, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 285; Kloster-
mann, Das Markusevangetium, 163; Loisy, Les fivaxgiles synoptiques, ii.
541; Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, 206. Dibelius speaks of the
narrative as 'an aetiological tradition of the rite', op. tit., 206, but also says
that Ve have every reason to regard one form or another of the story of the
Last Supper as old and as a part of the earliest Passion story,' op. tit., 1 82.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 125
is brought within the orbit of a uniform conception which
includes elements derived from the ideas of the Suffering
Servant, the Messianic Hope, the Kingdom of God (cf.
Mk xiv. 25)5 and the ancient usage of the sacred meal.
The combination is that of an original thinker, not the
product of a community.
The doctrinal significance of the saying is of supreme
importance. It suggests that Jesus looked upon His
suffering and death as a sacrificial offering of Himself for
men. Any conception of His Passion as a martyrdom, or
even as a revelation concerning God and sin, is shown to
be hopelessly inadequate to His thought. But, more
than this, the saying throws light upon the way in which
He interpreted His self-offering. In bidding His
disciples to receive the broken bread, which He had inter-
preted as His 'body', Jesus revealed that He did not look
upon His sacrifice as a thing apart from men, to be ac-
cepted passively as one recognizes an external event. On
the contrary, He thought of it as standing in the closest
relation to human need, as an experience to be shared and
appropriated; and, as a realist, He provided a rite whereby
fellowship in His sufferings, and participation in the
hallowing power of His sacrifice, might be assured.
(b) 'This is my blood of the covenant , which is shed for many (vrrep
)' (Mk. xiv. 24).
Matthew introduces the saying by the words: 'Drink ye all of
it 7 , inserts 'for', changes 'for many' to 'concerning (-n^pt) many',
and adds, 'unto remission of sins' (xxvi. 28). Paul records the
saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood' (i Cor. xL 25).
This is repeated almost verbatim in the longer Lukan text, which
adds: 'that which is poured out for you (vrrep ujtuov)' (xxii. 20).
The second Markan saying raises critical problems as
well as questions of exegesis. In part, these problems
126 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
arise from the close similarity of the first half of Mk. xiv.
24 to i Cor. xi. 25; in part, they concern the Markan say-
ing itself. The similarity is at once apparent when the
two passages are closely compared, and the questions for
investigation are whether either is a variant of the other,
whether they are different sayings, or whether they are In-
dependent versions of a lost original. Bound up with
these problems is the further question whether Jesus is
likely to have invited His disciples to drink of the wine as
the symbol of His out-poured blood.
In many theological discussions it is argued that, what-
ever the original words of institution may have been, the
existing texts show that Jesus spoke of a covenant esta-
blished in virtue of His blood; and the treatment proceeds
from this point. This is a strong position, but it is taken
at serious cost. Such a position may, or may not, be
necessary, but in any case a critical investigation cannot
begin at this stage, but must first consider the claims of the
Markan saying itself.
Complicated as the problems already mentioned are,
two preliminary inquiries must be undertaken. One of
them concerns the text of Mk. xiv. 24, and the other its
content, (i) Is the Markan saying a unity? (2) Is it
intended by Mark as a 'word of institution', defining the
sense in which the cup is to be received, just as the words,
c This is my body', interpret the taking of the bread?
The first question relates to the words : 'which is shed
for many. ' Are they a subsequent addition ? The words
have no parallel in i Cor. xi. 25, but they need not, on this
ground, be explained as a gloss. 1 On the contrary, it is
this phrase which gives distinctiveness to the saying, since
x See p. 8of. The longer text in Lk. ends with the phrase: 'even that
which is poured out for you', but this reading may be based on Mk. See
Lk. xzii. 20*
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 127
it defines the statement, "This is my blood of the cove-
nant.' The genuineness of these words has yet to be con-
sidered, but meantime it may be claimed that there is no
sufficient reason to question the originality of the qualify-
ing phrase. It plainly reflects the ideas of Isa. liii., 1 and,
in the use of the word 'many*, is in agreement with Mk.
x. 45 ; and the earlier discussion has shown how deeply the
Servant-conception influenced the mind of Jesus. The
principal objection on the part of many critics to the
phrase is that it obviously bears a sacrificial meaning, but
our study of the attitude of Jesus to sacrifice has revealed
that this objection is without foundation. If the words
are a later addition, the interpolator is an excellent exegete :
it is better to conclude that they are an integral part of the
saying.
The further Matthaean supplement, 'unto remission of
sins', is probably an interpretative addition made by the
Evangelist. This is suggested, not so much by the con-
tent of the phrase, as by the fact that it is Matthew's habit
to expand his Markan source, and because in xxvi. 26-9
there is no sign that he is using any other source. The
words do not imply that forgiveness is impossible apart
from the death of Christ, but that the blood-shedding has
the forgiveness of sins for its purpose. A truer criticism
of the gloss is that it concentrates attention upon a single
element, although an important one, in the purpose of
Christ's self-offering, the establishment of real fellowship
between God and man. 2
a Cf. Dalman: 'The "many" to whom the blood of Jesus will be of ser-
vice, point to the "many" who, in Isa. liii. nf., are mentioned as those
whom the suffering of the Servant of God will benefit. . . . If it were not for
Isa. liii. 12, our Lord would scarcely have used this expression,'^, a/., 17 if.
2 Otto remarks that in Christian teaching forgiveness of sins and expiation
for sins are not the purpose, but the means to the eschatological goal, op. cit, 9
263, 273.
128 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
The second question, whether Mk. xiv. 24 is intended
as a 'word of institution', may seem strange, but it is
prompted by the Markan narrative itself. If it is an-
swered in the negative the seriousness of the questions
under discussion is diminished; if in the affirmative, the
problems are present in their fullest intensity. It is
necessary, therefore, to study Mk. xiv. 24 in relation to
its context.
'And as they were eating, he took bread and when he had
blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my
body. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave
to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them. This is
my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto
you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day
when I drink it new in the kingdom of God,'
It will be seen that the position of the saying is one of
much interest. In the corresponding passage concerning
the bread the explanation accompanies the distribution, and
in view of the significance of the broken loaf, this order is
natural. The fragments are eaten as having a certain
meaning; they symbolize the broken Body. If, in like
manner, the wine represents the out-poured blood, it is not
unreasonable to expect the same sequence; the wine, one
might think, should be received for what it is. In fact,
however, the sequence is inverted in the Markan narra-
tive; the explanation follows the statement, 'they all drank
of it/ The wine is drunk and then interpreted.
The strangeness of this arrangement is not a modern
discovery. Matthew, the Churchman, and one of the
first commentators on Mark, has observed it clearly. He
recasts his source, turning the statement, 'they all drank
of it,' into the command, 'Drink ye all of it/ and inserting
'for' into the explanatory words which follow (cf. xxvi.
27f.), It is obvious that, in Matthew's view, the
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 129
explanation should precede the reception. How then
are we to account for Mark's arrangement?
Only two theories are possible. Either the arrange-
ment is a mere structural incoherence in Mark's narrative,
and, despite its setting, the saying is intended as a 'word of
institution*; or it is due to the fact that Mark followed a
tradition which did not connect the words about the wine
with the giving of the cup. Several considerations
favour the latter theory. A description of the cup, or
its contents, is certainly natural before the words, 'and
they all drank of it.' Mark, moreover, could have re-
corded his saying at this point, and he was prompted to
do so by the manner in which he had introduced the ex-
planation of the bread. He resisted, that is to say, the
structural suggestiveness of his own narrative. Again,
the words, 'And he said unto them,' which introduce the
Markan saying, and the fact that the latter is followed by
another saying on drinking 'the fruit of the vine', may
indicate that Mark is using a short collection of Supper-
sayings, topically arranged as in ii. 2 if,, iv. 2 1-5, ix. 41-50.
This would be an added reason for thinking that he did
not know the words, 'This is my blood,' as a 'word of
institution'.
These arguments are far from being conclusive, and
there are several considerations to be urged on the other
side. In the first place, the arguments all deal with
matters of structure, and they require a higher standard
of coherence in the Markan narrative than it is reasonable
to expect. Mark's style is rough and unpolished, and as
a compiler he demonstrably lacks the skill of Matthew. 1
Again, it would be rash to assume that whenever Mark
uses the phrase, 'And he said unto them,' he is drawing
upon a sayings-collection, and the connexion between the
1 Cf t
I
I3C JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
two Markan sayings is not necessarily artificial. Further,
it is possible that his arrangement may be influenced by
his eagerness to include the words, 'And they all drank of
it,' as a polemical statement in view of existing diversities
of practice. 1 Finally, and most important of all, the form
of the saying, 'This is my blood/ strongly suggests that it
is intended to be taken as a 'word of institution'. It is
parallel in form to the words, 'This is my body/ which
define the sense in which the bread is to be taken, and the
presumption is that similarly the words, 'This is my
blood/ define the meaning with which the wine is to be
received.
These considerations justify us in concluding that the
strangeness of the Markan narrative has no special signi-
ficance, and that Mark intends the words, 'This is my
blood/ to express the meaning of the wine as received.
In this case, in editing his source, Matthew has brought
out its actual implications.
The conclusion just reached increases the urgency of
the problems raised by the similarity of Mk. xiv. 24 and
i Cor. xi. 25 and by the difficulty of the Markan saying
as a command of Jesus. It is not possible to avoid these
problems on the plea that Mk. xiv. 24 belongs to a dis-
course after the Supper, or is otherwise unconnected with
the giving of the cup.
The verbal similarity between the two passages is ob-
viously great. Each passage contains the words 'this',
'is', 'covenant', 'blood', and each, though in different
Greek forms, has the phrase 'my blood'. How close the
agreement is appears best when the sayings are set down
side by side:
1 Harnack has contended that in certain Jewish-Christian circles water
was used instead of wine. Cf. Texte und Untersuchungen, vii. 2, 115^*.
See also Otto, op. cit.> 237; Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium, 164.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 131
Mark : 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed
for many/
Paul : 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood/ 1
The ideas, it is true, are different* The Markan saying
interprets the wine as Christ's 'blood of the covenant' shed
for many, and is based on Ex. xxiv. 8 and Isa. liii. 12.
The Pauline saying interprets the cup as representing the
'new covenant' established by Christ's blood, and rests on
a combination of Jen xxxi, 3 1 and the ideas illustrated in
Ex. xxiv. 1-13. This difference of ideas, however, does
not exclude the possibility that one passage is a variant of
the other or that both are variants of a lost original. On
the contrary, it might account for the origin of the variants.
Whether this explanation is probable is the main point for
consideration, for, striking as it is, the agreement in voca-
bulary cannot be considered conclusive in itself.
Is, then, Mk. xiv. 24 a variant of i Con xi. 25? This
view is difficult to sustain, for, in this case, the simpler
Pauline form has been replaced by one that is obviously
more difficult. The Markan saying is exposed to the
serious objection that it offends Jewish scruples, and it
may be safely asserted that, as a cult-saying, it could not
have come into existence in Jewish-Christian circles. 2
Only in a non-Jewish environment is the transformation
conceivable through the infiltration of pagan ideas associ-
ated with the Mystery-religions. But this theory, while
easily stated, cannot be considered convincing. The lan-
guage of the entire saying is fragrant with Old Testament
l The Greek is as follows:
Mark: rovro lariv TO octfid JJLOV TJ)$ Sia&fK^s TO
Paul: TOVTO TO irorqpiov y Kouvr) Swcflijioj cortv e> TO> JLU txlp.tx.ri.
2 See the opinion of Dibelius quoted on p. 1 34.
JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
associations, and its ideas, as we have seen, represent a
unique combination of the teaching of Ex. xxiv. and Isa.
liii. Further, there is a paucity of references to sacred
meals 1 in the existing texts which relate to the Mystery-
religions, and, whatever may be true of later times, 2 the
date to which the evidence belongs renders it improbable
that Mvsterv-influences were operative in the formation of
the Gospel tradition during the first generation of Christia-
nity. 3 If, finally, the objections to the genuineness of the
saying prove to be wanting in force, 4 there is no reason to
resort to this kind of explanation. The evidence, it may
be concluded, is unfavourable to the view that Mk. xiv. 24
is a variant of the Pauline saying, provided the exegetical
difficulties are not insuperable.
Is, then, i Cor. xi. 25 a modification of Mk. xiv. 24?
It is in favour of this view that the Pauline passage is much
less difficult that the Markan. In it the cup represents
the new covenant sealed by Christ's blood; nothing is said
of the wine as a symbol of His covenant-blood. Accord-
ingly* & * ls tempting to argue that the Pauline form has
arisen in consequence of the difficulties of the Markan
x Cf. H. A. A. Kennedy: *The evidence regarding Sacramental Meals
in the Mystery-Religions is both meagre and difficult to interpret,' /. Paul
and the Mystery-Religions, 256; C Clemen, Primitive Christianity and its
Non-Jewish Sources, 257-66; N. P. Williams, Essays Catholic and Critical,
389; A. E. J. Rawlinson, The New Testament Doctrine of the Christ, 270-
84.
2 Cf. J. C. Lambert, The Sacraments in the New Testament, 41 8
sCf. Kennedy, op. tit., 69, 279. Clemen closes his discussion with the
opinion: *The doctrine which tie New Testament really teaches regarding
the Lord's Supper cannot be derived, even collaterally or by way of supple-
ment, from pagan sources,' op. tit., 266. T. Wilson recognises that, in the
kst resort, the Christian sacraments are 'sui generis in the whole history of
the religious life of man,' St. Paul and Paganism* 183. See also Rawlin-
son, op. tit., 279; Goguel, The Life of Jesus, 187; Gore, The Reconstruction
of Belief, 7241".
4 Seepp.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 133
saying in Jewish-Christian circles. 1 Such a conclusion,
however, is premature, for the theory is no more than a
possibility; and it may well be that both passages are
authentic or that both represent a lost original. All that
we are entitled to conclude from the comparison is that, if
the passages are variants, it is probable that Mk. xiv. 24,
and not i Cor. xi. 25, is the original.
We have now reached the point when it is necessary to
examine more closely the difficulty of the Markan saying.
The strongest objection which can be brought against
Mk. xiv. 24 is the fact that the Jew regarded the drinking
of blood with horror; can Jesus, then, have commanded
His disciples to drink wine as the symbol of His blood?
From feelings of reverence this difficulty has not received
the attention it demands, for there can be no doubt that it
is formidable. Writing as a Jew, C. G* Montefiore ex-
presses it temperately when he says: *I would also venture
to suggest how difficult it is to believe that a Palestinian or
Galilaean Jew could have suggested that in drinking wine
his disciples were, even symbolically, drinking blood.
For the horror with which the drinking of blood was re-
garded by the Jews is well-known/ 2 J. Klausner, also a
Jew, makes the point more trenchantly: 'The drinking of
blood, even if it was meant symbolically, could only have
aroused horror in the minds of such simple Galilaean
Jews/ 3 It is not surprising that many continental
scholars explain the words as a cult-saying which origi-
nated in a non-Jewish environment. Thus, Dibelius
thinks of Greek circles: *The peculiar equation, not of the wine
and the blood, but of the cup and the covenant, may be due to the avoid-
ance of the offence which the other formulation might have given to
Hellenic sensibility,' op. '/., 161, He appears to think that the Pauline
form presupposes ML xiv. 24, but does not discuss the point. See p. 162.
*The Synoptic Gospels, i. 332.
z Jesus of Nazareth (Eng. tr.), 329.
134 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
writes : *A Jewish Christian Church with its dread of blood
would scarcely have made Jesus say "this is my blood" (in
the cup), but rather "this cup means a new covenant
which is instituted by my blood, i.e. by my death".' 1
It is, I think, a fair rejoinder to this argument to say,
first, that it is not a question of what 'a Palestinian or Gali-
laean Jew 7 would be likely to suggest, but of what might
be commanded by a Jew who believed himself to be the
Son of Man destined to suffer on behalf of the 'many'. 2
Again, it is a very doubtful canon of authenticity to ques-
tion words of Jesus on the ground that they would have
awakened horror in the minds of Jews. During the first
days of His preaching Jesus appeared in the eyes of His
family to be 'beside himself 7 (Mk. iii. 21). To the
scribes His claim to forgive sins was blasphemy (Mk. ii.
7). His liberal interpretation of the law of the Sabbath
led the Pharisees to take counsel with the Herodians, *how
they might destroy him' (Mk. iii. 6). At His Trial His
declaration that His judges would see 'the Son of man
sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the
clouds of heaven' so roused the high priest that he rent his
clothes, and said: 'What further need have we of wit-
nesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye?'
(Mk. xiv. 63f.). 3 Further, the men addressed are not
Tradition to Gospel, 207.
2 On the question of the Messianic consciousness of Jesus, Montefiore
speaks with the greatest hesitation and reserve. Cf. The Synoftic Gospels,
i. cxxi.F. One of the more positive passages is that in vol. ii. p. 20: 6 It is,
indeed, conceivable that, towards the close of his ministry, Jesus may have
realised that his mission was only to succeed, and the Kingdom of God to
be inaugurated, by his own suffering and death . His conception of
his Messiahship may have been the conception of the Suffering Servant,
through whose stripes and death men were healed, rather than that of the
righteous and conquering king.*
^he Fourth Gospel contains stronger examples, influenced in part by
current controversy: cf. vi. 52, viii. 48, 52; ix. 24, x. 20, 33.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 135
just 'simple Galilaean Jews', as Klausner describes them,
but disciples, to whom, though with little success, Jesus
had already imparted the teaching that 'the Son of man
must suffer'. Difficult as they had found this doctrine to
accept, they would not be likely, in the light of it, to take
the words of Jesus as a bare suggestion that in drinking
wine they were drinking blood symbolically. Finally, to
interpret the words of Jesus in this way is to put an am-
biguous and misleading construction upon them. Jesus
does not invite His disciples to drink blood, or to drink
blood symbolically, but to drink wine as representing His
life surrendered for many. The objection under review
has force if the theory of Transubstantiation is accepted;
but there is no probability that Jesus saw any objective
virtues in blood, or implied that His word transformed the
'substance' of wine into the 'substance' of blood. The
wine remains wine, but wine invested with a new signi-
ficance and power. Blood is mentioned in view of the
circumstances, and because of the associations of the term.
The red vintage suggests it, the thought of a violent death
implies it, the well-known Old Testament use of the word
makes it a convenient vehicle of thought; but the term
is misconceived if it is isolated from the ideas it is meant
to suggest. What Jesus has in mind is a redemptive
activity, not a transformation of 'substance' ; He is think-
ing of His life surrendered for the salvation of many, and
the wine is offered as a symbol of the life and a means
whereby it may be appropriated.
It is not, of course, to be supposed that, at the time, the
disciples understood the full meaning of the words of
Jesus, or the significance of what He invited them to do;
but this fact throws no doubt upon the Markan saying.
Rather is it the manner of Jesus to speak words which
challenge thought and become luminous only in the
I3 6 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
course of experience. His words are 'words of aeonian
life'. The note of challenge, and even of offence, is
characteristic of the sayings of One who disdained quali-
fications, and said : 'Blessed is he, whosoever shall find
none occasion of stumbling in me' (Lk. vii. 23).'
For these reasons, there is little satisfaction in efforts
which trace the Markan saying to an unknown
'community' situate in the back-streets of Rome. Con-
ceivably, its origin might be such; but every consideration
of probability favours the belief that its unstrained allu-
sions, its bold challenge, and its virility of thought have
the authentic ring* The one speaker who is most likely
to have used these words is Jesus Himself. 1
This conclusion has most cogency if it extends to the
entire saying, and since there are no adequate reasons for
detaching the phrase, * which was shed for many/ from the
rest, 2 it may with justice be claimed for the whole. If
this view is accepted, there is no reason to consider
whether Mk. xiv. 24 and i Cor. xi. 25 are different ver-
sions of a lost original. Mk. xiv. 24 is original, and
i Cor. xi. 25 is either a variant of it or is a distinct saying.
Which of these alternatives is the more probable may be
deferred until the Pauline sayings are examined further. 3
It remains for us to consider more closely the implica-
tions of the Markan saying, and, in particular, the mean-
of the phrase, 'my blood of the covenant.'
The idea of a covenant between Yahweh and Israel,
which from the side of the people demands obedience, and
from the side of Yahweh promises blessings, is deeply in-
wrought in Old Testament thinking, and the use of the
phrase, 'blood of the covenant,' suggests that the ancient
story of the institution of the covenant in Ex. xxiv. i-i i
I Cf. G. H. C. Macgregor, Eucharistic Origins,
2 See p. i26 3 See pp. 203-6.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 137
forms the background of the words of Jesus. It is neces-
sary, therefore, to examine this story.
The narrative tells that when Moses returns with the
words of Yahweh, the people declare their willingness to
obey. Next day an altar is built, burnt-offerings are
offered, and peace-offerings are sacrificed to Yahweh.
Half of the blood is then sprinkled on the altar, and when
the book of the covenant is read, the people declare : * All
that Yahweh hath spoken will we do/ Blood is then
sprinkled on them, and Moses says: 'Behold the blood
of the covenant, which Yahweh hath made with you con-
cerning all these words/ Moses and his companions
then ascend into the mount, and it is recorded of them :
'they beheld God, and did eat and drink' (Ex, xxiv. 1 1).
In this narrative a distinction is drawn between the
blood sprinkled upon the altar and that which is sprinkled
upon the people. The former is the symbol of the
people's obedience; it is their offering to God, confirmed
by the words : 'All the words which Yahweh hath spoken
will we do/ The latter, the blood sprinkled upon them,
is dedicated blood which Yahweh has accepted, and the
sprinkling means that the people now share in the bless-
ings and powers which it represents and conveys. It is this
blood which is described as 'the blood of the covenant'.
It is not easy to determine how far the details of this
story were in the mind of Jesus during the Supper. Was
He thinking, for example, of this ancient representative
company of men eating and drinking in fellowship with
God, when He took bread for His disciples 'as they were
eating', and, having blessed and broken it, said: 'Take ye:
this is my body*? Certain it is that the phrase, 'blood of
the covenant,' is taken from the story, and the words, 'my
blood of the covenant/ suggest reflection on the words of
Moses. The saying of Jesus strongly suggests the
138 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
thought that, as of old dedicated blood was applied in
blessing to the people of Israel, so now His life, surren-
dered to God and accepted by Him, is offered to, and
made available for men. Of this life the wine is a symbol :
but, since it is given to them to drink, it is more than a
symbol It is a means of blessing, an opportunity for
appropriation. It is not transformed into blood, but is
a vehicle of the life released for many in the shedding of
blood. That the life is conveyed mechanically, ex opere
operate, is foreign to the outlook and thought of Jesus; but
it is true to the meaning of His words at the Supper to say
that, in the rite, the life of a fellowship with God is offered
to men, so that of them also it may be said : 'they beheld
God, and did eat and drink.'
In his recent important brochure, Die Abendmahlsworte
Jesu, Joachim Jeremias, while recognizing that Ex. xxiv. 8
gives a good meaning for the words : 'This is my blood of
the covenant,' finds a nearer interpretation in the thought
of the blood of the Passover lamb. He recognizes that
the Passover of later times was not an atoning sacrifice, but
calls attention to two passages in the Talmudic Literature
which speak of the blood of the Passover lamb as 'cove-
nant-blood'. 1 Both passages relate to Zech. ix. 1 1 : 'As
for thee also, because of the blood of thy covenant I have
sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water,'
and interpret this passage with reference to the deliverance
from Egypt. The Passover blood is the blood of the
covenant in the power of which the deliverance is accom-
plished. Jeremias is of the opinion that the thought of
Jesus, who during the last days of His Ministry had this
chapter of Zechariah in mind (c Mt. xxi. 5), is the same;
it is the atoning blood of the Passover lamb at the depar-
ture from Egypt with which He compares His own 'blood
z Targ. Zech. ix.ii; MekL Ex. xii. 6.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 139
of the covenant'. He thus describes 'His death as an
atoning death which establishes the new and eternal
communion of a humanity cleansed from sin with its God
the communion of the Kingdom of God'. 1
This view seems to me to be less probable than the in-
terpretation which finds the reference, in the words of
Jesus, in Ex. xxiv. 8, but the conclusion as to the signifi-
cance of the words of institution is the same. This is
especially clear in the words with which Jeremias closes
his essay with reference to the saying on the Messianic
feast in the future Kingdom in Mk, xiv. 25 : *As He will
there give to them the divine gift of the bread and water of
life, so He gives to them now in bread and wine His gift
a share in the reconciling power of His vicarious death. So
certainly as they eat the bread which Jesus breaks for
them, and drink the wine over which He spoke the word
concerning the blood of the covenant, so certainly avails
for them the "for you" of His death, and the "with you"
of the future Supper-communion in the renewed world.' 2
(r) Eerily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine,
until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God' (Mk.
xiv. 25).
Matthew's version contains merely stylistic and exegetical varia-
tions (xxvi, 29). Luke's version is shorter, and may be indepen-
dent of Mk, In the second part he has: 'until the kingdom of God
shall come' (xxii. 18). See pp. 1836%
In the third Markan saying Jesus looks beyond the
present Supper to the consummation of the Kingdom
when He will drink the wine of the Messianic Banquet.
The genuineness of the saying needs little discus-
1 Qp. /., 82.
2 Of. r/V., 94. *His action is a guarantee, is an anticipation of the future
Supper-communion established with the Farousia, * ibid.
I 4 o JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
slon. 1 Its ideas are entirely Jewish. The thought of the
Messianic Feast goes back to Isa. xxv. 6, 2 and the phrase,
'the fruit of the vine/ appears in Isa. xxxii. 1 2 and Hab. iii.
17 (cf. Numb. vi. 4). Moreover, as Montefiore reminds
us, 'the joys of the Kingdom are constantly referred to in
Rabbinical literature under the metaphor of pleasures of
food and drink/ 3 The possibility, therefore, that the
saying is a 'community-product* does not arise.
The saying is closely connected with the preceding
words: 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed
for many'; and this is an indication that more was said at
the giving of the cup than the 'words of institution '. The
saying introduces a strong eschatological note into the
account of the Supper, and the question arises how this
element is related to the sacrificial conceptions implied in
the other sayings.
Loisy has argued that the anticipation of the Messianic
Banquet (Mk. xiv. 25) excludes the ideas connected with
the body and the blood (Mk. xiv. 22, 24),* but this is a
suggestion which places the various sayings in an unneces-
sary antagonism. If Jesus Himself drank of the wine,
and this is the opinion of very many commentators, 5 the
iWellhausen thinks that there is no saying of Jesus which gives a greater
impression of authenticity, but he needlessly supposes that Jesus thinks of
Himself simply as a guest, and not the Messiah present or future, v. Marc.,
115. Cf. Montefiore, op. tit., i. 335; Ed. Meyer, Ursprung u nd Anfange
de$ Christentums, i. 179.
2 'And in this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all peoples a
feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of
wines on the lees well refined.'
3 Op. cit. 9 i, 334; cf. Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., i. 992.
*Les Evangitts synoptiques, ii. 540; cf. Montefiore, op. tit., i. 337.
6 This view is implied by the Markan words, 'I will no more drink . . .
until . . .', and by the reading of D, ot; JLM) irpoaBa) TTCLV. This reading,
which is supported by 565 a f arm (cf. Legg, Novum Testamentum
Graece, in loc.), has an authentic ring. Cf. LL xx. i r, and see Moulton,
Grammar of New Testament Greek, ii, 445.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 141
action must have had a different significance for Him from
that which it had for the disciples. For them the drink-
ing of the cup foreshadows the approaching death and
sacrifice; for Him it heralds the joys of the Kingdom.
The disciples themselves are introduced into this aspect of
the Supper in the words of Mk. xiv. 25 ; for them also it is
made clear that 'if death is certain, so is reunion'. 1 The
eschatological idea, indeed, is indissolubly connected with
the Supper in the earliest tradition. It dominates, as we
shall see, the Lukan account, 2 and is emphasized by St.
Paul in the words : 'For as often as ye eat this bread, and
drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he comi
(i Cor. xi. 26). 3 This thought of the future consumma-
tion, however, is distinctively present to the mind of Jesus
during the Supper, and is in no way in conflict with the
teaching which He gave to the disciples concerning the
bread and the cup. With Him they could think of the
Supper as an anticipation of the Messianic Feast, but for
them in particular it meant also participation in His ap-
proaching sacrifice.
Mk. xiv. 25 is of the greatest importance for the insight
it gives into the mind of Jesus as He contemplates His
death. It shows that the idea of the Kingdom, so central
in His Galilaean teaching, was His sure hope and con-
fidence in the very shadow of the cross. He did not re-
nounce His earlier teaching and replace it by the idea of a
redemptive sacrifice. On the contrary, He is still sure
that the Kingdom will be established; He will yet drink
the wine of the Messianic Banquet. The ring of joyful
confidence is unmistakable. This hope can only mean
that He believed His death to be a necessary step to the
establishment of the Kingdom. He must suffer and die,
*A. W. F. Blunt, 252. 2 See pp. 1 8off.
*Cf. A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the dpostte, 267.
142 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
then the Rule of God can be consummated; this, and no-
thing less is the implication of His words. When or how
the Kingdom will come is not stated, but the atmosphere
of the saying, as in Mk. ix. I and xiv. 62, is that of a hope
whose realization is near.
Important as this thought is in itself, it must not be
separated from the Supper with which it is associated; it is
the Supper which releases the hope and is the medium of
its expression. Much of the discussion in respect of the
three Markan sayings has necessarily turned on the mean-
ing of the Supper; but this is no departure from the study
of the attitude of Jesus to His death and passion, since it
is His own words which bring the death and the Supper
into the closest connexion* H* A. W. Meyer shows a just
and a true appreciation of the connexion when he says :
'The atonement through the death of Jesus is at any rate the
necessary -premiss of even the symbolical interpretation of
the Lord's Supper. With every attempt to explain away the
atoning death, the Supper becomes utterly unintelligible.' 1
(10) Two OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS; THE STONE (Mk. xii.
i of.); THE SHEPHERD (Mk. xiv. 27).
The Acts and the Epistles show that in early Christia-
nity the greatest interest was taken in Old Testament
passages which were felt to be illustrated or 'fulfilled' in
the life and ministry of Jesus. It is always possible,
therefore, that during the oral period such passages were
unconsciously read back into His sayings, and this possi-
bility must always seriously be taken into account. On
the other hand, it is anything but a critical proceeding to
reject in a wholesale manner sayings which contain quota-
tions, for the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus Himself
^The Epistks to the Corinthians, i. 34211.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 143
read the Old Testament with fresh insight and expressed
His thoughts in its familiar language (cf. Mk. vii. 6f.,
xii. 26, 36 ; Lk. vii, 27, &c.). The real difficulty arises in
particular examples, and in these cases the decision must
turn on whether the quotation is well related to its context,
whether its use has any distinctive characteristics, and
whether its ideas appear elsewhere in the teaching of Jesus.
Where these tests are fulfilled, the presumption is that the
quotation is original.
(a) 'The stone which the builders rejected^
The same was made the head of the corner:
This was from the Lord^
jlnd it is marvellous in our eyes' (Mk. xiu I of.).
The passage is reproduced verbatim in Mt. xxu 42, and the first
part in Lk. xx. 17.
The quotation is taken from Psa. cxviii. 22^, where it
refers to Israel as despised among the nations, but destined
in the purpose of God to attain pre-eminence. 1 Some
commentators explain it as an addition on the part of the
community or the Evangelist, 2 but this view lacks ade-
quate justification. Undoubtedly, the passage was a
favourite quotation in early Christian apologetic; it ap-
pears in Acts iv. n; Eph. ii. 20; and I Pet. ii. 4-8.
Justin Martyr twice speaks of Christ as the 'stone/ 3 and it
may well be that the quotation appeared in early Christian
collections of Testimonia drawn from the Old Testament. 4
But these facts merely raise the question of genuineness ;
in no way do they preclude the use of the quotation by
1 An alternative explanation (Dulim) refers the passage to the beginnings
of the Maccabean House.
2 So Klostermann, 137; Bousset, op. cit. 9 69. See also Luce, 3 10.
*DiaL, 34, 36.
4 Cf. J. Rendel Harris, Testimonies, i. ii.; D. Plooij, Studies in the Testi-
mony Book. See also Bousset, op. tit., 69; Sanday and Headlam, 282,
144 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
Jesus, Although the words introduce a new figure of
speech, they are not inapposite as an appendage to the
parable of the Vineyard, and the researches of P. Fiebig
have shown that quotations from Scripture are found in
Rabbinical parables. 1 In later times there is evidence
that the Rabbis gave a Messianic interpretation to the
passage, 2 and Jesus who in the parable is thinking in
Messianic terms, may well have read it in the same way.
J. Jeremias thinks that Jesus is employing the figure of the
New Temple, and that He designates Himself as the 'key-
stone' which brings it to completion. 3 A parallel idea
appears in the saying which lies behind Jn. ii. 1 9, 'Destroy
this temple, and in three days I will raise it up/ which is
echoed in the accusation brought against Jesus at His
Trial (Mk. xiv. 58)* and in the taunts of those who pass by
at the Crucifixion (Mk. xv. 29; cf. Acts vi. 14). Jesus
was keenly interested in the fate of the Temple (cf. Mk.
xiii. 2), and, accordingly, to believe that He had reflected
on an Old Testament passage which, in His view, defined
a Messianic function He was destined to fulfil, is histori-
cally justifiable, especially in the light of His claim to be
the founder of a New Temple 'made without hands'
(Mk. xiv. 58). For these reasons it is unnecessary to
trace the passage to the 'community'; it is better inter-
preted as a quotation of Jesus Himself. 5
1 Cf. Die Gleichnisreden, 78; Der Erxahlungsstil der Evangelien, 41, 43.
2 Cf. Stracfc-BiHerbeck, Kommentar> i. 876.
3 Cf. Jesus als Weltvollender, 80.
4 See the interesting discussion by Goguel in The Life of Jesus, 507^.,
where Mk. xiv. 58 is claimed as *a full/ authentic saying', with the support
of Wrede, J. Weiss, Wellhausen, Loisy, Norden, Bultmann, and Bertram.
6 The interest of Jesus in passages which speak of the 'Stone* is further
illustrated in Lk. xx. 18: 'Every one that falleth on that stone shall be
broken to pieces; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust*
(cf. Isa. viii. 14 and Dan. ii. 44), but this isokted and obscure logion has
difficulties of its own,
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 145
The use of the quotation is a further proof that Jesus
thought of His death, not as a stroke of fate, but as a
necessary part of His Mission. The 'stone' is rejected,
and by the builders, but this event is not the end. The
rejected stone becomes 'the head of the corner*. So
God has ordained it, and looking upon the result men
confess it marvellous in their eyes. The use of the pas-
sage by Jesus implies His obedient acceptance of a
divinely appointed r$le, and no less His sure conviction of
its triumphant issue. For Him rejection is a temporary
condition followed by the victory of the divine Will. 1
(b) 'And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended: for it is
written^
I will smite the shepherd^
And the sheep shall be scattered abroad? (MIc xiv. 27).
Matthew has *the sheep ofthefiocK\ Luke omits the section.
This quotation is taken from Zech. xiii. 7, but instead
of the future, 'I will smite/ both the Hebrew and the
LXX read the imperative, 'Smite the shepherd/ R. H.
Kennett, 2 however, suggests that the future should be
read in Zechariah as in Mark.
Several commentators explain the future tense as due to
the influence of Christian usage or of a collection of Testi-
monia* while others think that the quotation is a later
addition prompted by Christian reflection. 4 The following
verse, 'Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you
into Galilee/ is wanting in the Fayoum Gospel-Fragment, 5
x The agreement of this idea with those of Isa. liii. is obvious.
2 Peake's Commentary, 583.
8 Swete, 338; B.T.D. Smith, 199; Blunt, 252.
4 Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels^ i. 340; Wood, Peake's Commentary,
6 Cf. M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 25.
K
146 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
and Holtzmarm has argued that verse 29 (Peter's protest
'Although all shall be offended ') follows much bettei
after 27^ (*A11 ye shall be offended'). Montefiore reminds
us, however, that J. Weiss takes verse 28 to mean: 'I will
go at your head, and will lead you to Galilee,' and that he
interprets the verse as the embodiment of 'a very old ex-
pectation (or prediction) which was not fulfilled'. 1 The
critical objection to the genuineness of the quotation is
clearly put by Bertram who sees in the passage an attempt
to show that Jesus foresaw His fate, and to prove that what
happened was in accord with Old Testament prophecy. 2
A decision between the alternative explanations is not
easy. Bertram's suggestion would account for the gene-
sis of the story, for it relates the narrative to a situation
which existed in primitive Christianity. On the other
hand, it is just as pertinent to urge that Jesus Himself
foresaw His fate, and, as the investigation has already
shown. He found its secret in the Old Testament. The
passage, therefore, can just as naturally be attributed to
Jesus as to the Christian community. Moreover, the quo-
tation is well related to the immediate situation in the story.
Few things in the Gospel tradition are more certain than that
Jesus foretold the defection of Peter; but Peter's protest,
'Although all shall be offended,' implies the sorrowful ob-
servation of Jesus, 'All ye shall be offended' (lit., 'made
to stumble'), and in such a connexion the Old Testament
words about the scattering of the sheep are very apposite.
The evidence that Jesus used imagery connected with
sheep and shepherds is abundant. He saw the people of
the land 'as sheep not having a shepherd' (Mk. vi. 34), and
spoke of Himself as sent to 'the lost sheep of the house of
Israel' (Mt. xv. 24; cf. x. 6). He related His immortal
parables of the Lost Sheep (Lk. xv. 3-7) and the Sheep and
2 Dif Leidensgeschickte Jesu undder Christuskult, 42.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 147
the Goats (Mt. xxv. 3 1-46). He bade the little flock' of
His disciples not to fear, since it was the Father's good
pleasure to give them the Kingdom (Lk. xii. 32), and in
the Fourth Gospel He speaks of Himself as 'the good
shepherd' that 'layeth down his life for the sheep' (Jn, x.
1 1). To use, therefore. Old Testament language, and
prophesy that when He, the shepherd, is smitten, the
sheep will be scattered, is simply to employ His own voca-
bulary. Moreover, as J. Jeremias 1 has pointed out, the
figure of the Shepherd is a common designation of the
bringer of Salvation throughout the East, and in the Old
Testament it is used of the Messiah (cf. Mic. v. 4; Ezek.
xxxiv. 23f., xxxvii. 24).
If the quotation is a later insertion due to subsequent
Christian reflection, it has been admirably introduced into
a natural sequence of thought and adapted to the language
of Jesus in the interests, not of doctrine, but of apology.
This is possible, but the presumption, I think, is that the
quotation was made by Jesus. If this conclusion is ac-
cepted, the passage is another illustration of the way in
which the thought of His death absorbed the mind of
Jesus and led Him to ponder the ancient prophecies of
Israel. If the change from the imperative ('smite') to the
future ('I will smite') is a deliberate modification, and not
caused by early Christian usage, it reveals His conviction
that His suffering and death are not merely events com-
passed by men, but rather the fulfilment of a purpose deep
in the counsels of God.
(n) THE GETHSEMANE SAYINGS (Mk. xiv. 34, 36, 3/f., 4i,
4 8).
Rawlinson's view, that the basis of the story of Gethse-
mane is 'historical and beyond the reach of invention', 2 is
. cit.y 3 2f. 2 $t. Mark, 210.
I 4 8 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
shared by critics of very different schools. The opinion,
it is true, is not universally accepted. Dibelius explains
the story as one which has been built up out of material
supplied by the Old Testament in such a way that it 'be-
came a revelation of Jesus' obedience in opposition to the
inert and dull disciples*. 1 Bultmann speaks of its 'wholly
legendary character', 2 and Goguel describes it as 'an ad-
mirable allegory' 'which expresses what took place in the
soul of Jesus'. 3 These views, however, stand opposed to
a consensus of opinion shared by unusual allies. The
historian, Eduard Meyer, says that this scene and that of
the Denial bear *the impress of complete authenticity'. 4
Montefiore, while voicing a warning against pressing the
details of the story, says that 'it may well have a historic
basis', and declares that 'one cannot but marvel at the
wonderful grace and beauty, the exquisite tact and dis-
cretion, which the narrative displays'. 5 Even more re-
markable is the opinion of Joseph Klausner : 'The whole
story bears the hallmark of human truth : only a few details
are dubious. It must have been transmitted to the Evan-
gelists (or their sources) direct from Peter, James or John,
with such simplicity and conviction that even the ideas or
tendencies of Pauline times could not obscure their memo-
ries. The sorrow and sufferings of the solitary Son of
man, profound as they are, leave on every sympathetic
heart, be it the heart of the believer or unbeliever, such an
impression as may never be wiped out/ 6
l Frm Tradition to Gospel, 213.
2 Dze Geschichte der sy noptischen Tradition* 288.
*Thc Life of Jesus, 495.
4 Ursfrung und Anfange des Christentums, i. 149.
*The Synoptic Gospels, i. 342.
* Jesus of Nazareth, 332. So much is Montefiore impressed by the su-
blime words of the prayer that he asks: *And why should it not, even though
for us Jesus is neither God nor Messiah, give strength to Jewish hearts also?
We must restore this hero to the bead-roll of our heroes/ op. tit., i. 344.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 149
This estimate of the narrative does not, of course, ex-
clude the necessity of considering closely the difficulties,
as well as the meaning of the five sayings associated with
Gethsemane, 1
(a} *My soul is exceeding sorrow/til even unto death: abide ye here, and
watch' (Mk. xiv. 34; cf. Mt, xxvi. 38 and Lk. xxii. 40).
Matthew add% ''with me*. Luke omits the saying, and has: ''Pray
that ye enter not into temptation? Cf. xxii, 46 and Mk. xiv. 38.
These words echo the language of Psa. xlii. 5, 1 1 ;
xliii. 5 : 'Why art thou cast down, O my soul?' Once
more, they show how inevitably Jesus expressed His
deepest feelings in the language of the Old Testament.
Mark has attempted to interpret the words when he says
that Jesus 'began to be greatly amazed and sore troubled'
(xiv. 33). 2 The saying expresses grief and sorrow so
deep as to threaten life itself, 3 Something more than
shrinking from death is implied. It was not with such
feelings that the martyrs faced death, 4 and the only tenable
explanation of the words is one which recognizes that it
was the prospect of death as Jesus interpreted it which tor-
tured His soul in this hour. He saw His sufferings as
1 It is interesting to recall that even D. F. Strauss recognized as 'an his-
torical kernel*, 'the fact, that Jesus on that evening in the garden experi-
enced a violent access of fear, and prayed that his sufferings might be
averted, -with the reservation nevertheless of an entire submission to the will
of God/ Life of Jesus (Eng. Tr. by Geo. Eliot, 5th ed., 640).
2 *To be full of terror and distress* (Weymouth), To feel appalled and
agitated* (Moflatt).
sCf. Swete, 342; Rawlinson, 21 i; and see Jon, iv. 9. Klostermann, 168,
thinks the idea is that death is to be preferred.
*Cf. H. B. Workman, Persecution in the Early Church, 303-52. The
absence of all fear, in fact, is one of the notes of the early Church,* 305.
*For weeks before the fatal issue, we find the martyrs living in a state of
ecstasy/ 321. The Christian's contempt of death was remarkable even in
an age in which indifference to death formed one of the pleasures of life,'
150 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
comparable to those of the Suffering Servant, and the pre-
sent saying is in harmony with such a conception. His
sorrow 'unto death' is that of the Servant who 'bore the sin
of many 7 (Isa. liii. 12).
What is the meaning of the command: 'Abide ye here,
and watch'? The suggestion that the three are to watch
in order to warn Jesus of danger may be dismissed. Jesus
does not go to Gethsemane for safety, and when the traitor
approaches, so far from taking to flight, He goes boldly to
meet him (Mk. xiv. 42). The injunction means that He
desires the sympathy of the disciples' presence. But does
it not mean more? Already the disciples have received
bread and wine in virtue of which they participate in the
sacrifice of Jesus. Can it be that their present vigil be-
longs to the same cycle of ideas, and is in keeping with the
assumption of ancient religion that there is no offering
apart from men who 'draw near'? If Jesus believes that
His selfgiving avails for the many, it is natural that He
should associate with His suffering His most intimate
disciples whose presence and sympathy give meaning to
what He does. Hence, either now (Lk. xxii. 40) or later
(Mk. xiv. 38), He warns them against yielding to tempta-
tion, The Son of Man must not be left to bear His sor-
row and suffering alone. So far as it is given to men so to
do, they are to share His cup, as indeed He had foretold
(Mk. x. 39), in the silent fellowship of sympathy and love.
That this interpretation reads a meaning into the words
of Jesus may be freely granted. Its justification is the
urgency with which He bids them watch, and the inter-
pretation He Himself placed on the nature of His Messia-
nic suffering.
(b) 'And he said, Alla^ Father, all things are possible unto thee;
remove this cup from me: howbeit not what I will, but what thou
wilf (Mk. xiv. 36; cf. Mt. xxvi. 39, 42; Lk. xxii. 42).
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 151
Matthew has *O my Father^ and 'if it be possible* (cf. Mk. xiv.
36). Instead of 'remove' he has 'let . . . pass away\ and, at the
end, 'nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt'. Luke has
* Father , *f /&?# & willing J and at the end, 'nevertheless not my will,
but thine y be done* (cf. Mt. vi. 10).
The difficulties of the record are not theological, but
historical. 'Every kind of eyewitness is excluded from
the essential part of the scene*, writes Dibelius, 'since the
witnesses are asleep.* 1 Many writers feel this difficulty
to be insuperable, and in consequence are compelled to
attribute the prayer to guesswork 2 or inference. 8 It is
not, however, necessary to take this view; we do not know
what interval separates verses 36 and 37, or when the
disciples fell asleep, nor can we exclude the possibility that
Mark himself was an eyewitness (cf. xiv. 5 if.). In view
of these uncertainties, it is best to decide the question of
genuineness by the content of the prayer itself. To say
that the reporter 'has truly guessed', 4 or that the words are
*a consummately successful attempt to express what the
situation demanded', 5 or even to suggest that, later, the
disciples 'must have been spiritually dose enough to inter-
pret the scene aright', 6 are not very satisfactory explana-
tions. How came the reporters to resist doctrinal tenden-
cies, and why is their work so consummately successful?
It is not a Christian, but Klausner the Jew, who gives the
coup de grace to the critical suggestions when he says:
'None would afterwards have invented such words, so
contradictory to the Christian belief.' 7
l Qp. a/., 211. C Goguel, The Life of Jesus, 494.
2 Cf. J. Mackinnon, The Historic Jesus y 240.
3 Cf. Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, 207.
4 Mackinnon, op, /., 240. 5 Montefiore, op. cit., i. 344.
6 H, G. Wood, Peake's Commentary, 697.
7 Of. cit., 332. Cf. Montefiore: Tor the tendency was to turn Jesus
from a man into a God, and a God has no moments of fear or agony, even
if he is about to die,' op. /., i. 242.
152 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
The prayer, therefore, may be taken as genuine, or, in
any case, as representing the mind of Jesus correctly.
The reference to the 'cup* recalls the same expression in
Mk. x. 38 1 (cf. Lk. xii. 50), and must be interpreted in the
same manner. The cup is an experience of deep spiritual
suffering of which death is the climax. Martyrdom is in-
cluded, but it cannot possibly be regarded as the sole
ingredient in the cup, in view of the strong consciousness
of the fulfilment of a destiny revealed in the prayer itself,
in the words, 'but what thou wilt,' and in the reference to
the arrival of *the hour* in xiv. 4 1 (cf. xiv. 3 5). For Jesus
the martyrdom has a meaning, and it is the meaning which
constitutes the cup. Those interpretations which speak
of it as a 'cup of wrath' are wrong in fact, 2 but not in prin-
ciple. It is right to find in it whatever belongs to His
Messianic suffering. The saying does not describe its
contents, but if, on other grounds, there is reason to think
that Jesus looked on the surrender of His life as an offer-
ing for 'the many', the cup can mean nothing less than the
bitter experience thereby involved.
There is no contradiction between the prayer and the
earlier predictions of death (Mk. viii. 31, and similar say-
ings). *It is a natural wish rather than a hope which
prompts the prayer: and the very form of it, "Abba
Father, all things are possible to thee," suggests that the
request is for something beyond human power or expecta-
tion (cf. Mk. x. 2y). >3 Nothing, more than this tension
between the acceptance of a destiny and the shrinking of a
1 See pp.
2Not to mention other objections, this view is ruled out by the tenderness
and confidence in the words. 'Abba, Father,* a bilingualism which may
represent the usage of Jesus Himself. For different interpretations of the
phrase see Swete, 344.
3 H. G. Wood, op. tit., 668.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 153
sensitive spirit, is so eloquent of the realism of the Gospel
story.
(c) 'And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto
Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour?
Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit
indeed is witting^ but the flesh is weak* (Mk. xiv. 37f.; cf. Mt.
xxvi. 4o; Lk. xxii. 45f.).
Matthew omits the reference to Simon, and adds, 'with me* after
'watch*. Luke's version, which may be independent, says that the
disciples were sleeping 'for sorrow\ and records the saying briefly:
*Why sleep ye? rise and pray > that ye enter not into temptation* (cf.
xxii. 40).
These words farther illustrate the importance Jesus
attached to the presence and sympathy of the disciples,
The rebuke is sharp, especially in the case of Peter (cf.
xiv. 3 1) 5 and the command is repeated and extended; they
are to watch and pray, and not to enter into temptation. 1
Loisy suggests that the original command was : Tray that
I enter not into trial* ; 2 but, while this interpretation does
not raise insuperable doctrinal difficulties, it is not re-
quired by the infinitive in Lk. xxii. 40, and is excluded by
the \ft}T in Mk. xiv. 38 ; Mt. xxvi. 41, and Lk. xxii. 46,
The temptation is that of relaxing vigilance, and so of fail-
ing to give to Jesus the sympathy and fellowship of which
He is in need; it may also be that of proving faithless
amid the events which will ensue. Although the rebuke
is sharp, the peremptoriness of the command is softened
1 IVOL c. sulj. in Mk. xiv. 38 is used, not of purpose, but either of the
content of the prayer (Klostermann, 169), or as a substitute for the im-
perative (Moulton, Prolegomena, 178).
2 Luce, 337, thinks the conjecture 'natural enough'; Easton, 331, records
it with an exclamation mark. Rville similarly conjectured that the saying
on the spirit and the flesh was 'obviously spoken by Jesus of Himself. Cf.
Wood, 697.
154 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
by His recognition of their willing spirit as well as their
human frailty,
(d) *And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them. Sleep on
now, and take your rest: it is enough (a7re#t); the hour is come;
behold y the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners,
jirise, let us be going: behold, he that betrayeth me is at hand*
(Mk. xiv. 4i c Mt. xxvi. 45f.}.
Matthew's version is in almost verbatim agreement, but aTre^e*
is omitted, and the hour is described as 'at hand\ There is no
parallel in Lk.
In this obscurely worded passage the question of
genuineness hardly arises, 1 and the only points for dis-
cussion are the rendering and interpretation of the saying.
Probably the first two verbs should be taken as ques-
tions 2 as in xiv. 37. d^et has been the subject of much
discussion. Usually, it is rendered, 'It is enough* (E.V.,
cf. Vulg. sufficify and is interpreted with reference to
sleep 3 ('Enough of sleep') or to the reproof 4 ('Enough of
irony'); but this meaning of the word is very infrequent.
J. de Zwaan 5 has argued for the rendering, 'He (Judas)
did receive (the promised money)/ in view of the fact that
the verb is constantly found in the papyri and ostraca 'as a
technical expression for drawing up a receipt' 6 ; but the
introduction of this idea in xiv. 41 is very abrupt. 7 Tor-
rey's suggestion, that the meaning is 'already' 8 ('Already
1 Bultmann, of. cit. 9 288, regards everything after 'the hour is come* as a
later addition. c ls not this hypercriticism?', asks Montefiore, of. /.,
i. 346.
2 Cf. Mofiatt: 'Still asleep? still resting?',
3 So Klostermann, 169; Rawlinson, 213. Cf. Moflatt: "No more of
^tf- 4 So Swete, 348. ^Expositor, VI. xii. 452^
6 Moulton and Milligan, The 7ocabular^ of the Greek Testament, syf.;
Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, i rof.
7 C Rawlinson, 2 1 2. * The Four Gospels, 327.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 155
the hour is come') is simple, but is exposed to the uncer-
tainties of the supposed Aramaic original* The common
meaning of the verb is 'to be distant* or 'far away from',
and J. T. Hudson 1 has recently put forward a strong argu-
ment for this rendering in connexion with the reading
TO reXos found in both Western and Eastern MSS. Since
Hudson wrote, his argument has been strengthened by
the additional textual evidence recorded in Novum Testa-
mentum Graece, edited by S. C. E. Legg, and there is much
force in the contention that this reading supplies the best
explanation of the textual variations. 2 If this view is
accepted, the phrase is a third ironical question, and the
first part of the saying may be translated: 'Still asleep?
Still resting? The end is far away? The hour has come!'
The reference to 'sinners' is variously explained as
meaning 'Gentiles', 'Romans', or 'Jews', but probably
Rawlinson is right when he interprets it 'in the more ob-
vious meaning of "sinful men".' 3
The saying confirms the impression made by Mk. xiv.
34, 3yf., that Jesus found deep meaning in the presence
and sympathy of the three intimate disciples. If all the
verbs at the beginning are interrogatives this inference is
at its strongest; it is diminished only a little if, after all,
aTr^L means 'It is enough'; it is permissible if the im-
probable translation, 'Sleep on, and take your rest,' is ac-
cepted. Jesus had counted on the three; they had a part
to play in His Messianic sacrifice; and it is an added sor-
row that they fail Him just as the hour of destiny strikes.
The full horror of the situation breaks upon Him in the
*Thc Expository Times, xlvi. 382.
^he reading is supported by D W 9, the Ferrar Group and some
cursives, adf ffqr 1 , sy s sy^sy^ The Neutral text omits TO r
and W k bo omit airc^c*. 106 and $y s sy$ support the reading 7re^
'Rawlinson, 213.
156 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
reflection that the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands
of sinful men. Here, ever\ T point is significant, the per-
son of the One betrayed, the betrayal itself, the character
of those into whose hands He falls. Opposed in every
respect to those who surround Him stands the figure of
Jesus Himself. Now, as always. He is master of the
situation. His 'Arise, let us be going', is not a counsel
of flight, 1 but a call to action. He 'goes forth to meet His
fate'. 2
(e) 'And Jesus answered and said unto them. Are ye come out, as
against a robber 9 with swords and staves to seize me? I was
daily with you in the temple teaching^ and ye took me not: but (this
is done) that the Scriptures might be fulfilled' (ML xiv. 48f.; cf.
Mt. xxvi. 55f.; Lk. xxii. 52f.).
Matthew adds at the beginning 'to the multitudes\ He follows
Mark closely, but says, ''All this is come topass\ and adds ' ''of 'the pro-
phets' after 'Scriptures'. Luke refers to *the chief priests^ and
captains of the temple, and elders' 9 (cf. Mk. xiv. 43). He has 'Ye
stretched not forth your hands against me\ and adds, ''But this is your
hour, and the power of darkness*.
The only point to be considered is the phrase, 'that the
Scriptures might be fulfilled.' The words are felt by some
to be a gloss, 8 but they may well have been spoken by
Jesus. As in Mk ix. lib and xiv. 21 no particular pas-
sage is suggested. The point, however, is not of much
importance, since, at this stage, it is fully evident that
Jesus interpreted His suffering in terms of Old Testa-
ment thought.
1 Swete, 349; Gould, 272; Rawlinson, 213; Blunt, 254; Klostermann,
169.
2 Gould, 272.
3 Bultmann, op. cit. 9 305, rejects xiv. 48; Ed. Meyer, op. cit. 9 i. 184,
regards 48, 49^ as authentic, but not 49^.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 157
(12) THE CRY FROM THE CROSS (ML xv. 345 Mt. xxvii. 46),
* And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi y E/oi,
lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted. My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me?*
Matthew has ' 'about the ninth hour*, and gives the Hebrew form
*jEff, -E//V omitting 'being interpreted'. Luke omits the saying.
This saying, together with the reply to the high priest's
question (xiv. 62) and the words "Thou sayest' in answer
to Pilate (xv. 2), are the only utterances of Jesus recorded
by Mark after the Arrest* 1 The words are a quotation
from Psa. xxii., and there is much to be said for the view
that they were spoken in Hebrew. 2 Although Codex
Bezae and some Old Latin MSS. (c and i) support the
reading 'reproached* instead of 'forsaken*, it is probable
that the common reading is correct. The absence of the
saying from Luke and John shows that it raised difficulties
at a very early time, and the Western reading is probably
a further illustration of this feeling; 3 it is still more ob-
viously present in the Gospel of Peter which reads : 'My
power ^ my power j why hast thou forsaken me?* 4
The genuineness of the saying is beyond dispute for
those who think it expresses feelings of despair. Schmie-
del, for example, included it among his nine 'foundation-
pillars for a truly scientific life of Jesus*, 5 and Arno Neu-
mann described it as bearing, unmistakably, *the stamp of
genuineness'. 6 Other interpretations, however, are pos-
sible, and these deeply affect the question.
1 R. H. Liglttfoot observes that this is strong evidence for the general
excellence, historically, of St. Mark's passion narrative, History and Inter-
pretation in the Gospels, 145.
2 Cf. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 205; Turner, St. Mark, jSf.
^he Western reading is accepted by Harnack, Probleme im Texte der
Leidensgesckichte Jesu, 1 1-5; Turner, op. /., 79.
4 V. 19. ^Encyclopaedia Bi&lica, col. 1881. *Jtsu* 9 162.
I 5 8 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
It is frequently urged that the saving reveals the in-
terests of primitive Christianity rather than the actual feel-
ings of Jesus. R. H. Lightfoot 1 holds that we must
exclude the common supposition that Mark 'in his faith-
fulness to historical fact . . . allows us to listen to a final
and despairing utterance of Jesus, forsaken by both God
and man in his extremity'. The Passion Narrative was
written for the edification of the Christian communities,
and, in the words in question, Jesus is to be regarded as
'claiming as his own a psalm, in which, taken as a whole,
more perhaps than in any other passage of the scriptures,
to judge by the use which they have made of it, the Chris-
tians found revealed to them the meaning and purpose of
the passion'. 2 This view stops short of denying the
genuineness of the saying, but other interpretations of the
kind are clearer in this respect. Loisy, for example,
thinks that Psa. xxii. dominates the accounts of the Pas-
sion, and that 'nothing was more natural than to place its
opening words in the mouth of the dying Christ'. 3 In the
opinion of Bultmann the Psalm provided a secondary
interpretation of the last cry of Jesus mentioned in xv. 37.*
The same view is taken by Bertram, 6 and, indeed, nearly
thirty years ago it was expressed by B, W. Bacon. 6 This
line of interpretation is altogether too doctrinaire to carry
conviction, and is too much for an independent observer
like Klausner. Jesus, as he sees Him, was 'permeated
with the spirit of the Scriptures', and 'it is, on the whole,
unlikely that the Church would have put such a verse into
the mouth of Jesus if he had not uttered it'. 7 A more
positive rejection, however, is fully justified. With the
iQf. '/., 157-60. 2 0p. tit., 159.
3 C Rawlinson, 236. 4 0/. cit., 304, 342.
6 0/. tit*, 83. *The Beginnings of Gospel Story, 223.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 159
whole Psalin at their disposal, it is incredible that the pri-
mitive communities should have passed by its radiant
affirmations, and should have selected a verse which
proved a rock of offence for later Evangelists, copyists,
and writers. It is with a just appreciation of the difficulty
of the saying that Goguel says that 'the fact that both Luke
and John felt this difficulty constitutes a very strong
reason for believing that the cry of dereliction is authen-
tic'. 1 Unfortunately, we do not know precisely how the
first Christians interpreted the saying; but it is difficult, if
not impossible, to offer any interpretation which, in the
absence of historical tradition, would have made it a suit-
able selection for the exercise of creative activity.
On the assumption of the genuineness of the saying
different views have been taken as to its meaning.
We may dismiss at once 'the traditional interpretation*,
if by this is meant the view that the saying implies that
Jesus was abandoned by the Father and, as a substitute for
sinners, endured the pains of the lost. This is Luther's
interpretation. 2 More cautiously it is expressed by Cal-
vin, 3 with the denial, however, that Jesus endured the
divine wrath; and in modern times it has been maintained
by Dale. 4 Apart altogether from the ethical and theo-
^The Life of Jesus, 541.
2C Look at Christ, who for tliy sake lias gone to Hell and been abandoned
by God as one damned for ever.* Cf. Thomasius, Christi Person und
Werk (3rd ed.), ii. 177, cited by J. Denney, The Christian Doctrine of
Reconciliation, 263 .
^Institutes, II. xvi. 10. 'How could He be angry with the beloved Son,
with whom His soul was well pleased?*. Cf. Mozley, The Doctrine of the
Atonement, 145.
*Thc Atonement, 61, 360, 'Immediately before His death He was
forsaken by God. When we remember the original glory in which He
dwelt with the Father, His faultless perfection, and His unbroken com-
munion with the Father during His life on earth, this is a great and awful
mystery . . ./ 3^*
160 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
logical objections, it is enough to say that nothing in the
saying requires such an interpretation. It may be that
the words imply a feeling of abandonment, and that the
suffering has a penal aspect, but abandonment as an actual
fact cannot justly be inferred from the cry. On this point
Glover's observation is unquestionably true: *I have some-
times thought there never was an utterance that reveals
more amazingly the distance between feeling and fact.' 1
At the opposite remove from the traditional view is the
interpretation which finds in the Cry a final declaration of
faith. This view is strongly maintained by J. M'Leod
Campbell. 2 The words, he contends, are not a cry of
desolation, but an utterance of unbroken trust. This in-
ference is drawn from the character of Psa. xxii. as a whole,
and especially verse 24:
'For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the
afflicted;
Neither hath he hid his face from him;
But when he cried unto him, he heard.'
Trust in God, personal trust, it is argued, pervades the
Psalm. Accordingly, it is held, the Cry from the Cross
does not imply abandonment by the Father, and not even
any temporary experience of being forsaken. Substanti-
ally, the same view is expressed by Carpenter who speaks
of 'this last affirmation of the Kingdom* (cf. Psa. xxii.
28-31) with which Jesus died, 3 Menzies argues that 'he
who quotes the first words of a poem may be thinking not
of those words only but of some later part of the poem or
of its general course of thought' 4 ; and the contention is
one which has made a wide appeal. 5
^The Jesus of History, 192. *The Nature of the Atonement, 24of.
*The First Three Gospels* 393.
*The Earliest Gospel. See Rawlinson, 236.
5 Cf. A. T. Cadoux, The Sources of the Second Gospel, 113.
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 161
It seems to me that this type of explanation entirely fails
to explain the saying. It is a product of reaction, of recoil
from the traditional interpretation; and it is just as 'theo-
logical' as the latter. If the Cry is meant to be a declara-
tion of faith, it is singular, as Strauss observed long ago, 1
that Jesus should quote the verse least adapted to His pur-
pose, and one that is expressive of the deepest misery. It
would indeed be the most tragic irony of history if death
prevented the citation of the later affirmations of the
Psalm, and it is not convincing to argue that these are
implied in words which suggest the opposite. It must, I
think, be allowed that this type of exegesis is no more
satisfactory than the former type. Indeed, if the tradi-
tional explanation is stripped of its revolting, and unneces-
sary features, it is very much nearer the truth.
In contrast with the two kinds of explanation which
have been considered, it seems to me best to conclude that
the saying expresses a feeling of utter desolation, a sense of
abandonment by the Father, an experience of defeat and
despair. If this conclusion does not agree with our
theories of the Person and Work of Christ, we ought to
adapt these to the implications of the saying, not to explain
the latter in terms of the former. The feeling of desola-
tion is temporary, but it is real, and it is due, so far as it
can be explained at all, to preoccupation by Jesus with the
fact and burden of sin. The suffering is not punishment
directly inflicted by God, and is penal only in so far as
it is a sharing in the sense of desolation and loss which
sin brings in its train when it is seen and felt for what it is.
Like the explanations already examined, this also is theo-
logical, but it differs from these in that it does not begin
with theology but with the direct implications of the say-
ing. When these are accepted, it is legitimate, and neces-
ife of Jesus (Eng. Tr, by Geo. Eliot), 5th ed., 688.
162 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
sary, to relate them to the fact that Jesus interpreted His
death as a suffering for the many, as sacrificial, and as
standing in the closest relation to human need. If these
conclusions are valid, it appears to be an inescapable in-
ference that Jesus so closely identified Himself with
sinners, and experienced the horror of sin to such a degree,
that for a time the closeness of His communion with the
Father was broken, so that His face was obscured and He
seemed to be forsaken by Him.
Present-day exposition is reluctant to draw this conclu-
sion and shows a marked tendency to fall back on the view
that we do not know exactly what was in the mind of
Jesus, and are face to face with 'the supreme mystery of
the Saviour's Passion'. 1 Such an attitude breathes a
spirit of fine reverence which all must feel who read the
saying with sympathy and understanding. Is there not,
however, a real danger of reverent agnosticism becoming
critical evasion? 2 It is not a question of knowing exactly
what the Cry implies, but of saying whether the words :
'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' imply a
sense of abandonment, and it is hard to see how the ques-
tion can be answered otherwise than by saying that they do
involve that inference*
JBishop Gore explained the words by saying that they
suggest the agony of a righteous soul, conscious of perfect
innocence, and 'finding itself, in a world which it knows to
be God's world, exposed to ignominy, failure, outrage, and
death, while God remains silent and does nothing'. 3 He
14 On the assumption that our Lord realty- uttered the words it is better to
say frankly that we do not know exactly what was in His mind at the time,
that we are here face to face with the supreme mystery of the Saviour's
Passion,' Rawlinson, 236.
2 Still more is this danger present when it is explained that the verb in the
saying does not mean 'leave alone', but leave helpless'. Cf. Gould, 294,
*The Reconstruction of Belief, 594,
THE MARKAN SAYINGS 163
then observed that it is a cause of profoundest thankful-
ness, for all who feel the like trial in whatever degree, 'that
Christ should have asked the great question "My God,
my God, why didst thou forsake me?" and received no
answer'. The only inference which gives meaning to
this very true observation is that the sense of abandonment
was real; but, instead of drawing this conclusion, Gore
went on to say that he saw no reason for believing that
Jesus experienced in His spirit 'the sense of the Father's
alienation from the sinner*. This remark seems to me to
be somewhat beside the point. The desolation is felt
because Jesus loves sinners, and in loving them comes so
near to their plight as to feel in His spirit the shadows of
the Divine judgment upon sin. No doubt the exegesis of
the saying has suffered from well-meaning attempts to say
too much, but it has also suffered from the tendency to say
too little. It does not seem to me that there can be true
progress in a worthy doctrine of the Atonement until we
recognize in the saying the accents of desolation and then
ask, in the light of other sayings and wider indications of
the thought of Jesus, what is implied. The implications
are theological: the desolation is historic fact.
II
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION
THE sayings In the L tradition are as follows :
(1) The Saying about the Coming Baptism.
(2) The Reply to Herod Antipas.
(3) The Saying about the Suffering of the Son of Man.
(4) The Sayings at the Last Supper.
(5) The Sayings in the Conversations after the Supper.
(6) The Saying at the Arrest about the Power of Darkness.
(7) The Crucifixion Sayings.
It will be seen that these sayings are fewer in number
than those in Mark. It must be remembered, however,
that the L Source is less than two-thirds the size of Mark,
and that, relatively to its size, it is almost as rich as Mark
in sayings of the kind. Parallels to the Markan sayings
have already been mentioned as they appear, and the
question how far the L sayings are independent of Mark
will receive constant attention in the discussion.
(i) THE SAYING ABOUT THE COMING BAPTISM (Lk. xii. 49f.).
49. '/ came to cast fire upon the earth\
And what will /, if it is already kindled?
50, But I have a baptism to be baptized with;
And how am I straitened till it be accomplished?*
The passage is followed in Lk. xii. 5 1-3 by sayings
which speak of the sufferings and 'divisions' which are to
ensue. To these sayings, but not to Lk. xii. 49f., there
164
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 165
are parallels in Mt. x. 34^, but the verbal agreement is
slight, and it is probable that Lk. xii. 49-53 is an excerpt
from the L Source. 1 It is possible that the arrangement
is editorial, and it is therefore uncertain whether xii. 49 f.
stands in its original context, but, in view of its structure,
it is almost certain that this passage is a unit. The
parallelism is even more marked if we read 49^, as we
probably should, as an exclamation or wish : *How I wish
it were already kindled !' a
Many commentators understand the 'fire* to be 'the fire
of discord', 3 and some explain it as 'the fire of judgment', 4
but neither suggestion agrees well with the longing ex-
pressed in 49^, and it is perhaps best to interpret it as 'the
fire of righteousness' 5 or *the fire of holiness', 6 especially
if the passage is not in its original context. 7
Lk, xii. 50 immediately recalls to mind Mk. x. 38 s ,
where a like use is made of the metaphor of plunging into
the waters of affliction (cf. Psa. xlii. 7, Ixix. 2, 15; Isa.
xliii. 2); but there can be no reasonable doubt that the
two sayings are quite independent* Each is distinc-
tive; and the Lukan passage markedly so, by reason of its
close association with the preceding words and the subse-
quent mention of inner constraint. The reference in the
metaphor is undoubtedly to suffering and death. 9 Luce
f. Easton, 210.
2 In view of the possibility of an Aramaic original. Cf. Torrey, The
Four Gospels, 1 50, 310; Easton, 209; Creed, 178; Moflatt: 'Would it were
kindled already!'
*CL Easton, 209; Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium, I4of.; Loisy,
UEvangifc selon Luc, 355; Plummer, 334. Plummer also suggests 'the
fire of holiness'.
4 Cf. Montefiore, op. cit., ii. 495.
5 Cf. W. Manson, Bt. Luke, 160. 6 Cf. Plummer, 334.
7 The idea of discord is suggested by LL xii. 5 1-3 .
8 See pp. 97ff. 9 Cf. Creed, 178.
166 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
interprets the saying well when he says: 'In His full
humanity the horror of what is in front of Him presses
heavily on His soul/ 1 Easton reminds us that J. Weiss
called attention to the extreme indirectness of the refer-
ence to the Passion, as almost positive evidence of its
originality. 2 Montefiore, who also refers to the opinion
of Weiss, says of the attitude of Jesus: 'It seems too
human a touch to have been invented/ 3
The genuineness of the saying, however, has not
escaped question; and it is one of the more remarkable
examples of Bultmann's treatment that he favourably con-
siders the possibility that, either xii. 50 is a secondary ex-
pansion of xii. 49 and is a 'prophecy after the event*, or
both verses are derived from a Gnostic redemption-myth,
in which the *fire' is the judgment by which the earthly
world is destroyed, and the 'baptism* is the spiritual dedi-
cation of the divine 'envoy' at the time of his ascent into
the heavenly world. 4 It is perhaps enough to chronicle
this striking example of the thoroughness with which
Bultmann discusses remote alternatives. It should be
added also that Montefiore, in spite of the words quoted
above, expresses grave doubt 'whether we are in a position
to judge properly as to the authenticity or even the mean-
ing of obscure sayings such as these'. 5 This, I think, is a
just observation as regards the meaning of xiL 49, but not
of xii. 50, which, in relation to 'the baptism of death*, is
perfectly clear. As to the authenticity of this saying,
reasonable doubt seems to be answered by Montefiore's
question: * Would the idealizing reporter or Evangelist
have said that Jesus feared the anticipated death?'
The distinctiveness of the saying is the urgency with
l &t. Luke, 235. *$t. Luke, 209. 3 Op. dt, 9 ii. 496.
4 Z>/V Gt$ckichu der synopti$chcn Tradition* 165.
//., 11.496.
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 167
which suffering and death are contemplated, and the ab-
sence of any reference to triumph and exaltation. The
verb awcxopxi 1 suggests the idea of a constraining im-
pulse which brooks no delay and can tolerate no obstacle,
but there is about the word in this saying an atmosphere
of distress which is well expressed by Moffatt's transla-
tion : *I have a baptism to undergo. How I am distressed
till it is all over!' In this respect the saying anticipates
the experiences of Gethsemane. It is unfortunate that
we cannot date the utterance with any precision; all that
can be said is that it probably belongs to the later stages
of the Galilean Mission. Even so, it is important as show-
ing that what we call the 'Passion' begins in the course of
the active Ministry. At the same time it is another
example of the decisive significance which Jesus attached
to His death and the passionate earnestness with which
He contemplated it. 2 'Till it be accomplished' suggests
more than an end reached; it points to the idea of death as
a decisive act, which has significance in itself. The idea
of death as an inevitable fate or an accident seems far re-
moved from this saying. The thought of death as an act
of consecration may be implied, but of this we cannot be
sure; what is certain is the thought of a destiny to be
fulfilled.
(2) THE REPLY TO HEROD ANTIPAS (Lk. xiii.
32. 6 And he said unto them. Go and say to that fox, Behold I cast
out devils and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the
33. third day I am perfected. Howoeit I must go on my way to-day
and to-morrow and the day following: for it cannot be that a
prophet perish out of Jerusalem?
1 See Acts, xviii. 5; 2 Cor. v. 14; Phil. i. 23.
2 J. A. Findky suggests 'impatience', Ablngdon Commentary, 1046.
168 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
In most modern commentaries a good deal of attention
is given to the shortened form into which Wellhausen re-
casts this saying; it is therefore desirable to see first what
the saying means as it stands.
The words are a reply to the warning of the Pharisees :
'Get thee out, and go hence: for Herod would fain kill
thee,' which is perhaps inspired by Antipas himself.
The response of Jesus is a firm determination to continue
in the way appointed to Him: *Go and say to that fox.
Behold, I cast out devils and perform cures to-day and to-
morrow, and the third day I am perfected.' It is very
unlikely that the reference is to three actual days or to the
three years of the ministry. 1 The expression probably
means a short divinely appointed time, as in Hos. vi. 2 :
'After two days will he revive us : on the third day he will
raise us up, and we shall live before him.' 2 There is no
reference to the Resurrection in the phrase 'the third day';
indeed, there cannot be, for in that case the preceding days
would be those of the Crucifixion and the day following,
whereas the period is one during which Jesus effects exor-
cisms and cures. The words indicate that for a time
Jesus will continue His Messianic activity, but that
already the end is in sight. There is no suggestion that
He intends, if only for a brief interval, to remain in
Herod's dominions; the temporal expressions relate solely
to the duration of the ministry, and the question of locality
does not arise until verse 33.
What is the meaning of 'I am perfected'? The verb
TcActovjaat is probably passive, 3 and means *I am
brought to an end', or *to completion'. Moffatt's transla-
x Cf. Plummer, 349^; Klostermann, 148.
2 C Plummer, 350. Klostermann also refers to Jas. iv. 13 and to
Eplctetus iv. 10, 3 1: ocvpiov rj ets* rpinp Set $ otvrov a-TroBoLvetv ^
s Cf. Easton, 222; Plummer, 350; Klostermann, 148.
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 169
tion is: *I complete my task'; Weymouth's: 'I shall finish
my course'; Loisy's: *Je suis a mon terme* (*I am about to
arrive at my end'). The reference is to death, but to
death as the culmination of the entire ministry. There
appears to be implied the idea of death as crowned with
victory, in which case resurrection or exaltation, as well as
death, is suggested. 1
Lk. xiii. 33 explains why Jesus must leave Herod's
dominions. It is not because of His veiled threats, but
because Jerusalem is the fitting place for His suffering.
During the appointed time, 'to-day, to-morrow, and the
day following,* He must continue on His way, for, as He
says with a fine irony, 'it cannot be that a prophet perish
out of Jerusalem/
Interpreted in this way, the passage yields a clear mean-
ing, well related to its context, and marked by charac-
teristic traits of resolution and irony as in other sayings of
Jesus (cf. Mk. viii. 31, &c.; xiv. 41^, &c.). Nothing
suggests the work of the Christian community. The use
of the expression 'the third day' without reference to the
Resurrection, and the presence of the bare term 'a pro-
phet', discourage such a suggestion; and the use of the
phrase 'I am perfected', although reminiscent of Heb. ii.
10, v. 9, vii. 28, yields a natural sense in its context. The
one point which appears strange is the phrase 'to-day and
to-morrow, and the third day' in 32 with reference to
exorcism, cures, and death, and the similar phrase 'to-day
1 So Loisy, Lts Evaxgiles synoptiyues, ii. I26f. Cf. Montefiore: *Loisy
translates rcActov/ia*, "je suis a mon terme"; I am about to arrive at my
end, namely, the full accomplishment of my mission by my entry into glory
and by the advent of the Kingdom. My ministry is nearly over: the de-
nouement is at hand*, ii- 506. Cf. K. L. Schmidt, Dtr Rahmen der
Gtschichte JesU) 266. In the Papyri reAetoco is used of 'executing* a
deed. For its use in Biblical Greek see Westcott, The Epistle to the
Hebrews, 6$ff.
170 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
and to-morrow and the day following' in 33 in connexion
with a journey to Jerusalem. Is this a sign of interpola-
tion, or is the repetition deliberate?
Wellhausen's view 1 is that the saying has suffered from
interpolation. He proposes to omit 'and the third day I
am perfected' in 32, and 'to-day and to-morrow' in 33.
This implies the reading: behold, I cast out devils and
perform cures to-day and to-morrow; nevertheless, on the
day following, I must go on my way : for it cannot be that
a prophet perish out of Jerusalem/
There can be no doubt that, as thus reconstructed, the
passage runs more smoothly, but, of course, this is not in
itself a sufficient justification for the reconstruction; and,
in fact, the proposal is open to serious objections, (i)
Verse 32 is made prosaic; it becomes an explanation
why, for the time being, Jesus cannot comply with the ad-
vice given. He has duties to perform. The idea of a
Messianic activity which finds its climax in death is
softened by the omission of 'and the third day I am per-
fected', and the reason for delay is purely humanitarian.
(2) In the reconstruction, 'to-day and to-morrow' refers
the work of exorcism and healing to Galilee or Peraea.
The meaning, therefore, is: 'Not just yet, but soon.' In
the saying, as it stands, an immediate departure is implied,
but it is defended, not only, as in Wellhausen's text, by the
ironical observation that Jerusalem is the appropriate place
for martyrdom, but also by the veiled assertion of a Mes-
sianic destiny. He is to be 'perfected'. (3) The allusive
reference in reAetoi^at is hardly the kind of addition
one would expect in an interpolation, especially when it is
connected with 'the third day', in the sense of a brief in-
terval. (4) In the text as it stands, the repetition in 32
! Das EvangeZium Lucae, 76. Good accounts of Wellhausen's views are
given by Creed, 187; Easton, 222; Montefiore, op. tit., ii. 5056
THE SAYINGS IX THE L TRADITION 171
and 3 3 may well be deliberate and resumptive. The heal-
ing activity crowned by death falls within a brief ap-
pointed time. It is fitting, therefore, to repeat the refer-
ence to the time interval in connexion with the statement
about the fateful journey.
For these reasons, then, it must be concluded that,
while Wellhausen's reconstruction provides a smoother
text, it does so at the expense of the originality of the say-
ing. The note of urgency, and the sense of a mission, do
not disappear, but they are sensibly diminished. The
roughness of an original message gives place to a rendering
which, if it appeared, let us say, in Matthew's Gospel, we
should call a secondary version revealing the redactor's
hand. The meaning of the original saying is well
brought out by Easton when he writes : 'The sense is :
"God, not Herod, has determined how the short remain-
ing space of my life shall be spent, and I shall go on
carrying out my commission. This will, to be sure, in-
volve leaving Galilee, but not from any fear of Herod"/ 1
In order to obtain this reference to God and to a 'com-
mission', the presence of 'the third day I am perfected'
within the saying is indispensable; and there is no need to
resort to interpolation theories 2 since both ideas are essen-
tial elements in the Messianic consciousness of Jesus.
l Of. d., 222.
2 K. L. Schmidt and R. Bultmann agree with Wellhausen that the saying
has suffered from interpolation, but each solves the critical problem
differently. Schmidt's view is that the Evangelist has expanded 320, the
original saying, by the aid of an old Easter-confession in 32^, and a com-
munity-saying with reference to the Passion which he uses to supply a
motive for the last journey to Jerusalem in 33. Cf. Der Rahmen der
Gcschichte Jesu 9 z6$ff. Bultmann thinks that, either 33 is an isolated
saying which has been added advocem in view of 'to-day and to-morrow* in
3 2, or the secondary elements are 3 ^b and the word 'howbeit' in 3 3 . These
suggestions are more precarious and arbitrary than Wellhausen's theory,
which obviously offers no resting-place in the critical inquiry. Cf. Die
Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition y 35.
1-2 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
(3) THE SUFFERING AND REJECTION* OF THE SON OF MAN (Lk.
xvii. 25).
''But first must he suffer many things and be rejected of this
generation.'
This passage is distinct from the three similar sayings
which Luke has derived from Mk. (Lk. ix. 22, 44; xviii.
31-3). For the most part the commentaries say little
concerning xvii. 25, beyond the observation that it agrees
closely with ix. 22 and appears to be an interpolation in
its present context. 1 That xvii. 25 is an insertion is very
probable. It stands awkwardly in an eschatological dis-
course which describes the sudden and unexpected com-
ing of the Son of Man (xvii. 23-37), and interrupts the
excellent connexion between 24, which uses the metaphor
of lightning, and 26-9 which describe the deluge and the
destruction of the cities of the plain . The intention of the
insertion is obviously to insist upon the suffering of the
Son of Man as a necessary prelude to the Parousia. But
the claim that xvii. 25 is an insertion does not carry us far,
for it leaves open the threefold possibility that the addition
was made by a copyist, or by the Evangelist, or by an un-
known hand in the Q Source; and, in each case, the farther
question remains whether the passage is an independent
saying or merely an adaptation of ix. 22.
The suggestion that the passage -is a copyist's insertion
is a mere guess unsupported by textual evidence. Be-
tween the remaining explanations it is impossible to decide ;
but this fact is of little importance, inasmuch as, in either
case, we are left with the same conclusion. If Luke added
the passage, it is not likely that he derived it from ix. 22,
silence is due to the uncertainty of the critical data. Cf. Easton,
265; Klostennann, 175; Grieve, Peake's Commentary, 737; Montefiore,
op. cit.> ii. 5 50; J. T. Hudson, Expository Times, xxxiv. I Sjf.
THE SAYINGS IX THE L TRADITION 173
in spite of the verbal similarities; for ix. 22 is Markan, 1
while xvii. 23-37 is from Q, and in the Third Gospel there
is no certain example of a Markan insertion in a Q con-
text. 2 The presumption, therefore, is that Luke derived
the saying from L. If, however, he found xvii, 25 in its
present context, an earlier compiler must have taken it
from L, since, on this hypothesis, derivation from Mark is
even more improbable. Even if the passage is a com-
ment, rather than a saying, it still reflects a belief, current
in a non-Markan circle, that Jesus had spoken of His
suffering as the Son of Man. Whatever, therefore, may
be the precise history of xvii. 25, there is good reason to
trace the passage to the L tradition. 3
Among recent writers Otto* and Goguel 5 have noted the
importance of this saying.
Otto's view of its place in the development of the
thought of Jesus in relation to His Messianic suffering has
already been indicated in the discussion of Mk. viii. 31,
ix. 31, and x. 33f. In sayings such as Lk. xii. 50;
Mk. ix. 1 2^, ix. 3 1#, and Lk. xvii. 25, he sees the simplest
and most reliable examples of genuine prophetic anticipa-
tion. Of the first of these sayings he declares that no one
at a later time would have invented a vaticinium ex eventu
in such a form. The formulation is clearer in Mk. ix.
1 2#, and Lk. xvii. 25, he says, corresponds to it.
In the opinion of Goguel Lk. rviL 25 falls into a differ-
ent category from the triple announcement of suffering,
*Cf. Behind the Third Gospel, i6r, and for the view that Mk. is not
used in Lk. k. 5i-xviil. 14 see J. C. Hawkins, Oxford Studies in the
Synoptic Problem, 29-59.
3 W. Bussmann (Synoptiscfe Studien, ii. 92, 131) agrees with B. Weiss
(Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums, 86) in tracing the saying to Q, in spite
of the absence of a parallel in Mt.
*Reich Gottes undMenschensohn, 312. *The Life of Jesus, 390-2.
i~4 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
death, and resurrection in Mk. viii. 3 1 , ix. 3 i, x. 336 In
these passages he sees *a certain theological basis'; Lk.
xvii. 2 c, on the other hand, makes no mention of death
and resurrection, and 'cannot have been invented by tradi-
tion'. Goguel is very much on his guard against any
attempt to introduce into the interpretation of the saying
later doctrines of redemption. He describes it as ex-
pressing the result of the meditations of Jesus and says
that 'all it affirms is that his sufferings will be efficacious',
On his own interpretation of the saying this is a patent
understatement, for he says that Jesus 'had the assurance
that his sufferings formed part of the plan which God, in
his infinite wisdom, had designed for the establishment of
his Kingdom', and claims that the sacrifice Jesus accepted
'reinforced the sense of vocation itself. 1 * Jesus', he says,
'did not believe that he was the Messiah although he had to
suffer; he believed that he was the Messiah because he had
to suffer. This is the great paradox, the great originality,
of his Gospel.' 2 Obviously, very much more than 'simply
a directly religious affirmation' is involved in a saying like
Lk, xvii. 25 which voices the necessity of suffering and
rejection. A saying of this kind is dogmatic as well as
religious, even if the dogma is not that of later theological
systems. It is dogmatic in the sense that it involves a
theory, however broadly it may be expressed, in respect of
the conditions under which the Kingdom comes or is
established. One is reminded of the claim of Schweitzer
that the resolve to suffer and to die and the prediction of
the sufferings 'are dogmatic, and therefore historical;
because they find their explanation in eschatological con-
ceptions'. 3 Whether the conceptions are not more than
p. tit., 39 1 * /. /., 392,
*Tie Quest of the Historical Jesus, 385.
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 175
eschatological remains to be considered, and certainly they
are not expressed in the saying under review. This par-
ticular saying is valuable because, as coming from another
source, it broadens the basis for the assertion that Jesus
was convinced that He 'must suffer' in fulfilling His
strong sense of vocation.
(4) THE SAYINGS CONNECTED WITH THE LAST SUPPER (Lk. xxii.
14. *And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles
15. with him. And he said unto them. With desire I have
desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say
1 6. unto you, I will not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of
1 7. God. And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks,
1 8. he said, Take this^ and divide it among yourselves: for I say
unto you p , I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine y
1 9. until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and
when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave unto them,
saying, This is my body [which is given for you: this do in re-
20. membrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper,
saying, This cup is the new covenant in my bloody even that
which is poured out for you]'
Of these sayings 1 5f. is peculiar to Lk. There is a parallel to 1 8
in Mk. xiv. 25, but probably the two are independent versions of
the same saying. To the sayings in igf. there are close parallels
in i Cor. xi. 24f. and Mk. xiv. 22, 24. igi y 20 are omitted in D
and in the Old Latin MSS., a b e ff 2 i L
It is impossible to discuss the Lukan sayings ade-
quately without giving some attention to the narrative as
a whole. From the critical point of view this narrative is
of great interest because, to some extent, it is possible to
see how a relatively simple story has been developed into
a narrative of Institution. As the textual evidence sug-
gests, 19^5 20 is a subsequent scribal addition based almost
176 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
entirely on i Cor. xi. 24^* Several critics have also held
that 19*7 is an interpolation, 2 but no manuscript evidence
favours this view, except the fact that the passage follows
1 6 in some Old Latin MSS. (b and e) and in the Old
Syriac. 3 But if i ya is original, it is clear that it has been
derived from Mk, xiv. 22 4 by the Evangelist and that
14-18 represents the original account in the L Source.
The additions made by Luke (19^) and by later copyists
(19^5 20) are successive attempts to bring the narrative in
L into line with the Markan and Pauline stories.
If this critical reconstruction is sound, Lk. xxiu 14-18
is invested with the greatest interest and serious historical
problems are raised. In this passage there are no words
of institution and there is no reference to the bread, while
the two sayings in i ^f. and 1 8 are eschatological in con-
tent. Is such a narrative conceivable in an early source,
and, if so, what bearing has it upon the parallel accounts
in Mark and i Con xi. 23-5?
So brief is the original account that it is not surprising
that some scholars have found its continuation in 28-30.
Bacon sees the narrative of Luke's special source in
, 28-34, 5 and Otto finds the sequel to iga in
The effect of Otto's rearrangement is striking, and it
leads to most interesting suggestions. By bringing the
saying; 'And I appoint unto you a kingdom. . .'
*Cf. Hort, Introduction, Appendix, 6$f.; Creed, 263^; Easton, 32if.
Among recent writers Goguel accepts the longer text, on the ground that it
explains the textual variants, of. dt.> 447, 458-60. Dibelius explains 19^,
20 as a third variant which has proceeded farther tMn Mk. xiv. and i Cor,
in the development of the explanatory words of institution, of. cit. 9 210.
2 Cf. Bkss, The Philology of the Gospels, r/gffl
3 With additions this arrangement is found in sy 50 . sy? omits ryf.
4 Cf. Behind the Third Gospel, 37. *The Gospel of Mark,
*RticJt GottesundMenschensohn, 227-34.
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 177
into* immediate connexion with the words: 'This is my
body,' he is able to develop the argument that it is, as the
One who is to be 'broken', that Jesus gives to His
di&ciples the inheritance of the Kingdom. He does this
because He takes upon Himself the suffering of death and
ijuparts to them a share in its atoning and consecrating
power. 1
It may well be that Otto has rightly heard the under-
tones of the great saying in 29^, but it is doubtful if the
criti cfcl foundations of his exegesis are sound. It is en-
tirely justifiable to argue, as Otto does, that the sections
2.1-3 ([The Prediction of the Betrayal) and 24-7 (The Dis-
course on True Greatness) are inserted by the Evangelist
into lis source, for these are self-contained sections which
may well have existed independently of their present con-
nexion, 2 and there is certainly a marked similarity in the
subject-matter of 29f. and 1 8. It is also with justice that
Otto rejects Wellhausen's view that iqa is a scribal inser-
tion * But can this passage, which is in almost verbatim
agreement with Mk. xiv. 22, be regarded as anything else
but a Markan insertion made by the Evangelist in his
source? It is also open to serious question whether Otto
is justified in cancelling 28* as a redactional supplement
because the Tfeipourpoi still lie in the future both for
Jesu s and His disciples. Jesus speaks only of His own
'trials', which without difficulty can be found in His con-
flicts with the scribes, 5 and as regards His disciples He
says no more than that they have 'continued with* Him.
If therefore the Evangelist has inserted 21-7, it is better
to find the original account of the Supper in 14-8, 28-30;
and indeed there is a natural transition between 18, in
+ cf/., 246. 2 O/. '/., 228-3 1 . *Qp. tit*, 227.
., 231. 5 Cf. also ML viii. 33 and Lk. iv. 13.
178 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
which Jesus speaks of Himself, and 28 where He ad-
dresses the disciples. All reconstructions of this kind,
however, are speculative, and in the present inquiry 28-30
will be treated separately.
However the Lukan account of the Supper is delimited,
the problem of its restricted character remains. One pos-
sible explanation is that the Evangelist regarded the
narrative of institution as an arcanum fidei, to be reserved
for believers but hidden from profane eyes. This ex-
planation has been put forward by H. N. Bate, 1 and more
recently by J. Jeremias 2 who has long held this view.
Jeremias argues that the tendency manifest in the Lukan
account is further illustrated in the silence of the Epistle
to the Hebrews and especially in the Fourth Gospel. He
explains the greater detail in the Markan account by
tracing the source back to the period before 49-50 A.D. to
which the teaching contained in the Pauline narrative of
i Cor. xi. 23-5 (written in 55 A.D.) belongs. On this
theory it remains a difficulty that, even if the source used
by Mark was so early, the account was made public in his
Gospel when published in 65-70 A.D., and that, with
greater detail, it was repeated in the First Gospel some
fifteen or twenty years later. This objection is not con-
clusive, for the practice of secret discipline reserved for
the elect need not have been universal. None the less,
the explanation cannot be said to be more than a possi-
bility which may be true.
An alternative explanation accounts for the Lukan
narrative by the dominance of the eschatological interests
which it reveals. It is this aspect of the Supper which
specially appealed to the mind of the community in which
the account was current, and it is this supreme interest
^Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1927, p. 367^
2 Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (1935),
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 179
which determined the elements in the tradition which
were emphasized. The existing liturgical practice may
also have given prominence to the distribution of the wine
and to the saying of Jesus which anticipates the joys of the
perfected Kingdom. It is not to be assumed that the
tradition relating to the bread, or other words of institu-
tion, were unknown to the community; they were taken
for granted, and possibly at an early stage in its history
their full significance was not appreciated as in other
communities. If the Lukan account is regarded as a
narrative of institution and a record of what was said and
done, its omissions are serious indeed; but such an
assumption is the delusion of an obsolete criticism, least
of all to be entertained by formgeschichtliche critics, since
they trace the origin of narratives to the interests of
primitive communities. Such a narrative as Luke gives
must be judged by its contents, and not by its omissions.
Elements that are omitted are not thereby compromised,
but must be judged in connexion with the narratives
which contain them.
Of the alternative explanations given above the second
appears to be the better, but, in view of our very limited
knowledge of the conditions under which such narratives
were formed, either may be true; it is even possible that
both the desire for secrecy 1 and the eschatological interests
of the community were formative factors. In any case,
it is precarious to set the Lukan narrative over against the
Markan and to argue that one is historical and the other is
not. In view of its contents the Lukan narrative is un-
doubtedly primitive, but it is not a standard by which
other accounts are to be judged.
X C Dalman: *It is not incredible that the words in connexion with
the wine were suppressed* since they might be misunderstood, and lead to
accusations against Christ's followers . . .' Jesus-Jeskua> 156.
i8c JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
[a] "And he said unto them, With desire I ha-je desired to eat this
passvver vcithysu before I suffer: for I say untsyou y I will not eat
//, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom ofG?d* (Lk. xxiL iffl).
The Western reading: *I will no longer eat it' (cf. A.V.) is pro-
bably an assimilation to the text of Mk. xiv. 25. So also the read-
ing: 'until it be eaten new\
F. C. Burkitt and A. E. Brooke have argued that the
saying implies that the Supper was not the Passover Meal. 1
Jesus has earnestly desired to keep the feast, but He sees
that death will prevent Him from doing so; He therefore
says that He will not eat the Passover until it be fulfilled
in the kingdom of God. This interpretation is also sup-
ported by R. H. Kennett 2 and others, and, although it is
by no means universally accepted, 3 it seems to me to give
the natural sense of the saying.
It is probable that Luke himself identified the Supper
with the Passover Meal, since in xxii. 7 he emphasizes the
fact that on the day of unleavened bread 'the passover
must be sacrificed' (cf. Mk. xiv. 1 2) ; but it may well be
that the saying itself implies that the Supper is not the
Passover Meal, since so strong a desire is associated with
so emphatic a statement that He will not eat 'until it be
fulfilled in the kingdom of God'. In this case, the L
Source was in agreement with the Fourth Gospel 4 as re-
gards the date of the Supper; 5 and, in composing his Gos-
*The Journal of Theological Studies, ix. 569-72; xvii. 295.
*The Church of Israel, 21 1; W. M. Ramsay, Expository Times, xxi. 344.
3 It is rejected by J. M. Creed, 265, and is not referred to by B. S-
Easton.
*C Jn. xviii. 28; xix. 14.
6 Streeter says of Lk* xxii- 1 5 that the words 'suggest, though they do not
quite compel, the view that in his source the Last Supper was conceived as
taking pkce on the day before the Passover,' The Four Gospels, 423. R. H.
Lightfbot says that the words ma/ almost be described as *the despair of
THE SAYINGS IX THE L TRADITION 181
pel, Luke must have abandoned its representation under
the influence of Mark. 1 In maintaining this view there
is no need to suggest that Luke has substituted the word
'Passover' for an original reference to a common meal, for
there is every reason to think that Jesus spoke of the Pass-
oven It is especially in relation to the celebration of a
Passover that the strong emotion under which He spoke
is intelligible. Moreover, the Markan story of Prepara-
tions for the Passover (Mk. xiv. 1 2-6) illustrates His in-
tention to partake of this feast. On this interpretation of
Lk. xxii. I 5, it is not of the meal which is in progress that
Jesus speaks when He says that He 'will not eat 7 , but of
the Passover Meal, and the fulfilment to which He looks
is that of the Messianic Feast of the Kingdom.
The points discussed above are matters of considerable
historical interest, but they do not seriously affect the
question of the significance of the Supper. Even if the
Supper is not the Passover Meal, the saying reveals how
strongly Paschal associations dominated the mind of
Jesus. For the purposes of our investigation its most
important exegetical features are the references to suffer-
ing and to the consummation of the Kingdom.
The phrase, 'before I suffer,' in which no object to the
verb is expressed, is felt by Dalman to be strange, especi-
ally in Aramaic; 2 and it may be that it summarizes, in
commentators*. *TIiey appear to support die view of the preceding
verses that the last supper was a passover, and thus serve to bind the narra-
tive together; but at the same time they certainly suggest that our Lord did
not partake of it, and in this way they help to explain the absence of any
passover reference in the story of the meal itself/ History and Interpretation
in the Gospels, 168.
1 I have treated this point more fully in Behind the Third Gospel, 3 5-40.
2 O/. */., 128. Dalman suggests that one expects: 'Until I suffer
according to all that is written concerning m (cf. Lk. xxii. 37). The
critical objections which would be raised against such a text can easily be
imagined.
i82 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
what later carne to be conventional language, the actual
words of Jesus. That the thought of His suffering filled
His mind at this time, is already clear; the remarkable
feature in the saying is the association of this thought with
a cry of longing relating to the Passover. Why does
Jesus earnestly desire to eat the Passover before He
suffers? The answer can only be that the Passover has a
special significance for Him in connexion with His Pas-
sion. Does this fact suggest that Jeremias is right in
maintaining that Jesus interpreted His death by means of
ideas connected with the shedding of the blood of the
Passover Lamb at the departure from Egypt? 1 The
brevity of the Lukan account does not permit of a decided
answer, but it is significant that the question arises in a
narrative in which eschatological interests are almost
supreme. The correct conclusion to draw is that if this
interpretation is valid in Mk. xiv. 24, where Jesus speaks
of His 'blood of the covenant', it is in harmony with the
present Lukan saying. The same inference is supported
by the reference to the Messianic Feast in the perfected
Kingdom. This feast is the expression of a consummated
fellowship, anticipated by Jesus with a certainty which
admits of no doubt. He expects to eat that feast in com-
pany with His disciples, and had desired to celebrate the
Passover as, in some sense, its anticipation. Meantime
His sufferings lie near. The conclusion is irresistible
that He regarded His death as an activity making the con-
summation possible. This conviction is entirely in
agreement with the thought that His blood is covenant-
blood. Whether Jeremias supplies the right foundation
for this thought, or whether it is to be sought in Ex. xxiv*
8, remains the secret of Mk. xiv. 24, and to its solution
Lk. xxii. 1 5f. contributes no more than the proof that
iSee p. I38f and the discussion of Mk. xiv. 24.
THE SAYINGS IX THE L TRADITION 183
Paschal associations filled the mind of Jesus at the Sup-
per. 1
(b) \\nd he received a cup, and when he had given thanks > he said,
Take thzs^ and divide it among yourselves: (18) for I say unto
you, 1 will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine y until
the kingdom of God shall come"* (Lk, xxii. ljf.\ cf. Mk. xiv. 25).
The saving in verse 1 7 occupies the place filled in the
Markan account by the words: 'This is my blood of the
covenant, which is shed for many/ It is obviously a
different saying, but, in narratives which are not reports,
there is no reason to infer that the one excludes the other,
since more was actually said at the Supper than any one
narrative records.
Otto understands the receiving of the cup in the light of
Psa. cxvi. 13 : *I will take the cup of salvation, and call on
the name of the Lord,' and explains the giving of thanks as
the dedication of the cup by the use of the ancient for-
mula : 'Blessed art Thou, Eternal, our God, King of the
world, who hast made the fruit of the vine,' 2 It would
have been a breach of custom, as observed at the Pass-
over and at other sacred meals, if Jesus Himself had not
first drunk of the cup, 3 and although the narrative con-
tains no explicit statement, the fact of participation is
probably implied in verse 1 8. 4
^Otto's suggestion that Lk. xxii* 1 6 is a redactional assimiktion to xxii. 1 8
is unacceptable because the former saying refers to the Passover and the
latter to the Supper itself. There is no reason why an anticipation of the
Messianic Feast shoidd not be expressed in both, especially as the anticipa-
tion is so strong. Cf. Reick Gottes u nd Men schen sohn> 2$^f.
*Op. tit., 242f. Dalman suggests that the traditional words: 'Blessed art
Thou who hast created the fruit of the vine*, were used, but also says that
other benedictions were attached to the wine cup, and, like Otto, refers to
Psa. cxvi. 13. Cf. Jesus-Jeshua> r 50.
SGf. Plummer, 49 $f. 4 See below
184 JESUS AXD HIS SACRIFICE
The saying in verse r 8 is also recorded in Mk. xiv. 5.*
In spite of natural verbal similarities, it is probable that the
two versions are independent, 2 and that of the two the
Markan is more original. The Lukan phrase, 'until the
kingdom of God shall come/ appears to ignore the true
sense in which Jesus believed the Kingdom to have come
already, and seems to be a summarv edition of the more
* * *
original words preserved in Mark: 'until that day when I
drink it new in the kingdom of God/ Some critics 3 think
that, in placing the saying at the beginning of the meal,
Luke is more original than Mark who records it at the end.
This opinion has some justification for certainly the words
are loosely appended to Mk. xiv. 24, but the point is not
one which can be established.
The meaning of the saying has already been considered
in discussing Mk. xiv. 25, but, while it undoubtedly anti-
cipates the joys of the perfected Kingdom, there are
special features which emerge in Lk. xxii, xyf. The
word 'for* is interesting, and, if the saying is in its right
position, it is significant. The meaning cannot be : 'Do
you share the cup; I will not, until the Messianic Feast/
for no reason is thereby given why He should not drink
now. The antithesis suggested is rather that between the
Messianic Feast and the entire action of the present on the
part of Jesus and His disciples. The suggestion is that
to drink now is to anticipate the Messianic Banquet, and,
for this reason, one must infer that Jesus drank first;
otherwise the saying loses its meaning. 4 But the
. 1395*.
SEaston observes that a different Greek wording would hardly have been
possible, Sf. Luke, 322 f.
3 Cf. Otto, op. cit. 9 244; Jeremias, op. tit., 63.
4 Wellhausen says that to read out of LL xxii. 17 that Jesus Himself did
not drink is an incredible playing with words (pnglaubliche Wortklauberei),
Das Evangclium Marct, I i6n.
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 185
change to the first person remains to be accounted for:
why does Jesus say so pointedly: 'I will not drink from
henceforth'? The answer can only be that He is thinking
of His approaching death; He can no more share with
them the cup as He is doing now. Thus, the present
fellowship is a farewell meal as well as an anticipation of
the future. The thought lies very near that there had
been other meals of the kind, without the special associa-
tions created by the approach of separation and death; and
probably Schweitzer is right in finding the historical basis
of the meals described in Mk. vi. 35-44 and viii. i-io in
'eschatological sacraments'. 1 The further suggestion
thatj although Jesus would no longer drink with them,
they themselves would continue to keep the feast, is not
excluded; but it is to strain the meaning of the saying un-
warrantably to see in it the equivalent of a command and a
virtual institution of the Christian Eucharist. 2 The ex-
plicit command : 'This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remem-
brance of me,* is attested only by St. Paul, 3 and, of the
Synoptic narratives, all that can be said is that they are not
inconsistent with this tradition and do not exclude it by
their silence. The importance of Lk. xxii. iyL is the
close association it establishes between the Supper, the
approaching death, and the consummation of the King-
dom in the thought of Jesus. The certainty of the con-
summation, so quietly assumed, gives urgency to the
command to share the cup now as the expression of a
^The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 374-80.
2 Cf. N. P. Williams, Essays Catholic and Critical, 402-7. The King-
dom of God is not the Christian Church and faith, nor is the Messianic
Banquet the Eucharist. There is no justification for the interpretation:
*The next time that we shall meet together on such an occasion as this, I
shall still be the Host, though present invisibly, and not in tangible form,*
op. cit.y 406. See O. C. Quick, The Christian Sacraments, 19 in,
8 i Cor. xi. 25. See pp. 2o6ff.
186 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
fellowship unmenaced by death. Far from being
threatened by separation, the fellowship is the more in-
tense as death draws near. But what is the closer rela-
tionship between the Supper and the death, the saying
does not disclose, and for this significance it is necessary
to examine other sayings. What Lk. xxii. I *f. does per-
mit us to say is that the connexion is intimate and that, in
the expression of fellowship, death is faced with uncon-
quered hope and certainty.
(5) SAYINGS IN THE CONVERSATIONS AFTER THE SUPPER (Lk. xxii.
27, 28-30, 37).
Unlike Mk. 5 the Third Gospel contains the account of
certain conversations between Jesus and His disciples be-
fore the departure to the Mount of Olives, and in this
respect it approximates to the arrangement of the Fourth
Gospel (cf. Jn. xiii.-xvi.). Three sayings are specially
important in view of their bearing upon the attitude of
Jesus to His suffering and death. These are (a) the say-
ing concerning service (xxii. 27); () the words about the
disciples in the New Age (xxii. 28-30) ; and (c) the applica-
tion by Jesus to Himself of the words of Isa. liii. 12 : 'And
he was reckoned with transgressors' (xxii. 37).
(a) */ am in the midst of you as he that serveth* (Lk. xxii. 275 cf. Mk.
x.4i-5).
This passage claims attention because of its theme and
its position. Both Lk. xxii. 24-7 and Mk. x. 41-5* are
concerned with the subject of service, but it is probable
that they are derived from different sources. 2 That Luke
1 See pp. 9951
2 Cf. WelUiausen, Das Evange/ium Lucae, 123; Creed, 267; Easton, 324;
Streeter, The Four Gospels, 210. Possibty, the reference to a 'contention 1
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 187
owes the section to Mark is most unlikely, in view of the
*
differences of vocabulary, of substance, and of position.
Moreover, its agreement with the Johannine story of the
Feetwashing (xiii. 1-17) suggests that, in associating the
words with the Supper, Luke is following a definite tra-
dition; 1 for it is hazardous to maintain that Jn. xiii. 1-17
is a free composition based on Lk. xxii. 24-7.
The importance of Lk. xxii. 27 for our investigation is
that, while it does not refer to suffering and death > it illu-
strates the dominating place which the thought of service
occupied in the mind of Jesus on the last night of His life.
'Service*, however, is a very elastic term, and nothing
could be more misleading than to give it some general
humanitarian significance, and then to suppose that this is
the meaning which Jesus found in His life and death.
The words probably echo the ideas of Isa. liii., but of
this we cannot be certain.
(b) 'But ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations;
(29) and I appoint unto you a kingdom^ even as my Father
appointed unto me^ (30) that ye may eat and drink at my table in
my kingdom; and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes
of Israel' (Lk. xxii. 28-30; c Mt. xix. 28).
The parallel to w. 28, 30 in Mt. xix. 28 is inserted in a Markan
context as a reply to the words of Peter: *Lo, we have left all, and
have followed thee' (Mk. x. 28). This position is inferior to that
in Lk. 3 since the insertion breaks the excellent connexion between
Peter's words and the reply of Jesus: * Verily I say unto you, There
is no man that hath left house . . .* (Mk. x. 29).
(Lk. xxii. 24) is an echo of what is stated in Mk. x. 41 ('And when the ten
heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning James and
John'). In The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, 154, I have argued
that, in early tradition, there is a tendency for details to pass over from one
story to another.
iThis view is not affected by the possibility that Luke has inserted the
passage into its present context. See p. 177.
i88 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
As we have already seen, some scholars bring this say-
ing, or part of it, into closer connexion with the giving of
the cup. 1 The suggestion has much in its favour, but,
in view of its speculative character, it is best to take
the passage as it stands, since, whatever its original
position may have been, it is closely associated with the
Supper-
It is as a saying strongly influenced by the prospect of
death that the words call for notice here; for, although
there is no direct reference to death, what is said is spoken
in view of its swift approach. The Tretpoa/tot, through
which the disciples have 'continued with' Jesus, may be
the trials preceding the Messianic Age, but are better ex-
plained as the conflicts and struggles of His Ministry,
especially those connected with the prospect of His
Messianic suffering and death. During these trials the
disciples had been far from entering into His mind and
purpose, but always He had been able to count on their
fidelity. For this reason He now announces to them the
certainty of their part in the perfected Kingdom.
Verse 29 is not easy to interpret The common mean-
ing of SLQLTiffepou, is 'I appoint', or 'assign', but it is
probable that in this saying it reflects the use of the Bibli-
cal StoftJ/cTj = 'covenant', and should therefore be ren-
dered 'I covenant'. 2 It is best to find the object of the
verb in the clause: 'that ye may eat and drink, ' and to
v, in the sense of 'lordship' or 'kingly rule/ 3
1 Seepp. ij6$.
2Cf. Creed, 269. Easton, 325, suggests 'appoint'; cf. Moflatt's transla-
tion. Wellhausen, Das Evangtlium Lucae, I2$f., prefers 'bequeath*.
Otto, Reich Gottes und Menschtnsokn, 226, points out the advantage of
English in the use of the verb *to covenant*.
8 As distinct from rjj jSao-tAcwc, 'the Kingdom,* in 30. Cf. Wellhausen,
op. cit.> 124; Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium, 212.
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 189
as the object of Stcfcro. 1 On this view, the saying
may be translated: 'Even as my Father covenanted unto
me lordship, I covenant unto you that ye shall eat and
drink at my table in my kingdom.' 2 The idea is that, in
virtue of the royal power which He has received from His
Father, Jesus can guarantee their participation in the joy
of the perfected rule of God.
In verse 30 the further promise is made that the
disciples will be rulers 3 in the New Age: they will *sit on
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel'. Some
scholars think that these words are unsuitable in their pre-
sent position, since the promise is made to the Twelve (cf.
Mt. xix. 28). But this is so only in Matthew. Luke may
have omitted the reference to 'twelve' thrones, while re-
taining the phrase 'the twelve tribes', in order 'to soften
the awkwardness' of the saying; 4 but it is just as possible,
and even more probable, that Matthew has inserted the
number. 5 It is fully in keeping with the drift of 29 that
in 30 the disciples are invested with authority, and the
phrase, 'the twelve tribes of Israel' is a conventional ex-
pression for the members of the Kingdom. Bultmann's
view is that the saying is a formation of the primitive
Palestinian community: the speaker is the Risen Christ,
and 'in it first were the Twelve regarded as rulers of Israel
in the New Aeon*. 6 Neither argument is weighty. The
1 Cf. Creed, 269; Easton, 325. See also tKe punctuation of WH.
Most commentators take the noun with both verbs; cf. Plummer, 502.
For the freer use of tva in Hellenistic Greek with the subjunctive, see
J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, 2o6ff.
2 Codex D, some Old Latin MSS., and the Curetonian Syriac omit 'my*,
probably correctly.
3 Wellhausen remarks : 'icplvew is "to rule" as often in the Old Testa-
ment,* Das Evangelium Matthaei, 99. Cf. Easton, 325.
4 Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, ii. 599.
5 Note the context of Mt. xix. 28.
*Die Geschichte der sjnoptischen Tradition, 17 of.
I 9 c JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
first is a mere assumption ; the second offers no reason why
Jesus is not the speaker. As Luke records them, the
words are perfectly relevant to the situation, and, in the
absence of forcible objections, their marked Semitic char-
acter points to their originality.
The importance of the entire saying is the revelation
which it gives of the strong consciousness of authority
which Jesus possessed in relation to the Kingdom; He is
endowed by the Father with the powers of royal rule*
Equally clear is His certainty concerning the consumma-
tion of the Kingdom and His right to assign to the
disciples the part they are to play in its life; invested with
power. He can give them their place and set them their
task in the New Age. Few sayings of His breathe such
an air of certainty and authority. But the full significance
of the words is that they are uttered in the prospect of re-
jection and death. In the light of this fact no theory
is tenable which implies any opposition to be overcome
between Himself and God, which interprets His death as
defeat, or which limits its meaning to narrowly individual
relationships. Jesus goes to death in the assurance that
His Father has given Him lordship, that the Kingdom
will be perfected, and that His disciples will share in its
joys and its duties. That such convictions should be
expressed in such an hour is inexplicable unless He be-
lieves that His suffering and death manifest His lordship
and in some way are necessary to the consummation of the
Divine Rule.
(c) ''For I say unto you^ that this which is written must be fulfilled in
me^ And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which con-
cerneth me hath an end? (Lfc. xxii. 37).
This saying, which is peculiar to Luke, can be studied
THE SAYINGS IX THE L TRADITION 191
with advantage only when It is read in the context in which
it appears :
*(35) ^ n ^ he said unto them. When I sent you forth without
purse, and wallet, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said,
Nothing. (36) And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a
purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet: and he that hath none,
let him sell his cloke, and buy a sword. (37) For I say unto you^
that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was
reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath an
end. (38) And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords,
And he said unto them, It is enough. 9
Some scholars take the view that this section is an arti-
ficial unit* Loisy, for example, as Creed reminds us, 1
suggests that the Evangelist has awkwardly constructed
the whole on the simple fact of the resistance recorded in
the source of Mark. Wellhausen also connects 38 with
49 : 'And when they that were about him saw what would
follow, they said. Lord, shall we smite with the sword?' 2
This view carries with it the further inference that 35f.
belongs to a different situation when preparations for a
dangerous journey were under consideration. Actual re-
sistance, it is suggested, may have been contemplated, or
at least defence against attack. 'He hopes', says Johannes
Weiss, *that his disciples will cut their way through/ 3
*Let us lead the lives of brigands and arm ourselves/ is the
interpretation of Goguel. 4 In some of these discussions
it is not surprising that 37, or at least 370, is described as
an insertion. 5
There does not appear to be any need for reconstruc-
*/. Luke, 270. *Das Evangelium Lucae, I2$fc
3 See Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels > ii. 603.
*The Life of Jesus, 454. See also Loisy, UEvangile selon Luc> 5 2 iff.;
Ed. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums, L i82f.
5 Cf. Creed, 271; Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium, 214.
192 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
tions, or for the view that real swords and physical resist-
ance are contemplated. Burkitt gives a true estimate of
the section when he says: 'They are among the saddest
words in the Gospels, and the mournful irony with which
they are pervaded seems to me wholly alien from the kind
of utterance which a Christian Evangelist would invent
for his Master/ 1 *It is impossible to believe*, he ob-
serves, 'that the command to buy a sword was meant liter-
ally and seriously : it is all a piece of ironical foreboding.' 2
Every detail in the section is true to the situation in which
Jesus found Himself on the last night of His earthly life
and can readily be understood in relation thereto.
The most probable explanation of the reference to the
buying of a sword is that Jesus is speaking metaphori-
cally. 3 He is thinking of the position in which the
disciples will find themselves after His death. The cir-
cumstances will be entirely different from those which ob-
tained when first He sent them forth to announce the good
news of the Kingdom. Then there was no need to pro-
vide purse, wallet, and shoes, since normally a friendly
reception might be expected. Now the conditions are
different; He is about to die, and the hostility which faces
Himself may well confront them. His words : *He that
hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet: and he
that hath none, let him sell his cloke, and buy a sword,*
are His picturesque way of saying this. He has no
thought of advocating the use of swords or begging-bags.
If this is a correct interpretation, the succeeding reference
to Isa. liii. 12 is entirely apposite. It exactly describes
His own situation and is the clue to His apprehensions for
the Twelve. The manner in which the quotation is intro-
Gospel History and its Transmission* I4o, *Op. cit n 141.
3 Cf. Creed: 'in a general sense as a warning that disaster is coming,* 270;
Easton, 328; Luce, 335.
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 193
duced is natural. Jesus does not say as an interpolator
might have said: 'This which is written of 'me must be ful-
filled,' but: 'This which is written must be fulfilled in me*\
in other words : * What is said in Scripture about the Ser-
vant must find fulfilment in my case/ It is notable also,
as Burkitt has observed, 1 that the quotation does not
follow the text of the Septuagint: lv rofe dwftots-, but
reads: ftera aw>/uov. The use of the quotation is even
more effective if, as some commentators 2 suggest, the
following words: /col yd/> TO irpl e/zov T&QS e^et, are
rendered: 'For my life draws to its end/ In this case,
Jesus justifies His use of the passage; on the ordinary
rendering: 'that which concerneth me hath fulfilment,' or
'an end*, the introductory words: 'that which is written
must be fulfilled in me/ are only repeated in another form.
That Jesus should have been misunderstood by the
Twelve is part of the dramatic irony of a tense situation.
The cry : 'Lord, behold, here are two swords/ reveals the
fact that they have merely caught the surface meaning
of His words; and it is the perception of this which
draws from Him words which are both a formula of
dismissal 3 and an utterance of the deepest sadness: 'It is
enough/ 4
Although this passage is the only express citation from
Isa. liii. in the recorded sayings of Jesus, its genuineness
ought not to be in doubt: it is naturally related to the con-
text and has every appearance of being a spontaneous
utterance. Its presence in the L tradition confirms the
t^ 14.1.
* EUostermann: 'denn mein Lebensgeschick hat (jetzt) sein Ende,*
Das Lukasevangelivm, 214; Luce, 336. See LL xxm 19* 27; Acts i. 3;
xviii. 25; PhiL i. 27, where the article is used in the pluraL
f. Dent. iiL 26 (LXX).
f. Hummer, 507; Creed, 271; Luce, 335.
N
I 9 4 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
view that Jesus had deeply pondered the description of the
Suffering Servant and saw it as a foreshadowing of His
own experience of suffering and death. It is difficult to
agree with Burkitt that, in its context, the saying 'suggests
that He hardly regarded the passage (Isa. liii. 12) as
specifically "Messianic".' 1 The solemn earnestness with
which the words are quoted and the statement that they
'must' be fulfilled in Himself, point to a consciousness of
vocation* In citing the words Jesus has heard the voice
of destiny, and the destiny can hardly be other than that
of Messiahship as He understood it. At the same time it
must be agreed that the quotation is not an obvious selec-
tion from the Servant-poem. It is certainly not the one
which an interpolator would have fixed upon. Why does
Jesus choose just this passage? The most probable an-
swer is that on this, the very eve of His Passion, Jesus is
preoccupied with the thought that He is to be treated by
hostile men as a wrong-doer; He will be reckoned with
transgressors. Is there also implied the deeper thought
that, in a way unsuspected by men, He is indeed to be
reckoned with transgressors since He has taken their side
and made Himself one with them (JJ&TO. cu>6pa>v)?
This thought is not explicit in His words, but it is a natu-
ral reflection in the mind of one who had pondered the
Servant-conception and who quotes a passage immediately
followed by the words: 'yet he bare the sin of many, and
made intercession for the transgressors* (Isa. liii. 1 2).* In
any case, and however we explain the saying, the use of the
quotation is a clear indication that on this last night Jesus
was deeply conscious of the menace of evil and of the
threat of its apparent triumph in His death.
^Christian Beginnfogf, 37,
2 Cf. LL xxiii. 34: 'Father, forgive them: for they Jmow not what they
do.'
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 195
(6) THE SAYING AT THE ARREST ABOUT THE POWER OF DARKNESS
(Lk. xxii. 53^).
'But this is your hour^ and the power of darkness*
Most commentators note the Johannine ring of this
saying. 1 In reading the words, it is difficult not to think
of such a passage as Jn. iii. i<)f.i 'And this is the judg-
ment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved
the darkness rather than the light; for their works were
evil. For every one that doeth ill hateth the light, and
cometh not to the light, lest his works should be re-
proved/ Similar ideas appear also in the description of
the departure of the traitor in Jn. xiiL 30: "He then having
received the sop went out straightway : and it was night/
and in i Jn. i. 5 : 'God is light, and in him is no darkness
at all/ These parallels in no way throw doubt upon the
genuinenesss of the Lukan saying: on the contrary, the
similarity is an indication that the Johannine teaching is
rooted in the Synoptic tradition.
The suggestion 2 that Lk. xxii. 53^ is an editorial adap-
tation of Mk. xiv. 49# : 'But this is done that the scriptures
might be fulfilled,' is an opinion without foundation. It
is much better to conclude that the saying is an excerpt
from the L tradition which the Evangelist has combined
with the question: 'Are ye come out, as against a rob-
ber . . .F derived from Mk. xiv. 48f.
The phrase 'your hour* stands over against the thought
of 'my hour' or 'the hour* : and this contrast may have been
present to the mind of Jesus. It is one element in the
sense of inevitability or 'predestination* which fills His
thought as He contemplates His Passion. 3 The hour,
*C Creed, 274f.; Easton, 333; Montefiore, iu 61 ij Luce, 340.
So Loisy. See Luce, 340.
8 C Mk. xiv. 21, 41; Jn. xiL 23, 27, zviL i.
196 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
however, is one which His enemies have chosen and made
their own. Here, as always, Jesus is far away from the
idea of a remorseless fate which determines men's actions.
It is in harmony with this point of view that the phrase
'the power of darkness' must be estimated. No more
than in Col. i. 13, where the same phrase is used, is the
dualism one that is complete. The power is that which
darkness, a natural metaphor for evil, is permitted to
exercise. Possibly there is an intended contrast between
the two phrases : 'This is your hour; andyet^ it is the power
of darkness,' If so, the saying is an ironic comment upon
the jubilation of those who effect the arrest. Whether
this is so or not, the words reveal, as an aspect of the
thought of Jesus, the sense of a conflict between evil
powers and Himself. It is the same idea, though with the
note of victory added, which is expressed in Jn. xii. 31 :
'Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince
of this world be cast out.' The Passion-sayings do not
disclose this concept as the main or dominating idea of
Jesus in relation to His death, but they show unmistak-
ably that it is one strand in His thought.
This is the only saying from this part of Luke which it
is necessary to study in any detail. The relation of the
sayings in the Lukan account of the Trial before the
Priests (xxii. 66-7 1) to Mk. xiv. 55-64 is difficult to deter-
mine. 1 If, as most scholars think, the source is Mark,
Lk. xxii. 70 ('Te say that I am') supports the textual evi-
dence in favour of tie reading: 'Thou hast said that I am/
in Mk. xiv. 62. 2 In no way can this answer be said to
indicate doubt in the mind of Jesus. What it reveals is
His sense of the enormous difference between His con-
. Behind the Third Gospel, jof. See also Creed's discussion, 275^
2 Cf. Streeter, The Four Gospels* 322.
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 197
ceptlon of Messiahship and that of the priests. 1 If, as
seems to me more probable, Luke derived the section
from the L tradition, independent evidence is afforded
concerning the Messianic consciousness of Jesus.
The prophecy to the daughters of Jerusalem (Lk. xxiii.
27-3 1) is peculiar to Luke, but it has no light to throw on
the manner in which Jesus regarded His suffering beyond
showing how He thought of the need of others in the very
shadow of the cross. 2 The language is apocalyptic in
character, but it is doubtful if the thought is eschatologi-
cal. The commentators mention at least three possible
interpretations 3 of the reference to the green and the dry
trees, 4 but it is quite uncertain whether Jesus is thinking
of Romans or Jews.
(7) THE CRUCIFIXION SAYINGS (Lk. xxiii. 34, 43, 46).
(a) * And Jesus said, Father^ forgive them; for they know not what
they d<? (xxiii. 34).
(b) *And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy
kingdom. And he said unto him, Verify I say unto thee^ To-
day shah thou be with me in Paradise* (xxiii, 42f.).
1 Cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, 86. Note also Lk. xxiii. 3 Mk. xv. 2,
where Pilate's question: *Art thou the King of the Jews?' receives the
answer: Thou sayest.*
^Bertram sees the community at work depicting Jesus as the prophet of
the destruction of Jerusalem and attempting thereby to solve the mystery
of the cross. Cf* Die Ltidensgesckichte Jesu, 74. Montefiore (The
Synoptic Gospels, ii. 623) says that the passage *is probably unhistorical,
being made up out of a number of Old Testament reminiscences*. But
why should not the reminiscences be those of Jesus Himself? If, more-
over, as Montefiore says, the basis is Zech. xii. 10-4, it is strange that a
Christian editor should miss the opportunity of quoting the phrase: 'whom
they pierced.*
^Cf. Plummer, 529.
^For if they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the
dry?' (Lk. xxiii. 31).
198 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
(f) *And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice., he said, Father^
into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave
up the ghost' (xxiii. 46).
AH these sayings are peculiar to the Third Gospel. The first is
omitted by B D W & a b sy 8 and other important authorities. The
last is a quotation from Psa. xxxi. 5.
Critical opinion is sharply divided upon the question
whether xxiii. 34 belongs to the true text of the Third
Gospel, and in view of the many important authorities
which omit the passage, this fact is not surprising. It is
to be noted, however, that some of the foremost textual
critics who reject the passage, hold that it contains a
genuine saying of Jesus. Hort, for example, says: 'Few
verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to
the truth of what they record than this first of the Words
from the Cross/ 1 Other writers who cannot agree that
the saying is authentic bear witness to its greatness.
Thus, Montefiore says that 'it nevertheless is ten trovatOy
both because it breathes the higher spirit of Jesus and be-
cause it is based upon the teaching of Jesus'. 2
For Easton the textual difficulties are decisive. 3 Creed
thinks that 'the omission of a prayer so sublime and so
Christ-like seems less probable than its insertion*. 4 On
the other hand, Harnack has strongly maintained that a
reason for the omission can be found in the mistaken belief
that the words of the prayer for forgiveness referred to
Jews. 5 Streeter has developed a similar argument. He
refers to the opinion of Dr. Rendel Harris that the passage
*TAe New Testament In the Original Greek* ii. App. 68.
*0p. or., ii. 62 5.
3 S/. Luke, 348.
4 /. Luke y 286.
*Probleme im Text* der Leidensgesckichte Jesu, 5-1 1*
THE SAYINGS IN THE L TRADITION 199
was deleted because some second-century Christian found
it hard to believe that God could or ought to forgive the
Jews, and says: 'One might add, it would have appeared
to a second-century Christian that, as a mere matter of
fact, God had not forgiven the Jews. Twice within
seventy years Jerusalem had been destroyed and hundreds
of thousands of Jews massacred and enslaved/ 1 This is
a forceful argument, and supported as it is by the impres-
sion left by the content of the prayer itself, it is decisive
in favour of the genuineness of the passage.
The genuineness of the second saying is bound up with
that of the story to which it belongs. The account of the
Penitent Thief (Lk. xxiii. 39-43) is probably Luke's addi-
tion to his special Passion Source, and we cannot tell
whether it is based on good tradition or whether it is a
homiletical development of Mk. xv. 27. Easton says
that the didactic motive is obvious and that it is difficult
to argue for much historic basis in the section. 2 Creed
suggests that the story comes 'from the same cycle of tra-
dition which told the parable of the Pharisee and the
Publican, and the stories of the penitent harlot and the
penitent Zacchaeus,' and observes that it is impossible to
say how much is to be set down to the Evangelist's own
account. 3 These opinions are marked by critical caution,
and, if they are not accepted, the only alternative possible
rests on an estimate of Luke's value as a historical writer.
In this respect it is probable that his reputation has
suffered from the excellence of his gifts as a literary artist.
It is also worth recalling that on many points criticism has
been compelled to revise sceptical judgments. 4 In these
*The Four Gospels, 138.
*Op. /., 35of. , *Op. dt. y 285.
^Tbe incidental reference to Lysanlas (LL iii. i) is a case in point. Cf.
Creed, 307-9.
200 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
circumstances, those who continue to accept the special
Lukan narratives as historical have much justification; but
even so, it must always be recognized that our ignorance
of the character of the tradition as Luke found it precludes
dogmatic affirmations.
The same observations are relevant in the case of the
third saying. In the present state of our knowledge one
common argument seems definitely unfair. Thus, it is
often said that Luke replaces the Cry of Desolation (Mk.
xv. 34) by the quotation from Psa. xxxi. 5 r 1 'Father, into
thy hands I commend my spirit' (Lk. xxiii. 46). This
argument is in place only if it can be shown that Mark is
Luke's principal source. If the L tradition supplied the
Evangelist with his main authority, it falls to the ground,
and it is seriously compromised if it is conceded that he
used a non-Markan source. This source did not contain
the Cry of Desolation, but probably included the saying
in xxiii. 46 ; and it is the preference accorded to it by Luke
which explains why the last sayings recorded in the two
Gospels are different. To suggest that both cries are his-
torical is more than a harmonizing expedient; for the
death of Jesus is not immediately recorded 2 in Mark after
the cry: 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?*
and it is a credible suggestion that the discord of an un-
paralleled experience was resolved into the harmony of
habitual confidence and trust. It is the terrible cry of
Mk. xv. 34 which is the unexpected element in the Pas-
sion Story; the saying in Lk. xxiii. 46 is harmonious with
the whole spirit and life of Jesus, and in particular with the
attitude of obedience in which He faced the Cross.
^Into thine hand I commend my spirit/
SThe incident of the sponge fall of vinegar follows, and then the words:
'And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost' (Mk. xv. 37).
Ill
THE SAYINGS IN THE PAULINE NAR-
RATIVE OF THE LAST SUPPER
I
N order to complete our study of the Passion-sayings
connected with the story of the Last Supper it is
necessary to examine St. Paul's account in i Cor. xi.
*For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,
how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up
took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said,
This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.
In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the
new covenant in my blood: this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remem-
brance of me/
As appearing in a letter written in 55 A.D., this narrative
is early; but the phrase, * which also I delivered unto you,*
carries back the tradition to 51 A.D., when St. Paul first
visited Corinth. It is probable, however, that the
Apostle is thinking of the days immediately after his con-
version and of the tradition made known to him at Damas-
cus and Jerusalem. This is the natural interpretation of the
words: *I received of the Lord/ It is most improbable
that the phrase, 'from the Lord/ implies a revelation com-
parable to that mentioned in Gal. i. 1 2 .* Neither the terms 2
x Cf. Robertson and Plummer, 2426; Ed. Meyer, UrspntngvndAnJattgc
des Christentums* i. 175; Gogael, The Life of Jesus, 445.
^apaXdfi^oafetv (cf. i TKess. ii. 13; 2 Thess. iii. 6; i Cor. xv. I, 3) and
TroqoaStSovai (cf. Mk. vii. 1 3; Lk. i. 2; Acts vi. 14; i Cor. xi. 2, xv. 3) are
regularly used of the reception and transmission of a tradition.
201
202 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
which are employed nor the contents 1 of xi. 23-5 sug-
gest a revelation, but rather an oral tradition such as
the primitive communities were able to give. St. Paul is
recording what he had learnt well within a decade of the
death of Christ,
It would, however, be rash to suppose that his narrative
must be accepted forthwith in all its details, as superior to
the Markan and Lukan accounts of the Supper. How
ancient the Synoptic narratives are, it is impossible to say,
but they are certainly very much older than the Gospels in
which they stand. Moreover, it may be that the details
of i Cor. xi. 23-5 owe something to the effects of St.
Paul's sojourn in Antioch and to his subsequent experi-
ences during the Gentile Mission. No narrative, not
even that of an eyewitness, is exempt from the possibility
of interpretative modifications, and this danger is in-
creased when, as in the case of xi. 23-5, it is received from
intermediaries. For this reason the sayings in xi. 24f.
must be examined with care.
(a) 'This is my body^ which is far you: this do in remembrance of me*
(i Cor. xi. 24),
The first four words appear in every account of the
Supper, and their genuineness is beyond dispute. The
phrase, 'which is for you/ is peculiar to St. PauPs ac-
count. 2 Its absence from Mk. xiv. 22 is not in itself a
decisive objection, since the idea at least is completely in
line with the Markan representation of the self-offering of
Jesus in x. 45 and xiv. 24. Dalman, however, thinks that
'what is possible in Greek (TO iforep ujtwDv), appears in
Aramaic as a very unusual heaviness*, and that the phrase
'Otto remarks that Christ cannot have revealed: The Lord Jesus in the
night in which. . . .* Cf. Jtonch Gottts nnd Menschensohn* 276.
2 It is repeated in LL xriL 196 in the form: 'which is given for 700.'
SAYINGS IN THE PAULINE NARRATIVE 203
must be considered *a hellenisation'. 1 Probably, as Jere-
mias suggests, 2 its presence in the Pauline formulation is
due to liturgical usage, and to the fact that the parallel ex-
pression : 'which is poured out for you', which appears in
Mk. xiv. 24, is not suitable in the saying regarding the cup
in i Cor. xL 25. On the whole, it is best to regard the
phrase as an interpretative addition which correctly defines
the words: 'This is my body.' The rest of the saying:
'This do in remembrance of me/ is also peculiar to I Con
xi. 24, but as a similar command is found in I Cor. xi. 25,
both passages may be considered together. 3
(b) * This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as oft as ye drink
//, m remembrance of me* (i Cor. xi. 25).
The relation of Mk. xiv. 24: 'This is my blood of the
covenant, which is shed for many', to i Cor. xi. 25 has
already been discussed; and the conclusion reached was
that it is not a variant of the Pauline saying. Is, then,
i Cor. xi. 25 a variant of Mk. xiv, 24, or are the two
independent sayings?
If it is necessary to choose between the two, the Pauline
form must be regarded as secondary and derivative. The
phrase, *This cup/ is easily explained as a closer definition
of the indefinite 'This* in the Markan form. Such a
modification might naturally be made in a Gentile en-
vironment in order to avoid the difficulties of the bolder
Markan saying: 'This is my blood of the covenant/ 4
Once this change is made the rest follows. It is no longer
possible to express the predicate in the words: 'is my
blood of the covenant,' since this form is intelligible only
if the subject refers to the wine. The cup is not, of
ijesus-jeshua* I44fl *Die Abendmahlmortejesu* 58.
*Seepp. 2o6ffl
*Cf. Daimon, Jesus- Jeshua, 161; Jeremias, op. tit^ 60.
204 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
course, thought of apart from its contents, but when it is
expressly mentioned as the subject, it becomes necessary
to describe it as constituting the covenant made possible
by the blood of Christ, and the adjective 'new* is suggested
by Jen xxxi. 3 1 and by contrast with the covenant of Ex.
xxiv. 8. The immediate implication is that the cup is the
pledge of the covenant, though how far this idea would
have been from satisfying the mind of St. Paul is clear
from his impassioned question: 'The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of
Christ?* (r Cor. x. 16). In the way suggested, then, it
may be contended, the Pauline version came into existence
in a form more intelligible to non-Jewish Christians than
the challenging words of the Markan tradition.
This argument, it must be allowed, is attractive, and it
may represent the facts. It is open, however, to at least
two objections. Paul's words do not suggest that he is
giving a later form of the saying; he shows no knowledge
of any other form and implies that he is recording the ori-
ginal tradition. He may, of course, have been mistaken.
Does he not show, in I Cor. i, 14-6, a confused recollec-
tion of those whom he had baptized? However this may
be, in i Cor. xi. 23-5, as in i Cor. xv. 3-7, he speaks with
such deliberation of matters which had been the subject of
his teaching that it is difficult to believe that he is repro-
ducing a form of the saying which first became current in
a Gentile community. A second objection is that the ex-
planation is not really necessary, i Cor. xi. 25 may be as
original as Mk. xiv. 24 itself. It has already been sug-
gested that the saying: 'This is my blood of the covenant,
which is shed for many,* may not have been fully under-
stood at the time. While this admission is no argument
against their genuineness, it suggests the possibility that
Jesus may have expounded His own words. Is the say-
SAYINGS IN THE PAULINE NARRATIVE 205
ing found in i Cor. xi. 25 part of His interpretation?
Criticism is rightly on its guard against 'harmonizing ex-
pedients'; but when it can be shown that one saying is
probably not derived from a second, and that the second
need not be a variant of the first, there is matter for reflec-
tion. It is especially important to avoid the delusion that
different accounts of the Supper are self-contained and
mutually exclusive. Form-criticism reminds us that such
narratives are merely the rounded residues of earlier
stories from which much has fallen away, and that the say-
ings they contain are those which attracted the interest of
the narrators. Similar sayings in different narratives
may be, but need not be, identical; on the contrary, they
may be original variations on the same theme. How far
these principles can be applied in the present case, it may
be impossible to decide, but there is certainly as much
reason to explain i Cor. xi. 25 as an original interpretation
of Mk. xiv. 24 as to adopt the hypothesis of secondary
modification.
Hesitation to decide between these competing views is
disappointing, but the very fact that we are compelled to
hesitate adds force to the contention of Jeremias that,
essentially, the meaning of i Cor. xi. 25 and of Mk. xiv.
24 is the same. 'With rovro TO tronqpiov Paul means
not the cup, but its contents/ 'Mark and Matthew, as
much as Paul, compare the wine with the blood by the
shedding of which the new covenant is established.* 1 If
this opinion is sound, it matters less whether i Cor. xi. 25
is an original utterance, and the practical question is which
passage gives the theologian firmest ground for his special
work. On this issue there is hardly room for serious
doubt: with Jeremias, 2 he is well advised to select the
l Die Abatdmahlstoorte Jem, 59.
206 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
words of Mk. xiv. 24: 'This is my blood of the covenant,
which is shed for many.'
Attention must now be given to the command to repeat
the rite in i Cor. 24^: 'This do in remembrance of me/
*This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.' 1
For various reasons, these words are widely regarded as
secondary additions. The grounds for this opinion may
be summarized as follows: (i) The words are wanting in
Mk. and in Mt.; (2) In suggesting the thought of a
memorial meal, they introduce a new idea not found in the
other accounts; (3) The terminology is that found in
ancient formulae used with reference to the commemora-
tion of the dead; 2 (4) The sayings reflect the interests
of the primitive communities rather than those of
Jesus. 3
It cannot be said that these arguments are particularly
impressive. Enough perhaps has already been said con-
cerning Markan omissions. In reading not a little Syn-
optic Criticism one has the impression that the critic looks
upon Mark as a fellow Neutestamentllcher. Goguel, for
example, observes : 'Since the Early Church believed that
it was obeying the will of the Lord in celebrating the
Communion, the suppression by Mark of a command to
repeat the rite which he found in the source would be un-
intelligible* In introducing it Paul was not conscious
that he had altered the tradition.' 4 How much do we
know of Mark's source, and would failure to record the
command be unintelligible? The fact is, to a modern
*G A. Anderson Scott prefers the rendering: 'with a view to recalling
me*. Cf. Christianity According to St. Pav/, 191,
*For examples cf. Lietzmann, An die Korinther *, 58, 931".; Jeremias,
op. cit. 9 58f.
*Cf. Wellliausen, Das Evangelism Marci, 113,
*Tht Lift of Jesus,
SAYINGS IN THE PAULINE NARRATIVE 207
inquirer the question whether Jesus commanded the re-
petition of the rite is a matter of first importance. Can
we suppose that Mark felt the same? If Paul was not
conscious that he had altered the tradition by introducing
the command, was Mark conscious of the enormity of his
offence in omitting it? He may well have taken for
granted a command which no one doubted. Again,
while a new idea is introduced in the Pauline narrative, it
cannot be said to contradict the ideas of the Synoptic
accounts; on the contrary, the injunction to recall the pre-
sence of Jesus in future celebrations of the Supper is in
harmony with the consciousness of a farewell meal re-
flected in Lk. xxiu iS. 1 Further, the fact that iroUa> and
avdpvTjcns or prffuq appear in pagan injunctions to
commemorate the dead, while interesting, is not surpris-
ing, since the words are obvious terms to employ in a very
natural request; and, in any case, parallelism is not the
same thing as borrowing. Finally, the observation that
the sayings are in agreement with the interests of the
primitive communities does not exclude the possibility of
a definite command of Jesus. Wellhausen's assertion
that the sayings assume a custom of celebrating the Sup-
per by the community, which Jesus could not have com-
manded and the disciples could not have understood, 2 is
without adequate foundation* Looking forward, as He
did, to the joy of the Messianic Feast in the consummated
Kingdom, 8 Jesus might well- enjoin the continued celebra-
tion of the Supper; and especially if He had attached a
new significance to an earlier custom. If, on the night of
the Arrest, He desired to associate His disciples with His
Messianic suffering, He might well wish that association
to be deepened and enriched after His death. It is also
1 Sec p. 1 85. *Qf. /., 113.
*Cf. ML xiv. 25; LL rriL 18.
2c8 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
too easily assumed that, without any command of His, the
Supper would have continued to be celebrated* To say
that St. Paul has made explicit what was already implicit,
is greatly facilitated because we know the events which
followed the death of Jesus* Can we be certain that the
idea of repetition would have been found to be implicit, if
Jesus had not said: *Do this in remembrance of me*?
Without the word, would the custom have arisen? It
may not be possible to answer these questions, but, with
some confidence, it may be affirmed that the custom of the
primitive Church in breaking bread (cf. Acts. ii. 42) is
best understood if it rests on the express word of Jesus.
Seductive phrases like 'unconscious aetiological inven-
tion*, and *an ex post facto legitimation of a custom*, have
something of the potency of a spell, but they provide a
much less credible explanation of the saying: *Do this in
remembrance of me/ than the view that the words are a
genuine utterance of Jesus.
Our conclusion, then, is that, in recording the sayings
which command the continued observance of the Supper,
St. Paul has preserved an original element in the tradition
not mentioned by the Synoptists. If this view is ac-
cepted, it enlarges our conception of what Jesus had in
mind in instituting the Supper. He not only intended
His disciples to share in the power of His self-offering on
the night of the Arrest; He meant them to continue so to
do. In breaking bread and in drinking the cup they were
to bring Him and His Messianic work powerfully to mind
until He should come with power and great glory. This
is a thought of Jesus which St. Paul has truly expressed
when he writes: *For as often as ye eat this bread, and
drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come*
(i Cor. xi. 26).
In view of the importance of St. Paul's account, it is
SAYINGS IN THE PAULINE NARRATIVE 209
necessary to examine his interpretation of the significance
and meaning of the Supper. Such an inquiry ought to
throw light on the question whether his narrative is in-
fluenced by his doctrinal views; it ought also to help us to
interpret the Supper itself and the meaning it had for
Jesus.
There can be no doubt that St. Paul's thought is sacra-
mental In the sense that he regards material things as
means for the manifestation and appropriation of spiritual
realities. This is true of his doctrine of the Person of
Christ, of his conception of the Church as the Body of
Christ, and of his description of the individual Christian,
and of the Church, as the temple of the Holy Spirit (cf.
i Cor. iii. i6f., vi. igf.)- But this aspect of his thought
is especially evident in his treatment of Baptism and of the
Lord's Supper. The fathers of the Jewish Church were
'baptized into Moses* by their experiences in the wilder-
ness and at the Red Sea (i Cor. x. 2), and the Christian
believer is 'baptized into Christ', and therefore 'into his
death 7 (Rom. vi. 3). 'We were buried therefore with
him through baptism into death : that like as Christ was
raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so
we also might walk in newness of life' (Rom. vi. 4). This
teaching does not mean that, as a rite, and apart from
moral and spiritual factors, Baptism effects spiritual bene-
fits : such a deduction would be a complete perversion of
Pauline thought, with its strong emphasis upon the
ethical element in the idea of faith-union with Christ. 1
None the less, it does imply that Baptism is both an oppor-
tunity and a means of establishing a spiritual relationship
with Christ.
Neither baptism nor the Lord's Supper is regarded as of magical effect.
In every case it is God's grace that is decisive,* A, Deissmann, St. Pavt,
131.
o
210 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
St. Paul's views regarding the Supper can be inferred
from I Cor. x. 1-4, 14-22, and xi. 2034.
The first of these passages is one of warning based upon
the experiences of the Israelites in the wilderness who, in
spite of the highest privileges, became idolaters, forni-
cators, and murmurers against God, It is in this context
that he speaks of the manna as 'spiritual meat* and of the
water obtained from the rock as 'spiritual drink' (x. 3f);
in a mystical sense he can even declare that 'the rock was
Christ' (x. 4). There can be no doubt that he is thinking
in terms suggested by the Eucharist, and, if this is so, it
is natural to infer that he thought of the bread and the
wine as spiritual meat and drink, and of the Eucharist as
in a true sense mediating Christ to the believer. Just as
clearly it must be inferred that he did not think of it as a
mechanical means of grace. 'Now these things happened
unto them by way of example/ he says of the privileged
Israelites, 'and they were written for our admonition, upon
whom the ends of the ages are come' (x. 1 1).
The second section, I Cor* x. 14-22, is more explicit.
Once more it is a warning against idolatry. St. Paul does
not believe that an idol is anything, but he does believe
that in eating things sacrificed to idols the Corinthians
incur the danger of entering into communion with evil
powers. *I would not*, he writes, 'that ye should have
communion with demons' (x. 20). Strange as it is
to the modern mind, this thought is based on ancient
conceptions of sacrifice, and, in particular, upon the idea
that to eat of the sacrifice is to share in the sacrificial act
itself, and therefore to enter into fellowship with spiritual
powers. That this view was held by St. Paul himself is
clear from his question: 'Behold Israel after the flesh:
have not they which eat the sacrifices communion with the
altar?' (x. 18). In these words he is thinking, not so
SAYINGS IN THE PAULINE NARRATIVE 211
much of the altar itself, 1 but of the God whose altar it is,
and of the offering made thereon. Nothing less than
this inference does justice to his words.
In itself, the use of this illustration suggests that St.
Paul thinks of the Eucharist as a means of entering into
communion with Christ and of sharing in His sacrifice.
This conclusion, however, is not left to inference, for he
writes : 'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a
communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which
we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?'
(x. r 6). The incidental introduction of this question is
worthy of note; it merely prepares the way for the plea
that to eat meat sacrificed to idols is spiritually dangerous.
The implication is that he is assuming a view of the
Eucharist shared equally by his readers and himself. It
is inadequate to understand 'communion' (/coM>o>y/a) of
a fellowship of believers instituted by Christ. This is the
secondary idea of the section, suggested in the words:
'seeing that there is one bread, we who are many, are one
body' (x. 1 7, R.V. mg.) ; but that it is not the main thought
is clear when St. Paul sets side by side the Supper and the
pagan sacrifice, and says : * Ye cannot drink the cup of the
Lord, and the cup of demons : ye cannot partake of the table
of the Lord, and of the table of demons' (x. 2 1 ). By com-
munion of the body and blood of Christ St. Paul means a
vital relation with Christ Himself as the Crucified Saviour.
The third section, i Cor. xi. 20-34, is of even greater
interest and importance, because from verses 26-34 it is
possible to infer with some confidence what his view of the
Eucharist must have been.
When he says : c As often as ye eat this bread, and drink
1 Some commentators take the view tliat His meaning is that something of
the holiness of the altar passes over to them. Cf. Anderson Scott, op. cit.,
185; Howard, Abingdon Commentary, 1 184.
212 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
the cup, ye are proclaiming the Lord's death till he come'
(xL 26) 5 he is thinking of the Eucharist, not merely as
publishing the fact of the death, but as making it known
for what it is, a work, namely, of reconciliation. He does
not say this, it is true, but, in the light of his treatment as a
whole, it is impossible to believe that his thought is simply
that the acts of eating and drinking recall the circum-
stances of the original Supper and of the tragic events
which followed. It is surely the nature of the death that
is in mind and the appropriation of its blessings by men;
and since reconciliation is the fundamental conception
under which he thinks of the work of Christ, 1 it is natural
to suppose that it is under this category that the death is
proclaimed. The Eucharist, he says, in effect, is an acted
sermon ; 2 it is the drama of redemption, in which common
physical acts, eating and drinking, represent and provide
the opportunity for the spiritual appropriation of that
which Christ made possible by His death.
It is just because St Paul can think so highly of the
Eucharist that he feels so keenly the scandal of the Corin-
thian celebrations, with their divisions, heresies, and
shameful disorders. These facts of the situation are in
his mind when he speaks of eating the bread, or drinking
the cup, 'unworthily'. The disorders ruin the sermon
and destroy the drama, so that the death is no longer pro-
claimed as a work of reconciliation. So strong is his
feeling that he declares that 'whosoever shall eat the bread
or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of
the body and the blood of the Lord' (xL 27). These
words are a rhetorical statement unless, in the Apostle's
thinking, the bread and the wine are, in some sense, the
body and blood of Christ. So necessary is this inference,
1 Cf. Rom. v. i of.; 2 Cor. v. 18-20; CoL L 20-2.
2 Cf. Robertson and Plummer, 249,
SAYINGS IN THE PAULINE NARRATIVE 213
that reluctance to accept it can only be explained by the
fear that one is thereby committed to the view that St.
Paul held a doctrine of Transubstantiation. Such a fear
is groundless. St. Paul's thinking is poles asunder from
the mediaeval belief that the Substance' of bread and of
wine is miraculously transformed into the 'substance' of
the body and blood of Christ. What he means is illu-
strated by his statement that the rock of Kadesh 'was
Christ*. The bread and the wine are mystically the body
and blood of the Lord, and have this meaning and value
because of His word and action (cf. xL 24f.).
This conception, however, does not represent the whole
of St. Paul's thought. He clearly believes that the signi-
ficance of the Eucharist is ethically conditioned. On the
one hand, he does not think that the meaning of the bread
and wine is purely a subjective creation on the part of
those who participate in the Supper. In his belief, the
elements possess a God-given potency. He holds that
direct physical ills have fallen upon the Corinthian Chris-
tians because they have received them unworthily. 'For
this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not
a few sleep' (xi. 30). To the modern mind this is a sub-
Christian belief which conceives the Eucharist in magical
terms, although few would deny that to participate in the
Eucharist unworthily, in a wrong ethical and religious
spirit, is to expose oneself to the divine condemnation,
We prefer, that is to say, to use abstract expressions, or at
least to leave 'the divine judgment' undefined, whereas St.
Paul prefers to speak definitely and concretely. Be this
as it may, St. Paul's language implies that he did not think
the significance of the elements to be one which exists only
in the mind of the recipient; their value and meaning are
determined by God.
On the other hand, it is equally clear that he cannot
214 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
have thought of the bread and the wine as the body and
the blood of Christ, apart from the spiritual attitude and
intellectual apprehension of the participant. That he
attached the greatest importance to these conditions is
obvious from his solemn exhortation: 'Let a man prove
himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the
cup' (xi. 28), The divisions, schisms, and ostentatious
actions of the Corinthian Christians are undoubtedly in
his mind as he writes these words, and it may be inferred
that by a 'worthy' participation he means one that is
marked by the spirit of unity, of humility, and of love*
But the question also arises whether, along with these
spiritual qualities, an intellectual grasp of what the
Eucharist means, must not be included; for St. Paul con-
tinues: Tor he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and
drinketh judgment unto himself, if he judge not rightly
the body* (JIT) 8ta/c/>tvo>v TO acSfta). 1 Some commen-
tators have supposed that, by 'the body', the Church is
meant, 2 but, in the absence of some clearer indication of a
change of reference, it is much more probable that the
term has the same meaning which it bears in the immedi-
ate context in verse 27. The 'body* is that of the Cruci-
fied Lord symbolized by the broken bread. 3 The words
indicate that the proving, of which verse 28 speaks, has
1 Tliese words are a well-known crux interpretum* If by *he that
eateth, &c.% St. Paul means one who eats ^unworthily*, the participle is
causal: 'because he does not judge rightly the bod/; but if, as is more
probable, in view of verse 28, he is speaking generally, it is conditional: *if
he does not judge rightly.* The rendering 'judge rightly* is better than
'discern* or 'discriminate*, in the light of the meaning of SUXK/H^O) in
verse 31.
2C Anderson Scott, of. cit^ 1 89.
8 *. . the sacred body, into communion with which he enters by par-
taking of the Supper, and respecting which, therefore, he ought to form a
judgment of the most careful kind, such as may bring him into full and
deep consciousness of its sacredness and saving significance,* H. A. W.
Meyer, 349.
SAYINGS IN THE PAULINE NARRATIVE 215
an intellectual as well as a moral character. The man is
not only to examine his motives and his conduct, but also
whether he has perceived what is involved in eating the
bread and in drinking the cup. The implication is that it
is upon this kind of self-examination that the opportunity
presented to him in the Eucharist depends; only so are the
bread and the wine the body and the blood of Christ to
him. St. Paul's view is that the blessings of the Eucharist
are received, neither ex opere operato nor merely by the
exercise of faith, but by the power of God under moral
and intellectual conditions.
From this study of St. Paul's thought it appears that, if
allowance is made for the fact that he is dealing with an
actual situation in the course of his ministry, the ideas are,
substantially, those which are implicit in the narrative of
Mk. xiv. 22-5, where Jesus, both by His actions and His
words, institutes the Supper as a means whereby His
disciples may share in the power of His surrendered life
and anticipate the joy of the perfected Kingdom. 1 It is
surprising, in view of his strong eschatological expecta-
tions, that St. Paul does not give fuller consideration to the
relationship of the Supper to the hope of the Parousia.
A reference to this relationship appears in his words : "Ye
proclaim the Lord's death till he come' (xi, 26), but it is not
developed further. The explanation is doubtless to be
found in the fact that he is not directly unfolding his
eucharistic beliefs, but is dealing only with the points which
concern a definite situation. In his treatment, however,
he fixes upon what is most fundamental, the relation,
namely, in which the Eucharist stands to the sacrifice of
Jesus and to the appropriation of its blessings by the be-
liever. In this vital conception the teaching of Jesus and
of St. Paul is the same.
p. 124!, 138.
2i6 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
A noteworthy feature of i Cor. xi. 23-5 is the objec-
tivity of the account of the Supper. In the three sections
which have been examined St. Paul expresses thoughts
which can legitimately be based on the narrative, but he
does not introduce them into the story itself* How easy
it would have been to give a description of the original
Supper enriched by his own experience and by that of the
Church! In point of fact, he does not do this to any
marked degree. If the phrase, 'which is for you/ at-
tached to the words, 'This is my body,' is an expansion, it
is, as we have urged, an addition which only brings out
what is already implied. We have claimed that the words
regarding the repetition of the rite are original; but, even
if this view is not accepted, the phrases are not Pauline
inventions and only express what already was generally
believed. A study, then, of St. PauPs doctrine of the
Eucharist throws into strong relief the fidelity with which
he records the original tradition.
The character of the narrative bears on the question
raised by the frequent assertion that the sacramental ele-
ment in early Christian tradition is the creation of St. Paul
who was deeply influenced by pagan Mystery-concep-
tions. This issue, however, is of such importance that it
must be treated more broadly.
The assertion gains plausibility by exploiting the simi-
larities between the Eucharist and such traces as exist of
sacred meals in connexion with the Mystery-religions, and
by passing lightly over the distinctive elements in St.
Paul's teaching. The well-known invitation: 'Chaere-
mon requests your company at dinner at the table of the
Lord Sarapis in the Serapaeum to-morrow, the I5th, at
9 o'clock,' 1 tells us very little about the character of the
feast in question ; and this is still more true of the formula
J C Moulton and Milligan, The Focafolary of the Greek Testament* 365.
SAYINGS IN THE PAULINE NARRATIVE 217
handed down by Firmicus Maternus: 'I have eaten out of
the rufwrcow, I have drunk out of the KvppsxXov, I have
become an initiate of Attis.' 1 A credible account of the
manner in which the alleged influences can have developed
St. Paul's teaching, has yet to be supplied. Meantime, it
is important to observe that to the Apostle the Eucharist
is neither an initiation ceremony, nor a rite of deification,
nor a simple memorial feast to the departed. Its closer
affinities indeed are Jewish. It is notable that in i Cor.
x., xi., all the illustrations, apart from that of eating in an
idol's temple, which is prompted by the circumstances of
the readers, are drawn from the Old Testament. Further,
St. PauPs teaching throughout moves in personal and
spiritual realms. For him the bread and the wine are not
so much 'food for the souP as media for participating in a
redeeming activity. The end in view is fellowship with a
Saviour and a sharing in His sacrifice. Finally, as we
have seen, the ethical and social virtues are strongly em-
phasized. Where these are actively present, the Eucha-
rist becomes what it is meant to be: otherwise, it is an
instrument of condemnation. This feature alone is
enough to discourage the hypothesis of pagan borrowing.
Added to the characteristics already mentioned, it stamps
the idea of the rite as a unique and original conception,
into the significance of which St. Paul was permitted to
see more deeply than any other New Testament writer,
but which owes its origin to Jesus Christ Himself.
*C H. A* A. Kennedj, /. Paul and the Mystery-Religions, 2 $6.
IV
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS
THE Passion-sayings in the Fourth Gospel must
now be examined. However difficult and con-
tentious may be the problems which they raise,
these sayings are part of the evidence on which an under-
standing of the thought of Jesus in relation to His Passion
depends*
The most serious problem is the question how the say-
ings are to be regarded from the historical point of view.
It cannot be said, in Great Britain at least, that any com-
mon opinion has been reached by New Testament scholars
as a whole, although there is a wide and growing con-
viction that the sayings are not the ipsissima verba of
Jesus, but words which in some degree owe their form
to the Evangelist. This opinion can be expressed in very
different ways. In the view of J. E. Carpenter, the
members of the Johannine circle represent Jesus in the
Fourth Gospel *as speaking by anticipation in their
name'. 1 According to P. Gardner, the Evangelist gives
the teaching of Jesus as Plato gives the teaching of Soc-
rates. 2 B. H. Streeter thinks that the original readers
would not have supposed the author to mean that the
doctrine propounded in the discourses was verbally iden-
tical with what Jesus actually taught in Palestine, 'but
rather that it was organically related to what Christ taught
*The Johannine Writings, 225.
*The Ephesian Gospel, rooff; cf. C. J. Cadoux, Christianity and
Catholicism, 340.
218
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 219
In such a way as to be the doctrine which Christ would
have taught had he been explicitly dealing with the pro-
blems confronting the Church at the time when the Gospel
was written/ 1 W. F. Howard holds that 'it is the Evan-
gelist's manner to take a saying of Jesus and render it into
an idiom that is rich in meaning for his own contempo-
raries*. 2 *He also harps on a word or thought of the
Master until it rings through the Gospel. But even more
distinctive of the Johannine mind is the way in which he
receives a deep saying which has only just found isolated
expression in the earlier Gospels, and develops it through-
out the Gospel/ 3
The view that the sayings in the Fourth Gospel are
original sayings of Jesus transposed into 'the Johannine
idiom', receives strong justification when parallel utter-
ances in the Synoptics are patiently examined; but, in the
light of the facts as a whole, it cannot be regarded as a
complete explanation. The theory is a very important
part of the truth, but it is not the whole truth regarding
the sayings. Once it is recognized that original utter-
ances have been pondered and expressed in a new idiom,
it is necessary to go further. Can we be sure that the
process always begins with an original saying, especially
when there is no Synoptic parallel? And in what form
were original sayings present to the Evangelist's mind?
In some cases he will have been familiar with sayings pre-
served in Mark, or, possibly, in Q and in some independ-
ent collection; but in other cases they would reach him
in an oral form already modified in the course of trans-
mission* Moreover, it is not easy to suppose that the
process of recasting would invariably begin with a definite
*The Four Gospels, 371.
*The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation* 221.
220 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
saying. Could the Evangelist always distinguish with
any precision between a saying he had received and an
idea which, in his belief, represented the mind of Jesus?
Whatever element of uncertainty these possibilities may
introduce into questions of exegesis, they are real and
must be taken seriously into account; all the more, because
the Evangelist was probably conscious of working under
the creative impulse of the Spirit who should take of the
things of Christ and guide believers into all the truth (cf.
Jn. xvi. I3f.)- The conclusion, therefore, which we
must draw is that no simple formula will carry us through
the task of evaluating the Johannine sayings. Many of
them are original sayings expressed in another idiom, but
others are free productions in which the Evangelist, in the
consciousness that he is led by the Spirit, expresses what
he believes to be the mind of Christ.
This estimate of the Johannine sayings renders it im-
possible to present them in quite the same manner as that
in which the Synoptic Passion-sayings have been treated.
Perhaps the best method is to examine, first, the passages
in which the Evangelist clearly speaks in his own person,
both in the Gospel and in I John, then, the Passion-
sayings which he puts into the lips of others than Jesus,
and, finally, the Passion-sayings of Jesus Himself. In
view of what has already been said these divisions cannot
be said to be mutually exclusive; but the method has the
advantage of beginning with what is simple and relatively
certain and of proceeding thence to what, in the nature of
the case, is difficult and more open to debate.
PASSAGES IN WHICH THE FOURTH EVAN-
GELIST SPEAKS IN HIS OWN PERSON
The passages in which the Evangelist himself refers
to the Passion are as follows :
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 221
ii. 2 if.: *But he spake of the temple of his body. When there-
fore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he
spake this; and they believed the scripture, and the word which
Jesus had said.'
iii. 14^; *And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth
may in him have eternal life.*
iii. 1 6: 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only be-
gotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but
have eternal life.'
vii. 30: 'They sought therefore to take him: and no man laid his
hand on him, because his hour was not yet come.'
viii. 20: *These words spake he in the treasury, as he taught in
the temple: and no man took him; because his hour was not yet
come.'
xi. 5 if.: *Now this he said not of himself: but being high priest
that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation; and not
for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one
the children of God that are scattered abroad.*
xii. 33: 'But this he said, signifying by what manner of death he
should die.'
xiii. 1-4: 'Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing
that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto
the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved
them unto the end. And during supper, the devil having already
put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him,
Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands,
and that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God, riseth
from supper, and layeth aside his garments; and he took a towel, and
girded himself.*
xviii. 14: 'Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews,
that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.*
xviii. 32: *that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he
spake, signifying by what manner of death he should die.'
Most of these passages are 'parenthetic comments', in
which, as it were, the Evangelist turns aside and makes
reflections on the story he is narrating. Along with other
222 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
passages of a like tenor (cf. ii. 1 1, iv. 54, vi. 46, vii. 39,
viii. 27), they have often been explained as editorial ex-
pansions; but V. PL Stanton is probably right in thinking
that 'critics have been tempted to use their knives too
hastily by the facility of the operation in these cases'. 1 It
is a difficult question to decide whether iii. 14 and 16
ought to be attributed to the Evangelist or classified as
sayings of Jesus. There is considerable agreement that
the well-known words: 'God so loved the world . . .* are
part of the Evangelist's soliloquy, and probably the words :
4 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness
should be similarly explained. 2
The doctrinal ideas in these sayings should be carefully
noted.
In the first place, the Evangelist believes that the course
of events, including death itself, lay entirely under the
sovereign control of Jesus. 3 Three times he speaks of
'his hour' (vii. 30, viii. 20, xiii. i), and twice he refers to
Jesus as 'signifying by what manner of death he should
die' (xiL 33, xviii. 32). This point is of interest because,
in the sayings ascribed to Him, Jesus is also represented as
speaking of His 'time' (vii. 6, 8)* and of His 'hour' (xii.
23, 27, xvii. i). Secondly, the Evangelist thinks of the
death of Jesus as a fulfilment of Scripture. This appears
in his statement that after the Resurrection the disciples
remembered that Jesus had said: 'Destroy this temple,
^The Gospels as Historical Documents, iii. 58.
2 Bernard thinks that the Evangelist's comments begin at iii. 16, 7.C.C.,
St. John, 112; cf. Lagrange, tvan&le scion Saint Jean, 86. Stanton
marts the break at iii. 1 3, op. dt~, iii. 62, 171.
3 Trom the beginning, Jesus, as master of His own fate, has fixed his
"hour", and Himself ordains all the conditions that will lead up to it/
E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospeh Its Purpose and Theology, 169.
*These two passages, however, probably do not refer to His death* See
P-
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 223
and in three days I will raise it up'; and his comment:
'they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had
said* (ii. 22). It is also found in the references to Scrip-
ture in connexion with the events of the Crucifixion (cf.
xix. 24, 283 36)* How this belief harmonizes with the
idea that Jesus is the master of His own fate, the Evange-
list does not explain. Probably it is an element in cur-
rent Christian belief which he simply takes over as a piece
of traditional theology. It is noteworthy that he never
introduces the idea of the fulfilment of Scripture into any
of the Passion-sayings of Jesus, apart from the doubtful
exceptions in xiii. 18 and xvii. 12, which refer to the
treachery of Judas, and xv. 25, which speaks of the hatred
of the Jews. In xviii. 8f., 32 he mentions the fulfil-
ment of the word of Jesus Himself.
A third element in the writer's belief is the conviction
that the Only-begotten Son is God's gift, and a demonstra-
tion of His love (iii. 16). This thought is not directly
related to the death of Christ, but, in the light of iii. 14,
there can be no doubt that he is thinking of the Cross. In
the same passage the universality of Christ's work is
stated, and it is characteristic of the Evangelist that he
speaks of faith as believing in Christ Himself apart from
any particular theory of the Atonement. The same em-
phasis on love appears in xiiL I . Here, however, the love
is that of Jesus Himself: 'Having loved his own which
were in the world, he loved them unto the end.' Beyond
general statements of this kind the Evangelist does not go.
He is content to speak of the death of Jesus as His depar-
ture out of the world. The 'hour' which Jesus recognizes
is that in which 'he should depart out of this world unto
the Father*. In the Evangelist's presentation Jesus
knows 'that he came forth from God and goeth unto God'
(xiiL 3)* It is therefore true to say, with E. F. Scott, that
224 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
for the Evangelist the death 'marks the return of Jesus
to the Father, His reinvestment with the glory which He
had in the beginning'. 1
At first sight there is an approach to a theory in the
interest which the Evangelist takes in the counsel of
Caiaphas: 'it is expedient for you that one man should
die for the people* (xL 50; cf. xviii. 14)* When, however,
he comments on the words of the high priest, he does not
explain the necessity as occasioned by sin, but rather as a
means of gathering into one, not only *the nation', but also
'the children of God that are scattered abroad* (xi. ^if.)-
This emphasis upon the universality of Christ's work
must be regarded as a fourth element in his thought.
Lastly, the Evangelist is strongly conscious of a moral
necessitv in the death of Christ. It is to this that he refers
*
in iii. 14: *And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that
whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life.' The
phrase, 'lifted up/ refers to the Cross, 2 as the mention of
the action of Moses shows, and the word 'must' implies
inward constraint. As in iii. 16 the motive is that of
communicating life to believers. How, and in what way,
the death of Jesus makes this possible, the Evangelist does
not say, and, in the light of his teaching as a whole, we can
only infer that it is because in death He is released from
the limitations of earthly existence, and enters into the
spiritual conditions of His glory.
In general, it may be said that, in the passages under
review, the Evangelist shares important beliefs with St,
VThe Fourth Gospeh Its Purpose and Theology^ 227; cf. The Literature of
the New Testament, 255. The same feature appears in the sayings
ascribed to Jesus. Cf. H. J. Holtzmann: 'An die Stelle seines Geschfckes
tritt seine Person,* Neutestamentliche Theologte, ii. 474.
*Cf. Bernard, 112-5; Lagrange, 8 if.
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 225
Paul and the Synoptists, but that he expresses them
differently in terms of his favourite conceptions of life,
love, and faith. He believes that the Cross is the supreme
expression of the love of God, that it reveals an inward
moral constraint, and that its efficacy is universal ; but, in
these passages, he does not speak of it in sacrificial terms
or as a means of expiation, It does not therefore follow
that sacrificial or expiatory ideas have no place in his
thought. It is necessary, indeed, to consider how far his
own ideas are reflected in the sayings which remain to be
examined. The value of the present section is that it
illustrates the ideas which he introduces when he is
writing most freely.
PASSION-SAYINGS WHICH ARE PUT INTO
THE LIPS OF OTHERS THAN JESUS
i. 29: 'Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of
the world!*
i. 36 : 'Behold, the Lamb of God!'
xL 50: *Ye know nothing at all, nor do ye take account that it is
expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that
the whole nation perish not.*
Of these passages the last derives its main interest from
the Evangelist's suggestion that the words of Caiaphas
were an unconscious prophecy, that Jesus should die for
the nation and for the children of God scattered abroad
throughout the world (xL 5 if.)* It is a mere expression
of political expediency: Jesus ought to be put to death in
order to avert the dangers of revolution, *If we let him
thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans
will come and take away both our place and our nation*
(xL 48).
The first two passages are of the greatest interest and
importance. The words are ascribed to John the Baptist,
226 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
but there is even* reason to think that this is an example
of dramatic representation, and that historically the state-
ment is that of the Evangelist. 1 However the words are
interpreted, they express a recognition of Jesus as the
Christian Messiah, and it is improbable that this convic-
tion was reached so early by the Baptist, and was ex-
pressed in terms which surpass those of Peter at Caesarea
Philippi (cf. Mk. viii. 29; Mt. xvi. i6). 2 There is even
stronger reason to take this view if the saying is a confes-
sion of Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Isa. liii., for a pre-
Christian Messianic use of this conception has not been
proved, and it is almost certainly an identification first
made by Jesus Himself. 3
The phrase, 'the Lamb of God,' has been variously
explained with reference to (a) the lamb offered at the
morning and the evening sacrifice (Ex. xxix. 38-46);
() Jer. xL 19: 'But I was like a gentle lamb that is led to
the slaughter' ; (c) the Paschal Lamb (Ex. xii.) ; and (ft) the
Servant of Yahweh, who in Isa. liii. 7 is compared to *a
lamb that is led to the slaughter 7 , and who 'bare the sin of
many* (liii. 1 2). There is perhaps least to be said for the
first of these explanations, since the daily sacrifices were
not expiatory in character. 4 It is also unlikely that the
reference is to the gentleness and innocence of a lamb, 6 as
in Jer. xi. 19, for, while on this interpretation it is easier
to attribute at least the first part of the saying to the
Baptist, the words 'which taketh away the sin of the
1 Cf. Bernard, 46. For a defence of the passage, as an opinion of tlie
Baptist, see Burne/, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, 104-8.
SThe narrative of Mk. i. 9-1 1 implies, when most naturally interpreted,
that the words of the divine .voice are heard by Jesas alone.
3 See earlier, pp. 45F.
*Cf. Lagrange, Ev angle selon Saint Jean, 41.
5 Cf. Lagrange, op. cit^ 40.
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 227
world*, show that the thought is sacrificial in character.
Moreover, the reference is not general, but to a definite
and known lamb. There is much more to be said for the
view that the Evangelist is thinking of the Paschal Lamb.
As it has often been observed, he shows a special interest
in the Passover, and represents Jesus as dying at the time
when the Paschal lambs were sacrificed in the Temple. 1
The difficulty of this view is that the Paschal Lamb is not
represented in the Old Testament as bearing away sin;
its blood is a token which averts the judgment of Yahweh. 2
Perhaps the last interpretation is the best; the Evangelist
is thinking of the Servant of Yahweh, for Isa. liii, 7 and 1 2
easily explain the references to a lamb and to sin-bearing.
This identification, however, is not without its difficulties,
for atpo>i> in i. 29 probably means 'taking away', 3 whereas
in the Septuagint <f>4piv is used to express the idea of
bearing sin, 4 and the picture has points of likeness to the
ritual of the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev. xvi. 22). The
dominant conception appears to be that of the Servant,
freely used in association with other sacrificial ideas. 6
E. F. Scott has suggested that in this passage 'we have
nothing but a vague concession to the earlier doctrine*. 6
1 Cf. Bernard, cvi. See also Jn. xix. 36 which freely quotes Ex. xii. 46:
'Neither shall ye break a bone thereof,' i*. of the Paschal Lamb.
*Cf. Ex. xii. 13. Note, however, the opinion of J. Jeremias mentioned
on p. I38f.
8 So very many modern commentators. See Bernard, Lagrange, Meyer,
in loc* Cf. i Sam. xv. 25, xxv. 28, and I Jn. iii. 5.
*Cf. Isa. 12, where avouj>pi,v is used.
5 C. J. Ball has suggested that in the original Aramaic talya, 'servant',
may have carried with it the associations of the Hebrew tale, 'lamb*. He
does not, however, bring his suggestion into relation with Isa. liii. Cf.
C, F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, royf.; J. Jeremias,
Theologisches Worterbuch^ 185. H. A. W. Meyer observes: 'The taking
away of sins by the Lamb presupposes His taking them upon Himself,'
1.115.
*The Fourth Gospek its Purpose and Theology, 219.
228 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
It is not quite true, however, to speak of the saying as 'the
single text in which Christ is regarded as the great sacri-
fice for sin', for the ideas implicit in the saying: Tor their
sakes I sanctify myself (xvii. 19), are sacrificial, and the
principle of life through death is expressed in the words
about a grain of wheat (xii. 24). Moreover, it is not
likely that 'a vague concession to the earlier doctrine'
would have been expressed at the moment when the
Evangelist first brings the historical figure of Jesus before
the attention of his readers. It is far better to suppose
that the words were of great importance to the Evangelist
and that it is for this reason that he thrusts them into the
forefront of his GospeL At the same time the fact re-
mains that the saying stands almost isolated in the Gospel,
and that for the most part the other Passion-sayings in it
are of a different tenor. The closer parallels are in I John.
This is a fact of very great interest and importance, and
it will be useful at this stage to examine the references to
the Atonement in this Epistle. It may well be that in
the sayings which are attributed to Jesus, yet to be con-
sidered, there are ideas which are distinctively those of the
Evangelist. But this is a problem which calls for special
consideration, and it is best at this point to compare the
statements of the Evangelist, which have been noted as
such, with those in the Epistle. This comparison has an
important bearing upon the genuineness of the Passion-
sayings attributed to Jesus.
PASSAGES WITH REFERENCE TO THE DOC-
TRINE OF THE ATONEMENT IN i JOHN
i. 7 : 'If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellow-
ship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son deanseth us
from all sin.*
iL i f. : * And if any man sin, we have an Advocatewith the Father,
THE JOHANNIXE SAYINGS 229
Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation (IXx&pos)
for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.'
ii. 12: *I write unto you, my little children, because your sins
are forgiven you for his name's sake.*
iii. 5: *And ye know that he was manifested to take away sins
(>a rets- apocpTuxs a/w?); and in him is no sin.*
iiL 1 6: 'Hereby we know love, because he kid down his life for
us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.*
iv. 10: 'Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved
us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.*
iv. 14: 'And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father
hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.*
In the present investigation it is not possible to give the
same detailed treatment to these passages as in the case of
the Passion-sayings. For our purpose it must suffice to
summarize the principal ideas they embody. These ideas
are:
(1) The belief that the blood, or out-poured life of
Jesus, has 'cleansing' power (i. 7);
(2) The close relation between the death of Christ and
sin (i. 7, ii. if, 12, iii. 5);
(3) The connexion between forgiveness and the 'name'
of Christ (ii. 12);
(4) The description of Jesus Christ, 'the righteous', as
the propitiation' for sins (ii. 2, iv. 10) ;
(5) The use of the phrase, 'the Saviour of the world' (iv.
(6) The thought that the death of Christ is the supreme
revelation of love (iii. 1 6) ;
(7) The thought that the coming of the Son to be 'the
propitiation for our sins' is grounded in the love of God
(iv. 10).
230 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
If we compare the several items of this list with the
statements of the Gospel, we shall find that some of them
are common to the two writings, but that others are either
rarely illustrated in, or are absent from, the Gospel.
The last three appear in the Gospel. Thus, the Sama-
ritans confess Jesus as 'the Saviour of the world' (iv. 42);
Jesus declares that a man has no greater love than that he
'lav down his life for his friends' (xv. 13); and the Evan-
gelist pens the immortal word : *God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son' (Hi. 1 6).
Of the remaining conceptions found In I John all that is
paralleled in the Gospel is the connexion between the death
of Christ and sin in i. 29 and the broad sacrificial ideas im-
plicit in the saying in xii. 24 and xviL 19. In the Gospel
the Evangelist does not speak of the cleansing power of the
blood of Jesus, and in the sayings the nearest approach to
this idea is in the words: *He that eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood hath eternal life' (vi. 54). Nowhere
in the Gospel is forgiveness related to the death or to the
'name' of Christ, and the term, 'propitiation/ or any of its
cognate forms, is never employed. How are those facts
to be explained?
A simple answer would be provided if we could say that
the Fourth Gospel and i John were written by two differ-
ent writers belonging to the same 'Johannine School', and
this view has been taken by some New Testament scholars,
including Holtzmann, 1 Schmiedel, 2 Moffatt, 3 Scott, 4
jahrbuchfurprotestantische Theologie, 1881, p. 690^; 1882, pp. I28,
*The Jokannine Writings, 208-1 1.
^Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 589-93.
*Tke Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology, 88, 94. But in his
Literature of the New Testament (1932), 261, Scott takes the view that the
two writings are the work of the same author.
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 231
Lord Charnwood, 1 and others. 2 This critical opinion is
based, not only on the references to the work of Christ, but
also on differences regarding the Parousia, the use made of
the Old Testament, faith, the Logos conception, and the
application of the term Taraclete'. It is further sup-
ported by certain linguistic peculiarities of i John. 3 It is
very doubtful, however, if the differences sustain a theory
of diverse authorship. Moreover, the agreements in vo-
cabularly and syntax are striking. 4 In particular, there does
not seem to be any real need to resort to this theory so far
as the treatment given to the work of Christ is concerned.
As we have seen, the thought that the Cross is grounded in
love is distinctive in both writings, and if sin and sacrifice
are more prominent conceptions in i John, they are not ab-
sent from the Gospel. It is probable that the most notable
difference, the use of the word 'propitiation* in i Jn. ii.2,
iv. 10, is exaggerated in the mind because it is commonly
understood as suggesting the appeasing of the anger of
God. This suggestion, however, is almost certainly mis-
taken. C. H. Dodd thinks that, with some confidence, we
may regard tXoopoV as based on the sense of /co0a/>ta> )
'to purify'; 5 and, in substance, a similar view has been
taken by J. Moffatt. 8 We must look, then, to some other
explanation of the differences between i John and the
Gospel.
According to St. John, 79.
2 See the list in Mofiatl^ op. cit., 5891". C. H. Dodd has recently
argued that i John was written by an author who may have been a dis-
cipk of the Fourth Evangelist. See the Bulletin of the John Rylands
Library, VoL 21, No, r, April 1937, pp. 129-56.
sCf, Mofiatt, of. cit., 590, and Dodd's article noted above.
*Cf. A. E. Brooke, i.-xix.; W. F. Howard, The fourth Gospel in Recent
Criticism and Interpretation, 252-7; R. H. Charles, 7.C.C., Revelation,
*The Bible and the Greeks, 94^ *Lovt in the New Testament,. 255.
232 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
It has been maintained that the differences between the
two writings presuppose a considerable time-interval, and
that I John is the earlier and more primitive work. Holtz-
mann, indeed, regarded this as a necessary assumption, if
identity of authorship is accepted. 1 A. E. Brooke, however,
has shown that there is much to be said for the view that
the Epistle is the /afervrorkf and certainly it is not easy to
think that the false teaching which is opposed is earlier
than the turn of the first century. In this case, the hypothe-
sis that during an interval of, say, twenty or twenty-five
years the writer's thought had undergone development to
the point represented by the Fourth Gospel, falls to the
ground.
The best explanation is to be found in the aim and pur-
pose of the two writings, i John is a homily or a series of
homilies; the Gospel is influenced throughout by a consis-
tent doctrinal and religious purpose. The Evangelist
writes to show that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
to help his readers to obtain life in His name by believing.
Such a difference of purpose inevitably affects details of
thought and expression, and all the more because in the
Gospel the Evangelist's method is definitely selective.
No more than any other Evangelist has he any thought of
writing a biography; what he uses from the available tradi-
tion is deliberately chosen, doubtless with a sovereign
hand, because it serves best the end he has in view.
The Fourth Evangelist's principal interest is in the re-
velation of the Incarnate Word. For this reason we can-
not expect his Gospel to contain all his thoughts concern-
ing Christ's death, but only such as are germane to his pur-
pose. The fact, however, that he wrote I John is a salutary
warning against an over-emphasis of the idea that he
wrote with a conscious doctrinal intention. From the com-
1 Cf. A. E. Brooke, xix. *Op. ct
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 233
parison of the two works we see that he can write with re-
straint, that he can withstand the temptation to introduce
cherished beliefs into his unfolding of the Gospel Story.
How this inference is to be related to the evaluation of the
Passion-sayings must be considered later. At this point
the sayings themselves must be examined, together with
the special problems which they raise.
PASSION-SAYINGS ATTRIBUTED TO JESUS
HIMSELF IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL
ii. 19: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.*
vi. 51 : *I am the living bread which came down out of heaven:
if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread
which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.'
vi. 53-7: * Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh
of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.
He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. As the living
Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth
me, he also shall live because of me.*
vii. 6: *My time is not yet come.*
vii. 8: *My time is not yet fulfilled/
viii. 28: 'When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye
know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as tie
Father taught me, I speak these tilings.*
x. 1 1 : *I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down
his life for the sheep.'
x, 1 5f. : * And I ky down my life for the sheep. And other sheep
I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they
shall hear my voicej and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.*
x. i7f.: Therefore doth the Father love me, because I ky down
my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me,
but I lay it down of myself. I have power to ky it down, and I
234 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
have power to take it again. This commandment received I from
my Father.'
xii. 7: 'Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying/
xii. 23-5 : *The hour is come, that the Son of man should be
glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a grain of wheat
fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but if it die,
it beareth much fruit. He that loveth his life loseth it 5 and he that
hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. 1
xii. zjf.: *Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say?
Father, save me from this hour? But for this cause came I unto this
hour. Father, glorify thy name/
xii. 3 if.: 'Now is the judgement of this world: now shall the
prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the
earth, will draw all men unto myself/
xiii. 21 : * Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall
betray me/
xiv. 2: *I go to prepare a place for you/
xv. 1 3: 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends/
xvi. 7: 'Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you
that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come
unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you/
xvii. if.: 'Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the Son
may gjlorify thee; even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh,
that whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he should give
eternal life/
xvii. 19: 'And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they them-
selves also may be sanctified in truth/
xix. 26f: 'Woman, behold thy son!*; 'Behold, thy mother'.
xix. 28: 'I thirst*.
xix. 30: *It is finished/
Some of the passages in this list have little or no impor-
tance for the inquiry. viL 6 and 8 probably do not refer to
the death of Jesus at all: in view of the words of His bro-
thers in vii. 3f. it is clear that the 'time* of which He speaks
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 235
is that of His manifestation as the Messiah, xii. 7 and xiii.
2 1 are secondary versions of sayings of Jesus connected,
respectively, with the Synoptic stories of the Anointing
and the Prophecy of the Betrayal. 1 The saying: 'Destroy
this temple, and in three days I will raise it up' (ii. 19);
need not detain us; for, whatever these enigmatic words
may imply, 2 it is not probable that they refer to 'the temple
of his body' (ii. 21), unless the Evangelist is thinking of
the 'spiritual house' of Christian believers. 3 In this case,
the main interest of the saying is the further light it throws
on the Evangelist's theology; it would imply the belief
that the death of Jesus is the seed of the Church.
Other passages reveal the want of any distinctive theory
in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus goes 'to prepare a place' for
His own (xiv. 2). He lays down His life that He may
take it again (x. 1 7). His departure is His glorification
(xii. 23, xvii. i). Most significant of all is the statement
of xvi. 7. When Jesus says that it is expedient that He
should go away, we seem to be near an explanation of the
purpose of His death; but the reason given is not any ex-
planation of what the death is to achieve, but the observa-
tion that, if He does not go away, 'the Paraclete will not
come/ Jesus, that is to say, is represented as preoccupied
with the thought of what will follow His death, not with
the death itself. Apart from the sayings in vi. 51, 53-7,
the only positive implications of purpose are that He lays
down His life on behalf of (ynep) His followers and others
(x. 1 1, I5f.)> that His action is a proof of love (xv. 13} and
^See the earlier discussion of ML xiv. 8 and 17-21 on pp. 108-14.
2 In the opinion of Goguel ML xv. 29 proves the existence of a tradition
according to which Jesus was said to have been condemned because He
proclaimed that He would destroy the Temple. According to ML and
Mk, the charge was recognized as inconsistent and abandoned, while in
Jn. the saying is given an allegorical meaning. Cf. The Life of Jesus 9 508.
f. Bernard, 97.
236 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
will provide a centre of universal attraction (xii. 32), that
it is bound up with the judgment of the world (xii. 31), and
that by means of it He Himself is glorified (xii. 23, 28,
xvii. i) and revealed (viii. 28).
The sayings in vi. 5 1, 53-7 demand fuller consideration.
There can be little doubt that they are sacramental pas-
sages, 1 The connexion in thought with Mk. xiv. 22, 24 :
'Take ye: this is my body;' 'This is my blood of the cove-
nant, which is shed for many/ is unmistakable. Why
they appear in chapter vi, after the story of the Feeding of
the Five Thousand, and not in xiii, in association with the
account of the Supper, is one of the most difficult questions
connected with the Fourth Gospel. 2 One of the most
notable features in the sayings is the use of the term 'flesh*
instead of 'body', but Bernard gives the true explanation
when he says that the Evangelist 'prefers cra/> (cf. i. 14),
probably because he wishes to emphasize the fact of the
Incarnation, as against the nascent Docetism of the age'. 3
The meaning of the sayings is that by participation in the
Body and Blood of Christ, received in the Eucharist, the
believer obtains 'eternal life' in the Johannine sense of the
term (cf, vi. 54) and mystical fellowship with Christ (cf.
vi. 56). This startling assertion is protected against the
obvious perils of a materialistic interpretation by the fur-
ther saying : 'It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh pro-
fiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are
spirit, and are life' (vi. 63). The question of the historical
basis of this teaching is pointedly raised by these sayings,
but for the moment it is necessary to observe its relation to
what is said concerning Christ's self-giving. This con-
f. Bernard, clxvii.-xxii.; Howard, op. */., 211-4.
2 Cf. Howard, op. tit., 21 $L Tlie Upper Room was no place for doc-
trinal polemic,' p. 214.
3 0f. /., clxx.
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 237
nexion is indicated in the words : * Yea and the bread which
I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world' (vi. 51).
Once again, it is the universality of Christ's sacrifice which
is the undertone of these words and the belief that it makes
possible the communication of life.
It is at once apparent that, substantially, the sayings at-
tributed to Jesus express the same ideas as in the passages
where the Evangelist speaks in his own person. Here, as
there, it is implied that the issue of His life is under the
power and control of Jesus Himself: 'No one taketh it
away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power
to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This
commandment received I from my Father' (x. 18). The
Evangelist speaks of the 'hour' of Jesus, and Jesus does the
same (xiL 23, 27, xviL i). The Evangelist sees God's gift
of love in the Only-begotten (iii. 16) and Jesus interprets
His death as a proof of love (xv. 1 3). In each series of
passages the universality of Christ's work is asserted (xi.
52, cf. x. 1 6, xii. 32, xviL 2); and in each it is described as
communicating life (iii. 14^ 16; cf. vi. 51, 53-7). The
terminology is also the same, for the phrase 'lifted up' ap-
pears both in iii. 14 and in the words of Jesus in viii. 28
and xiL 32. If also we are justified in finding a sacrificial
content in the words ascribed to the Baptist in i. 29 : 'Be-
hold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world !', it is interesting to find a similar passage in the say-
ing : 'For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves
also may be sanctified in truth' (xvii. 1 9 ; cf. also xii. 24).
The principal differences are that Jesus does not de-
scribe His death as an expression of God's love (cf. iii. 1 6),
or as a fulfilment of Scripture (cf. ii. 22, xix. 24, 28, 36),
while in His sayings there is a greater emphasis upon the
ideas of the sacramental gift of life (vi. 51, 53-7) and of
sacrifice (xii. 24), As in Pauline thought, there is also a
238 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
reference to the shaking effect of His death upon hostile
world-powers: 'Now is the judgement of this world: now
shall the prince of this world be cast out' (xii, 3 i).
The question must now be considered: In what sense
are the sayings historical? How far can the}' be relied
upon as a basis of knowledge in seeking to understand the
attitude of Jesus to His suffering and death? The simi-
larity already noted does not necessarily mean that they
* *
are simply the Evangelist's composition, for it is possible
that he has assimilated observations of his own to genuine
sayings of Jesus, reflected upon and expressed in a new
idiom. The difference between the references, to the
Atonement in i John and the Gospel supports this conten-
tion. The Fourth Evangelist is not a writer who forces his
soteriology upon his material; he is not a theologian bereft
of a historical conscience. It is reasonable therefore to infer
that, however freely he may reproduce sayings of Jesus, he
is controlled by a genuine tradition. This inference,
however, does not mean that we can take the Johannine
sayings at their face value, and still less that they can be
used to discredit sayings of a different kind in the Synop-
tic Gospels. The Synoptic sayings stand in their own
right and cannot be compromised by anything we find in
the Fourth Gospel. The Johannine sayings need to be
considered in the light of the stylistic peculiarities of the
Gospel, the Evangelist's individuality, and the fact that he
chooses his material with a purpose*
All the speakers in the Fourth Gospel express them-
selves in the same style. Thus, it is only the subject-mat-
ter of the speech of the Baptist in iii. 27-30 which distin-
guishes it from a discourse of Jesus; and if, as many critics
think, iii. 3 1-6 no longer stands in its original context, it is
significant that the possibility of displacement was unsus-
pected until modern times. The speech of Jesus in reply
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 239
to Nicodemus in Hi. icff. drifts almost imperceptibly into
the Evangelist's soliloquy; and the syntax and forms of ex-
pression in the Gospel and the Johannine Epistles are sur-
prisingly alike. Despite the inference, already drawn,
that the Evangelists thought is controlled by a genuine
tradition, it is beyond question that the sayings are trans-
lated into his own idiom.
The Evangelist's individuality is an important factor,
not only because he does not hesitate to express the
thoughts of Jesus in his own language, but also because he
has first passed them through the intellectual moulds of
his time. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus speaks as a Jew,
but as a Jew of the Dispersion sensitive to Hellenistic in-
fluences. At the moment there is a marked tendency
to emphasize the Judaic elements in the Gospel. As a
corrective to views which treat it as if it were written by a
disciple of Philo, this contention is all to the good. Noth-
ing, however, can ever displace the conviction that a Greek
air pervades the Gospel. This influence is the work of the
Evangelist; it is seen also unmistakably in the way in
which he selects, recasts, and employs his material in his
endeavour to present Jesus to his Hellenistic readers.
The writer's personality is that of a strong, cultured, and
sensitive spirit, and to determine its influence in the com-
position of the Gospel is the most delicate task undertaken
by criticism. It is described best as interpretative, and
this means that something is brought out of his material
and that something is interfused into it; no one can tell
where the thoughts of Jesus begin and end. The result
of this is that in a historical inquiry we cannot use the
Gospel with immediate confidence, and that, just as cer-
tainly, we cannot afford to neglect it. The resolution of
this dilemma is the problem of the Fourth Gospel.
The method followed by the Evangelist is an added
xp JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
complication. All recent study of the Gospel emphasizes
the fact that from first to last his method is selective.
Throughout he is dominated by his desire to present
Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and the Word made
flesh, and the giver of life (cf. i. 14, xx. 3 1). For this end
he chooses his material The idea that he merely writes
to supplement the Synoptic Gospels belongs to the pri-
mary department of Gospel criticism. It is not for this
purpose that he omits some elements from Christian tradi-
tion and supplies others. His supreme motive is dogma-
tic and religious. What bearing has this fact upon his
work?
In the selective method itself there is nothing in the least
reprehensible; it is the kind of literary procedure com-
monly followed by writers who use history as the servant
of religion. In their own measure the Synoptists do the
same thing; and only the persistent delusion that the Gos-
pels are biographies leads us to think that we must choose
between the first three and the fourth. Every writing of
the kind must be judged on its own merits.
It is obvious that those who think, from their study of
early Christianity, Christian history, and religious experi-
ence, that the Fourth Evangelist has correctly interpreted
the Person of Christ, will estimate his work at the highest;
and that those who do not believe this will remain suspi-
cious. It is therefore vain to imagine that dogmatic in-
terests can be eliminated in the study of the Fourth Gos-
pel. As well cry for the moon ! But if such bias cannot
be escaped, it can be allowed for by the honest student,
and the effort made to apply every objective test before the
scales fall. Such objective tests include a careftd compari-
son between the ideas of the Gospel and those of primitive
Christianity and contemporary Judaism, and between the
Johannine and the Synoptic sayings. An estimate of the
THE JOHANXIXE SAYIXGS 241
amount of agreement between the sayings in the Fourth
Gospel and the mind and figure of Jesus as He is known to
us from other historical sources, is a less objective, but still
not entirely subjective criterion. These tests do not ex-
clude elements which are peculiar to the Fourth Gospel.
Moreover, an estimate of sayings capable of direct com-
parison creates a presumption regarding the value of those
which have no close parallel.
An investigation of the relation of the contents of the
Fourth Gospel to the thought-world of the first century
cannot be undertaken here; and it must be enough to say
that such a study has been made in modern times in a
series of learned works, 1 with results which strengthen
confidence in the broad historical value of the Gospel,
Comparison with the sayings in the Synoptics, or at
least with the Synoptic Passion-sayings, is a task of smaller
compass. Both in the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics
there is undoubtedly a close connexion between the ideas
of death and resurrection. Just as Jesus says that the
Son of Man must suffer and rise again (Mk. viii. 3 1 and
parallels), so He declares that He lays down His life that
He may take it again (Jn. x. 1 7) and speaks of His death as
His glorifying (Jn. xii. 23, 28, xvii. i). The language is
different but the emphasis on triumph is the same. In
the Fourth Gospel, however, the triumph is immediate;
there is no reference in the sayings to 'three days', except
in the difficult passage : 'Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up* (ii. 19). Common also to all the
Gospels is the thought of the Passion as *the hour 7 of
J E. F. Scott, op. tit., passim; W. F. Howard, op. tit*, 142-244; J. E.
Carpenter, The Johannine Writings, 254-356; G. H. C. Macgregor, Jew
and Greek, passim-, Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N*T. aus Talmud
und Midrasck, vol. ii.; H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in its
Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents. For further information
see the Bibliography in Howard, op. cit. y 273-82.
Q
242 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
Jesus (Jn. xii. 23, 27, xvii. i ; cf. Mk. xiv. 35, 41 ; Mt.
xxvi. 45; Lk. xxii, 53). The saying about His life: 'No
one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself
(Jn. x. 1 8) 5 is only a fuller expression of that sense of des-
tiny which has impressed all the Evangelists. Common
also is the idea that Jesus dies for others. In John He lays
down His life 'for the sheep' (x. 1 1); in Mark He gives
His life a ransom 'for many' (x. 45). Sacrificial langu-
age is also found both in Jn. xii. 24, xvii. 19 and in Mk. x.
45, xiv. 24, although the sayings are entirely different in
content. Finally, in all the Gospels eucharistic ideas
stand in the closest association with the sacrifice of Christ
(Jn. vi. 51-8 ; Mk. xiv. 22, 24).
Other sayings remain to be considered; but of those al-
ready noticed it may be said that, substantially, the ideas
are the same in all the Gospels, although in the Fourth
Gospel some of them are more strongly emphasized or are
given a somewhat different turn. The latter is especially
true of the sayings in Jn. vi. 51-8. In Mk. xiv. 22 and 24
the bread and the wine are spoken of as having a certain
value and significance : spiritually, they are the body and
blood of Christ, and are means of participating in the sac-
rificial offering of Christ. In the Johannine sayings, the
teaching contained in the words: 'This is my body/ 'This
is my blood,' is assumed, but the significance of the actions
of eating and drinking is differently expressed. 'He that
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day' (vi. 54). 'He that
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and
I in him' (vi. 56). In these words the imparted gift is not
that of a share in Christ's self-offering; it is eternal life and
communion with Christ Himself. How is this difference
to be explained?
One explanation of the difference is that the Evangelist
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 243
has transposed sayings originally spoken at the Supper to
their present position in chapter vi. This hypothesis en-
ables us to account for their character. It is not in the
least probable that the Synoptic sayings include all that
was said at the Supper. Mk. xiv. 22, 24 would hardly
have been intelligible to the disciples without further expla-
nation. It is significant, therefore, that the sayings in Jn.
vi. 5 1-8 supply a further unfolding of at least one aspect of
the thought of Jesus. Participation in His sacrifice and
communion with Himself are not contradictory ideas, but
thoughts intimately related to each other, and it is a natural
transition to pass from one to the other. The Johannine
sayings, then, may represent the interpretative teachings of
Jesus Himself. A second possibility is that the sayings
stand in their historical place in Jn. vi, in connexion with
the eschatological sacramental meal which probably lies
behind the account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand. 1
In this case, however, it is necessary to suppose that the
content of the sayings has been influenced by other sayings
associated with the Last Supper, since in Jn. vi. 51-8 the
suffering and triumph of Jesus are implied. Such a fu-
sion is by no means unintelligible in a mind like that of the
Evangelist who is far more interested in the significance
of Jesus than in the precise succession of events. Either
of these views is perferable to a third possibility, namely,
that the sayings have no historical relation to anything that
Jesus said and taught; for to say that the sayings are mere-
ly the Evangelist's inventions is not even a plausible ex-
planation of the nature and worth of the Fourth Gospel.
Between the first two explanations it is not possible to
decide. In either case we must conclude that, to an ex-
tent incapable of precise determination, the sayings are
expressed in the Evangelist's language and are influenced
1 See earlier, p. 185.
-44 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
by his experience and that of the Church of Ephesus.
The use of the term 'flesh 7 (aap), and perhaps also the
use of rpwya) instead of the Synoptic eaduvy are peculiar-
ities of the Evangelist's vocabulary ; the emphasis on 'eter-
nal life' and communion with Christ illustrates his spiri-
tual interests and those of the Ephesian community.
This conclusion means that in the sayings there is an ele-
ment of interpretation as well as of recollection. The in-
terpretation, however, begins with words and thoughts of
Jesus, and for this reason the results of the process are gain,
and not loss, for the historian as well as for the Christian
believer.
These sayings have been considered in detail because
they represent the point of maximum difficulty. If our
conclusion in respect of them is sound, it is reasonable to
infer that, as a class, the Johannine Passion-sayings which
have Synoptic parallels possess real historical value, not
the value of a verbatim report but that of a later version
which brings out their meaning in terms of life and Chris-
tian experience.
Can this conclusion be extended to those sayings which
have no parallel, or no close parallel, in the Synoptic tradi-
tion? The examination already made, it may be claimed,
sets up a presumption in favour of an affirmative answer,
but beyond this point only broad statements of probability
are possible. The sayings which invite attention in this
connexion are the two which contain sacrificial ideas or
images, xii. 24 and xvii. 19; the sayings: 'Greater love'
(xv. 13), and: 'Now is the judgement of this world' (xii.
31); the words about the revelation of the Son of Man in
viii. 28 ; and, finally, those which imply the universality of
the benefits of Christ's death x. 1 6, in xii, 32, and xvii. 2. 1
1 What has been said already concerning vi. 51-8, x. n, I5, ijf., xii.
23, 271"., may perhaps be regarded as sufficient.
THE JOHAXXIXE SAYIXGS 245
It was Renan who remarked that the whole of xii. 20-6
is 'exempt from any dogmatical or symbolical design*, 1 and
only those who doubt the genuineness of all the Johannine
sayings will question the originality of the words: * Ex-
cept a grain of wheat . . .* (xiu 24). It is less easy to feel
certain about the character of the saying: Tor their sakes I
sanctify myself (xvii. 19) because it appears in the long
high-priesdy prayer, but it is in no way unsuitable to the
situation of Jesus or out of harmony with His thoughts.
For most people the saying: 'Greater love' (xv, 13), bears
its own signature, and Dibelius has ably contended that
its form and content suggest that it already formed part of
the Evangelist's 'tradition',* The caution of the critic
appears when he adds that it cannot be said with certainty
that it is a case of the reproduction or recasting of a genu-
ine 'Jesus-word'. 3 The same hesitation must naturally
arise in connexion with the saying :'Now is the judgement
of this world : now shall the prince of this world be cast
out' (xiL 31). The thought at least is harmonious with
the idea of deliverance in the 'ransom-passage*(Mk. x. 45)
and with the saying in the L tradition : 'This is your hour,
and the power of darkness' (Lk. xxii. 53). Jesus un-
doubtedly regarded His Passion, in one of its aspects, as a
conflict with the powers of evil ; and the expectation of vic-
tory, voiced in the Johannine saying, agrees with the con-
fident hope with which He approached Jerusalem. 4 If
this is so, critical hesitation about the precise terms of the
Johannine passage is a matter of secondary importance*
The same view may also be taken of the saying : 'When ye
have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am
*I4fi of Jesus, r jtk ed., 297.
*Fcstg8bc for Adolf Dcumanny 168-86.
*Op.cit. 9 183.
4 Seep. 1 86.
246 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father
taught me, I speak these things' (viii. 28). While there
is no express parallel in the Synoptic Gospels, the idea that
after His death Jesus will be seen as the Son of Man is
found in Mk. xiv. 62 : Te shall see the Son of Man sitting
at the right hand of power/ Jesus also may well have
said that the future would vindicate His claim to speak in
accordance with the Father's revelation to Himself.
There is therefore no legitimate objection to the saying as
a genuine word of Jesus. Even if the saying is a creation
of the Evangelist, it is still true that it represents the mind
and thought of Jesus.
In a class by themselves stand the sayings which imply
the universality of the effects of the sacrifice of Jesus :
x. 1 6: *And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall be-
come one flock, one shepherd.'
xiL 32: 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men
unto myself. 5
xvii. 2: 'Even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that
whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he should give eternal life.'
To many readers of the Gospel it is a pointed example
of the futility of criticism that any one should question the
genuineness of sayings so dear to the Christian heart. In
reality, the problem cannot be dismissed if the Gospel is
read intelligently. The point in debate is not the truth of
the sayings, but whether, as they stand, they are likely to
have been the words of Jesus. The question might be
answered easily were it not for the fact that no saying of
Jesus in the Synoptic tradition asserts the universality of
the effects of His Passion. Jesus speaks of giving His
life and of shedding His covenant-blood 'for many', but
He does not say expressly that He dies for all or for the
world. It would, of course, be entirely erroneous to infer
that He had in mind a limited circle of believers who
should be blessed by His sacrifice. Such an idea has only
to be stated to be rejected, for it is wholly out of harmony
with His spirit. The Johannine sayings under considera-
tion are certainly nearer the truth* It is less evident,
however, that they are His actual words,
The silence of the Synoptists on this point of universal-
ity is remarkable, when it is remembered how strongly it
is emphasized in the Acts and the Pauline Epistles. It is
an inescapable inference that, had words of Jesus been
known which asserted that He would give His life for the
world, they would have been included in the Synoptic
Gospels, and in Mark and Luke in particular. As it is,
they are not found, except as universalism appears in the
outlook and teaching of Jesus. 1 This fact is one of the
strongest proofs of the essential trustworthiness of the
Synoptic tradition; it is also the justification of the critical
view that the Johannine sayings under consideration are
the Evangelist's interpretations and not directly the words
of Jesus Himself. Why He did not explicitly speak of
dying for the world is not difficult to understand. Jesus
did not use concepts like 'mankind* or 'humanity', nor
does He appear to have dwelt, after the manner of a the-
ologian, upon the more ultimate aspects of His Passion.
His interests, as revealed by the Gospels, are supremely
personal and religious, and are intimately related to the
immediate circumstances of daily life. He speaks of His
Passion within the framework presented by Old Testa-
ment thought and in relation to His disciples and His im-
mediate followers. Wider horizons are constantly sug-
gested in His teaching, but they are hinted and implied
1 See the important articles of C. J. Cadoux, 'Judaism and Universalism
in the Gospels,' Expository Times, xxxviii., 55-60, 136-140.
248 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
rather than expressed directly. What He says stands
against a Judaic background and is directed to the needs of
present hearers. Thus, on occasion He speaks of 'the
lost sheep of the house of Israel', and of 'the twelve tribes
of Israel', and uses language which, if pressed, might
suggest, in contradiction to other utterances of His, an atti-
tude of Jewish particularism. It is entirely in harmony
with such a habit of mind and of speech that references to
the world or to men in general are wanting. The reverse
is true of the mind and outlook of the Fourth Evangelist.
His standpoint and the circumstances of his Hellenistic
environment throw into relief this very question of univer-
salism. In consequence, when he comes to record say-
ings of Jesus regarding His Passion, he inevitably ex-
presses them in accordance with his own beliefs, without
realising, it may even be, that in the form he gives to
them he is going beyond what was actually said. In
recording such sayings he does not reproduce spoken
words of Jesus, but unfolds the ultimate implications of
His teaching, and for this reason he is an invaluable inter-
preter of His mind and thought.
Our conclusion, then, is the same in respect of the say-
ings without parallel in the Synoptic Gospels as in the case
of those already examined, although naturally it cannot be
presented as strongly and cogently. An element of in-
terpretation, manifest in some more than in others, enters
into all the Johannine Passion-sayings. None the less,
contact with original utterances of Jesus is close, with the
result that the Evangelist's 'coloured' version, rightly un-
derstood, is one that the historian cannot afford to neglect
or dismiss.
In the end the difference between the common and the
critical view of these sayings is much less than might be
supposed. The common view reaches its results at a leap ;
THE JOHANNINE SAYINGS 249
the critical method climbs with painful steps and many
hesitations. If it be said; 'Why, then, not leap?' the an-
swer is that a blind leap is not possible for any one who has
once perceived the nature of the Johannine problem.
Henceforward, he must either lose all confidence in the
Fourth Gospel, or win his way by struggle and search. If
he reaches solid ground, as indeed he may, his reward is
the consciousness that in his long journey he has not divi-
ded intelligence and faith. His treasure is not a gift pas-
sively received, but a possession he has been privileged to
win, understood and prized the more because at times he
seemed to be within an ace of losing it altogether, but
most of all because he now perceives its true nature and
value.
PART III
DOCTRINAL
INTRODUCTION
Now that the Old Testament background of the
thought of Jesus has been sketched, and the Pas-
sion-sayings have been examined, it remains to ask
the decisive question : How did Jesus interpret His suffer-
ings and death?
Obviously, the first thing to do is to assemble the lead-
ing thoughts which are expressed in the sayings, and to il-
lustrate the amount of evidence on which they rest. This
task will be undertaken in Chapter I.
It is naturally to be expected that some of the ideas which
must necessarily be included in the summary will raise
more ultimate questions than can be answered by the
simple expedient of quoting a saying of Jesus. It is also
necessary to ask whether there is any unifying principle
which binds together the conclusions which directly or in-
directly can be based upon the sayings, and which may be
regarded as a determinative conception in the mind of Jesus.
These broader questions will be treated in Chapter II .
A final question must be considered in Chapter III.
Such an investigation as the present is not complete unless
it enables us to say how the purpose of Jesus is related to
the thought of today. The place of Jesus Christ in the
continuous life of the Church, and in Christian experience
are facts of life and history ; and, if the universe of thought is
a rational whole, it must be possible to assign some organic
relationship between them and the earliest data of Christian
tradition. There is a point at which the interests of criticism,
faith, and worship intersect; and, while specialisation must
always have its necessary place in the search for truth, noth-
ing less than unification of thought is the final goal of inquiry .
THE IMMEDIATE IMPLICATIONS OF
THE PASSION-SAYINGS
IN accordance with what has been said in the Introduc-
tion, the first task is to assemble the leading thoughts
which are implicit in the Passion-sayings examined in
Part II. Such a summary, it may be expected, must be
both bare and fragmentary. It is important to recognize
the reason for this. The investigator of to-day is not in
the happy position of having at his disposal all the relevant
sayings of Jesus; he cannot even assume that he has more
than a few of the more important of them. The study of
the formation of the Gospel tradition, absolutely essential
to such an inquiry as the present, reveals plainly that the
sayings preserved in the Gospels are those which met im-
mediate needs of conduct and belief. Only in part are
they those which a historian or a theologian would have
collected if Providence had entrusted the preservation of
the earliest tradition to such intermediaries.
The late Canon Sanday used to urge that, in estimating
the bearing of existing early testimony on the authorship
of the Fourth Gospel, we should consider the relation of
the extant evidence to the whole body of that which once
existed. 1 The reminder is pertinent, and mutatis mutan-
dis applies to all historical inquiries. The results, of
course, would be injurious if the reminder made it easy
to assign to the past only the conceptions which please us;
^The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 40.
254
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PASSION-SAYINGS 255
but it is all to the good if it delivers us from the assumption
that the available evidence is sufficient for dogmatism
based on limited knowledge. The evidence presented by
the sayings is fragmentary; and the task of the historian is
not merely that of building a skeleton of thought, but of
clothing it with flesh and blood. If, however, he is wise,
he will assemble the fragments first. This is the under-
taking of the present chapter. The several sayings have
been examined, and the question now is how far they can
be articulated.
i. The most fundamental idea which lies behind the
Passion-sayings is the steadfast belief of Jesus that the pur-
pose and experiences of His Passion lay deep in the Provi-
dence of God. JHJe did not look upon His sufferings as
chance events, or as a stroke of fate, or simply as a tragedy
compassed by men. On the contrary. His experiences
were events determined in the counsels of God. 'How is
it written of the Son of man', He asked of His three dis-
ciples, 'that he should suffer many things and be set at
nought?* (Mk. ix. I2b). The very form of the question
suggests a thought long pondered and a lesson vainly
taught. The same conviction is expressed in the three
Markan sayings which assert that the Son of Man 'must
suffer' (Mk. viii. 3 1, ix. 31, x. 33^), and in the similar say-
ing in the L tradition : 'But first must he suffer many things
and be rejected of this generation' (Lk. xvii. 25). The
necessity laid upon Him is an inner constraint indepen-
dent of the machinations of men. Into the same context
of ideas fall His allusions to Old Testament passages. He
is 'the stone which the builders rejected', destined by God
to become 'the head of the corner' (Mk. xii. rof). He is
'the shepherd' at whose smiting 'the sheep shall be scat-
tered abroad' (Mk. xiv. 27). /It is with especial clearness
that His conviction of divine purpose is expressed in His
256 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
prophecy of betrayal : 'The Son of man goeth, even as it
is written of him' (Mk. xiv. 2 1). As we have seen, this
identification of the Son of Man with the Suffering Ser-
vant is so firmly established in the mind of Jesus that He
can say of the former what in the Old Testament is said
only of the latter. 1 The same attitude is seen in Geth-
semane when Judas draws near, for the words : 'Arise, let
us be going' (Mk. xiv. 42), are not a cry of panic but a call
to action. 2 Now as always Jesus is master of the situation.
The Fourth Gospel is at one with the Synoptics in re-
presenting this sense of Providential purpose as a convic-
tion of Jesus. The Passion is 'the hour* of destiny
(xii. 23, 27, xvii. i). Of His life He says: *No one taketh
it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have
power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.
This commandment received I from my Father* (x. 1 8).
2. Closely connected with the foregoing principle is
the fact that, in all that concerned His Passion, Jesus
looked upon the relationship between Himself and the
Father as one of perfect unity. -In no saying of His is
there any suggestion of opposition or antagonism; His
will and that of the Father are one:. The classic expres-
sion of this fact is the prayer in Gethsemane: 'Abba,
Father, all things are possible unto thee; remove this cup
from me: howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt',
(Mk. xiv, 36). Here, indeed, is the human shrinking <if
a sensitive spirit; none the less, the prayer expresses a per-
fect acceptance of the divine will. What Jesus does is
well-pleasing to the Father, and what the Father wills He
does. A similar thought is implied in the parable of the
Vineyard in the words : 'they will reverence my son' (Mk.
xii. 6). Obedience and oneness of aim and purpose are
taken for granted. Jesus comes as God's final envoy; the
*C.f.n 3 . 2Cp. 156.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PASSION-SAYINGS 257
initiative is divine, and of disharmony or conflict there is
no suggestion.
The Fourth Gospel reflects exactly the same attitude.
Indeed, it presents it more pointedly, although at the ex-
pense of historical realism. In the Johannine counter-
part to the prayer of Gethsemane, Jesus is troubled and
proposes to Himself the question: 'What shall I say?
Father, save me from this hour?' 1 only to reject the sug-
gestion in the words : 'But for this cause came I unto this
hour. Father, glorify thy name' (xii. ayf). v This con-
ciousness of fulfilling the Father's will is also voiced in the
words already quoted in the previous section : 'This com-
mandment received I from my Father' (x. 1 8).
3. A further point of the greatest importance is the fact
that Jesus interpreted His suffering, death, and resur-
rection positively, as active elements in His Messianic
vocation. / He did not speak of His Passion as a revela-
tion, however true this aspect of it may be, but rather as a
task laid upon Him which it was His mission to accom-
plish for men. 'I have a baptism to be baptized with/
He says, 'and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!'
(Lk. xii. 50). There is a note of urgency in these words
and a clear indication that in His death, as in His life,
Jesus is seeking to fulfil an end. ' A further illustration is
His declaration that(* the Son of 'man came not to be served,
but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many' (Mk.
x. 45). That an active process is meant, is clear, and the
use of the title, Sop. of Man, shows that Messianic action
is contemplated, j Jesus is not thinking of service in gene-
ral, but of definite blessings which He will confer on men
by dying. His death is like the ransom by which a slave
Probably a question and not a request, since the Markan story is recast
under the influence of the Fourth Evangelist's theology. Cf. Macgregor,
266; Lagrange, 3321".
258 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
is set free; it secures for the many the freedom they can-
not obtain for themselvesA The 'ransom-saying' does not
stand alone in this conrf^xion. The sayings which de-
clare that the Son of Man 'must suffer' also point to an
active Messianic vocation, and the same is probably true
of the 'cup' which Jesus is to drink (cf. Mk. x. 38, xiv. 36).
Jesus also refers to His death as an event in which He is to
be 'perfected* (Lk. xiii. 32), and since immediately before
He speaks of going on His way *to-day and to-morrow',
the presumption is that He.is to be 'perfected* in the carry-
ing out of His vocation. All these indications show that
to Him His Passion is not only something to be endured;
it is an achievement to which His life is dedicated.
It is remarkable how little this aspect of the thought of
Jesus finds expression in the sayings of the Fourth Gospel.
It is implicit in the words : 'For their sakes I sanctify my-
self (Jn. xvii. 1 9), where Jesus is revealed as one dedicated
to a holy purpose, and, as part of the Evangelist's theology,
it is expressed in the words assigned to the Baptist: 'Be-
hold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world!' (Jn. i. 29); but otherwise it is not found in this
Gospel, probably because the Evangelist's main interest is
the revelation or manifestation of the Word, not the
purpose which Jesus, as the Messiah, came to achieve.
4. The Passion-sayings also imply that, /in fulfilling
His Messianic vocation, Jesus thought of His Passion as
closely connected with the Kingdom of God. j Jesus does
not teach that His death is the inauguratiofi of the King-
dom, for already, in Himself and in His Messianic acts, it
is present. 'If I by the finger of God cast out devils, then is
the kingdom of God come upon you' (Lk. xi. 20). ;None
the less, His words clearly show that He thinks of His "suf-
fering and cbath as necessary to the establishing of the
Divine Rule. / It is characteristic of Him that, strongly
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PASSION-SAYINGS 259
influenced as He is by Isa. liii, He does not describe Him-
self as the Servant when He speaks of His suffering, but
always as the Son of Man. It is as the Son of Man that He
'must suffer' (Mk. viii. 31, &c.); as the Son of Man that
He comes 'to give his life a ransom for many' (Mk. x. 45) ;
as the Son of Man that He 'goeth even as it is written of
him' (Mk. xiv. 21); as the Son of Man that He is 'betrayed
into the hands of sinners' (Mk. xiv. 41). In full view of
death He declares that the priests will see 'the Son of Man
sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the
clouds of heaven' (Mk. xiv. 62). This usage indicates
how intimately the Kingdom and His death are related in
His thinking.) Indirectly, as we have seen, the same re-
lationship ^suggested when, at the descent from the
Mount, He endorses the popular belief that the coming of
Elijah is a sign of the End, and thrusts into this context of
thought the question : 'And how is it written of the Son of
Man, that he should suffer many things and be set at
nought?' (Mk. ix. I2b). Current conceptions regarding
the Messiah and the Kingdom are replaced by a new and
original view, which sets at the centre the thought of the
necessity of Messianic suffering.
Further evidence is supplied by the sayings at the Sup-
per. Plainly in Mark, and even more clearly in Luke,
Jesus interpreted the Supper as, in one of its aspects, an
anticipation of the great Messianic Feast (cf. Mk. xiv. 25;
Lk. xxii. 1 8, 2 gf). Thus it appears that the thought of the
Kingdom, so central in the Galilean teaching, glows in the
very shadow of the Cross. ( Jesus both liv^s and dies ab-
sorbed in the thought of the Keign of God. J)
In the Fourth Gospel, as is well known, this interest is
less apparent, although it is not wanting. The phrase,
the Kingdom of God, is found twice only, in the story of
Nicodemus, and in neither case in connexion with Christ's
260 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
death. It is probable, however, that 'eternal life* is the
Johannine equivalent for the Kingdom of God; and in this
case, in another form, and as denoting life in its richest
expression, the phrase describes what is entailed by the
Rule of God. This conception is brought in the Fourth
Gospel into association with the Passion when Jesus says :
'He that eateth my flesh and dimketh my blood hath eter-
nal life* (Jn. vi. 54; cf. xvii. 2). (Moreover, in the account
of the trial before Pilate, Jesus says; 'My kingdom is not of
this world : if my kingdom were of this world, then would my
servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews :
but now is my kingdom not from hence* (Jn. xviii. 36).
Whatever may be the historical character of the Evangel-
ist's account of this incident, it is clear that he is aware of
the place which the thought of the Kingdom occupied in
the mind of Jesus in the very face of death.
How Jesus understood the connexion between His suf-
ering and the Kingdom of God, is not disclosed in His say-
ings. The question is obviously one for consideration
later. Of the connexion itself there can be no doubt, and
it may well be that material for an answer is supplied in
other aspects of His thought yet to be examined.
^.KDne aspect of the thought of Jesus in relation to the
Kingdom is His belief that His death is a victorious
struggle with the powers of evil. 'This is your hour', He
says to those who effect the arrest, 'and the power of dark-
ness* (Lk. xxii. 53b). The implication is that Jesus is
conscious of the menace of evil powers. The 'ransom-
saying' also suggests that He thought of men as being in
bondage to evil and of His death as the means of securing
their release: 'The Son of man came ... to give his life a
ransom for many' (Mk. x. 45). Indeed, many of the Pas-
sion-sayings might be included under this category, such
as, for example, the declarations that the Son of Man 'must
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PASSION-SAYINGS 261
suffer', if there were reason to think of it as the master-
principle of His thinking. The presence, however, of
other ideas in His sayings shows that it is but a single
strand in His thought; it is the dramatic representation of
the purpose of His Passion. ^Aulen is completely justified
in maintaining that the idea of the death of Jesus as the
conquest of Satan, evil, and death, which for a thousand
years was the Classic view' of the Atonement, is rooted in
the Gospel tradition. 1 In the Fourth Gospel it appears in
the words : 'Now is the judgement of this world: now shall
the prince of this world be cast out' (Jn. xii. 31). Un-
doubtedly, it is one of the ways in which Jesus related His
Passion to the establishment of the Kingdom of God.
6. More central is the belief of Jesus that Iis Messianic
suffering is representative .and vicarious. (It is borne for
men and it avails for them. This belief ig implied in the
declaration that it is 'for tfiany' that the Son of Man comes
to give His life, and in the saying : 'This is my blood of the
covenant, which is shed for many' (Mk. xiv. 24). These
sayings indicate that the death of Jesus has for its objective
the deepest need of man. As we have urged, 2 the first say-
ing must not be watered down to the simple assertion that
the service of Jesus in dying is for the advantage of the
many. The 'ransom' which He gives is something they are
unable to provide, but which He, in the fullness of His
grace, supplies in their stead. The saying regarding the
covenant implies that, in dying, it is His purpose to make
possible a relationship of true fellowship between men and
God. The reference to 'blood' is intelligible only as a
sacrificial concept; it denotes life freely offered for others.
Postponing for further discussion the many questions
which the sayings raise, we must boldly conclude that
Jesus believed that, as the Messiah, He would suffer as the
1 Cf. CAristus Victor. 2 Cf. p. loof.
262 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
representative of men, on their behalf and in their stead,
and that the effect of His death would be to establish that
fellowship with God on which His rule depends* The
two sayings are complementary. In the 'ransom-saying'
the emphasis is upon deliverance; in the words about the
covenant it is upon fellowship. Both imply a sundered
relationship which is restored by sacrifice.
The same conclusions are suggested by the use which
Jesus made of the Servant-conception. This, however, is
a point which cannot be directly established by His re-
corded sayings; it is an inference based on the nature of
the Servant-conception and the influence it is likely to have
had upon the mind of Jesus when He used it to recast the
Messianic idea in relation to Himself and the Kingdom.
This question raises wider issues than those which can be
considered at present, and must be reserved for discussion
in the next chapter.
In the Fourth Gospel Jesus speaks of His death as vica-
rious when He declares that the bread which He will give
is His flesh, 'for the life of the world' (vi. 51), and when
He describes Himself as 'the good shepherd' who 'layeth
down his life for the sheep' (x. 1 1). The same truth ap-
pears also in the words : 'For their sakes I sanctify myself
(xvii. 19). In this Gospel, however, there is no saying of
Jesus which implies that He stands to men in a represen-
tative relationship, although it is clear, from i. 29, that this
belief was a part of the Evangelist's theology. This fact
does not compromise the import of the Synoptic sayings
considered above, but, as already argued, is an illustration
of the selective method adopted in this Gospel.
7, In addition to the sayings 'which imply that the suf-
fering of Jesus was representative and vicarious/ t&ere are
others which point to a close personal relationshipj>etween
Himself and sinners, and, in consequence, to a poignant
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PASSION-SAYINGS 263
experience of the consequences of sin. Our examination
of the words : 'For I say unto you, that this which is writ-
ten must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with
transgressors' (Lk. xxii. 37; cf. Isa. liii. 12), suggested
that the saying expresses a sense of Messianic vocation in-
volving self-identification with sinners; but how far this
inference is justified depends on the larger consideration of
the Servant-conception mentioned in the last section.
Certainly, it seems a very inadequate interpretation of the
saying if we say that it implies no more than the prophecy
of Jesus that the^ Jewish hierarchy would treat Him as a
transgressor. ' Other sayings, however, point more clearly
to an intimate experience of spiritual suffering. Such
sayings are Mk. x. 38: 'Are ye able to drink the cup
that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am
baptized with?'; Lk. xii. 50: 'I have a baptism to be bap-
tized with; and how am I straitened till it be accom-
plished!'; and the prayer in Gethsemane recorded in Mk.
xiv. 36: 'Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee;
remove this cup from me : howbeit not what I will, but
what thou wilt.' These utterances express spiritual
agony, not simply physical and mental distress. This
impression is deepened when the words : *My soul is ex-
ceeding sorrowful even unto death' (Mk. xiv. 34), are
considered; and most of all by the cry from the Cross: My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' (Mk. xv. 34).
The conclusion, that in these words the accents of spiritual
desolation are heard, is much easier of acceptance if it is
recognized that Jesus is almost over^helmed^byjhe.know-
ledge of human sin. The speaker is not the Galilean her-
2,* * *
^alct of the Kingdom, but One who has taken upon Him-
self the Messianic r61e of the Suffering Saviour of men and
has identified Himself with those He represents and serves.
This aspect of the Passion of Jesus is wanting in the
264 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
Fourth Gospel, except so far as it is implied in the sayings
which describe the death as vicarious. This deficiency is
due to the Evangelist's preoccupation with the thought of
Christ as the Divine Word and Son of God. It is here
more than anywhere else that one gains the impression
that the Prologue (Jn. i. i-i 8), if it does not dominate the
Gospel throughout, certainly focuses its leading ideas.
It is in keeping with the Johannine delineation that,
through believing, men enter into union with Christ as the
branches are related to the vine; but it is foreign to its pre-
sentation that the Son should identify Himself with sin-
ners and enter into an experience of the night of sin. As
depicted in the Fourth Gospel Christ is indeed the Saviour
(cf. iv. 42), but as the Revealer of God, not the Redeemer
of men. 1
Since the Fourth Evangelist's failure to present this
aspect of the Messianic suffering of Jesus is explicable in
the light of his doctrinal and religious purpose, it has no
bearing at all upon the historical character of the Synoptic
sayings instanced above. In themselves, these are enough
to authenticate the keen spiritual suffering of Jesus, in the
pursuance of His vocation, as an essential part of the Gos-
pel tradition. What is involved in this suffering, its
character and significance, are questions answered by
none of the sayings which have been preserved. These
problems, however, are matters which the historian, as
well as the theologian, must consider in connexion with
the sayings and the wider indications of the thought of
Jesus regarding the Kingdom, the Messianic Hope, the
Suffering Servant, and the doctrine of sacrifice. The fact
directly attested by the Synoptic sayings is an intense
1 In view of Jn. i. 29 and of i Jn. i. 7, ii. if., iii. 5, iv. 10, the restraint
shown in the Evangelist's fidelity to this representation is the most remark-
able example of religious portraiture in literature.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PASSION-SAYINGS 265
spiritual agony endured by Jesus in the fulfilment of His
vocation for men.
8, Thus far our attention has been limited to those as-
pects of the suffering and death of Jesus which concern
His personal relationships with the Father and with men;
the vocation is one which He Himself must fulfil. This,
however, is not the whole of His teaching; there are say-
ings which show that He intended men to participate in
His self-offering and to appropriate the power of His sur-
rendered life. His redemptive service is not intended to
be a work wrought apart from men ; it is rather a work into
which they are permitted to enter, in such a way that what
He does on their behalf becomes a vital factor in their ap-
proach to God.
This is a side of the thought of Jesus to which insuffi-
cient attention has often been given, in consequence of
the tendency to think of the Atonement as a 'finished
work' which man has simply to accept as a gift of grace.
Everything has been done by Christ; man has only to re-
ceive the benefits of His death ! The extent to which this
idea is rooted in the teaching of Jesus is evident; it is a re-
flection of the tremendous emphasis in the sayings already
considered upon the unique character of His Messianic
vocation. The redemption He provides and the fellow-
ship He makes possible are utterly beyond the power of
man. Such is the unmistakable assumption reflected by
the words and attitude of Jesus.
It does not necessarily follow, however, from this view
of the redemptive work of Jesus that man's attitude there-
to is entirely passive; and there is clear evidence in the
Passion-sayings that this was not His thought. On the
contrary, the attitude for which He looks is essentially ac-
tive; men are to share in the power of His self-offering and
make it their sacrifice before God. And they are to do
266 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
this, not merely by pleading the merits of something ex-
ternal to themselves, but by relating themselves so inti-
mately to Christ's achievement that, without adding to it
anything of their own devising, it becomes an essential ele-
ment in their personal dealings with God.
I have conjectured that the rudiments of such an attitude
as this are discernible in the part which Jesus expected His
three intimate disciples to play during the Agony of Geth-
semane. 1 The reiterated demand that they should watch
and pray is not a cry for protection, but a demand for sym-
pathy and understanding in the hour of His Messianic suf-
fering. It is an appeal for that attitude of mind and spirit
which gives meaning to what He does. There is, how-
ever, too much that is mysterious in this story for any in-
terpreter to speak with certainty or to press his views upon
the acceptance of others. All that can be asserted defi-
nitely is that the central features in this episode are the
need of Jesus and the failure of the disciples. That He
looked for them to play a human part in His Messianic
activity, is an inference which requires further evidence.
The proof that Jesus intended men to participate in the
power of His self-offering is supplied by the Supper-say-
ings. These sayings are absolutely vital to an under-
standing of the attitude of Jesus to His death. In Part II
they have been examined in detail, 2 and the attempt must
now be made to relate the results there reached to the prob-
lem as a whole. It was argued that, when Jesus bade His
disciples eat the bread and drink the wine, He was in-
viting them to share in the life which He was offering on
their behalf. The metaphorical expressions in the say-
ings : 'This is my body/ 'This is my blood of the covenant,
which is shed for many' (Mk. xiv. 22, 24), are the terms
'body' and 'blood', which signify in different ways the life
1 Cf. pp. 1 5of, 1 5 5f. - 2 See pp. 1 1 8-39.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PASSION-SAYINGS 267
of Jesus given for men. To eat, therefore, the bread and
to drink the wine, is to participate in the surrendered life
and to appropriate its consecrating power. The elements
are both symbols and media and derive this significance
from the word of Jesus Himself. The bearing of this
conception upon the Messianic activity of Jesus, as He
conceived it, is clear. Jesus did not regard His service as
accomplished apart from, and independent of, men; it was
a sacrifice consummated only as men entered into it and
made it their spiritual possession.
It is beside the point to argue that, since the death of
Jesus was still to be accomplished, the Supper was provi-
sional and anticipatory. 1 Rather must it be maintained
that at the Supper Jesus thought of His Messianic work as
a present reality of which death, followed by resurrection,
would be the culmination. There is no hint in the Syn-
optic sayings of a spiritual food available only after death.
Indeed, the bread and the wine are not primarily indicated
as food, but as means for participating in a redemptive
activity.
In the Fourth Gospel there is nothing corresponding to
this conception. As we have seen, 2 its sacramental say-
ings do not imply any relationship between men and the
sacrificial ministry of Jesus, but speak rather of the gift of
'eternal life' and of communion with Christ as conveyed to
the believer. Once more, this difference is due to the
Evangelist's selective purpose and to his predominating
emphasis upon the death of Christ as a revelation of love.
Many problems are raised by the relationship between
1 Cf. N. P. Williams, Essays Catholic and Critical, 406, 423. 'Their
first real and sacramental Communion in the body and blood of Christ can
only have been made after that body and blood had been glorified and
freed from spatial limitations by the resurrection,' ibid., 423.
2 See p. 242.
268 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
the Eucharist and the suffering and death of Jesus, and, in
particular, the whole question of faith. These points,
however, are matters for consideration in the following
chapter, inasmuch as the answers cannot be drawn from
explicit utterances of Jesus. For the present it is enough
to note the positive inference, supported by the Supper-
sayings, that Jesus did not regard His Messianic suffer-
ing as an automatic or self-acting work, but as an activity
which is completed in a human relationship thereto. This
principle is of the greatest ethical importance, for it stamps
at once any conception of Christ's death as an external
means of salvation as entirely foreign to His thought.
9 . Finally, it is the paradox of the teaching of Jesus that,
although His vocation of Messianic suffering is unique,
He none the less interprets it as an activity which, in
some measure, men are to reproduce. Thus, He assures
the sons of Zebedee that they shall indeed participate in
the cup of His suffering. 'The cup that I drink ye shall
drink' (Mk. x. 39). If we believe that for Jesus the 'cup'
was a symbol of more than martyrdom, we must draw the
same conclusion in respect of His declaration regarding
James and John. Suffering in the service of the King-
dom is the least interpretation of which His words are
capable. What is meant is a suffering which in some
sense is representative and vicarious, and which has for its
end the realisation of the Reign of God. The same in-
ference is probably justified in the case of the saying: *If
any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and
take up his cross, and follow me* (Mk. viii, 34). Some-
thing more than a general exhortation to manifest the
spirit of self-sacrifice is meant by these words ; they imply
that Jesus believed that what He was doing as the Messiah,
in like manner His followers were called upon to do. It is
impossible to suppose, with the Passion-sayings before us,
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PASSION-SAYINGS 269
that Jesus thought that in this matter He and His follow-
ers stood on the same plane, as fellow-sufferers in a com-
mon redemptive service; the sense of a unique vocation in
His words is too strong for such a view to be entertained.
But it is also impossible to conclude that He looked upon
His suffering as utterly solitary, without parallel or ana-
logue in the experience of men. The Cross was supremely
His, but just because of this He could see it everywhere.
The Fourth Gospel does not contain sayings fully com-
parable to those cited above, but it does speak of parallel
sufferings which disciples of Jesus are called to undergo,
including hatred by the world (xv. 1 9), persecution (xv.
20), tribulation (xvL 33), and death (xvi. 2). Twice it
declares that 'a servant is not greater than his lord" (xiii.
1 6, xv. 20), and the implication is that what Jesus does or
suffers is a pattern or example which, to the extent of their
power. His followers are to copy. That this Gospel does
not contain sayings which demand more than fidelity to
the example of Christ, is in harmony with its representa-
tion of His death as mainly a manifestation of divine love.
The principal ideas which are implicit in the Passion-
sayings have now been indicated, and it remains to consider
them as a whole.
The comparison of the Synoptic sayings with those of
the Fourth Gospel is instructive. It confirms the con-
clusion already apparent in Part II, 1 that the witness of
this Gospel to the meaning of Christ's death is limited in
range, owing to the Evangelist's predilections and the
purpose he had in view in writing his Gospel. Summarily
stated, the implications of the Johannine Passion-sayings
ascribed to Jesus are that a deep-seated necessity lay
behind His death, which was entirely under His control
and in accordance with the Father's will, and which was
x Seepp. 232,
270 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
vicarious without being representative and expiatory.
The death is a supreme expression of love, and is conceived,
in the main, as a departure from the limitations of earthly
existence so that the life of the Exalted Christ can be ap-
propriated by the believer in faith and in sacramental
communion.
The conclusion is inescapable that, important as this re-
presentation is for religious and devotional purposes, it is
of little value to the historian who seeks to discover how
Jesus contemplated His suffering and death. Equally
for the theologian the gain is small. By restricting his
construction within the limits set by the Fourth Gospel he
obtains a theory which is easy to state and which offends
the susceptibilities of no one, but he gains it by ignoring
half the problems of the doctrine and by neglecting or ex-
plaining away striking sayings in the Synoptic tradition.
To say this is not to deny the value of the Fourth Gospel
which lies elsewhere, especially in connexion with the doc-
trine of the Incarnate Word; it is rather to place the Johan-
nine representation regarding the suffering and death of
Jesus in its true place, as secondary and subordinate to the
evidence afforded by the Synoptic Gospels. The sound-
est procedure for the investigator is to concentrate atten-
tion on the Synoptic sayings, noting where they are con-
firmed by the Johannine sayings but making no discount
in cases where the testimony of the Fourth Gospel is
wanting.
Adopting this method, it will be useful to assemble the
several results already gained from our study of the Pas-
sion-sayings. These may be stated briefly as follows.
Jesus looked upon His suffering and death as the fulfil-
ment of a divine purpbse, in which His will was at one
with that of the Father, and in virtue of which He accepted
an active vocation connected with the Rule of God. He
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PASSION-SAYINGS 271
thought of His death as a victorious struggle with the
powers of evil, and interpreted His suffering, in relation to
men, as representative and vicarious in a sacrificial minis-
try which involved participation in the consequences of
human sin. So far, however, was He from thinking of
His Messianic work as automatic and self-acting in its re-
sults that He provided a rite whereby men should be able
to share in the power of His surrendered life and make
His offering their own. He also called upon men to re-
produce an experience of cross-bearing in their lives.
This summary should not be regarded as a complete
statement of the way in which Jesus regarded His suffer-
ing and death. It is merely a convenient articulation of
the several inferences which have been drawn from the
Passion-sayings in the course of the present chapter.
Many questions are raised which require further con-
sideration and must be examined in the following chapter.
One point of the utmost importance, however, may be
made now. The summary reveals the outlines of an in-
telligible attitude to the Cross. It may, therefore, prove
misleading to say that Jesus had no theory of atonement
in respect of His death. If by this common opinion it
is meant that He formulated no doctrinal theory such as
can be found in the works of Christian theologians in
later times, the statement is true; but if it is meant that He
had no convictions of His own about the purpose of His
sufferings, the end they were to fulfil, and the manner in
which they would prove effective, a view is held which
is not only improbable in itself, but is directly opposed by
His sayings regarding His Passion. To these considera-
tions must be added the urgency with which He ap-
proached Jerusalem, and His experience in the Garden and
on the Cross. His words and acts are those of One who
knows what He must do and why He does it. The atti-
272 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
tude is one of intelligent and conscious decision. For
these reasons it must be inferred that Jesus had a very de-
finite 'theory' of atonement. To Him the Cross was not
an enigma, but the highway of conscious Messianic pur-
pose.
The question whether there is an ineluctable doctrinal
element in the sayings of Jesus is so important, that it is
advisable to consider it carefully before proceeding fur-
ther. Is this element really present? Or, on the con-
trary, is the hesitation of critics to admit its presence justi-
fiable?
It is easy to see how the critical hesitation has arisen.
Many 'Lives of Christ' exist in which the method of
approach is theological. In these works theology is read in-
to the Story of Jesus; nothing is said which is inconsistent
with it, and by its aid gaps in the record are cleverly filled,
with the result that the Life is not a historical work, but a
contribution to Apologetics. It was only to be expected
that, with the growth of criticism, such works would fall
under the deepest suspicion. No critic with a reputation
to lose would dream of writing such a Life. From them
he turns away with the conviction that here he has nothing
to learn. Unfortunately, this healthy scepticism can en-
danger research. It is one thing to impose a theology
upon a historical study; it is quite another thing to imagine
that a historical investigation of the words of Jesus can be
made without discovering an implicit theology. Not the
least benefit which Schweitzer has conferred upon us
is his perception of a dogmatic element in the Story of
Jesus, and his claim stands even when it is admitted that
his exclusive reliance upon Eschatology, as the master-key
of the Gospel tradition, is mistaken. The truth slowly
emerges that a study of the life of Jesus which does not find
in it a theology in solution, is self-condemned. This is
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PASSION-SAYINGS 273
the lesson of the failure of the Liberal-Critical School to
estimate the Person of Jesus. The resultant picture is
a lay-figure totally incapable of initiating the Christian
Movement. The same lesson is taught by the successive
attempts to bridge the gulf between the Rabbi of Nazareth
and historical Christianity, by over-emphasizing the crea-
tive influence of St. Paul. These splendid constructions lie
in ruins, and it only remains for research to retrace its steps
in estimating the place of theology in relation to history. It
will be necessary to admit that in the mind of Jesus there
were doctrinal concepts, which are not compromised be-
cause they stand in a traceable relation to later develop-
ments in New Testament teaching. I am not thinking,
of course, of systematized theology, but of those thoughts
about God, man and sin, which are its foundation material.
Translated into its simplest terms, the question whether
there is a dogmatic element in the thought of Jesus, is the
inquiry whether He knew what He meant to achieve for
men by His Messianic ministry of suffering and death.
This question, it is here maintained, should be answered
in the affirmative.
II
ULTIMATE QUESTIONS RAISED BY
THE PASSION-SAYINGS
Awe have seen, besides the immediate inferences
which can be drawn from the Passion-sayings, ulti-
mate questions are raised which cannot be answered
directly by appealing to the recorded words of Jesus, but
to which answers are necessary if we are to understand His
attitude to His suffering and death. These questions in-
clude such points as the relation of His suffering to the per-
fecting of the Reign of God; the sense in which His suffer-
ing is representative and vicarious, and the bearing of the
Servant-conception on this issue; the penal aspects of the
Passion; the relation between sacramental communion
and faith-union with Christ; the nature of the fellowship
of men with His sufferings. These problems must now
be considered.
Although the Passion-sayings do not supply an imme-
diate answer to any of the questions noted above, there
is reason to think that material for answers exists.
The nature of the existing Passion-sayings encourages
this hope. As we have argued, these sayings are not a col-
lected summary of the utterances of Jesus relative to His
Passion, chosen for the purpose of doctrinal discussion;
they are survivals preserved by practical needs. It is all
the more remarkable, therefore, that the sayings are found
to be organically related; they reveal a connected order of
thought. At the beginning of the last chapter reference
274
QUESTIONS RAISED BY PASSION-SAYINGS 275
was made to the necessity of clothing with flesh and blood
the skeleton provided by the fragmentary sayings of Jesus,
but it is now seen that this metaphor is inadequate. If a
spatial simile is admissible, it is found best in the objects
revealed at the coming of morning light. Hills, farm-
steads, rocks, woods, trees, roads, and streams stand out
against a background obscured by mist and cloud; but
from the broken outline it is possible to imagine the gene-
ral configuration of the whole landscape. Somewhat
similar is the illumination made possible by the existing
Passion-sayings; they not only convey their immediate
suggestions, but hint at the thoughts and beliefs of the
Speaker from whom they come. But it is even better to
think of the Passion-sayings as organically related, for they
express the living thoughts of an active and original mind.
The Fourth Evangelist expresses this conviction in the
saying of Jesus : 'The words that I have spoken unto you
are spirit, and are life' (vi. 63). Du Bose puts the same
thought in another way when he writes : 'I hold that the
Gospel of Jesus Christ is so true and so living in every part
that he who truly possesses and truly uses any broken frag-
ment of it may find in that fragment something just so
much of gospel for his soul and of salvation for his life/ 1
This religious truth has an intellectual counterpart. No
historical method is more mistaken than one which merely
adds together the implications of isolated Passion-sayings.
But there is more material at our disposal than the exist-
ing Passion-sayings. As a corrective against the dan-
gers of a subjective construction, the investigation of the
attitude of Jesus to the Kingdom of God, the Messianic
Hope, the Son of Man, the Son, the Servant of Yahweh,
and Sacrifice, made in Part I, is essential. However in-
complete its results may be, such a study reveals the hin-
*The Gospelin the Gospels, 4.
276 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
terland of thought out of which the sayings emerge. It is
not, therefore, a forlorn hope to attempt to discuss the ul-
timate problems. Everything we know of Jesus is a light
upon their darkness. Nothing that is Inconsistent with
His environment of thought can safely be credited to Him,
but what is harmonious with His mind may be historically
true if it fills out the meaning of His words.
It is certain that the application of these principles
leaves much to the insight of the investigator. None the
less he has room to advance. Whether his results are ob-
jective can be judged only by those who are prepared to re-
trace his steps and to ask if he has reached conclusions
which are consistent with our knowledge of the Jesus of
history.
i . There is no need to investigate further the view that
Jesus believed that His Passion was an experience which
came to Him in the Providence of God, or the claim that in
respect of His suffering His mind and that of the Father
were at one. There is, however, an important implica-
tion, not expressed in the recorded words of Jesus, which
needs to be emphasized in view of later theological con-
structions. The perfect unity of purpose which existed
between Jesus and His Father excludes all theories of vin-
dictive punishment. Upon the words : c Not what I will,
but what thou wilt' (Mk. xiv. 36), all such theories of the
Atonement, implying the punishment of the compassion-
ate Son by an angry Father, irrevocably founder* What
Jesus does is an act well-pleasing to the Father; and for
this reason every theory worthy of the name must embody
the idea of the perfect obedience of Jesus to the Father's
will
This New Testament thought has never entirely disap-
peared from the mind and teaching of the Church, but it is
common knowledge that it has frequently been obscured
QUESTIONS RAISED BY PASSION-SAYINGS 277
and sometimes almost forgotten. No one perhaps has
impressed it more deeply upon the Christian conscious-
ness of to-day than J. M'Leod Campbell. 'Let my reader
endeavour to realize the thought,' he writes, "The suf-
ferer suffers what he suffers^/ through seeing sin and sinners
with God's eyes, and feeling in reference to them with God'i
heart. Is such suffering a punishment! Is God, in caus-
ing such a divine experience in humanity, inflicting a pun-
ishment? There can be but one answer. ... I find my-
self shut up to the conclusion, that while Christ suffered
for our sins as an atoning sacrifice, what He suffered was
not because from its nature it could not be a punish-
ment/ 1 In these burning words all theories of vindictive
punishment are utterly consumed; they have no validity,
either in the words of Jesus or in His thoughts aboui
God,
While, however, this conviction cannot be too strongl}
stated, there is reason to think that the anger which suet
theories incite has clouded the judgment of many theolo-
gians, and it may be that the words of Campbell, so ofter
quoted, are partly responsible for this result. In destroy-
ing error, it is easy to compromise truth; and it is impro-
bable that such theories would ever have gained currenc]
unless men had felt that a truth of some kind was at stake
R. C. Moberly pointed out that 'punishment' need no
mean retributive vengeance, and that, while it is one thinj
to deny that Christ's sufferings were penal in this sense, *i
is another and more doubtful matter, to deny that they cai
be called penal in any sense at alL' 2 This question ob
viously calls for careful and dispassionate inquiry, but it i
best to postpone it until the representative and vicariou
aspect of Christ's sufferings has been further examined
*TAe Nature of the Atonement, 4th ecL, roi. The italics are his.
* A tenement and Personality, 398.
278 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
The immediate conclusion to draw is that the sufferings
are not 'penaP in any sense which is in contradiction to
that attitude of perfect filial obedience manifest in the ac-
ceptance by Jesus of a ministry of suffering and death.
a. That Jesus thought of His Passion as the fulfilment
of an active Messianic vocation closely related to the King-
dom, may now be taken for granted; but it is desirable
more fully to examine the implications of this statement.
Jesus, we have seen, did not speak of His suffering as a
revelation, but as a task to be accomplished. That He
made such a revelation, both in His life and death, is one of
the most precious truths in the Christian Faith. It must
also be recognized that the revelation is both active and ob-
jective. In revealing God, Jesus not only brings certain
truths to light, He also embodies them in Himself so that
in His life and work they find living and visible expression.
When, however, all this has been said, we are far from do-
ing justice to the nature of His redemptive work. What
He accomplishes are specific Messianic acts on which the
realisation of the Rule of God depends.
It is for this reason that all forms of the 'Moral' Theory
of the Atonement prove wanting. Born in a spirit of re-
coil from harsh theories, they are halting-places in the
search for a truer theology. To this fact witness is given
in the successive attempts to supply their deficiencies. In
the work of H. Rashdall this is apparent in the attempt to
see, beyond an act of self-sacrifice 1 in the death of Jesus, a
'symbolical expression' of the fact that God suffers. 2 And
this view, which H. Bushnell so powerfully advocated, 3
has been strongly argued by C. A. Dinsmore 4 and H. M.
dea of Atonement, 45. 2 O/. */.,
8 Cf. The Vicarious Sacrifice, 35: 'Nay, there is a cross in God before the
wood is seen upon Calvary; hid in God's own virtue itself. . . .'
4 Cf* The Atonement in Literature andLife>
QUESTIONS RAISED BY PASSION-SAYINGS 27
Hughes. 1 Development is also noticeable in the Dal
Lectures of R. S. Franks, who prefers the term 'Exper
ential Theory' and interprets the sacrifice offered by Jesu
as meaning that He gave Himself up to the Father to b
the personal instrument of His love for men. 2 These an
other indications 3 show bow far the 'Moral' Theory ha
been modified from the form in which it is contended tha
the Incarnation and the Atonement are one. 4
The nature of Christ's redemptive activity is determine*
by His conception of the Kingdom as the Rule of Goc
This means that it is concerned supremely with the mora
and spiritual needs of men. The Kingdom of God, as H
saw it, is not a community of men engaged in the commo]
pursuit of an ethical ideal; it is the fellowship of thos
among whom the Divine Rule is exercised; it is the Reigi
of God among men . 1 1 is reasonable, therefore, to infer tha
the Messianic work of Jesus is that of establishing the mora
conditions in which the Rule of God can be perfected
That .Rule is a sovereignty which can be fully exercise<
only over willing and obedient hearts in unclouded fellow
ship with God. The obstacle to such a relationship i
human sin; and, in consequence, the Messianic activity
must concern the situation thus created. It is redemp
tive action necessitated by sin. The suffering, death, anc
resurrection of Jesus are successive acts in a victorious con
flict with evil powers and in a sacrificial ministry which H<
fulfils for sinners.
It must be freely granted that this view of the Messianic
1 Cf. What is the Atonement? 86-105. 'The passion of God found it
highest expression in the incarnation, life and death of His Son, in anc
through whom He resisted sin even unto death, and travailed for man*
redemption/ of. tit., 95.
2 Cf. The Atonement, 186-191.
8 Cf. W. R. Maltby, Christ and His Cross, 155-9.
}. M. Wilson, The Gospel of the Atonement, 88f.
280 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
activity of Jesus cannot be demonstrated by an appeal
to His recorded words, although it may with justice
be claimed that it is supported by His references to 'the
power of darkness 7 (Lk. xxii. 53), to 'the ransom for many'
(Mk. x* 45)3 and to 'the blood of the covenant, which is
shed for many* (Mk. xiv. 24). In the end, it is a conclu-
sion which must depend upon His words and deeds as a
whole. But besides the sayings mentioned above, two
other contributary considerations need to be taken into
account. One of these is the increasing preoccupation of
Jesus with the fact of sin as the Passion draws nearer. It
cannot have been long before the day near Caesarea
Philippi that He spoke so plainly about 'the things which
proceed out of the man* and defile him (Mk. vii. 15).
When the seventy returned from their mission He said : 'I
beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven' (Lk. x. 18).
Immediately after Peter's confession, when Peter rebuked
Him because of His words about the necessity of suffering
and death, He said: 'Get thee behind me, Satan : for thou
mindest not the things of God, but the things of men' (Mk.
viii. 33). And in His parables, of which the Lost Son
(Lk. xv. 11-32), the Unforgiving Servant (Mt. xviii. 23-
35), and the Wicked Husbandmen (Mk. xii. i-n) may
serve as examples, Jesus showed how deeply the reality of
sin pressed itself upon His imagination. Indeed, at the
very beginning of His public ministry, His words : Re-
pent ye, and believe in the good news' (Mk. i. 15), reveal
how clearly He saw it as an effective barrier to the Reign of
God. Jesus did not describe sin in the manner of St. Paul
in Rom. v. 12-21, vii. 7-25 or discuss the origin of the evil
yetzer as the Rabbis did, but in its concrete manifestations
He recognized how destructive it is. Inevitably, there-
fore, one thinks of His Messianic work in relation to the
Kingdom as intimately concerned with sin. The other
QUESTIONS RAISED BY PASSION-SAYINGS 281
consideration referred to above is the representative and
vicarious character of His suffering. It is right to intro-
duce this point here, even if its implications require fur-
ther discussion, for we have good reason to assume that
the thought of Jesus is a unity. If, then, he believed that,
as the Son of Man, He stood in a representative relation-
ship to men, we can infer that His work was the removal of
obstacles created by sin between them and their heritage in
the Reign of God.
3. It is now necessary to examine more fully the repre-
sentative and vicarious element in the suffering of Jesus
which has already been found in His sayings. But a task
left over from the last chapter must first be undertaken.
Although there is little doubt that Jesus interpreted His
suffering and death in the light of the Servant-conception,
we cannot infer the substance of His interpretation direct-
ly from His reported sayings. All the probabilities, how-
ever, favour the view that He interpreted the Servant's
work as consisting in representative and vicarious suffer-
ing. The theme of the Suffering Servant was treated in
Part I. Here it is sufficient to recall that the Servant's
destiny is that of one who is 'pierced' through the rebel-
lions of others, 'crushed* through their sins, whose 'chas-
tisement' wins men's peace, and by whose 'stripes' they
are healed. Such is his suffering that men are led to cry :
* We had all gone astray like sheep,
We had turned each his own way,
And Yahweh made to light on him
The sin of us all.*
It is incredible that Jesus can have viewed His own suffer-
ing in the light of this sublime poem without at the same
time interpreting it as representative and vicarious suffer-
ing. All the more certain is this, if Jesus read Isa. liii. in
282 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
the belief that He was the Messiah: and the claim that He
approached the poem with this conviction, is strongly sup-
ported by the fact that He reinterpreted the idea of the
Son of Man in terms of the Suffering Servant, not the Ser-
vant-conception in terms of the Son of Man. 1 It is be-
cause of Isa. liii that Jesus completely recast the doctrine of
the Son of Man. The Son of Man, in whom He saw
Himself, is a new figure clothed with the marred form of
the Servant, To say this is really to confess that Jesus in-
terpreted His destiny as that of the Suffering Redeemer, as
the representative of the many whose supreme need is re-
conciliation to God. Our knowledge that language of
this kind can be exploited in the interests of crude theories
of the Atonement must not be allowed to prevent us from
drawing this vital inference. Rather is it necessary to
examine more closely the nature of representative action
and to consider in what way Jesus is likely to have viewed
His suffering within this category.
The representative activity of Jesus is wrongly con-
ceived if it is looked upon as imputed to men on the ground
of belief. Such an idea is not only wanting in the Passion-
sayings of Jesus, but is also out of harmony with His teach-
ing as a whole. It treats His suffering as if it were a trans-
action the benefits of which can be transferred to the ac-
count of another. There is undoubtedly a substitution-
ary aspect in the suffering of Jesus, in the sense that He
did for men what they have no power to do for themselves ;
but the thought of redemptive service is thrown entirely
out of focus unless faith-union between men and Christ is
so intimate that His offering becomes increasingly their
own. Not more satisfactory are theories which explain
the representative activity of Jesus by saying that He suf-
fered as Man, and that in Him Humanity was reconciled
*Seepp. 32, 48, 113, 259.
QUESTIONS RAISED BY PASSION-SAYINGS 283
to God. Irenaeus wrote that 'in the Second Adam we
were reconciled, becoming obedient unto death', 1 and
similar ideas can be found in the writings of modern the-
ologians. 2 So long as language of this kind is that of epi-
gram, it expresses the truth of Christ's Priesthood; but, if
it is pressed, it leads to abstract conceptions which lose
touch with life and to unethical reactions in conduct and
belief.
The truer view of the representative activity of Jesus is
one which recognizes that in His suffering and death He
has expressed and effected that which no individual man has
the power or the spirituality to achieve, but into which, in
virtue of an ever-deepening fellowship with Him, men can
progressively enter so that it becomes their offering to God.
The language of M'Leod Campbell is that of an older day,
but he powerfully presents this point of view when he
writes: 'Our faith is, in truth, the Amen of our individual
spirits, to that deep, multiform, all-embracing, harmoni-
ous Amen of humanity, in the person of the Son of God, to
the mind and heart of the Father in relation to man the
divine wrath and the divine mercy, which is the atone-
ment.' 3 In this view the suffering of Jesus is indeed re-
presentative and vicarious, but, in relation to men, it is
neither crudely substitutionary nor automatic in its action,
but something which is to be owned and appropriated.
Thus far, our discussion has centred upon the relation-
ship of men to the redemptive suffering of Jesus, but,
* Haer., v. 16. 3.
2 C Du Bose: 'As humanity had fallen in Adam, and by his act or its
own act in him, so humanity threw off its sin and death in Christ, and by
His act or by its own act in His Person/ The Gospel in the Gospels, 157.
Cf. Moberly: 'He was not generically, but inclusively, man', Atonement and
Personality, 86. Moberly, however, denies that there can be such a thing
as 'impersonal humanity', op. tit., 93.
*The Nature of the Atonement, 1 94.
284 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
obviously, something more must be said of the representa-
tive activity itself. In what way, it may be asked, did
Jesus find a representative character in His suffering?
His sayings and His use of the Servant-conception imply
that He assigned this significance to His Passion : is it pos-
sible to apprehend its nature?
The clue, so far as we can speak of a clue, is probably to
be found in the Old Testament conception of corporate
personality. 1 When the Psalmist says :
'But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised of the people' (Psa. xxii. 6),
he is not merely describing himself nor the community he
represents, but both. There is a recurring alternation in
the point of reference throughout the whole Psalm. The
personality revealed is that of one who is the living em-
. bodiment of the community. The same complex rela-
tionship is visible in the Servant-poems, in Isa. 1. 6 : 'I gave
my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that
plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and
spitting*; and still more notably in Isa. liii. 12: 'He bare
the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgres-
sors/ The mysterious bonds which separate one person
from another are here broken down. Without the loss
of self-identity, the personality revealed is at once indivi-
dual and corporate.
In the sacred literature, then, which He pondered, there
was a basis for the representative and vicarious character
which Jesus found in His suffering. While, however, the
idea lay ready to hand, it was not appropriated by Him
apart from the living experience out of which it springs.
Its deepest roots are love for men and an unshaken convic-
tion concerning the purposes of God. The relationship
1 Cf. H. Wheeler Robinson, The Cross of the Bervant, 32-6.
QUESTIONS RAISED BY PASSION-SAYINGS 285
is best described as one of self-identification with sinners.
It is wrongly conceived if it is looked upon as a state in
which there is a loss of personal distinctions. On the con-
trary, and paradoxical as it may seem, it is possible only so
long as the difference between *thou* and T is preserved.
True self-identification with others is the supreme act of
love whereby, in the most intimate manner, they are re-
garded as oneself, seen in the pure light of God, as they are
not able to see themselves; it is to enter at once into their
joys and their sorrows, but especially to share the gloom
and darkness of their sin, to be conscious of its weight and
to feel its shame, so that the sin-bearing becomes a redemp-
tive activity both in itself and in the lives of men. Such a
relationship may exist between one individual and another,
but in the personality of Jesus, conscious as He was of a
unique vocation in relation to men, the self-identification
exists not only between Himself and particular individuals,
but between Himself and mankind; it is a communal
relationship in which there is a consciousness of represent-
ing men before God. It is in this large sense that we
must interpret the representative and vicarious element in
His suffering. What the experience involves, so far as
one can interpret it at all, can be described only by consi-
dering more fully the character of His suffering conse-
quent upon His exposure to the consequences of sin.
4. We have seen that the Passion-sayings reveal on the
part of Jesus an intimate knowledge and experience of the
consequences of sin; and it is necessary now to consider
the nature of this experience so far as it is capable of ana-
lysis. In particular, the question must be asked whether
the intense spiritual agony endured by Jesus in the fulfil-
ment of His Messianic vocation is rightly described as
'penal'. It has already been observed that the rejection of
theories of the Atonement which imply vindictive or sub-
286 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
stitutionary punishment does not foreclose this question;
it still remains a matter for careful inquiry whether the
sufferings of Jesus are penal in character.
Two observations of general interest are worth making
in this connexion. Not a few works and essays could be
cited, written in some cases by theologians of repute, in
which the distinction referred to above is ignored. It
seems to be assumed that the rejection of a few popular
beliefs, more ancient than modern, as for example, that
punishment can be transferred, or that God's attitude to
sinners can be changed, or that His justice has to be satis-
fied before He will forgive sinners, is enough to settle the
question once for all. It does not appear to be realized
that the refutation of these errors merely clears the ground
for discussion. The other point for notice is that in most
of the classical discussions of the Atonement in modern
times the penal character of the sufferings of Jesus is
affirmed, in spite of the popular objections noted above. 1
These facts cannot, of course, be allowed to coerce the
1 R. W. Dale, for example, stigmatizes the idea that sin was imputed
to Christ as 'a legal fiction' (The Atonement, Preface to seventh ed., Ixiii.),
and rejects the statement that a ransom was paid by the Divine mercy to
the Divine justice as 'mere rhetoric' (of. tit., 357); yet his contention is
that Christ 'endured the penalties of sin, and so made an actual submission
to the authority and righteousness of the principle which those penalties
express* (pp. cit. 9 423). J. Scott Lidgett also maintains that 'His relation-
ship to the human race, and His consequent Incarnation, enabled Him, and
Him alone, to give complete expression, under our penal conditions, to the
submission of mankind to God, to make reparation to His law, and to put
away sin from mari ({The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, 378). P.T.
Forsyth affirms that 'Christ, by the deep intimacy of His sympathy with
men, entered deeply into the blight and judgment which was entailed by
man's sin, and which must be entailed by man's sin if God is a holy and
therefore a judging God'* 'You can therefore say', he continues, 'that
although Christ was not punished by God, He bore God's penalty upon
sin. That penalty was not lifted even when the Son of God passed
through' (The Work of Christ, 147). Cf. J. Denney, The Christian Doc-
trine of Reconciliation, 273. It is noteworthy also that J. K. Mozley, after
illustrating fully the history of the doctrine of the Atonement, says, 'I do
QUESTIONS RAISED BY PASSION-SAYINGS 287
critical judgment, but they certainly emphasize the need
for careful thought in a field where strong feeling easily
clouds the issue.
Much depends on whether we believe that sin carries
with it penal consequences which in the last analysis must
be traced to the will of a Holy God. That consequences,
which serve both as a deterrent and a discipline, do follow
sin, is too plain to be denied. But if this is true, a further
inference must be drawn. It is only as punishment is felt
to be deserved that it is accepted as discipline and wel-
comed as a deterrent. Thus, the retributive aspect of
punishment is fundamental to its nature, although it is
not the only aspect in which it presents itself to the mind.
Many Christian thinkers who recognize this truth hesitate
to describe the retributive principle as the expression of
the Divine Will, largely, I believe, because they fear that
they are committed, or will be thought to be committed, to
a sub-Christian belief in a passionate and tyrannical God.
Instead of seeing the penal consequences of sin as the
action and attitude of God, they prefer to speak of an
inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe.
But this is merely a descriptive phrase; it explains nothing,
and comes perilously near to a naturalistic account of
ethical relationships. The God of historical Christianity
is the Living God. and cannot be bowed out of His uni-
verse. It is not necessary, of course, to think of every ill
not therefore think that we need shrink from saying that Christ bore penal
suffering for us and in our stead' (The Doctrine of the Atonement, 216).
And, finally, in his Mediator E. Brunner contends that 'the Cross, con-
ceived as the expiatory penal sacrifice of the Son of God, is the fulfilment
of the scriptural revelation of God, in its most paradoxical incomprehen-
sible guise' (pp. cit. y 473). Brunner, it should be added, thinks that if the
forensic aspect of the Atonement is stressed exclusively, the doctrine tends
to become one-sided and crudely objective. Hence, he finds room for
what he calls 'the ritual idea', that is for the conception of the Atonement
as an expiatory sacrifice (op. cit. 9 475).
288 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
consequence as the direct result of a special Divine voli-
tion; but it is necessary, if Christian values are to be con-
served, to think of penal suffering as the reaction of the
holiness and love of God in a world of moral realities. If
this is so, penal suffering is not the expression of a legal
principle, but an ethical and spiritual manifestation of the
Divine activity. It is a hasty and incomplete generalisa-
tion to trace its operation to some particular attribute of
God, as, for example, to His justice; its final ground is
His nature and being, and, in the last analysis, His love.
Nothing is more needed in modern theology than a
resolute endeavour to think seriously about the love of
God. It is so easy to degrade the idea until it becomes
weak and sentimental. The love of God calls for all that
is best in man; and this means that, as a being subject to
growth and development, he cannot be insured against
the consequences of sin or denied their painful discipline,
The greatest love is a love which in endurance permits
man to win his soul. All this, together with the out-
flowings of the healing ministries of grace, is the mark of
perfect love, and therefore of the love of God Himself,
It is for the same reason that God requires a sacrifice: not
that He may be placated, but because His love can be
satisfied with nothing less than a perfect response from man.
Our conception of penal suffering must vitally affect our
estimate of its place in the experience of one who loves
wrong-doers so intensely as to identify himself with them.
Obviously, it cannot simply be transferred from one to
another, so that, since it has been borne by a benefactor,
the sinner is acquitted and may go scot free. Such a
theology attempts to deal with moral relationships on the
basis of a patent illegality, 1 whereas, as we have seen, penal
Smith supplies two excellent illustrations of this in his book, The
Atonement in the Light of History and the Modern Spirt f, io8ff.
QUESTIONS RAISED BY PASSION-SAYINGS 289
suffering is not a legal, but an ethical category. Like
forgiveness itself, it is a mark of God's redemptive dealings
with men. In consequence, the idea of one accepting
penal suffering instead of another, and of offering it to God
as a means of reconciliation, is completely mistaken. The
penal element in the suffering of a lover of sinners is
something quite different. It is not a burden which he
takes over, and bears in the place of another; it is an
experience into which he enters in virtue of his love.
Just because he loves sinners, he feels their shame, and
experiences by sympathy and intuition the penalty of
their sin to a degree which is impossible for them until
they know a true religious awakening. For love's sake he
enters into a night of gloom and darkness where sin works
itself out in the consuming fires of Holy Love. This is the
experience of 'sin-bearing' which, however we describe
it, and whether we deny it or not, is a fact of common
daily life, illustrated a hundred times in the complex rela-
tionships of the home, the family, the nation, and the
wider life of mankind. 1 It is the incalculable secret of
great and enduring love. It may well be that we require
another word than 'penal' in order to describe suffering
of this kind. By all means let us find it if we can, for
usage has so tarnished the word 'penal' that mental effort
is required in order to do justice to its meaning. Thus
far, a better term has not been found. Indeed, it may be
doubted if it is likely to be found, since the word 'penal*
exactly expresses the required idea, namely, that of a
suffering which is caused by the inevitable consequences
of sin in a world ruled by God.
The answer to the question raised at the beginning of
this section admits by now of little doubt. It is im-
possible to think of the suffering of Jesus Himself as any-
1 Cf. W. R. Malty, GArisf and His Cross, jjf, 946 165.
T
290 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
thing else but penal suffering. Were He no more than a
teacher or a prophet, it would be necessary so to describe
that intense spiritual agony which is implied by His say-
ings. All the more must we take this view in conse-
quence of that representative relationship to men which
is so marked an aspect of His Messianic consciousness;
and most of all if terms like 'Messiah' and 'Son of Man'
are the self-chosen, but inadequate designations of a sin-
less and more-than-human personality. The conclusion
to be drawn, even if no sayings require it, is that by reason
of His relationship to sinners Jesus entered into the blight
and judgment which rest upon sin, and bore its shame and
desolation upon His heart. Because He loved men so
greatly He became one with them, entering into the
situation in which they stood, sharing the pain of their
disobedience, and feeling the pressure of their sins. Such
suffering is penal because it is the fruit of the judgment
which rests on sin; it is accepted, not by way of barter or
exchange, but because it is part of the moral situation of
those who are loved. It is the cost of the redemptive
passion of the lover who enters into the penal suffering of
the beloved, and bears it upon his heart because there is
nothing less that love can do. Its significance in the work
of redemptive service is not that it changes God, or de-
livers men from the pain of penal suffering; but that it
constitutes the one who bears it a Mediator and a Saviour,
in and through whom they can draw nigh to God.
5. A question of quite a different kind arises in con-
nexion with the problem of man's relationship to the re-
demptive work of Christ. What is the place of faith in
this relationship? Is the communion made possible in
the Eucharist different in kind from that experience of
faith-union with Christ of which St. Paul speaks when he
writes: 'I have been crucified with Christ: and it is no
QUESTIONS RAISED BY PASSION-SAYINGS 291
longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me* (Gal. ii. 20), or
when he speaks of Christ as set forth by God as a means
of atonement 'through faith' (Rom. iii. 25)?
It is a challenging fact that there is no saying of Jesus,
either in the Synoptics or in the Fourth Gospel, which
mentions faith in connexion with His death. 1 Jesus asks
for faith in God (Mk. xi. 22), welcomes its presence in
men (Mt. viii. 10), depends upon its presence in His
works of healing (Mk. v. 34, vi. 5f.; Mt. xv. 28), and
emphasizes its necessity in the life of His disciples (Mt.
xviL 20); but in no recorded saying of His does He ask
for faith in Himself as Redeemer and Saviour. This
negative statement is true, but it may easily prove mis-
leading. It would be quite unwarranted to conclude, on
the basis of this evidence, that Apostolic teaching on this
theme, and in particular Jn. iii. 1 6, has no foundation in
the thought of Jesus. In the first place, several sayings
support the contention of M. Goguel that, after Peter's
Confession (Mk. viii. 29), Jesus 'now asks for attachment
to his person, and not only for the acceptance of his mes-
sage'. 2 Thus it is that He calls upon His disciples to
deny themselves, to take up their cross, and follow Him
(Mk. viii. 34), and declares that whosoever shall lose his
life for His sake shall save it (Mk. viii. 35). 'What doth
it profit a man', He asks, *to gain the whole world, and
forfeit his life?' (Mk. viii. 36). To be ashamed of Him
and of His words in this adulterous and sinful generation
is to incur the shame of the Son of Man when He comes
'in the glory of his Father with the holy angels' (Mk. viii.
38). And there are other sayings which cannot be pre-
cisely dated in which He speaks of the divisions brought
about by Himself and His ministry within families (Lk.
x jn. iii. r $f. is almost certainly part of the Evangelist's soliloquy.
*The Life of Jesus, 385.
292 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
xii. 51-3)) and claims a decisive and unparalleled relation-
ship to Himself. 'If any man cometh unto me, and
hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and chil-
dren, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also,
he cannot be my disciple' (Lk. xiv. 26). Primitive
Christianity was only describing this attitude of self-
committal to Jesus by means of another terminology when
it began to speak of faith in Christ; and if it is said that, in
the sayings quoted above, the attitude is one directed to
Jesus Himself rather than to His work, it is fair to reply
that the distinction is artificial since, at the time Jesus
spoke, His Messianic work was an all absorbing
thought.
Secondly, it is impossible to differentiate in absolute
terms between the ultimate nature of sacramental commun-
ion and the concept of faith in Christ. That there is a
distinction is obvious, since faith-union with Christ can be
experienced apart from any conscious sacramental rela-
tionship. There is nothing to indicate that sacramental
ideas are in St. Paul's mind when he declares that he has
been crucified with Christ, and that his present life is a
life lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved him and
gave Himself up for him (Gal. ii. 20). And there have
been, and are, not a few among Christians of all ages
capable of using such language along with imperfect and
even erroneous conceptions of the Eucharistic gift. For
such men, faith in Christ is an immediate and direct ex-
perience which reveals no obvious need of outward ritual
expression beyond that of language or of song. On the
other hand, when sacramental communion is considered,
its essential nature is seen to be just that intimate experi-
ence of fellowship with Christ which is described in St.
Paul's words; it is faith in action by the use of a sym-
bolism which gives it peculiar strength and vitality. We
QUESTIONS RAISED BY PASSION-SAYINGS 293
must therefore infer that, although Jesus did not, in so
many words, speak of faith as defining the relation of men
to His redemptive work, in effect He indicated it as such
in His institution of the Eucharist; and that later Christian
teaching was only interpreting His mind in its declaration
that salvation is by faith in Him.
Lastly, the reproduction of the spirit of Messianic
suffering, to which Jesus called men, is itself rooted in the
faith-relationship. It was to men standing in close
attachment to Himself that He spoke of drinking the cup
(Mk. x. 38), and of taking up the cross (Mk. viii. 34).
And the same is true of St. Paul when he writes: *I fill up
on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ
in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church* (Col. i.
24). The discussion whether in these words 'the afflic-
tions of Christ' are satisfactoriae or aedificatoriae may easily
obscure the vital consideration that in any case the action
springs out of a believing relationship to Christ, and is
unintelligible without it. This fact is well illustrated in
the famous paraphrase of J. B. Lightfoot: 'Yes, I Paul the
persecutor, I Paul the feeble and sinful, am permitted to
supplement I do not shrink from the word to supple-
ment the afflictions of Christ. Despite all that He under-
went, He the Master has left something still for me the
servant to undergo. And so my flesh is privileged to
suffer for His body His spiritual body, the Church/ 1
The experience here described is clearly derivative; it is
founded in a prior believing relationship to Christ and to
His redemptive work. Nor is it out of place to say that is
exactly true to the Christian experience. It is by filling
up 'that which remains over of the afflictions of Christ"
that men enter more fully into the meaning of His sacri-
fice, and the last thing they can claim is that their service
*Thc Epistle to the Cohssians, 162.
294 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
stands in any comparable relationship to the achievement
of Christ. It appears, then, that the summons of Jesus
to cross-bearing is the summons to a life of faith in action
determined ultimately by a relationship to Himself. It
was, therefore, a natural step when Christian teachers
used boldly the language of faith-union with Christ; it is
not the language of Jesus Himself, but it is directly rooted
in His historical teaching.
Why Jesus instituted the Eucharist and called men to
cross-bearing rather than laying down as a primary neces-
sity the demand for faith in Himself, is a very interesting
and important question. Probably, the answer is to be
found in a point of view which preferred the concrete to
the apparently abstract, and which found it natural to
think of faith as expressed mediately and in action. In
such an outlook Jesus was true to the deepest needs of
human nature, for while Christianity is justified in calling
men directly to exercise faith in Christ, it has succeeded
best when it has associated its evangelical appeal with
Eucharistic worship and practical Christian endeavour.
6. The last point for consideration in the present
chapter is whether there is any unifying principle which
binds together the several ideas which are implicit in the
Passion-sayings. It is not a credible suggestion, that
these ideas can have been held by Jesus in isolation one
from another; the presumption is that they are inter-
related and fall within a framework of thought.
(, JJhe most probable view is that the bond which unites
these ideas is the sacrificial principle. So long as sacrifice
is interpreted as a means of appeasing an angry God, this
perception is hidden from us; but immediately its highest
expression is found in a representative offering which the
worshipper makes his own in seeking renewed fellowship
with God, its relevancy is complete. That Jesus was
QUESTIONS RAISED BY PASSION-SAYINGS 295
sympathetic to this principle, has already been argued, 1
and it has also been maintained that it is implied in His
use of the 'ransom-passage' and in the words : 'This is my
blood of the covenant, which is shed for many/ 2 It is a
substantial confirmation of these opinions, that every im-
portant aspect of the sacrificial principle can be fpund in
the thoughts of Jesus concerning His Passion. The aim
of sacrifice is a restored fellowship; its medium is a repre-
sentative offering; its spiritual condition is the attitude of
the worshipper; its rationale is the offering of life; its
culmination is sharing in the life offered by means of the
sacred meal. These ideas form a natural background
against which the Passion-sayings can be readily under-
stood.
In view of what has been said it is permissible to speak
of 'the Sacrifice of Jesus'; but, in using this phrase, it is
necessary to observe that in at least two respects every
other expression of the sacrificial principle is transcended.
On the one hand, His Sacrifice has a moral and spiritual
value which has no parallel elsewhere, inasmuch as His
self-offering is the active expression of conscious purpose,
He wills what He does, and the whole force of His per-
sonality is in His achievement. On the other hand, the
significance of His Person raises His action into a new
category of sacrifice. What He is determines what He
does to such a degree that His Sacrifice is limited in no
way in respect of time or place. Historical as an event in
time, it is not chained to the circumstances and conditions
of nineteen centuries ago ; it has the marks of universality
and perfection.
It is important to notice the manner in which the sacri-
ficial principle is implicit in the redemptive work of Jesus.
There is no warrant for supposing that it was the sacri-
1 See pp. 67-75. 2See PP-
296 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
ficial system of Judaism which determined His thinking
in respect of His Passion. His attitude to the cultus
would not have been as detached as the Gospels show it to
have been, and His sayings would be more explicit than
they are, if the sacrifices of the Temple had deeply in-
fluenced His thought. So far from looking to the exist-
ing sacrificial system as a determining element in His
thought, we should rather interpret the cultus as a partial
and imperfect expression of a principle which is com-
pletely manifested in His Sacrifice ; and it may well have
been His perception of this relationship which influenced
His respect for a system which He felt to be wanting in
spiritual and religious worth. The source of His in-
debtedness should be found, not so much in the cultus, as
in that sublimated expression of the sacrificial principle
which is found in the description of the Suffering Servant.
Here supremely is to be discerned that portraiture of a
sacrificial ministry which led Him radically to transform
current conceptions of the Messianic office as realized and
fulfilled in Himself. If this observation is true, it is be-
side the point to object that prevailing notions in Judaism
about the meaning of sacrifice were along the lines of the
gift theory rather than along those of Robertson Smith's
communion theory. 1 Whether this opinion is true, is a
point about which experts will continue to differ, and, as
we have previously observed, it is doubtful if either prin-
ciple can be asserted to the exclusion of the other. 2 The
vital question, however, whether there is a sacrificial idea
at the root of the thinking lof Jesus," is hot to" b'6'sSHtea*by
discussions regarding the origins of sacrifir^ T^u* Tiy
interpreting His sayings and Old Testament repre-
is one of the objections brought by R. S. Franks against Bishop
Hicks' Fullness of Sacrifice. Cf. The Atonement, xiii.
2 See p. 50.
QUESTIONS RAISED BY PASSION-SAYINGS 297
sentations of sacrificial life and worship. These investi-
gations, it is here submitted, justify us in speaking of the
Messianic work of Jesus as His Sacrifice.
The advantages of seeing the work of Jesus in the light
of sacrifice are great. Light is thrown upon dark pro-
blems in the doctrine of the Atonement and safeguards
are provided against perils of statement abundantly illu-
strated in the history of doctrine.
One answer at least is suggested to the question, why
we do not find clearer and more explicit statements in the
sayings of Jesus regarding the purpose of His Passion.
The answer is only partially to be found in the plea that
He did not think after the manner of a systematic theo-
logian, for, as we have urged, it is improbable that He can
have approached, and even sought, death without a clear
understanding of what He meant to achieve. It is more
naturally found in the fact that the sacrificial principle
contains an implicit rather than an explicit theology. It
is a complex of religious assumptions, mysterious doubt-
less to those to whom it is strange, luminous to those for
whom it is an accepted mode of thought. No one builds
a theory oirt of accepted assumptions unless they are
challenged ^there is no need to elucidate the familiar.
This fact goes far to explain why Jesus does not define the
nature of His Sacrifice. Indeed, the presence of explana-
tory statements in His sayings would be highly sus-
picious, suggesting later interpretation instead of the
reflections of an original mind. Thus, the sacrificial
principle not only explains the nature of His oblation, but
also accounts for His silence concerning it.
A second merit of the sacrificial principle is that it
enables us to meet the ethical difficulties raised by objec-
tive theories of the Atonement. The difficulty of such
theories has always been that they tend to look for the
298 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
ground for reconciliation with God outside man. Some-
thing is done for him in virtue of which he can draw near
to God. As against such views it is almost an axiom of
the religious consciousness that reconciliation depends on
man's -personal attitude to God. Man is not saved by
appropriating the merits of another ; he has no peace by
substituting the sacrifice of another for his own. The
sacrificial principle provides release from this dilemma.
It does this because it reminds us that the sacrifice is more
than the offering, that it is not complete apart from the
worshipper on whose attitude and spirit its ethical value
depends. Thus, we are led to distinguish between the
offering of Jesus and the sacrifice He made possible. The
nature of His self-offering remains to be defined. Here
it is enough to say that, while it is perfect, it is not a
counter in some process of celestial arithmetic. It is
rather the vehicle of man's aspiration, the centre of his
hope, the wings of his prayer. \ In a word, it is the 'one
true, pure, immortal sacrifice' only as it is appropriated by
personal faith, in corporate worship, and in sacrificial
living. A mode of approach which has this character
makes it possible to describe the Sacrifice of Jesus in a
manner free from harassing ethical objections. Man
himself approaches God by a way the stones of which he
has not cut; he finds access to the Father through the self-
offering of Jesus.
Ill
THE ATONEMENT
IN accordance with what was said in the Introduction
to Part III, it is necessary to inquire what view of the
Atonement is in harmony with the results reached in
the present investigation. In what form may the doctrine
be stated when the theological implications in the sayings
of Jesus are worked out? This question is not only
interesting and important in itself, but is also necessary to
the investigation, since the problem of Gospel Origins is
injuriously isolated unless it is related to the end as well as
to the beginnings. It should be emphasized that in order
to justify a theory of the Atonement, a much broader basis
is necessary than that which is afforded by the sayings of
Jesus, and in what follows it is not pretended that the say-
ings demand the theory which is presented. What is
claimed is that the views set forth are in harmony with
the results of the preceding investigation.
Perhaps the commonest presentation of the Atone-
ment in the Christian teaching and preaching of to-day
is some form of the Abelardian theory that 'Christ re-
conciles men to God by revealing the love of God in His
life and still more in His death, so bringing them to trust
199
300 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
and love Him in return*. 1 Naturally, this central con-
ception is capable of being presented in a variety of ways,
and, as we have seen, of being enriched by developments
which make it more vital and objective. To the protean
forms of the theory there is no need to refer at length, nor
to the individual writers who have presented them. It
is enough to say that the possible variations are many,
from views which present the death of Christ as little more
than a martyrdom to those which see in it the suffering
love of God Himself objectively manifested on the plane
of history.
The central truth in this theory is an essential element
in any doctrine of the Atonement worthy of the name.
Indeed, it may be said that any theory has lost its base
unless it is continually in touch with the statement of St.
Paul : 'God commendeth his own love toward us, in that,
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us' (Rom. v. 8).
Whether it is an adequate theory is another matter. For
purposes of discussion the barer forms of the theory may
well be left untouched. It is better to consider it in the
form preferred by those who urge that the love of God is
not only manifested in the death of Christ, but is definitely
objective, since it persists in spite of all that sin can do, and
has for its end nothing less than the reconciliation of sinful
men with God in the harmony of a restored mutual love.
The objections most commonly brought against this
view are that it is vague and indeterminative, that it gives
no satisfactory account of the suffering and death of Jesus,
and that it is inadequate to human need, especially the
1 R. S. Franks, The Atonement, 2. Cf. Peter the Lombard: 'So great a
pledge of love having been given us, we are both moved and kindled to love
God who did such great things for us; and by this we are justified, that is,
being loosed from our sins we are made just. The death of Christ there-
fore justifies us, inasmuch as through it charity is stirred up in our hearts/
quoted by H. Rashdall, The Idea of Atonement, 438.
THE ATONEMENT 301
need of those who are conscious of the reality and power
of sin.
It is difficult to see how these objections can be met*
The last is particularly pressing. As a moral condition
to forgiveness, and therefore to reconciliation with God,
penitence is essential. No man can find peace with God
until he cries: 'I have sinned before heaven and in thy
sight.' But any one who looks into his own heart is
appalled to find how fitful, incomplete, and individualistic
his penitence can be. It comes and goes, quickened by
the revelation of divine love in the Cross, but speedily lost
again in the whirl of life. Again, it is limited by our
knowledge of God and of our own inner experience. If
we think meanly of God, our penitence cannot be deep;
and if we think lightly of sin, it cannot be real ; if sins are
buried and forgotten, it cannot" exist at all. Further,
penitence is almost incurably individualistic. If we feel
the weight of our own sins, we are more complacent about
social sins in which none the less we share, sins of neglect,
of national pride and passion, of social cruelty and oppres-
sion.
It is undoubtedly true that, as a manifestation of divine
love, the Cross will deepen penitence. When it fades the
Cross will quicken it, when it is complacent it will rebuke
it, when it is self-centred it will enlarge its range. It will
expose our sin as sin against love and convince us that
forgiveness is costly. These are great gifts, but they do
not match the depth of human need. Such a penitence is
still compassed with imperfection ; it is hedged about by
all the limitations of the finite, never constant, never com-
plete, never invested with the note of universality. It is a
penitence restricted by sin and constrained by creature-
hood. It does not become the poignant Amen of the
soul to a representative penitence perfect, constant, and
302 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
inclusive, ever presented before the throne of God as a cry
into which man can enter, a sorrow he can feel, a con-
fession in which he can participate. How can such a
penitence be fitting in the eyes of a Holy God who is 'of
purer eyes than to behold evil' and cannot 'look on
perverseness'?
In addition, it cannot escape notice how greatly the
concept of salvation is altered. Salvation follows from a
discovery about God; it is the consequence of a percep-
tion! It is indeed an amazing discovery, since we learn
that God loves us unto suffering and death; but its stupen-
dous character does not alter its nature as something per-
ceived. In consequence, salvation becomes response to
the revelation; it is the re-orientation of the soul after
confession and trust. The logical end is a God-mysticism
in which the soul closes with the One who is made known
in Jesus.
The claim that the Abelardian theory does not give a
satisfactory account of the suffering and death of Jesus, is
strongly supported by the present investigation. Among
the Passion-sayings of Jesus there is none in which He
declares that He dies to reveal, or to express, or to embody
the love of God. The idea of a suffering God is unknown
to His sayings. In all that He said and taught there is
nothing to suggest that His object in dying was so to con-
front men with the untiring love of God that through
penitence and contrition they should be brought to trust
and love Him in return. It is even doubtful if He
thought of these things; they are the beliefs we read into
the mind of a Jesus seen with the eyes of the imagination,
not the Jesus of history. All this, however challenging
it may be, cannot be said too emphatically.
This argument does not mean that the ideas mentioned
above have no contact with the teaching of Jesus. On
THE ATONEMENT 303
the contrary, all that the theory asserts is true, and the
reason why this can be said is easily seen. The Christian
of to-day sees the love of God, and even the suffering love
of God, in the Cross of Jesus because he views it in the
light of history and experience. His theory is a valuation
of the Cross, not an unfolding of its purpose and meaning.
Jesus, however, looked forward: what He had to say con-
cerning His death was not its significance in the history of
revelation, but its meaning for Himself in the fulfilment
of His Messianic purpose. That is why the Abelardian
theory can be true and at the same time fundamentally in-
correct as an interpretation of the mind of Jesus. The
truth is that the so-called 'cruder' theories of the Atone-
ment have a closer affiliation with His thought, provided
we eliminate from them all that is inconsistent with His
fundamental convictions regarding God and man. The
thoughts of Jesus in relation to the Cross are 'objective* in
the older sense in which this term was used in theories of
the Atonement; that is to say, it is a principle cardinal to
His thinking that, as the Son of Man, He fulfils a ministry
for men before God.
If this claim is valid, it is necessary to accept all that
is true and beautiful in the best forms of the 'Moral
Theory' as an introduction or preface to a theory of the
Atonement more in harmony with the sayings of the
historical Jesus. The theory itself is still to seek.
II
- The peculiar difficulty of the doctrine of the Atonement
is that of seeing it as a whole. For purposes of thought
parts of the doctrine have to be considered in themselves,
[04 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
vith the result that they are easily seen out of focus; and
t is to this fact that many of the most serious problems
ire due. Strictly speaking, there is no Atonement apart
Torn the whole process by which sinners are reconciled
:o God; and this includes the passion of God expressed in
:he Cross, the life and death of Christ Himself, and the
-elation of men to Him and His atoning work. All this,
md nothing less, is the Atonement. Two points of
special importance are the self-identification of Christ
mth sinners and the union of believers with Him; and to
dissociate the two is perilous. Indeed, it may be truly
said that nearly all the popular objections to the doctrine
:an be traced to preoccupation with some aspect of the
Atonement which is isolated from the rest. None the
ess, for purposes of exposition, the danger has to be
ncurred, although it is greatly diminished if one recog-
aizes that it exists.
In this section the work of Christ in its Godward aspect
tfill be considered in itself, apart from the relationship of
nen thereto. What is the theological counterpart to the
xmviction of Jesus, that His Messianic service is the self-
Bering of Himself for men?
Many theologians give no consideration to this question
n the belief that God neither requires nor desires a sacri-
icial offering. This view, I suggest, not only leads to an
msatisfactory doctrine of the Atonement, but is inconsis-
ent with the attitude of Jesus to His suffering and the
neaning of some of His most important sayings, not to
peak of the teaching of the Epistles, the repeated emer-
;ence of objective theories, and the witness of Christian
xperience regarding penitence, forgiveness, and fellow-
tiip with God. Only if we think of sacrifice as a means
f appeasing God is the conception out of place. As a
leans by which men iriay approach God and find recon-
THE ATONEMENT 305
ciliation with Him the idea of a sacrificial offering is in
harmony with the highest conception of the love and holi-
ness of God in the doctrine of the divine Fatherhood. In
the work of Christ the offering is made representatively, in
the name of men, and with the intention that they should
participate therein.
It is obvious that no modern presentation of this doc-
trine is possible unless the representative ministry of
Christ rests on a firm religious basis. Is this true in point
of fact? Can modern Christianity speak of Christ as
man's representative before God? Clearly, this is a ques-
tion of vital significance,
An affirmative answer to this question is not capable of
demonstration; it is an utterance of faith based upon
reason in the light of relevant facts. Of these facts one
of the most important is the close connexion between the
idea of a present representative ministry and the strong
conviction of Jesus regarding His Messianic office as the
Son of Man. Our investigation has revealed this convic-
tion as a fundamental element in His thought. He lives
and He dies as the suffering Son of Man. It is, however,
in no sense contradictory to this assertion to say that He
accepted the concept of Messiahship with marked uneasi-
ness. When He is challenged by Caiaphas whether he is
the Christ, His reply is in effect : * Yes, if you care to use
that name' ; and to this attitude corresponds His avoidance
of the term 'Christ', and His preference for the title 'Son
of Man'. This attitude, we have seen, is not one of doubt
or uncertainty; it is the point of view of one who is forced
to use names and concepts which are felt to be utterly
inadequate to express His relationship to men. If this is
a just historical inference, we have reason to discard Mes-
sianic terminology in our modern theology, and to replace
it by language which lies nearer to the heart of the thought
306 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
of Jesus Himself. If in the Resurrection He conquered
death and all its powers, we are justified in thinking and
speaking of Him as our 'kinsman now', or, in the more
sober language of theology, as man's representative before
God, Whether we use such a terminology depends upon
our estimate of His Person, our agreement with the
witness of the historic Church, our reading of history and
of personal Christian experience. The choice is the deci-
sion of faith faced by the 'Either-Or' of the Christian
challenge.
Only is this the case, if a worthy meaning is put into the
word 'representative'. In the sense in which it is used in
this discussion, it does not indicate one whose activity lies
apart from ourselves, or serves instead of our own, but
one whose service leaves in our hands the decisive word in
the affirmation of faith. Christ is our representative be-
cause in His self-offering He performs a work necessary
to our approach to God.
What, then, is the nature of His self-offering? At this
point theology is confronted by the fact that no word of
Jesus reveals His answer to this question. He speaks of
'the blood of the covenant, which is shed for many', but
He does not explain how His out-poured life is a sacrificial
work for men. Some justification for this silence has
already been suggested in the nature of -the sacrificial con-
cept; but this suggestion only indicates more fully the task
of Christian theology as that of hearing the silence of
Jesus. 1
The best answer which theology can give is one that is
in harmony with the sacrificial principle and with the
sayings of Jesus. In making its answer, it does not
pretend to give a historical account of the mind of Jesus
1 Cf. Ignatius, 'He that hath the word of Jesus truty- can hear His
silence also,' EpL 15.
THE ATONEMENT 307
Himself, since, as we have seen, the materials for such an
account have not been preserved. What theology can
do is to express in its own language a view of the self-
offering of Jesus which rests on the data of Gospel history
and tradition, and interprets them in the light of subse-
quent thought and experience. From this point of view
a threefold answer may be given.
V(i) In the first place, the self-offering of Jesus is His
perfect obedience to the Father's will. The obedience is
His.own, but since He presents it as the Son of Man, it is
also representative obedience; it is the obedience which
men ought to offer to God, and which they would offer if
they fulfilled the obligations of their sonship. As repre-
senting men, Christ in His suffering offers that obedience,
truly embodied in Himself, in their name and for their sake,
not by way of barter or exchange, but with the intention
that they should identify themselves with it and so offer it
themselves. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews
gives expression to this aspect of the sacrifice of Jesus
when he quotes the words of Psa. xl. 7 : 'Lo, I am come . . .
to do thy will, O God,' and then writes : 'By which will we
have been sanctified through the offering of the body of
Jesus Christ once for all' (x. i o). The relation of this
conception to human need is of the closest, since it offers
the possibility of a 'true obedience to the will of God
which can be achieved in no other way. It is also based
on that sense of Providential purpose and of unity with
the Father's will which governed the whole life of Jesus
and is perfectly expressed in His death for men.
(2) Secondly, the self-offering of Jesus is His perfect
submission to the judgment of God upon sin. This is the
living truth behind the long history of the successive
attempts to find a penal element in the sufferings of Christ,
attempts which are by no means limited to older state-
308 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
ments of the doctrine of the Atonement, but which can be
seen in the most notable discussions of the last fifty years.
However hard it may be to recognize the fact, there is in
this conception a truth intimately concerned with human
need. In a worthy doctrine of Reconciliation those con-
sequences which in point of fact follow upon sin, and
which in the last analysis must be traced to the judgment
of God, cannot be ignored. Man's attitude to them
must undoubtedly be a factor of great importance. So
long as he views penal suffering with resentment he cannot
know the meaning of fellowship with God; only when he
accepts it as just, and therefore as the discipline of the
soul, is the upward path open to him. Readily, however,
as one may assent to this truth, a journey of struggle and
often unavailing effort is projected, from which few
travellers return except with tales of defeat. What is
needed is the vision of a perfect submission with which
man may identify himself. No offer of penal suffering
as a substitute for his own will meet his need, but a sub-
mission presented by his Representative before God be-
comes the foundation of a new hope. And once more the
assertion that such is part at least of the self-offering of
Christ is closely related to His teaching and experience
as the Suffering Son of Man. Of His bitter suffering by
reason of human sin there can be no doubt, and that He
entered in love into the penal suffering of men we have
found ground to infer. If, then, His representative
relationship rests upon fact, it is right to see in His suffer-
ing an offering of submission which man can make his
own. In the stately language of another generation the
basis of this formulation is expressed in the words : 'His
relationship to the human race, and His consequent In-
carnation, enabled Him, and Him alone, to give complete
expression^ under our penal conditions, to the submission
THE ATONEMENT 309
of mankind to God, to make reparation to His law, and to
put away sin from man.' 1
(3) Thirdly, the self-offering of Jesus is the expression
of His perfect penitence for the sins of men. This is a
view with which J. M'Leod Campbell 2 and R. C. Moberly 3
have made us familiar. In Campbell's words, Christ
made 'a perfect confession of our sins' ; in the phrase of
Moberly, He 'offered the sacrifice of supreme penitence*.
This conception made a great appeal to a generation which
could no longer tolerate crude theories of penal substitu-
tion, but in large measure it has failed to win wide accept-
ance on the ground that it replaces a legal by a moral
fiction. No one, it is said, can confess sins but the sinner;
no one can be penitent in his stead. These objections
probably rest on an obsolete atomistic conception of
personality, and completely ignore the true relationship
between men and the offering of Christ. Campbell
pointed out to an acute reviewer that he had no thought of
suggesting a substituted repentance, 4 and in his Nature of
the Atonement he strongly maintains that Christ's offering
was accepted by the Father entirely with the prospective
purpose that it is to be reproduced in us. 5 Moberly
himself denies that Christ consummated penitence in the
sense that men are not to repent, or to regard His peni-
tence as a substitute for their own; 6 and he seeks to pro-
vide a link between believers and the work of Christ by
the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of
Christ, at work in the hearts of men, and by his exposition
of the meaning of the Church and the Sacraments. So far
X J. Scott Lidgett, The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, 378. The
italics are his.
2 The Nature of the Atonement.
* Atonement and Personality. *Op. cit* (4th ed.), 340.
B 0/. cit. 9 Chapter vii. 6 Op. cit.> 283.
3io JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
as the view outlined in this chapter is concerned, this
particular difficulty does not arise; for while the self-
offering of Christ is perfect, it is the Godward side of a
process of reconciliation which is completed in the human
response. The offering avails for individual men so far
as they participate in its redemptive power through union
with Christ.
The more difficult question is how Christ can make an
offering of penitence for others, especially in view of His
sinlessness.
Unparalleled as this aspect of the representative work
of Christ must always be, it is not without human ana-
logies. Of course, if we take the hardshell view of the
nature of human personality, no progress along this line is
possible. In theology and ethics few errors are so costly
as the habit of thinking of persons as separate entities like
the pebbles on a sea shore. But such a view is not true to
human experience, and it breaks down hopelessly once the
expansive power of love in human relationships is recog-
nized. Even apart from experiences founded on love,
this fact can be seen. Men of probity when forced into
contact with sin feel themselves imprisoned in its clinging
folds; its weight falls upon their spirit and humiliates
them by its shame. If they have a developed communal
self, they may even be conscious of the guilt of wrongs
they have not committed and become the 'conscience' of
a community. Infinitely more true is this when the heart
is filled with love. Moberly has given us a classical
example in his picture of the love of a mother who makes
the shame of a child her own. 1 One can only say that in
some mysterious manner the sins of others become an
intensely personal concern. In love we pass beyond the
confines of individuality and are united with them in a
*0p. tit., 122 ff.
THE ATONEMENT 311
union which is not the loss of identity but the enrich-
ment of life. But if the sin of others can be felt, it
can also be confessed, not indeed as our own, but as
that of those who are loved. We can feel the penitence
they ought to feel and voice it before God. This ex-
perience is too real to be dismissed; the examples of it
come from the highest and holiest planes of human life,
and it is the vantage ground from which we catch
glimpses of a representative penitence in the self-offering
of Christ.
Such a ministry might be attributed to Christ on the
sole ground of His love for men. In this case the argu-
ment would be from the less to the greater, from the fact
of representative penitence in men to its exercise by Him.
But there is another foundation for affirming this belief:
to do so is only to extend what is already implied in His
self-identification with sinners. Self-identification of
this kind is much more than the patient endurance of the
penalties of sin ; it also includes a sense of the horror of
sin, a sorrow for its presence in those who are loved, and a
longing for their reconciliation with God. Must it not
also entail the voicing of the better mind and aspirations
of men? The strong representative element in the Mes-
sianic consciousness of Jesus is a decisive reason for
believing this to be true of His self-offering, and therefore
of finding in it the expression of representative penitence
for the sins of men.
But is sinlessness a fatal bar to the exercise of such a
ministry? Can representative penitence be expressed
by one 'who did no sin, neither was guile found in his
mouth'? The analogies already drawn from human ex-
perience have much to teach in answer to this question.
Similar ministries among men are indeed exercised by
those who confess themselves to be sinners, but they can-
312 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
not be fulfilled by those who love sin. The celebrants are
those whose endeavour it is to put sin beneath their feet and
whose eyes are on the goal of Perfect Love. This fact is
important. It is impossible to argue that, if they reached
that goal either here or hereafter, they would thereby be
debarred from the service of representative penitence, for
to suppose this is to hold that the condition of the holiest
of activities is sin. So far, indeed, is this from being true
that it is actually sin in men which makes their offering
imperfect; they are held back from the exercise of repre-
sentative penitence because they are sinners. The bear-
ing of this argument upon the self-offering of Christ is
manifest: His sinlessness is the necessary condition of His
oblation. Moberly is undoubtedly right when he con-
tends that sin blunts the edge and dims the power of peni-
tence, and that, in the perfectness of its full meaning,
penitence 'is not even conceivably possible, except it be
to the personally sinless'. 1
We have reason, then, to find this element in the self-
offering of Christ. Doubtless, when all has been said, it
remains the very mystery of love, that the sinless should
voice the penitence of sinners. Human analogies help us
up to a point, but it is no matter for wonder if they do not
take us all the way. 'How are we', asks Althaus, 'who as
sinners cannot know what perfect love is, to understand
what complete solidarity may be achieved by perfect
love?' 2
Ill
Thus far, with full recognition of the dangers of a one-
sided emphasis, an attempt has been made to isolate the
*Of. /., 117. *Mysterium Ckristi, 210.
THE ATONEMENT 313
central element in the doctrine of the Atonement, namely,
the offering, which Christ, as the representative of man,
presents to the Father on his behalf. It is now necessary
to examine the complementary aspect of the doctrine, in
other words, the way in which this offering becomes a
fundamental element in man's approach to God. Once
more, this is a doctrinal, and not a historical theme. From
its nature historical criticism knows nothing of a Living
or Exalted Christ, except so far as the idea appears in the
New Testament writings. This idea, as a truth of Chris-
tian experience, belongs to religion, and therefore to
theology. As already explained, however, it is necessary
to envisage the historical inquiry in the light of its doc-
trinal development. For this reason, therefore, the
subject treated in the present section is man's relation to
the work of Christ.
The historical roots of the inquiry lie in the repeated
attempts of Jesus to associate men, and in particular
His disciples, with His Messianic suffering and death: His
promise to James and John that they should drink His
cup, His words about cross-bearing, His attitude to
His three disciples in the Garden, and, above all, His insti-
tution of the -Supper. All these, in different ways, are
indications that Jesus did not view His suffering as a
work accomplished apart from the response of men. The
Supper is a means whereby His disciples may participate in
the power of His self-offering, since by His word the
bread which they are bidden to receive is interpreted by
Him as His body, and the wine as His covenant-blood
shed for many.
Naturally, the question whether the Supper is meant
to be a permanent means of fellowship in the redemptive
activity of Christ is of vital importance for such an inquiry
as the present. Historically, as we have seen, the ques-
3 i4 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
tion is not capable of a categorical answer, since the words :
'This do in remembrance of me' (i Con xi. 24^), are
reported only by St. Paul Short of proof, however, the
question should be answered in the affirmative, since
criticism runs into the teeth of its own evaluation of the
Synoptic narratives if it builds on the silence of stories
which are not reports, but answers to primitive needs.
The immediate observance of the Supper in primitive
Christianity, attested by the Acts of the Apostles, 1 shows
that reassurance regarding the continued observance of
the Supper was not required; and, in these circumstances,
the command for repetition in the Pauline tradition is
sufficient in itself, either as a valid historical saying, or as
an indication of how the original disciples had understood
the intention of Jesus on the last night of His earthly life.
Theology, therefore, does not build on an uncertain
foundation when it finds in the Eucharist a permanent
means whereby men may participate in the self-offering
of Jesus.
In view of the teaching of Jesus, it goes without saying
that there is nothing magical in the operation of the
Eucharist, and that its efficacy does not depend on the
mere performance of the rite. As we have maintained,
it is a means by which effect is given to the experience of
faith-union with Christ in His redeeming work, and it is
this experience which is primary and fundamental. It is
faith-union which provides the nexus between men and
the self-offering of Jesus ; it is in virtue of this relationship
that all that He offers in His death is available for man in
his access to God. This is the justification for the strong
emphasis which the New Testament lays upon faith in
connection with the death of Christ, for the faith men-
tioned is not only belief, but also, and especially in the
1 Cf. ii. 42, 46, xx. 7, 1 1, xxvii. 35.
THE ATONEMENT 315
Pauline Epistles, 1 a mystical and personal relationship
between the believer and Christ,
It is necessary to consider this relationship established
by faith-union with Christ more fully. Ultimately, it
is a unique relationship, and yet in human life it is not
without parallels. It has some resemblance to the
abandon with which a scientist greets a truth which facts
force upon his attention. It is more like the act by which
we make a poet's thought our own. We may reflect, for
example, that death is not extinction, but our experience
is altogether different when we read Shelley's lines : 2
* Peace, peace! he is not dead, he doth not sleep
He hath awakened from the dream of life
'Tis we, who lost in stormy visions, keep
With phantoms an unprofitable strife.'
If we accept this thought, we give ourselves up to it; the
words are no more Shelley's alone, but the vehicle of our
own belief. For many people music provides the better
analogy. When we listen to Brahms' Requiem, or to one
of Beethoven's symphonies, we surrender ourselves to the
wonder of the inexpressible; something in our personality
is unloosed, and thoughts and feelings for which words
are too poor find release and interpretation. The experi-
ence is sacramental, and life is full of such experiences.
Faith in Christ is a much more intimate experience be-
cause it is a relationship established between ourselves and
a Living Person ; it is 'recumbency upon Him as our atone-
ment and our life, as given for us> and living in u$\ and, in
consequence hereof, a closing with Him, and cleaving to
^-'According to St. Paul this union of heart and will, an ethical union of
personalities, was, no less than justification, an immediate result of the act
of faith in Christ, or in God in Christ,' C. A. Anderson Scott, Foot-Notts to
316 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
Him'. 1 This, of course, is the language of religion, but
it is the only language that is at all adequate, if the religi-
ous experience is real. When faith of this kind is exer-
cised, it is as if the eyes of the soul were opened and the
bond of the tongue loosed* It is like entering into the
sunshine from a dark cold room. The personality is
transfigured because it is surrendered to a love which en-
folds it and to a life on which it feeds. Such a faith can be-
come so intimate and immediate that it is only to be ex-
pressed in the words : 'It is no longer I that live, but Christ
liveth in me : and that life which I now live in the flesh I live
in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved
me, and gave himself up for me* (GaL ii. 20). Its effect
is such that His death becomes our sacrifice. 'That which
Christ uttered to God in His death, we by faith utter in
Him. All that the cross meant of surrender to God, of
honour to the law of righteousness, of repudiation of
transgression, becomes by our faith the object to which our
repentance and consecration are joined, and in which they
are perfectly expressed to God/ 2 'We become one with
Him in His submission and self-oblation; one with Him,
also, in His high-priestly acts. The result is our growing
share, according to the completeness of our union with
Christ, in the spirit manifest in His death, our entrance
into fellowship with the spiritual principle of His Atone-
ment.' 3 This is precisely the position implied in the
words of Campbell, already quoted,* in which he speaks
of faith as 'the Amen of our individual spirits to that
deep, multiform, all-embracing, harmonious Amen of
^ohn Wesley, Works, v. 9. The italics are his.
2 J. Scott Lidgett, The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, 407^
*Seep. 283.
THE ATONEMENT 317
humanity, in the person of the Son of God, to the
mind and heart of the Father in relation to man'.
In the light of this conception, man's relationship to the
offering of Christ described in the last section is clear* In
faith he participates in
'That only offering perfect in Thine eyes,
The one true, pure, immortal sacrifice.'
Neither the obedience, nor the submission, nor the peni-
tence of Christ is accepted as a substitute for his offering;
but each becomes a vehicle for his own approach. When
he comes into the presence of God, it is not as a naked soul,
carrying poor gifts of his own devising; he comes as one
whose gifts are transfigured and caught up into something
greater. The poverty of his obedience, the weakness of
his submission, and the frailty of his penitence pass into
strength and power in virtue of his union with Christ by
faith and love. A gratitude is created which is too deep
for words, and a sense of obligation which brooks neither
denial nor delay.
All theories of the Atonement find room for the exer-
cise of faith, but it may be doubted if any of them supplies
so full an opportunity for its ethical and devotional expres-
sion as one founded on the sacrificial principle, just because
it is of its essence that the worshipper should identify him-
self with that which he offers to God.
Thus far we have limited the inquiry to the relation of
the individual believer to the work of Christ, but it is also
necessary to consider his relationship as a member of a
worshipping community. This point is especially ger-
mane to an attempt to study the Atonement in the light of
sacrifice, since frequently, and perhaps normally, sacrificial
worship is offered by the worshipper, not simply as an indi-
vidual, but as a member within a community. It is also
318 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
required because the communal relationship is prominent
in the attitude of Jesus to His suffering and death. ^This
fact is one of the reasons why the teaching of Jesus, in re-
lation to man, centres in the Supper rather than the atti-
tude of direct personal faith.
The importance of worship in connexion with the ap-
propriation of the work of Christ is that in itself it implies
a Godward relationship : it is 'the response of the creature
to the Eternal/ 1 If this is its nature, worship may well be
expected to contribute to the perfecting of man's relation
to the self-offering of Jesus in His suffering and death.
The different elements in worship each serve this end.
Preaching, which is a true part of worship, 2 brings home
to the worshipper the truth and glory of Christ's redemp-
tive work and draws from him the response of faith. It
does this as much by teaching as by exhortation. Only as
God is known can He be worshipped : even the worship of
*an Unknown God* implies a half-suspected secret, a mys-
tery not yet made known. In the same way man's atti-
tude to the work of Christ depends on knowledge. The
individual can win knowledge for himself by study and re-
search, but even he, as a worshipper, needs to hear in
company with others the proclamation of the Word. In
this lies the supreme opportunity of preaching. Because
it is so great it can descend to the pedestrian essay; but it
can also rise to heights which transcend anything which
can be given by the printed page or learned discussion,
since it is the good news proclaimed by the Church and not
simply the word of the preacher. For this purpose the
discussion of theories is not necessary, but preaching may
*E. Underbill, Worship 3.
2< The Word is for Evangelical worship something as objective, holy, and
given, as the Blessed Sacrament is for Roman Catholic worship. Indeed,
it is a sacrament; the sensible garment in which the supra-sensible Presence
is clothed,' E. Underhill, Worship, 278.
THE ATONEMENT 319
with advantage supply constructive teaching and seek to
remove patent errors and misunderstandings. Its range,
indeed, is enormous. Any preaching which makes
Christ and His work known, in relation to the Divine
Rule, forgiveness, reconciliation, and faith; or which pre-
sents Him to the understanding as the healer, the sin-
bearer, and the restorer of man; or which describes His
priestly ministry and His call for sacrificial living; makes
possible an intelligent and whole-hearted response to all
that He has done for man.
Praise and adoration serve the same end, especially if
they are offered as the spontaneous tribute of man without
thought of result or gain. Faith rises on the wings of
praise because unsuspected powers of human personality
are released in response to a richer insight of the infinite
grace of God in Christ, and an attitude of the soul is ex-
pressed which, temporary as it is, can become the basis of
a steady and permanent relationship. Here lies the justi-
fication for the anthem and the hymn. So long as the
temptation to judge a hymn as if it were a scientific state-
ment is resisted, its words bring home powerfully to the
mind the wonder of Christ's suffering and death, while the
act of singing defines and directs an attitude of adoration
and faith.
Silence and meditation also provide a necessary disci-
pline. One of the more notable features in present-day
interest in questions of worship is the perception that this
method of the soul's approach to God can be corporate as
well as private. The value of meditation in respect of the
work of Christ is that it is contemplated by an exercise of
the whole personality. The activity of the intellect is not
in abeyance, but it is not isolated from other human rela-
tionships. The thought of Christ ever presenting Him-
self before God and calling man to fellowship with Him-
320 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
self in His redeeming activity can be embraced in the full
exercise of thought, feeling and will, in a spirit analogous
to that in which one contemplates a scene in nature, a
matchless work of art, or the mystery of perfect music. A
passage of Scripture may form the starting-point for this
silent meditation, as, for example, the majestic words in
which the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews describes
the entrance of Christ 'not into a holy place made with
hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself,
now to appear before the face of God for us' (ix. 24) ; or
again it may begin with some sacred picture or emblem or
act of ritual which brings home vividly to the mind the
surpassing worth and dignity of the work of Christ.
Prayer necessarily plays an important part in perfecting
man's relationship to the work of Christ. It does this
because in prayer longing is expressed for more perfect
obedience, submission and penitence, and because the
spirit of loving devotion, which is the foundation for the
experience of union with Christ, is deepened and enriched.
All this, of course, is true of private prayer, but it is also
true of the prayers we utter in fellowship with others with
whom we have common relationships and responsibilities.
Especially is prayer the communal act in which we con-
fess that Christ's self-offering is our offering with which
in contrition and faith we seek to identify ourselves.
References to worship, preaching, adoration, medita-
tion, and prayer may seem to some to be out of place in a
scientific study of the doctrine of the Atonement; and, in-
deed, in most discussions they are conspicuously wanting.
There is, of course, justification for the exclusion of such
themes when it is a question of deciding technical points,
like the use of words, the history of ideas, the genuineness
of sayings; but if, as here, there is a desire to study the at-
titude of Jesus to His death, there can be no just
THE ATONEMENT 321
appreciation of the results that are reached until they are
seen in the light of Christian life and worship.
The act of worship which bears most closely on man's
corporate approach to God in Christ is the sacrament of
Holy Communion, and it is from this standpoint that its
importance is most clearly seen. Indeed, it will generally
be found that neglect of the sacrament accompanies an
over-emphasis upon the individual and personal aspect of
man's relationship to the work of Christ, So long as at-
tention is limited to this aspect, it is natural to feel that the
rite is not of central importance. The immediate need is
to establish the personal faith-relationship ! How can the
celebration of a rite be compared with this paramount
necessity? This attitude is logical, and cannot be effec-
tively challenged, so long as the initial assumption is held.
The position is entirely altered once it is recognized that
reconciliation is a process realized in the lives of those who
are members of a community. As such, the individual
must perforce approach God by means of a rite, just be-
cause it is an act of communal worship, a means whereby
one man in association with other men can draw near to
God.
It is some dim perception of this truth which must be
held to account for that growing appreciation of the neces-
sity and value of sacramental worship which is one of the
facts of the present religious situation. The tendency of
modern thought is to stress the communal elements in
human life, even to the loss, and, it may be feared, the
serious loss of its individual aspects. The change is an
inevitable redressing of the balance from the unhealthy in-
dividualism of the nineteenth century, and it must be con-
fessed that, in spite of its perils, it is a much needed adjust-
ment, a step on the way to a better understanding of man's
true place in life. Christian thought cannot but be in-
322 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
financed by the force of the contemporary current; it is
compelled to study man's approach to God from the stand-
point of his communal relationships. This is the reason
why, in so much present-day thinking and writing, there
is a new and sustained interest in sacramental worship. It
is not a question of imitation, or of unhealthy concentra-
tion upon external things, to the neglect of spiritual reali-
ties; it is the urge of the perception that man is a social be-
ing first, last and always, and that he must approach God
as one who has fundamental responsibilities to his fellows.
Once this truth is grasped, the Eucharist is seen from a
new angle; it cannot lie at the circumference of Christian
worship, but must stand at the centre, as a means whereby
man approaches God and appropriates the blessings of
Christ's self-offering.
These reflections throw light upon the act of Jesus in
instituting the Supper in close connexion with His Mes-
sianic suffering. It is no longer matter for surprise that
He invited His disciples to partake in a rite instead of
speaking to them about personal faith-union with Him-
self. The latter, we have seen, is included in the former,
but the rite is that which is needed in a corporate relation-
ship. When, in addition to the original disciples, one
thinks of the unnumbered multitudes of men who through
sacramental worship have entered into fellowship with
Christ, the perfect suitability of the Eucharist to human
need is especially evident. This perception means that no
modern presentation of the doctrine of the Atonement is
likely to be!satisfactory which ignores, or deals imperfectly
with, the doctrine of the Eucharist. The Eucharist falls
within the orbit of the Atonement alike by reason of the
teaching of Jesus and of the life and experience of the
Church. Clearly as this fact is being recognized to-day,
it is no new discovery. Before the Oxford Movement of
THE ATONEMENT 323
the last century, it was recognized by John and Charles
Wesley, as their collection of Hymns on the Lord's Supper 1
shows. The lines of Charles Wesley :
'This eucharistic feast
Our every want supplies;
And still we by His death are blessed,
And share His sacrifice',
exactly express the doctrine commended in these pages.
Wherein, it may be asked, does the communal aspect of
the Eucharist differ from that which it presents to the
worshipper as an individual? Simply in this : that, where-
as the individual may find the taking of consecrated bread
and wine the means by which he enters into the power of
the offering they represent, in the worship of the commun-
ity he does this with a clear sense of the relationships in
which he stands to others. He is a member of the com-
munity, wide as earth and inclusive of heaven, for which
Christ died. It is in this consciousness that he approaches
God, conscious not only of personal sins, but also of the
sin of the world, its blindness, cruelty, and hardness of
heart. In this sin he is enmeshed, whatever his indivi-
dual contribution to it may be, because he is a child of man,
a member of a sinful community. It is not to be wondered
at, that, in this conviction, he sees a deeper significance in
the self-offering of Christ than can be gained in any other
way. Within him sound the words: 'Behold the Lamb
of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!' and the
Amen of his spirit to Christ's offering of obedience, sub-
mission, and penitence, attains its deepest intensity. In
lr The Preface, taken from Dr. Brevint's The Christian Sacrament and
Sacrifice, was sometimes published separately. 'Wesley taught his people
by precept and his own practice the importance of frequent communion.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was administered to the Societies
in London every Sabbath Day/ R. Green, Wesley Bibliography, 44.
324 JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE
this way the Eucharist offers its supreme opportunity for
participation in the Sacrifice of Christ.
In conclusion, it is important to insist on the necessity
of combining the personal and the communal aspects of
man's approach to God in Christ. In itself, the indivi-
dual relationship is too narrow, and too much dependent
upon the accidents of temperament, to be satisfactory;
while the danger of the communal approach is that it may
become formal and lifeless. 'Sacramental communion',
writes Moberly, 'is vainly material after all, if it is not con-
ceived of mainly as an aspiration and growing on towards
oneness not mechanically, so much, of flesh, as inherently
of character and of spirit, with the Crucified.' 1 Such a
conception rightly combines both ides of man's relation-
ship to the self-offering of Jesus. (jEspecially necessary is
it further to combine both aspects with obedience to
Christ's call to sacrificial living in His words about cross-
bearing and the drinking of His cup. The more we
shoulder the responsibilities of others, and drink the cup
of their sins and sorrows, the more fully we discover the
incomparable greatness of Christ's work for men. As we
tread the via dolorosa we learn that it begins, as it ends in
the heart of God, that the Sacrifice of Jesus is the expres-
sion in history and in time of what is eternally true, that
for all men there is an abiding High Priest of whom we
can say :
'He pleads His passion on the tree.
He shows Himself to God for me.'
3 -Atonement and Personality, 271.
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
Genesis:
2 Samuel:
viii. 21
- 50
vii. 14
- - 34
ix. 4
- - 49
16
13
xiv. 13
. 4I
Exodus:
xxiv. 17
- 43
IV. 22 f. -
- - 33
25
- - 50
xii. -
- 226
13
- 227
i Kings:
xv. 18
- - 6
xix. 2-
- - 95
xviii. 12
- 120
10
- - 95
xxiv. i-ii -
-136-8
xxii. ii
- - 119
8 63,71,
131,182,204
xxix. 38-46 -
- - 226
2 Kings:
XXX. 12
- 103
iii. 27
- - 43
xxxii. 3 1 f.
- 43
i Chronicles:
Leviticus:
xxix. ii
- - 6
i.4-
v. 13
- - 52
- - 54
2 Chronicles:
x. 16-20 -
- - 54
xxix. 24
- - 52
xiv. 10
- - 69
xvi. -
- - 51
22
- 227
/*...
30
- - 53
xxxiii. 23 f.
- IO2
33
xvii. 10-12 -
- - 52
- 49
Psalms :
ii. 2-
- 14
Numbers:
7-
- - 34
xv. 25
- 52
V. 2-
6
viii. 4-
21
Deuteronomy:
xi.6- -
- I2O
xii. 23
- - 49
xvi. 4 f.
- 120
xviii. 50
- - 14
Joshua:
vii. 16-26 -
- 42
XXll* - "
6-
- 44,157
- 284
xxii. 24
- 160
i Samuel:
28-31 -
- 160
vi. 3-
- 41
28
- - 6
ix. 16
12
XXVI. -
- - 64
xvi. 12
12
xxvii. -
- - 64
xxvi. 19
~ - 5
xxxi. 5~
- 200
X2
325
326 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
Psalms:
Isaiah:
xl.6-
- 62
xli. 21
6
7-
- 307
xlii. I -
39> 47
xli. 9-
- 112
xliii. 2-
98, 165
xlii. 5 -
- 149
15
6
7-
97, 165
xliv. 6 -
6
ii
- 149
xlv. i -
12
xlv.6-
6
xlix. 1-6
- 39
xlvii. -
6
6-
7
xlix. 7 f.
- IO2
1.4-9 -
- 39
I.i 3 - -
- 62
6-
- - 284
- 62
Ii.i7ff. -
97
Ixvi. 13-5-
- 6 4
lii. 13 liii. -
39-48, 88 , 94,
kix. 2 -
97, 165
97, 127
, 187, 226, 281
15
97, 165
liii. 4
IO2
kxv. 8-
- 97
7-
-226f.
Ixxviii. 70 ff. -
- 14
8-
- 102
Ixxxiv. 3 -
6
10 -
- 41
kxxix. 18
6
ii -
88, 102, 104
20-37 -
- 14
12 88
,95, 102, 104,
26f. -
- 33
121,
131,150,192-4,
xciii. -
6
226 , 263, 284
XCV.C.
6
lv. 3 -
- 14
ciii. 19
6
cv. 15
12
Jeremiah:
cvii. 21 -
65
vii. 22
- 62
cxvi. 13
120, 183
viii. 19
6
cxviii. 22 -
- H3
viii. 2i-ix. i
- 43
cxlv. 13
6
xi. 19
43, 226
xix. 5-
50
Isaiah:
10
- 118
i. ii
- 61
xxiii. 5
- 13
ii. 2-4 -
7
xxvn., xxvjii. -
- 119
v. i -
-io6f.
xxviii. 10
- 118
vi. 5-8
- 60
xxxi. 31
71,131,204
5-
6
3 2
- 62
6 -
- 119
34
36, 63
viii. 3 -
- 118
xxxiii. 14 ff. -
13
ix. 2-7
- 13
xlix. 12
- 97
xi. 1-9
- X 3
XX. 2 -
- 118
Lamentations:
xxv. 6 -
- 140
iv. 21
- 97
xxxii. 12
- 140
xxxiii. 22
6
Ezekiel:
xl. ff.
- 17
i. 26-8 -
- 64
xli. 1-4
- 39
ii. i -
21
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES 327
Ezekiel:
T^chariak:
iv.3-
- 118
i. 16 f. -
- - 64
xxiii. 31 ff. -
- 97
ix. 9 f.
- 14, 28, 44
xxxiv. 23 f.
I3> H7
ir
- - 138
xxxvi. 26
- - 64
xii. 9-14 -
- 44
xxxvii. 24
H, H7
10
- 44
xl.-xlviii. -
- - 64
xiii. 7-
- 145
xliii. 26
- 52
Malachi:
Daniel:
iv. 5 f.
- - 94
11.44
6,144
iv. 3 -
6
vii. 9 -
13
22
22, 26-8, 34
Matthew:
H
18
- 21,31,90
21
iv. i-n
v. 16
- 35
- - 38
21
- 90
17
- 72
25
90
18
- 72
27
19
- 9> 73
20
- 73
Hosea:
2 3 f. -
- 69 f.
r
ii. 19 f. -
vi. 2-
- - 8 S
89, 168
35
vi. i -
- 70 f.
- - 38
6-
61,68
14
- 38
38
xi. i-
- 33
16
j
- 84
xiv. -
7
/
vii. 21
- 9> 37
viii. 17
- - 46
Amos:
V. 21-6 -
- 6if.
ix. 1 3 a. -
X.23
-68, 70
- 28
xi. 14
94, 1 10
Mica A:
25-7 -
- 35
iv. 1-5
7
xii. 7-
-68, 70
v.4-
- H7
18-21 -
- - 46
vi. 7 f.
- 61
xiii. 37
28
38 -
-9,122
Habakkuk:
41
- 96, 28, 31
iii. 13
12
43
9
17
- 140
44
10
45 f. -
IO
xv. 13
37
Zephaniah:
24
- 146
iii. 20
7
28
- 291
xvi. 17
-*7 37
Haggai:
19
9
1.4-11 -
- - 64
28
- - 9 f.
328 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
ztthew:
Mark:
xvii. 12
- 95
vii. 15 - - 72, 280
13
- - 94
viii. i-io - 185
20
- 291
10 291
xviii. 10
- 37
29 - 16, 226, 291
19
- 37
31 29,47,85-91,94,97,
23-35 -
- 280
102, 113, 152, 169,
35
- 37
173 f.,241, 255, 259
xix. 28
29, 187, 189
34 - 268, 291, 293
xx. 19
-87, 89
35 - - - 291
xxi. 5-
14, 138
38 - 28,31,291
xxiii. 2
- 73
ix. i - - - -9, 142
17
71
7- - - - 34
19
71,119
1 1-3 - - - 92-7
23
- 72
12 b. 29,47,87,91-7,
2X1V. 30
- 28
113,156,173,255,259
31
31
31 29,47,85-91,97, 113,
XXV. I -
- - 85
173 255
31-46 -
- 147
47 - - - 9
3 1
- 28
x.23-5 9
sxvi. 2-
- 28
33 29,47,85-91,97,
26 -
- 117
113, 173 ,255
2 7 -
- 128
38 97-9,150,152, 165,
28
74, 125
258, 263, 293
53
- 37
39 - 98 , 150, 268
6 3 -
20
41-5 - - 105, 186
45 29,47,74,99-105,
ark:
113,127,202,242,245,
i. 9-1 1 -
19
257-61, 280
ii
-34, 47
3d. i-n - - -19,44
12 -
- 19
15-7 - - - 68
15
-8, 280
17 -68,70
44
-19, 69
22 291
ii. i-iii. 6 -
- - 84
xii. 1-12 - 106-8, 280
ii. 10
- 28
6- - - 33,256
i6 -
- 68
10 - 142-5,255
19 -
82-5, 90
14 - - 94,110
23-8 -
-68, 72
19-23 - 94
28
- 28
... 33 f- - - - 68
iii. 6-
- 134
xiii. if. - - 71, 144
21
- 134
26 - - - 28
iv. 26-9
10
32 - - -34,37
v. 34
- 291
xiv. 2- - - -115
vi. 5
- 291
8- - 108-11,235
mm 35-44 -
- - 185
12-6 - 67, 115, 181
vii. 6
70, 143
17-21 - 111-4,235
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES 329
Mark:
Luke:
xiv. 21 29,47,112-4, 156,
ix. 2-
- - - 9 f.
195,256,259
22
- 172
22-5 - 114-8,215
44
- 172
22 80,87, 118-25, 176
58
29
202, 236, 242 f., 266
x.i8
- 280
24 74,81,123, 125-39,
21 f.
35
l82, 202-4, 236, 242 f.,
22
37
26l, 266, 280
xi. 2-
IT
25 125,139-42,184,259
20
11,258
2 7 - H5-7,255
30
- 28
33 149
42
- 72
34 - 149 *"> 1 5 5*263
xii. 8-
- 28
35 - - 152,242
10
- 28
36 37,150-2,256,258,
32
10, 38, 147
263, 276
40
-29, 31
37 f. - - -153-5
49 f.
-164-7
41 f. - 154-6,169
50
8797f- *5 2 , 173,
41 29,152,195,242,
257,263
259
51-3
164, 292
42 - 150,156,256
xiii. 28 f.
9
47 115
32f.
89, 167-71, 258
48 f. - - 156,195
xiv. 26
- 292
49 b. - - - 195
xv. 3-7
- 146
51 f. - - - 151
11-32
- 280
xiv. 53-xvi. 8 - - 89
xvi. 1 6
9
xiv. 58 144
17
- 72
61 f. - 16, 19, 26 f., 94
18
- 72
62 26,29,31,142,157,
xvii. 14
- - - 69
196, 246, 259
20
n
63 f. - - - 134
22
- 29
XV. 2- - - 157,197
23-37
-I72f.
21 115
24
-29,31
2 7 I 99
25 29,
87,91,172-5,255
29 - 144, 235
26
-29,31
34 44,157-63,200,263
.. 3
-29,31
37 - - 158,200
xviii. 8 b.
- 29
31-3
- 172
Luke:
xix. 10
- 30
ii. 25 - - 16
xx. 18
- 144
38 - - - 16
xxi. 36
- 29
iv. 1-13 - 35
xxiL 7-
- 180
Vi. 22 - - 28
14-20
-175-9
36 - - - 3 8
14-9 a
- 80, 175 f.
vii. 28 - - - 9
14-8
- - - 176
34 - - - 29
15 f.
115 f., 175, 180-3
330
INDEX OF SCKlJrl UKU, &&r JIKJIINUJLO
Luke:
John:
xxii.
15 - - - 67
vi. 51 233, 235, 236 ,262
16 - - 9,183
53-7 233,235,2365.,
17 - 117,183-6
242
1 8 9, 139, 1 83 ,207,
54 230, 236, 242, 260
259
56 236,242
19 b.-2o 118, 125 ,
63 - - 236,275
1756
vii. 6- - - 222,2335.
20 - - - 74
8- 222, 233
21-3 - in ,177
27 - - - 17
24-7 - 99, 177, 1 86
30 -22l
27 - - -i86
42 - - - 17
28-30 - i76, 187-90
29 31, 176 , i88,
viii. 20 - - - 221
28 233, 236 , 244, 246
259
x. ii 147*233*235*242,
30 - - -9, 189
262
35-8 - - -191-4
IS**- 233,235,237,244,
37 47,70,190-4,263
246-8
40 149
17 233, 235, 237, 241 ,
48 - - - 29
2565.
49 191
xi. 48 - - - 225
53 b. 195-7* 242, 245,
50 224
260, 280
51 - 221,224,237
66-71 - - - 196
xii. 7- - - -2345.
69 - - - 29
15 - - - 14
70 20, 196
23-5 - - - 234
xxiii.
27-31 - - - 197
23 195,222,235-7,2415.,
31 I 97
256
34 - 114,194,197-9
24 228, 230, 237, 242,
39-43 - - - 199
2445.
42 - - -i97
275.195,222,234,2365.,
46 198,200
241 , 2565.
xxiv.
26 - - - 46
31 196,234,2365.,
244.5., 246-8, 261
John:
33 -221 5.
L
14 - - 236,240
38 - - - 47
19-28 16
xiii. 1-17 - - - 187
29 47, 225-8, 230, 237,
I - - - - 222
258,264
21 - - -2345.
36 - - 47*225
25-9 - - - 112
ii.
19 144,233,235,241
xiv. 2- - - -2345.
21 221,223,235,237
xv. 13 230, 234 , 237, 244
iii.
14 - 221-4,237
xvi, 7- - - -2345.
15 - 221-4,230,237
135. - - - 220
28 - - -85'
xvii. i 195, 222, 234-7,
iv. 42 - - 230, 264
241 , 244-6, 256, 260
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES 331
John:
I Corinthians:
xvii. 19
228, 230, 234, 237,
X. 20
- 2IO
242,244^,258,262
21
- 211
xviii. 14
- 221,224
xi. 20-34
-2II-S
28
115,180
23-5
176, 178, 201-17
32
-221 f.
24 f.
176, 206-8, 213,
36
- 260
3H
xix. 14
115,180,224
24
- 50, 202 f.
24
' 223,237
25
I25f.,I30-3,l85,
26 f.
- 234
203-6
28
- 223, 234, 237
26
141, 208, 212, 215
30
- 234
27
- 212
36
- 223,237
28
- 214
xx. 31
- 240
29
- 214
30
- 213
Acts:
xv. 3-7
- 204
ii-42
- 208
3-
47, 201
ill. 13
- 46
26
- - - 46
Galatians:
iv. n
- H3
i. 12
- 2OI
27
- - - 46
ii. 20
- 291 f., 316
30
- - - 46
vi. 14
- 144
Efhesians:
vii. 56
- 30
ii. 20
- H3
viii. 3 2-5
- - - 46
v. 28 f.
- - - 8 5
XX. 22 f.
- 88
xxi. ii
- 118
Philemon:
ii. 5-8
- 47
Romans:
iii.25
- 291
Colossians:
iv. 25
- 47
i.i3
- 196
V. 12-21
- 280
24
- 293
vi. 3 f.
- 209
vii. 7-25
- 280
Hebrews:
ii. 10
- 169
i Corinthians:
v. 9 -
- 169
x.,xi.
- 217
vii. 28
- 169
x. 1-4
- 210
ix. 22
- 57
2-
- 209
28
- 47
3f-
- 210
x.4-
- - - 56
II
- 2IO
10
- 307
14-22
-2Iof.
xiii. 12
- 107
16
120,204,211
i?
- 211
James:
18
1 2O, 2IO
iv. 13
- 168
332
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
I Peter:
I John:
ii. 4-8
- 143
iv. 10
22
- 47
H
I John:
i-5-
7-
ii. if.
" - - 195
228, 230, 264
- 228,230^264
Apocalypse:
v. 6-
adii.8-
12
iii.5-
16
- 227, 229 , 264
-229*.
xiv. 5-
xix. 17
XX. -
- 229 f., 231, 264
47
94
47
47
85
17
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Abelardian Theory, 299^".
Adoration, 319.
Age to Come, 7.
Allegory, 106.
Anointing, Story of, io8ff.
Apocalyptic, 7, 10.
Atonement:
Godward aspect of, 304-1 2.
Implications of Sayings, 254-73.
Inclusive character of, 304.
In Fourth Gospel, 269^
In Synoptic Gospels, 27of.
Man's relation to, 312-24.
'Objective' element, 2971*., 303^".
Representative and vicarious as-
pect, 26if., 271, 281-5, 305^,
308,311.
Ultimate problems of, 274-98.
Baptism, 209.
Baptism of death, 97ff., 1645*., 257,
263.
Betrayal, The, 1 1 iff., 256.
Blood, 49, 57, 125ff., 135,
'Bridegroom', The, 85, 90.
Burnt-offering, 51.
Cleansing of Temple, 68.
Corporate Personality, 39, 284.
Covenant idea, 1365*., i88f., 261.
Cross-bearing, 268, 2936., 313, 324.
Crucifixion-sayings, 157-63, 197-
200.
Cult-narratives, 117.
Cup of suffering, 98f., 152, 268,
Daniel, Book of, 21.
Day of Atonement, 51, 227.
Dereliction, Cry of, I57ff., 200,
263.
Elijah, Coming of, 92-7, no.
Enoch, Book of, 1 5, 17, 22-7, 29.
Eschatological interests, I78f., 182.
Eschatological sacraments, 185, 243 .
Eschatology, 272.
Eucharist (see also 'Supper* and
'Holy Communion'), 185,
2 1 off., 268, 290, 293^, 314,
322-4.
Evil, Powers of, I95ff., 245, 260,
271.
Ezra, Book of (4 Ezra), i6f.
Faith-union, 209, 282, 290-4, 298,
314-7,322.
Fasting, 83^
Fayoum Gospel-Fragment, 145.
First Epistle of John, 228-33.
Form-Criticism, 79, 81, 179, 205.
Fraction of Loaf, i i8ff.
Gethsemane Narrative, I47ff., 167,
256^,266.
Gethsemane Sayings, 149^, 256f.,
263.
Hellenistic Influences, 120, 124,
239.
Hermetic Literature, 36.
Holy Communion (see also 'Supper'
and Eucharist), 321.
'Hour' of Jesus, 155, 19 5f., 222,
241 f.
53.
Johannine Sayings:
character of, 218-20, 238-49.
doctrinal ideas of, 222-5, 228,
234ff., 264, 269^
333
334
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Johannine Sayings:
in relation to the Eucharist, 2 3 6f.,
242ff., 267.
Kaphar, 103.
Kidduik, 115.
Kingdom of God, 6-n, 97, 125,
139-42, 177, iSgf., 258-60,
268, 279.
Kipper, 52f.
Kopher y 103.
Lamb of God, 226, 258, 323.
Law, 72f.
Liturgical Interests, 117.
Lives of Christ, 27 2 f.
Love, 223, 288ff, 299-303, 310,
312.
103.
Martyrdom, 9 8 , 125.
Meal-offering, 51.
Meditation, 319^
Messianic Feast, 1 39ff., 1 82-6, 207,
259.
Messianic Hope, 12-20, 45f., 125,
i?f 197.
Messianic Secret, 18-20.
Messianic Vocation of Jesus, 257^,
278, 296, 305.
Methodist Societies, 323.
Moab, sacrifice of King of, 43.
Moral Theory of the Atonement,
278f., 299ff.
Mystery-religions, 117, 124, 13 if.,
ai6f.
New Age, iSgf.
Obedience, 276, 307.
Oxford Movement, 322.
Papias Tradition, 98.
Parables, 280.
Parousia, 28-32, 94, 97, 172, 215.
Passover, 67, n$f* I38f., 180-3,
227.
Peace-offering, 51.
Penal Suffering, 161, 276ff., 285-
90, 307f.
Penitence, 57, 3oi, 309^
Penitent Thief, 199.
Peter's Confession, 84, 90, 226,
280,291.
Praise, 3 1 9.
Prayer, 320.
Preaching, 3i8f.
Providence of God, 255^, 276,
37-
Ransom-passage, 99-105, 257^
26of.
Reconciliation, 212, 298, 308.
Redeemer, 282, 291.
Resurrection, 88, 107, i68, 279,
306.
Revelation, 278.
Sacramental worship, 292, 32 1,
324.
Sacrifice, 48, 49-75, io4, 296.
Sacrifice of Jesus, 125, 295^"., 324.
Sacrificial Principle, 294, 297,
306.
Sacrificial System:
advantages of, 566.
attitude of Jesus to, 67-75, I2I >
defects of,
in Ecclesiasticus, 65.
in Psalms, 64.
in Rabbinical Writings, 65.
prophetic reaction to, 60-4.
Salvation, 302.
Scapegoat, 51.
Second Adam, 283.
Self-identification with sinners, 263,
285,311.
Self-offering of Jesus, 3Ooff., 306-
12.
Self-sacrifice, 60, 278.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Servant of Yahweh, 39-48, 102,
335
Servant-conception, 88, 90, 125,
127, 187, igzff., 226, 262,
28 if., 296.
Shepherd, The, prophecy regard-
ing, 145^,255.
Silence, 319.
Sin, 56, i62f., 229^, 279fF., 285^,
301,307-10,323.
Sin-bearing, 285, 289.
Sinlessness, 311.
Sin-offering, 51, 75.
Solomon, Psalms of, 1 5^
Son, The, 33-8, 107.
Son of God, The, 38.
Son of Man, The, 21-32, 38, 48,
87, gof., 93ff., 96f., 102, 113,
156, 1726%, 255-9, 282, 291,
33>35-
Stone, The, prophecy regarding,
,142^,255.
Substitution, 42, 50^, iO3f., 282f.
Suffering:
of Jesus, 262?., 283, 302.
of God, 278f., 302.
propitiatory value of, 45.
Supper, The (see also 'Eucharist'
and 'Holy Communion*):
date of, H4ff., i8of.
meaning o 3i3f.
Pauline conception of, 209-1 5 .
permanence of, 2o6ff., 3 1 3f.
sayings relative to, 118-41, 175-
94, 200-8, 236^, 266f.
Temple, The, 71, 144, 296.
Testimonia 9 143, 145.
Transfiguration, The, 9 if.
Transubstantiation, 122, 135,213.
Vineyard, Parable of, io6ff., 144,
256.
Worship, 298, 318.
INDEX OF PROPER NAMES
Achan,42.
Akiba, 16,27,
Albertz,M.,35.
Althaus, P., 312.
Aulen, G., 261.
Bacon, B. W., 98, 113, 151, 158,
176.
Ball, C.J., 227.
Bar-Cochba, 16.
Bate, H.N., 178.
Beethoven, 315.
Bernard, J. H., 222, 224., 226, 227,
Bertram, G., 144, 146, 158, 197.
Bewer,J.A.,34.
Bfflerbeck,P.,45.
Blass,F.,i76.
Blunt, A.W.F., 141, 145, 156.
Bousset, W., 28, 30, 36, 46, 83, 86,
W 143-
Box,G.H.,ii5.
Brahms, 315.
Branscomb, B. H., 71, 73, 86.
Brevint,D.,323.
Briggs,C.A.,53,62.
Brooke, A. E., 180, 231, 232*
Brown, F., 53.
Bnmner,E., 287.
Buchsd,F.,i03.
Bultmann, R.,io,r 8, 46, 83, 92, 105,
106, 108, 109, 124, 144, 148,
Burkitt, F. C., 46, 47, 96, too, 107,
116, 180,192-4,
Burney, C. F., 226, 227.
Bushnell, H., 278.
Bussmann,W., 173.
Cadoux, A, T., 90, 1 60.
Cadoux, C. J., 31, 122, 218, 247.
Calvin, 159.
Campbell, J. M'Leod, 160, 277,
283,309,316.
Carpenter, J. E., 160, 218, 241.
Chapman, Dom, 35,
Charles, R. H., 16, 22, 25, 27, 95,
123,231.
Charnwood, Lord, 231.
Clemen, C., 132.
Creed, J. M., 35, 165, 170, 176,
180, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192,
193,195,196,198,199.
Cripps,R.S.,r4,44,62.
Dale, R.W., 159,286.
Dalman, G., 115, 120, 121, 127,
Danby,H.,66.
Deissmann, A., 103, 154, 209.
Denney,]., 159, 286.
DeZwaan,]., 154.
Dibelius, M,, 18, 37, 83, 86, 105,
108,124,131,133,148,151,
176,245.
Dinsmore, C.A., 278.
Dodd, C.H., n, 53, 83, 231.
Driver, S.R., 53.
DuBose,W.P.,275,283.
Duhm,B., 143.
Easton,B.S.,35,36, 153, 165, 166,
168,170,171,172,176,180,
184,186,188,189,192,195,
198,199.
EdghiU,E.A.,62.
Eichrodt,W.,6i.
Eliot, Geo., 149, 161.
Epictetus, 1 68,
336
INDEX OF PROPER NAMES
337
Fiebig, P., 144.
Findlay, J. A., 167.
Firmicus Maternus, 217.
Flew,R.N.,8.
Forsyth,P.T.,286.
Franks, R. S., 279, 296, 300.
Frazer, J. G., 5 1 .
Gardner, P., 218.
Gaster, M., 67.
Gloege,G.,6, 8.
Glover, T.R., 160.
Goguel, M., 96, 132, 144, 148,
151,159,173, 174,176,191,
2OI, 2O6, 235, 291.
Gore, C, 132, 162, 163.
Gould, E. P., 156, 162.
Gray, G. B.,4i,49, 51, 58, 67, 68.
Green, R., 323.
Grieve, A. J., 172.
Hadrian, 16.
Harnack, A., 3 5, 36, 130, 157, 198.
Harris,]. Rendel, 143, 198.
Hase, 36.
Hawkins, J. C, 173.
Headlam, A. C., 143.
Herrmann, E., 8.
Hicks, F. C. N., 53, 54, 55, 6 1, 66,
296.
Holtzmann, H. J., 146, 224, 230,
232.
Hort,F.J.A., 176, 189, 198.
Howard, W. F., 37, 211, 219, 231,
236,241.
Hudson, J. T., 1 5 5, 172.
Hughes, H.M., 6, 279.
Hunkin,J.W., 122.
Ignatius, 306.
Irenaeus, 283.
Jackson, F. J. Foakes, 12, 14.
James, E.O., 50, 51, 55,67.
James, M.R., 145.
Jassa bar Halputa, 121.
Jeremiah, 43, 62f.
Jeremias, J., 115, 116, 138, 139,
144,147,178,182,184,203,
205, 206, 227.
Johanan ben Zakkai, 66.
Johnson, A. R., 64.
Josephus, 45.
Joshua ben Hananiah, 66.
Joshua ben.Levi, 28.
Jiilicher,A, 18, 106.
Justin Martyr, 143.
Kennedy, H. A. A., r 3 2, 2 1 7.
Kennett, R. H., 14, 51, 61, 62, 68,
70,145,180.
Kittel, G., 6, 98, 103.
Klausner, J., 133, 135, 148, 151,
158.
Klostermann, E., 85, 92, 108, 109,
124,130,143,149,153,154,
156, 165, 168, 172, 188, 191,
193.
Lagrange, M.-J., 105, 120, 222,
224,226,227,257.
Lake, Kirsopp, 12, 14.
Lambert, J. C., 132.
Legg,S.C. .,140,15 5.
Lidgett, J. S., 286, 309, 316.
Lietzmann, H., 116, 122, 206.
Lightfoot, J. B., 293.
Lightfoot, R. H., 1 8, 96, 157, 158,
1 80.
Lofthouse, W. F., 37, 50.
Loisy, A., 124, 140, 144, 153, 158,
165,169,191,195.
Luce, H. K., 35, 143, 153, 165,
192,193,195.
Luther, 159.
Macdonald, A. J., 1 22.
Macgregor, G. H. C., 115, 136,
241,257.
Mackinnon, J., 151.
McFadyen,J.E., 14.
338
INDEX OF PROPER NAMES
Manson, T. W., 24, 25, 29, 35, 37.
Manson, W., 165.
Menzies,A., 160.
Meyer, Ed., 30, 86, 140, 148, 156,
191,201.
Meyer, H. A. W., 142, 214, 227.
Milligan, G., 98, 154, 216.
Mitchell, H. G., 14.
Moberly, R. C., 277, 283, 309,
310,312,324.
MofFatt, J., 123, 149, 154, 165,
167, 168,188,230,231.
Montefiore, C. G., 90, 92, 95, 109,
no, 112, 114, 133, 134, 140,
145,146,148,151,154,165,
166, 169, 170, 172, 189, 191,
195, 197, 198.
Moore, G. F., 16, 17, 27, 39, 49,
66.
Moses, 43.
Moulton, J. H., 20, 98, 103, 140,
Mowinckel, S., 6.
Mozley,]. K., 159, 286.
Nehemiah, Rabbi, 66.
Neumann, A., 157.
Norden, E., 144.
North, C.R.,6i.
Odeberg,H.,24i.
Oepke,A.,98.
Oesterley, W. O. E., 16, 34, 62,
115.
Orchard, W.E., 122.
Otto, R., 26, 27, 46, 87, 88, 89, 96,
IO2, IO3, Il6, Iig, 120, 121,
127,130,173,176,177,183,
184, 188,202.
Peake, A. S., 14, 18, 28, 39, 40, 41,
43,145,151,172,
Peter the Lombard, 300.
Pkto, 218.
Plooij,D., 143.
Plummer, A., 120, 165, 168, 183,
189,193,197,^01,212.
Quick, O.C., 185.
Ramsay, W. M., 180.
Rashdall, H., 80, 100, 101, 121,
278, 300.
Rawlinson, A. E. J., 18,35, 46, 47,
68, 84, 90, 102, 112, 129,
132,147, 149, 154,1 SS^S^t
158, 160, 162.
Reitzenstein, R., 30.
Renan,E., 245.
R*ville,J.,i53.
Ritschl,A., 8.
Robertson, A., 120, 201, 212.
Robinson, H. Wheeler, 39, 284.
Robinson, T. H., 6 1, 62.
Rowley, H. H., 22.
Sanday, W., 18, 143, 254.
Schmidt, K. L., 8, 86, 88, 93, 169,
171.
Schmiedel, P. W., 34, 3 5, 1 57, 230.
Schweitzer, A., 4, 18, 19, 141, 174,
185,272.
Scott, C. A. Anderson, 122, 206,
211,214,315.
Scott, E. F., 6, 222, 223, 227, 230,
241.
Shelley, 315.
Skinner, J., 1 3, 61, 62.
Smith,B.T.D.,35, 145.
Smith, D., 288.
Smith, G. A., 62.
Smith, W. Robertson, 49, 296.
Snaith,N.H.,6.
Socrates, 218.
Stanton, V. H., 222.
Stevens, G. B., 50.
Stone, D., 122.
Strack-BiUerbeck, 45, 66, 85, 94,
110,140,144,241.
Strauss, D. F., 149, x6r.
INDEX OF PROPER NAMES
339
Streeter, B. H., 9, 73, 114, 180,
186, 196, 198,218.
Sundwall, J., 92, 93,
Swete, H. B., 93, 94, 95, 102, 112,
129,145, 149,152,154,156.
Taylor, V., 84, 98, in, 173, 176,
181, 187, 196.
Thomasius, 159.
Torrey,C.C, 154, 165.
Turner, C. H., 89, 93, 1 57.
Underbill, E., 3 1 8.
Wardle, W. L., 39, 61, 1 19.
Weiss, B., 173.
Weiss,}., 144, 146, 166, 191*
Welch, A. C., 50, 51, 61.
Wellhausen, J., 140, 144, 168, 170,
171, 177,184,186,188,189,
191,206,207.
Wesley, C., 323.
Wesley,]., 316,323.
Westcott, B. F., 169, 189.
Weymouth, R. F., 149, 169.
Williams, N. P., 132, 185, 267.
Wilson, J. M., 279.
Wilson, T., 132.
Wood, H. G., 90, 145, 151, 152,
153-
Workman, H. B., 149.
Wrede, W., 18, 19, 144.
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO. LTD.
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, GLASGOW
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
THE FORMATION OF
THE GOSPEL TRADITION
Second Edition (1935). Js. 6d. net
IT is believed that this book is the first attempt in English
to deal at all fully with the subject. The work consists of
Lectures given in the University of Leeds during the Spring
Term of 1932 at the invitation of the Vice-Chancellor and
the Public Lectures Committee, and they are printed as they
were delivered apart from sections which had to be omitted
and a few subsequent additions.
" The book will take rank at once as the one indispensable work
in English on Form-Criticism of the Gospels. . . . Dr. Vincent
Taylor has conferred a lasting boon upon New Testament students
throughout the English-speaking world." Dr, W. R HOWARD
(Hibbert Journal).
" There is here great power of mastering complicated detail, of
setting out the facts in a lucid and orderly way, and withal a
sound and discriminating judgment. ... Dr. Taylor has given us
an exceedingly interesting and valuable discussion which should be
widely read and closely studied." Oxford Magazine.
"This is the most important contribution yet made by any
English writer to the study of what is known as ' form-criticism.' "
Church Times.
MACMILLAN AND CO. LTD., LONDON
Recent Works on Religion
DIVINE CAUSATION: A critical Study concerning "Inter-
mediaries." ByW. J. BEALE, M.A., B.D., D.Phil, ?s, 6d.
net.
RELIGION AND REALITY: An Essay in the Christian Co-
ordination of Contraries. By MELVILLE CHANING-PEARCE.
73. 6d. net.
NO CASUAL CREED. By the Rev. J. C. HARDWICK. 53.
net.
THE WAY AND THE FAITH: A Study in Early Church
History. By Rev. A, BEVIL BROWNE. 6s. net.
A DAY-BOOK OF COUNSEL AND COMFORT. From the
Epistles of George Fox. Compiled by L. V. HODGKIN (Mrs.
JOHN HOLDSWORTH.) With frontispiece. 75. 6d. net.
THE GOD WHO SPEAKS: Warburton Lectures, 1933-1935.
By Dr. BURNETT HILLMAN STREETER, Provost of the Queen's
College, Oxford. 55. net.
THE CHURCH AND THE TWENTIETH CENTURY. By
Dr. NORMAN SYKES, Dr. PERCY DEARMER, Dr. C. E.
RAVEN, Dr. DOUGLAS WHITE, Dr. H. D. A. MAJOR, CANON
GUY ROGERS, Sir ARNOLD WILSON, M.P,, Dr. F. L. CROSS,
Dr. L. ELLIOTT BINNS, and the Rev. G. L. H. HARVEY
(Editor). With a Foreword by the BISHOP OF BIRMING-
HAM. 155. net.
MACMILLAN AND CO. LTD., LONDON
Presented to the Library by
Religious Exhibit
'"" ^ ff * '*"
3462^
cl
