Skip to main content

Full text of "Primitive Christianity, its writings and teachings in their historical connections;"

See other formats 


iprcsenteD  to 
of  tbe 

\Ilniver0it1?  Of  Toronto 
Bertram  IW.  Bavia 

from  tbe  bool^s  of 

tbe  late  Xionel  Davie,  1k.(r, 


THEOLOGICAL    TRANSLATION    LIBRARY 


VOL.  XXVI 
PFLEIDERER'S   PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIANITY 

VOL.  II 


XTbeolooical  translation  Xibrar^ 

NEW    SERIES 
Subscribers  to  the  Series  obtain  three  volumes  for  zzs.  6d.  carriage 
free,  payable  before  publication,  which  only  applies  to  the  current 
year's  volumes,  viz.,  XXV. -XXVII.,  which  are  as  follows. 

Vol.  XXV.— ETHICS  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE.  By 
Dr  Theodor  von  Haering,  Professor  of  New  Testament 
Dogmatics  and  Ethics  at  Tubingen.     Ready.     los.  6d.  net. 

Vol.  XXVI.— PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  :  Its  Writings  and 
Teachings  in  their  Historical  Connections.  By  Otto  Pflei- 
DERER,  of  Berlin.  Vol.  II.  The  Historical  Books.  Ready. 
los.  6d.  net. 

The  thi7-d  volujne  couipleting  this  subscription  has  not  yet  been 
decided  upon. 

Vol.  XXIV.— HISTORY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  By  Hans  von 
Schubert,  Professor  of  Church  History  at  Kiel.  Ready. 
los.  6d.  net. 

Vol.  XXIII.— THE  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  CANONICAL 
BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By  Carl  Cornill, 
Professor  of  Old  Testament  Theology  at  the  University  of 
Breslau.     Ready.     los.  6d.  net. 

Vol.  XXII.  — PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY,  Vo .  I.  :  Its 
Writings  and  Teachings  in  their  Historical  Connections.  By 
Otto  Pfleiderer,  Professor  of  Practical  Theology  in  the 
University  of  Berlin.     Ready.     los.  6d.  net. 

Vol.  XXI.— ST  PAUL  :  The  Man  and  His  Work.  By  Prof.  H. 
Weinel,  of  the  University  of  Jena.     Ready,     ids.  6d. 

Vols.  XIX.  and  XX.— THE  MISSION  AND  EXPANSION 
OF  CHRISTIANITY  IN  THE  FIRST  THREE  CEN- 
TURIES. By  Adolf  Harnack,  Berlin.  Second,  revised 
and  much  enlarged  edition,  25s.  net.    Vols,  not  sold  separately. 

Vol.  XVIII.— CHRISTIAN  LIFE  IN  THE  PRIMITIVE 
CHURCH.  By  Ernst  von  Dobschutz,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
New  Testament  Theology  in  the  University  of  Strassburg. 
Ready.     los.  6d. 

Vol.  XVI. —THE  RELIGIONS  OF  AUTHORITY  AND  THE 
RELIGION  OF  THE  SPIRIT.  By  the  late  Auguste 
Sabatier.     Ready.     los.  6d. 

Vols.  XV.  and  XVII.— THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRIS- 
TIANITY. By  Paul  Wernle,  Professor  Extraordinary  of 
Modern  Church  History  at  the  University  of  Basel.  Vol.  I. 
The  Rise  of  the  Religion.  Vol.  II.  The  Development  of  the 
Church.     los.  6d.  per  volume. 

Vol.  XIII.— AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  TEXTUAL 
CRITICISM  OF  THE  GREEK  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
By  Professor  Eberhard  Nestle,  of  Maulbronn.  Cloth, 
los.  6d.  ;  half-leather,  12s.  6d. 

Vols.  II.,  VII.,  VIII.,  IX.,  X.,  XL,  XII.-A  HISTORY  OF 
DOGMA.  By  Adolf  Harnack,  Berlin.  Translated  from  the 
Third  German  Edition.  Edited  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  A.  B.  Bruce, 
D.D.     7  vols.     los.  6d.  each. 

Vol.  IV.— THE  COMMUNION  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  WITH 
GOD :  A  Discussion  in  Agreement  with  the  View  of  Luther. 
By  W.  Herrmann,  Dr.  Theol.,  Professor  of  Dogmatic  Theology 
in  the  University  of  Marburg.     los.  6d. 

Vols.  III.  and  VI. -A  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  By 
R.  Kittel,  Ordinary  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University 
of  Breslau.     los.  6d.  per  volume. 

Vols.  I.  and  V.— THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  By  Prof.  Carl  von 
Weizsacker.  Translated  by  James  Millar,  B.D.  2  vols, 
los.  6d.  each. 

Descriptive  Prospectus  on  Application. 


■       I       •       >/         R 


? 


PRIMITIVE 
CHRISTIANITY 

ITS   WRITINGS    AND   TEACHINGS    IN 
THEIR     HISTORICAL      CONNECTIONS 


BY  V 

OTTO    PFLEIDERER,    D.D. 

PROFESSOR   OF    PRACTICAL   THEOLOGY    IN    THE   UNIVERSITY   OF    BERLIN 

TRANSLATED    BY 

W.    MONTGOMERY,    B.D. 


VOL.    II 


WILLIAMS    &    NORGATE  ^'^.S^'^^ 

14  HENRIETTA   STREET,    COVENT   GARDEN,   LONDON 
NEW    YORK:    G.    P.    PUTNAM'S    SONS 

1909 


CONTENTS 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK. 

CHAP.  PAGES 

I.  The  Work  of  Jesus  in  Galilee    ....         1-45 
II.  The  Final  Conflict  with  the  Authorities  .       46-85 

III.  Origin  and  Distinctive  Charagteristics       .         .       86-97 

THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

IV.  The  Stories  of  the  Birth  and  Childhood  .  .     98-113 

V.  From    the    Appearance    of    the   Baptist   to  the 

Close  of  Jesus'  Work  in  Galilee  .  .    114-137 

VI.  The  Lucan  Journey-Narrative     ....   138-170 

VII.  The  Final  Conflict^  Defeat  and  Victory  .         .   171-190 

THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

VIII.  The  Beginnings  of  the  Church   ....   191-230 

IX.  The    Expansion    of    the    Church    through    the 

Work  of  Paul 231-279 

THE  LUCAN  WRITINGS. 
X.  Origin  and  Characteristics.         ....   280-300 


vi  CONTExNTS 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MATTHEW. 

CHAP.  PAGES 

XI.  The  Stories  of  the  Birth  and  Infancy       .         .  301-310 

XII.   From    the    Baptism    of   John    to    the  Departure 

OF  Jesus  from  Galilee  .....  311-355 

XIII.  The  Last  Journey  and  Final  Conflict        .         .  356-377 

XIV.  Origin  and  Characteristics           ....  378-395 


THE  PREACHING  OF  JESUS  AND  THE 
FAITH  OF  THE   FIRST  DISCIPLES. 

XV.  The  Proclamation  of  the  Approaching  Reign  of 

God         .  . 396-428 

XVI.  The  Call  to   Repentance      .....  429-459 

XVII.  The  Messianic  Beliefs  of  Jesus  and  His  Earliest 

Followers       .......  460-510 


PRIMITIVE    CHRISTIANITY 


SECTION  II.— HISTORICAL  BOOKS 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Work  of  Jesus  in  Galilee 

(Mark  i.  1-ix.  50) 

The  Gospel  of  Mark  must  be  taken  as  our  point  of 
departure  in  describing  the  historical  literature  of 
primitive  Christianity,  for  it  is  without  doubt  the 
earliest  of  the  Gospels  which  have  come  down  to  us, 
and  a  principal  source  of  those  which  followed  it. 
Its  order  of  narration,  which  is  in  itself  perfectly 
clear  and  simple,  has  also,  in  the  main,  been  closely 
followed  by  the  Gospels  of  Luke  and  Matthew ; 
and  where  one  or  the  other  temporarily  departs  from 
the  order  of  Mark  we  can  in  every  case  recognise, 
as  will  be  shown  later,  an  arbitrary  interruption  and 
dislocation  of  an  order  previously  present,  which  can 
be  no  other  than  that  which  lies  before  us  in  ^lark. 
Similarly,  the  accounts  of  incidents  and  discourses 
in  Mark  bear  for  the  most  part  (with  the  exception 
of  a  few  later  interpolations  which  do  not  affect  our 

VOL.    II  1 


2  THE   GOSPEL  OF   MARK 

judgment  of  its  general  character)  the  unmistakable 
stamp  of  genuineness,  of  self-evident  clearness  and 
accuracy,  of  well-rounded  coherence  and  complete- 
ness. In  contrast  with  this,  the  divergences, 
abbreviations,  and  insertions  of  the  other  two 
Evangelists  betray  their  derivative  character  by  the 
very  fact  that  they  can  often  only  be  fully  explained 
by  a  reference  to  the  primary  form  of  the  narrative 
in  Mark,  quite  apart  from  the  many  traces  of  later 
motive  which  are  found  in  the  content  of  these 
alterations  and  additions.  As  the  proof  of  this 
statement  will  have  to  be  given  in  the  later  discussion 
of  the  three  Evangelists,  we  may  here  proceed  at 
once  to  the  description  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  in  the 
course  of  which  we  shall,  however,  cast  occasional  side- 
glances  at  the  narratives  of  the  other  two  Evangelists, 
in  so  far  as  these  give  parallel  accounts  to  those  of 
Mark ;  although  these  are  not  necessary  for  the 
understanding  of  Mark,  since,  as  we  have  said,  Mark's 
Gospel  is  perfectly  intelligible  in  itself.  It  is  the 
first  attempt  which  has  come  down  to  us  to  present 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  which  Paul  had 
proclaimed  as  a  theological  doctrine,  in  narrative 
form  as  a  history  of  the  life  and  sufferings  of  Jesus. 
While,  on  the  one  hand,  it  is  certain  that  this 
narrative  embodies  very  early  traditional  material, 
on  the  other  hand  it  is  equally  clear  that  it  betrays 
the  influence,  affecting  the  conception  of  particulars, 
of  the  great  teacher  Paul,  of  whom  the  author  of  this 
oldest  Gospel  had  probably  been  an  immediate  pupil. 
The  author  begins  his  historical  presentation  of 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  with  a  short  introduction 
(i.  1-13)  which  recounts  the  preparation  for  the  work 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE  3 

of  Jesus  by  John's  baptism  of  repentance,  the  dedica- 
tion of  Jesus  to  His  vocation  by  baptism  and  the 
reception  of  the  Spirit,  and  His  temptation  in  the 
wilderness.  As  Paul  at  the  commencement  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (i.  2)  described  his  gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  as  the  fulfilment  of 
the  prophetic  promises,  so  Mark  sees  in  the  advent 
of  John,  the  preacher  of  repentance,  the  fulfilment 
of  the  prophecy  concerning  "  one  crying  in  the 
wilderness "  and  commanding  to  prepare  the  ways 
of  the  Lord/  While  John,  who  in  his  ascetic 
appearance  is  the  antitype  of  Elijah,  baptizes  with 
water  as  the  symbol  of  the  moral  purification  of 
repentance,  and  points  to  one  stronger  than  he,  who, 
coming  after  him,  shall  baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit, 
Jesus  comes  from  Nazareth  and  causes  Himself  to  be 
baptized  by  John :  immediately  Jesus  sees  the  heavens 
opened,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  like  a  dove  descending 
upon  Him,  and  hears  a  voice  from  heaven,  "  Thou 
art  my  Son,  the  beloved,  in  whom  I  was  well  pleased." 
Even  though  the  interpretation  of  this  narrative  in 
the  sense  of  a  purely  subjective  vision  would  not,  so 
far  as  the  wording  of  the  passage  is  concerned,  be 
quite  impossible,  that  would  hardly  correspond  to  the 
narrator's  view,  according  to  which  Jesus  became 
Son  of  God,  in  the  supernatural  sense  which  this 
phrase  always  conveyed  to  Greek  and  Roman  readers,^ 

^  The  quotation  of  Mai.  iii,  1,  combined  with  Isa.  xl.  3,  has 
perhaps  been  interpolated  into  the  Gospel  of  Mark  from  Luke  vii. 
27  (  =  Matt.  xi.  10). 

2  Cf.  Wrede,  das  Messiasgeheimnis  in  den  Evangelien,  p.  72  f. 
Dalraan,  Worte  Jesu,  p.  236  f.  (E.T.  283  f.) :  "A  Greek  would 
alwa3's  be  disposed  to  undei-stand  o  utos  tov  deov  in  the  proper  sense 
of  the  words.   .   .  .  The  Synoptists'  manner  of  thought  is  Greek. 


4  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

precisely  by  the  fact  that  at  His  baptism  He  received 
into  Himself  the  Spirit  which  came  down  from  heaven, 
the  real  possessor  of  all  wonder-working  powers, 
and  thus  became  Himself  a  superhuman,  miraculous 
being,  an  instrument  of  the  Spirit,  as  He  thenceforth 
showed  by  His  miraculous  acts.  How  literally  the 
Evangelist  conceived  this  relation  to  the  Spirit  as 
a  being  possessed  and  impelled  by  it,  he  immediately 
makes  manifest  in  the  ensuing  section  of  his  nar- 
rative :  "  And  immediately  the  Spirit  driveth  him  into 
the  wilderness ;  and  he  was  in  the  wilderness  forty 
days  being  teinpted  by  Satan,  and  was  with  the  wild 
beasts,  and  the  angels  ministered  to  him."  The 
mention  of  the  wild  beasts  recalls  the  legends  of 
Samson's  fight  with  the  lion,  of  Daniel  in  the  lions' 
den,  of  the  poisonous  serpents  when  Israel  was 
journeying  through  the  wilderness  :  here,  as  there,  the 
beasts  are  the  symbols  and  embodiments  of  spiritual 
powers  hostile  to  God,  which  the  Son  of  God 
conquers  by  the  miraculous  power  of  the  Divine 
Spirit. 

After  this  brief  introduction  the  Evangelist  begins 
the  first  part  of  his  history  by  giving  a  picture  of 
the  Galilsean  ministry  of  Jesus.  He  tells  how,  from 
its  small  beginnings  in  and  about  Capernaum,  it 
gradually  extended  its  radius,  until  at  length  it 
crossed  the  borders  of  Juda?a ;  how,  as  Jesus' 
influence  on  the  people  grew,  the  opposition  of  His 
adversaries  grew  and  intensified  likewise  ;  how  Jesus 
gave  to  the  inner  circle  of  His  disciples  deeper 
revelations  concerning  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and 
sent  them  out,  as  a  test,  on  their  first  missionary 
journey  ;    and   how,  at   the    close   of   His    Galilaean 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE  5 

ministiy,  belief  in  Him  had  reached  such  a  pitch 
that  the  GaHleeans  recognised  Him  as  the  Messiah. 
From  this  central  and  culminating  point  of  the 
Gospel  history  the  eye  of  the  Evangelist  turns  to 
the  sufferings  which  lay  before  Christ,  which  form 
the  subject  of  the  second  part  of  the  Gospel 
story. 

If  we  follow  the  course  of  the  narrative  in  some- 
what greater  detail,  the  first  thing  that  strikes  us  is 
the  Pauline  form^  in  which  Mark  states  at  the  outset 
the  content  of  the  preaching  of  Jesus — its  thesis,  so 
to  speak  :  He  came  into  Galilee  preaching  the  gospel 
of  God,  namely,  "  The  time  is  fulfilled,  the  kingdom 
of  God "  is  at  hand,  repent  ye  and  believe  the  gospel  " 
(i.  14  f.).  Here,  as  in  Paul's  teaching,  faith  in  the 
message  of  salvation  sent  by  God  is  the  first  demand. 
And  just  as  Paul  ascribes  to  the  word  of  the  Gospel, 
when  it  comes  as  a  call  to  individuals,  a  divine  power 
to  produce  the  obedience  of  faith,  so  the  Evangelist 
shows  how  the  two  pairs  of  brothers,  turning  from 
their  nets  at  the  call  of  Jesus,  which  was  charged 
with  spiritual  power,  became  His  permanent  followers 
and  disciples.     As  those  who  were  first   called   had 

1  With  TO  evayyeXtov  t.  6eov  cp.  Rom.  i.  1,  xv.  l6;  1  Thes.  ii.  2, 
8  f.  With  TreTrAT/pwrat  6  Katpo?  cp.  Gal.  iv.  4.  With  Trto-Tevere  ev  to 
€vayy.  cp.  Gal.  iii.  26;    1  Tim.  iii.  13. 

2  This  expression  may  as  a  rule  be  kept,  since  we  are  accustomed 
to  it,  but  it  is  inexact  and  misleading.  For  ^acriA-eta  t.  6eov  pi'operly 
betokens,  not  a  kingdom  in  our  sense  as  a  territory  ruled  over — a 
land  and  people  belonging  to  God  :  such  a  kingdom  could  surely 
not  "come  near  unto  us."  It  means,  rather,  the  rule  of  God,  i.e. 
His  possession  and  exercise  of  rulership,  and  the  resultant  con- 
dition upon  earth,  which  the  pious  are  granted  to  experience  as 
"life"  and  happiness.  This  will  be  more  fully  discussed  below  in 
the  section  on  the  preaching  of  Jesus. 


G  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

their  homes  in  Capernaum,  there  was  a  natural 
reason  why  Jesus  should  commence  His  public 
activity  as  a  teacher  in  the  synagogue  in  that 
place. 

Of  Jesus'  first  appearance  as  a  teacher,  and  of  the 
immediate  impression  and  effect  which  it  produced, 
Mark  suggests  a  very  vivid  picture  (i.  21  fF.),  which 
naturally  gives  rise  to  the  conjecture  that  it  is  based 
on  the  recollections  of  an  eye-witness  (Peter).     The 
hearers   were  amazed   at   His   manner   of  teaching, 
which    had    such    a    very   different   ring   from   the 
traditional  scholastic  wisdom  of  the  scribes.     It  was 
new  and  individual,  the  word  of  a  man  who  derives 
his  authority  to  teach,  not  from  the  heads  of  the 
Schools,  but  from  God  Himself,  a  teacher  by  the  grace 
of  God.     It  was,  as  we  might  say,  the  impression  of 
inborn  religious  genius  which   the  hearers  received 
from  the  first  discourse  of  Jesus,  and  they  recognised 
in  it  something   fresh    and   distinctive   (original)   in 
contrast  to  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Schools. 
And  that  was  immediately  followed  by  a  demonstra- 
tion of  the  healing  power  of  Jesus'  word.     There  was 
among    the    audience    in    the    synagogue    "  a   man 
with   an   unclean    spirit "  —  as   we   might   say,    one 
mentally  and  nervously  deranged.      Under  the  tre- 
mendous    impression     of    the    word,    and    of    the 
whole  personality,  of  Jesus,  he  fell  into  a  state  of 
painful  excitement,  which  Jesus  calmed  and  cured 
by  speaking  to  him ;  whence  it  was  concluded  that 
even   the   unclean   spirits  were   subject    unto    Him. 
When,  later  on  the  same  day,  Simon's  mother-in- 
law,  who   was  sick  of  a  fever,   was  healed  by  the 
touch    of  Jesus'   hand.    His    fame   as    a   worker   of 


THE   WORK   OF   JESUS   IN   GALILEE  7 

miraculous  cures  was  complete,  and  He  was  so 
thronged  by  those  who  sought  healing  that  on  the 
next  day  He  left  the  house  before  dawn,  and  with- 
drew into  solitude  to  pray ;  then  He  made  with 
His  disciples  a  tour  through  the  surrounding  districts, 
everywhere  preaching  and  healing.  It  is  clearly 
evident  in  this  narration  that  the  role  of  a  wonder- 
worker was  by  no  means  sought  by  Jesus,  but  rather 
was  forced  upon  Him  against  His  will  by  the  people. 
He  sought  to  withdraw  Himself  from  it,  and  re- 
peatedly forbade  those  who  were  healed  to  make  it 
known  in  such  a  way  as  to  attract  attention ;  but 
that  was  of  course  useless,  the  numerous  cases  of 
wonderful  cures  could  not  be  concealed,  and  con- 
firmed the  people  in  their  belief  in  the  wonder- 
working power  of  Jesus — a  belief  which  had  indeed 
solid  grounds,  if  only  we  do  not  understand  by  wonders 
absolutely  supernatural  "miracles."  That  this  popu- 
larity with  the  multitude  would  provoke  the  opposi- 
tion of  the  official  guardians  of  religion  was  to  be 
expected,  and  Mark  immediately  proceeds,  in  the 
second  and  third  chapters,  to  relate  a  whole  series 
of  occasions  on  which  this  opposition  appeared,  first 
in  a  veiled  and  then  in  overt,  pronounced,  and  sharper 
fashion.  That  the  Evangelist,  in  grouping  these 
occasions  together,  is  following  an  order  of  subject- 
matter  is  of  course  obvious,  but  that  gives  us  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  occasions  of  incipient  opposition 
began  to  occur  soon  after  the  commencement  of 
Jesus'  public  ministry,  and  were  frequently  repeated. 
Moreover,  all  these  narratives  bear  so  unmistakably 
the  stamp  of  reality  that  it  is  impossible,  except  from 
a  prejudiced   point   of   view,  to   see   in  them  mere 


8  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

symbolical  embodiments  of  the  ideal  opposition 
between  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  the  official 
religion  of  Judaism.  The  very  first  of  these 
narratives  is,  in  Mark  (ii.  1-12),  of  an  especially 
graphic  character ;  while  in  Matthew's  abbreviated 
version  the  vividness  has,  to  a  large  extent,  gone 
out  of  it.  In  this  case  offence  was  taken  at  the  fact 
that  Jesus  declared  to  the  sick  man  the  forgiveness 
of  his  sins,  in  which  he  was  to  see  the  cause  of  his 
sickness.  The  Scribes  found  in  this  saying  a 
blasphemy  against  God,  since  only  God  could 
forgive  sins  ;  but  Jesus  refuted  them  by  the  practical 
proof  of  healing  the  sick  man,  for  that  implied  that 
the  Son  of  Man  must  also  have  power  on  earth  to 
forgive  sins,  since  He  could  give  practical  demonstra- 
tion of  His  power  to  remove  the  sickness  which  was 
the  consequence  of  sin.  "  The  Son  of  Man "  here 
signifies  no  more  than  "  Man " :  it  is  the  literal 
translation  of  the  Aramaic  harnascha,  which  is  the 
standing  expression  for  "  Man  "  ;  and  herein  lies  the 
point  of  Jesus'  words,  namely,  that  forgiveness  of 
sins  takes  place  not  only  at  God's  throne  of  judg- 
ment in  heaven,  as  the  Jews  supposed,  but  that 
even  man  on  earth  is  authorised  to  manifest  the 
Divine  will  of  love,  not  only  in  healing  sickness, 
but  also  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  A  reference 
to  the  Messiah  would  only  obscure  the  significant 
force  of  this  saying,  and  would,  besides,  have  been 
quite  unintelligible  to  His  opponents  ;  that,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  saying  was  understood  by  His  hearers 
with  reference  to  man  in  general,  is  shown  by  the 
conclusion  of  the  narrative  in  Matt.  ix.  8 :  "  They 
praised   God,    who  had   given   such   authority  unto 


THE   WORK    OF   JESUS   IN   GALILEE  9 

men."  (We  shall  have  more  to  say  on  this  point 
when  we  come  to  treat  of  the  Messianic  conscious- 
ness of  Jesus.)  Again,  when  after  the  call  of  the 
tax-gatherer  liCvi,  Jesus  sat  at  meat  in  his  house 
"with  pubhcans  and  sinners,"  the  Scribes,  who 
belonged  to  the  strict  legalistic  party  of  the  Pharisees, 
were  offended.  But  Jesus  explained  to  them  that, 
just  as  the  physician  is  called  to  serve  the  sick,  not 
the  healthy,  so  He  felt  it  to  be  His  vocation  to 
call^  not  the  righteous  but  sinners  to  share  in  the 
salvation  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Further  ground 
of  offence  was  given  to  the  legal  zealots  by  the  fact 
that  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  in  contrast  to  the  disciples 
of  John  and  of  the  Pharisees,  did  not  practise  the 
pious  usage  of  fasting.  So  far  as  regarded  the  special 
case  of  His  disciples,  Jesus  met  them  with  the  answer 
that  for  them,  in  their  present  mood  of  joyful  exalta- 
tion, fasting  would  be  as  unseasonable  as  for  the 
friends  of  the  bridegroom  on  the  marriage  -  day. 
That  is  the  simple  sense  of  the  image  in  verse  19, 
which  is  not  to  be  allegorised  as  if  Jesus  intended 
to  represent  Himself  as  the  bridegroom  of  His  people, 
i.e.  as  the  Messiah.  But  even  the  Evangelist  has 
interpreted  the  image  as  an  allegory,  and  on  this 
assumption  adds  (ii.  20),  "  But  the  days  shall  come 
when  the  bridegroom  shall  be  taken  away  from  them, 
then  shall  they  fast  in  those  days."  That  is  evidently 
a  prediction  of  His  death  which  is  put  into  the 
mouth   of  Jesus,   and   which   in   this    connection  is 

^  This  is  the  simple  sense  of  KaXecrat  in  Mark  (as  in  Paul).  Luke, 
on  the  other  hand,  by  adding  ek  [xerdvoLav,  narrows  the  sense  of 
the  word^  while  Matthew  has  interpolated  (ix.  13)  a  thought 
which  is  foreign  to  the  context. 


10  THE    GOSPEL   OF    MARK 

hardly  probable.  The  suggestion  ^  that  some  similar 
saying  of  Jesus,  perhaps  an  allusion  to  the  death 
of  the  Baptist  and  the  consequent  fasting  of  his 
disciples,  underlies  the  account,  must  remain  prob- 
lematical. To  this  defence  of  the  practice  of  the 
disciples  in  not  fasting  the  Evangelist  adds  the  two 
parables  of  the  new  patch  on  the  old  garment  and 
the  new  wine  in  the  old  wine-skins  (v.  21  f.),  which 
both  express  the  same  thought,  that  the  new  spirit 
of  Jesus  could  not  be  conformed  to  the  old  ways  of 
Jewish  piety :  a  saying  of  unassailable  genuineness, 
in  which  Jesus'  consciousness  of  the  unique  character 
of  His  spirit  as  a  reformer  declares  itself  in  the  clear- 
est fashion.  But  clear  as  is  this  point  of  the  double 
parable,  every  attempt  to  interpret  the  details  in 
an  allegorical  fashion  is  involved  in  insoluble  diffi- 
culties, as  is  shown  by  the  curious  controversy  among 
exegetes  as  to  whether  the  purpose  is  to  defend  the 
not-fasting  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  or  the  fasting 
of  the  disciples  of  John  and  the  Pharisees,  or,  finally, 
both.  Even  the  presupposition,  which  might  seem 
to  determine  the  interpretation,  that  this  double 
parable  must  find  its  explanation  in  the  foregoing 
controversy  about  fasting,  is  itself  very  questionable.^ 
The  thought  of  the  parable  is  so  general  that  it 
extends  far  beyond  the  special  case ;  the  protest 
against  half-heartedness  and  false  compromise  might 
have  been  spoken  on  many  other  occasions  {e.g.  vii. 

^  Jiilicher,  Gleichnisreden  Je.su,  \>.  188.  Menzies^  too,  The  Earliest 
Gospel,  p.  87,  questions  the  genuineness  of  this  allegorical  trait,  and 
adds  the  remark :  "  The  Early  Church  practised  fasting,  and  our 
narrative  as  it  stands  furnishes  a  warrant  for  an  observance  which 
Jesus  had  not  encouraged  in  His  own  lifetime." 

-  Jiilicher,  ut  sup.,  p.  199. 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE        11 

1-23  or  viii.  15),  and  only  have  been  placed  here  by- 
Mark.  But  even  if  it  was  originally  spoken  in  this 
connection,  its  width  of  meaning  is  unduly  narrowed 
by  confining  it  to  the  special  case  of  the  fasting 
customs  of  the  disciples  of  John  and  of  the  Pharisees. 
This  application  is  indeed  quite  impossible  in  the 
concluding  words  which  Luke  here  adds  (v.  39) : 
"  No  man  having  drunk  old  wine  straightway  desireth 
new,  for  he  saith,  The  old  is  good."  Is  that  intended 
to  excuse  the  conservatism  of  the  Jews  or  Jewish 
Christians,  with  its  disinclination  to  anything  new  ? 
But  how  little  that  would  agree  with  the  preceding 
defence  of  the  new  spirit  of  the  Gospel  and  rejection 
of  all  weak  compromises  !  This  saying  has  therefore 
found  its  place  here  only  in  consequence  of  the  loose 
association  of  ideas  suggested  by  the  mention  of  old 
and  new  wine,  since  we  find  similar  associations  of 
ideas  not  infrequently  in  Luke. 

There  follow  next  two  narratives  in  which  the  freer 
conduct  of  the  disciples,  and  of  Jesus  himself,  upon 
the  Sabbath  provoked  the  opposition  of  the  Jewish 
rigorists.  In  the  first  case  it  was  the  disciples'  pluck- 
ing the  ears  of  corn  as  they  went  through  a  field,  in 
which,  of  course  it  was  not  the  action  as  such,  but 
the  fact  that  it  took  place  on  the  Sabbath,  which  gave 
offence  to  His  opponents.  Jesus  refers  His  questioners 
first  to  a  case  in  the  history  of  David  which  showed 
that  the  breaking  of  a  ceremonial  ordinance  was  justi- 
fied by  imperative  need,  and  then  He  adds,  once  more, 
a  general  assertion  of  the  widest  scope  :  "  The  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath  ; 
therefore  the  Son  of  Man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath  " 
(Mark  ii.  27  f.).     This  saying  is  an  appeal  to  natural 


12  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

moral  feeling,  and  at  the  same  time  to  healthy  common 
sense,  according  to  the  judgment  of  which  the  good 
of  man  is  the  ultimate  end  in  view,  of  which  every 
statutory  command  is  only  a  subordinate  means,  the 
value  and  the  application  of  which  are  therefore  to 
be  determined  by  the  higher  regulative  principle  of 
that  end — a  saying  which  lays  the  axe  to  the  root  of 
the  positive  legal  religion,  according  to  which  the  en- 
acted ordinance  as  such  is  of  paramount  validity.  It 
is  to  be  noticed  here  that  the  lordship  of  the  Son  of 
Man  also  (even)  over  the  Sabbath  is  not  a  consequence 
of  the  special  Messianic  dignity  of  Jesus,^  for  in  that 
case  the  logical  connection  between  verses  27  and  28 
would  be  severed,  but  of  the  dignity  of  man  in  general, 
as  the  highest  end  of  creation,  whose  well-being  takes 
precedence  of  all  mere  legal  ordinances.  The  Son  of 
Man  is  therefore  here,  just  as  in  verse  10,  simply  man 
in  general.  The  apocalyptic-Messianic  significance  of 
the  phrase  is  only  found,  in  3Iark,  from  the  predictions 
of  the  passion  (viii.  38)  onwards.  The  second  conflict 
about  the  Sabbath  was  caused  by  a  cure  wrought  by 
Jesus  in  the  synagogue.  The  narrative,  which  in 
Mark  (iii.  1-6)  is  remarkably  lively  and  graphic,  shows 
the  increasing  self-consciousness  of  Jesus  ;  for  He  no 
longer  awaits  the  attack  of  His  opponents  but  anti- 
cipates it  with  the  question :    "Is   it   right   on   the 

^  In  Matthew,  however,  this  certainly  seems  to  be  the  case,  since 
he  has  omitted  the  saying  in  Mark  ii.  27  ("  the  Sabbath  was  made 
for  man,"  etc.),  and  substituted  for  it  the  proof  from  the  service  of 
the  priests  in  the  Temple,  the  force  of  which  lies  in  the  thought 
that  in  Jesus  the  Messiah  there  was  present  something  greater 
than  the  Temple.  But  who  does  not  see  in  this  argument  some- 
thing forced,  which  betrays  its  secondary  origin  from  theological 
reflection  ? 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE         13 

Sabbath  to  do  good  or  to  do  evil,  to  save  life  or  to 
kill  ? "  Thus  He  narrows  down  the  controversial 
question  to  an  alternative  which  admits  of  no  evasion  ; 
He  recognises  no  third  course  between  the  fulfilment 
of  duty  by  doing  good  and  the  transgression  of  duty  by 
not  doing  good,  for  the  omission  of  a  possible  work  of 
love  is  in  itself  an  evil-doing  which  cannot  be  justified 
by  any  Sabbatic  ordinance.  Thus  healthy  moral  feel- 
ing condemns  the  perverse  legalistic  religiosity  which 
exalts  the  ceremonial  ordinance  above  the  obligations 
of  love ;  and  that  this  perversity  should  give  itself 
out  as  the  loftiest  piety  evokes,  according  to  Mark's 
dramatic  narrative,  the  holy  anger  and  the  profound 
grief  of  Jesus  over  the  hardness  of  heart  of  His 
opponents. 

After  such  encounters  as  this  it  is  quite  intelligible 
that  the  opponents,  on  their  part,  soon  advanced  to  an 
uncompromising  rejection  of  Jesus'  ministry.  There 
were,  as  Mark  tells  us  (iii.  22  fF.),  Scribes  who  had  come 
down  from  Jerusalem,  perhaps  for  the  very  purpose 
of  taking  cognisance  of  Jesus'  work ;  and  these 
delegates  of  the  hierarchy  declared  the  cures  wrought 
by  Jesus  to  be  nothing  less  than  works  of  the  devil, 
with  whom  He  was  in  league.  Jesus  meets  that  in 
the  first  place  by  pointing  to  the  inconsistency  of  this 
reproach,  since  it  assumes  a  division  and  consequent 
destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  the  demons  (contrary 
to  the  Scribes'  own  theory).  The  conclusion  to  be 
drawn  from  the  driving  out  of  the  demons  was  rather 
that  He  had  overcome  the  Lord  of  the  House  of 
Darkness.  In  the  next  place,  He  reminds  His  op- 
ponents how  deep  was  the  guilt  which  they  drew  upon 
themselves  by  this  accusation,  since  while  all  other 


14  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

guilt  could  be  forgiven  to  the  sons  of  men,^  it  was  not 
so  with  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  i.e.  the 
deliberate  hardening  of  oneself  against  the  impression 
of  the  Holy  One,  and  the  misrepresenting  of  His  in- 
fluence as  its  contrary,  as  the  opponents  of  Jesus  had 
done  in  referring  Jesus'  works  of  healing  to  the  in- 
fluence of  an  unclean  spirit.  At  the  same  period  as 
this  conflict,  which  signified  that  Jesus  had  broken 
with  the  hierarchy  of  His  nation,  Mark  records  an 
encounter  of  Jesus  with  His  relatives  which  similarly 
resulted  in  a  severance  of  the  restraining  ties  of  family. 
According  to  Mark  iii.  21  and  31,  the  mother  and  the 
brethren  of  Jesus  sought  to  call  Him  away  from  His 
activity  as  a  teacher,  and  to  take  charge  of  Him, 
saying  that  He  was  out  of  His  mind  (efeo-T>/).  Jesus 
refused,  saying,  as  He  cast  His  glance  over  the  dis- 
ciples who  stood  about  Him :  "  Behold  my  mother 
and  my  brethren  !  Whosoever  doeth  the  will  of  God, 
the  same  is  my  brother  and  sister  and  mother."  This 
account,  which  is  given  in  its  entirety  by  Mark  only, 
is  in  several  respects  worthy  of  notice.  It  is  un- 
answerably clear  evidence  of  the  fact  that  of  a  super- 
natural birth  of  Jesus  His  own  mother  knew  nothing, 
for  otherwise  she  could  not  possibly  have  so  com- 
pletely failed  to  recognise  the  higher  vocation  of  her 
Son,  as  is  implied  by  her  thinking  Him  out  of  His 
mind.  But  even  the  Christian  community  cannot,  at 
the  time  when  our  Gospel  was  written,  have  known 

1  Out  of  this  phrase  TOi<;  vtois  tUv  dvOpoy-n-Mv  of  Mark  the  other 
Synoptics  have  made  the  statement  that  even  blasphemy  against 
the  Son  of  Man  can  be  forgiven,  only  not  that  against  the  Spirit 
— a  distinction  of  which  Mark  knows  nothing,  and  which  is  in 
actual  contradiction  with  the  context. 


THE    WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE         15 

anything  of  the  bh*th-story  of  the  later  tradition,  for 
otherwise  the  EvangeUst  could  not  have  so  innocently 
reported  the  mistake  of  Jesus'  mother.  The  later 
Evangelists  have  clearly  recognised  the  inconsistency 
of  this  statement  of  Mark  with  their  story  of  Jesus' 
birth,  and  for  that  reason  suppressed  the  former ;  as, 
however,  they  report  His  refusal  to  see  His  relatives 
without  the  explanatory  motive  given  in  Mark,  the 
conduct  of  Jesus  appears  in  their  narrative  to  be 
characterised  by  a  causeless  rudeness  and  harshness. 
Their  description  of  this  occurrence  is  therefore  evi- 
dently an  abbreviation  due  to  dogmatic  considerations, 
and  is  consequently  obscure  as  compared  with  the 
complete  and  perfectly  intelligible  report  of  Mark. 

While  antagonisms  thus  increased  in  number  and 
intensity,  the  multitudes  who  flocked  to  Jesus  grew 
so  large  that  it  became  more  and  more  difficult  to 
influence  and  teach  them  in  an  orderly  fashion. 
It  became  obviously  necessary  to  choose  out  of  the 
multitude  of  adherents  a  narrower  circle  of  disciples 
to  be  constantly  with  Jesus.  For  this  purpose 
Jesus  withdrew  himself,  as  Mark  (iii.  13)  reports, 
from  the  seashore,  where  the  multitude  thronged 
Him,  to  the  higher  ground  above  it,^  and  called  one 
and  another  to  Him  at  His  free  choice.  In  this 
way  He  appointed  twelve  to  be  His  permanent 
companions,  and  also  with  the  intention  that  they 
should    act   as    His    messengers    and    emissaries    in 

'  It  is  in  this  sense  that  to  opos  in  Mark  is  to  be  understood ; 
there  is  no  reason  here  for  a  symbolical  mountain.  In  Matthew, 
however,  "  the  mountain "  no  doubt  acquires  the  symbolical 
significance  of  the  second  Sinai,  for  it  is  there  not  the  scene  of  the 
choice  of  the  disciples,  but  of  the  giving  of  the  new  law. 


16  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

extending  the  sphere  of  His  teaching  and  work. 
Almost  immediately  after  this  choice  of  the  inner 
circle  of  disciples,  Mark  represents  Jesus  as  beginning 
His  teaching  regarding  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God — a  teaching  clothed  in  parables,  which  were 
no  doubt  spoken  to  the  people  in  general,  but  were 
only  interpreted  to  the  inner  circle  of  disciples,  since 
it  was  only  to  them  that  the  "mystery  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God "  was  to  be  communicated,  while  to  those 
without  it  was  only  to  be  given  in  parables,  that  they 
might  not  see,  nor  hear,  nor  be  converted  (iv.  11). 
The  Evangelist  sees  therefore  in  the  parables  a  secret 
and  esoteric  method  of  teaching,  for  the  understand- 
ing of  which  a  special  interpretation  was  necessary 
which  was  not  accessible  to  all.  This  conception 
arose  from  the  traditional  confusion  of  the  parables 
with  the  allegories  of  the  apocalyptic  writings,  from 
which  they  are  nevertheless  quite  distinct.  The 
parables  of  Jesus  are  not  secret  allegorical  teachings, 
but  universally  intelligible  graphic  presentations  of 
experiences  which  Jesus  Himself  had  met  with  in 
His  work  as  a  preacher,  and  of  the  practical  inferences 
which  He  drew  from  them.  As  He  looked  back 
upon  His  work  up  to  this  point  the  painful  con- 
viction forced  itself  upon  Him  that  its  success  was 
small,  the  progress  of  His  cause  slow,  its  beginnings 
still  almost  imperceptible.  But  He  did  not  allow 
this  to  discourage  Him,  but  recognised  that  the 
cause  of  this  modest  success  was  in  the  nature  of 
things,  since  the  spiritual  seed  of  His  word  was 
subject  to  the  same  conditions  and  laws  of  growth 
as  the  natural  seed.  As  not  every  grain  of  corn 
which   the   sower   sows   comes   up,   or   at   any   rate 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE         17 

reaches  maturity,  because  many  meet  with  hind- 
rances in  unfavourable  soil,  so  the  word,  the  pro- 
clamation of  the  gospel,  does  not  find  everywhere 
alike  receptive  hearts.  And  as  the  husbandman, 
when  he  has  put  in  his  seed,  can  do  nothing  more, 
but  must  wait  with  patience  the  gradual  sprouting, 
growing,  and  ripening  of  the  grain,  so  in  spiritual 
things  everything  must  have  its  time,  and  nothing 
can  be  forced  or  hastened.  And,  however  impercept- 
ible the  beginning  may  be,  something  great  may  yet 
grow  out  of  it,  as  from  the  minute  mustard-seed 
there  grows  the  great  naustard-plant.  These  are  all 
thoughts  of  the  simplest  kind  which  naturally 
presented  themselves  to  the  mind  of  Jesus  in 
looking  back  upon  His  past  experiences ;  from  the 
perception  that  in  these  experiences  exactly  the 
same  laws  and  sequences  of  the  world-order  were 
manifested  as  are  observable  in  nature  in  general, 
He  drew  for  himself  and  His  followers  a  lesson 
of  patience  and  of  courageous  confidence.  But 
the  Evangehst,  looking  back  over  the  intervening 
period  with  the  experience  of  the  non-success  of  the 
gospel  among  the  unbelieving  Jews  in  his  mind,  could 
only  explain  this,  in  agreement  with  Paul  (cp.  iv.  12 
with  Rom.  xi.  8),  as  due  to  Divine  fore-ordination, 
and  therefore  believed  that  Jesus  used  parable  with 
the  purpose  of  not  being  understood  by  the  people ; 
and,  accordingly,  that  the  parables  in  general  were 
so  obscure  and  mysterious  that  even  the  disciples 
could  only  understand  them  by  the  aid  of  a  special 
interpretation.  He  therefore  himself  adds  this 
explanation,  allegorising  in  traditional  fashion  the 
individual   traits,   keeping   the   allegory,    no    doubt, 


VOL.  II 


2 


18  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

within  modest  limits,  but  at  the  same  time  going 
beyond  the  simple  force  of  the  original  meaning.^ 
Next  comes  a  two-fold  warning  to  the  disciples  in 
regard  to  their  calling  as  teachers.  The  light  whose 
brightness  had  dawned  on  them  was  not  to  be 
restricted  to  their  narrow  circle,  but  was  to  be  set 
upon  a  lamp-stand,  to  be  made  the  common  possession 
of  all  through  the  freest  proclamation  of  the  truth  ; 
but  in  order  to  be  qualified  for  this  duty  they  must 
themselves  take  heed  to  (direct  their  attention  upon) 
that  which  they  heard:  according  to  the  measure 
with  which  they  measured  it  should  be  measured  to 
them  again,  "  for  to  him  that  hath  shall  be  given,  but 
he  that  hath  not,  from  him  shall  be  taken  away  even 
that  which  he  hath  "  (iv.  24).  Everything  depends, 
therefore,  upon  steadfast  attention,  and  upon  making 
practical  appUcation  of  that  which  is  heard ;  for  it  is 
by  that  alone  that  understanding  of  the  secrets  of 
God  is  won,  and,  in  consequence,  the  light  of  truth 
successfully  spread  abroad. 

On  the  evening  of  the  same  day  which  had  become 
memorable  to  the  disciples  through  the  first  sermon 
of  the  Master,  Jesus  crossed,  as  ^lark  recounts  (iv. 
35-41),  in  the  boat  from  which  He  had  addressed  the 
multitude  who  stood  on  the  strand,  to  the  other  side 
of  the  lake.  As  they  were  crossing,  a  storm  arose 
while  Jesus  was  asleep.  The  disciples,  in  alarm,  awake 
the  Master ;  He  rebukes  the  storm,  and  it  is  stilled, 
and  He  then  blames  the  disciples  for  their  little  faith  ; 
but  they  are  dismayed  in  the  presence  of  this  Man 

^  Cf.  on  this  point  the  admirable  work  of  Jiilicher  on  the 
parables  of  Jesus,  also  the  commentaries  of  Weiss,  Holtzmann, 
and  MenzieSj  on  Mark  iv. 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE        19 

to  whom  the  wind  and  the  sea  are  obedient.  This 
narrative  may  be  based  on  an  historical  reminiscence 
of  a  stormy  crossing  in  which  Jesus  by  His  calmness 
and  trust  in  God  shamed  and  calmed  the  trembling 
disciples,  somewhat  as  Paul  did  in  the  storm  in 
Acts  xxvii.  22  fF.  But  out  of  this  reminiscence  the 
idealising  imagination  has  made  a  miracle  of  omni- 
potence, partly  suggested  by  some  Old  Testament 
imagery — phrases  such  as  Nahum  i.  3  fF.,  "  The  Lord 
hath  his  way  in  the  whirlwind  and  the  storm.  .  .  . 
He  rebuketh  the  sea,  and  maketh  it  dry  " ;  Ps.  cvii. 
25  ff.,  "  He  commandeth  and  raiseth  the  stormy  wind 
which  lifteth  up  the  waves  thereof.  .  .  .  They  trembled 
and  cried  to  the  Lord  in  their  trouble,  .  .  .  and  he 
commanded,  and  the  waves  were  still."  The  story 
of  Jonah,  too,  offers  a  striking  parallel.  "  There 
arose  a  mighty  tempest  in  the  sea,  so  that  they 
thought  the  ship  would  sink.  .  ,  .  But  Jonah  had 
gone  down  into  the  hold,  and  was  asleep.  .  .  .  Then 
the  shipmaster  came  to  him,  and  said.  Why  sleepest 
thou  ?  Arise,  call  upon  thy  God,  that  we  perish  not !  " 
(And  the  servant  of  the  Lord  was  confident  in  God's 
help),  "  then  the  sea  ceased  from  its  raging.  And 
they  feared  greatly."  The  idea  of  these  pictorial 
expressions  and  narratives  is  always  the  same  :  to  the 
pious  man  who  is  in  alliance  with  God,  even  the 
elements  are  serviceable.  When  the  religious  imagi- 
nation sees  this  idea  embodied  in  a  memorable  experi- 
ence of  the  disciples  and  their  JNlaster,  what  happens 
is  that  it  embellishes  and  idealises  the  occurrence 
almost  involuntarily,  and  gives  it  the  character  of  an 
actual  miracle.  In  this  particular  case  we  can  clearly 
follow   the   various    stages   of    the    process.     In   its 


20  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

simple  form,  as  it  is  first  told  by  Mark  (iv.  36  ff.),  the 
actual  facts  contain  nothing  impossible  (the  miracle 
lies  only  in  the  causal  connection  which,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  narrator,  subsists  between  the  word 
of  Jesus  and  the  stilling  of  the  storm).  In  the  related 
narrative  of  Jesus  walking  upon  the  water  (vi.  45-51) 
the  miracle  has  already  been  considerably  heightened, 
and  the  same  miracle-story  undergoes  a  still  further 
development  in  the  form  given  to  it  by  Matthew, 
where  (xiv.  28-33)  Peter  tries  to  imitate  Jesus  in 
walking  on  the  water,  but  in  doing  so,  being  over- 
come with  fear,  is  in  danger  of  sinking,  and  is  only 
kept  above  the  water  by  the  saving  hand  of  Jesus. 
Here  the  allegorical  and  poetic  character  is  immedi- 
ately obvious,  and  we  thus  perceive  in  these  three 
sea- pictures  the  tendency  of  religious  tradition  to  a 
progressive  idealising  and  allegorising  of  historical 
reminiscences. 

The  narrative  of  the  cure  of  the  possessed  man  at 
Gerasa  (v.  1-20),  which  follows  on  that  of  the  stilling 
of  the  storm,  is  perhaps  a  similar  case.  The  picture 
of  the  madman  is  so  vivid,  his  behaviour  at  his  meet- 
ing with  Jesus,  and  after  his  cure,  is  psychologically 
so  probable,  that  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for 
holding  the  whole  story  to  be  an  allegory,  whether 
of  the  conversion  of  the  heathen  world  in  general,  or, 
as  has  even  been  held,  of  the  Apostle  Paul.  But  with 
this  in  itself  entirely  probable  story  of  the  cure  there 
has  been  bound  up  a  clearly  mythical,  and  possibly 
allegorical,  trait;  viz.,  that  the  legion  of  demons  by 
which  the  man  supposed  himself  to  be  possessed  not 
only  went  out  of  him,  but  entered  into  a  herd  of 
swine  and  hurled  them  into  the  sea.     Here  the  con- 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE        21 

jecture  readily  suggests  itself  that  we  have  an 
allegorical  representation  of  the  apocalyptic  idea 
that  the  demonic  powers  of  unclean  heathenism, 
overthrown  by  the  superior  might  of  the  word  of 
Jesus,  are  delivered  over  to  the  abyss  of  hell,^ 
where  they  belong  {cf.  Apoc.  xii.  9,  xx.  2  f.).  In 
particular,  we  might  think  of  the  overcoming  of 
the  orgiastic  Cybele-worship  which  had  its  special 
seat  in  Syria,  to  which  Gerasa  belonged,  and  in 
which  the  uncleanness  of  foul  unchastity  was 
associated  with  mad  raging  and  raving.  The 
origin  of  the  narrative  as  we  have  it  is  perhaps 
to  be  conceived  in  some  such  way  as  that  the  cure 
of  a  madman  performed  by  Jesus  in  the  Peraan 
district  was  at  a  later  time  thought  of  by  the 
Church  as  a  symbol  of  the  overcoming  of  orgiastic 
heathenism  by  the  missionary  activity  of  Paul  in 
Syria,  in  which  the  uncleanness  of  the  cult  overthrown 
by  the  Gospel  gave  rise  to  the  image  of  the  herd  of 
swine,  which  became  inwoven  into  the  symbolic 
narrative  of  Jesus'  miracle  of  healing ;  so  that  the 
narrative  in  its  present  form  is  probably  to  be  con- 

1  According  to  Luke  viii.  S\,  the  demons  begged  that  Jesus 
would  not  command  them  ets  t^v  afSvcro-ov  dneXOeLv,  for  which  Mark 
V.  1 0  has  the  unintelligible  tVa  fxrj  avra  airoo-TetXT]  i$u>  r^s  x^P"-^-  The 
latter  may  have  arisen^  according  to  the  probable  conjecture  of 
Nestle,  from  a  confusion  of  the  Syriac  word  XDfn;^  =  abyss,  under- 
world, with  XOinijI  =  boundary,  borders.  Here,  therefore,  Luke 
seems  to  have  followed  a  more  accurate  translation  of  the 
common  Aramaic  source  than  Mark.  A  similar  confusion  of  i<7""^ 
=  mountain,  with  5<"}"!t?  =  far,  perhaps  underlies  the  Matthaean 
variant  ^v  8k  /xaKpav  aTr'  avrwv  (viii.  30)  for  the  Marcan  and  Lucan 
■n-pos  (ev)  Tw  opet.  Dalman,  however,  Worte  Jestt,  p.  52  (E.T.  p.  66) 
explains  the  difference  from  the  different  geographical  presupposi- 
tions of  the  Evangelists  as  to  the  scene  of  the  occurrence. 


22  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

sidered   a   mixture   of    historical   reminiscence   with 
poetic  allegory. 

Again,    the    narrative   of    the    raising   of    Jairus' 
daughter  and  the  healing  of  the  woman  with  an  issue 
does  not  appear  to  me  to  be  mere  poetic  symbolism, 
because,  especially  in  the  original  account  in  Mark, 
it  has  a  very  graphic  and  natural  character,  and  no 
single  feature  occurs  in  it  which  is  impossible.     That 
the  sick  woman  felt  herself  to  be  healed  by  the  touch 
of  Jesus'  garment,  and  that  Jesus  at  the  same  time 
felt  that  power  had   gone  out  of  Him,  could  only 
appear  mythical  to  one  who  had  given  no  attention 
to  the  whole  domain  of  magnetism  and  of  the  cures 
based  upon  it.     We  have,  in  my  opinion,  a  further 
proof  of  the  originality  of  Mark  in  the  very  fact  that 
he,  more  than  the  others,  in  particular  than  Matthew, 
who  loves  the  supernatural,  represents  the  cures  of 
Jesus  as  effected  by  a  physically  communicated  power 
which  streamed,  in  a  way  that  could  be  felt,  from  the 
healing   to  the  suffering  organism.     How  could  we 
properly  conceive   these    cures — which,  nevertheless, 
no  sensible  person  will  hold  to  be  nothing  but  myths 
— otherwise  than  in  the  way  described  by  Mark  ?     In 
any  case,  we  have  obviously  no  reason,  from  the  point 
of  view  of  rationalism,  to   doubt   the  originality  of 
Mark  and  prefer  the  much  more  pronounced  super- 
naturalism  of  JNlatthew's  narrative.     In  the  case  of 
the  Jairus  story,  how  natural  is  its  progress  in  Mark 
compared    with     the     manifold     improbabilities    in 
Matthew  !     According  to  the  latter,  Jesus  was  from 
the  first  entreated  to  raise  one  who  was  dead  ;  in  the 
former,  on  the  contrary,  only  to  come  to  the  aid  of 
one  who  was  grievously  ill,  news  of  whose  death  first 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN    GALILEE         23 

meets  Him  as  He  is  on  the  way.  But  that  she  was 
really  dead  when  Jesus  came  and  raised  her  up,  Mark 
nowhere  says.  The  reserve  of  his  narrative  leaves  the 
possibility  quite  open  that  the  child  was  only  seem- 
ingly dead,  and  at  the  touch  of  Jesus  was  strengthened 
and  rose  up  [avea-rt]) ;  whereas  the  two  other  Synoptists 
speak  unambiguously  of  an  actual  raising  of  the  dead, 
and  in  so  doing  show  that  their  representation  is  a 
clumsy  retouching  of  the  more  delicate  picture  drawn 
by  Mark.  Finally,  we  may  call  attention  to  the 
simple  realism  with  which  INI  ark  closes  his  narrative : 
"  And  he  told  them  they  should  give  her  something 
to  eat."  That  can  hardly  be  interpreted  allegorically  ; 
and  we  may  therefore  the  more  confidently  find  in 
this  little  touch,  which  Mark  alone  has  preserved,  a 
trace  of  historical  reminiscence. 

Mark  goes  on  to  tell  of  Jesus'visit  to  His  own  village, 
Nazareth  (vi.  1-6),  where  His  townsmen,  in  the  well- 
known  fashion  of  the  vulgar,  were  offended  at  the 
superior  spiritual  greatness  of  one  who  had  gone  forth 
from  among  themselves.  That  the  same  feeling  en- 
countered Him  in  His  own  family  is  expressly  men- 
tioned by  JNIark  (vi.  4  ;  oUla),  and  is  quite  in  harmony 
with  his  earlier  narrative  (iii.  21 ).  When,  in  tliis  connec- 
tion, he  adds  that  Jesus  could  there  do  no  mighty  work, 
or  miracle,  he  exhibits  once  more  his  own  rational 
view  of  Jesus'  miracles  of  healing,  namely,  that  they 
were  conditioned  and  mediated  by  the  receptivity  of 
the  sufferer  and  his  environment ;  Matthew  no  longer 
understood  this,  and  therefore  changes  the  not  being 
able  to  do  the  wonders  into  a  (deliberate)  not  doing 
of  them.  Luke,  again,  has  quite  unhistorically  placed 
the  account  of  the  rejection  at  Nazareth  at  the  be- 


24  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

ginning  of  Jesus'  ministry,  and  in  that  way,  as  also  by 
the  discourse  which  he  represents  Jesus  as  deHvering 
on  this  occasion,  made  it  an  allegorical  type  of  the 
rejection  of  Christ  by  Judaism.  In  Mark,  however, 
it  has  not  this  character,  but  is  simple  history. 

There  follows  next  the  account  of  the  sending  forth 
of  the  Twelve,  of  their  work  and  their  return ;  but 
before  the  latter  there  is  inserted,  to  fill  in  the  inter- 
vening pause  in  the  history  of  Jesus,  the  episode  of 
the  death  of  John  the  Baptist  (vi.  7-13,  14-29,  30). 
Here,  too,  the  originality  of  Mark's  account  is  every- 
where manifest.  The  instructions  which  are  given  to 
the  disciples  for  their  journey  are  in  Mark  quite  simple 
and  appropriate  to  the  situation.  Luke  introduces 
a  few  small  alterations,  and  adds,  besides,  a  parting 
charge  of  some  length  at  the  sending  forth  of  the 
Seventy  Disciples,  which  he  alone  recounts.  Matthew, 
like  Mark,  records  only  the  sending  forth  of  the 
Twelve,  but  in  doing  so  gives  a  set  of  instructions 
pieced  together  from  various  sources,  and  adapted  not 
so  much  to  the  actual  situation  as  to  the  later  cir- 
cumstances of  the  Church.  Besides  giving  this  long 
discourse  of  instruction,  which  goes  far  beyond  the 
immediate  purpose  of  the  sending  forth  of  the 
disciples,  Matthew  has  forgotten  to  give  any  report 
of  the  activity,  and  of  the  return,  of  the  disciples,  and, 
in  order  to  return  to  the  framework  of  the  Marcan 
narrative,  adopts  the  singular  expedient  of  reporting, 
instead  of  the  return  of  the  disciples  to  Jesus  to  give 
an  account  of  their  work  (Mark  vi.  30),  the  coming  of 
the  disciples  of  John  with  the  news  of  the  death 
of  their  master  (Matt.  xiv.  12),  and  fails  to  notice 
that  the  death  of  John  is  only  inserted  here  by  Mark 


THE    WORK   OF  JESUS   IN    GALILEE         25 

parenthetically,  having  taken  place  at  a  much  earlier 
point  in  the  historical  order,  and  that  it  is  therefore 
impossible  that  the  disciples  of  John  could  only  now 
have  brought  word  of  it. 

After  the  return  of  the  disciples,  Mark  next  relates 
(vi.  31  ff.)  that  Jesus,  in  order  to  give  the  disciples 
some  rest  from  the  growing  pressure  of  the  multi- 
tudes, withdrew  by  ship  with  them  to  a  retired  spot ; 
but  that  the  multitudes,  going  by  land,  outstripped 
Him,  so  that  when  He  disembarked  He  found  them 
again  gathered  together  upon  the  shore,  and  now, 
from  sympathy  with  this  "  flock  without  a  shepherd," 
gave  Himself  to  them  once  more,  and  taught  them 
many  things,  until  evening  came  upon  them.  Then, 
to  the  spiritual  food  of  instruction  in  the  gospel, 
Jesus  added  in  the  evening  miraculous  food  for  the 
body,  satisfying  five  thousand  men  with  five  loaves 
and  two  fishes.  This  miracle-story  must  have  had 
a  very  prominent  place  in  the  oldest  legendary  strata, 
for  Mark  gives  a  twofold  version  of  it  (viii.  1-9  is  the 
same  story  in  a  slightly  different  form),  and  on  another 
occasion  it  is  expressly  called  to  remembrance  (viii.  19f.). 
Accordingly,  Old  Testament  types,  such  as  might  be 
found  in  the  manna,  and  still  more  directly  in  the 
feeding  of  a  hundred  men  by  the  prophet  Elisha  with 
a  few  barley  loaves  (2  Kings  iv.  42)  will  not  alone 
suffice  to  explain  it.  We  must  assume  that  some 
direct  interest  of  the  primitive  community  was  a 
contributory  cause  in  the  formation  of  the  legend. 
What  this  interest  was,  the  account  itself  very  clearly 
shows.  When  we  observe  that  the  meal  took  place 
in  the  evening,  at  the  close  of  a  discourse,  that  the 
people  reclined  at  it  in  orderly  ranks  and  companies 


26  THE   GOSPEL   OF  MARK 

(vi.  30  f.) ;  and  when  we  listen  to  the  familiar  words 
"  He  took  the  loaves,  and  blessed  them,  and  gave 
thanks  "  (viii.  6),  "  and  broke,  and  gave  to  the  disciples, 
and  they  did  all  eat,"  we  recognise  clearly  the  allusion 
to  the   Lord's  Supper,   or  to  the   Love-feast  of  the 
Church,  with  which  the  Supper  was  originally  one. 
This  reference  has  been  made  explicit  by  the  Fourth 
Evangelist  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  which 
he  has  attached  to  the  story  of  the  feeding  of  the 
multitude  (John  vi.  51-58).     The  oldest  ecclesiastical 
pictures  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  too,  point,   by  their 
customary  five  loaves  and  two  fishes,  to  the  present 
narrative    as    representing   the    typical    celebration. 
With   this  agrees  also  what  Justin   Martyr  reports 
regarding  the  function  of  the  deacons  as  the  distri- 
butors of  the  Love-feast.     This  is  precisely  the  role 
which  is  played  in  Mark's  account  by  the  disciples, 
who  distribute  the  bread,  after  the  Lord  has  blessed 
it,  among  the  ranks  of  the  people.     From  this  point 
of  view  the  lively  interest  which  the  oldest  tradition 
shows  in  this  story  can  well  be  understood  ;  it  was 
much  more  than  mere  dogmatic  interest  in  a  specially 
striking  miraculous  act  in  the  past,  merely  as  such : 
it  was  a  unique  practical  interest  which  here  came 
into  operation,  the  great  importance  of  which  for  the 
Early   Church    is    evidenced    by   the   Acts    of   the 
Apostles  also.     The  question  at  issue,  in  all  proba- 
bihty,  was  whether  the  poorest  members  of  the  Church 
must   content    themselves    at   the    regular    evening 
assembhes  with  the  word  of  exhortation  and  go  home 
hungry,  or  whether  at  the  close  of  the  sermon  there 
should  take  place  a  common  meal,  provided  out  of 
the  resources  of  the    community.     The  latter  was 


THE  WORK   OF  JESUS   IN    GALILEE         27 

demanded  by  brotherly  love,  and  also  served  the 
purpose  of  binding  the  community  together  ;  on  the 
other  hand,  those  who  prudently  calculated  the 
slenderness  of  the  resources  available  might  point 
out  that  they  would  by  no  means  suffice  for  so  many. 
"  Send  away  the  people  [after  the  sermon]  that  they 
may  eat  in  their  own  houses "  (viii.  3,  vi.  36),  so 
counselled  the  practical  men.  "  We  are  moved  with 
pity  for  the  people,  if  we  send  them  hungry  and  tired 
to  their  homes  ;  give  ye  them  to  eat  "  (vi.  37,  viii.  2), 
responded  those  who  had  the  courage  of  faith  ;  and 
in  urging  this  they  may  well  have  recalled  the 
wonderful  blessing  which  sometimes  made  small 
gifts,  if  provided  by  faith  and  love,  suffice  to  satisfy 
many — not  only  in  the  legends  of  sacred  history,  but 
also  in  the  enthusiastic  gatherings  of  the  Galileean 
disciples  during  the  full  tide  of  Jesus'  work,  the 
memory  of  which  might  well  linger  on  in  the  tra- 
dition of  the  community  as  the  typical  model  for 
its  later  Love-feasts.  It  is  in  this,  therefore,  that  the 
significance  of  our  present  story  lies :  it  is  intended 
to  exhibit  the  practice  of  the  primitive  community 
of  providing  out  of  the  common  funds,  at  the 
Love -feast,  bodily  sustenance  for  all  its  members, 
as  having  been  undertaken  in  Jesus'  name  and  with 
His  authority,  as  a  work  of  love  willed  and  blessed 
by  Him.  In  the  typical  brotherhood-meal  of  the 
disciples  of  Jesus,  which  was  consecrated  by  His 
blessing,  it  is  intended  to  be  made  manifest  that  even 
the  slender  offerings  which  pious  love  makes  in  His 
name  for  the  benefit  of  the  community  bring  rich 
blessing  and  good  to  all.  As  a  poetic  and  allegorical 
expression  of  these  religious  and  ethico-social  ideas, 


28  THE   GO;SPEL   OF  MARK 

which  are  of  the  highest  significance  for  all  periods 
of  the  life  of  the  Christian  Church,  but  in  the  Early 
Church  had  a  position  of  quite  central  importance, 
the  story  of  the  miraculous  feeding  of  the  multitude 
has  an  abiding  significance  for  us  ;  indeed,  when  we 
remove  it  from  the  region  of  the  purely  supernatural 
and  understand  it  in  the  light  of  the  ethical  ideals 
which  animated  the  actual  Church-life  of  the  earliest 
Christianity,  it  becomes  thereby  only  the  more  inter- 
esting and  important. 

The  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  is  followed,  both 
in  Mark  and  Matthew,  by  the  story  of  Jesus'  walking 
on  the  sea,  in  reference  to  which  we  have  seen  above 
that  it  is  a  further  allegorical  development  of  the 
story  of  the  storm  on  the  Lake,  with  its  miraculous 
features  still  further  enhanced.  Then  follows,  after 
a  summary  notice  of  the  flocking  of  the  people  to 
Jesus,  and  of  the  many  cures  which  He  did,  the 
account  of  a  controversy  concerning  ceremonial  purity 
with  the  Pharisees  and  with  certain  Scribes  who  came 
down  from  Jerusalem  (Mark  vii.  1-23).  These 
champions  of  tradition  had  taken  offence  at  the  fact  that 
the  disciples  of  Jesus  ate  bread  with  "  unclean,"  that  is 
to  say,  unwashed,  hands,  thus  neglecting  the  tradition 
of  the  fathers.  Jesus  meets  them  first  with  a  com- 
prehensive rebuke :  applying  a  passage  from  Isaiah, 
He  characterises  their  pious  zeal  as  a  hypocritical  lip- 
service,  paid  with  a  heart  far  from  God.  Then  He 
points  out  to  them,  by  a  single  example,  that  they 
do  not  hesitate  to  invalidate  the  command  of  God  in 
subordinating  the  duties  of  the  Fourth  Command- 
ment to  their  own  ordinances  regarding  the  gift  to 
the    Temple.     Up   to   this   point  Jesus'  attack  does 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE        29 

not  seem  to  be  directed  against  the  Mosaic  law  but 
only  against  the  traditions  of  the  Pharisaic  schools. 
But  here  again  we  find  a  generalisation  of  His  reform- 
ing polemic,  similar  to  that  which  we  noticed  in  the 
case  of  the  controversies  regarding  healing  upon  the 
Sabbath  and  fasting.     Solemnly,  before  all  the  people, 
Jesus  gives  utterance  to  the  declaration  that  nothing 
which  enters  into  a  man  from  without  can  defile  him  ; 
only  that    which   goes   forth   from    a   man,  namely, 
evil  thoughts  which  proceed  from  within,  out  of  his 
heart,  can  defile  him  or  make  him  unclean.     By  this 
saying  He  establishes  the  principle  of  inwardness,  of 
the  spiritual   and   moral  valuation  of  a  man,  which 
goes  beyond  mere  opposition  to  the  Pharisaic  system 
of  observances,  and  must,  in  its  logical  consequences, 
lead  to  the  discrediting  of  the  JNIosaic  ceremonial  law. 
Whether   Jesus    himself    consciously   intended    this 
inference   to  be  drawn   is   another  question,  and   in 
view  of  other  well-authenticated  sayings  to  which  we 
shall  have  to  give  careful  attention  at  a  later  point, 
it  can  hardly  be  answered  in  the  affirmative.     It  is 
the    way   of    all   heroes    and   reformers,    and    more 
especially  of  religious  reformers  (think,  for  example, 
of  Luther  !)  to  give  utterance,  in  the  loftiest  moments 
of  their  struggle  against  old  abuses,  to  thoughts  of 
which  the  subversive  significance  is  still  hidden  even 
from  themselves,  and  which  go  far  in  advance  of  the 
more  conservative  mood  of  their  calmer  days  ;  thence 
come   the  manifold    contradictions   in   the   life   and 
thought  of  the  men   whose   spirits   are   the   battle- 
ground of  two  ages  of  the  world's  history. 

This  public  manifestation  before  all  the  people  of 
the    breach    between    Jesus    and    the   ecclesiastical 


30  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

authorities  of  Judaism  seems  to  have  been  the  cause 
of  His  withdrawing  for  a  time  beyond  the  borders  of 
His  country.  Immediately  after  this  controversy 
Mark  narrates  a  journey  of  Jesus  into  the  territories 
of  Tyre  and  Sidon  (not  merely  to  their  borders,  as  it  is 
in  Matthew's  account),  which  was  then  continued  into 
Decapolis,  and  concluded  with  a  return  to  the  sea 
of  Galilee.  Of  this  journey  Mark  tells  two  peculiar 
miracle  -  stories,  the  healing  of  the  Syrophoenician 
woman's  daughter  and  of  the  deaf  mute  (vii.  24-37). 
The  peculiarity  of  the  former  is  partly  that  it  is  the 
only  case  of  healing  at  a  distance  which  Mark  reports 
(Matthew  and  Luke  give  the  similar  cure  of  the 
nobleman's  servant  at  Capernaum),  partly,  and  more 
especially,  in  the  fact  that  it  is  only  after  some 
resistance  on  the  part  of  Jesus  that  the  cure  is  won 
from  Him  by  the  humble  faith  of  the  heathen  woman. 
When  Jesus  answers  the  request  of  the  Syro- 
phoenician woman  by  saying,  "Let  the  children  first 
be  filled :  it  is  not  meet  to  take  the  children's  bread 
and  cast  it  to  the  house-dogs,"  He  expresses  thereby 
the  consciousness  that  He  is  called  in  the  first  place 
to  work  among  Israel,  and  that  He  must  not  think 
of  work  among  the  heathen  until  He  has  fulfilled  His 
task  among  Israel.  In  the  answer  of  the  woman, 
however,  there  lies  the  thought  that  even  the  unclean 
heathen  may  be  allowed  some  share  at  least  in  the 
abundant  blessing  intended  in  the  first  place  for 
Israel.  We  may  undoubtedly  see  in  this  narrative 
a  symbol  of  the  attitude  of  the  primitive  community 
towards  the  question  of  the  Gentiles :  it  permitted, 
indeed,  to  the  Gentiles  a  partaking  in  the  Messianic 
blessings,  but  only  on   condition  that  they  humbly 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE        31 

recognised  the  prerogatives  of  Israel.  The  narrative, 
therefore,  certainly  has  its  source  in  early  tradition, 
and  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  recollection  of  an 
historical  incident  in  the  life  of  Jesus  lies  at  the 
basis  of  it ;  but  exact  knowledge  on  this  point  is  not 
possible,  any  more  than  in  the  case  of  the  story 
which  follows,  of  the  deaf  and  dumb  man,  or  the 
similar  story  of  the  blind  man  at  Bethsaida  (viii. 
22  fF.).  In  the  case  of  these  cures,  peculiar  to  Mark, 
distinguished  by  protracted  manipulation  and  pro- 
gressive stages  of  success,  it  is  best  to  leave  it  an 
open  question  how  much  is  legend  and  how  much 
history. 

Scarcely  had  Jesus  returned  from  His  tour  through 
the  territories  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  and  Decapohs, 
when  the  Pharisees  again  approached  Him  ;  this  time 
with  the  demand  that  He  should  show  them  a  sign 
from  heaven  (viii.  11).  What  they  meant  by  that 
was  perhaps  an  appearance  of  light  in  heaven,  such 
as,  according  to  the  tradition  of  the  Jewish  schools, 
was  to  accompany  and  authenticate  the  appearance 
of  the  Messiah.  Whether  this  demand  was  seriously 
meant,  or  was  only  intended  to  discredit  Jesus  in 
the  eyes  of  the  people,  it  at  any  rate  shows  that  in 
the  authoritative  circles  people  were  beginning  to 
attribute  high  significance  to  the  person  and  the 
work  of  Jesus,  and  to  pay  serious  attention  thereto. 
According  to  Mark's  account,  Jesus  simply  refused 
to  accede  to  the  demand,  declaring  emphatically 
that  assuredly  no  sign  should  be  given  to  that 
generation  (viii.  12).  From  this  it  is  evident  that 
Jesus  did  not  consider  His  cures  to  be  actual 
miracles  in  the  sense  in  which  the  sign  which  they 


32  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

demanded  would  have  been  so,  and  that  He  con- 
sidered the  doing  of  actual  miracles  not  to  belong 
to  His  vocation,  and  therefore,  also,  not  to  be  an 
object  of  faith.  But  as  the  later  Church  could 
not  dispense  entirely  with  the  proof  from  miracle, 
MattheM^  (xii.  40)  points  here  to  the  miracle  of 
the  resurrection  as  an  antitype  of  the  deliverance 
of  Jonah. 

After  this  attack  of  the  Pharisees,  which  raised 
the  question  of  the  legitimacy  of  His  work,  Jesus 
withdrew  again,  this  time  to  the  district  of  Cagsarea 
Philippi,  which  lay  to  the  north  of  Galilee.  The 
more  the  conviction  forced  itself  upon  Him,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  experiences  which  have  just  been 
detailed,  that  He  could  not  hope  to  maintain  peaceful 
relations  with  the  authorities  of  His  nation,  and 
could  not,  therefore,  count  on  producing  a  direct 
effect  upon  the  people  as  a  whole,  the  more  desirable 
did  it  appear  to  assure  Himself  of  the  confidence  of 
His  disciples,  and  to  make  His  relation  to  them  clear. 
He  asked  them,  therefore,  in  the  first  place,  whom 
the  people  held  Him  to  be,  and  then,  whom  they 
themselves  held  Him  to  be  ?  Peter  answered  :  Thou 
art  the  Christ.  Thereupon  Jesus  warned  His 
disciples  that  they  were  not  to  tell  any  man  anything 
concerning  Him,  namely,  that  He  was  the  Messiah 
(as  Matthew  and  Luke  rightly  explain).  This  may 
appear  remarkable,  if  we  consider  that  a  hidden 
Messiahship  is  a  self  -  contradictory  idea.  If,  then, 
Jesus  forbade  unconditionally  the  making  known  of 
His  Messiahship,  we  should  be  obliged  to  draw  the 
conclusion  that  He  himself  refused  this  role,  which 
was  universally  understood  to  imply  the  exercise  of  | 


THE    WORK   OF   JESUS   IN   GALILEE         33 

sovereignty  over  God's  people  Israel.^  But  that 
would  be  difficult  to  reconcile  with  His  conduct  at 
His  entry  into  Jerusalem,  when  He  openly  accepted 
the  homage  offisred  to  Him  as  Messiah  by  the  troops 
of  pilgrims,  or  with  His  question  about  the  Davidic 
sonship  of  the  Messiah,  or  His  discourse  to  His 
disciples  at  the  Last  Supper."  Our  choice,  therefore, 
seems  to  be  limited  to  one  of  two  methods  of  ex- 
planation :  either  Jesus  was  already,  at  the  time  of 
Peter's  confession,  convinced  that  He  was  the  Messiah, 
and  accordingly  tacitly  accepted  this  confession,  but 
imposed  upon  His  disciples  a  temporary  reserve,  in 
order  not  to  provoke  a  premature  outburst  of  the 
popular  Messianic  hopes  ^ ;  or  He  was  not  at  the 
first  conscious  of  His  Messiahship,  but  preached  only 
the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  without  reference 
to  His  own  person ;  then,  when  His  Messianic 
vocation  was  declared  by  others,  especially  by  His 
own  disciples,  He  did  not  at  once  take  up  a  definite 
attitude  towards  this  idea,  whether  of  acceptance  or 
rejection,  but  left  in  God's  hands  the  question  what 
place  in  the  new  order  of  things  was  destined  for  Him- 
self, awaiting  its  solution  from  the  Divine  ordering 
of  circumstances/  On  this  assumption  the  imposition 
of  silence  upon  His  disciples  at  this  critical  moment 
would  be  easily  explicable.  Whatever  may  be  the 
case  in  this  regard — we  shall  return  to  the  matter  in  a 
later  connection — it  is  in  any  case  certain  that  it  was 

^  So  Martineau,  The  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion,  p.  352. 
2  The  reference  is  doubtless  especially  to  Luke  xxii.  29^  30. — 
Translator. 

^  So  Holtzmann,  Keim,  and  most  of  the  authors  of  Lives  of  Jesus. 
^  So  Brandt,  Die  evangelische  Geschichte,  p.  476  ft. 
VOL.  I]  3 


34  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

thenceforth  for  Jesus  a  fixed  principle  that  He  must, 
in  order  to  fulfil  His  Divine  mission,  bring  about 
a  decision  in  favour  of  the  Divine  Kingship  in  the 
central  citadel  of  the  hierarchy,  without  heeding  the 
dangers  which,  according  to  all  His  previous  experi- 
ences, were  certain  to  confront  Him  upon  this  path. 

This  resolve  to  enter  upon  the  decisive  and  dan- 
gerous journey  to  Jerusalem  was  first  communicated 
to  the  disciples  immediately  after  Peter's  confession. 
That  is  the  one  point  of  historical  certainty  in  the  pre- 
dictions of  the  passion,  the  first  of  which  is  inserted  by 
all  the  Evangelists  at  this  point,  and  which  are  subse- 
quently repeated  with  manifold  variations.  The  form 
of  this  prediction,  however,  as  regards  the  more 
definite  features  of  the  suffering  and  death,  and  more 
especially  the  rising  again  after  three  days,  is  derived 
not  from  historical  recollection,  but  from  the  earliest 
Christian  apologetic,  which  sought  to  remove  the 
offence  of  the  cross  by  means  of  this  vaticinium  ex 
eventu  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus.  Against  the 
historicity  of  so  direct  a  prediction  of  the  death  and 
resurrection  there  is  to  be  noted  (1)  the  obstinate 
refusal  of  the  disciples  to  understand  ;  (2)  their  com- 
plete surprise  at  the  catastrophe,  and  their  flight 
when  Jesus  was  arrested ;  (3)  the  entire  absence  of 
any  such  expectation  on  the  part  of  the  women  who 
brought  the  materials  for  embalming  the  body  of 
Jesus ;  (4)  most  of  all,  the  behaviour  of  Jesus  at  the 
Last  Supper,  in  Gethsemane,  and  on  the  cross,  and 
in  general  His  whole  conduct  at  Jerusalem  makes 
the  impression  that  He  journeyed  thither,  not  in 
order  to  die,  but  to  fight  and  conquer,  and  that  in 
looking  forward  to  the  conflict  His  own  death  pre- 


THE   WORK   OF   JESUS   IN    GALILEE         35 

sented  itself  not  as  a  certainty,  but,  at  the  most,  as 
a  possibility,  much  as  in  the  case  of  a  general  on  the 
eve  of  a  decisive  battle,  or  of  Luther  on  the  way  to 
Worms.  A  further  confirmation  of  the  assumption 
that  in  the  predictions  of  the  death  and  resurrection 
which  are  related  in  the  Gospels  we  have,  not  literal 
history,  but  early  Christian  dogmatic,  lies  in  the  fact 
that  the  subject  of  these  predictions,  both  here  and 
in  the  subsequent  cases,  is  regularly  designated  the 
Son  of  Man,  which  in  this  connection  can  only  mean 
the  Messiah.  Now,  the  same  expression  occurs  in 
one  or  two  earlier  passages  (ii.  10,  28,  and  iii.  28  in 
the  plural)  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  as  an  expression 
for  man  in  general,  quite  in  conformity  with  the 
standing  significance  of  the  corresponding  Aramaic 
locution  barnascha ;  but  it  is  highly  improbable  that 
Jesus  used  the  same  expression  at  one  time  in  the 
sense  of  man,  at  another  in  the  sense  of  Messiah — 
to  do  so  would  have  been  to  court  misunderstanding. 
This  being  so,  we  must  seek  some  other  explanation 
of  the  Messianic  use  of  the  expression.  The  explana- 
tion is  apparent  in  the  apocalyptic  utterances  in  xiii. 
26  and  xiv.  62,  which  both  point  back  to  Daniel  vii. 
13,  and  of  which  the  first  belongs  to  that  Gospel 
apocalypse  which,  as  we  shall  see  later,  dates  from 
the  time  of  the  Jewish  war.  From  this  we  naturally 
conclude  that  the  Messianic  significance  of  the  ex- 
pression "  the  Son  of  Man  "  is  derived  from  the  early 
Christian  apocalyptic,  which  is  closely  connected  with 
the  Jewish,  and  that  it  was  originally  used  in  the 
Early  Church  as  a  designation  of  the  Messiah-Jesus 
as  exalted  to  heaven ;  the  next  step  being  its  applica- 
tion to  Jesus  as  in  the  process  of  becoming,  through 


86  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

His  death  and  resurrection,  the  heavenly  Messiah  ; 
and  finally  it  reached  its  widest  extension  of  usage 
as  a  terminus  technicus  for  Jesus  the  Messiah  even 
during  His  earthly  life.  Accordingly,  1  hold  it  to  be 
highly  probable  that  "  the  Son  of  Man  "  was  never  a 
Messianic  self-designation  of  Jesus  in  any  sense  what- 
ever, and  that,  therefore,  all  the  passages  of  the 
Gospels  where  this  sense  is  unmistakably  present  do 
not  belong  to  the  oldest  tradition,  but  are  derived 
from  the  apocalyptic-dogmatic  terminology  of  the 
Early  Church.  In  the  case  of  the  predictions  of  the 
passion  this  result  has  already  been  arrived  at,  on 
the  grounds  noticed  above,  and  this  will  be  confirmed 
later  in  the  case  of  other  sayings :  the  Messianic 
characteristics  predicated  of  the  Son  of  Man  point  as 
clearly  as  does  the  title  itself  to  the  reflective,  dogma- 
building  consciousness  of  the  Early  Church,  and  not 
to  the  consciousness  of  Jesus,  as  its  original  source. 

When  Jesus  told  the  disciples  of  His  resolve  to 
bring  His  cause  to  a  decisive  issue  in  Jerusalem,  in 
spite  of  all  the  dangers  which  such  a  course  involved, 
Peter,  as  Mark  tells  us,  took  Him  aside  and  began 
to  remonstrate  with  Him,  endeavouring,  evidently,  to 
dissuade  Him  from  this  rash  purpose  (viii.  32).  But 
Jesus  turned  from  him  with  the  sharp  rebuke,  "  Get 
thee  hence,  Satan,  for  thy  thoughts  are  not  the 
thoughts  of  God,  but  of  men  !  "  Matthew  has  added, 
by  way  of  explaining  the  severity  of  the  "  Satan," 
"  Thou  art  an  offence  unto  me,"  that  is,  a  temptation 
to  be  unfaithful  to  His  divine  vocation.  Luke,  from 
loyalty  to  Peter,  has  entirely  suppressed  this  scene ; 
it  certainly  belongs,  however,  to  the  oldest  tradition, 
and    has    perhaps     also    influenced    the    Matthaian 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE        37 

account  of  the  Temptation  {cf.  Matt.  iv.  10 :  v-rraye^ 
H^arava),     The   picture  there  given  has  first  here  its 
historical  reaUty,  for  in  the  counsel  of  the  disciple, 
well-meant  as  it  was  from  a  human  point  of  view, 
the  temptation  presented  itself  to  Jesus  to  abandon, 
from  fear  of  suffering,  the  path  set  before  Him  by 
God,  and  to  conclude,  on  a  basis  of  compromise,  a 
treaty   of  peace   with  the  world-powers.       Instead, 
however,  of  allowing  Himself  to  be  shaken  in  His 
heroic    resolve    by    their    persuasions,     Jesus     now 
endeavoured  (verses  34  fF.)  to  raise  His  disciples  to 
the  height  of  a  resolution  like  His  own,  prepared  for 
the  sacrifice  of  self  and  wholly  resigned  to  the  will 
of  God  :  "  Whosoever  will  follow  me,  let  him  deny 
himself  and  take  up  his  cross.      For  whosoever  will 
save  his  life,  the  same  shall  lose  it ;  but  whosoever 
shall  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  and  the  gospel's,  the 
same  shall  save  it.     For  what  shall  it  profit  a  man 
to   gain   the   whole   world    and    lose    his    own  life  ? 
Or  what  shall  a  man  give  as  a  ransom  for  his  life  ? 
For  whosoever  shall  be  ashamed  of  me  and  of  my 
words   in   this    adulterous   and  sinful  generation,  of 
him  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  ashamed  when  he  shall 
come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  the  holy  angels." 
In   this  saying  (verse  38)  the  apocalyptic  language 
of  the  Early  Church  can  easily  be  detected — if  only 
in  the  surprising  change  from  the  first  to  the  third 
person,  which   sounds   almost  as  if  the  coming  Son 
of  Man   were   a  different  person  from  the  speaker. 
That  is  not,  of  course,  the  Evangelist's  meaning  ;  the 
fact  is  rather  that,  when  these  words  were  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Jesus  there  was  still  a  certain  hesitation 
about  making  Him  speak  of  His  own  return,  due  to 


38  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

the  influence  of  the  well-grounded  recollection  that 
He  had  never  Himself  so  spoken  when  on  earth.  As 
the  Church  only  spoke  of  the  "  Coming,"  not  of  the 
"  Coming-again,"  of  the  Son  of  Man  {i.e.  the  heavenly- 
Messiah),  this  way  of  speaking  was  maintained 
even  when  Jesus  Himself  was  represented  as  the 
speaker,  and  the  consequent  linguistic  inconsistency 
is  a  clear  proof  of  what  has  been  urged  above  regard- 
ing the  apocalyptic  origin  of  the  designation  Son  of 
Man.  Even  in  the  foregoing  sayings  (verses  34-37) 
the  form  seems  to  have  been  influenced  throughout 
by  Pauline  language,^  but  in  content  they  are  prob- 
ably genuine  sayings  of  Jesus.  This  is  more  doubt- 
ful in  the  case  of  ix.  1,  "There  are  some  of  those 
that  stand  here  who  shall  not  taste  of  death  until 
they  see  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God  with 
power  (the  mighty  rule  of  God),"  in  place  of  which 
Matthew  has  (xvi.  28)  "until  they  see  the  Son  of 
man  coming  in  his  kingdom."  In  the  latter,  more 
definitely  apocalyptic,  form  the  saying  is  certainly 
not  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  :  it  would  be  more  possible 
in  the  less  definite  parallels  of  Mark  and  Luke.  But 
what  makes  even  this  seem  doubtful  as  a  saying  of 
Jesus  is  not  so  much  the  early  coming  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God — before  the  disappearance  of  the  whole  of 
the  then  living  generation  —  but  rather  its  late 
beginning  after  the  disappearance  of  the  majority  of 
those  then  living,  whereas  Jesus  was  at  that  time 
endeavouring  to  bring  about  the  immediate  establish- 
ment of  the    Kingship    of  God   in   Jerusalem,    and 

1  With  verse  34,  dparcj  tov  crravpov,  cp.  Gal.  ii.  19,  vi.  14  ;  with  36, 
KepBrjcrat  and  ^rjfxiwOrjV ai,  cp.  Phil.  iii.  7  f.  ;  with  37,  avraXXayiia,  cp. 
1  Cor.  vi.  20;  with  38,  eTraia-xwOfj,  cp.  Rom.  i.  l6. 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE         39 

sayings  such  as  Luke  xii.  32,  xxii.  16,  18,  29  f.  make 
it  appear  that  the  decisive  moment  is  close  at  hand.^ 

When  historians  and  biographers  reach  a  crisis  and 
turning-point  of  their  narrative,  they  are  accustomed 
to  pause  and  indulge  in  reflections  intended  to  throw 
into  relief  the  significance  of  the  moment,  and  of  the 
further  development  of  the  history  which  follows 
from  it.  This  is  precisely  what  Mark  does,  but  he 
gives  his  reflections  not  directly  in  the  form  of  his 
own  thoughts,  but  clothes  them,  after  the  fashion  of 
antiquity,  partly  in  the  form  of  discourses  put  into 
the  mouth  of  his  hero,  as  we  have  just  seen  in  the 
case  of  the  section  viii.  31-ix.  1,  but  partly  also  in  the 
form  of  allegorical  pictures,  which  declare  themselves 
at  the  first  glance  as  ideal  representations,  portraying, 
not  real  occurrences,  but  religious  ideas  clothed  in 
the  garb  of  apocalyptic  visions  and  the  poetic  imagery 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Ideal  stories  of  this  kind 
meet  us  at  the  outset  of  the  Galilsean  ministry  in  the 
vision  at  the  Baptism,  and  again  now  at  its  close  in 
the  Transfiguration  upon  "  a  high  mountain,"  as  the 
ideal  scene  of  this  ideal  picture  is  described,  with 
appropriate  vagueness  (ix.  2).  The  materials  out  of 
which  the  Evangelist  has  composed  his  narrative  can 
be  indicated  with  some  completeness.  The  motive 
which  underlies  the  whole  is  the  dogmatic  idea  of 
Paul  in  2  Cor.  iii.  7-iv.  6 :  whereas  the  brightness 
upon  the  face  of  JMoses  at  Sinai  was  only  temporary, 
Christ,  as  the  risen  Lord,  the  Spirit,  is  the  abiding 
manifestation  and  reflection  of  the  brightness,  i.e.  of 

^  Cf.  Menzies,  Earliest  Gospel,  p.  173  ;  Jesus  could  hardly  have 
deferred  the  Coming  (of  the  Kingdom)  to  a  time  when  most  of 
His  disciples  should  have  died. 


40  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

the  glory  and  truth,  of  God.  Of  this  glorifying  and 
exaltation  of  the  risen  (spiritualised)  Christ  above 
Moses  and  the  prophets  the  Transfiguration  is  the 
ideal  anticipation.  The  details,  however,  of  the 
pictorial  representation  of  this  idea  are  taken  from 
Old  Testament  legend,  especially  from  the  story  in 
Exodus  xxxiv.  of  the  transfiguration  of  Moses  on 
Sinai.  From  the  very  beginning  it  is  evident  that  the 
narrative  is  a  companion-picture  to  the  story  of  Moses: 
as  Moses  goes  up  with  his  three  comrades,  Aaron, 
Nadab,  and  Abihu,  to  Mount  Sinai,  which  is  covered 
for  six  days  by  the  cloud  in  which  the  brightness  of 
God  is  concealed,  before  God  reveals  Himself  to  Moses ; 
so  after  six  days,  Jesus,  with  the  three  disciples  who 
were  His  most  constant  companions,  goes  up  to  the 
Mount  where  the  revelation  takes  place.  As  Moses 
then  beheld  the  brightness  of  God,  and  the  reflection 
of  it  made  his  own  countenance  shine,  so  Jesus  was 
transfigured  into  the  heavenly  "  body  of  glory  "  in 
which  He  manifested  Himself  after  His  resurrection, 
and  into  which  those  who  are  His  shall  also  be  trans- 
figured in  the  future  (2  Cor.  iii.  18,  iv.  6;  Phil, 
iii.  21).  Again,  as  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Enoch  the 
garment  of  God  is  brighter  than  the  sun  and  than  the 
snow,  so  in  Mark's  narrative  the  garments  of  Jesus 
become  "exceeding  white,  so  as  no  fuller  could  whiten 
them. "  Then  appeared  Elias  and  Moses  talking  with 
Jesus  :  they  are  the  two  representatives  of  the  Old 
Covenant ;  as  such  they  are  present  as  witnesses  at 
the  exaltation  of  Jesus  to  be  Lord  of  the  New 
Covenant,  and,  as  the  first-fruits  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment people  of  God,  offer  Him  their  homage.  Peter, 
however,  misunderstands  this  appearance  of  the  Old 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE         41 

Testament  witnesses,  supposing  that  henceforth  all 
three  (I^aw,  Prophets,  and  Gospel)  should  dwell 
together,  and  in  this  association  of  the  Old  and  New 
Covenants  there  seems  to  him  to  be  assured  "  a 
beautiful  life,"  the  ideal  life  of  the  Christian,  so  to 
speak — just  as  this  was,  in  fact,  the  opinion  of  Peter 
and  of  the  Jewish-Christian  church.  But  this  aspira- 
tion of  Peter  was  based,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Pauline  Evangelist,  on  a  want  of  knowledge  due  to 
timorous  faint-heartedness — just  as  Paul  judged  the 
conduct  of  Peter  at  Antioch.  To  correct  this  mis- 
understanding, the  truth  of  the  gospel  is  now  made 
known  to  the  disciples  by  a  voice  from  heaven:  "This 
(that  is,  Jesus,  and  He  alone)  is  my  Son,  the  Beloved, 
hearken  unto  him."  The  pronouncement  of  God  that 
Jesus  is  His  Son  and  Beloved,  which  the  Evangelist 
has  already  given  at  the  Baptism  in  the  words  of  the 
Psalmist,  is  here  repeated,  with  the  addition  of  the 
command  to  recognise  Him  henceforth  as  the  sole 
authority  of  the  new  People  of  God.  That  before 
this  new  authority  the  highest  authorities  of  the  Old 
Testament,  like  Moses  and  Elias,  must  give  way,  is 
then  immediately  made  manifest  by  their  sudden 
disappearance,  so  that  the  disciples,  who  a  moment 
before  had  wished  to  build  tabernacles  in  which  these 
witnesses  might  dwell  permanently  along  with  Jesus, 
now  suddenly  saw  themselves  left  alone  with  Jesus. 
Would  it  be  possible  to  symbolise  more  clearly  the 
thought  of  2  Cor.  iii.,  that  the  glory  of  the  Old 
Covenant  faded  before  the  abiding  glory  of  the  Lord 
who  is  (the)  Spirit?  When  the  Evangelist  next 
proceeds  to  make  Jesus  give  the  disciples,  as  they  are 
coming  down   from  the    Mount,  the  charge   to  say 


42  THE    GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

nothing  of  this  vision  to  anyone  until  the  Son  of  Man 
should  be  risen  from  the  dead,  adding  that  the 
disciples  obeyed  this  injunction,  and  questioned  among 
themselves  what  the  "  rising  from  the  dead  "  should 
mean :  we  have  in  this  a  very  instructive  piece  of 
Early  Christian  apologetic.  Its  object  is  to  explain 
how  it  came  about  that  it  was  only  after  the  death  of 
Jesus  that  His  disciples  began  to  understand  and 
proclaim  His  higher,  more  than  earthly  glory,  whereas 
He  had  Himself  previously  revealed  it  to  them. 
This  difficulty  the  Evangelist  seeks  to  explain  by 
means  of  the  command  put  into  the  mouth  of 
Jesus ;  but  by  making  the  disciples  themselves, 
by  their  question,  betray  their  previous  ignorance 
regarding  the  resurrection,  he  shows  clearly  the  true 
state  of  the  case — that  the  disciples,  before  the  death 
of  Jesus,  and  even  afterwards,  until  the  events  of  the 
Easter-tide,  had  no  inkling  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  as  about  to  take  place,  and  that,  therefore, 
neither  the  prediction  nor  the  anticipatory  repre- 
sentation of  the  resurrection  at  the  transfiguration, 
actually  took  place.  No  doubt  such  discussions  re- 
garding the  fact  and  the  significance  of  Jesus'  resur- 
rection took  place  among  the  company  of  disciples, 
but  not  before  Jesus'  death.  The  ultimate  belief 
of  the  Church  (which  grew  out  of  later  experiences) 
is  therefore  here  referred  to  a  saying  of  Jesus 
(Menzies,  Earliest  Gospel).  The  same  apologetic 
interest  is  served  by  the  question  of  the  disciples 
which  follows  upon  the  story  of  the  Transfiguration 
— the  question  regarding  the  traditional  expectation 
that  Elijah  would  come  as  the  Fore-runner  of  the 
Messiah  (ix.   11),  which  Jesus  answers  in   the  sense 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN    GALILEE         43 

that  Elijah  had  already  appeared,  and  that  the  Jews 
had  rejected  him  with  high-handed  wilfulness,  and 
that,  for  that  reason,  the  Son  of  Man  had  not  found 
a  people  prepared  and  ready  to  receive  Him,  but 
must  suffer  many  things,  according  to  the  Scriptures. 
That  by  this  Elijah  the  Fore-runner  is  meant  John 
the  Baptist,  Mark  allows  us  to  guess,  while  Matthew 
makes  the  statement  explicitly.  Without  doubt  this 
discourse  springs  from  a  controversy  between  the  first 
Christians  and  their  Jewish  opponents,  and  Mark 
brings  it  in  here  because  he  has  spoken  in  the  fore- 
going narrative  of  an  appearance  of  Elijah. 

The  Old  Testament  model  of  the  story  of  the 
Transfiguration  continues  to  exercise  its  influence  on 
the  narrative  which  follows.  As  Moses  (Exod.  xxxii. 
17  ff.)  when  he  came  down  from  Mount  Sinai  found 
the  people  in  great  excitement,  in  connection  with 
which  Aaron  was  not  without  guilt,  and  as  Moses 
thereupon  waxed  very  wroth  with  him  and  with  the 
people,  so  Jesus  (ix.  14)  when  He  comes  down  from 
the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  finds  the  people  in 
dispute  with  those  of  the  disciples  who  had  been  left 
behind,  because  they  had  been  unable  to  heal  an 
epileptic  boy  ;  He  reproaches  them  for  this  as  a  faith- 
less generation,  and  explains  to  the  father  of  the  boy 
that  to  the  believer  all  things  are  possible.  When 
he  thereupon  announces  his  desire  to  believe,  and 
begs  for  help  (indulgence)  for  his  still  imperfect  faith, 
Jesus  drives  the  evil  spirit  out  of  the  epileptic.  From 
the  earliest  times  the  contrast  has  been  remarked 
between  the  scene  of  suffering  at  the  foot  of  the 
mount  and  the  scene  of  transfiguration  on  its  summit, 
and   no    doubt    the    contrast    is    designed    by    the 


44  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

Ev^angelist,  in  order  thereby  to  symbolise  the  thought 
that  sick  and  helpless  humanity,  torn  by  the  demons 
of  sin,  can  only  be  helped  by  the  glorious  power  of 
the  Son  of  God,  which  alone  can  avail  to  break  the 
tyranny  of  sin,  upon  the  sole  condition  of  faith. 

The  last  Galilaean  discourse  to  the  disciples,  which 
Mark  recounts  in  ix.  33-50,  is  occasioned  by  a 
dispute  among  the  disciples  as  to  which  should  be 
greatest,  to  which  he  immediately  attaches  the 
second  announcement  of  the  passion,  as  though  he 
desired  to  show  how  far  the  minds  of  the  disciples 
still  were  from  taking  in  the  thought  of  the  suffering 
Messiah.  Jesus  set  a  child  in  the  midst,  not  so  much 
as  a  type  of  humility  (which  is  the  turn  Matthew 
gives  to  the  incident)  as  in  order,  by  Himself  caressing 
the  child,  to  impress  upon  them  the  principle  that 
the  humbler  brethren,  such  as  were  aptly  typified  by 
this  child,  must  be  treated  in  a  loving  and  brotherly 
fashion,  and  no  offence  must  be  given  to  them  by  high- 
handed and  selfish  conduct.  To  this  saying  about  the 
giving  of  offence  there  is  attached  a  further  saying 
about  offences— those,  namely,  which  have  their  seat 
in  one's  own  members  and  their  functions.  The  con- 
nection of  these  verses  (43-48)  with  what  precedes  is,  it 
must  be  admitted,  effected  in  a  quite  external  fashion 
by  means  of  the  term  "  offence,"  which  is  common  to 
both.  Similarly,  no  natural  connection  can  really  be 
shown  between  verse  49  and  the  verses  preceding ;  ^ 

1  In  consequence  of  this  want  of  connection,  the  original  sense 
of  these  sayings  can  no  longer  be  determined  ;  what  the  com- 
mentaries have  to  say  upon  the  point  is  not  very  satisfactory. 
Probably  the  later  Evangelists  found  themselves  in  the  same  case, 
and  have  therefore  omitted  this  saying. 


THE   WORK   OF   JESUS   IN    GALILEE         45 

it  seems  as  if  the  Evangelist  had  brought  in  here,  on 
the  strength  of  the  external  association  of  ideas  (tt^p), 
some  isolated  sayings  which  were  current  in  the 
tradition,  unless  indeed  one  prefers  to  think  of  them 
as  additions  and  interpolations  from  another  hand ; 
verses  38-40  (from  Luke  ix.  49  £)  are  certainly  of 
this  character,  since  these  verses  obviously  interrupt 
the  continuity  of  thought  between  verses  37  and  41. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK 

CHAPTER  II 

The  Final  Conflict  with  the  Authorities 

(Mark  x.  1-xvi.  8) 

After  the  Pharisees'  demand  for  a  sign  and  His 
disciples'  confession  of  faith  in  His  Messiahship,  Jesus 
regarded  His  work  in  GaHlee  as  completed.  He  con- 
sidered that  the  time  was  now  come  to  bring  His 
cause  to  a  decisive  issue  in  Jerusalem  itself,  the  focal 
point  of  the  national  life  ;  and  for  this  the  customary 
Passover-pilgrimage  offered  the  most  suitable  occasion. 
Of  the  occurrences  of  the  journey  Mark  has  told  us 
but  little  (chap,  x.),  while  Luke  has  made  use  of  this 
journey  to  introduce  the  long  section  peculiar  to  his 
Gospel.  The  question  of  the  Pharisees  regarding 
divorce  (x.  2)  gave  Jesus  occasion  to  correct  the  ordin- 
ance of  the  Mosaic  law  in  the  direction  of  the  ethical 
idea  of  marriage,  founded  upon  the  ordinance  of  God 
at  the  creation  ;  in  this  case  increasing  the  stringency, 
as  in  others  He  mitigated  the  hardness,  of  the  positive 
enactment,  but  always  in  accordance  with  the  same 
fundamental  principle  of  the  exclusive  validity  of 
ethical  truth,  based  upon  the  nature  of  things  {cf. 
ii.  28,  vii.  8-23).  All  these  sayings  equally  bear 
the  stamp  of  genuineness — that  regarding  marriage  is 

46 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH   AUTHORITIES     47 

moreover  witnessed  to  by  Paul  as  a  saying  of  Jesus. 
To  the  discourse  about  the  sacredness  of  marriage  is 
very  appropriately  attached  the  beautiful  story  of 
Jesus'  love  for  the  children  ;  He  blessed  the  children, 
and  rebuked  the  disciples  for  refusing  to  let  them  come 
to  Him,  since  it  was  just  for  such  as  these,  i.e.  for 
children  and  those  of  childlike  spirit,  that  the  Kingdom 
of  God  was  destined,  adding  the  beautiful  saying, 
"  Whosoever  doth  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God 
like  a  child  can  never  enter  into  it  " — a  saying  which 
is  indeed  in  harmony  with  the  inner  meaning  of  the 
Pauhne  doctrine  of  salvation,  but  has  in  its  simpler 
form  an  advantage  over  the  dogmatic  theory  of  Paul. 
For  this  reason  a  saying  such  as  this— and  there  are 
many  such  sayings  in  the  Gospels — is  no  more  to  be 
explained  from  Paulinism  than  from  Judaism,  but  is 
the  genuine  expression  of  Jesus'  own  childlike  purity 
of  spirit.  There  follows  next  the  narrative  (x,  17-27) 
of  the  rich  man  (Luke  speaks  of  him  as  "a  ruler"; 
Matthew,  as  "  a  youth  ")  who  asks  Jesus  what  he  must 
do  to  inherit  eternal  life.  Jesus  first  directs  him  to 
keep  the  commandments  ;  then,  when  he  professes  his 
righteousness  in  this  respect,  meets  him  with  the 
challenge  to  sell  all  his  possessions  and  give  to  the 
poor,  in  order  that  he  may  have  treasure  in  heaven, 
and  to  come  and  follow  Him.  His  inability  to 
respond  to  this  challenge  gives  Jesus  occasion  to 
make  the  general  remark  that  it  is  hard  for  the  rich 
man  to  enter  the  Kingdom  of  God,  but  that  what  is 
impossible  with  men  is  possible  with  God  (by  means 
of  the  strength  which  He  imparts).  If  this  narrative 
is  historical,  as  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt,  it  shows 
that  Jesus  shared  in  the  views  regarding  voluntary 


48  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

poverty  and  alms-giving  which  prevailed  in  pious 
circles  among  the  Jews  ;  indeed,  He  goes  beyond  this 
in  holding  the  possession  of  wealth  to  be  in  itself  an 
almost  insuperable  hindrance  to  partaking  in  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  and  He  sets  up,  as  a  consequence, 
the  principle,  "  Whosoever  forsaketh  not  all  that  he 
hath,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple"  (Luke  xiv.  33). 
Matthew  has  omitted  this  saying,  and,  consistently 
with  this,  he  weakens,  in  the  narrative  we  are 
considering,  the  unconditional  demand  for  the  re- 
nunciation of  all  property  into  a  conditional  one,  "  If 
thou  wilt  be  perfect,  then  go  and  sell  thy  possessions," 
etc. ;  in  place  of  which  Mark  and  liuke  have,  "  One 
thing  thou  lackest,  go  and  sell  all  that  thou  hast,"  etc. 
Obviously,  Matthew's  version  is  a  softening  of  the 
original  rigorism,  and  already  points  in  the  direction 
of  those  "  counsels  of  evangelical  perfection  "  which 
facilitated  in  Church  morality  the  compromise  between 
the  high-pitched  ideal  and  the  actual  conditions  of 
social  life. 

The  saying  about  the  danger  of  riches  gave  Peter 
occasion  to  point  out  that  they — in  contrast  with  the 
rich  man  who  had  just  gone — had  left  all  to  follow 
Jesus.  Mark  does  not  tell  us  that  he  asked  what 
would  be  the  reward  of  this  sacrifice  (x.  28),  but 
Matthew  (xix.  27)  does,  probably  taking  this  question 
concerning  reward  from  the  answer  of  Jesus  (as  in 
xix.  20).  The  answer,  moreover,  is  different  in  the 
two  cases.  In  Mark,  Jesus  promises  to  everyone 
who  for  His  sake  and  the  Gospel's  has  left  house, 
family,  or  possessions,  that  he  shall,  even  in  this 
present  time,  receive,  along  with  persecutions,  an 
hundredfold,  and  in  the  world  to  come,  everlasting 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH    AUTHORITIES     49 

life.  Luke  and  Matthew  have,  instead  of  an  hundred- 
fold, the  indefinite  "manifold,"  and  omit  "with 
persecutions " ;  Matthew  also  omits  the  distinction 
between  the  present  and  the  future  world,  because 
the  period  when  the  reward  is  to  be  bestowed  is 
thought  of  simply  as  that  mentioned  just  before,  the 
renewing  of  the  world  at  the  Parousia.  If  the  words 
"  with  persecutions  "  in  Mark  stood  originally  in  this 
connection,  they  evidently  refer  to  a  condition  of 
the  Christian  community  preceding  the  complete 
coming  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  in  which  Christians 
would  still  have  to  bear  persecutions  from  without, 
but,  through  the  solidarity  of  their  brotherly  love, 
should  find  ample  compensation  for  all  the  sacrifices 
which  they  had  made,  as  was  actually  the  case  in  the 
Apostolic  Church  {cf.  Acts  ii.  44,  iv.  32 ;  2  Cor. 
viii.  13  fF.,  ix.  8  ff.).  As  Jesus,  however,  expected 
the  commencement  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  the 
near  future,  and  all  His  promises  are  connected  with 
this  event,  doubts  arise  as  to  the  originality  of  the 
Marcan  version,  which  is  also  uncertain  from  the 
point  of  view  of  textual  criticism.^  The  promise  of 
reward  for  all  disciples  who  have  made  sacrifices, 
which  is  common  to  all  the  Evangelists,  is  preceded 
in  Matthew  by  a  special  promise  for  the  Twelve  who 
were  Jesus'  followers  in  the  most  literal  sense — that 
at  the  Renewing  of  the  World  {TraXcyyevea-la,  used, 
here  only,  for  the  commencement  of  the  Kingdom  of 

^  In  Cod.  D,  verse  30b  runs  (after  Kaipw  tovtw')  os  5e  aclir]K€v 
olKiav  Koi  dSc^as  /cat  d8eXcj>ovs  kol  fj-rjTepa  Koi  reKva  kol  dypovs  fi€Ta 
Sicoy/Aov,  €v  Tw  alS)VL  T(x)  ip)(oiiev(j)  ^w^v  aiwvtov  Xrjfxij/CTaL,  "  but  whosoever 
hath  left,  etc.,  with  persecutions — i.e.  amid  persecutions — shall  receive 
in  the  world  to  come  eternal  life." 

VOL,   II  4 


50  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

God),  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  upon  the  throne 
of  His  glory,  they  themselves  shall  sit  upon  twelve 
thrones  and  judge  (rule  over)  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel.  The  form  of  this  saying  is  obviously 
influenced  by  the  apocalyptic  language  current  in 
the  Early  Church,  but  it  has  a  parallel  which  quite 
agrees  with  it  in  purport  in  Luke  xxii.  28  ff.,  the 
genuineness  of  which,  in  its  Lucan  context,  hardly 
admits  of  doubt.  The  words  which  close  this  section 
in  Matthew  and  Mark,  "  Many  first  shall  be  last, 
and  the  last  first,"  are  repeated  by  Matthew  at  the 
close  of  the  following  parable  of  the  Labourers  in  the 
Vineyard ;  in  which  connection  it  was  originally 
spoken,  it  is  impossible  to  say. 

As  the  second  prediction  of  the  passion  was  followed 
by  a  dispute  among  the  disciples  about  precedence 
(ix.  33),  so  there  follows  now  upon  the  third  predic- 
tion of  the  passion  another  dispute  (x.  35),  caused, 
in  this  case,  by  the  ambitious  request  of  the  sons  of 
Zebedee  that  they  might  sit  on  the  right  hand,  and 
on  the  left  hand,  of  Jesus  in  His  Kingdom  of  Glory.^ 
Jesus  points  these  men,  who  were  so  eager  to  rule, 
to  the  cup  and  the  baptism  of  His  passion,"  which  it 
was  needful  first  to  share  with  Him  ;  while  to  sit  on 
His  right  hand  and  on  His  left  was  not  for  Him  to 
give,  but  should  be  given  to  those  for  whom  it  had 

1  Matthew,  in  order  to  free  the  sons  of  Zebedee  from  the 
reproach  of  ambition,  represents  the  request  as  made  by  their 
mother,  but  betrays  in  the  answer  (xx.  22)  that  the  brothers  them- 
selves are  to  be  thought  of  as  having  made  it. 

2  The  latter  rests,  according  to  A.  Meyer  {JSIuttersprache  Jesu, 
p.  85)  upon  a  mistaken  translation  of  the  Aramaic  ?5P  =  dip  the 
morsel  into  the  bitter  sauce,  as  was  customary  at  the  Passover.  This 
would  then  give  the  same  sense  as  the  drinking  of  the  bitter  cup. 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH    AUTHORITIES     51 

been  appointed  by  God.  In  interpreting  this  saying, 
however,  we  are  not  to  think  of  the  Pauhne  doctrine 
of  predestination,  but  simply  of  the  Divine  providence. 
Further,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  in  this  answer  Jesus 
does  not  negative,  but  tacitly  accepts,  the  presupposi- 
tion of  the  disciples  that  the  Kingdom  of  the  Christ 
will  be  a  new  social  order,  with  thrones  of  honour 
and  rule,  and  distinction  of  rank ;  which  agrees  with 
Matt.  xvi.  28  (  =  Luke  xxii.  28  ff.),  and  is  opposed  to 
the  modern  spiritualisation  of  the  thought  of  the 
Kingdom.  But  there  is,  nevertheless,  an  essential 
distinction,  as  Jesus  proceeds  to  teach  His  disciples, 
between  His  Kingdom  and  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world,  in  the  fact  that  greatness  in  the  latter  depends 
upon  selfish  power,  in  the  former  upon  unselfish  love 
which  renders  service  to  all :  "  Whosoever  will  be 
great  among  you  shall  be  your  servant,  and  whoso- 
ever will  be  first  among  you  shall  be  the  slave  of 
all."  The  visible  embodiment  in  the  example  of 
Jesus  of  this  greatness  and  rule  resting  upon  service- 
able love  is  then  pointed  out :  "  For  even  the  Son  of 
Man  came  not  to  be  served,  but  to  serve,  and  to 
give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many  "  (verse  45  =  Matt. 
XX.  28).  In  Luke  the  parallel  to  this  saying  is  found 
in  the  discourse  at  the  Last  Supper  in  the  simpler 
form  :  "  I  am  among  you  as  he  that  serves  "  (xxii.  27). 
It  is  very  probable  that  the  latter  is  the  original  form 
of  Jesus'  saying,  which  has  been  modified  by  Mark 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Pauline  theory  of 
redemption  and  expiation ;  in  the  original  form,  as 
preserved  by  Luke,  the  "  service  "  of  Jesus  consists 
in  the  manifestation  of  His  unselfish  love  by  His 
whole  fulfilment  of  His  vocation,  which  is  directed 


52  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

to  the  procuring  of  salvation  for  His  followers : 
according  to  Paul  and  Mark,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
consists  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  life  of  the  Messiah, 
M'ho  has  come  just  for  this  very  purpose  of  redeeming 
sinners  by  His  death,  as  a  sacrifice  of  expiation  in  the 
room  of  many,  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  from  sin 
and  death  {cf.  Gal.  iii.  13 ;  1  Cor.  vi.  20 ;  2  Cor. 
V.  21  ;  Rom.  iii.  24  f.,  viii.  2  f.).  That  this  theory 
was  far  from  the  mind  of  Jesus,  is  proved  by  all  His 
teaching  concerning  the  free  love  of  God  for  sinners, 
which  forgives  those  who  are  penitent  and  humble, 
and,  on  their  part,  desirous  of  forgiveness ;  by  His 
own  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  and  by  parables  such  as  those 
of  the  Prodigal  Son  and  the  Unmerciful  Servant. 
How  could  He,  if  He  Himself  had  seen  in  this 
sacrifice  of  death  the  means  of  expiation  required 
by  God  as  the  ransom  of  sinners,  have  prayed  in 
Gethsemane  that  this  cup  might  be  removed  from 
Him  ?  How  could  He  have  had,  when  dying,  the 
sense  of  being  abandoned  by  God  ?  This  theory 
first  arose,  and  could  only  arise,  when  the  unexpected 
and  baffling  fact  of  the  death  of  Jesus  upon  the 
cross  was  made  the  subject  of  apologetic  and  dogmatic 
reflection,  with  the  object  of  explaining  away  the 
offence  of  the  cross  by  bringing  it  under  the  point  of 
view  of  a  divinely  ordained  means  of  salvation ;  and 
such  explanation  was  only  possible  on  the  ground  of 
the  belief  that  the  crucified  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  Man 
of  apocalyptic  expectation — that  is,  the  Son  of  Man 
who  through  death  and  resurrection  had  been  exalted 
to  be  the  heavenly  Messiah.  Thus  in  verse  45  the 
designation  of  the  subject  as  the  Son  of  Man  is 
connected    in  the  closest  possible  fashion   with   the 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH   AUTHORITIES     53 

predicate  of  the  surrender  of  His  life  as  the  ransom 
for  many ;  both  spring  from  the  mind  of  the  Church, 
as  influenced  by  Paul,  not  from  the  original  self- 
consciousness  of  Jesus. 

Towards  the  close  of  this  journey,  after  Jesus  had 
passed  through  Jericho,  Mark  recounts  yet  another 
miracle  of  healing — that  of  blind  Bartimseus  (x.  46).^ 
It  is  the  last  of  his  stories  of  healing,  and  the  only 
one  which  takes  place  on  Jewish  soil.  Mark  alone 
gives  the  name  of  the  man  who  was  healed  ;  he  was 
called  the  son  of  Timeeus,  that  is,  the  unclean  (or  the 
blind?).  In  this  unfortunate  man,  who  was  blind 
and  a  beggar,  we  may  perhaps  see  a  type  of  the 
poor,  religiously  blind  and  morally  debased  Jewish 
people,  despised  by  the  Pharisees  in  their  bigoted 
pride ;  which  others  passed  by  proudly  and  with 
reproaches,  but  which  Jesus  calls  to  Him  and  bids 
take  courage  and  rise  up ;  which  hastens  in  all  its 
nakedness  to  Jesus,  and  through  faith  in  Him  is 
healed  of  its  spiritual  blindness :  this  does  not  mean, 
however,  that  the  Evangelist  intended  this  narrative 
to  be  understood  as  mere  allegory. 

Of  the  entry  of  Jesus,  with  the  company  of  Passover 
pilgrims,  into  Jerusalem  Mark  gives  us  the  simplest 
picture.  It  is  true,  the  statement  that  the  animal  which 
Jesus  used  for  His  triumphal  entry  had  never  been 
ridden  before  by  any  man,  is  doubtless  an  unhistorical 
reflection  of  the  Evangelist ;  if,  however,  Matthew 
seems  to  have  the  advantage  in  omitting  it,  he  allows 

1  Matthew  has  two  blind  men  instead  of  one,  combining  the 
healing  of  the  blind  man  at  Bethsaida  (Mark  viii.  22  ff.)  with  that 
at  Jericho.  In  doing  so,  he  has  omitted  the  significant  name  of 
the  blind  man  of  Judaea. 


54  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

himself,  on  the  other  hand,  to  be  misled  by  a  too 
literal  interpretation  of  the  passage  from  Zechariah 
(ix.  9)  into  the  odd  representation  that  Jesus  rode 
upon  two  beasts,  the  she-ass  and  her  foal,  at  the 
same  time.  Whereas,  moreover,  according  to  Mark 
it  was  only  the  company  of  Passover  pilgrims  which 
had  accompanied  Jesus  from  Galilee  which  hailed 
Him  as  "  He  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord," 
and  hailed  with  Him  the  Kingdom  of  David,  i.e.  the 
Messianic  Kingdom — a  representation  which  doubt- 
less rests  on  an  historical  basis ;  Matthew,  on  the 
other  hand,  pictures  the  whole  city  as  being  power- 
fully excited  at  the  entry  of  Jesus — which  is  doubt- 
less unhistorical.  Immediately  after  His  arrival  in 
the  city,  Jesus  went,  according  to  Mark,  to  the 
Temple,  and  looked  round  upon  all  things,  as  was 
natural  to  one  entering  it  for  the  first  time ;  but 
there  was  no  time  left  for  any  action  on  this  day  of 
His  arrival ;  it  was  now  late  evening,  and  Jesus  went 
back  with  His  disciples  to  Bethany,  where  He  lodged 
for  the  night  (xi.  11).  The  next  day  He  went  again 
to  the  Temple,  and  began  to  drive  out  of  it  (that  is, 
out  of  the  Fore-court)  the  traders,  whose  chaffering 
seemed  to  make  God's  house  of  prayer  a  den  of 
thieves.  This  vigorous  act  of  attempted  reform — 
which  has  much  the  same  significance  for  the  origin 
of  Christianity  as  Luther's  nailing  up  of  his  theses 
against  the  sale  of  indulgences  had  for  the  origin  of 
Protestantism — stirred  up  the  ecclesiastical  authorities 
at  Jerusalem  to  aim  at  the  destruction  of  the  bold 
reformer ;  but  they  recognised  that,  for  the  moment, 
there  was  an  obstacle  to  the  carrying  out  of  their 
designs  in  the  favour  with  which  Jesus  was  regarded 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH   AUTHORITIES     55 

by  the  people  (xi.  18).  From  this  report  of  Mark, 
which  commends  itself  by  its  clearness  and  historical 
probability,  Matthew  diverges  in  several  particulars. 
According  to  him,  it  was  on  the  very  day  of  Jesus' 
entry  into  Jerusalem  that  the  cleansing  of  the 
Temple  took  place,  and  it  was  not  this  bold  act,  but 
the  cures  which  He  proceeded  to  work  in  the  Temple, 
and  the  praises  which  were  offered  to  Him  by  the 
children,  which  roused  the  wrath  of  the  hierarchy 
(xxi.  15) ;  similarly,  on  the  next  day,  it  was  not 
about  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple,  but  about  His 
teaching  in  the  Temple,  that  they  took  Him  to  task, 
and  demanded  by  what  authority  He  so  acted  (verse 
23).  Anyone  can  see  how  much  less  probable  this 
account  is  than  that  of  Mark. 

The  episode  of  the  barren  hg-tree  is  related  by 
Mark  in  two  parts :  first  the  cursing  of  the  tree  on 
the  way  from  Bethany  to  Jerusalem,  then,  on  the  next 
day,  the  perception  of  its  consequent  withering.  To 
this  are  attached  some  maxims  regarding  the  power 
of  faith  and  of  believing  prayer  (xi.  12-14,  20-25). 
Matthew,  with  his  usual  habit  of  abbreviating,  has 
combined  the  tw^o  parts  of  the  narrative,  so  that  in 
his  version  the  withering  of  the  fig-tree  follows 
immediately  upon  the  cursing,  and  the  miracle  there- 
fore appears  to  be  made  still  greater  (xxi.  19).  Luke 
omits  this  narrative  at  this  point,  and  gives  instead, 
on  an  earlier  occasion  (xiii.  6  fF.),  the  corresponding 
parable  of  the  unfruitful  fig-tree,  in  which  God's 
patience  with  the  unfruitful  Jewish  people,  and  the 
judgment  which  threatens  them,  is  typified  ;  obviously 
this  parable  is  the  foundation  of  the  story  in  Mark, 
the  latter   being   nothing   more   than   a   dramatised 


56  THE    GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

version  of  the  parable.  It  may  remain  an  open 
question  whether  Luke,  rightly  recognising  the 
allegorical  significance  of  Mark's  miracle-story,  altered 
it  into  a  parable,  or  whether  the  same  thought  was 
already  current  in  the  tradition  in  a  dual  form,  the 
parabolical  and  the  dramatic,  so  that  Luke  in  adopt- 
ing the  one  would  naturally  reject  the  other.  In 
this  instance  the  Gospels  have  themselves  preserved, 
alongside  of  the  miracle,  a  parable  embodying  the 
idea  which  gave  rise  to  the  miracle-story  ;  it  is  thus 
of  the  highest  interest  as  a  decisive  justification  of 
the  general  principle  of  interpreting  miracle-stories 
allegorically. 

On  the  day  after  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple 
Jesus  went  into  the  Temple  again  and  "  walked 
round  about "  it  (presumably  to  observe  the  result  of 
His  reforming  act  of  the  previous  day).  The  ecclesi- 
astical authorities  put  to  Him  the  question  by  what 
authority  He  did  these  things,  i.e.  what  sanction  had 
He  for  His  coming  forward  as  a  reformer  at  the 
cleansing  of  the  Temple  (for  it  is  only  to  this  act 
that  the  question  in  Mark  can  refer,  not  to  His 
authority  for  teaching  in  the  Temple,  of  which  Mark 
says  nothing,  though  Matthew  and  Luke  refer  to  it). 
Jesus  answers  this  question  with  the  counter-question 
regarding  their  opinion  upon  the  baptism  of  John, 
whether  it  was  from  heaven  or  from  men,  based  upon 
a  Divine  mission  or  upon  human  caprice.  The  em- 
barrassment in  which  this  question  involved  His 
assailants  shows  how  admirably  this  counter-stroke 
was  calculated  to  disarm  them. 

Immediately  after  this  abortive  attack  of  the 
hierarchs,   the    Evangelist   makes   Jesus   proceed  to 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH   AUTHORITIES     57 

attack  them  by  describing  their  guilt,  and  their  final 
rejection,    under   the   figure    of   the  unfaithful   and 
murderous  husbandmen,  who  maltreat  the  messengers 
of  the  owner  of  the  vineyard,  and  finally  slay  his  son, 
in  order  to  get  possession  of  the  "  inheritance "  for 
themselves,   after  which  the   lord    of  the    vineyard 
finally  comes  himself  in  order  to  destroy  them  and  to 
give  the  vineyard  to  others  (Matt. :  "  to  a  people  who 
will  bring  the  fruits  thereof  ").     In  the  form  in  which  it 
lies  before  us,  this  narrative  is  no  ordinary  parable,  no 
story  of  everyday  occurrences  setting  forth  a  law  of 
universal  application,  but  a  transparent  allegory  refer- 
ring to  the  Jewish  theocracy,  the  administrators  of 
which,  as  they  had  from  of  old  ill-treated  the  prophets, 
the  messengers  of  God,  so  now,  finally,  would  slay  the 
Son  of  God,  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  in  order  to  secure 
for  themselves  the  permanent  lordship  over  the  people 
of  God ;  but  so  far  from  succeeding  in  that,  they 
would  themselves  be  broken  upon  this  stone  which 
they  had  rejected,  but  which  God  had  raised  to  be 
the  headstone  of  the  corner.     It  is  obvious  that  this 
cannot  be   the  authentic  account  of  a  controversial 
discourse  of  Jesus,  though  it  may  well  be  based  upon 
utterances  of  His,  the  form  of  which,  however,  we 
cannot  now  recover  from  its  allegorical  transformation. 
The  allegory  can  only  be  understood  as  "a  product 
of  early  Christian  theology  "  ^ — an  indictment  of  the 
Jewish  hierarchy  by  the  Christian  Church,  as  having 
filled  up  the  measure  of  their  guilt  by  the  rejection, 
in  Jesus,  of  the  son  and  heir  ;  and  in  this  the  Christian 
conviction  that  Jesus  was  this  son  and  heir  is  assumed 
to  be  the  motive  of  the  conduct  of  the  hierarchy 

'  Jiilicher,  Gleichnisreden  Jesii,  p.  406. 


58  THE    GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

(whereas  it  was  just  this  that  they  disbeheved).  The 
pronouncement,  however,  that  the  vineyard,  i.e.  the 
government  of  the  people  of  God,  should  be  taken 
from  them  and  handed  over  to  others  may  well  be  a 
saying  of  Jesus  {cf'.  jNIatt.  xv.  13),  and  may  have  been 
the  point  of  a  simpler  parable  lying  at  the  basis  of 
the  allegory.  Whether  the  JMatthasan  version  also 
— that  the  vineyard  should  be  given  to  a  people 
who  would  render  the  fruits  of  it — is  intended  to 
express  the  same  thought,  the  fall  of  the  hierarchy,  or 
the  further  thought  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jewish 
nation  in  favour  of  the  Gentile  Church,  is  doubtful ; 
but  the  latter  is  certainly  the  more  probable  inter- 
pretation. As  a  result,  the  Evangelist  tells  us,  of 
this  polemic,  the  hierarchs,  who  felt  it  as  a  blow 
against  themselves,  desired  to  arrest  Jesus,  but  from 
fear  of  the  people  left  Him  still  at  liberty.  In  these 
circumstances  it  was  a  well-calculated  stratagem  on 
the  part  of  the  rulers  to  endeavour,  by  the  catch- 
question  regarding  the  tribute  money,  to  bring  Jesus 
into  conflict  either  with  the  Roman  Government  or 
with  the  people  (xii.  13-17).  Jesus  saw  through 
their  device,  and  cut  the  noose  which  was  intended  to 
ensnare  Him  with  the  well-known  words :  "  Render 
unto  Cgesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  and  unto 
God  the  things  that  are  God's,"  by  which  He  meant 
that  the  religious -social  revolution  involving  the 
fall  of  the  hierarchy,  to  which  He  looked  forward, 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  political  domina- 
tion of  Rome— an  ideal  view  which  was  destined  to 
make  shipwreck  upon  hard  realities,  but  which  never- 
theless contained  the  true  and  profound  principle  that 
religion  should  be  kept  apart  from  politics. 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH    AUTHORITIES     59 

After  thus  disposing  of  the  Pharisees,  Jesus  was 
approached  by  the  Sadducees  with  the  doctrinal 
question  regarding  the  resurrection,  the  irrationahty 
of  which  they  endeavoured  to  prove  by  the  imaginary 
case  of  tlie  seven  brothers  who  had  successively 
married  the  same  woman,  and  whose  claims  to  her 
consequently  came  into  conflict  at  the  resurrection 
(xii.  18  if.).  Jesus  first  corrected  the  erroneous  view 
of  the  resurrection  upon  which  this  objection  was 
based — the  assumption,  namely,  that  it  would  be  a 
mere  continuation  of  the  earthly,  corporeal  existence, 
including  the  marriage  relation,  whereas  really  the 
risen  would  be  like  the  angels  in  heaven,  and  there- 
fore would  enjoy  a  higher  form  of  existence,  freed 
from  the  earthly  body.  He  then  bases  the  certainty 
of  the  resurrection,  understood  in  this  sense  as  a  con- 
tinued life  in  heaven  similar  to  that  of  the  angels, 
upon  the  passage  of  Scripture  (Exod.  iii.  6)  where  God 
is  described  as  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob; 
for,  since  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead  but  of  the 
living,  this  implies  the  continued  existence  of  the 
Patriarchs,  and  therefore  of  the  dead  in  general.  The 
Sadducaean  denial  of  the  resurrection  is  thus  shown 
to  be  an  error  which  has  its  roots  in  ignorance  of  the 
Scriptures  and  of  the  power  (omnipotence)  of  God 
(xii.  24,  27).  That  reminds  us  of  Paul,  who  in  1  Cor. 
XV.  33  f.  similarly  reproaches  the  Corinthians  who 
doubted  the  resurrection  with  error  and  ignorance  of 
God.  It  is  noticeable,  too,  that  the  more  spiritual 
conception  of  the  resurrection  which  is  here  opposed 
to  the  Sadducsean  view  essentially  agrees,  in  its  con- 
trast with  the  grosser  imaginations  of  the  Pharisees, 
with  the  teaching  of  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xv.  35-49. 


60  THE    GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

In  immediate  succession  to  these  controversies 
Mark  places  a  conversation  of  a  friendly  character 
with  a  Scribe,  who  asks  Jesus,  not  (as  in  Matthew's 
version)  by  way  of  entangling  Him,  but  with  an  earnest 
desire  for  instruction,  which  is  the  greatest  command- 
ment (xii.  25).  Jesus  designates  as  the  greatest  the 
command  to  love  God  with  the  whole  heart  (Deut. 
vi.  4  f.),  with  which,  however,  He  immediately  com- 
bines the  commandment  to  love  one's  neighbour  as 
oneself,  the  latter  also  being  drawn  from  the  Mosaic 
Scriptures  (Lev.  xix.  18) ;  but  whereas  in  the  original 
context  neighbour  is  used  in  the  restricted  sense  of 
fellow-countryman,  on  the  lips  of  Jesus  it  receives  the 
wider  meaning  of  fellow-man  in  general,  as  is  clearly 
evident  in  the  parable,  recorded  by  Luke  only,  of  the 
Good  Samaritan.  The  Scribe  is  delighted  with  Jesus' 
answer,  and  repeats  it  with  the  addition  that  the  ful- 
filment of  these  two  commandments  is  worth  more 
than  all  sacrifices.  Jesus  recognises  from  this  his 
insight,  and  gives  him  the  honourable  testimony  that 
he  is  not  far  from  the  Kingdom  of  God  (xii.  34). 
Matthew  passes  over  in  silence  this  conclusion  of  the 
conversation,  though  he  was  well  acquainted  with  it, 
as  he  shows  by  bringing  in  at  a  later  point  Mark's 
closing  reflection  (xii.  34 ;  Matt.  xxii.  46).  The 
omission  of  this  saying,  in  which  the  essence  of  all 
piety  and  morality,  for  man  as  man,  is  set  in  contrast 
with  the  externality  of  the  Jewish  system  of  religion 
and  worship,  is  no  sign  of  greater  originality,  but 
rather  of  a  narrower  ecclesiastical  standpoint. 

After  these  discourses,  in  which  Jesus  answered 
various  questions  which  were  put  to  Him,  He  now 
(xii.  35  if.),  on  His  part,  puts  the  significant  question, 


FINAL  CONFLICT   WITH   AUTHORITIES    61 

How  did    the   Scribes  come   to  maintain   that   the 
Messiah  was  the  Son  of  David?      Had  not  David 
himself,  filled  with  the  prophetic  Spirit,  called  him  his 
Lord  ?     How  came  it  then  that  he  was,  according,  it 
must  be  understood,  to  the  opinion  of  the  Scribes,  his 
son  ?    There  can  scarcely  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  this  question  :    Jesus  intends  to  show  that  the 
current  opinion  of  the  Schools  regarding  the  Davidic 
sonship   of  the   INIessiah    was    based    upon  an  error 
which   was  opposed   to    David's   own   words.      But 
what  can  have  caused  Jesus  to  raise  this  question  ? 
It  certainly  cannot  have  been  a  purely  theoretic  in- 
terest in  a  question  of  the  Jewish  Schools ;  rather, 
the  point  at  stake  for  Him  was  the   very  practical 
question  whether  one  who  was  not  a  descendant  of 
David  could  be  destined  to  be  the  Messiah  and  be 
recognised  as  such.     And  from  this  we  may  well  draw 
the  conclusion  that  in  those  days  Jesus  was  deeply 
occupied  with  thoughts  regarding  His  Messianic  voca- 
tion, and  that  He  saw  in  the  opinion  current  in  the 
Schools  and  among  the  people  that  the  Messiah  must 
be  a  son  of  David  a  serious  obstacle  to  His  recognition 
as  Messiah.     That,  however,  would  not  have  been  the 
case  if  He  had  known  Himself  to  be  a  scion  of  David's 
race — for  in  that  case  the  popular  opinion  w^ould  have 
been  particularly  favourable  to    His   aims,  and    He 
must  rather  have  used  it  than  opposed  it ;  or  if  He 
had  intended  to  be  the  Messiah,  not  in  the  generally 
current  sense  of  a  King  of  the  People  of  God,  but  in  a 
quite  different,  purely  spiritual  sense — for  in  that  case 
the  question  regarding  the  correctness  or  otherwise 
of  the  traditional  opinion  regarding  the  Davidic  son- 
ship  of  the  Messiah  would  have  been  quite  indifferent 


62  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

to  Him.  The  fact  that  it  was  not  thus  indifferent  to 
Him,  and  that  He  sought  to  invahdate  the  opinion 
by  an  argument  from  Scriptiu'e,  seems  to  me  to  imply 
two  presuppositions  :  ( 1 )  that  He  did  not  know  Him- 
self to  be  a  son  of  David,  and  (2)  that  He  nevertheless 
cherished  the  thought  that  He  was  destined  to  be  the 
Messiah,  not  in  a  purely  spiritual  sense,  but  in  the 
traditional  sense  of  the  term,  namely,  as  the  theocratic 
Head  of  the  People  of  God,  who  should  take  the 
place  of  the  existing  hierarchy  {cf.  verse  9).  It  is 
further  to  be  remarked  that  this  meaning  of  the 
question  can  only  be  inferred  from  the  version  of 
Mark  and  Luke ;  whereas  in  Matthew  the  possibility 
is  not  excluded  that  the  Davidic  sonship  of  the 
Messiah  is  taken  for  granted  as  certain,  and  the 
question  is  directed  to  the  point,  how,  on  this  pre- 
supposition, the  Messiah  could  nevertheless  at  the 
same  time  be  David's  lord.  The  solution  of  the 
question  could  then  only,  in  accordance  with  the 
meaning  of  this  Evangelist,  lie  in  the  fact  that  Jesus, 
the  Messiah,  was  indeed,  on  the  one  hand,  the  son  of 
David,  but  on  the  other,  in  a  supernatural  sense,  the 
Son  of  God.  This  is  the  sense  in  which  the  Church 
understood  it,  and  it  is  very  possible  that  the  Evan- 
gelist Matthew  had  it  in  mind  ^  in  narrating  the 
incident.  But  that  that  cannot  have  been  the  mean- 
ing of  Jesus  is  obvious ;  the  sense  which  He  attached 
to  the  question  must  be  inferred  from  the  more  primi- 
tive version  in  Mark. 

While  the  discourses  of  Jesus  during  these  days  in 

^  Cf.  Holtzmanrij  Ko?nm.,  3rd  ed.,  p.  277  f.  The  analogous 
setting  in  contrast  of  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  Man  in  Matt.  xvi. 
13,  l6,  is  in  point  here. 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH   AUTHORITIES     63 

Jerusalem  which  have  been  reported  by  Mark  up  to 
this  point  bear  in  a  high  degree  the  marks  of  genuine 
historical  reminiscence,  it  is  otherwise  in  the  case  of 
the  long  concluding  eschatological  discourse  in  Mark 
xiii.  Genuine  sayings  of  Jesus  may  well  have  been 
worked  up  into  it,  especially  in  the  exhortations  at 
the  close  ;  and  the  prediction  in  connection  with  which 
the  Evangelist  introduces  it,  of  the  destruction  of  the 
splendid  buildings  of  the  Temple,  may  well  be  derived 
from  Jesus  Himself.  The  speech  as  a  whole,  however, 
is  not  historical,  but  is  a  composition  artistically 
worked  up  from  material  of  various  kinds  by  the 
Evangelist,  or  perhaps  already  in  the  source  which  he 
used.  Two  of  the  different  component  parts  can  be 
clearly  distinguished  :  in  the  one  (verses  5  f.,  9-13, 
21-23,  28-37),  the  hortatory  interest  is  paramount, 
the  Christian  community  is  warned  against  tempta- 
tions and  exhorted  to  faithfulness  and  vigilance  ;  in 
the  other  (verses  7  f.,  14-20,  24-27),  the  discourse 
speaks  partly  of  wars,  and  natural  calamities  of  a 
general  character,  partly  of  a  period  of  severe  distress 
which  would  come  upon  Judaea,  and  with  which  was 
to  be  immediately  connected  the  coming  of  the  Son 
of  JNIan  in  glory  upon  the  clouds  of  heaven.  The 
latter  portion  forms  a  well-connected  whole,  a  minia- 
ture apocalypse,  composed  of  three  scenes :  "  Begin- 
ning of  Sufferings,"  great  "  Distress,"  the  "  End." 
The  connection  of  these  apocalyptic  sections  is  broken 
by  the  insertion  of  the  hortatory  sections  in  a  way 
which  shows  clearly  that  the  latter  have  been  interpo- 
lated by  another  hand  into  a  well-articulated  whole 
to  which  they  did  not  originally  belong,  being,  recog- 
nisably,  additions  of  a  different  origin  and  aim. 


64  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

Turning  our  attention  first  to  the  apocalyptic 
sections  of  the  discourse,  we  find  the  middle  section 
(14-20)  of  special  importance  for  the  determination 
of  its  origin.  The  words  of  verse  14,  "  When  ye 
see  the  abomination  of  desolation  standing  where  it 
ought  not — let  him  that  readeth  give  heed — then 
shall  they  that  are  in  Judsea  flee  to  the  mountains," 
are  generally  understood  as  a  reference  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  of  the  Temple,  by 
the  Romans  under  Titus  ;  but  this  is  certainly  wrong. 
How  could  it  be  said  of  the  destruction  of  the  Temple 
that  it  "  stood  where  it  ought  not "  ?  And  what 
sense  would  there  be  in  an  exhortation  to  flee  after 
the  destruction  of  the  city  ?  Even  if  the  exhortation 
to  flee  is  thought  of  as  directed  to  the  Christians  in 
Jerusalem,  it  could  only  have  a  meaning  before  the 
destruction  of  the  city,  say  at  the  commencement 
of  the  siege  ;  in  that  case  we  should  have  to  under- 
stand by  the  "  abomination  of  desolation  standing 
where  it  ought  not,"  not  the  destruction,  but  a 
desecration  of  the  Temple,  which  might  perhaps  be 
referred  to  the  reign  of  terror  of  the  Zealots,  who 
defiled  the  holy  place  by  the  blood  shed  in  civil 
strife.  Although  I  myself  formerly  gave  this  ex- 
planation,^ I  am  obliged  to  admit  that  it  now  seems 
to  me  improbable  on  several  grounds.  After  all,  this 
expression,  "  When  ye  see  the  abomination  of  desola- 
tion standing  where  it  ought  not,"  is  hardly  more 
suitable  to  the  wild  doings  of  the  Zealots  in  the 
Temple  than  to  its  destruction  by  a  Roman  army. 
The  expression  is  derived  from  Dan.  ix.  27,  xii.  11, 

^  "  Uber    die    Komposition    der    eschatol.     Rede    Matt,    xxiv.," 
Jahrb.  f.  d.  TheoL,  xiii.  p.  135  ff. 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH   AUTHORITIES     65 

in  the  Septuagint  translation,  and  there  signifies, 
without  doubt,  the  setting  up  of  an  idol  in  the 
Temple,  so  that  a  similar  meaning  in  the  present 
passage  also  is  certainly  the  most  natural.  Now, 
it  is  true  that  nothing  of  that  kind  really  happened 
in  the  war  of  Titus,  but  ever  after  the  year  40  a.d., 
when  the  Emperor  Gains  formed  the  design  of 
setting  up  his  statue  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem, 
the  fear  of  such  a  desecration  kept  the  Jews  in  a 
constant  ferment  of  excitement,  and  produced  the 
temper  from  which  sprang  constant  attempts  at 
insurrection,  long  before  the  campaign  of  Vespasian. 
Mommsen  ^  says  in  reference  to  this :  "  After  that 
fateful  edict  [of  Gains]  the  apprehension  that  another 
Emperor  might  give  a  like  order  was  never  set  at  rest." 
Accordingly,  he  describes  the  situation  thus :  "  We 
are  accustomed  to  date  the  outbreak  of  the  war  from 
A.D.  66  ;  it  would  be  equally,  perhaps  more,  correct  to 
fix  on  the  year  44.  After  the  death  of  Agrippa  there 
was  never  any  cessation  of  the  fighting  in  Judaea,  and 
besides  the  local  feuds  in  which  Jew  was  at  strife  with 
Jew,  the  fighting  was  constantly  going  on  between 
the  Roman  troops  and  the  men  who  had  taken  to 
the  hills — the  Zealots  as  the  Jews  called  them,  or,  as 
the  Romans  designated  them,  the  brigands.  In  the 
streets  of  the  towns  the  patriots  openly  preached  war, 
and  many  followed  them  into  the  wilderness,  while 
the  peaceable  and  prudent  who  refused  to  do  the  like 
had  their  houses  set  on  fire  by  these  bands  of  out- 
laws. When  this  was  the  prevailing  temper,  signs 
and  wonders  could  not  fail  to  occur,  nor  men  to  come 

1  Romische  Geschichte,  vol.  v.  pp.   520,  527  (  =  E.T.  Provinces  of 
the  Roman  Empire,  vol.  ii.  pp.  194,  203  f.). 

VOL.    II  5 


66  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

forward  who,  whether  deceivers  or  self-deceived,  used 
them   to  rouse  the   masses   to    frenzied    excitement. 
Under  Cu spins  Fadus,  Theudas  the  miracle- worker 
led  his  adherents  to  the  Jordan,  assuring  them  that 
the  waters  would  part  before  them,  and  overwhelm 
the    Roman    cavalry  who  were   in    pursuit.     Under 
Felix,  another  thaumaturge,  known  as  the  Egyptian, 
promised  that  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  would  fall  down, 
like  those  of  Jericho  at  the  trumpet-blast  of  Joshua  ; 
on  the  strength  of  which  promise  4000  dagger-men 
followed  him  to  the  Mount  of  Olives.     It  was  just 
this  irrationality  which  made  the  danger.     The  great 
mass    of   the    Jewish    people    were    peasant-farmers 
who  ploughed  their  fields,  and  pressed  their  olives,  in 
the  sweat  of  their  brows,  villagers  rather  than  towns- 
men, of  small  education  and  unbounded  faith,  in  close 
relations  with  the  freebooters  of  the  mountains,  and 
full  of  reverence  for  Jehovah,  and  of  hatred  against 
the  unclean   foreigner.     Such  was   the   war — not  a 
struggle   between   one    power   and   another  for   the 
mastery,  not  even,  properly  speaking,  a  struggle  of 
the  oppressed  against  their  oppressors  for  the  recovery 
of  freedom  ;  nor  was  it  due  to  the  rashness  of  states- 
men :  it  was  fanatical  peasants  who  began  the  war, 
who  waged  it,  and  who   paid  the  price  with  their 
blood."     It  is,  as  it  seems  to  me,  to  these  conditions 
of  the  last  decade  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
that  the  brief  apocalypse  in  Mark  xiii.  transports  us. 
It  has  nothins"  to  do  with  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem 
and  their  flight  from  the  city  :  rather,  it  is  the  Jewish 
peasants  in  the  villages  of  Judsea  who  are  called  on 
to  flee  (14  ff.)  to  the  hills,  the  signal  being  a  new 
desecration  of  the  Temple  such  as  had  been  planned 


FINAL  CONFLICT   WITH   AUTHORITIES     67 

by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  and  the  Emperor  Gaius, 
by  the  fear  of  which  the  Jewish  imagination  was 
at  that  time  gobhn-ridden.  That  the  event  which 
was  to  give  the  signal  for  universal  flight  must  at 
the  time  when  the  apocalypse  was  composed  have 
already  occuired — as  is  generally  assumed — is  an 
unfounded  presupposition  which  there  is  nothing  in 
the  text  to  oblige  us  to  adopt :  it  is  quite  sufficient 
to  assume  that  among  the  peasant  population,  to 
whom  the  watchword  is  here  given,  it  was  a  subject 
of  lively  apprehension,  as  was  actually  the  case  in 
the  years  of  growing  Jewish  fanaticism  which  pre- 
ceded the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  To  this  period 
also  are  appropriate  all  the  other  warning  signs  which 
are  indicated  in  this  passage — wars  of  the  peoples, 
where  the  reference  is  probably  in  the  first  place  to 
the  Parthians  ;  earthquakes  (Laodicea  in  the  year  60, 
Pompeii,  62)  and  famines  (under  Claudius  and  Nero) ; 
the  appearance  of  wonder-workers  who  should  mis- 
lead the  people,  giving  themselves  out  to  be  prophets 
and  Messiahs  (such  as  Theudas  and  'the  Egyptian'); 
and,  as  regards  the  fearful  sufTerings,  there  is  historical 
evidence  for  these  some  time  previous  to  the  siege 
of  Jerusalem,  due  to  the  increasing  severity,  provoked 
by  constant  Jewish  risings,  and  the  misrule,  of  the 
proconsuls  of  the  time,  and,  finally,  to  the  campaign 
of  Vespasian  with  which  the  war  began  :  moreover, 
the  "great  affliction  such  as  has  never  been  in  the 
earth "  is  one  of  the  standing  formute  of  Jewish 
apocalyptic  writings  (c/!  Dan.  xii.  1  ;  1  JNIacc.  ix.  27 ; 
Assumption  of  Moses,  viii.,  etc.).  If  we  have  found 
in  the  first  sections  no  reason  to  think  of  anything  but 
a  Jewish  apocalypse,  the  same  applies  to  the  last  section 


68  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

r 

(24-28).  The  picture  of  the  cosmic  catastrophes  is 
based  on  prophetic  imagery,  and  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  Man  from  heaven  is  sufficiently  explained  by 
Dan.  vii.  13.  The  writer  of  a  Christian  apocalypse 
could  hardly  have  failed  to  indicate  that  the  coming 
Son  of  Man  was  the  crucified  Jesus  coming  again 
{cf.  Apoc.  i.  7) ;  the  complete  absence  of  any  such 
indication  confirms  the  impression  which  we  have 
already  received,  that  we  have  before  us  in  the 
apocalyptic  sections  of  this  discourse  a  brief  Jewish 
apocalypse  which  was  circulated  broadsheet- wise  in 
Judgea  in  the  seventh  decade  of  the  first  century. 
The  Christian  communities  of  Judaea  would  naturally 
be  obliged  to  take  up  a  definite  attitude  in  regard 
to  a  publication  of  this  kind ;  the  more  nearly  it 
seemed  to  touch  their  own  hopes,  the  more  difficult 
it  was  for  them  to  ignore  or  repudiate  it.  Accord- 
ingly, the  simplest  thing  was  to  turn  this  Jewish 
apocalypse  into  a  Christian  one,  by  inserting  such 
exhortations  as  appeared  appropriate  to  the  position 
of  the  Christians  at  the  time.  It  was  of  the  first 
importance  to  warn  the  Christians  against  the 
seductive  influence  of  those  perverters  of  the  people 
who  might  seek,  by  some  kind  of  Messianic  claims, 
to  alienate  the  Christian  Jews  from  the  Church  of 
Jesus  and  win  them  for  the  national  movement 
(verses  5  f.,  21  ffl).  And  whereas  the  Jewish 
apocalypse  found  the  sign  of  the  end  in  the  general, 
and  especially  the  political,  situation  of  the  outer 
world,  the  Christian  redactor  directs  the  attention 
of  his  readers  to  events  within  the  Christian  com- 
munity, especially  the  persecutions  which  it  ex- 
perienced at  the  hands  of  Jews  and  heathen,  exhorts 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH   AUTHORITIES     69 

them  to  patience  and  loyalty,  and  shows  how  even 
these  adverse  occurrences  only  served  to  further  the 
cause  of  Christ  by  contributing  to  the  extension  of 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel  throughout  the  heathen 
world,  the  completion  of  which  must  precede  the 
coming  of  the  end  (9-13,  28  f.).  Accordingly,  the 
Christian  redaction  sets  in  contrast  with  the  fanatical 
Jewish  expectation  of  the  Messiah  the  exhortation 
to  patient  waiting,  to  courageous  witness-bearing 
and  loyal  acceptance  of  suffering  in  the  service  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  whose  coming  is  certainly  to  be 
looked  for  in  the  near  future,  within  the  lifetime  of 
the  existing  generation,  but  without  the  definite 
period  being  known  with  certainty,  as,  indeed,  Jesus 
Himself  had  not  claimed  to  know  it.^  It  is  this 
practical  exhortation  to  watchfulness  and  dutiful 
preparedness  that  constitutes  the  essential  point  of 
distinction  between  the  Christian  redaction  and  the 
Jewish  apocalypse  on  which  it  is  based. 

The  account  which  follows  of  the  events  of  the  last 
days  at  Jerusalem  is  in  Mark  (xiv.  and  xv.)  of  great 
vividness,  and  doubtless  rests  for  the  most  part  on 
authentic  tradition,  which  does  not,  of  course,  exclude 
the  possibility  that  here,  as  in  the  earlier  course  of 
the  Gospel  history,  some  legendary  elements  have 
found    their    way    in,    and    some    apologetic    and 

^  Verse  32,  oi8e  6  vto's.  This  description  of  Jesus  as  "the  Son" 
in  an  absolute  sense  is  unique  in  Mark,  and  in  the  other  Synoptics 
occurs  only  in  the  Christological  hymn  in  Luke  x.  22  (  =  Matt.  xi.  37). 
Seeing  that  it  obviously  implies  a  fixed  terminology^  we  must 
"  suppose  an  influencing  of  the  text  by  the  linguistic  usage  of  the 
Early  Church,"  or  regard  the  words  "not  even  the  Son,  but  only 
the  Father,"  as  an  interpolation.  (Dalmann,  JVorte  Jesn,  p.  159, 
E.T.  194.) 


TO  THE    GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

dogmatic  motives  of  Pauline  origin  have  exercised  a 
modifying  influence  upon  some  of  the  details.  Of  the 
two  later  E\'angelists,  Matthew  here  follows  Mark 
very  closely,  while  Luke  has  many  divergences  in 
these  sections.  The  opening  incident  in  the  story  of 
the  Passion,  the  anointing  at  Bethany,  in  the  house  of 
Simon  the  leper,  is  omitted  by  Luke,  because  he  has 
anticipated  it  at  an  earlier  point,  in  the  story  of  the 
anointing  of  Jesus  by  a  penitent  woman  in  the  house 
of  Simon  the  Pharisee  (vii.  36-50).  The  close  of  the 
story  of  the  anointing,  in  which  this  action  is  described 
as  an  anticipation  of  the  anointing  of  the  body  of 
Jesus  for  His  burial  (i.e.  of  the  embalming  of  His 
body)  and  the  promise  is  given  that  she  shall  be  held  in 
honoured  memory  wherever  the  (Matt.  :  "this")  gospel 
is  preached  in  the  whole  world  (8  f.),  is  subject  in 
several  respects  to  the  doubt  which  attaches  to  the 
historicity  of  this  saying.  The  word  "  gospel,"  which 
on  the  lips  of  Jesus  always  signifies  the  glad  tidings 
of  the  nearness  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  seems  here 
to  be  used  already  in  the  later  sense  of  an  "  evangelical 
history  "  ;  and  that  the  preaching  of  it  throughout  the 
"  whole  world  "  should  be  assumed  by  Jesus  Himself 
hardly  agrees  with  sayings  such  as  Matt.  x.  5  f ,  23, 
XV.  24,  xvi.  28,  according  to  which  Jesus'  horizon  i 
was  still  limited  to  the  people  of  Israel.  Therefore 
verse  9,  at  least,  must  be  regarded  as  an  addition  of 
the  Evangelist,  who  desired  to  commend  the  woman- 
disciple  who  anointed  Jesus  to  the  honourable  re- 
membrance  of    the    Church.^       But    the    preceding 

1  It  is,  however,  surprising  that  he  does  not  name  her.  Is  it 
fiossible  that  he  did  not  know  her  name  ;  or  did  he,  perhaps,  refrain 
from  mentioning  it  from  modesty,  because  it  was  liis  own  mother^, 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH    AUTHORITIES     71 

remark  also,  that  the  anointing  was  an  anticipation 
of  the  embalming  of  the  body  of  Jesus,  can  only  be 
understood  as  an  interpretation  of  the  act  which 
grew  up  later  in  the  Church,  not  as  its  actual  purpose. 
For  how  could  this  woman-disciple  have  possessed 
such  a  foreknowledge  of  His  death  while  the  other 
disciples  had,  to  all  appearance,  no  inkling  of  its 
likelihood  ?  And  even  assuming  that  she  had  such  a 
premonition,  is  there  any  probability  that  she  would 
have  given  expression  to  it  in  this  peculiar  form, 
contravening,  as  it  did,  not  only  custom,  but  even 
natural  delicacy  of  feeling  ?  Anyone  who,  discard- 
ing prejudice,  tries  to  think  himself  into  the  historical 
situation  must  inevitably  find  that  very  improbable. 
What,  then,  can  have  been  the  original  purpose 
and  significance  of  this  anointing  ?  We  can  only 
make  conjectural  suggestions,  and  among  these  the 
most  obvious  would  appear  to  be  that  it  was  in- 
tended as  a  consecration  to  the  JNIessianic  Kingship, 

Mary  ?  She,  according  to  Acts  xii.  12,  owned  a  house  in  Jerusalem, 
which  she  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  community  of  disciples,  in 
its  early  days,  as  a  place  of  meeting ;  she  was  therefore  in  such 
circumstances  as  to  be  well  able  to  afford  the  outlay  which  is  so 
accurately  described  in  vv.  3  ff.  Moreover,  in  John  (xii.  3)  the 
name  of  the  woman  is  Mary — there  identified  with  the  sister  of 
Martha  mentioned  in  Luke.  Further,  in  the  narrative  in  Luke 
X.  41  f.  also,  Mary  is  defended  by  Jesus  against  the  censure  of 
others,  and  receives  distinguished  praise,  though  no  doubt  on  a 
quite  different  occasion,  having  no  connection  -with  the  narrative  of 
the  anointing,  which  Luke  has  given  earlier  and  in  a  different  form. 
It  is  not,  however,  on  that  account  impossible  that  the  Mary  in 
Luke  who  sat,  rapt  in  adoration,  at  the  feet  of  the  Lord  is  identical 
with  the  Johannine  Mary  who  anointed  His  feet,  and  that  both 
are  further  to  be  identified  with  the  unnamed  woman-disciple  of 
the  Marcan  story  of  the  anointing,  and  that  this  was  in  reality  the 
well-known  Mary,  the  mother  of  Mark- 


72  THE   GOSPEL  OF   MARK 

in  which  the  faith  of  this  enthusiastic  disciple  in  the 
immediate  commencement  of  Jesus'  Messianic  rule 
found  an  extravagant  expression  which  is  quite  in 
accordance  with  the  excited,  confident  mood  of  the 
company  of  disciples,  as  shown  even  in  the  dispute 
about  precedence  at  the  Last  Supper. 

In  striking  contrast  with  this  loyal  disciple's  deed 
of  faith  stands  the  betrayal  by  the  disloyal  disciple 
(verse  10  f.).  In  the  original  form  of  the  narrative 
in  Mark  and  Luke,  the  motive  of  the  betrayal  is 
not  necessarily  avarice  (that  is  first  implied  in  Matt, 
xxvi.  15).  It  is  therefore  possible  to  suppose  some 
other  motive,  such  as  that  he  was  alarmed  by  what 
seemed  to  him  the  dangerous  turn  that  events  had 
taken  with  the  Messianic  anointing,  or,  on  the 
contrary,  that  events  were  not  moving  rapidly  enough 
for  him,  and  he  wished  to  prevent  any  further  hesita- 
tion by  bringing  about  an  open  conflict.  These  are 
possible  hypotheses,  but  certain  knowledge  is  here 
not  attainable. 

The  preparations  for  the  Paschal  meal  are  next 
described,  in  verses  12-17,  in  such  a  way  that  it  is 
difficult  to  say  how  much  rests  upon  recollection, 
how  much  is  legendary  addition,  influenced  by  Old 
Testament  examples  (1  Sam.  x.  2  ff".  ;  Gen.  xxiv.  14). 
The  very  difficult  critical  question,  too,  whether  the 
meal  was  really,  as  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  in  contra- 
distinction to  John,  represent  it  to  have  been,  a 
proper  Paschal  meal,  or  whether  this  conception  of 
it  first  arose  in  connection  with  the  Pauline  theory 
of  the   foundation   of  a  new  covenant,^  I   will  not 

1  The  arguments  advanced  by  Brand  (Evang.  Geschichle,  pp.  283- 
304)  in  favour  of  this  explanation  are  at  any  rate  worthy  of  notice. 


FINAL  CONFLICT   WITH    AUTHORITIES     73 

venture  to  decide.  In  the  first  place,  Mark,  who  is 
followed  by  Matthew  (Luke  alters  the  order),  repre- 
sents the  betrayal  "  by  one  of  the  Twelve  "  as  foretold 
by  Jesus  with  the  addition  :  "  The  Son  of  man  goeth, 
as  it  is  written  of  him  [Luke :  as  it  was  determined 
(by  God)]  :  but  woe  to  that  man  by  whom  the  Son 
of  man  shall  be  betrayed  ! "  These  words  obviously 
have  their  source  in  that  apologetic  reflection  by 
means  of  which  the  Early  Church  endeavoured 
to  do  away  with  the  offence  of  the  cross  ;  it  is  to 
be  noticed  also  that  this  vaticinium  ex  eventu  is 
further  elaborated  in  Matthew  and  John,  increas- 
ing in  definiteness  and  consequent  improbability. 
Then,  during  the  supper,  Jesus  took  a  loaf,  and, 
after  giving  thanks,  brake  it  and  gav^e  it  to  the 
disciples  with  the  words :  "  Take  ye,  this  is  my 
body."  And,  taking  the  cup,  He  gave  thanks,  and 
gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  they  all  drank  thereof. 
And  He  said  unto  them  :  "  This  is  my  blood  of  the 
covenant  which  is  shed  for  many,  ^^erily,  I  say  unto 
you  that  I  will  drink  no  more  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine, 
until  the  day  when  I  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom 
of  God"  (verses  22-25).  In  this  narrative  only  the 
distribution  of  the  bread  (verse  22)  is  common  to  the 
Evangelists,  and  is  therefore  to  be  regarded  as  the 
kernel  of  the  story,  of  which  the  historical  evidence 
is  certain.  The  subsequent  distribution  of  the  wine 
is  given,  indeed,  by  INIatthew  in  exact  agreement  with 
Mark,  but  with  the  explanatory  addition  "  which  is 
shed  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins";  in  Luke,  as  we  shall 
see  below,  it  is  wanting  in  the  original  text,  and  is 
replaced  by  a  passage  borrowed  from  1  Cor.  xi.  24  f. 
Tf  this  circumstance  is  itself  sufficient  to  give  rise  to 


74 


THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 


doubts  regarding  the  authenticity  of  the  distribution 
of  the   wine   as    reported    by   JNIatthew    and    Mark, 
these  are  accentuated  by  the  following  consideration. 
The  saying  in  verse  24  contains  a  clear  reference  to 
the  death  of  Jesus,  which  is  described  as  a  sacrifice 
of  atonement,  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  as  a 
means  to  the  making  of  a  new  covenant,  the  counter- 
part to  the  former  making  of  the  covenant  at  Sinai,  at 
which  Moses  sprinkled  the  people  with  the  blood  of 
the  sacrifice,  saying,  "This  is  the  blood  of  the  covenant 
which  Jahweh  makes  with  you"  (Exod.  xxiv.  8).     Now 
the  thought  that  the  death  of  Jesus  is  the  sacrifice 
of  atonement  with  a  view  to  the  establishing  of  a 
new  covenant  is  no  doubt  the  cardinal  dogma  of  the 
Pauline  theology,  but  is  quite  foreign  to  the  thought 
of  Jesus,  who  certainly  never  intended  to  annul  the 
old  covenant  resting  on  the  giving  of  the  Law  to 
Moses  {cf.  Matt.  v.  17  f.)»  but  only  to  overthrow  the 
Jewish   hierarchy  (Mark  xii.  9),  and  who  was  so  far 
from  looking  forward  to  His  death  by  violence  as  a 
necessary  God-ordained  means  to  the  fulfilment  of 
His  mission,  that  even  at  this  Last  Supper  He  gave 
expression    in    quite    unambiguous    terms    to    His 
confident    hope    of   the   immediate    victory   of    His 
cause — for  it  is  only  of  that,  and  not  of  a  condition 
of  blessedness   in   the   other   world,  that   the   well- 
authenticated    saying   about   ere   long   drinking  the 
fruit  of  the  vine  new  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  (verse 
25=^  Matt.    xxvi.    29  =  Luke.   xxii.    18    and    16)    can 
naturally  be  understood  ;  as  also  the  promise  given  at 
the  same  time  to  the  disciples,  that  they  should  share 
the  reign  of  Jesus,  and  eat  and  drink  at  His  table 
(Luke  xxii.  29  f.  ^  Matt.  xix.  28).     In  view  of  these 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH   AUTHORITIES     75 

sayings,  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  Jesus,  in  giving 
the  wine,  should  have  pointed  to  His  bloody  death 
and  the  atoning  significance  which  it  bears  in  the 
Pauline  theory ;  and  it  is  quite  certain  that  any  such 
indication  would  have  been  wholly  unintelligible  to 
the  disciples,  who,  in  the  sequel,  were  completely 
taken  by  surprise  by  the  catastrophe.  And  even  of 
their  subsequently  recalling  these  words  of  Jesus 
there  is  nowhere  any  trace.  In  the  love-feasts  of  the 
company  of  disciples  it  is  always  only  the  breaking  of 
bread  that  is  spoken  of;  the  cup,  with  its  symbolism 
of  death,  remains  (apart  from  Paul)  completely  out 
of  sight,  and  the  feeling  with  which  the  community 
celebrated  these  love-feasts  was  not  one  of  solemn 
commemoration  of  Jesus'  death,  but  of  a  joyous 
celebration  of  their  brotherly  unity  (Acts  ii.  46  f.). 
From  all  this  follows,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the  inevitable 
conclusion  that  the  saying  regarding  the  symbolism 
of  death  (verse  24)  has  its  roots  in  the  Pauline 
theology,  and  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  by 
Mark,  the  follower  of  Paul.  From  this  it  follows, 
further,  that  the  well-authenticated  words  at  the 
giving  of  the  bread,  "  This  is  my  body  "  (verse  23),  can 
originally  have  had  no  relation  to  Jesus'  death,  but 
only  meant,  "  In  partaking  of  this  symbol  of  my 
body,  that  is,  of  my  life,  you  unite  yourselves  with 
me  and  with  one  another  into  one  body,""  that  is,  into 
one  indivisible  whole  {of.  1  Cor.  x.  17).  It  was  there- 
fore simply  the  conclusion  of  a  covenant  of  loyalty 
by  partaking  in  common  of  the  religiously  con- 
secrated food,  corresponding  exactly  to  the  ancient, 
and  therefore  universally  intelligible,  idea  of  a  "  sacred 
communion "    wliich    underlay    all    religious    feasts, 


76  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

especially  sacrificial  feasts,  and   made   them    into   a 
means  of  religious  and  social  union. 

On  the  way  to  Gethsemane,  Jesus  utters,  according 
to  the  Evangelist,  a  last  prediction  of  the  Passion:  "  Ye 
shall  all  be  offended,  for  it  is  written,  '  I  will  smite 
the  shepherd,  and  the  sheep  shall  be  scattered,'  but 
after  I  am  risen  again  I  will  go  before  you  into  Gali- 
lee" (verses  26-28).  The  passage  in  Zech.  xiii.  7  runs, 
in  the  original,  "  Smite  the  shepherd,  and  the  flock  will 
be  scattered  " — an  appeal  of  God  to  His  faithful  people 
to  smite  the  ungodly  king,  and  therefore  by  no  means 
a  Messianic  prediction.  Jesus  cannot,  then,  have  used 
it  as  such,  as  He  could  not  have  identified  Himself 
with  an  ungodly  king,  and,  moreover,  did  not  expect 
defeat,  but  victory.  Therefore  this  saying  (verse  27  f. ) 
must  be  a  vaticinium  eoc  eventu,  based  upon  the  fact  that 
after  the  arrest  of  Jesus  the  disciples  scattered  and 
fled  like  a  shepherdless  flock,  and  that  it  was  only 
afterwards,  in  Galilee,  that  they  attained  to  faith  in 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  Luke  has  omitted  these 
words,  since  they  did  not  harmonise  with  his  story  of 
the  Easter  week.  What  has  been  said  of  the  pre- 
diction of  the  offence  of  the  disciples  in  general  must 
apply  also  to  the  more  specific  prediction  of  Peter's 
denial  (verses  29-31). 

The  scene  which  follows,  Jesus'  agony  of  prayer  in 
Gethsemane,  must  be  in  the  main,  at  least,  historical, 
since  it  can  hardly  have  been  invented  by  tradition,  as 
it  shows  Jesus  shrinking  with  natural  human  emotion 
from  the  perilous  decision  which  lay  before  Him, 
desiring  that  the  bitterness  of  His  cup  of  suffer- 
ing might  be  removed,  but  bowing  to  the  will 
of   God   in   childlike  submission ;   giving  herein  the 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH   AUTHORITIES     77 

example  of  acceptable  prayer,  which  submits  all 
personal  desires  to  the  will  of  God.  At  the  same 
time,  this  scene  is  yet  another  proof  that  the  preceding 
predictions  of  the  suffering,  the  dying,  and  rising 
again  of  Jesus  are  not  historical ;  for,  assuming  that 
they  were  so,  the  agony  in  Gethsemane  would  not 
have  been  possible.  In  matters  of  detail,  too,  some 
legendary  traits  may  have  slipped  in^ — the  double 
separation,  first  from  the  rest  of  the  disciples  and 
then  from  the  chosen  three,  recalls  the  sacrifice  of 
Isaac  in  Gen.  xxii.  ;  the  three  withdrawals  for  prayer 
recall  the  three  temptations ;  the  address  "  Abba, 
Father  "  is  known  to  us  through  Paul  as  the  form  of 
invocation  of  the  Greek-speaking  Christians  (combin- 
ing the  Aramaic  word  with  the  Greek  translation). 
Again,  the  antithesis  "the  spirit  indeed  is  willing,  but 
the  flesh  is  weak  "  (verse  38)  is  specifically  Pauline,  and 
is  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  language  of  Jesus. 

The  procedure  at  the  arrest  of  Jesus  is  narrated  in 
the  simplest  form  by  Mark  ;  in  the  parallel  narratives 
there  are  additions  designed  to  show  how  easily  Jesus 
could,  if  He  had  wished,  have  escaped  from  His 
enemies,  and  therefore  how  entirely  of  His  own 
free  will  He  submitted  to  His  sufferings.  Peculiar 
to  Mark  is  the  brief  notice  (verse  51)  of  the  young  man 
who  followed  Jesus  after  His  arrest,  and  only  escaped 
being  arrested  himself  by  leaving  his  light  garment 
in  the  hands  of  his  pursuers.  Is  it  possible  that  this 
young  man  was  Mark  himself?  That  would  explain 
the  interest  of  the  Evangelist  in  preserving  this  un- 
important incident. 

In  his  account  of  the  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin 
Mark  reports,  as  false  witness  offered  against  Jesus, 


78  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

the  assertion  that  He  had  been  heard  to  say,  "  I  will 
break  down  this  temple  made  with  hands,  and  within 
three  days  I  will  build  another  made  without  hands  " 
(xiv.  58).  In  Matthew  the  saying  runs  more  simply, 
"  I  can  break  down  the  temple  of  God,  and  within 
three  days  build  it  up"  (xxvi.  61).  Luke  omits  it 
here,  but  brings  in  a  similar  saying  at  the  trial  of 
Stephen  :  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth  will  destroy  this  place, 
and  change  the  customs  which  Moses  hath  given  to 
us"  (Acts  vi.  14).  As  this  saying  is  alluded  to  again 
in  mockery  by  the  onlookers  at  the  Crucifixion,  the 
"  false  witness  "  may,  after  all,  have  had  some  genuine 
saying  as  its  basis. ^  But  how  the  saying  of  Jesus 
actually  ran,  and  on  what  occasion  it  was  spoken,  we 
do  not  know  (Mark's  version  doubtless  includes  his 
interpretation  of  the  metaphor,  which  has  a  more 
simple  form  in  Matthew),  and  it  is  therefore  useless 
to  advance  any  opinion  regarding  its  original  sense. 
It  certainly  cannot  have  referred  to  the  destruction 
of  the  Jewish  religion  [cf.  Matt.  v.  17),  but  at  most  to 
a  purification  of  the  Temple- worship  from  sensuous 
ceremonial,  like  the  saying  which  John  (ii.  19) 
attributes  to  Him  on  the  occasion  of  the  purification 
of  the  Temple. 

When  Mark,  and  Matthew  following  him,  represent 
Jesus,  in  replying  to  the  solemn  adjuration  of  the 
High  Priest,  as  not  only  acknowledging  Himself 
Messiah,  but  also  adding   the   assurance   that   they 

^  Noticeable  in  this  connection  is  the  reference  in  the  recently 
discovered  fragment  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  verse  26:  "We 
disciples  hid  ourselves,  for  they  hunted  us  as  criminals  and  men 
who  sought  to  burn  the  Temple."  A  charge  of  this  kind  against 
the  disciples  must  have  rested  upon  some  saying  of  similar  import 
to  that  referred  to  in  the  "false  witness." 


FINAL  CONFLICT   WITH    AUTHORITIES     79 

should  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand 
of  Power,  and  coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven, 
suspicion  regarding  the  authenticity  of  these  words 
is  aroused,  not  only  by  their  apocalyptic  character, 
but  also  by  the  circumstance  that  none  of  the 
disciples  was  present  at  the  examination  before  the 
Council,  and  therefore  none  was  in  a  position  to  give 
accurate  information  regarding  the  words  spoken  on 
that  occasion.  This  gap  in  their  actual  knowledge, 
tradition  must  have  filled  up  from  the  consciousness 
of  the  Church,  attributing  to  Jesus  the  Messianic 
expectations  current  in  the  community.  In  the  case 
of  the  charge  in  verse  58  the  matter  stands  rather 
differently,  since  this  was  current  among  the  people 
also  (xv.  29),  and  would  therefore  naturally  come  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  disciples. 

Of  Peter's  denial,  Mark  and  Matthew  give  the 
original  account,  which  Luke  amplifies  by  represent- 
ing Peter  as  recalled  to  himself  not  merely  by  the 
cock-crowing  but  by  a  look  of  Jesus.  This  is  possible 
in  Luke's  order  of  narration,  in  which  the  denial 
precedes  the  examination  before  the  Council,  but  is 
not  consistent  wdth  the  original  and  more  probable 
order,  according  to  which  the  denial  took  place 
outside,  in  the  court  below,  while  Jesus  was  at  the 
time  in  the  judgment-hall  above.  The  alteration  is 
quite  in  harmony  with  Luke's  tendency  to  an 
emotional  portrayal.  The  trial  before  Pilate,  too, 
is  described  in  a  simpler  fashion  by  Mark  than  by 
the  two  later  Evangelists,  who  introduce  various 
discordant  traits.  Luke  (xxiii.  6  f.)  represents  Jesus 
as  sent  by  Pilate  to  Herod,  and  as  being  mocked 
rather  than  tried  by  the  latter — an  improbable  episode 


80  THE    GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

in  which  we  may  perhaps  see  an  imitation  of  the 
submission  of  Paul's  case  to  the  Jewish  king  Herod 
Agrippa.  JNIatthew  keeps  in  general  closer  to  the 
Marcan  scheme,  but  expands  it  by  the  introduction  of 
three  episodes  of  obviously  legendary  character — the 
fate  of  Judas  the  traitor,  of  which  two  versions  were 
known  to  tradition  (Matt,  xxvii.  3-10 ;  Acts  i.  15- 
20) ;  the  dream  of  Pilate's  wife  (xxvii.  19) ;  the  hand- 
washing of  Pilate  in  solemn  token  of  his  innocence, 
whereupon  the  whole  multitude  declared  that  they 
took  the  guilt  of  Jesus'  blood  upon  themselves  and 
upon  their  children  (verse  24  f.).  That  is  hardly  the 
language  of  a  superstitious  multitude,  any  more  than 
the  other  is  the  language  of  a  Roman  official. 

As  Jesus  was  being  led  away  to  be  crucified,  Mark 
tells  us  (xv.  21),  one  Simon  of  Cyrene,  the  father  of 
Alexander  and  Rufus,  was  pressed  into  service  to 
bear  His  cross.  This  identification  of  Simon,  which 
is  peculiar  to  Mark,  may  be  naturally  explained  by 
supposing  that  at  the  time  when  Mark  wrote  the 
two  sons  of  this  man  were  still  alive  and  known  to 
the  community  ;  later,  this  personal  notice  had  ceased 
to  be  of  interest,  and  was  therefore  omitted  by  Luke 
and  Matthew.  Before  the  Crucifixion,  Mark  relates 
further,  drugged  wine  was  offered  to  Jesus,  but  He 
refused  it.  It  was  a  customary  act  of  humanity,  the 
object  being  to  stupefy  the  sufferer ;  and  Jesus  doubt- 
less refused  it  for  the  very  reason  that  He  did  not 
wish  to  be  rendered  unconscious,  but  to  suffer  with 
full  consciousness — a  small  but  characteristic  trait,  for 
the  preservation  of  which  Mark  deserves  our  grati- 
tude. In  Matthew  quite  a  different  turn  is  given  to 
the  incident — the  drugged  wine  becomes  a  mixture  of 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH    AUTHORITIES     81 

vinegar  and  gall,  which  Jesus,  when  He  had  tasted  it, 
refused  to  drink,  evidently  because  of  its  nauseous 
taste.  The  drugged  wine  of  the  original  narrative 
was  offered  with  good  intentions  ;  how  came  Matthew 
to  make  it  into  the  curious  and  repulsive  mixture  of 
vinegar  and  gall  ?  Obviously  he  was  led  astray  by 
the  pictorial  expression  in  Ps.  Ixix.  22,  "  They  gave 
me  gall  to  eat  and  vinegar  to  drink."  In  order  to 
represent  this  as  literally  fulfilled  in  the  case  of  Jesus, 
he  has  altered  the  historical  statement  in  the  docu- 
ment which  he  was  following,  undeterred  by  the  im- 
probability of  this  new  version  of  the  incident. 

At  the  last,  according  to  Mark  and  Matthew,  about 
the  ninth  hour,  Jesus  uttered,  from  the  cross,  the  cry 
of  distress  of  Ps.  xxii.  22  :  "  My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ? "  then,  with  a  loud  cry, 
died.  Luke  omits  the  cry  of  distress,  but  gives 
instead  three  other  sayings,  to  which  John  adds  three 
more.  Of  these  seven  sayings  of  the  Gospels  as  a 
whole,  only  that  reported  by  Matthew  and  Mark 
seems  to  rest  upon  genuine  reminiscence.  In  favour 
of  its  genuineness  are,  the  Aramaic  wording ;  the 
curious  misunderstanding  of  the  bystanders,  who 
thought  that  Jesus  was  calling  for  Elias,  which  could 
scarcely  be  invented ;  and,  more  especially,  the  con- 
sideration that  the  cry  of  despair,  conveying  the 
sense  of  being  abandoned  by  God,  is,  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  Christian  faith,  so  strange  that  it  could 
hardly  have  been  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  if  it 
had  not  been  given  by  the  tradition ;  it  is  just  this 
strangeness  which  has  caused  it  to  be  left  out  by 
Luke  and  John,  and  other  sayings  given  in  place  of 
it.     But  if  this  cry  of  distress  of  the  dying  Jesus  is 

VOL.    II  .  6 


82  THE   GOSPEL  OF   MARK 

historical,  it  is  yet  another  piece  of  confirmatory 
evidence  that  Jesus  had  not  expected  to  meet  death 
at  the  hands  of  His  enemies,  but  hoped  to  the  last 
to  be  delivered  by  God,  that  all  the  predictions  of 
His  death  given  by  the  Evangelists  are  unhistorical, 
and,  finally,  that  Jesus  did  not  think  of  the  JMessianic 
kingdom  as  a  heavenly  kingdom,  nor  as  a  spiritual 
kingdom  to  be  established  on  earth  vv^hen  He  returned 
from  heaven,  but  simply  as  the  realisatian  of  the 
prophetic  ideal  of  the  Reign  of  God  in  a  religious- 
social  reorganisation  of  the  Jewish  people.  It  was 
only  when  this  hope  was  destroyed  by  the  combined 
resistance  of  the  hierarchic  and  worldly  powers  that 
the  faith  of  the  community  of  disciples  rose  to  the 
ideal  of  a  new  Kingdom  of  God  of  super-earthly 
origin  and  character,  to  be  founded  by  the  heavenly 
Messiah,  or  "  Son  of  Man,"  and  already,  in  a  measure, 
present  in  His  miraculous  spiritual  operations.  This 
transformation  was  the  fruit  of  the  death  of  Jesus, 
and  showed  itself  first  in  faith  in  the  resurrection. 

As,  at  the  commencement,  and  at  the  climax,  of 
Jesus'  work  in  Galilee,  ideal  scenes  are  introduced  by 
the  Evangelist,  in  which  the  significance  of  the 
moment  is  expressed  in  sayings  and  symbolical  inci- 
dents ;  so  now,  at  the  close,  he  adds  a  series  of  ideal 
scenes  in  which  the  foundation  of  reality,  on  which 
his  presentation  of  the  fate  of  Jesus  at  Jerusalem  has 
in  essentials  hitherto  been  based,  is  more  or  less 
completely  abandoned.  When  he  represents  the  veil 
of  the  Temple  as  being,  immediately  upon  the  death 
of  Jesus,  rent  from  the  top  to  the  bottom  (xv.  38), 
that  is  an  allegorical  expression  of  the  thoroughly 
Pauline  idea  that  through  the  death  of  Jesus  the  wall 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH    AUTHORITIES     83 

of  partition  is  done  away  which  separated  the  world 
of  sinners  from  the  Holy  of  Holies,  the  gracious 
presence  of  God  (Rom.  v.  1  ;  cf.  Heb.  x.  19  £). 
When,  further,  the  Gentile  centurion,  on  hearing  the 
death-cry  of  Jesus,  breaks  out  into  the  confession, 
"  Verily,  this  man  was  God's  Son,"  we  are  to  see  in 
this  first  Gentile  confessor  the  representative  of 
Gentile  Christianity  in  general :  in  this  confession  of 
Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  the  Divine  voices  at 
the  Baptism  and  Transfiguration  find  an  echo  which 
is  to  resound  throughout  the  world. ^  Again,  when 
we  read  that  a  wealthy  councillor,  Joseph  of  Arima- 
thsea,  begged  tlie  body  of  Jesus  from  Pilate,  and 
laid  it  in  his  own  (the  parallel  accounts  say  "  new  ") 
rock-hewn  grave,  the  fact  that  this  narrative  is  flanked 
on  one  side  and  the  other  by  ideal  scenes  makes  it 
natural  to  suppose  that  here  also  we  are  in  the  ideal 
realm  of  legend  or  allegory,  the  suggestion  perhaps 
coming  from  the  thought  in  Isa.  liii.  12,  that  he  who 
was  reckoned  with  the  transgressors  (Mark  xv.  28) 
should  receive  his  portion  with  the  great.  The  climax 
of  these  ideal  closing  scenes  is  formed  by  the  story  of 
the  Resurrection,  of  which,  however,  only  the  first 
half  is  preserved  to  us  in  Mark,  the  narrative  of  the 
visit  of  the  women  to  the  grave,  the  appearance  there 
of  the  angel,  and  the  indication  of  Galilee  as  the 
place  where  the  disciples  should  see  the  risen  Jesus ; 
with  the  flight  of  the  terrified  and  trembling  women 

^  Cf.  Brandt,  Ev.  Gesch.,  p.  266  fF.  "The  wording  of  the  con- 
fession is  not  what  a  Gentile  would  have  said  in  the  given  circum- 
stances, since  it  presupposes  Jewish-Christian  monotheism.  In 
this  the  Christian  author  betrays  himself.  It  would  have  been 
better  art  to  make  the  centurion  say,  "^'This  is  a  god,  or  a  favourite 
of  the  gods!"  (p.  269). 


84  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

from  the  open  grave  (xvi.  8)  the  genuine  text  ol 
Mark  comes  to  an  end.  As  this  can  hardly  have 
been  the  original  conclusion,  while  what  follows  is 
manifestly  not  genuine,^  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  the 
original  conclusion  has  been  lost.  Whether  this  was 
due  to  some  mischance,  or  whether  the  Church 
allowed  this  conclusion  of  the  earliest  Gospel  to  fall 
away,  because  it  no  longer  served  the  interests  of  her 
faith  (as  the  statement  in  iii.  21  has  been  dropped  in 
the  later  Gospels) — who  can  tell  ?  Perhaps  we  may 
find  a  hint  as  to  the  genuine  conclusion  of  Mark  in  the 
recently  discovered  fragment  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter, 
which  has  in  verse  57,  exactly  as  in  Mark  xvi.  8, 
"  the  women  fled  (from  the  grave),  filled  with  fear," 
but  then,  in  58-60,  proceeds  to  narrate  that  the  dis- 
ciples, when  the  Feast  was  over,  returned  to  their 
homes,  full  of  trouble  at  all  that  had  occurred  ;  Peter, 
Andrew,  and  Levi,  however,  went  with  their  nets  to  the 
sea  (the  Liake  of  Gennesareth).  Here  the  fragment 
unfortunately  breaks  off,  and  leaves  us  again  un- 
certain as  to  the  remainder  of  the  story,  which  pre- 
sumably included  an  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus  to 
the   three   disciples  mentioned.     It  is  possible  that 

^  Verses  9-20  were  unknown  to  the  earliest  Greek  Fathers^  are 
wanting  in  the  best  MSS.,  and  in  others  are  at  least  marked  as 
doubtful.  Besides,  their  spuriousness  is  clear  from  internal  evi- 
dence. The  charge  to  the  disciples  in  verse  7  is  not  obeyed  in  the 
sequel ;  instead,  a  series  of  appearances  in  Jerusalem  is  mentioned, 
which  make  the  journey  to  Galilee,  to  see  Jesus  there,  superfluous. 
Instead  of  the  two  Marys  of  verse  1,  it  is  now  only  Mary  Magdalene 
who  is  spoken  of,  and  she  is  described  in  the  same  way  in  which 
she  is  designated  earlier  only  in  Luke.  Finally,  the  appearances 
of  Christ  here  brought  together  are  obviously  taken  from  the  three 
other  Gospels,  and  form,  in  fact,  a  kind  of  harmonistic  abstract  of 
the  appearances. 


FINAL   CONFLICT   WITH   AUTHORITIES     85 

there  was  a  similar  narrativ^e  in  the  lost  conclusion  of 
Mark.  However  that  may  be,  the  Gospel  of  Peter 
certainly  agrees  with  Mark  in  ignoring  any  appear- 
ances of  Jesus  prior  to  the  return  of  the  disciples  to 
Galilee ;  the  older  tradition  which  is  represented  by 
both  excludes,  therefore,  the  whole  of  the  appearances 
reported  by  the  later  Gospels  to  the  women,  and  to 
the  disciples,  at  Jerusalem.^ 

1  Cf.  Brandt,  Ev.  Gesck.,  p.  3l6  ;  Holtzmann,  Komm.,  3rd  ed., 
p.  182  ;  Harnack  on  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchen, 
ix.  2,  32. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK 

CHAPTER  III 

Origin  and  Distinctive  Characteristics 

We  have  already,  in  our  survey  of  the  contents  of 
Mark's  Gospel,  frequently  had  occasion  to  make  the 
remark  (and  we  shall  find  further  confirmation  of  it 
in  the  sequel)  that  this  Gospel,  where  it  differs  from 
the  other  Synoptics  in  parallel  passages,  can  almost 
always  lay  claim  to  priority,  and  accordingly  is  to 
be  regarded  as  the  earliest  of  our  canonical  Gospels. 
Its  early  origin  is  indicated  not  only  by  the  greater 
naturalness  and  historical  probability  of  its  general 
order  of  narration,  but  also,  and  more  particularly, 
by  certain  traits  which  are  peculiar  to  its  presentation 
of  the  person  of  Jesus.  He  is  here,  as  in  the  speeches 
in  Acts,  the  Son  of  God  in  virtue  of  His  reception 
of  the  Spirit  at  His  baptism ;  it  is  with  this  that  the 
Gospel  story  begins,  not  with  the  birth  and  childhood 
of  Jesus.  His  mother  and  His  brethren  have  no 
inkling  of  His  higher  vocation  (iii.  20,  31).  His 
miraculous  power  is  not  unlimited,  but  is  conditioned 
by  the  faith  of  men  (vi.  5  f.),  and  also  M'orks  partly 
by  natural  means  and  gradual  stages  (vii.  82  f., 
viii.  23  fF.),  and  is  therefore  not  wholly  removed  from 
the  analogy  of  other  miracle-workers  of  that  period. 

86 


DISTINCTIVE   CHARACTERISTICS  87 

And  like  the  power,  so,  too,  the  knowledge  of  Jesus 
appears  not  yet  unlimited,  for,  according  to  xiii.  32, 
even  the  Son  knows  not  the  day  and  hour  of  the 
Parousia,  but  only  the  Father.  Further,  this  Gospel 
is  rich  in  minute  touches  which  portray  the  human 
emotions  of  Jesus — displeasure  and  impatience,  anger 
and  love.  Jesus  was  angry  with  the  leper  who 
interrupted  Him  in  His  work  of  teaching  (i.  42) ;  at 
the  healing  on  the  Sabbath  (iii.  5)  He  looked  round 
upon  the  censorious  bystanders  with  anger,  vexed 
at  the  hardness  of  their  hearts ;  when  the  Pharisees 
asked  for  a  sign  (viii.  12),  the  want  of  understanding 
of  "this  generation"  wrung  from  Him  a  sigh  of 
dejection,  and,  immediately  thereafter,  the  disciples' 
slowness  of  apprehension  evoked  an  impatient  com- 
plaint (verse  17),  which  was  repeated  soon  after  at 
the  healing  of  the  epileptic  boy  (ix.  19) ;  when  the 
disciples  wished  to  turn  the  children  away  from  Him, 
He  was  indignant  with  them,  and  He  showed  His 
love  for  the  children  by  tenderly  caressing  them 
(x.  14  f ) ;  on  the  young  man  who  asked  about  the 
way  of  life  He  looked  with  a  glance  of  affection 
(x.  21).  In  general,  the  softer  traits,  on  which  Luke 
lays  special  stress  in  his  portrait  of  the  Saviour  of 
sinners,  are  left  in  the  background,  and  so  is  the 
legalistic  conservatism  of  Matthew's  picture  of  Christ. 
The  Marcan  Christ  is,  above  all,  a  heroic  reformer, 
who,  from  the  first,  does  not  seek  to  avoid  a  conflict 
with  the  ruling  authorities,  but  almost  seems  deliber- 
ately to  provoke  it ;  who  does  not  shrink  from  a 
breach  with  His  own  family,  but,  in  words  of  stern 
resolution,  makes  it  decisive  (iii.  31) ;  who,  after 
taking  the  critical  resolve,   bent   His  steps  towards 


88  THE    GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

Jerusalem  prepared  for  battle,  an  object  of  astonish- 
ment and  awe  to  the  disciples  who  followed  Him 
in  fear  and  trembling  (x.  32) ;  who  then,  in  Jerusalem, 
opens  the  campaign  against  the  ruling  powers  by  the 
revolutionary  act  of  cleansing  the  Temple,  the  true 
significance  of  which  can  be  recognised  in  Mark  alone  ; 
who  bluntly  announces  to  the  hierarchs  their  coming 
fall  (xii.  9),  and,  by  implication,  defends  His  claim 
upon  the  Messianic  sovereignty  against  the  objections 
urged  by  the  wisdom  of  the  Scribes  (according  to  the 
Marcan  version  of  the  question  regarding  "  David's 
Son,"  xii.  35  if. ) ;  who  frankly  and  decisively  acknow- 
ledges this  claim  before  His  judges,  but,  for  the  rest, 
meets  all  charges  with  the  silence  of  a  heroic  resig- 
nation ;  who,  finally,  dies  with  a  cry  of  despair  upon 
His  lips,  feeling  H  imself  abandoned  by  God — the  truly 
human  hero  of  the  most  awe-inspiring  tragedy  in  the 
history  of  religion.  In  all  this  the  reality  of  the 
historic  Jesus  and  His  reforming  work  is  brought 
before  our  eyes  with  a  distinctness  unequalled  in  the 
other  Evangelists.  Renan^  is  wholly  right  in  his 
verdict  when  he  says :  "  The  precision  of  detail,  the 
originality,  the  picturesqueness  and  vividness  of  this 
first  narrative,  are  never  afterwards  attained.  A 
certain  realism  gives  sometimes  a  rather  hard  and 
sometimes  a  bizarre  effect,  which  the  later  evangelists 
have  removed.  But  as  an  historical  document  Mark 
has  a  great  advantage.  The  powerful  impression 
which  Jesus  left  behind  Him  is  here  preserved  in  its 
completeness ;  we  see  Him  here  in  the  reality  of  life 
and  action." 

The  tradition  of  the  Church  ascribed  this  Gospel 

1  Les  Evangiles,  p.  1 1 6 


DISTINCTIVE   CHARACTERISTICS  89 

to  Mark,  that  is,  indubitably,  to  the  John  Mark  who 
is  known  to  us  from  Acts,  the  Pauhne  Epistles, 
and  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter.  According  to  Acts 
xii.  12,  his  mother,  Mary,  lived  in  Jerusalem,  and 
her  house  was  the  meeting-place  of  the  young  com- 
munity. It  was  through  Barnabas,  whose  nephew 
he  was,  according  to  Col.  iv.  10,  that  he  was  brought 
into  relations  with  Paul  (Acts  xii.  25).  He  then 
accompanied  Paul  and  Barnabas  on  their  first 
missionary  journey,  but  left  them  during  its  course, 
for  which  reason  Paul  refused  to  take  him  with  them 
on  their  second  journey  (xv.  37).  Later,  however, 
he  seems  to  have  been  reconciled  with  Paul,  for 
we  find  him  again  among  Paul's  companions  in 
Col.  iv.  10,  Philem.  24  ;  even  summoned  to  Paul's 
side  {in  the  probably  genuine  fragment  of  a  letter 
which  is  preserved  in  2  Tim.  iv.  11),  and  that,  more- 
over, with  the  honourable  description  that  he  is  useful 
in  the  service  of  the  gospel.  On  the  other  hand, 
however,  the  tradition  of  the  Church  made  Mark 
the  constant  companion  and  interpreter  of  Peter. 
That  is  in  harmony  with  the  statement  in  Acts 
xii.  12,  according  to  which  Peter  was  well  known  in 
the  house  of  Mark's  mother,  and  with  1  Peter  v.  13, 
where  Mark  is  called  the  son,  i.e  the  disciple,  of 
Peter.  As  the  "  Babylon  "  from  which  this  letter  is 
dated  probably  means  Rome,  it  has  been  suggested 
that  we  have  here  a  confirmation  of  the  tradition 
which  makes  Mark  the  companion  and  interpreter 
of  Peter  at  Rome.  But  not  only  is  the  sojourn  of 
Peter  at  Rome  and  his  death  there  doubtful,  but  it 
is  also  most  improbable  that  Peter  was  the  author 
of  this  letter,  as  we  shall  see  later.     Equally  prob- 


90  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

lematical  is  the  tradition  that  Mark,  in  composing 
his  Gospel,  followed  Peter's  sermons,  as  Papias  asserts 
that  he  heard  from  John  the  Presbyter  (according  to 
Eusebius,  H.E.,  iii.  39).  For  it  is  inherently  im- 
probable, in  a  high  degree,  that  the  teaching  of  Peter 
in  his  discourses  could  have  referred  to  all  the  details 
of  the  life  of  Jesus,  His  miracles,  journeys,  and  con- 
troversies ;  the  description  of  the  missionary  preach- 
ing of  the  Apostles  given  in  Acts  is  quite  different, 
and  certainly  much  nearer  to  historical  reality.  To 
this,  moreover,  must  be  added  that  the  tradition 
sets  Mark  in  progressively  closer  and  more  definite 
relations  to  the  authority  of  Peter  the  further  removed 
it  is  from  Apostolic  times.  According  to  Papias  and 
Irenaius,  it  was  only  after  the  death  of  Peter  that 
Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  from  memory ;  according  to 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  it  was  in  his  lifetime,  but 
without  his  co-operation ;  according  to  Eusebius,  it 
vi^as  with  the  direct  approval  and,  to  a  certain 
extent,  with  the  ecclesiastical  sanction  of  Peter ; 
finally,  according  to  Jerome,  he  wrote  at  Peter's 
dictation !  "  Obviously,  men  looked  round  for  an 
Apostolic  authority  for  the  Second  Gospel,  and  found 
it  by  first  combining  1  Peter  v.  13  with  the  supposed 
sojourn  of  Peter  at  Rome,  and  then  by  making  the 
relation  of  the  direct  author  to  the  indirect  ever 
closer.  A  later  tradition  sought  to  attain  the  same 
end  in  another  way,  by  making  Mark,  as  well  as 
Luke,  one  of  the  Seventy  Disciples,  in  direct  con- 
tradiction to  the  evidence  of  Papias  (and  to  Luke 
i.   1)"  (Holtzmann). 

If,  in  view  of  this,  we  must  hold  the  details  of  the 
tradition  regarding  the  relation  of  Mark  to  Peter  to 


DISTINCTIVE   CHARACTERISTICS  91 

be  unhistorical,  the  question  still  remains  whether  it 
may  not,  nevertheless,  contain  a  kernel  of  fact.  When 
we  observe  with  what  surprising  exactitude  and 
vividness  Mark's  Gospel  pictures  the  circumstances 
of  Jesus'  first  appearance  in  Galilee,  and  then,  again, 
of  the  closing  days  in  Jerusalem,  the  conjecture  is 
naturally  suggested  that  this  surprisingly  detailed 
knowledge  may  be  based  on  the  direct  tradition  of 
the  earliest  disciples,  and  in  particular  on  that  of 
Peter — in  the  case  of  the  story  of  the  Passion  we 
might  even  suppose  it  the  report  of  an  eye-witness, 
for  the  conjecture  that  the  brief  notice  (xiv.  51)  of 
the  young  man  who  fled,  which  is  peculiar  to  JMark, 
refers  to  an  experience  of  the  author's  own,  has  some 
claims  to  acceptance.  At  the  same  time,  alongside 
of  the  possibility  of  a  direct  oral  tradition  com- 
municated by  Peter,  we  ought  not  to  leave  out  of 
account  the  other  possibility,  that  the  author  may 
have  taken  his  material  from  a  written  source.  This 
cannot,  of  course,  have  been  one  of  our  present 
canonical  Gospels ;  so  long  as  it  was  sought  in  this 
direction,  the  priority  and  originality  of  Mark  in- 
dubitably held  its  ground.  But  that  does  not  ex- 
clude the  possibility  of  a  source  prior  to  the  canonical 
Gospels.  That  there  must  have  been  another  source 
besides  IVIark  from  which  Matthew  and  Luke  derived 
that  part  of  their  common  material  which  is  not  in 
Mark,  is  in  any  case  certain.  The  question  naturally 
arises  whether,  perhaps,  the  same  source  which  must 
be  assumed  in  the  case  of  Matthew  and  Luke  was 
also  available  for  Mark,  so  that  his  Gospel  would  be, 
in  that  case,  only  the  earliest  Greek  redaction  which 
has  come  down  to  us  of  an  older  original  Aramaic 


92  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

Gospel  ?  This  question  is  still  the  subject  of  con- 
troversy ;  the  answer  to  it  depends  mainly  upon 
exact  philological  investigation  of  the  relation  of  our 
Greek  text  to  the  Aramaic,  and  on  this  point  the 
views  of  the  linguistic  experts  are  up  to  the  present 
somewhat  divergent.  At  the  same  time,  we  may 
draw  attention  to  one  or  two  points  which  seem  to 
favour  the  hypothesis  of  a  documentary,  and,  more- 
over, of  an  Aramaic,  source  for  the  Gospel  of  Mark. 
Among  these  are,  in  the  first  place,  the  frequent 
occurrence  of  Aramaic  words  in  this  Gospel,^  which 
is  most  simply  explained  on  the  assumption  of  an 
Aramaic  source.  Further,  it  is  significant  that  the 
expression  "  the  Son  of  Man  "  is,  in  this  Gospel  only, 
twice  found  in  the  sense  which  its  Aramaic  use 
suggests  =  man  in  general  (ii.  10  and  28;  cf.  also  iii. 
28,  "the  sons  of  men");  the  Messianic  significance 
is  confined,  so  far  as  this  Gospel  is  concerned,  to  the 
apocalyptic  portions  of  the  second  part,  which  are 
influenced  by  dogmatic  and  apologetic  considerations, 
whereas  in  the  later  Gospels  this  prevails  from  the 
first  as  the  sole  significance.  Further,  in  at  least  a 
few  cases  ^  the  conjecture  that    a   misunderstanding 

^  Boavr;pyes,  iii.  17  ;  raAt^o,  Kovfx,  v.  41  ;  KopfSav,  vii.  11  ;  €^<^a6d, 
vii.  34  ;  apfia,  xiv.  36 — here  only  in  the  Gospels  ;  eAwt,  cAcoi,  Aa/xa 
(ral3ax0av€t,  xv.  34. 

2  On  V.  10  and  x.  38,  cf.  above,  pp.  21  and  50.  The  phrases,  too, 
8vo  Bvo  (vi.  7),  crvfJLTroaLa  cru/XTroo-ia  (vi.  39  f.),  eis  Kara  eh  (xiv.  19),  juia 
Twv  (TajS^aToiv  (xvi.  2),  are  distinctly  Aramaic,  as  Wellhausen  remarks 
{Skizzen  und  Forarheiten,  vi.  188  ff.).  He  sums  up  his  investiga- 
tion in  a  statement  which  deserves  close  attention  :  "  The  traces  of 
the  Aramaic  originals  of  the  Gospels  have  been  progressively 
diminished  and  obliterated  by  continual  stylistic  correction,  but  they 
have  not  been  entirely  destroyed ;  and  the  vestiges  which  remain 
speak  clearly  enough.'' 


DISTINCTIVE   CHARACTERISTICS  93 

of  the  Aramaic  underlies  the  Greek  text  has  much 
probability.  In  connection  with  these  observations, 
too,  the  generally  Hebraising  character  of  the 
language  with  its  simple  paratactic  structure,  which 
in  itself  would  not  be  surprising  in  a  Palestinian 
writer  who  was  only  moderately  versed  in  the  Greek 
idiom,  takes  on  a  greater  significance.  The  hypothesis 
that  he  had  a  written  source  to  follow  in  addition  to 
oral  tradition,  seems  also  to  be  favoured  by  the 
doublets  —  the  two  stories  of  stilling  the  storm 
(iv.  36  fF.  and  vi.  45),  and  the  two  stories  of  feeding 
the  multitude  ( vi.  35  fF.  and  viii.  1  fF. ) — for  it  is  clear  that 
these  are  only  variants  of  the  same  narrative,  which 
must  therefore  have  come  to  the  author  from  more 
than  one  source.  Finally,  we  have  to  take  into  ac- 
count the  relation  of  the  apocalyptic  discourse  in  Mark 
xiii.  to  that  of  Matt.  xxiv.  Comparing  Mark  xiii.  14  fF. 
with  Matt.  xxiv.  15  fF.,  it  is  unmistakably  evident  that 
Matthew  has  preserved  the  more  original  form  (see 
further  upon  this  point  below).  In  this  passage  at 
least,  therefore,  Mark  must  have  used  a  written 
source  which  was  still  accessible  when  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew  was  written.  Could  this  have  been  only 
a  fly-sheet  containing  an  apocalyptic  discourse,  and 
have  been  preserved  so  long  purely  for  its  own  sake  ? 
Is  it  not  much  more  probable  that  an  apocalypse 
belonging  to  the  time  of  the  Jewish  war,  which  can 
be  recognised  in  those  passages,  was  from  the  first 
worked  up  together  with  the  eschatological  discourses 
preserved  by  the  tradition  of  the  Christian  community, 
and  came  into  the  hands  of  our  Evangelists  in  this 
form  only  ?  On  the  latter  assumption  it  follows  that 
a  Gospel  which  contained  the  apocalyptic  discourse 


94  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

of  Mark  xiii.  (  =  Matt,  xxiv.)  must  have  been  used  even 
by  Mark.  Tn  view  of  all  these  considerations,  there 
is  a  preponderant  probability  in  favour  of  the  exist- 
ence of  an  Aramaic  Gospel  prior  to  Mark's  Gospel, 
which  was  used  as  a  common  source  by  him  and  the 
later  Evangelists.  But  if  this  is  the  case,  the  question 
arises  how  we  are  to  explain  the  fact  that  Mark  has 
omitted  so  much  of  this  original  Gospel  which  Luke 
and  Matthew  have  inserted  ?  To  this  we  can  only 
answer  that  he  seems  to  have  been  guided  in  his 
choice  of  material  by  his  own  and  his  readers' 
interests.  He  wrote  for  Gentile  Christians,  and  he 
desired  to  confirm  them  in  the  conviction  that  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  in  spite  of  His  rejection  by  the  Jews, 
had  been  proved  by  God,  by  means  of  signs  and 
wonders  of  all  kinds,  especially  by  the  miracles  at  the 
Baptism,  the  Transfiguration,  and  the  Resurrection, 
to  be  the  heavenly  Messiah  and  Son  of  God  (Rom. 
i.  4)  ;  and  that  by  His  victorious  struggle  with  the 
Jewish  hierarchical  and  ritual  systems  He  had  set  up 
in  the  place  of  the  old  material  temple  a  new  and 
super-sensible  one  in  the  community  of  the  believers 
in  Christ,  and  had  established  a  new  covenant 
through  His  blood  which  He  shed  for  many  (x.  45, 
xiv.  24,  58  :  cf.  Rom.  x.  4  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  6  ft'.,  v.  17  ff.). 
It  is  the  fundamental  thought  of  the  Pauline  gospel, 
that  Christ,  as  the  Son  of  God  in  virtue  of  the  Spirit 
of  Holiness,  is  the  end  of  the  Law  for  all  who 
believe,  which  our  Evangelist  desires  to  illustrate  by 
means  of  a  selection  of  the  doings  and  sayings  of 
Jesus.  And  it  is  undeniable  that  his  selection  is 
admirably  adapted  to  this  end.  In  the  first  place, 
the  remarkable  and  numerous  collection  of  miracle- 


DISTINCTIVE   CHARACTERISTICS  95 

stories  is  thoroughly  suited  to  the  taste  and  the  needs 
of  Gentile  readers,  who  saw  by  preference  in  just 
such  imposing  miracles  as  these,  signs  which  inspired 
faith  in  the  Divine  mission  and  dignity  of  the  Lord 
Christ.  Of  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  he  selects  those 
which  centre  round  His  struggle  with  the  hierarchs 
and  legalists,  whereas  those  that  have  to  do  with  the 
inner  life  of  the  Christian  community  are  more 
sparingly  used,  while  those,  finally,  which  maintain  a 
conservative  attitude  towards  the  Jewish  law  and 
Jewish  national  aspirations  are  carefully  suppressed. 
The  very  fact  that  Mark  used  as  one  of  his  sources 
this  Aramaic  Gospel,  which,  to  judge  from  Matthew, 
certainly  contained  passages  of  this  kind — and  it 
seems  very  probable  that  he  did  so — ^makes  his  anti- 
Jewish  choice  of  the  material  of  the  discourses  the 
more  remarkable  a  proof  of  the  Pauline  Gentile- 
Christian  spirit  and  aim  which  inspired  the  com- 
position of  his  Gospel.  We  have  noticed,  moreover, 
direct  allusions  to  specifically  Pauline  methods  of 
thought  and  expression — we  may  recall,  for  instance, 
the  phrases  of  the  first  sermon  of  Jesus,  "  The  time 
is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand ; 
repent  ye,  and  believe  the  gospel"  (i.  15;  cf.  Gal. 
iv.  4) ;  the  pessimistic  and  predestinarian  version  of 
the  aim  of  the  parables  (iv.  12  fF. ;  cf.  Rom.  xi.  8);  the 
various  Pauline  echoes  in  the  exhortations  which 
followed  on  the  first  announcement  of  the  Passion 
(viii.  34  ;  see  p.  38) ;  the  story  of  the  Transfiguration 
(ix.  2  fF. ),  in  the  JMarcan  version  of  which  we  recognised 
a  running  commentary  on  the  Pauline  thoughts  of 
2  Cor.  iii.  ;  and  finally  the  two  passages  (x.  45  and 
xiv.  24)  in  which  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  atoninfT 


m  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MARK 

significance  of  the  death  of  Christ  seems  to  be  intro- 
duced into  the  gospel  story  for  the  first  time  (pp.  52, 
75).  In  the  face  of  all  these  unambiguous  indica- 
tions, it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  the  assumption 
of  Pauline  influence  in  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark 
can  be  described  as  an  arbitrary  and  absurd  hypothesis. 

As  regards  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  we  have  found 
in  the  preceding  investigation  no  reason  to  doubt  the 
correctness  of  the  Church  tradition  of  the  authorship 
of  John  Mark.  On  the  contrary,  his  dual  relationship 
to  Peter  on  the  one  hand  and  Paul  on  the  other  fits 
exactly  the  author  of  a  Gospel  in  which  the  oral  and 
written  traditions  of  the  primitive  community  are 
worked  up  together  under  the  guidance  of  the  ideas 
associated  with  Pauline  Gentile  Christianity.  The 
time  of  writing  is  most  probably  to  be  placed  in  the 
decade  following  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  For 
the  place  of  writing,  Rome  is  sometimes  suggested 
and  sometimes  Alexandria :  the  frequent  use  of 
Latinisms  is  in  favour  of  its  having  been  addressed  to 
Roman  readers  ;  it  is  in  any  case  to  be  assumed  that 
the  readers  were  Gentiles,  since  it  seemed  necessary 
to  the  author  to  explain  Jewish  customs. 

On  the  question  whether  we  have  in  the  canonical 
Gospel  of  Mark  the  original  writing  of  the  author  or 
a  redaction  by  a  later  hand,  Renan  very  justly 
remarks  :  "  The  Gospel  of  Mark  offers  the  appearance 
of  being  a  complete  unity,  and,  setting  aside  certain 
details  in  which  the  manuscripts  differ,  and  those 
little  retouchings  which  the  Christian  writings  almost 
without  exception  have  undergone,  it  seems  not  to 
have  received  any  considerable  expansion  since  it  was 
first  composed.   The  characteristic  feature  of  the  gospel 


DISTINCTIVE   CHARACTERISTICS  97 

was,  from  the  first,  the  absence  of  a  genealogy  and  story 
of  the  childhood — if  there  was  any  gap  which  cried 
aloud  to  be  filled,  in  the  interest  of  Catholic  readers, 
it  was  this,  and  yet  men  refrained  from  undertaking 
to  fill  it.  Many  other  peculiarities  too,  which  from 
the  apologetic  point  of  view  were  unacceptable,  were 
not  removed.  Only  the  account  of  the  Resurrection 
shows  evident  traces  of  mutilation.  The  best  manu- 
scripts break  off  after  xvi.  8,  €(po/3owro  yap.  It  is 
hardly  to  be  supposed  that  the  original  text  concluded 
in  so  abrupt  a  fashion.  Probably  there  followed 
something  which  conflicted  with  the  traditional 
representation.  That  was  removed,  and  then,  later, 
the  conclusion  was  replaced  by  various  versions,  of 
which  none  had  sufficient  authority  to  oust  the 
others."  ^  This  hypothesis  certainly  seems  to  me  more 
probable  than  that  which  has  lately  been  advanced, 
viz.,  that  Mark  was  prevented  by  some  accident 
from  finishing  his  work — after  all,  it  is  only  a  matter 
of  a  few  verses. 

1  Les  Evangiles,  p.  1 20. 


VOT,  11. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  Stories  of  the  Birth  and  Childhood 

(Luke  i.  and  ii.) 

The  author  (we  may  provisionally  call  him  Luke) 
prefaces  his  work,  according  to  the  usual  practice  of 
Greek  authors  of  his  day,^  with  an  introduction 
written  in  classical  Greek,  and  to  the  following  effect: 
"  Seeing  that  many  have  endeavoured  to  compose  a 
narrative  of  the  events  which  have  come  to  pass 
among  us,  as  they  have  been  handed  down  to  us  by 
those  who  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses, 
and  servants  of  the  word,  I  have  resolved  that  I  also, 
after  tracing  the  course  of  events  from  the  beginning, 
would  draw  up  for  you,  most  excellent  Theophilus,  an 
orderly  narrative,  in  order  that  you  might  have  a  firm 
conviction  regarding  those  subjects  on  which  you  have 
received  instruction."  From  this  introduction  we  infer 
(1)  that  the  author  had  not  been  himself  an  eye-witness 

1  There  is,  between  the  introductions  of  Josephus  to  his  History 
of  the  Jenish  War  and  to  the  first  and  second  books  of  his 
polemic  against  Apion,  and  the  introductions  which  Luke  prefixes 
to  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts,  so  marked  an  affinity  in  thought^ 
phraseology,  and  wordings  that  the  direct  influence  of  these  writings 
upon  Luke  is  not  to  be  doubted.  Cf.  Ki-enkel,  Josephus  und 
Lukas,  pp.  50-60  and  145. 

93 


THE   BIRTH   AND   CHILDHOOD  99 

of  the  events  of  the  gospel  history,  but  knew  them 
only  by  the  report  of  others  ;  (2)  that  already,  before 
his  time,  many  had  embodied  the  evangelical  material 
in  written  form,  but  that  these,  also,  had  not  themselves 
been  eye-witnesses,  but  had  drawn  only  upon  (oral) 
tradition  derived  from  those  who  had  been  so;  (3)  that 
Luke  hoped  to  surpass  his  predecessors  by  striving 
after  greater  completeness  and  exactitude,  and  a  more 
orderly  arrangement  of  the  narratives  ;  (4)  that  in  so 
doing  he  was  aiming  at  the  practical  end  of  helping 
to  confirm  his  Gentile-Christian  readers,  of  whom  we 
must  regard  Theophilus  as  the  representative,  in  the 
certainty  of  their  faith. 

Luke  desires  to  set  forth  all  things  in  order  "  from 
the  very  beginning,"  as  he  tells  us  in  his  preface. 
Accordingly,  the  baptism  of  John,  which  serves 
Mark  as  his  point  of  departure,  does  not  suffice  him. 
He  prefixes  a  preliminary  narrative  regarding  the 
birth  of  the  Baptist,  and  of  Jesus,  in  order  to  exhibit 
the  significance  of  each,  and  their  relation  to  one 
another,  as  already,  at  and  before  their  earthly 
appearance,  grounded  in  the  Divine  fore-ordination. 
In  the  story  of  the  birth  of  John  the  particulars  are 
taken  throughout  from  Old  Testament  types — in 
fact,  from  the  births  of  Isaac,  Samson,  and  Samuel. 
As  these  three  heroes  of  Hebrew  legend  and  history 
were  born  to  their  aged  parents  after  many  years  of 
childless  marriage,  through  the  special  grace  of  God, 
and  were  thus  marked  out  from  the  first  as  notable 
men  of  God,  so  it  was  in  the  case  of  John  the 
Baptist.  As  the  birth  of  Samson  was  announced  to 
his  mother  by  the  appearance  of  an  angel  or  "  man  of 
God  "  of  awe-inspiring  aspect  (Judges  xiii.  3,  6),  and  as 


100  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

the  promise  of  motherhood  was  given  to  Hannah  in 
answer  to  her  prayers  (1  Sam.  i.),  so  the  birth  of  a  son 
in  answer  to  his  prayers  was  announced  to  Zacharias 
by  the  angel  Gabriel  (the  name  means  "  Man  of 
God  "),  whose  appearance  struck  him  with  fear  (Luke 
i.  12-20).  And  as  in  Isaac's  case  the  name,  and  in 
Samson's  his  vocation  to  be  an  ascetic,  dedicated  to 
God,  (Nazirite),  and  an  instrument  of  Divine  deeds 
of  deliverance  for  Israel,  were  announced  at  the  time 
of  the  promise  of  their  births,  so  it  was  also  at 
the  promise  of  the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist ;  and, 
indeed,  in  words  which  are  taken  almost  exactly  from 
its  historical  pattern  in  Judges  xiii.,  except  that  the 
prediction  in  regard  to  Samson  that  he  should  be 
dedicated  to  God  from  his  mother's  womb  here 
takes  the  higher  form  that  John  should  be  filled 
with  the  Holy  Spirit  from  his  mother's  womb. 
Again,  the  oracle  which  announced  the  destiny  of 
Samson  to  be  the  political  deliverer  of  Israel  here 
takes  the  form  (with  allusion  to  Malachi  iii.  1  fF.) 
that  John,  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias,  would 
convert  the  people,  and  prepare  them  for  the  coming 
of  the  Lord  to  deliver  them — an  announcement 
by  which  his  mission  as  the  Fore-runner,  to  prepare 
the  way  for  the  Messiah,  is  definitely  determined  in 
advance.  The  doubt  of  Zacharias  and  the  punish- 
ment of  it  by  temporary  dumbness  recall  the  similar 
doubt  of  Sara  and  the  rebuke  w^hich  she  received. 
"  The  miraculous  character  of  this  story  of  the 
birth  of  the  Baptist  contrasts  significantly  with 
the  absence  of  miracle  in  his  whole  work,  to 
which  John  x.  41  bears  witness.  This  birth-story 
seems,    therefore,    to    be    merely    the    reflection    of 


THE   BIRTH   AND   CHILDHOOD  101 

another,  to  which   the  Evangelist   now  passes   on " 
(Holtzmann). 

In  the  sixth  month  after  the  events  just  referred  to, 
as  Luke  proceeds  to  narrate,  the  same  angel  Gabriel 
was  sent  by  God  to  Nazareth  in  Gahlee,  to  a  virgni 
named  Mary  who  was  betrothed  to  a  man  named 
Joseph,  a  descendant  of  the  house  of  David.  To  the 
maiden,  who  was  alarmed  at  the  appearance  and 
salutation  of  the  angel,  Gabriel  says,  "  Fear  not,  for 
thou  hast  found  favour  with  God,  and,  behold,  thou 
shalt  conceive,  and  shalt  bear  a  son,  and  shalt  call  his 
name  Jesus.  And  he  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be 
called  the  Son  of  the  Highest ;  and  God  the  Lord 
shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his  father  David ; 
and  he  shall  rule  over  the  house  of  Jacob  for  ever, 
and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end."  This 
promise,  with  its  allusions  to  Old  Testament 
prophecies  (2  Sam.  vii.  13  ff.;  Isa.  ix.  5  f.),  has  reference, 
therefore,  to  the  Messianic  kingship  of  Jesus  over  the 
house  of  Jacob,  that  is  to  say,  the  Jewish  people,  and 
it  is  only  in  the  sense  of  a  title  of  the  theocratic  king 
(as  in  2  Sam.  vii.)  that  the  promise  here,  "he  shall 
be  called  a  Son  of  the  Highest,"  can  be  intended. 
Now  we  should  certainly  find  it  quite  intelhgible  that 
at  the  prophecy  of  so  great  a  destiny  for  her  future 
son,  Mary,  the  child  of  humble  parents  in  an  obscure 
GaHlasan  village,  should  be  greatly  astonished  ;  we  are 
therefore  the  more  surprised  by  the  sequel  (verse  34  f.), 
where  the  betrothed  maiden  shows  no  astonishment 
at  the  exalted  destiny  of  the  son  who  was  to  be 
expected  from  her  approaching  marriage,  but  is 
astonished,  rather,  that  she  shall  have  a  son,  seeing 
that  she  "knows  not  a  man.'"     There  is  no  reason  in 


102  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

what  precedes  for  this  question  (verse  34),  and  it  can 
only  be  explained  as  an  abrupt  introduction  to  the  new 
prophecy,  entirely  disparate  from  the  foregoing,  which 
next  appears  (verse  35) :  "  The  Holy  Spirit  shall  come 
upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  over- 
shadow thee,  therefore  that  holy  being  which  shall 
be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God." 
What  is  promised  here  is  no  longer,  as  in  verse  32, 
that  the  son  who  is  to  be  expected  in  the  course  of 
nature  from  the  approaching  marriage  of  Mary  with 
Joseph  should  be  the  theocratic  "  Son  of  God,"  i.e. 
the  Messianic  king,  but  that,  while  still  a  virgin,  she 
should  become  in  a  supernatural  fashion,  by  the 
miraculous  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  mother  of  a 
son  who,  for  that  very  reason,  should  be  called  the 
Son  of  God  in  a  wholly  unique,  supernatural,  physico- 
metaphysical  sense.  The  question,  however,  neces- 
sarily presents  itself  whether  this  new  thought,  the 
promise  of  the  supernatural  Son  of  God  in  verse  35, 
can  have  stood  in  connection  with  what  immediately 
precedes  and  follows  in  the  original  document  ? 

In  reference  to  this  question,  we  have  to  take  into 
account  the  following  considerations.  In  the  story 
of  the  childhood  there  is  repeated  mention  of  the 
parents  and  of  the  father  of  Jesus  (Joseph)  (ii.  27, 
33,  41,  48),  in  such  a  way  that,  were  it  not  for  i.  34  f , 
we  should  not  suppose  that  there  had  been  anything 
unusual  in  the  human  parentage  of  Jesus.  In  ii.  33 
we  are  told  of  the  surprise  of  the  parents  of  Jesus 
at  the  prophecy  of  Simeon ;  in  ii.  50  their  failure  to 
understand  the  words  of  their  son  is  spoken  of  in  a 
fashion  which  goes  almost  as  far  to  exclude  the  possi- 
bility that    Mary  knew   anything   of  a  supernatural 


THE   BIRTH    AND   CHILDHOOD  103 

origin  of  her  son  as  does  her  supposition  (Mark  iii.  21) 
that  her  son  was  beside  himself.  The  genealogy  in 
Luke  iii.  23  fF.  and  Matt.  i.  originally  implied  the 
fatherhood  of  Joseph — the  words  "as  was  supposed," 
which  cut  the  genealogical  thread  at  the  decisive  point, 
are  a  later  interpolation,  designed  in  the  interests  of 
the  same  dogmatic  end  as  the  alteration  of  the  original 
reading  in  Matt.  i.  16  (see  below).  Especially  signifi- 
cant is  the  story  of  the  baptism  in  iii.  22,  where  the 
heavenly  voice,  according  to  the  certainly  original 
reading  (preserved  in  Cod.  D),  took  the  form,  "  Thou 
art  my  Son,  this  day  have  1  begotten  thee."  Here, 
therefore,  it  is  the  baptism  which  is  thought  of  as 
the  moment  in  which  Jesus  is  made  the  Son  of  God 
by  the  communication  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  He  who 
wrote  this  narrative  cannot  also  have  thought  of  the 
Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus  as  mediated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  cannot,  therefore,  have  written  the  two 
verses  i.  34,  35.  Similarly,  we  find  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  written  by  the  same  author,  many  allu- 
sions, indeed,  to  the  anointing  of  Jesus  with  the 
Spirit  at  His  baptism,  but  not  a  single  reference  to 
His  supernatural  origin.  The  fact  that  this  is  else- 
where without  exception  the  case  in  both  the  Lucan 
writings  leads,  in  my  belief,  to  the  inevitable  conclu- 
sion that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  originally  contained  no 
story  of  the  supernatural  origin  of  Jesus,  but  that 
this  story  arose  later  and  was  interpolated  into  the 
text  by  the  addition  of  verses  i.  34  f.  and  of  the 
words  009  evojULLl^eTo  in  iii.  23.^     Of  the  motives  which 

^  Compare  the  able  discussion  of  this  question  by  Hillmann  in 
his  essay  "  die  Kindheitsgeschichte  nach  Lukas "  (Jahrb.  f.  prot. 
Theol.,  1891);  also  Harnackj  neutest.  Zeitschr.,  1901,  53  f. 


104  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

gave   rise   to   this    legend   we   shall    have   to   speak 
later. 

Luke  then  (i.  39  fF.)  brings  together  these  two  so 
highly  honoured  mothers,  in  order,  by  the  reverential 
greeting  addressed  to  the  mother  of  the  Messiah  by 
her  elder  friend,  to  typify  the  subordination  of  John 
to  Jesus,  which  Matthew  has  exhibited  in  a  similar 
way  at  the  first  meeting  of  the  men  themselves 
(iii.  14).  This  occasion  is  immediately  used  by  Luke 
in  order  to  express,  through  Mary,  as  the  typical 
representative  of  believing  Israel,  the  hope  of  redemp- 
tion which  had  always  been  the  soul  of  the  religion 
of  this  people,  and  at  the  same  time  to  show  how 
spiritually  gifted  was  the  mother  from  whom,  accord- 
ing to  the  Divine  appointment,  the  highest  religious 
life  of  mankind  should  spring.  The  model  for 
Mary's  song  of  praise  was  taken  by  the  Evangelist 
from  the  song  of  Hannah,  the  mother  of  Samuel 
(1  Sam.  ii.  1-10),  whose  history  had  also  hovered 
before  his  mind  when  writing  of  the  announcement 
of  the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist.  One  reason  why 
this  pattern  may  have  seemed  to  him  especially  suit- 
able was  that  it  gave  strong  expression  to  an  idea 
with  which  he  was  peculiarly  in  sympathy — the  offer 
of  salvation  to  the  poor  and  lowly.  Yet  another 
hymn  is  put  by  Luke  into  the  mouth  of  Zacharias 
the  father  of  John,  on  the  occasion  of  the  birth  and 
naming  of  the  child  (i.  67-79)  ;  of  this,  too,  the  burden 
is  the  prophetic  hope  of  the  redemption  of  Israel  in 
its  political  as  well  as  in  its  ethico-religious  aspect, 
and  the  preparation  for  the  fulfilment  of  it  by  John 
as  the  Fore-runner  of  the  Lord.  Thus  the  Evan- 
gelist,   beginning    at   the    very  beginning,   leads   on 


THE   BIRTH   AND   CHILDHOOD  105 

through  the  fore-court  of  the  faith  and  hope  of  Israel 
to  the  manifestation  of  the  Saviour. 

In  chapter  ii.  is  recounted  the  birth  of  the 
Messianic  child,  which  has  been  so  solemnly 
announced  in  the  preceding  chapter.  That  the  Son 
of  David  should  be  born  in  David's  town  of 
Bethlehem  seems  to  be  demanded  as  appropriate  to 
His  destiny  as  theocratic  king.  But  what  reason 
could  be  assigned  for  this,  when  it  was  notorious 
that  the  home  of  Jesus  was  far  away  from  Bethlehem 
of  Judsea,  in  Galilgean  Nazareth,  where  also  the 
Evangelist  had  represented  the  mother  of  Jesus  as 
dwelling  at  the  time  of  the  Annunciation  (i.  26)  ?  In 
order,  in  despite  of  this  fact,  to  make  the  birth  of 
Jesus  occur  in  Bethlehem,  the  Evangelist  had  to 
make  the  mother  of  Jesus  trav^el  before  his  birth  to 
the  Davidic  town  of  Bethlehem,  and  it  was  important, 
therefore,  to  find  an  historical  occasion  for  this  journey. 
Here  our  author's  acquaintance  with  the  history  of 
the  time  came  to  his  aid  ;  it  was  not,  however,  suffi- 
ciently thorough  to  save  him  from  chronological 
error,  but  went  just  far  enough  to  enable  him  to 
make  a  free  use  of  well-known  historical  circumstances 
in  the  interest  of  his  own  philosophy  of  history.  Thus, 
he  knew  of  a  census  which  the  Syrian  Governor,  Publius 
Sulpicius  Quirinius,  carried  out  in  Palestine  when  it 
was  made  a  tribute-paying  Roman  province — a  pro- 
ceeding which,  as  the  first  of  its  kind  in  Palestine 
had  caused  ill-feeling  among  the  Jews  and  had  pro- 
voked the  rising  of  Judas  of  Galilee,  and  therefore 
would  doubtless  still  be  remembered  in  Jewish  circles 
in  the  time  of  the  Evangelist  ((/.'  Acts  v.  37).  In 
this  historical  event  Luke  found  a  welcome  motive 


106  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

to  explain  the  journey  of  Mary  with  Joseph,  her 
betrothed,  to  David's  city  of  Bethlehem,  and  at  the 
same  time  an  opportunity  to  bring  out  clearly  the 
interconnection  of  the  birth-story  of  Jesus  the  Saviour 
of  the  world  with  the  great  world-policy  of  the 
Emperor  Augustus.  It  was  certainly  an  ingenious 
idea,  and  reflects  the  greatest  credit  upon  the  literary 
skill  of  the  Evangelist.  Only,  we  must  not  judge  his 
skilful  " history- with-a-purpose"  by  the  strict  standard 
of  historical  reality.  For  with  this  the  Lucan  narra- 
tive comes,  at  several  points,  into  direct  conflict. 
The  census  of  Quirinius  took  place  at  least  six, 
according  to  another  reckoning,  ten,  years  after  the 
birth  of  Jesus,  and  has  therefore  been  ante-dated  by 
Luke  with  the  object  of  supplying  a  motive  for  the 
journey  of  Mary  to  Bethlehem  ;  moreover,  the  census 
was  for  Palestine  only,  not  for  the  whole  (Roman) 
world.  Further,  even  supposing  that  this  census 
would  fit  in  point  of  time,  it  could  not  really  have 
caused  the  journey  of  Mary  and  Joseph  to  Bethlehem, 
since  the  Roman  Government  always,  as  might  have 
been  expected,  had  the  enrolment  of  the  population 
which  was  laid  under  tribute  made  at  the  houses  of 
the  individual  citizens,  never  cited  them  to  present 
themselves  at  their  ancestral  town.  Finally,  that  this 
journey  to  the  city  of  David  had  to  be  made  not 
only  by  Joseph,  who  alone  could  be  concerned  by 
the  taxing,  but  also  by  Mary  his  betrothed,  especially 
in  the  difficult  circumstances  in  which  she  then  was — 
that  Alls  the  measure  of  improbability  to  the  height 
of  actual  impossibility.  That  which,  however, 
purely  from  the  historical  point  of  view  would  be 
inexplicable,  becomes  completely  explicable  when  we 


THE   BIRTH    AND   CHILDHOOD  107 

take  into  account  the  literary  purpose  of  Luke,  to 
supply  an  explanation  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  at 
Bethlehem,  and  to  do  so,  moreover,  by  indicating  a 
causal  connection  between  it  and  a  well-known  his- 
torical event  such  as  the  census  of  Quirinius. 

That  a  writer  of  the  sensibility  and  imagination  of 
Luke  should  glorify  the  birth  of  Jesus  by  poetically 
ideal  pictures,  will  seem  natural  enough  to  everyone. 
The  contrast  between  outward  humility  and  spiritual 
greatness  which  runs  through  the  whole  life  of  Jesus, 
as  through  that  of  the  community  which  He  founded, 
is  symbolised  in  the  story  of  His  birth  by  the  contrast 
of  the  miserable  stable,  in  the  manger  of  which  the 
child  found  His  first  resting-place,  with  the  splendour 
of  the  heavenly  glory  which  shone  over  the  shepherds 
(in  accordance  with  Isa.  Ix.  1  fF.),  and  of  the  heavenly 
hosts  who  proclaimed  joy  for  all,  glory  to  God  in  the 
highest,  and  peace  for  men  of  good  will,  as  a  conse- 
quence of  the  birth  of  the  Saviour.  The  representa- 
tion, too,  that  it  was  poor  shepherds  who  were  per- 
mitted to  be  the  first  to  hear  these  good  tidings  and 
to  be  the  first  to  offer  their  worship  to  the  Saviour 
is  a  skilful  touch  which  is  in  harmony  not  merely 
with  the  traditional  role  which  shepherds  play  in 
the  history  and  legends  of  Israel  (Patriarchs,  INIoses, 
David,  Amos),  as  of  other  peoples,  but  also  with  the 
especial  sympathy  of  Luke  for  the  poor  and  lowly, 
as  the  heirs  by  preference  of  the  Divine  promises. 

Eight  days  after  the  birth  of  Jesus  there  took 
place  the  circumcision,  and  subsequently,  at  the  time 
appointed  by  the  Law,  the  presentation  of  the  child 
in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem.  On  this  occasion  it 
happened  that  a  godly  man  of  prophetic  gifts,  named 


108  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

Simeon,  to  whom  it  had  been  revealed  that  he  should 
not  see  death  until  he  had  seen  the  Lord's  Christ, 
came  to  the  Temple,  impelled  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
just  as  the  parents  of  Jesus  brought  in  the  child. 
He  took  Him  in  his  arms,  blessed  God,  and  said, 
"  Now  lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart,  O  Lord, 
according  to  thy  word,  in  peace ;  for  mine  eyes  have 
seen  the  salvation  which  thou  hast  prepared  before 
the  face  of  all  peoples,  a  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles, 
and  the  glory  of  thy  people  Israel ! "  The  parents 
were  astonished  at  the  words ;  and  Simeon  blessed 
them  and,  addressing  the  mother,  said,  "  Behold,  this 
child  is  set  for  the  fall  and  rising  again  of  many  in 
Israel,  and  for  a  sign  that  shall  be  spoken  against — yea, 
a  sword  shall  pierce  through  thine  own  soul  also — that 
the  thoughts  of  many  hearts  may  be  revealed."  An 
aged  prophetess  also,  named  Anna,  gave  thanks  to 
God,  and  spoke  of  the  child  to  all  who  waited  for  the 
redemption  of  Jerusalem. 

That  for  this  whole  series  of  pictures  of  the  child- 
hood the  author  cannot  have  had  historical  materials 
before  him,  is  self-evident.  But  that  does  not  mean 
that  he  composed  them  quite  freely,  but  that  he 
worked  up  for  his  purpose  legends  which  had  come 
to  him  from  various  quarters,  the  origin  of  which 
reaches  back  far  into  pre-Christian  times,  and 
which  perhaps  belong  to  the  common  stock  of 
western  Asiatic  folk-lore,  for  we  find  the  same 
legends,  with  a  remarkable  correspondence  in  some 
of  the  details,  worked  up  in  the  story  of  the  childhood 
of  the  Indian  saviour,  Gautama  Buddha.^     He,  too, 

1  On  this  point  reference  should  be  made  to  the  very  thorough 
discussion  of  these  parallels,  and  of  others  which  will  be  mentioned 


THE   BIRTH   AND   CHILDHOOD  109 

is  miraculously  born  of  the  virgin  Queen,  Maya,  into 
whose  immaculate  body  the  heavenly  light-essence 
of  Buddha  entered.  At  his  birth,  too,  heavenly 
spirits  appeared,  who  sang  the  following  hymn :  "  A 
wonderful,  incomparable  hero  is  born ;  Saviour  of 
the  world,  full  of  compassion,  to-day  thou  extendest 
thy  good- will  to  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  !  Let  joy 
and  peace  come  to  all  creatures,  that  they  may  be 
still,  lords  of  themselves  and  happy  ! "  He,  too,  is 
brought  by  his  mother  to  the  temple  to  perform  the 
legal  usages,  and  there  they  are  met  by  the  aged 
hermit  Asita,  who  had  been  impelled  by  a  presenti- 
ment to  come  down  from  the  Himalayas.  He 
prophesied  that  this  child  would  be  Buddha,  the 
deliverer  from  all  evils,  and  should  lead  men  to 
freedom,  light,  and  immortality  ;  then  he  wept  for 
sorrow  that  he  himself  would  not  live  to  see  the 
coming  time  of  deliverance  (note  the  contrast  between 
this  and  the  Christian  version,  in  which  the  pious  seer 
passes  away  in  peace,  because  he  has  seen  in  faith  the 

later,  in  the  writings  of  Rudolf  Seydel,  Das  Evange/iuyn  von  Jesu 
in  seinem  Verhdltniss  zur  Buddhasage  (1882)  and  Die  Buddhalegende 
tind  das  Leben  Jesu  (second  edition  by  Martin  Seydel,  1897), 
where  further  information  will  be  found  regarding  the  sources. 
Seydel  believes  that  he  is  able  to  prove  a  direct  dependence  in 
many  points  of  the  Christian  upon  the  Indian  legend,  e.g.  in  regard 
to  the  presentation  in  the  Temple,  the  reasons  for  which  are  more 
natural  in  the  Indian  narrative  than  in  the  Lucan,  since  in  Judaism 
the  presentation  of  children  in  the  Temple  was  not  demanded  by 
the  Law,  nor  can  it  be  shown  to  have  been  a  custom.  At  the  same 
time  I  should  like  to  remark,  with  reference  to  all  these  parallels,  that 
a  direct  dependence  of  the  one  on  the  other  does  not  seem  to  be  a 
necessary  assumption,  since  it  is  much  more  probable  that  ancient 
and  widely  current  myths  formed  the  common  source  from  which 
the  materials  were  taken  for  the  formation  of  Indian  as  well  as 
Christian  legend. 


no  THE    GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

coming  of  the  time  of  salvation).  These  prophecies 
of  the  seer  Asita  are  followed  by  further  blessings 
from  aged  women,  and  the  narrative  closes  with  a 
brief  statement  of  the  daily  advance  of  the  royal  child 
in  mental  and  spiritual  excellence,  and  in  physical 
beauty  and  strength — just  such  as  Luke  makes  in 
regard  to  Jesus  (ii.  40  and  52). 

The  conclusion  of  this  preliminary  history  is 
formed  by  the  story  of  the  twelve-year-old  Jesus  in 
the  Temple  (ii.  41-52),  in  which  the  art  of  the 
Evangelist  has  blended  together  elements  of  v^ery 
various  origin  into  a  so  well-conceived  whole  that 
most  readers  even  now  take  it  for  actual  history. 
In  the  first  place,  the  occasion  for  the  journey  of 
Jesus  to  Jerusalem  was  suggested  by  the  story  of 
the  childhood  of  Samuel,  who  was  in  a  similar  way 
brought  in  early  boyhood  by  his  mother  to  the 
Temple,  and  there  became  aware  of  his  high  vocation. 
Just  as  it  is  there  narrated  of  Samuel's  parents  that 
they  journeyed  yearly  to  Shiloh  in  order  to  make  an 
offering  to  Jahweh,  so  it  is  here  of  the  parents  of  Jesus 
that  they  went  up  yearly  to  Jerusalem  to  the  Feast 
of  the  Passover.  The  remark,  too,  which  Luke 
makes  at  two  different  points,  before  and  after  the 
story  of  this  visit  to  the  Temple  (ii.  40  and  52), 
regarding  the  bodily  and  spiritual  growth  of  Jesus  is 
couched  in  a  very  similar  form  to  that  regarding 
Samuel  in  1  Sam.  ii.  26  :  "  The  boy  grew  on,  and 
was  in  favour  with  God  and  man."  In  the  further 
course  of  the  story  we  have  to  distinguish  three 
different  elements :  ( 1 )  Jesus'  sitting  among  the 
teachers  in  the  Temple  ;  (2)  the  losing  of  the  child  ; 
(3)    His   self- justification    in   answer  to  His  mother. 


THE    BIRTH   AND   CHILDHOOD  111 

For  each  of  these  elements  parallels  can  be  produced 
in  which  the  narrator  may  have  found  the  pattern 
and  suggestion  of  his  composition.  With  the  sitting 
of  Jesus  in  the  Temple  among  the  teachers  may  be 
compared  what  Josephus  tells  us  regarding  himself 
in  his  autobiography  (chap,  ii.) ;  as  a  boy  of  only 
fourteen,  he  distinguished  himself  above  all  his 
contemporaries  by  his  insight,  and  was  praised  by  all 
for  his  love  of  knowledge,  since  the  chief-priests  and 
principal  men  of  the  town  constantly  came  together 
in  order  to  get  accurate  information  from  him  regard- 
ing the  problems  of  the  Law.  Here  the  vain 
Josephus  represents  himself  as  a  youthful  teacher, 
whereas  in  the  Toucan  narrative  the  meaning  is  doubt- 
less only  that  the  boy  Jesus  was  desirous  of  learning 
from  the  teachers  in  the  Temple,  a  difference  which 
,  only  emphasises  the  close  affinity  in  point  of  subject- 
matter  between  the  two  stories.^  That  the  boy  Jesus 
was  lost  by  His  parents  owing  to  His  zeal  for  learning 
is  a  further  and  by  no  means  necessarily  connected 
trait,  the  suggestion  for  which  must  be  sought  else- 
where, in  the  legends  of  the  East  and  of  the  West. 
In  the  story  of  Buddha  ^  it  is  told  how,  on  the  festival 
of  the  dedication  of  ploughs,  as  all  the  people  were 
streaming  out  to  see  the  great  spectacle,  when  the 
king  himself,  with  a  golden  plough,  drew  the  first 
furrow,  the  boy  Gautama  was  lost,  and  was  anxiously 
sought  by  his  friends,  until  at  length  he  was  found 
under  a  sacred  tree,  where  he  sat  wrapt  in  contempla- 
tion in  the  circle  of  wise  and  holy  men.  Suetonius 
tells  of  Augustus  that  when  he  was  a  little  infant  he 

^   Ki'enkel,  Josephus  und  Lukas,  p.  81  ff. 

2  Sacred  Books,  xix.  48  f. ;  cp.  Seydel,  Buddhalegende,  25. 


112  THE    GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

one  day  disappeared  from  his  cradle,  and  after  long 
search  was  found  in  the  highest  part  of  the  house,  lying 
towards  the  sunrise,  the  region  of  his  father  Apollo/ 
Amid  all  their  differences,  these  legends  have  this 
in  common  with  the  Lucan  narrative,  that  the  boy, 
conscious,  as  it  were,  in  anticipation  of  his  high 
vocation,  withdraws  himself  from  his  ordinary  sur- 
roundings, is  anxiously  sought,  and  is  at  length  found 
in  a  situation  which  corresponds  to  his  mysterious 
relationship  to  a  higher  world  and  his  destiny  to 
higher  ends.  To  this  must  be  added,  in  the  case  of 
the  Buddha-legend,  the  special  parallels  in  regard  to 
the  occasion  (a  high  festival)  and  in  the  surroundings 
in  which  the  boy  is  found  (circle  of  teachers,  wise 
and  holy  men).  Can  all  this  be  mere  chance? 
Finally,  however,  the  Evangelist  adds  yet  another 
significant  trait,  in  a  sense  the  point  of  the  whole, 
and  for  this  he  finds  the  suggestion,  not  in  extraneous 
legends,  but  in  the  historical  material  of  the  gospel 
tradition.  In  Mark  iii.  21,  31  f.,  he  read  that  the 
mother  and  the  brethren  of  Jesus  had  desired  to  come 
to  Him  in  order  to  take  Him  away  from  the  circle  of 
His  disciples,  thinking  that  He  was  out  of  His  mind. 
Jesus,  however,  refused  to  see  them,  saying,  "  Who  is 
my  mother,  and  who  are  my  brethren  ? "  Then, 
looking  round  upon  His  disciples.  He  said,  "  Behold 
my  mother  and  my  brethren ! "  In  this  form  the 
narrative  appeared  unacceptable  to  Luke,  since  he 
was  unwilling  to  attribute  to  the  highly  favoured 
mother  so  grave  an  error  {on  e^ea-rrj).  He  therefore 
alters  the  time  and  the  motive  of  the  search.  Instead 
of  seeking,  as  in  Mark  iii.  32  ("  Behold,  thy  mother  and 

^   Octavms,  xciv. 


THE   BIRTH   AND   CHILDHOOD  113 

thy  brethren  are  without  seeking  thee  "),  her  grown-up 
Son,  with  the  mistaken  purpose  of  snatching  Him 
away  from  His  Hfe-work,  in  Luke  the  anxious 
mother  seeks  her  boy  with  the  best  intentions,  and 
addresses  to  Him  the  deserved  reproach,  "  My  child, 
how  couldst  thou  so  deal  with  us  ?  Behold,  thy 
father  and  I  have  sought  thee  sorrowing."  But  al- 
though His  mother's  seeking  of  Him  has  here  a  quite 
different  motive  from  that  in  Mark,  there  follows  here, 
just  as  there,  an  answer  from  her  Son  in  which  the 
contrast  of  His  higher  religious  consciousness  with 
common  human  opinion  comes  to  decisive  expression  : 
"  Why  seek  ye  me  ?  Knew  ye  not  that  I  must  be  in 
the  things  of  my  Father  ?  "  The  implied  rebuke  of 
the  limited  understanding  of  the  parents,  which  in  a 
real  history  would  be  actually  offensive,  finds  a  simple 
explanation  in  the  fact  that  it  is  the  Lucan  counter- 
part of  that  rebuff  which  Jesus,  according  to  Mark 
iii.  33,  no  doubt  administered,  but  in  quite  different 
circumstances,  and  with  very  different  cause.  Then, 
too,  the  further  remark  (Luke  ii.  50),  that  the  parents 
of  Jesus  did  not  understand  the  saying,  betrays  also 
the  influence  of  the  Marcan  account  of  the  mistake 
of  Jesus'  friends — of  the  contradiction  between  this 
remark  and  the  story  of  the  miraculous  birth  we  have 
already  spoken. 


VOL,  n 


8 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE 


CHAPTER  V 


From  the  Appearance  of  the  Baptist  to  the 
Close  of  Jesus'  Work  in  Galilee 

(Luke  iii.  1-ix.  50) 

Whereas  chapters  i.  and  ii.  contained  only  legendary 
stories  of  the  childhood,  for  which  we  need  not  seek 
any  historical  background,  in  chap  iii.,  with  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  Baptist  we  find  a  firm  historical  foot- 
hold. At  the  outset  there  is  a  sixfold  determination 
of  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  Baptist :  ( 1 )  the 
fifteenth  year  of  the  Emperor  Tiberius,  (2)  the  pro- 
consulship  of  Pontius  Pilate  in  Judaea,  (3)  the  rule  of 
Herod  the  Tetrarch  in  Galilee,  (4)  that  of  his  brother 
Philip  in  Ituraea  and  Trachonitis,  (5)  the  rule  of 
Lysanias  in  Abelene,  (6)  the  high-priesthood  of 
Annas  and  Caiaphas.  The  mention  of  Lysanias  is  an 
anachronism,  since  the  only  known  prince  of  this 
name  died  in  the  year  36  e.g.  (Josephus,  Ant.,  xv. 
4.  1),  and  the  occurrence  of  a  later  Lysanias  is  only 
an  inference  from  this  passage  in  Luke.  Again,  the 
mention  of  the  two  high-priests,  Annas  and  Caiaphas, 
is  an  error,  since  there  was  always  only  one  ruling 
high-priest,  and  during  the  proconsulship  of  Pilate 
Caiaphas  alone  held  this  office.     Annas  had  held  it 

114 


THE   PREACHING   OF   THE   BAPTIST     115 

earlier,  and  was  still  held  in  high  respect  in  the  time 
of  his  successors.  Luke  may  have  known  his  name 
from  tradition,  and  have  been  led  to  set  him  along- 
side of  Caiaphas  by  the  influence  of  Josephus,  since 
the  latter  frequently  speaks  of  several,  and  especially 
of  two,  high-priests  in  conjunction.^ 

The  "  baptism  of  repentance "  which  JNIark  tells 
us  that  John  proclaimed  becomes  in  Luke  a  definite 
preaching  of  repentance,  addressed  first  to  the  people  in 
general,  and  then  more  especially  to  the  publicans  and 
soldiers.  That  the  latter,  who  were  for  the  most  part, 
if  not  exclusively,  heathen,  should  have  crowded  to 
the  Messianic  baptism  of  repentance  is  hardly  probable, 
and  is  doubtless  to  be  ascribed  to  the  friendly  attitude 
towards  soldiers  which  Luke  constantly  displays  in 
both  his  writings — in  the  case  of  the  centurion  of 
Capernaum  in  vii.  2  fF.,  in  the  case  of  the  centurion 
Cornelius  at  C^saraea  in  Acts  x.,  and  the  centurion 
Julius  in  Acts  xxvii.  The  exhortations  which  he  re- 
presents the  preacher  of  repentance  as  addressing  to 
the  soldiers  remind  one  very  much  of  similar  exhorta- 
tions which  frequently  occur  in  Josephus  {B.J.,  ii.  20. 
7  ;  Vit.  xlvii. ).  Another  feature  of  this  account  which 
is  peculiar  to  Luke  is  the  remark  that  the  people  were 
in  expectation,  and  were  wondering  whether  John 
might  not  be  the  Messiah.  Here,  as  often  elsewhere, 
he  desires  to  supply  a  definite  occasion  for  a  saying 
which  had  been  preserved  by  tradition  (iii.  16).  The 
announcement,  recorded  by  JNIark,  of  "  one  stronger 
than  he"  who  should  come  after  John  and  should 
baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  expanded  by  a  re- 
ference to  the  decisive  judgment  of  the  Messiah,  in 

^   Krenkel,  Josephus  und  Lukas,  p.  9^  f. 


116  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

which  the  chaff  shall  be  separated  from  the  wheat  and 
burned  with  unquenchable  fire ;  and  to  this  the  ex- 
pression is  perhaps  also  to  be  referred,  "  He  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  fire," 
though  it  is  possible  to  see  in  this  an  allusion  to  the 
descent  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost  in  the  appearance 
of  flames  of  fire  (Acts  ii.  3). 

In  the  narrative  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  by  John, 
Luke,  with  the  epic  realism  which  is  constantly  to  be 
observed  in  him,  represents  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
descending  "  in  bodily  shape "  upon  Jesus.  The 
voice  from  heaven,  however,  according  to  the  doubt- 
less original  reading  which  has  been  preserved  in 
Cod.  D,  runs  exactly  as  in  Ps.  ii.,  "  Thou  art  my 
Son ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  This  clearly 
expresses  the  significance  of  the  miracle  at  the 
baptism  for  the  consciousness  of  the  earliest 
Christianity — by  the  communication  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  at  the  baptism,  Jesus  was  exalted  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  in  the  sense  of  Messiah  ;  and  with  this  agrees 
also  the  saying  in  Acts  x.  38,  that  God  anointed  Jesus 
with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  power,  which  can  only 
be  referred  to  His  dedication  to  His  Messianic 
vocation  at  His  baptism.  According  to  this  older 
view,  therefore,  Jesus  was  not  the  Son  of  God  as 
being  supernaturally  begotten  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
for  such  an  one  would  not  have  needed  a  further 
special  communication  of  the  Spirit  at  His  baptism, 
and  it  could  not  first  on  this  occasion  have  been 
declared  to  Him,  "  Thou  art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee."  It  was  just  on  account  of  this 
discrepancy  with  the  later  legend  of  the  miraculous 
birth  that  the  necessity  was  early  felt  of  altering  the 


THE   GENEALOGY  117 

original  wording  of  the  voice  at  the  baptism  to  the 
form  which  we  find  in   the  traditional  reading,  but 
which    derives    no    confirmation     from    the    oldest 
Patristic  quotations  (Justin,  Clem.  Al.,  Constit.  Ap.).^ 
At  the  first  appearance  of  Jesus,  Luke  inserts  a 
genealogical  table  which,  through  seventy-seven  steps 
(reckoning  in  the  first  and  the  last),  traces  the  lineage 
of  Jesus   through    David  and   Abraham   to    Adam, 
and  ultimately  to  God.     By  so  doing  he  attains  the 
double   purpose    of  showing   Jesus   to  be  not   only 
the   Son  of  David   (Rom.   i.  3),  but  also  the  "last 
Adam  "  ( 1  Cor.  xv.  45 )  and  the  anti-type  of  the  first 
Adam  (Rom.  v.  14).     On  the  historicity  of  the  names 
it  is  not   possible   to   lay  much  stress,  since    Luke, 
probably  from  dislike  of  the  historical  Davidic  dynasty, 
with  its  many  unworthy  kings,  turns  aside  from  the 
main  line  of  descent,  and  follows  an  obscure  collateral 
branch  of  the  royal  house.     Moreover,  it  is  not  to 
be  overlooked  that  there  is  a  serious  break  at  the 
very   beginning   of  the    list   which   really   robs   the 
genealogy   of  all   significance.       If  Jesus   was   only 
apparently   (w?   evo/m.l'^^ero)    a  son   of   Joseph,   the    de- 
scendant   of   David,    then    the    whole    aim    of    the 
genealogy  would  be  rendered  nugatory.     These  two 
words,  therefore,  cannot  originally  have  stood  in  the 
text  of  this  genealogy  ;  they  are  evidently  an  addition 
by  the  same  hand  which  made  the  original  story  of 
the  birth  into  a  supernatural  one  (see  above  on  i. 
34  f.),  and  therefore  wished  to  correct  the  assertion  of 
the   fatherhood   of    Joseph.       The   wholly   different 
genealogy  which    JNIatthew   gives   shows,    moreover, 
that    many    attempts   were    made    in    the    earliest 

^   CJ'.  Zahn.  Einleitung,  ii.  356  f. 


118  THE   GOSPEL   OF    LUKE 

community  to  confirm  the  Messianic  claims  of  Jesus 
by  gathering  together  the  names  of  legendary 
ancestors.  How  far  removed  an  apologetic  of  that 
kind  was  from  the  mind  of  Jesus,  any  one  may 
recognise  who  has  understood  the  meaning  of  INIark 
xii.  35-37. 

A  further  piece  of  early  Christian  apologetic  is  to 
be  found  in  the  detailed  story  of  the  Temptation  which 
Matthew  and  Luke  attach  to  the  short  notice  in 
Mark  i.  12  f  in  such  a  way  that  the  juncture,  though 
skilfully  made,  is  still  clearly  perceptible.  For  while 
Luke,  like  Mark,  says  that  Jesus  "was  driven  about  by 
the  might  of  the  Spirit  in  the  wilderness,  being  forty 
days  tempted  by  the  devil,"  he  then  adds  an  account 
of  three  temptations  which  took  place,  not  in  the 
course  of  these  forty  days,  but  only  after  the  termina- 
tion of  them,  the  first  temptation  being  caused  by 
the  forty-days'  fast  of  Jesus.  INIark  says  nothing  of 
this ;  on  the  contrary,  his  words,  "  the  angels 
ministered  to  him,"  are  to  be  understood  in  the  sense 
that  they  provided  Jesus  with  miraculous  nutriment, 
just  as  the  Israelites  in  the  desert  were  fed  with  the 
miraculous  manna,  and  Elijah  with  the  bread  which 
the  ravens  brought.  This  older  form  of  the  legend 
rested  on  the  presupposition  that  the  miraculous  help 
which  an  Elijah  experienced  could  not  have  been 
wanting  in  the  case  of  Jesus  the  Messiah.  But  how 
was  this  presupposition  to  be  reconciled  with  the  fact 
that  Jesus  had  lived,  not  in  Messianic  splendour,  but 
in  humility,  poverty,  and  renunciation,  and  that  His 
followers  were  for  the  most  part  poor  men,  who  had  to 
struggle  anxiously  for  their  livelihood  ?  It  can  well 
be  understood  that  this  contrast  of  the  actual  reality 


THE   TEMPTATION  119 

with  the  assumed  power  of  working  miracles  and  the 
glory  appropriate  to  a  Messiah  might  easily  become  a 
ground  of  doubt  to  Jewish  Christians,  and  be  used 
by  opponents  as  a  reason  for  refusing  to  believe  in 
the  Messianic  claims  of  Jesus.  This  objection  the 
Evangelist  (whether  Luke  or  one  of  his  "many"  pre- 
decessors) has  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  devil  in  the 
form  of  the  challenge  "  If  thou  be  the  Son  of  God, 
command  this  stone  that  it  be  made  bread."  Jesus 
answers  by  quoting  the  words  of  Deut.  viii.  3,  "  INIan 
shall  not  live  by  bread  alone  " — meaning,  in  this  con- 
nection, "the  idea  that  the  Messiah  is  to  provide 
earthly  benefits  is  based  on  a  low  and  unspiritual  way 
of  thinking."  The  second  time,  the  devil  takes  Jesus 
"  up  " — whether  upon  a  mountain  or  into  the  air  is 
not  stated — and  shows  Him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world  in  a  moment,  and  tells  Him  that  all  this  power 
and  glory  shall  be  His  if  He  will  worship  him.  Jesus 
repels  him  with  the  words  of  Deut.  vi.  13,  "  Thou  shalt 
worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  to  Him  only  shalt 
thou  make  supplication."  Here,  too,  the  aim  is  to 
meet  the  doubt  concerning  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus 
which  arose  from  the  presupposition  that  the  Messiah 
must  be  a  political  ruler.  That,  the  evangelical 
apologist  intends  to  say,  Jesus  certainly  might  have 
been  if  He  had  worshipped  the  prince  of  this  world, 
and  had  aimed  at  Messianic  sovereignty  by  the  god- 
less methods  of  violence  such  as  are  usual  among 
the  world-powers ;  but  He  repudiated  this  ungodly 
method  and  remained  firm  in  His  obedience  to  God, 
in  the  confidence  that  afterwards — so  we  may  doubt- 
less, on  the  basis  of  Phil.  ii.  6  f.,  expand  His  thought 
— He  should,  as  His  reward  for  being  faithful  unto 


120  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

death,  be  exalted  by  God  to  be  the  heavenly  Messiah 
and  Lord  over  all  the  world.     Moreover,  a  tempta- 
tion  of  that    kind    once    really    presented    itself   to 
Jesus,  on  the  occasion  when    Peter  endeavoured  to 
hold    Him  back   from    the  path    of  suffering  (Mark 
viii.  32) ;   and  it  often  assailed  the  young  Christian 
community,    since    by    worshipping    the    images   of 
the    gods   or    the    emperor    they    could    buy   their 
peace    with    the    heathen    world-power    of    Rome. 
In    the    third    temptation,    the   apologetic    idea    is 
not  quite  so  clearly  apparent  as  in   the  two  earlier 
ones.     The  proposal  of  the  devil  that  Jesus,  confiding 
in  the  promised  protection  of  the  angels,  should  throw 
Himself  down  from  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple,  betrays 
the  same  Jewish  presupposition  that  the  Messiah  must 
exhibit  the  most  astounding  miracles,  as  is  evidenced 
in  the  authentic  demand  of  the  Pharisees  for  a  sign 
which  is  reported  in  Mark   viii.   11.      Whether  the 
special  form  of  miracle  here  imagined  was  determined 
by  the  recollection  of  the  fate  of  the  martyr  James, ^ 
who  was   hurled   down   from   the    Temple    (Euseb., 
H.E.,  ii.  23),  or  of  the  ill-starred  attempt  at  flight  by 
Simon  Magus  at  Rome,  or  some  other  similar  incident, 
we  cannot  tell.     In  any  case,  the  presupposition  that 
the  Messiah  must  prove  His  claim  by  a  work  of  magic 
is  here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  historical  incident  (of  the 
temptation  by  Peter),  rejected  by  Jesus  as  the  sign  of 
an  unspiritual  frame  of  mind,  which  proposed  to  tempt 
God.      Thus   the   polemic   against  the  false  Jewish 
Messianic  ideal  is  the  common   source  of  the  three 
temptations. 

^  Cf.  the   interesting   essay   of  W.    Honig   on  the   story  of  the 
Temptation  in  Prot.  Monatshefte,  iv.  Heft  9  and  10. 


THE   TEMPTATION  121 

Interesting  parallels  to  this  narrative  are  found  in 
the  Iranian  and  Indian  legends.  Ahriman,  the  evil 
spirit,  proffered  to  Zarathustra,  after  vainly  threatening 
him  with  death,  the  impious  suggestion,  "  Renounce 
the  good  law  of  the  worshippers  of  Mazda,  and  thou 
shalt  attain  strength  like  to  that  of  Zohak,  the  ruler 
of  the  nations."  To  this  Zarathustra  answered,  "  No, 
I  will  never  renounce  the  good  law  of  the  Mazda- 
worshippers,  though  my  body  and  life  and  soul 
should  be  broken  in  sunder ;  the  word  which  JNIazda 
has  taught  is  my  weapon,  my  best  weapon." 
Ahriman,  smitten  with  this  weapon,  was  obliged  to 
retire.  The  Buddhistic  legend  narrates  that  Buddha 
began  his  life  of  holiness  with  severe  self-discipline 
and  fasting,  according  to  the  Brahminical  rule  ;  then 
there  came  to  him,  when  completely  exhausted,  Mara, 
the  Prince  of  Evil  Pleasure,  in  order  to  tempt  him 
away  from  his  ascetic  life  :  "  One  must  live,  my  child  ; 
only  as  a  living  man  will  it  be  possible  for  you  to 
teach  the  law."  Buddha,  however,  repulsed  him, 
being  determined  to  remain  faithful  to  his  vow. 
Later,  however,  Buddha  became  convinced  of  the 
worthlessness  of  such  asceticism,  and  discovered 
the  four  saving  truths.  Then,  in  the  night  in  which 
he  attained  his  highest  illumination,  the  hostile  hosts 
of  Mara  assailed  him  with  all  the  terrors  of  hell, 
but  he  victoriously  opposed  them  with  the  shield  of 
virtue.  Then  Mara  essayed  to  tempt  him  with  the 
allurements  of  fleshly  lust,  and  caused  his  daughters, 
the  Apsaras,  to  display  all  their  charms  before  him. 
He,  however,  fought  them  with  the  words  of  the 
sacred  book  Dhammapadam,  so  that  they  withdrew 
in  shame,  recognising  that  he  could  not  be  overcome. 


122  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

Mara,  however,  did  not  yet  leave  him,  but  demanded 
that  Buddha  should  recognise  hiin  as  the  ruler  of 
the  whole  world ;  whereupon  Buddha  answered, 
"  Even  if  thou  art  the  Lord  of  Pleasure,  thou  art 
not  the  Lord  of  Light.  Look  at  nie,  I  am  the 
I^ord  of  the  Law ;  Pow^erless  One,  before  thine  eyes 
I  shall  attain  full  enlightenment."  Mara,  in  despair, 
acknowledges,  "  My  sovereignty  is  gone."  Then  all 
the  animals,  and  the  hosts  of  heavenly  spirits,  offer 
Buddha  their  homage  {cf.  Mark  i.  13,  "  He  was  with 
the  wild  beasts,  and  the  angels  ministered  to  him"). 
In  another  version  of  the  Buddha-legend  the 
temptation  connected  with  hunger  is  wanting ;  on 
the  other  hand,  Mara  at  once  met  the  resolution  of 
Buddha  to  renounce  the  world  with  the  offer  of 
world-sovereignty,  on  condition  that  he  shall  re- 
linquish his  plan  of  salvation.  To  this  Buddha 
answered,  "  I  well  know  that  a  kingdom  is  destined 
for  me,  but  it  is  not  worldly  rulership  that  I  desire. 
I  will  be  a  Buddha,  and  will  make  the  world  leap 
for  joy."  Thereafter  the  tempter  followed  him  like 
a  shadow,  always  watching  for  some  false  step.  So, 
too,  Luke  says  that  the  devil  left  Jesus  "for  a 
season,"  implying  that  later  on  he  resumed  his  attacks. 
All  these  legends  of  temptation,  between  wdiich  we 
need  not  necessarily  suppose  a  direct  historical 
connection,  have  as  their  common  basis  the  thought 
that  the  deliverer  and  bringer  of  saving  truth  must 
first  have  overcome  in  his  own  person  the  forces  of 
evil  before  he  could  become  the  saviour  of  others. 

Luke  makes  the  public  activity  of  Jesus  begin 
with  a  sermon  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth  (iv.  16- 
30).     That  the  introduction    at   this  early  point  of 


;( 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE      123 

this  incident,  which  is  in  its  right  place  in  Mark  (vi. 
1-6)  is  nnhistorical,  Luke  himself  betrays  by  making 
the  Nazarenes  appeal  to  the  rumour  of  the  great 
deeds  of  Jesus  at  Capernaum,  which,  of  course, 
manifestly  implies  a  preceding  activity  of  some 
length  on  the  part  of  Jesus.  Luke  certainly 
intended,  here  too,  to  report  more  exactly  "  in 
order "  than  his  predecessors ;  but  it  is  easy  to 
recognise  that,  for  his  view  of  the  more  correct 
order,  it  is  not  new  and  more  accurate  study  of  the 
sources,  but  a  specific  literary  purpose,  which  is  the 
determining  factor.  What  this  purpose  was  he  reveals 
unmistakably  by  the  discourse  which  he  puts  into 
the  mouth  of  Jesus.  First  the  Isaian  promise  of 
salvation  is  declared  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  work  of 
Jesus,  the  Saviour  (iv.  21  ;  cf.  Mark  i.  15).  Then, 
while  Mark  tells  us  that  the  Nazarenes  were  offended 
at  the  greatness  of  their  fellow-townsman,  Luke  does 
not  say  this,  but  speaks  only  of  the  surprise  at  His 
gracious  words ;  at  the  same  time,  however,  he 
retains  the  saying,  for  which  only  Mark  supplies  the 
explanation,  about  the  prophet's  not  being  honoured 
in  his  own  country ;  and  indeed  he  goes  very  much 
farther.  While  the  original  report  only  spoke  of  a 
want  of  respect  for  Jesus  and  belief  in  Him  on  the 
part  of  the  Nazarenes,  Luke,  on  the  other  hand,  re- 
cords, immediately  on  this  first  appearance  of  Jesus, 
an  outbreak  of  deadly  hatred  on  the  part  of  His 
countrymen,  called  forth  by  His  pointing  to  the 
instances  in  the  Old  Testament  in  which  Gentiles 
were  preferred  to  Israelites.  It  must  be  admitted 
that  this  discourse,  so  deliberately  offensive  to  Jewish 
self-respect,  would  have  been  so  little  in  accordance 


124  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

with  Jesus'  wisdom  as  a  teacher — even  supposing 
that  the  Nazarenes  had  given  more  cause  for  it  than, 
in  Luke's  account  especially,  they  appear  to  have  done 
— that  we  can  hardly  suppose  it  to  be  historical. 
Luke  was  manifestly  led  to  this  transformation  of 
the  historical  account  by  the  intention  of  illustrating 
at  the  beginning  of  Jesus'  ministry,  in  the  conduct  of 
His  countrymen  in  the  narrower  sense,  the  attitude 
which  was  taken  up  later  by  His  countrymen  in 
the  wider  sense,  the  Jews  in  general,  towards  Christ 
and  the  Christian  community  in  general.  It  is  the 
bitterness — which  at  the  time  of  the  author  was 
constantly  finding  more  and  more  violent  expres- 
sion— of  Judaism,  jealous  of  its  national  privileges, 
against  the  Christ  who,  according  to  the  Pauline 
preaching  and  the  belief  of  the  Gentile  Churches, 
was  turning  to  the  Gentiles,  which  the  Evangelist 
here  represents  in  a  symbolical  story.  It  is  for  this 
reason,  too,  that  he  places  this  narrative  at  the 
very  beginning ;  it  is  intended  to  symbolise  in  ad- 
vance the  fate  of  Christianity  as  rejected  by  the 
Jews  and  transferred  to  the  Gentiles  as  determined 
from  the  first  by  fixed  necessity  (in  the  sense  of 
Rom.  ix.-xi.). 

Of  the  call  of  the  first  pairs  of  disciples,  which  Luke, 
departing  from  Mark's  order,  places  immediately  after 
the  beginning  of  Jesus'  activity,  on  the  first  Sabbath 
at  Capernaum  (v.  1  ff.),  he  gives  an  expanded  ac- 
count, illustrating  the  phrase  "  fishers  of  men "  by 
the  allegorical  narrative  of  Peter's  miraculous  draught 
of  fishes.  Then  he  closely  follows  the  order  of  Mark 
in  all  the  narratives  up  to  the  choice  of  the  Twelve. 
After  this  he  brings  in  his  "  first  interpolated  section  " 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN    GALILEE       125 

(vi.  20-viii.  3).  Just  as  Mark  introduces  the  greater 
parables  of  Jesus  immediately  after  the  choice  of 
the  Twelve,  so  I^uke  now  proceeds  to  give  a  speci- 
men of  Jesus'  manner  of  teaching  in  the  discourse 
to  the  disciples  corresponding  to  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  in  Matthew,  which,  however,  according 
to  Luke,  was  spoken,  not  on  the  mountain,  but 
after  His  descent  from  the  mountain,  upon  the 
plain.  ^ 

It  begins  with  the  benediction  upon  the  poor, 
upon  those  who  now  hunger  and  weep,  and  those 
who  are  persecuted  for  bearing  Christ's  name ;  and 
a  corresponding  fourfold  woe  upon  the  rich,  the  full, 
those  that  laugh  now,  and  those  whom  everyone 
praises.  There  is  here  no  reason  to  understand  these 
"poor"  and  "hungry"  in  a  spiritual  sense  (as  in 
Matthew) ;  the  thought  of  this  beatitude  and  its 
reverse  is  exactly  the  same  as  that  which  Luke  has 
already  expressed  in  the  song  of  Mary  (i.  51-53),  and 
corresponds  to  the  description  which  Jesus  gives  in 
His  sermon  at  Nazareth,  and  in  His  message  to  the 
Baptist  of  the  aim  of  His  mission,  namely,  to  preach 
glad  tidings  to  the  poor  (iv.  18,  vii.  22).  It  is  not 
to  be  overlooked,  however,  that  these  poor  and 
distressed  are  at  the  same  time  thought  of  as  disciples 
of  Jesus,  for  the  beatitudes  were  spoken  "as  he 
looked  upon  his  disciples,"  and  were  addressed  to 
them :    "  Blessed    are    ye    poor,    for    yours   is    the 

1  According  to  vi.  20  it  was  spoken  "as  he  looked  upon  the 
disciples,"  but  as,  at  the  time,  according  to  what  pi'ecedes  (vi.  17  ff.), 
Jesus  was  in  the  midst  of  a  great  multitude,  we  must,  of  course, 
assume  for  this  sermon  also  a  wider  circle  of  hearers  beyond  the 
disciples,  and,  moreover,  this  is  distinctly  stated  in  vii.  1 . 


126  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

kingdom  of  God."^  We  are  to  understand  by 
these  "  poor "  real  poor  men,  but  at  the  same  time 
pious  humble  men,  longing  for  salvation,  friends  of 
Jesus  and  members  of  His  community,  in  the  same 
sense,  therefore,  as  the  "  pious  sufferers "  of  the 
Psalms  {anavivi)  ;  and  similarly  the  rich  are  to 
be  understood  as  the  proud,  arrogant  betrayers  and 
oppressors  of  the  pious  sufferers  {cf.  i.  51  and  53). 
Light  is  thrown  on  both  sides  of  this  contrast  by 
the  Lucan  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus.  We 
may  recall,  too,  the  contrast  between  the  simple, 
to  whom  salvation  is  revealed,  and  the  (worldly) 
wise  and  prudent,  from  whom  it  is  hidden  (x.  21). 
At  the  basis  of  all  these  sayings  there  lies  un- 
doubtedly the  real  experience  of  daily  life,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  needs  and  sufferings  of  earth 
create  a  longing  and  a  receptivity  for  the  consola- 
tions of  the  gospel,  whereas  pleasure  and  comfort 
easily  make  us  dull  and  indifferent  towards  the 
higher  life.  As  Jesus  Himself  had  doubtless  had 
occasion  to  observe  this  {cf.  Mark  x.  23  f.),  we 
have  every  reason  to  hold  the  Lucan  form  of  the 
beatitudes  to  be,  not  merely  the  original,  but  also 
the  historically  correct  version."^ 

^  Cf.  Joh.  Weiss,  Predigt  Jesii  vom  Reich  Gottes,  p.  182:  "It  is 
quite  beyond  doubt  that  Luke  here  desires  sharply  to  emphasise 
social  contrasts  That  the  beatitudes  do  not  receive  a  special  ethical 
or  religious  imprint  is  due  to  the  fact  that  this  can  be  dispensed 
with  because  it  is  necessarily  implied.''  The  pertinent  remark  of 
Jiilicher  regarding  the  parable  of  the  Great  Supper  applies  here  too  : 
"  In  Luke  it  is  rather  a  social,  in  Matthew  rather  an  ethical,  revolu- 
tion which  forms  the  last  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God  "  {Gleichnisse  Jesu,  ii.  430). 

2  That  the  Matthaean  form  is  secondary  will  be  shown  below. 
Here  it  may  be  provisionally  observed  that  no  reason  whatever  can 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS    IN   GALILEE      127 

This  applies  at  least  to  the  first  three  beatitudes, 
which  promise  to  those  who  now  hunger  and  mourn, 
satisfaction  and  joy  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  whereas 
to  the  rich,  who  are  now  sated  and  happy,  the 
prospect  of  hunger  and  trouble  is  held  out.  In 
both  cases  this  is  not  to  be  understood  of  circum- 
stances of  the  world  to  come,  but  of  a  transformation 
of  the  earthly  order  of  society,  in  accordance  with 
the  prophetic  ideal  of  the  people  of  God  enjoying 
happiness  as  a  consequence  of  righteousness  {cf.  the 
similar  promises  to  the  disciples  that  they  shall 
reign  with  Messiah,  and  eat  and  drink  at  His  table 
(xii.  32,  xxii.  29  f.)  —  sayings  which  there  is  no 
warrant  in  the  text  for  interpreting  as  a  reference 
to  spiritual  or  heavenly  things). 

On  the  other  hand,  verse  22  f.  is  an  addition  of 
the  author,  who,  on  the  ground  of  the  experiences 
of  a  later  time,  makes  Jesus  say  in  advance  that  even 
the  name  of  Christian  should  be  held  a  crime,  on 
account  of  which  those  who  confessed  allegiance  to 
the  Son  of  Man,  and  who  hope  for  the  renewing  of 
the  world  at  His  Parousia,  shall  be  despised  and 
cast  out,  viz.  from  civil  and  religious  society  {i.e. 
the  synagogue) ;  that,  however,  should  only  be  a 
cause  of  lively  joy  to  them,  since  they  may  remember 
that  the  prophets  of  old  fared  no  better,  and  console 
themselves  with  the  prospect  of  the  rich  reward 
which  was  laid  up  for  them  in  heaven,  until  it  should 

be  discovered  why  Luke  should  have  omitted  the  sayings  regarding 
the  merciful,  meek,  etc.,  which  would  undoubtedly  have  been 
sympathetic  to  him,  if  he  had  found  them  in  his  source.  On  the 
other  hand,  Matthew's  reason  for  altering  the  Lucan  form  of  the 
beatitudes  and  woes  is  easy  to  understand,  and  will  be  shown  later. 


128  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

come  to  manifestation  and  realisation  at  the  appearing 
of  the  "Son  of  Man"  (according  to  Apoc.  xxii.  12). 
After  the  woe  upon  the  rich  and  the  men  of  the 
world  who  were  praised  by  all,  the  discourse  turns 
again  to  the  present  hearers  with  an  exhortation  to 
love  their  enemies,  to  bear  patiently  even  gross 
injustice,  and  to  show  kindness  to  all  men  (verses 
27-30).  Not  violent  self-assertion,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  most  complete  selflessness,  is  the  condition 
of  obtaining  the  Messianic  salvation — this  is  the 
essential  ethical  distinction  between  the  religious- 
social  ideal  of  Jesus  and  the  efforts,  based  upon  self- 
seeking  and  violence,  of  the  irreligious  socialists  of 
ancient  and  modern  times.  Whereas  the  latter  have 
always  made  shipwreck  upon  the  eternal  laws  of  the 
world-order,  the  ideal  of  Jesus  has  had  the  power  to 
overcome  and  to  renew  the  world,  even  though  in 
another  fashion  and  by  a  slower  process  than  was  at 
first  supposed  by  its  adherents.  The  social  attitude 
proper  to  the  disciples  of  Jesus  is  summed  up  in  the 
"golden  rule"  (which  had  also  been  described  by 
Jewish  teachers  like  Hillel  as  the  quintessence  of 
the  law),  "  As  ye  would  that  men  should  do  unto 
you,  do  ye  also  to  them  likewise"  (vi.  31).  This 
principle  of  mutual  obligation  includes,  of  course, 
by  a  logical  necessity,  its  converse  of  mutual  rights, 
and  serves  in  this  respect  as  a  corrective  to  what 
precedes.  Whereas  the  natural  inclination  of  men 
is  in  the  direction  of  thinking  only  of  their  rights, 
without  thinking  of  the  corresponding  duties,  the 
ethic  of  the  Gospels  sets  up  from  the  outset  the 
opposite  principle,  and  leaves  the  inference  of  the 
recognition  of  universal  human  rights  to  be  drawn 


THE    WORK   OF   JESUS   IN   GALILEE       129 

in  the  natural  course  from  the  recognition  of  mutual 
obligations.     As  the  pattern  and  motive  of  unselfish 
benevolence  towards  all,  Jesus  holds  up  the  goodness 
and  mercy  of  God,  even  to  the  unthankful  and  the 
evil ;    by  imitating   this    unbounded    Father-love   of 
God,  Jesus'  disciples  are  to  show  themselves  to  be 
the    sons    of    God.      Here,    therefore,    it    is    quite 
definitely  implied  that,  in  the  usage  of  Jesus,  sonship 
to  God  is  quite  simply  an  ethico-religious  conception. 
The  inculcation  of  a  God-like  mercifulness  is  appro- 
priately followed  by  a  warning  against  arrogant  and 
hypocritical  censoriousness.     The  image  of  the  beam 
and  the  splinter  in  the  eye  seems  to  have  suggested 
to   the    Evangelist    the   other    image    of   the    blind 
leading  the  blind  ;   the  association  of  ideas  between 
this  and  the  eye-doctor  with  sore  eyes  (vi.  42)  is  very 
natural,  but  the  connection  of  thought  between  the 
warning  against  censorious  judgments  and  of  the  use- 
lessness  of  the  spiritually  blind  as  a  teacher  of  others 
is  not  entirely  obvious.     The  rebuke  of  hypocrisy  in 
verse  42  leads  to  a  reference  to  the  fruits  by  which 
the  kind  and  value  of  the  man,  as  of  the  tree,  is  to 
be  recognised  ;   the  test  of  a  man   being,  moreover, 
not  so  much  words  as   actions  (verses    43-46).     To 
this  is  appropriately  attached,  by  way  of  conclusion, 
the  parable  of  the  prudent  man  who  built  his  house 
upon    the   rock,  and    the  foolish  man  who  built  his 
house   upon   the    sand    (verses    47-49).     The   whole 
discourse  is  so  well  arranged  and    rounded    off,  and 
corresponds  so  well  to  the  situation,  as  an  example 
of  the  public  teaching  of  Jesus,  that  a    comparison 
with  the  much  more  diffuse  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
in  Matthew,  which  is  an  amalgam  of  various  elements, 

VOL.    II  9 


130  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

is  entirely  to  the  advantage  of  the  Lucan  form. 
And  this  discourse  certainly  contains  not  merely 
genuine  thoughts  of  Jesus,  but  also,  for  the  most 
part,  an  essentially,  true  reflection  of  the  original 
words  of  Jesus,  though,  of  course,  the  translation 
of  these  from  Aramaic  into  Greek  is  not  to  be 
overlooked. 

Having  now  begun  interpolating,  Luke  adds  some 
further  narrative  material ;  in  the  first  place,  the  story 
of  the  healing  of  the  servant  of  the  centurion  of 
Capernaum,  and  of  the  raising  of  the  son  of  the  widow 
of  Nain  (vii.  1-10,  11-17).  In  both  these  narratives 
the  legends  of  the  miracles  of  the  prophets  Elijah  and 
Elisha,  to  which  Luke  has  already  alluded  in  the 
discourse  at  Nazareth,  supply  the  pattern.  The 
centurion  of  Capernaum,  with  his  humble  and  trust- 
ful faith,  is  the  antithesis  to  the  Syrian  captain, 
Naaman,  who  was  unwilling  to  believe  in  a  healing 
at  a  distance,  and  held  it  to  be  due  to  his  dignity 
that  the  prophet  Elisha  should  come  to  him  in 
person,  in  order  to  heal  him  with  a  touch  (2  Kings 
v.  11).  The  comparison  of  the  miracle-working  word 
of  Jesus  with  the  military  word  of  command  (verse  8) 
is  a  characteristically  Lucan  touch  ;  for  this  Evangelist 
shows  elsewhere  a  great  interest  in  the  Roman  mili- 
tary system,  whereas  this  is  quite  foreign  to  Matthew. 
The  expression  of  surprise,  "  I  have  not  found  such 
faith,  no,  not  in  Israel  "  (verse  9),  only  exalts  the  faith 
of  this  Gentile  as,  in  comparison,  the  stronger,  with- 
out necessarily  including  any  reproach  against  Israel 
as  unbelieving,  for  which  the  circumstances  gave  no 
occasion.  It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  the  words  of 
Matt.  viii.  11  were  not  omitted  by  Luke,  but  inserted 


THE    WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE       131 

here  by  Matthew  (they  stand  in  a  more  appropriate 
connection  in  Luke  xiii.  28  f.)  Only  Luke  gives,  in 
addition  to  the  companion  picture  to  Naaman  the 
Syrian,  a  companion  picture  to  that  of  the  widow  of 
Sarepta,  or  of  the  Shunamite  woman ;  as  the  son  of 
the  one  was  raised  by  Ehjah  (1  Kings  xvii.  17-24)  and 
the  son  of  the  other  by  Ehsha  (2  Kings  iv.  33-37),  so, 
Luke  narrates,  the  son  of  a  widow  at  Nain  was  raised 
by  Jesus.  The  imitation  of  the  story  of  Ehjah  is 
here  obvious :  Ehjah,  Uke  Jesus,  met  the  woman  at 
the  door,  spoke  comforting  words  to  her  ("  fear  not," 
as  in  this  case  "  weep  not "),  gave  the  son,  when  raised 
up,  to  his  mother,  and  was  recognised  by  her  as  a  man 
of  God,  i.e.  a  prophet,  just  as  here  the  people  praised 
God  that  a  great  prophet  was  risen  up  among  them 
(vii.  16). 

It  may  have  been  the  fact  that  he  had  been 
imitating  the  story  of  Elijah  which  suggested  to 
the  Evangelist  the  idea  of  inserting  here  (vii.  18-35) 
an  episode  concerning  John  the  Baptist,  whom  he 
had  described  at  the  outset  as  the  second  Elijah  or 
Fore-runner  of  the  Lord,  whose  coming  was  predicted 
by  Malachi.  John  sent,  the  Evangelist  tells  us,  on 
hearing  the  report  of  the  works  of  Jesus,  two  of  his 
disciples  to  Him,  bidding  them  ask  Him,  "  Art  thou 
he  that  should  come,  or  look  we  for  another  ? " 
Whereupon  Jesus  pointed  to  the  bodily  and  spiritual 
results  of  His  work  as  Saviour  in  words  taken  from 
the  prophet  Isaiah  (Ixi.  1  ff.,  xxxv.  5  f.) ;  but  the  heal- 
ing of  the  leprous  and  the  raising  of  the  dead  are 
added  by  the  Evangelist  to  the  works  of  healing 
enumerated  there  (which,  moreover,  are  in  the  original 
passage  intended  metaphorically),  the  raising  of  the 


132  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

dead  being  obviously  added  with  reference  to  the 
immediately  preceding  narrative  (verses  11-17).  To 
this  incident  the  Evangelist  attaches  a  discourse  re- 
ferring to  John  the  Baptist,  in  which  his  historical 
significance,  and  his  relation  to  Jesus  and  the  Christian 
community,  are  defined  by  Jesus  Himself  He  is 
declared  to  be  the  Fore-runner  predicted  by  Malachi 
(iii.  1)  whom  Jahweh  was  to  send  before  the  Messiah 
(properly,  in  the  original  passage,  before  Himself)  to 
prepare  his  way  for  him.  He  is  therefore  the 
greatest  of  the  prophets,  but  yet  less  than  the  least  in 
the  Kingdom  of  God — how  much  more  was  he  in- 
ferior to  the  Lord  Himself,  Jesus,  the  Christ !  This 
mission  of  John  as  the  Fore-runner  of  the  Messiah  had 
been  practically  recognised  by  the  common  people 
and  the  publicans,  who  accepted  his  baptism ;  only 
the  Pharisees  and  legalists  made  the  Divine  plan  of 
salvation  which  was  revealed  in  the  mission  of  the 
Baptist  ineffectual,  so  far  as  they  themselves  were 
concerned,  by  refusing  his  baptism.  These  words 
were  in  any  case  not  originally  spoken  here,  but  have 
been  adapted  by  the  Evangelist  from  a  saying  pre- 
served by  the  tradition  in  another  connection  (Matt. 
xxi.  32),  and  put  in  here  by  the  Evangelist  under  the 
heading  "John  the  Baptist"  (Holtzmann,  Kom- 
mentar).  The  discourse,  which  in  Matthew  also  is 
similarly  compounded  out  of  various  elements,  closes 
with  the  picture  of  the  children  quarrelling  at  their 
play,  which  is  interpreted  with  reference  to  the  atti- 
tude of  the  people  towards  John  and  towards  Jesus. 
It  is  not  elsewhere  the  custom  of  Jesus  Himself  to  in- 
terpret His  simple  figures — is  it  likely  that  He  made 
an  exception  in  this  case  ?     The  image  in  verse  32 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE       133 

expresses  the  experience  of  finding  it  impossible  to 
please  people,  whether  one  speaks  to  them  cheer- 
fully or  gravely — an  experience  which  Jesus,  in  the 
course  of  His  own  work,  quite  apart  from  John,  had 
often  enough  occasion  to  encounter,  and  may  have  ex- 
pressed in  some  figurative  saying  of  this  kind,  which 
in  itself  needed  no  special  interpretation.  The  special 
interpretation,  however,  which  is  given  to  this  figure 
in  verse  33  f.  as  a  reference  to  John  and  Jesus,  is  not 
so  simple,  and  leads,  so  soon  as  one  endeavours  to 
carry  through  the  comparison,  to  insoluble  difficulties. 
That  is  proved  by  the  standing  controversy  among 
exegetes  over  the  question  whether  John  and  Jesus 
are  compared  with  the  children  who  called  to  the 
others,  and  wished  to  set  the  tune,  or  with  those  who 
were  called  to  and  did  not  wish  to  follow,  or  partly 
with  the  one  and  partly  with  the  other,  all  the  solu- 
tions being  equally  difficult  and  unsatisfactory.  Is 
not  that  a  proof  that  this  is  one  of  those  instances 
where,  as  is  notoriously  the  case  with  many  of  the 
Gospel  parables,  figurative  expressions  which  were 
originally  meant  in  a  quite  general  sense  have  been 
given  a  special  application  and  interpretation  by  the 
Evangelists,  or  in  some  cases  perhaps  by  their 
sources  ?  Whatever  opinion  may  be  held  on  this 
point,  I  hold  it  to  be  in  any  case  certain  that  the 
closing  saying  in  verse  35,  "  And  wisdom  has  been 
justified  by  (all)  her  children,"  did  not  belong  origin- 
ally to  the  discourse  of  Jesus,  but  came  from  the 
same  hand  as  verse  29,  to  which  the  term  justify 
clearly  points  back ;  being  added  as  an  expression 
of  the  Christian  conviction  that  the  wisdom  of 
God,   which   was    manifested    in    Jesus    {cf.    Sirach 


134  THE   GOSPEL  OF   LUKE 

iv.   11)  finds   in   the  faith    of  the    Church   the   seal 
of  its  truth. 

On  the  suggestion,  perhaps,  of  the  contrast  between 
the  Pubhcans  and  Pharisees  (vii.  29  f.),  I.uke  now 
brings  in  (verses  36-50),  at  the  close  of  his  first 
interpolated  section,  the  narrative,  pecuhar  to  his 
gospel,  of  the  penitent  woman,  who,  at  a  feast 
in  the  house  of  Simon  the  Pharisee,  washed 
the  feet  of  Jesus  with  her  tears  and  kissed  and 
anointed  them.  At  this  the  Pharisee  was  offended, 
whereupon  Jesus  showed  him  that  this  woman 
who  had  displayed  towards  Him  a  so  much  more 
intense  and  humble  love  than  the  cold  and  haughty 
Pharisee,  had  thereby  proved  how  deeply  grateful 
she  was  for  the  forgiveness  of  her  many  sins.  While 
the  narrative  in  this  form  is  peculiar  to  Luke,  it 
shows  striking  resemblances  to  the  other  story  of 
anointing,  the  scene  of  which  is  placed  by  the  original 
account  (Mark  xiv.  3  fF.)  at  a  feast  in  the  house  of  a 
certain  Simon,  not,  however,  in  this  case  a  man  proud 
of  his  legal  purity  (a  Pharisee),  but  a  man  who  had 
been  healed  of  uncleanness  (leprosy),  and  not  in 
Galilee,  but  in  Bethany  of  Judfea,  two  days  before  the 
final  Passover  ;  in  this  case,  moreover,  the  woman  who 
anointed  Jesus  was  not  a  penitent  sinner,  but  a  pious 
disciple  and  friend  of  Jesus.  Her  action,  it  is  true, 
olfends  the  spectators  and  is  justified  by  Jesus,  but  the 
ground  of  blame  lies  not  in  herself  but  in  the  uselessly 
extravagant  mark  of  reverence  shown  to  Jesus ;  and 
Jesus'  defence  of  her  against  those  who  blamed  her 
involved  a  rebuke,  not  of  the  Pharisee,  but  of  Jesus' 
own  disciples  for  not  recognising  the  worth  of  this 
act  of  love  by  the  nameless  disciple.     It  is  evident 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE       135 

that  both  narratives  are,  point  for  point,  parallel,  but 
also,  point  for  point,  different.  How  is  this  relation- 
ship to  be  explained  ?  That  the  Lucan  story  is  a 
free  adaptation  of  the  anointing  at  Bethany  is  not 
probable  :  it  has  too  much  that  is  peculiar  to  itself  for 
that ;  its  leading  thought — especially  the  illustration, 
in  a  particular  case,  of  Jesus'  mercy  and  love  towards 
sinners — is  quite  foreign  to  the  other  story ;  and  the 
parable  of  the  Two  Debtors  (41  f.),  as  well  as  the 
beautiful  saying  of  Jesus  in  verse  47,  "  Her  sins,  which 
were  many,  are  forgiven,  because  she  loved  much," 
make  a  strong  impression  of  genuineness.  Moreover, 
Eusebius  states  {H.E.,  iii.  39.  17)  that  the  "Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews "  contained  a  story  of  a 
woman  who  was  accused  to  Jesus  on  account  of  her 
many  sins,  which  was  perhaps  the  common  source  of 
the  Johannine  story  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery 
(John  vii.  53-viii.  11)  and  of  the  present  narrative 
in  Luke.  We  may  perhaps  suppose  that  in  the 
tradition  there  were  originally  two  independent 
stories  side  by  side :  one  of  a  penitent  sinner  who 
washed  Jesus'  feet  with  her  tears,  and  one  of  the 
disciple  at  Bethany  who  anointed  Jesus'  head.  The 
Lucan  story  of  the  anointing  may  then  have  arisen 
out  of  a  combination  of  the  two.^  Whether  this 
combination  had  already  taken  place  in  the  tradition 
through  the  insensible  fusion  of  the  respective 
characteristics  of  the  two  stories,  or  was  first  effected 
by  Luke  with  the  intention  of  substituting  another 
anointing  for  that  at  Bethany,  may  remain  an  open 
question.  It  is,  however,  to  be  remarked  that  the 
identification — which    has    established    its    place   in 

^   Cf.  Holtzmann^  Kovimentar  zu  de7i  Synoptikern,  3rd  ed.^  p.  347. 


136  THE    GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

Church  tradition — of  the  "  woman  who  was  a  sinner  " 
with  Mary  of  Magdala  "  out  of  whom  went  seven 
devils "  who  is  mentioned  in  viii.  2  as  a  disciple  of 
Jesus,  has  no  foundation  either  in  Luke  or  elsewhere 
in  the  Gospels.  The  mistake  is  doubtless  to  be 
explained  from  the  fact  that  the  notice  of  the 
ministering  women  who  followed  Jesus  (Luke  viii. 
1-3)  comes  immediately  after  the  story  of  the 
anointing,  and  that  the  Fourth  Evangelist  calls 
the  woman  who  anointed  Jesus  (who  elsewhere  in 
the  Gospels  remains  nameless)  Mary,  though  identi- 
fying her  with  Mary  of  Bethany,  and  not  with 
Mary  of  Magdala. 

From  viii.  4  to  ix.  50  Luke  again  follows,  in 
general,  the  order  of  Mark's  Gospel.  Of  the  three 
parables  taken  from  the  processes  of  the  sowing  and 
growth  of  seed  (Mark  iv.),  Luke  here  (viii.  4-18)  gives 
only  the  first,  along  with  the  explanation  of  it ;  the 
second  he  omits.  The  third  (the  grain  of  mustard- 
seed)  he  brings  in  later,  as  a  companion  parable  to 
that  of  the  leaven  (xiii.  18  fF.).  Then  he  inserts  the 
narrative  of  the  visit  of  Jesus'  relatives  in  a  very 
much  abbreviated  version  (viii.  19-21).  He  sup- 
presses Mark's  reference  (iii.  21)  to  the  special 
purpose  of  the  visit,  and  suppresses  in  the  answer  of 
Jesus  the  sharp  rebuff  in  the  question,  "  Who  is  my 
mother,  or  my  brethren  ?  "  retaining  only  the  positive 
statement,  "  My  mother  and  my  brethren  are  they 
that  hear  the  word  of  God  and  do  it."  We  have 
already  spoken  of  the  reason  for  this  omission  in 
discussing  the  narrative  as  it  appears  in  Mark's 
Gospel  {sup.,  p.  14) ;  we  have  also  found  it  to  be 
probable  in  discussing  the  section  ii.  41-52  (p.  112  f.) 


: 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE      137 

that  the  point  of  the  original  narrative  which  is  here 
suppressed  has  been  preserved  by  Ivuke  in  a  different 
form  and  setting. 

In  the  story  of  the  storm,  which  in  Mark  succeeds 
these  parables,  and  in  those  of  the  Gerasene  demoniac, 
of  the  healing  of  the  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood, 
and  the  raising  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  I>,uke 
follows  him  step  for  step.  The  sermon  at  Nazareth 
he  has  inserted  at  an  earlier  point,  and  therefore 
passes  over  it  here  and  proceeds  at  once  to  the  send- 
ing out  of  the  Twelve,  the  directions  for  their  journey 
being  almost  identical  with  those  in  Mark.  Then 
the  supposition  of  Herod  with  regard  to  Jesus  is 
mentioned,  but  the  episode  of  the  death  of  John  the 
Baptist  is  oinitted.  The  return  of  the  Twelve  is 
followed  in  Luke,  as  in  Mark,  by  the  feeding  of  the 
five  thousand  ;  but  Luke  entirely  omits  Mark  vi.  45- 
viii.  36,  only  returning  to  his  order  at  Peter's  confes- 
sion (Luke  ix.  18),  which  is  followed  by  the  prediction 
of  Jesus'  sufferings  and  the  exhortation  to  follow  Him 
in  the  path  of  suffering,  the  Transfiguration,  and  the 
healing  of  the  lunatic  boy.  Further  predictions  of  the 
Passion,  and  the  strife  for  precedence  among  the 
disciples,  follow,  all  in  the  order  of  the  Marcan 
narrative. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Lucan  Journey-Narrative 

(Luke  ix.  51-xviii.  14) 

At  ix.  51  begins  the  section  known  as  Luke's  "  great 
interpolation,"  which  extends  to  xviii.  14.  The  setting 
which  Luke  has  chosen  for  this  is  the  journey  of 
Jesus  from  Gahlee  to  Jerusalem,  which  Mark  handles 
very  briefly.  In  the  first  place,  the  route  demands 
notice,  since  Luke  does  not,  like  Matthew  and  Mark, 
represent  it  as  lying  through  Peraea,  but  through 
Samaria,  in  order  thereby  to  indicate  that  Jesus  did 
not  share  the  usual  Jewish  horror  of  contact  with 
heathenism  (whether  complete,  or,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  Samaritans,  partial).  The  fiery  zeal,  too,  similar 
to  that  of  Elijah,  which  James  and  John  displayed 
towards  a  village  of  the  Samaritans,  was  not  accord- 
ing to  the  mind  of  Jesus.  When  they  proposed  to 
Him  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven  upon  the  impious 
village.  He  rebuked  them  with  the  significant  words, 
"Know  ye  not  what  spirit  ye  are  of?" — a  genuine 
saying  of  the  Saviour,  which  is  not  derived  from 
Marcionite  antinomianism,  but  which,  from  fear  of 
its  being  used  in  favour  of  Marcionism,  was  omitted 

138 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  139 

from  the  Eastern  manuscripts  and  only  preserved  by 
Cod.  D  and  the  Latin  versions.^ 

Before  coming  to  his  typical  and  significant  story  of 
the  sending  forth  of  the  seventy  disciples,  he  gives  three 
stories  of  disciples  in  which  the  qualities  necessary  to 
efficient  discipleship  are  illustrated  (ix.  57-62).  A 
disciple  of  Jesus  must,  following  the  example  of  his 
Master,  (1)  renounce  earthly  pleasure  and  comfort,  and 
(2)  must  place  all  ordinary  duties,  even  the  highest 
obligations  of  natural  piety,  on  a  lower  level  than  the 
duty  to  which  he  is  called  of  preaching  the  Kingdom 
of  God  ;  (3)  he  must  with  unwavering  determination 
give  himself  completely  to  the  higher  calling  which 
he  has  once  embraced,  not  letting  his  heart  grow 
heavy  through  yearning  affection  for  the  friends  who 
surrounded  him  in  his  old  life.  That  this  three-fold 
mirror  for  disciples  in  Luke  is  independent  of  the 
parallels  in  JNIatthew  (viii.  18-22)  and  is  the  more 
original  of  the  two,  is  clear  for  several  reasons:  (1) 
this  narrative  stands  in  Luke,  but  not  in  Matthew,  in 
close  connection  of  subject  with  the  story  which  follows 
of  the  sending  out  of  the  seventy — it  shows  the  pre- 
suppositions of  a  personal  nature  which  are  necessary 
for  the  efficient  discharge  of  the  duty  of  the  mission- 
ary ;  (2)  it  is  in  Luke  only  that  the  narrative  stands  at 
the  right  point  in  the  chronological  order,  since  it  is 
not  appropriate  for  Jesus  to  speak  at  the  outset  of 
His  work  in  Galilee  (as  in  JNIatthew)  of  the  home- 
lessness  of  the  Son  of  Man  (ix.  58)  while  He  still  had 
His  dwelling  in  Capernaum — it  only  becomes  appro- 
priate during  the  journey  to  Jerusalem,  when  He  had, 
so  to  speak,  broken  down  the  bridges  behind  Him  ; 

'  Cf.  Zahn,  Einleitung,  ii.  357. 


140  THE   GOSPEL  OF   LUKE 

(3)  the  words  in  Matt.  viii.  21,  "  Suffer  me  first  to  go 
and  bury  my  fatlier,"  are  quite  unintelligible  apart 
from  the  presupposition  of  a  previous  demand  that  the 
disciple  should  follow,  which  is  found  in  Luke  ix.  59, 
but  which  Matthew,  with  his  usual  habit  of  abbreviat- 
ing, has  omitted ;  finally,  (4)  Luke  gives  (verse  61  f ) 
the  third  example,  which  essentially  belongs  to  the 
completeness  of  the  picture  of  the  conditions  of  dis- 
cipleship,  whereas  Matthew  has  omitted  it,  because, 
in  failing  to  recognise  the  unity  of  idea  which  runs 
through  the  three  stories,  he  has  also  overlooked  their 
connection. 

Whether  the  narrative,  peculiar  to  Luke,  of  the 
mission  and  work  of  the  seventy  "  other "  disciples 
(x.  1-24)  has  any  basis  of  historical  tradition,  or 
whether  it  was  freely  invented  by  him,  cannot  be 
discovered,  but  it  may  be  said  with  great  probability 
that,  for  the  author,  its  significance  essentially  con- 
sisted in  the  fact  that  it  represents  the  typical  example 
of  a  universal  mission  to  the  Gentiles  as  planned  and 
sanctioned  by  the  Lord  Himself.  The  number 
seventy,  indeed,  may  have  been  suggested  by  the 
seventy  elders  whom  Moses  gathered  about  him  (Num. 
xi.  16,  24  f.),  but  that  alone  hardly  explains  the  great 
significance  which  Luke  attributed  to  this  second 
mission.  The  explanation  doubtless  is  that  in  Jewish 
theology  the  number  seventy  was  held  (on  the  ground 
of  Gen.  x.)  to  be  the  number  of  the  heathen  nations  ; 
and  legend  made  the  Divine  voice  at  the  giving  of  the 
Law  audible  in  seventy  voices  or  languages ;  and, 
according  to  legend  also,  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  was  intended  for  the  Gentile  world, 
was  prepared  by  seventy  inspired  men.     A  ccordingly, 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  141 

the  seventy  "  other "  disciples  of  Luke  are  simply 
representatives  of  evangelistic  preaching  among  the 
heathen — the  type  and  pattern  of  the  Pauline  mission 
to  the  Gentiles.  All  that  is  said  with  regard  to  their 
mission  and  its  consequences  harmonises  with  this 
explanation.  It  is  to  be  noted,  first,  that  Jesus 
sends  these  disciples  before  Him  into  every  town 
and  village  where  He  himself  intended  to  come 
—namely,  on  His  journey  through  half-Gentile 
Samaria  ;  that  is  almost  as  much  as  to  say  that  He 
sent  them  among  the  Gentiles.  But  could  the  his- 
torical Jesus  really  have  done  this  ?  We  should  have 
reason  to  doubt  it,  even  if  we  did  not  hold  Matt. 
X.  5  to  be  an  authentic  saying  of  Jesus.  It  is  to  be 
added,  moreover,  that,  assuming  that  there  was  such 
a  mission  by  the  historical  Jesus,  the  Lucan  repre- 
sentation would  involve  the  contradiction,  in  that 
the  disciples  first  appear  as  preparing  the  way  for 
Jesus'  own  activity  in  the  Samaritan  towns,  but  later 
appear  as  completely  independent  workers — not  as 
fore-runners  of  a  Jesus  who  is  to  follow  them  in  person, 
but  rather  as  the  representatives  of  the  Christ  who 
works  through  them  and  not  after  them,  and  "  comes  " 
only  in  a  spiritual  sense.  This  contradiction  is  to 
be  solved,  however,  very  simply  from  the  historical 
standpoint  of  the  Evangelist,  according  to  which  the 
Apostles  of  the  Gentiles  were  certainly  sent  by  the 
Lord  in  order  to  prepare  the  way  for  His  victorious 
advance  through  the  Gentile  world ;  only  it  was  not 
the  earthly  Jesus  by  whom  they  were  sent,  and  for 
whom,  as  about  to  follow  them  in  person,  they  were 
to  prepare  the  way,  but  the  exalted  Christ,  the 
heavenly  Lord  of  the  Church,  who  sent  forth  Paul 


142  THE    GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

and  the  other  Apostles  to  the  Gentiles  in  order  that, 
in  and  through  their  activity,  He  might  effect  His 
spiritual  entrance  into  the  heathen  world.  The 
command  which  follows,  too,  to  pray  to  the  Lord  of 
the  harvest  that  He  would  send  forth  more  labourers 
into  His  harvest,  since  the  labourers  are  too  few  for 
the  greatness  of  the  harvest,  is  more  suitable  to  the 
great  harvest-field  of  the  heathen  world  than  to  the 
narrowly  bounded  mission  in  Palestine.  Especially 
the  saying,  "  I  send  you  forth  as  lambs  in  the  midst 
of  wolves,"  is  obviously  to  be  most  naturally  under- 
stood of  the  sending  forth  of  the  innocent,  harmless, 
unarmed,  and  peaceable  preachers  of  the  gospel  amid 
the  savage,  heartless,  and  ruthless  violence  of  the 
heathen  world.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  case  of 
the  first  sending  forth  of  the  first  disciples  there 
was  no  reason  to  think  of  Jewish  hostility,  for 
neither  Mark  nor  Luke  mention  anything  of  the 
kind  in  regard  to  the  historical  mission  of  the 
Twelve.  Finally,  verses  7  and  8  contain  distinctively 
Pauline  sayings  (1  Cor.  ix.  14,  x.  27),  and  imply  the 
circumstances  of  Gentile  Christianity — for  to  what  else 
could  the  direction  refer,  "  Eat  what  is  set  before  you," 
if  not  to  the  Pauline  principle  of  eating  what  was  set 
before  one  in  the  Gentile  houses,  unembarrassed  by 
Jewish  scruples  of  conscience  about  unclean  meats  ? 
In  the  face  of  so  many  concurrent  proofs,  scarcely  any 
doubt  can  remain  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  explana- 
tion of  the  Lucan  mission  of  the  seventy  as  a  type 
and  symbol  of  the  Pauline  mission  to  the  Gentiles. 

Further  confirmation  of  this  conjecture  is  furnished 
by  the  description  of  the  great  success  of  the 
seventy   (x.    17    ff.)-     When    the   returned   disciples 


i 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  143 

reported  that  even  the  devils  were  subject  unto  them, 
that  is,  yielded  to  their  command,  spoken  in  the 
name  of  Jesus,  Jesus  answered,  "  I  beheld  Satan  as 
lightning  fall  from  heaven."  That  is  the  victory 
which  is  also  represented  in  the  Apocalypse  (xii.  9) 
under  the  same  figure — the  victory  over  the  demonic 
power  of  heathenism,  which  the  Evangelist  represents 
Jesus  as  anticipating  in  vision  as  the  glorious  result 
of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  among  the  heathen. 
Then  the  emissaries  of  the  gospel  are  promised  a 
decisive  victory  over  the  whole  hostile  world-power 
of  Satan,  with  the  assurance,  also,  that  their  names 
are  written  in  heaven ;  both  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Pauline  hymn  of  victory  in  Rom.  viii.  35-39.  And 
a  similar  hymn  of  victory  is  here  placed  by  the 
Evangelist  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus.  Filled  with  the 
spirit  of  the  seer,  which  enables  him  intuitively  to 
perceive  the  victory  of  the  simple  word  of  the  gospel 
over  the  proud  heathen  world.  He  praises  the  Father 
that  it  has  been  His  good  pleasure  to  reveal  the  truth 
of  the  gospel  to  babes,  and  to  hide  it  from  the  wise 
and  prudent.  Similarly,  Paul  had  said  in  1  Cor.  i. 
19-25  ^  that  it  was  the  will  of  God  to  bring  to  nought 
the  wisdom  of  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  by  "  the 
foolishness  of  preaching "  to  save  them  that  believe, 
and  that  the  wisdom  of  God  was  hidden  in  a  mystery 
from  the  great  ones  of  this  world,  but  revealed  to  us 
by  God  through  His  Spirit,  who  alone  is  capable  of 
knowing   the   mind   of  God,    and   who   also   makes 

^  The  affinity  of  ouv  passage  with  the  thoughts  and  words  of 
1  Cor.  i.  19-iii.  1  is  so  striking  (oro<^ot',  avverol,  jjnnpov,  vrjirioi,  cro^tav 
ev  ixvcTTrjpL(i)  aTrOKeKpvfXfjievrjv,  d7r€/caA.Di^ev,  evSoKrjcrev,  ovk  eyvw,  ovSel<; 
eyvioKev)  that  its  dependence  on  Paul  is  very  probable. 


144  THE    GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

known  to  us,  who  have  not  the  spirit  of  this  world 
but  the  mind  of  Christ,  the  riches  bestowed  upon 
us  by  God  (ii.  7~  16).  It  is  just  this  last  specifically 
Pauline  thought — that  the  true  knowledge  of  Christ 
and  of  God  is  hidden  from  the  natural  man  and 
only  revealed  to  the  mind  of  man  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  who  is  also  the  Spirit  of  the  Son  of  God 
— which  the  Evangelist  now  (verse  22)  makes 
Jesus  Himself  express  in  words  which  are  so 
strongly  distinguished  by  their  dogmatic  character 
from  Jesus'  usual  manner  of  speaking  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  and  have  such  a  remarkable 
affinity  with  the  Pauline  and  Johannine  theology 
{cf.  John  i.  18,  x.  15,  xiii.  3,  xvii.  10),  that  one  can 
hardly  avoid  the  impression  that  we  have  here,  not 
so  much  a  saying  of  Jesus  Himself,  as  a  Christological 
confession  of  the  Apostolic  community  in  the  form  of 
a  solemn  liturgical  hymn :  "  All  things  are  delivered 
unto  me  of  my  Father  {cf.  1  Cor.  xv.  27,  and  Matt, 
xxviii.  18),  and  no  one  knoweth  who  the  Son  is  but 
the  Father,  and  who  the  Father  is  but  the  Son,  and 
he  to  whom  the  Son  wills  to   reveal    Him."  ^     The 

^  Or,  according  to  another  reading,  which  has  equally  good 
patristic  attestation  :  "  No  man  hath  known  the  Father  except  the 
Son,  or  the  Son  except  the  Father  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  reveals  " 
— whom,  or  what,  remains  uncertain,  since  the  natural  reference  to 
the  Father  is  rendered  difficult  by  this  transposition  of  the  clauses. 
This  difficulty  is,  in  the  opinion  of  Bernard  Weiss,  a  proof  that  this 
reading  is  not  original.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  lately  been 
preferred  by  many  critics,  because  it  seems  to  favour  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  saying  which  would  fit  into  the  frame  of  the  Synoptic 
picture  of  Christ,  viz. :  All  truths  of  the  gospel  have  been  "delivered" 
to  me  {i.e.  revealed,  although  elsewhere  an  d-n-oKaXvij/L?  of  God  is  the 
antithesis  of  TrapaSoo-is)  by  my  Father ;  and  no  man  hath  (hitherto) 
known    God   as    Father   except    Him    (Jesus)    who    by   this    very 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  145 

Evangelist  seems,  moreover,  himself  to  indicate  that 
these  words  were  not  spoken  for  the  narrower  circle 
of  disciples,  but  for  the  whole  community  of  those 
who  through  the  revelation  of  God  have  recognised 
in  Christ  the  Son  of  God ;  for  in  what  follows  (verse 
23)  he  expressly  distinguishes  the  disciples  in  the 
special  or  narrower  sense  {kut  ISlav),  i.e.  the  original 
Apostles,  and  calls  them  blessed  because  of  what 
their  eyes  are  permitted  to  see  and  their  ears  to 
hear,  for  which  prophets  and  kings  might  envy 
them — as  much  as  to  say,  even  if  the  knowledge 
of  who  the  Son  is  and  who  the  Father  is  belongs 
to  the  things  which  no  eye  hath  seen  and  no  ear 
heard,  but  which  the  Spirit  of  God  hath  revealed 
to  spiritual  men  according  to  His  purpose  and  will 
(1  Cor.  ii.  9  ff.),  yet  the  first  disciples  are  neverthe- 
less to  be  counted  blessed  above  others  because  of 
the  special  advantage  which  they  enjoyed  in  seeing 
Jesus  with  their  eyes  during  His  personal  manifesta- 
tion upon  earth,  and  in  hearing  His  teaching  with 
their  ears. 

After  this  hymn  embodying  the  confession  of  Christ 
by  the  community — which  forms  the  climax  of  this 
Gospel  in  the  same  way  as  the  prophetic  saying  about 
the  Church  founded  upon  the  rock,  Peter,  against 
which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail,  forms  the 

knowledge  has  become  "the  Son,"  and  that  he  is  the  Son  has  not 
as  yet  been  recognised  by  anyone  except  God,  and  those  to  whom 
He  Himself  reveals  Himself  as  the  Son  (of  God).  So  Schmiedel 
(in  Prot.  Monatshefte,  iv.  1),  with  whom  also  Bruckner  and  H. 
Holtzmann  are  in  agreement.  I  will  not  dispute  the  possibility  of 
this  interpretation,  but  cannot,  for  my  own  part,  hold  it  to  be 
probable.  We  shall  recur  to  this  point  below,  when  treating  of 
the  prophetic-messianic  self-consciousness  of  Jesus. 

VOL.  II  10 


146  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

climax  in  INIatthew  —  the  Evangelist  proceeds  to 
illustrate  some  main  points  of  Christian  ethics.  First 
(x.  25-37)  comes  the  question  regarding  the  greatest 
commandment  (Mark  xii.  28),  to  which  Luke,  how- 
ever, gives  a  turn  taken  from  the  story  of  the  rich 
young  man  (Mark  x.  17).  "  What  must  I  do  to  obtain 
eternal  life  ?  "  In  answer,  Jesus  directs  the  questioner 
to  the  Law,  and  the  latter  immediately  selects  the 
two  chief  commandments  of  love  to  God  and  love 
to  one's  neighbour,  which  Jesus  accepts  as  correct. 
Obviously,  Luke  has  here  reversed  the  roles  of  Jesus 
and  the  lawyer,  which  the  original  report  gives 
correctly — the  recognition  that  the  love  of  God  and 
man  is  the  essence  of  the  Law  was  not,  after  all, 
so  self-evident,  or  so  universally  familiar,  that  the 
lawyer  was  likely  immediately  to  give  this  answer. 
What  Jesus  actually  said,  and  what  He  alone  could 
say,  is  put  by  Luke  into  the  mouth  of  the  lawyer 
in  order  to  gain  in  this  way  a  suitable  introduction 
to  His  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan.  To  the 
question,  "  Who  is  my  neighbour  ? "  Jesus  does  not 
answer  with  a  theoretic  exposition  of  the  conception 
of  neighbourship  in  general,  but  shows  by  a  parable, 
in  a  concrete  case,  that  the  good  man  makes  himself 
neighbour  to  anyone  who  needs  his  help,  without 
stopping  to  ask  in  what  national  or  social  relation  he 
would  stand  to  him  at  ordinary  times,  but  simply 
on  the  ground  that  he  is  a  fellow-man  who  needs 
help.  Jesus  thus  makes  out  of  the  theoretical 
scholastic  question  regarding  the  content  and  scope 
of  the  term  neighbour,  a  lesson  of  practical  duty : 
"Do  likewise "— be,  to  everyone  who  needs  you, 
a  helpful  neighbour. 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  147 

It  is  not  without  reason  that  the  Evangehst 
immediately  (x.  38-42)  follows  this  parable  of  active 
love  with  the  beautiful  story  of  the  two  sisters 
Martha  and  Mary,  which  forms,  in  a  sense,  its 
complement  and  counterpart.  For,  while  active  love 
is  the  fulfilling  of  the  whole  Law,  it  has  the  roots  of 
its  strength  in  the  religious  belief  in  Jesus'  person 
and  work  which  is  shown  by  Mary,  and  therefore  it  is, 
in  this  respect,  the  one  thing  needful,  and  the  better 
part  in  comparison  with  the  anxiety  and  trouble  of 
the  actively  serving  Martha.  The  pair  of  sisters 
represent  the  two  types  described  by  Paul  in 
1  Cor.  vii.  34  f. — the  pious  virgin  who,  constantly 
cleaving  to  the  Lord,  cares  for  the  things  of  the  Lord, 
and  the  diligent  housewife  who  cares  for  the  things 
of  the  world.  If,  moreover,  the  reading  in  verse  42, 
which  has  good  patristic  attestation,  "  only  a  few 
things,  or  one,  are  necessary,"  is  correct,  it  would 
leave  the  hospitable  cares  of  Martha  their  relative 
justification,  without  calling  in  question  the  superior 
advantage  of  JNIary's  choice. 

With  contemplative  adoration  which  hangs  on  the 
words  of  Jesus  prayer  stands  in  the  closest  relation, 
and  Luke  immediately  adds  here  Jesus'  lesson  to  His 
disciples  on  the  right  way  of  praying  (xi.  1-13).  The 
occasion  of  this  he  makes  the  request  of  a  disciple 
for  teaching  on  this  point  such  as  John  had  given  to 
his  disciples.  The  prayer  which  Jesus  taught  is 
simpler  in  the  Lucan  than  in  the  Matthasan  version. 
The  introduction  is  formed  by  the  simple  address  to 
God,  "  Father,"  which  Jesus  Himself  doubtless  used 
in  His  own  prayers.  Then  follow  the  five  petitions 
"  Hallowed  be  Thy  name  ;  Thy  kingdom  come  ;  give 


148  THE   GOSPEL   OF    LUKE 

us  daily  our  sufficient  bread  ;  ^  and  forgive  us  our 
sins,  as  we  ourselves  forgive  everyone  that  trespasses 
against  us ;  and  lead  us  not  into  temptation." 
JMatthew  has  extended  the  invocation  by  adding 
to  "  Father "  his  customary  description  of  God  as 
He  who  is  in  heaven ;  to  the  second  petition 
he  adds  the  explanatory  interpolation,  "  Thy  will 
be  done,  as  in  heaven,  so  on  earth,"  which  does 
not  really  contain  anything  which  is  not  already 
stated  in  the  preceding  petition ;  finally,  the  last 
petition,  for  preservation  from  temptation,  is  also 
reinforced  by  a  formula  which  is,  strictly  speaking, 
only  a  paraphrase  of  it,  "  but  deliver  us  from  the 
evil  one,"  i.e.  from  the  devil,  who  is  thought  of  as 
the  immediate  agent  in  temptation.  The  conclusion, 
too,  in  IVIatthew  is  not  genuine,  but  interpolated 
from  the  Church  liturgy  into  the  later  manuscripts. 
That  the  simpler  Lucan  form  is  also  the  more  original 
is  not  open  to  doubt,  but  it  cannot  be  quite  so  cer- 
tainly determined  whether  it  consists  of  the  accurate 
tradition  of  a  prayer  taught  by  Jesus  just  in  this 
form  and  with  this  definite  object,  or  only  of  a  collec- 
tion of  forms  of  petition  which  the  disciples  had  often 
heard  Jesus  use  and  therefore  adopted  in  imitation  of 
His  example,  and  which  only  gradually  attained  fixity 
in  the  usage  of  the  community.  The  absence  of  this 
prayer,  or  of  any  allusion  to  it,  in  Mark,  Paul,  or  the 
Apocalypse   makes  it  very  doubtful  whether  it  can 

^  Cf.  Prov.  XXX,  S,  ''ipn  on?  ;  LXX,  to.  Seovra  koI  to.  avTapK-q  =  what 
is  needful  and  sufficient.  Reuss  {Das  Alter  Testament  iihersetzt  und 
erkl'drt,  vol.  vi.  p.  186)  translates  the  Hebrew  text  "my  sufficient 
bread,"  and  explains  (note  3)  that  this  is  also  the  correct  rendering 
of  eTTiovo-ios  in  the  Lord's  Prayer.  So,  too,  A.  Meyer,  Die  Mutter- 
sprache  Jesu,  p.  108. 


%i- 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  149 

have  been  the  standing  formula  of  prayer  in  the 
ApostoUc  community.  The  difference,  too,  between 
Matthew  and  Luke  points  back  to  an  uncertain  and 
fluctuating  tradition  which  could  hardly  be  explained 
if  the  prayer  had  been  taught  as  a  whole  by  Jesus 
Himself  If  we  further  take  into  account  the  fact 
that  various  similar  formulee  (especially  in  the  case  of 
the  first  and  second  petition)  occur  also  in  the  prayers 
of  the  Synagogue,  the  possibility  cannot  be  denied 
that  this  prayer,  based  upon  reminiscences  of  the 
communion  of  the  disciples  with  Jesus,  gradually 
attained  in  the  usage  of  the  community  a  more  or 
less  fixed  form,  and  then  in  this  form,  which  had 
gathered  sacred  associations  about  it,  had  been 
attributed  to  Jesus.  To  this  lesson  on  how  to  pray 
Luke  attaches,  in  the  form  of  a  parable  peculiar  to 
himself,  an  exhortation  to  earnest  and  persistent 
prayer,  to  which  an  answer  is  assured ;  for  if  even 
earthly  parents,  sinful  as  they  are,  yet  know  how  to 
give  good  gifts  to  their  children,  how  much  more 
shall  the  Father  in  heaven  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
those  who  ask  Him.  Apart  from  this  last  Pauline- 
sounding  expression  {TrveviJ.a  dyiov),  this  and  similar 
discourses  about  prayer,  to  which  Mark  also  has 
parallels,  certainly  belong  to  the  oldest  and  most 
faithful  memories  of  the  community. 

After  the  discourses,  so  full  of  significance  for 
the  inner  life  of  the  community,  Luke  gives  a  series 
of  anti- Pharisaic  polemics,  including,  in  the  first 
place,  the  discourses,  which  he  passed  over  at  an 
earlier  point,  in  answer  to  the  charge  of  being  in 
alliance  with  Beelzebub  (xi.  14-26)  and  that  repudiat- 
ing the  demand  for  a  sign  (verses  29-32).     Between 


150  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

the  two  is  wedged  in  the  mention  of  a  woman  who 
cried  out  in  blessing   upon  the  mother  of  Jesus — a 
vindication  of  Mary  by  which  I^uke  desires  to  weaken 
or  remove  the  impression  of  the  story  of  the  rebuff 
to  Jesus'  mother  and  brethren  which  occurs  in  the 
same  context   as  the  Beelzebub-accusation  in  Mark 
(iii.  31).     After  the  discourse  relating  to  the  sign  of 
Jonah  follow  short  parables  about  the  lamp  on  the 
lamp-stand  and  the  light   of  the   body  (xi.    33   fF.). 
The  connection  between  these  and  what  precedes  is 
not    obvious ;    and    they    are    connected    with    one 
another  rather  by  the  similarity  of  the  figure  than  of 
the  subject,  for  in  one  the  reference  is  to  the  vocation 
of  the  disciples  to  proclaim  the  truth  of  the  gospel, 
in  the  other,  to  the  soundness  of  the  inner  sense,  upon 
which  depends  receptivity  for  truth.     There  follows 
a  discourse  against  the  Pharisees  (xi.  37-54)  which 
begins  with  reference  to  the  reproach  brought  against 
the  disciples  of  eating  with  unwashen  hands  (Mark 
vii.  2),  and  is  therefore  represented  as  spoken  at   a 
social  meal,  the  scene  of  which  the  Evangelist  places 
— not  very  appropriately,  it  must  be  admitted — in  the 
house  of  a  Pharisee  who  had  invited  Jesus  to  his  table. 
After  dealing  with  the  Pharisees,  the  discourse  also 
turns  to  the  lawyers,  against  whom  the  reproach  is 
brought  that  they  themselves  are  not  willing  to  touch 
the  heavy  burdens  of  the  law  which  they  lay  upon 
others,  and  that  they  raise  handsome  monuments  to 
the  prophets  whom  their  fathers  put  to  death,  while 
really  they  are  not  merely  the  bodily,  but  also  the 
spiritual  descendants  of  the  murderers.     Therefore  to 
them  applies  that  utterance  of  the  "  Wisdom  of  God  " 
according  to  which  God  shall  visit  {i.e.  avenge)  upon 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  151 

this  generation  the  blood  of  all  the  martyrs  which 
had  been  shed  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  down 
to  the  death  of  Zacharias,  who  was  slain  between  the 
altar  and  the  temple.  This  is  an  allusion  to  the 
death,  recounted  by  Josephus  {B.J.,  iv.  5.  4),  of  a 
Zacharias  the  son  of  Baruch,  as  he  is  also  called  in 
the  Matthajan  parallel,  who  was  murdered  by  the 
Zealots,  during  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  in  the  fore- 
court of  the  Temple.  From  this  we  may  conclude 
that  the  writing  which  is  here  cited  under  the  title 
the  "  Wisdom  of  God  "  was  an  apocalypse  dating  from 
that  period,  from  which  also  verses  xiii.  34  f.  were 
probably  taken.  Finally,  the  lawyers  are  rebuked 
for  taking  aM^ay  the  key  of  religious  truth,  and 
so,  by  their  presumptious  affectation  of  wisdom, 
barring,  for  themselves  and  others,  the  approach  to 
true  knowledge. 

The  warning,  borrowed  from  Mark  viii.  15,  regard- 
ing the  leaven  {;i.e.  the  hypocrisy)  of  the  Pharisees 
serves  as  a  link  of  transition  from  the  anti-Pharisaic 
polemic  to  the  addresses  of  exhortation  to  the 
disciples  urging  them  to  courageous  confession  of 
their  faith,  to  exaltation  above  earthly  cares,  and  to 
loyal  watchfulness.  The  discourse  concerning  con- 
fession begins,  strictly  speaking,  with  xii.  4  ("But  I 
say  unto  you,  my  friends,"  etc.),  while  the  two  preced- 
ing verses,  which  speak  of  what  was  hid  becoming 
known,  no  doubt  originally  (Mark  iv.  22  =  Luke  viii. 
17)  also  referred  to  open  confession  on  the  part  of 
disciples,  but  are  here  perhaps  understood  by  Luke 
in  the  sense  that  the  hypocritical  character  of  the 
Pharisees  (xii.  1)  must  necessarily  come  to  light.  As 
motives  for  fearless  loyalty  in  confessing  faith  in  the 


152  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

gospel  are  mentioned  confidence  in  the  Divine 
protection  of  the  godly,  and  the  hope  that  the  Son 
of  Man  will  acknowledge  His  confessors  at  the 
judgment  before  the  angels  of  God,  while  He  will 
deny  those  who  deny  Him.  This  last  thought  gives 
Luke  occasion  to  bring  in  here  the  warning  against 
blaspheming  the  Holy  Spirit  which  originally  and 
more  correctly  has  its  place  in  Jesus'  defence  against 
the  accusation  of  complicity  with  Beelzebub  (Markiii. 
29).  The  discourse  about  confession  closes  with  the 
promise,  taken  from  the  eschatological  discourse  of 
Mark  (xiii.  11),  of  the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit  when 
the  disciples  are  called  upon  to  appear  before  earthly 
judges  (xii.  11  ff.).  The  request  to  Jesus  to  settle  a 
dispute  between  two  brothers  regarding  an  inherit- 
ance gives  the  occasion  for  a  discourse  about  earthly 
cares,  introduced  by  the  parable  of  the  rich  man 
who  w^as  surprised  by  death  in  the  midst  of  his 
schemes  (xii.  16-21).  In  the  following  illustration 
of  the  ravens,  who  have  neither  barn  nor  store- 
house, but  are  fed  by  God,  and  in  the  question, 
"  Who  can  add  a  span  to  the  length  of  his  life  ? " 
the  thoughts  of  the  parable  are  so  clearly  echoed 
that  we  can  hardly  doubt  that  this  connection, 
and  consequently  the  report  of  Luke  as  compared 
with  that  of  Matthew,  is  original.  Then,  as  the 
positive  side  of  this  warning  against  caring  for 
the  things  which  the  heathen  seek,  we  have  the 
exhortation  to  seek  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  the 
highest  good,  to  which  the  minor  good  of  the 
supply  of  earthly  needs  will  be  added  by  God. 
This  seeking  of  the  highest  things  is  secure  of  its 
result,  for  it  is  the  good  pleasure  of  the  Father  to 


THE   JOURNEY    TO  JERUSALEM  153 

give  to  the  little  flock  of  believers  "the  kingship."^ 
Therefore  the  disciples,  instead  of  seeking  earthly 
treasures,  should  rather  sell  what  they  have  and  give 
alms,  in  order  thus  to  lay  up  for  themselves  an  im- 
perishable treasure  in  heaven,  and  at  the  same  time 
secure  their  citizenship  in  the  coming  Kingdom  of 
God.  Matthew  has  this  saying  about  laying  up 
treasure  in  heaven  (vi.  20)  without  the  explanatory 
addition  about  selling  one's  possessions  and  giving 
alms,  because  this  command,  addressed  thus  to  the 
disciples  in  general,  appeared  to  the  ecclesiastical  con- 
sciousness of  his  time  no  longer  opportune  (the  case 
of  the  "  counsel  of  evangelical  perfection  "  in  xviii.  22 
is  rather  different) ;  we  have  the  less  reason,  there- 
fore, to  doubt  the  high  antiquity  of  the  version  of 
the  saying  preserved  by  Luke,  with  which,  also,  the 
parables  of  chapter  xvi.  may  be  compared.  To 
the  exhortation  to  set  the  affections  upon  heavenly 
things  the  exhortation  to  loyal  watchfulness  (xii.  35) 
naturally  attaches  itself,  this,  too,  introduced  by  a 
parable — that  of  the  servants  whom  their  lord,  return- 
ing late  from  a  wedding,  shall  find  watching  (the 
germ  of  the  Matthsean  parable  of  the  wise  and  foolish 

1  On  this  Dalman  (JVorte  Jesu,  p.  101,  E.T.  123)  makes  the 
noteworthy  remark,  "  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Luke  in  placing 
this  saying  (xii.  32)  just  after  the  command  to  seek  first  the  Kingdom 
of  the  Father  (verse  31)  meant  to  use  'kingdom'  in  both  cases 
in  the  same  sense.  As,  however,  verse  32  must  from  its  form  and 
content  originally  have  stood  in  a  different  connection,  the 
'kingdom'  here  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  is  doubtless  used  of  actual 
rule,  which  is  to  be  given  in  the  future  to  His,  at  present,  power- 
less disciples."  And  the  same  applies  to  the  related  passage  in 
Luke  xxii.  29,  where  /SaaiXeMv,  in  view  of  the  absence  of  the 
article,  can  only  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  "lordship,  rule, 
kingly  power." 


154  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

virgins).  Faithful  watchfulness  is  the  more  necessary 
since,  through  the  gospel,  a  firebrand  has  been  intro- 
duced into  the  world — its  coming  must  inevitably 
give  rise  to  a  fearful  and  painful  excitement  and 
division  among  men  (xii.  49  fF.).  Therefore  men  are 
not  to  allow  themselves  to  be  led  astray,  but  rather  to 
recognise  from  these  signs  the  nearness  of  the  crisis, 
just  as  men  can  foretell  what  the  weather  is  going 
to  be  from  the  wind  and  the  clouds  (xii.  54  fF.). 
This  saying  about  the  signs  in  heaven,  which  is 
appropriate  here,  is  less  appropriately  brought  by 
Matthew  (xvi.  2  f )  into  connection  with  the  demand 
of  the  Pharisees  for  a  sign.  But,  even  apart  from 
the  general  signs  of  the  times,  each  man  individually 
must  show  the  right,  the  genuine,  prudence,  and  make 
his  peace  with  the  heavenly  ruler  while  time  is  still 
granted  him  to  do  so  (this  is  the  original  sense  of  the 
parable  in  xii.  58;  it  is  different  in  Matt.  v.  25  f.). 
The  fate  of  those  whom  Pilate  slew  while  they  were 
sacrificing  should  be  an  example  to  each  of  what  may 
befall  himself  God  still  exercises  patience  with  the 
Jewish  people,  as  a  gardener  with  an  unfruitful  fig- 
tree,  but  the  time  is  already  fixed  at  which  the 
judgment  shall  inevitably  be  executed  (xiii.  6-9). 

After  these  discourses,  the  inner  connection  of 
which  is  easily  recognisable,  there  follows  (xiii.  10  f.) 
a  series  of  sections  which  are  but  loosely  connected. 
The  two  cures  upon  the  Sabbath  (Luke  xiii.  10-17, 
and  xiv.  1-6)  are  companion  pictures  to  that  of  Mark 
iii.  1-6.  The  pair  of  parables  about  the  mustard- 
seed  and  the  leaven  (xiii.  18-21)  form  an  expansion 
of  the  third  parable  in  the  discourse  of  Mark  iv.  The 
question  whether  many  shall  be  saved  gives  rise  to 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  155 

the  exhortation :  Strive  to  enter  in  through  the 
narrow  gate,  for  the  time  is  coming  when  it  shall 
be  shut,  and  then  the  appeal  of  those  who  are  excluded 
to  their  connection  with  the  Master  of  the  House,  the 
Messiah,  as  His  compatriots,  will  be  of  no  avail ;  they 
shall  be  excluded,  as  workers  of  unrighteousness,  from 
the  Messianic  feast,  while  countless  numbers  from  all 
quarters  of  the  earth  shall  have  a  part  therein  with 
the  patriarchs  and  prophets  (xiii.  23-30).  Matthew 
has  used  different  portions  of  this  discourse,  freely 
adapted,  in  various  places  (vii.  22,  viii.  11  f,  xxv.  11  f.). 
The  warning  that  Herod  was  seeking  to  put  him  to 
death  (xiii.  32  f )  Jesus  answers  by  pointing  to  the 
fate  of  the  prophets,  who  never  met  with  martyrdom 
anywhere  else  than  in  Jerusalem,  and  to  this  the 
Evangelist  attaches  a  lamentation  over  Jerusalem 
(34  f.)  which  betrays  itself  as  a  quotation  from  an 
apocalyptic  writing  by  the  closing  words,  which  are 
without  meaning  on  the  lips  of  Jesus  when  He  is 
actually  travelling  up  to  Jerusalem  :  "Ye  [people  of 
Jerusalem]  shall  see  me  no  more  until  the  time 
Cometh  when  ye  shall  say,  Blessed  be  he  that 
Cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  It  is  doubtless 
from  the  same  writing  as  that  from  which  the  quota- 
tion xi.  49-51  is  derived  (in  ^latthew  they  stand  side 
by  side,  xxiii.  34-39). 

As  above,  in  xi.  38,  the  scene  of  the  polemic 
against  the  Pharisees  is  placed  by  Luke,  somewhat 
inappropriately,  at  the  table  of  a  Pharisee,  so  here, 
in  chapter  xiv.,  several  sayings,  not  closely  inter- 
connected, upon  modesty,  and  generosity  to  the  poor, 
together  with  the  parable  of  the  Great  Supper,  are 
combined  to  form  a  discourse  spoken  at   the   table 


156  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

of  one  of  the  chief  men  among  the  Pharisees  (xiv. 
1,  7-24).  The  occasion  of  the  parable  the  Evangelist 
represents  to  have  been  the  exclamation  of  one  of 
the  guests  (verse  15),  "Blessed  is  he  who  shall  eat 
bread  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ! "  i.e.  shall  have  a 
part  in  the  Messianic  feast ;  this  is  an  example  of 
Luke's  favourite  way  of  introducing  a  discourse  of 
Jesus  as  spontaneously  suggested  by  the  situation. 
The  story  of  the  parable  is  here  simpler  than  in  the 
parallel  Matt.  xxii.  1-14,  the  striking  allegorical 
traits  of  which  are  wanting  in  Luke ;  but  even  his 
version  of  it  shows  a  tendency  to  add  a  slight  colour- 
ing of  allegory  to  the  original.  The  main  thought 
of  the  parable  is  that  the  indifference  of  the  guests 
who  were  first  invited,  namely  the  upper  classes  of 
the  Jewish  people,  who,  preoccupied  with  worldly 
interests,  ignored  the  invitation  to  the  Messianic 
kingdom,  becomes  to  the  servant  of  God  (Jesus) 
the  reason  for  turning  to  the  poor  and  miserable 
of  the  town,  who  respond  eagerly  to  His  invitation. 
To  this  the  Evangelist  adds  yet  a  third  invitation, 
addressed  to  the  homeless  upon  the  highway,  through 
whose  coming  the  house  is  at  length  filled — these  are 
the  heathen,  who  showed  themselves  as  receptive 
towards  the  Apostolic  preaching  as  the  publicans  and 
sinners  of  Israel  did  towards  the  gospel  of  Jesus. 
There  are  excluded,  however,  as  verse  24  emphati- 
cally asserts,  those  who  were  first  invited,  i.e.  the 
upper  classes  in  Israel,  who  are  hardened  in  their 
pride — the  well-off  and  outwardly  respectable  people 
like  the  Pharisees. 

The  multitude   of  doubtful  followers  gives  Jesus 
occasion  to  emphasise  (xiv.  25  ff.)  the  seriousness  of 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  157 

the  sacrifices  and  renunciation  which  His  service 
demanded.  He  warns  them,  by  the  two  parables  of 
the  building  of  the  tower  and  the  king  entering  on 
a  campaign,  against  over-hasty  resolves,  for  the  carry- 
ing out  of  which  their  strength  would  be  insufficient. 
For  no  one  could  be  His  disciple  who  did  not 
renounce  all  his  possessions,  who  did  not  hate  father 
and  mother,  wife  and  children,  brothers  and  sisters, 
yea,  and  his  own  soul  also  (his  life),  who  did  not  take 
up  his  cross  and  follow  Him — sayings  which  in  this 
severe,  and  therefore  doubtless  original,  form  are  only 
preserved  by  Luke,  but  to  which  similar  sayings  are 
found  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  which  certainly 
belong  to  the  most  genuine  tradition.  According  to 
this,  we  have  in  Jesus  not  so  much  the  apostle  of 
peace  as  the  man  of  heroic  resolution,  the  vehement 
reformer,  who,  in  His  resolve  to  combat  the  worldly 
powers  which  stood  in  His  way  (xii.  49  fF.),  and  con- 
fident in  the  victory  of  His  cause  (xii.  32),  demands 
from  His  followers  the  same  radical  breach  with  all 
social  bonds  which  He  Himself  has  effected  in  His 
own  case  (Mark  iii.  31  ;  Luke  ix.  58  ff.).  The  figure 
of  the  salt  which  has  lost  its  savour,  which  each  of 
the  Evangelists  brings  in  at  a  different  point — doubt- 
less because  it  was  afloat  on  the  stream  of  tradition 
without  any  exact  point  of  attachment  as  regards 
its  original  occasion  and  connection — is  inserted  here 
by  Luke  (xiv.  34),  perhaps  with  the  meaning  that 
without  the  needful  resolution  and  endurance  the 
disciples  will  be  as  useless  as  spoiled  salt.  In  chapter 
XV.  Luke  collects  three  parables  of  the  love  of  God 
to  sinners,  of  which  Matthew  only  gives  the  first 
(xviii.  22  fF.).     They  are  introduced  by  the  remark 


158  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

that  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  murmured  because 
Jesus  received  sinners  and  ate  with  them.  To  this 
Jesus  answers  first  with  the  two  parables  of  the  Lost 
Sheep  and  the  I^ost  Piece  of  Silver,  which  illustrate 
the  love  and  faithfulness  of  God  in  seeking,  in  whose 
eyes  each  individual  soul  is  of  such  value  that  He 
will  not  let  it  be  lost,  and  that  the  winning  of  it,  the 
saving  of  the  lost,  arouses  greater  joy  in  heaven 
among  the  angels  of  God  than  the  safety  of  the 
others  which  has  never  been  endangered.  It  is  the 
same  thought  as  in  Mark  ii.  17,  "  They  that  are  whole 
need  not  a  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick ;  I  am 
come  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners."  The 
gospel  of  Jesus  is  addressed,  in  contradistinction  to 
the  national  legal  religion,  and  also  to  John  the 
Baptist's  preaching  of  repentance,  to  individuals,  and 
His  saving  love  is  most  eager  about  those  who  most 
need  deliverance.  In  the  third  of  these  parables,  the 
Prodigal  Son,  which  is  peculiar  to  Luke,  the  seeking 
of  the  lost  is  less  emphasised,  and  loving  mercy 
towards  those  who  repent  and  return  becomes  the 
main  point.  The  full  treatment  of  the  details  of  the 
story  is  due  to  Luke's  effort  after  vividness  of  narration. 
It  is  possible,  perhaps,  to  find  an  allegorical  elabora- 
tion of  the  main  idea,  in  the  shape  of  a  reference  to 
the  heathen,  in  the  fact  that  the  younger  son  goes 
away  into  a  far  country,  and,  during  the  famine, 
takes  service  with  a  citizen  of  that  country,  herding 
swine  for  him  (a  Jewish  symbol  for  the  heathen  life) ; 
but  this  interpretation  is  not  necessarily  implied. 
That  the  son  in  his  wretchedness  comes  to  a  better 
mind  and  resolves  to  return  to  his  father,  but  yet,  in 
the  consciousness  of  his  guilt,  does  not  feel  himself 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  159 

worthy  to  be  received  as  a  son,  and  is  prepared  to  be 
content  with  the  condition  of  a  hired  servant ;  but 
that  the  father,  full  of  compassion,  receives  him  again, 
and  holds  a  feast  in  celebration  of  his  return ;  that, 
finally,  the  elder  son  is  jealous  at  this,  and  that  his 
vexation  is  gently  soothed  by  the  father,  who  assures 
him  of  his  inalienable  right  of  sonship,  yet  with  the 
mild  reproach  that  he  also  ought  to  share  in  the 
general  joy  at  the  coming  to  life  again  of  his  brother 
who  was  spiritually  dead — these  are  traits  of  abiding 
truth,  which  find  their  application  not  merely  in  the 
relation  of  Jewish  sinners  to  the  Pharisaic  righteous, 
or  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  Jews,  but  in  human  society 
at  all  times.  In  the  attitude  of  the  earthly  father 
to  the  two  sons,  which  is  explained  with  such  accurate 
psychology,  there  is  reflected  the  main  thought  of 
the  gospel,  that  God,  without  detriment  to  His 
righteousness,  will  have  mercy  upon  repentant  sinners, 
and  that  He  expects,  from  those  who  have  not  gone 
astray,  sympathy  with  His  own  attitude  of  love 
towards  those  who  have  gone  astray,  but  have 
returned.  Thus  this  parable  is  "  the  loftiest  apology 
for  the  religion  of  Jesus,"  as  Jiilicher  ^  well  says.  But 
his  further  remark  also  deserves  notice,  that  the  God 
of  Luke  XV.  does  not  receive  sinners  on  the  ground 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  but  because  He  cannot  do 
otherwise  than  forgive ;  Jesus  did  not  first  by  His 
death  make  possible  the  Divine  forgiveness,  but  by 
revealing  the  Divine  attitude  of  mercy  He  called 
forth  belief  in  it  on  the  part  of  men.  It  is  further  to 
be  remarked  that  this  parable  has  a  certain  affinity 
with  that  of  the  two  sons  in  Matt.  xxi.  28,  which  is 

^   Gleichnisrede^i  Jesu,  vol.  ii.  p.  365. 


160  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

not,  however,  so  close  that  the  latter  must  necessarily 
be  assumed  to  be  the  basis  of  the  former  (the  main 
point  of  the  Lucan  parable,  the  fatherly  forgiveness 
of  the  son  who  is  first  disobedient  and  then  goes, 
is  absent  in  Matthew).  The  affinity  is  almost  closer 
in  the  case  of  the  following  Buddhist  parable :  A  son 
who  has  long  lived  in  a  far  country  in  poor  circum- 
stances comes  to  the  mansion  of  his  father,  who  in 
the  meantime  has  become  rich,  and  fails  to  recognise 
him ;  but  the  father  recognises  him,  and,  in  order  to 
test  him,  engages  him  as  a  servant.  After  the  son 
has  proved  himself  by  long  service,  he  offers  him  the 
position  of  a  son  of  the  house ;  but  the  son,  feeling 
his  unworthiness,  refuses  the  offer.  Then  the  father 
makes  himself  known  to  him,  and  delivers  over  to 
him,  in  the  presence  of  all  his  servants  and  friends, 
his  whole  possessions  as  his  inheritance.  Here, 
indeed,  the  main  point  of  the  Lucan  parable  is 
wanting — guilt,  repentance,  and  forgiveness,  but  it 
is  a  noticeable  coincidence  that  in  both  cases  the 
returned  son  feels  himself  worthy  only  of  the  position 
of  servant  in  the  father's  house ;  but  whereas  in  the 
Christian  parable  the  exaltation  to  the  dignity  of 
sonship  follows  immediately,  in  the  Buddhist  parable 
it  is  only  attained  by  a  long  period  of  service. 
Whether  the  resemblance  is  due  to  mere  chance,  or 
whether  similar  folk-tales  influenced  both,  may  be 
left  an  open  question.^ 

In  chapter  xvi.  there  follow  the  two  parables, 
peculiar  to  Luke,  of  the  Unjust  Steward  and  of  the 
Rich    Man    and    liazarus.       The    difficulty    which 

1   Foucaux,    Le   Lotus   de    la    bontie   loi,    chap,    iv.,    Parabole    de 
I'enfant  egare,  Paris,  1854. 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  161 

exegetes  have  found  in  both,  and  especially  in  the 
former,  is  due  to  the  fact  that  they  think  themselves 
bound  to  interpret  the  individual  traits  allegorically, 
a  method  of  interpetration  in  which,  indeed,  the 
Evangelist  himself  made  a  beginning,  and  for  which 
he  gave  the  suggestion,  by  the  additions  which  he 
has  made  to  the  groundwork  of  the  parables. 

In  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  unjust 
steward  and  his  master,  who  commends  him  for 
his  astuteness,  in  spite  of  his  dishonesty,  the  most 
curious  suggestions  have  been  made,  which  only 
serve  to  betray  the  perplexity  of  the  interpreters. 
If  the  master  represents  God,  there  result  the 
amazing  consequences  that  the  steward  by  his 
dishonesty  in  the  administration  of  the  property  of 
God  can  hope  to  gain  for  himself  a  place  in  the 
everlasting  habitations,  that  is,  in  heaven  (verses  4 
and  9),  and  that  God  not  merely  does  not  censure  this 
dishonest  conduct  but  actually  praises  it  (verse  8). 
To  avoid  these  difficulties,  others  have  thought  of 
the  master  of  the  house,  on  the  contrary,  as  the 
devil,  or  personified  Mammon,  so  that  the  stealing 
of  his  property  would  be  a  use  of  earthly  goods 
which  contravened  the  interests  of  the  devil,  and 
which  was  therefore  a  pious  and  praiseworthy  act. 
But  unfaithfulness  is  always  unrighteousness,  even 
when  the  object  of  it  is  a  bad  master ;  and  who,  on 
this  interpretation,  are  the  devil's  debtors,  what  the 
remission  of  their  debts,  what  the  dismissal  threatened 
by  the  devil  to  his  servant,  and  what  is  the  meaning 
of  the  devil's  praise  ?  This  interpretation,  as  every 
one  feels,  cannot  be  carried  through.  Other  artificial 
schemes,  such  as,  for  example,  the  interpretation  of 

VOL.  II  XI 


/ 


162  THE    GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

the  householder  as  the  Romans,  and  his  steward  as 
the  pubUcans,  may  be  set  aside  without  hesitation. 
No  satisfactory  treatment  of  this  parable  is  possible 
on  the  customary  assumption  that  every  individual 
feature  in  the  parable  must  have  an  allegorical 
interpretation.  If,  however,  this  erroneous  assump- 
tion is  dropped,  and  it  is  remembered  that  a  parable 
only  aims  at  illustrating  a  single  thought,  and,  in 
order  to  represent  this  vividly,  uses  pictures  from 
daily  life,  without  taking  into  account  the  significance 
of  the  actions  from  other  points  of  view — their  moral 
value  or  otherwise — then  everything  becomes  simple. 
The  point  of  this  parable  is  that  true  wisdom  in  the 
use  of  earthly  goods  consists  in  applying  them  to 
benevolence  in  order  thereby  to  gain  an  entrance 
into  the  Kingdom  of  God  —  a  thought  which  we 
frequently  meet  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels  {cf.  Luke 
xi.  41,  xii.  33  ;  Matt.  xix.  21,  xxv.  40),  and  which  is 
well  known  to  have  been  current  in  Jewish  thinking 
{cf.  Prov.  xix.  17).  This  true  wisdom  is  in  this 
case  illustrated  by  the  vulgar  prudence  which  the 
children  of  this  world,  within  their  own  sphere  and 
from  their  own  standpoint,  exercise  with  marvellous 
astuteness,  so  that  in  this  point,  in  the  skill  and 
precision  with  which  they  choose  the  right  means  to 
attain  their  ends,  they  may  serve  as  a  pattern  to  the 
children  of  light.  It  is  only  from  this  one  point  of 
view,  i.e.  as  regards  its  prudence — the  moral  aspect 
of  the  action  being  left  out  of  account — that  the 
conduct  of  the  steward  is  held  up  as  a  model,  to 
stimulate  the  children  of  light  in  the  exercise  of  the 
highest  wisdom.  Beyond  this,  the  steward  and  the 
master  and  the  debtors  have  no  further  significance, 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  163 

but  are  simply  familiar  figures  from  daily  life. 
Although,  however,  in  the  parable  itself  the  steward 
is  only  praised  in  respect  of  his  cleverness  and  is 
looked  at  without  reference  to  his  moral  character, 
the  Evangelist  could  not  refrain  from  a  reflection  on 
this  side  of  the  matter,  although  it  tends  to  obscure 
the  point  of  the  parable,  and  so  came,  by  an  obvious 
association  of  ideas,  to  add  to  the  parable  some 
sayings  which  assuredly  did  not  originally  belong  to 
it — ^that  about  faithfulness  in  little  things,  especially 
in  the  use  of  the  earthly  goods  which  so  easily  lead 
to  unrighteousness,  and  of  the  reward  of  faithfulness 
in  this,  namely,  the  being  entrusted  with  the  true 
riches  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  (verses  10-13).  As 
this  thought  is  further  developed  in  the  parable  of 
faithful  stewardship,  the  parable  of  the  Talents 
(xix.  12-27),  the  counterpart  of  this  parable  of  the 
prudent  but  unfaithful  steward,  the  conjecture 
naturally  suggests  itself  that  these  verses,  which  are 
joined  by  Luke  to  the  latter,  originally  stood  in 
connection  with  the  former. 

In  the  case  of  the  other  of  these  two  parables  also, 
which  are  connected  in  their  fundamental  thought,  we 
have  to  distinguish  between  their  original  sense  and 
the  additions  of  the  Evangelist.  Fundamentally,  it  is 
an  illustration  of  the  Lucan  beatitudes  (vi.  20  f.)  upon 
the  pious  sufferers,  who  are  to  receive  their  consola- 
tion in  the  future,  and  of  the  woes  pronounced  upon 
the  godless  and  loveless  rich,  who  have  received  their 
good  things  in  this  life,  and  therefore  must  expect 
evil  in  the  other  world  (xvi.  25).  Even  this  ground- 
work of  the  parable  differs  so  strikingly  from  the 
usual  parables  of  Jesus  that  there   are  grounds  for 


164  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

suspecting  that  it  is  not  properly  to  be  reckoned  as 
one  of  them  ;  and  indeed  the  Evangehst  has  not,  as  he 
usually  does,  expressly  introduced  it  as  a  parable.     It 
is  rather  a  typical  example,  which  gives  a  concrete 
representation  of  the  general  thought  in  an  individual 
instance  taken  from  the  same  sphere,  than  a  parable, 
which  symbolises  and  makes  vivid  a  truth  belonging 
to  the  higher,  ethico-religious  sphere  by  analogous 
events  or  circumstances  of  common  everyday   life. 
In  a  regular  parable  the  agents,  who  only  represent 
general  types,  never  have  individual  names  affixed  to 
them,  and  the  action  never  goes  beyond  the  sphere  of 
present  experience  into  transcendental  regions,  as  is 
the  case  in  the  instance  before  us.     For  these  reasons 
we  may  doubt  whether  this  irregular  parable  origin- 
ally belonged  to  the  parables  of  Jesus.     But   that 
does  not  mean  that  the  Evangelist  has  invented  the 
groundwork   of  the  parable,  but  that  he  has  taken 
over    and    used    material   from    some   other    source, 
probably   from   Jewish    legend,  in   order  thereby  to 
introduce    a   further   thought  which  was   important 
to  him,  but  is  quite  foreign  to  the  original  material. 
The  concluding  portion  of  the  parable,  in  fact  (verses 
27-31),  is   an  allegory  composed  by  the  Evangelist 
himself.     The  rich  man  with  his  five  brothers  now 
becomes  a  type  of  the  Jews,  whose  ancestor  Judah 
had.  according  to  Gen.  xxix  f.,  five  brothers  ;   and 
when  Abraham  says  that  they  will  not  believe,  even 
though  one  rose  from  the  dead,  this  is  an  unmistak- 
able allusion  to  the  unbelief  of  the  Jewish  people  in 
Jesus  the  Messiah,  even  in  spite  of  His  resurrection. 
The    Fourth    Evangelist   wished    to   insist   on   this 
obstinate  Jewish  unbelief,  even  in  face  of  a  return  of 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  165 

Lazarus  from  the  dead,  and  therefore  represented 
the  return  of  Lazarus  from  the  dead,  which  is  here 
only  suggested,  as  actually  taking  place  (John  xi.). 
This  is  a  good  example  of  the  way  in  which  what  is 
originally  a  legend  becomes  a  parable,  the  parable  is 
expanded  into  an  allegory,  and  the  allegory  is  finally 
transformed  into  a  miracle-story. 

Between  these  two  parables  Luke  has  inserted 
some  sayings  which  certainly  did  not  originally 
belong  to  this  context  (verses  14-18).  With  the 
remark  that  the  avaricious  Pharisees  mocked  at  the 
sayings  directed  against  the  worship  of  Mammon, 
the  author  seeks,  in  his  favourite  fashion,  to  create  a 
situation  appropriate  to  the  ensuing  discourse,  which 
deals  first  with  the  pretended  piety  of  the  Pharisees, 
who  only  gain  the  applause  of  men,  while  their 
pride  is  an  offence  to  the  Searcher  of  Hearts.  The 
connection  of  what  follows  with  this  is  not,  however, 
quite  clear.  Perhaps  the  Evangelist  desired  to  indicate 
that  the  self-righteousness  of  the  Pharisees,  even  if 
they  could  appeal  under  the  old  covenant  to  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets,  now,  at  any  rate,  had  no  further 
justification,  because  the  old  covenant  of  the  Law  had 
come  to  an  end  with  John  the  Baptist,  and  since  then 
the  good  tidings  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  held  the 
field,  and  to  that  Kingdom  all,  without  distinction, 
sinners  and  righteous.  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  may, 
if  their  zeal  be  sufficient,  press  in  and  find  entrance. 
In  verse  16,  therefore,  there  is  contrasted  with  the 
Jewish  exclusive  principle  of  legal  righteousness  the 
new  principle  which  the  preaching  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God  has  brought  into  force,  of  the  universality  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  which  stands  open  to  all,  and  into 


166  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

which  all  may  press.  The  similar  saying  in  Matthew 
(xi.  12  f.)  is  to  be  understood  somewhat  differently, 
as  we  shall  see  later.  But  having  now  paraphrased 
the  Pauline  thought,  "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law 
for  everyone  that  belie veth,"  he  desires  at  the  same 
time  to  avoid,  in  the  interests  of  Church  apologetic, 
the  misunderstanding  and  misuse  of  this  bold  thought 
in  an  extreme  antinomian  sense,  and  sets  side  by  side 
with  this  Pauline  statement  its  antithesis,  the  in- 
expugnable validity  of  the  Law,  to  the  last  jot  and 
tittle  (verse  17).  In  order,  however,  to  blunt  the 
dangerous  point  of  this  watchword  of  Jewish 
conservatism,  and  to  confine  it  to  its  proper  measure 
of  validity  in  the  Church,  he  immediately  proceeds  to 
give  (verse  18),  in  the  definite  instance  of  the  Christian 
law  of  marriage,  an  example  of  the  extent  to  which 
the  Law  maintains  its  validity  unimpaired.  Its  ethical 
demand,  protecting  and  consecrating  social  life,  is  not 
merely  to  retain  its  significance  in  Christianity,  but 
is  to  be  accepted  and  followed  as  having  an  even 
stricter  sense,  going  beyond  that  of  the  Mosaic  Law. 
In  this  way  Luke  seeks  to  reconcile,  upon  a  basis 
of  ecclesiastical  morality,  the  antithetic  religious 
principles  of  universalism  apart  from  the  Law  and 
of  legal  conservatism. 

In  chapter  xvii.  there  follow  some  short  discourses 
upon  off'ences,  readiness  to  forgive,  the  power  of  faith 
to  remove  mountains,  or  properly  sycomores,  as 
Luke  says  instead  of  mountains,  probably  because  in 
Mark  he  found  this  saying  connected  with  the  incident 
of  the  barren  fig-tree.  Then  follows,  in  xvii.  7-10, 
a  genuinely  Pauline  saying  about  the  absence  of 
"  merit "  in  the  doing  of  duty,  which  is  peculiar  to 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  167 

Luke.  Peculiar  to  him  also  is  the  section  about 
the  grateful  Samaritan  (xvii.  11-19)  who  is  dis- 
tinguished from  the  nine  ungrateful  (Jews)  in  the 
same  way  as  the  good  Samaritan  is  distinguished 
from  the  priest  and  Levite.  In  xvii.  20-37,  Luke 
gives  an  eschatological  discourse  additional  to  those 
in  Mark,  which  he  introduces  by  the  question  of 
the  Pharisees  regarding  the  time  of  the  coming  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God.  On  this  there  follows,  in 
the  first  place,  the  answer,  "  The  kingdom  of  God 
Cometh  not  with  observation  [i.e.  in  a  striking  way 
which  arrests  observation] ;  they  shall  not  say,  Lo, 
here !  or,  Lo,  there  [it  is  coming] ! '  for,  behold, 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you."  This  is  a 
very  strange  answer — how  can  it  be  said  to  the 
Pharisees  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  within  them, 
in  their  hearts  ? — and  that  is  the  only  possible 
meaning  of  evro^  vjulwv ;  "in  your  midst,"  " in  your 
neighbourhood,"  would  be  expressed  by  ei^  /mea-cp  vixoov. 
And  how  can  the  presence  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
be  asserted,  and  its  catastrophic  coming  denied, 
when  everywhere  else  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  the 
latter  is  expected,  and  is  so  clearly  implied  in  the 
very  discourse  which  follows  immediately  upon  the 
above  answer  ?  In  verse  22  we  have  the  words, 
"  And  he  said  unto  the  disciples.  The  days  shall 
come  when  ye  shall  desire  to  see  one  of  the  days 
of  the  Son  of  JNIan  [of  the  Messianic  time  of  salva- 
tion], and  shall  not  see  it  [because  its  coming  is 
delayed].  And  they  shall  say  unto  you.  See  here ! 
or,  See  there !  Go  not  thither,  and  seek  it  not. 
For  as  the  lightning  lightens  from  one  quarter  of 
the  heavens  to  another,  so  shall  the  [coming  of  the] 


168  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

Son  of  Man  be  in  his  day."  This  discourse  to  the 
disciples  stands  in  such  complete  contradiction  with 
the  preceding  answer  to  the  Pharisees  that  here  no 
exegetical  art  will  avail,^  and  the  only  hypothesis 
that  remains  open  is  that  verses  20  ff.  were  composed 
by  the  Evangelist  himself  (in  the  sense  of  Rom.  xiv. 
17)  and  prefixed  to  the  following  discourse  (verses 
22  fF.)  with  the  aim  of  restraining  the  impatience 
of  those  whose  thought  was  set  upon  apocalypses. 
It  seemed  only  possible  completely  to  avert  the 
dangers  of  eschatological  enthusiasm,  against  which 
the  warning  of  verse  23  is  also  directed,  by  making 
the  capital  change  of  substituting  for  the  apocalyptic 
catastrophe  the  inward  presence  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  (verses  20  f.) — a  turning  to  the  Johannine 
idea  of  immanence  similar  to  that  which  is  found 
also  in  Matt,  xxviii.  20  and  xviii.  20. 

At  the  close  of  his  long  interpolation  Luke  has 
placed  two  parables  peculiar  to  himself.  The  first, 
that  of  the  Unjust  Judge  and  the  importunate  widow 
(xviii.  1-8),  expresses  exactly  the  same  thought  as 
the  parable,  which  is  also  peculiar  to  Luke,  in  xi. 
5-18 :  exhortation  to  earnest  and  persistent  prayer, 
which  cannot  fail  to  be  answered.  Here  again,  as 
in  the  parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward,  we  have  a 
case  where  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  the 
details  which  make  up  the  picture  is  excluded  by 
the  absurdities  to  which  it  would  lead ;  for  it  is 
self-evident  that  it  cannot  here  be  intended  to 
describe  God  as  an  "  unjust  judge,"  any  more  than, 

1  The  suggestions  in  this  connection  of  A.  Meyer  {Jesu  Mutter- 
sprache,  p.  87  f.)  are  rejected  by  Dalman  (Worte  Jesu,  p.  Il6  f., 
E.T.  p.  143). 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   JERUSALEM  169 

in  the  other  parable,  it  is  intended  to  assert  of  Him 
that  He  takes  pleasure  in  the  unrighteousness  of 
men.  At  the  close,  the  parable  connects  itself  with 
the  expectation  of  the  future  of  the  previous  chapter, 
and  gives  the  reason  why  the  appearance  of  the  Son 
of  JNIan  is  not  to  take  place  so  soon  as  impatient  hope 
desires — namely,  because  there  is  still  too  little  faith 
on  earth  ;  and  in  saying  this  the  Evangelist  is  prob- 
ably not  thinking  merely  of  the  still  unconverted 
world  of  Jews  and  heathen,  but  of  the  absence,  in 
many  quarters,  of  true  faith,  even  within  the 
Church.  The  second  parable,  that  of  the  Pharisee 
and  the  Publican  (xviii.  9-14),  expresses  once  more 
the  favourite  thought  of  the  Evangelist — the  penitent 
sinner  is  justified  (note  the  Pauline  phrase),  and  is 
therefore  worth  more  in  the  sight  of  God  than  the 
Pharisee  who  is  counted  righteous  in  the  sight  of 
men ;  as,  in  general,  he  who  exalts  himself  is  abased, 
and  he  who  humbles  himself  is  exalted  (verse  14).  The 
last,  very  instructive,  addition  shows  us  how  in  Luke 
the  central  religious  thought  of  the  Pauline  theology 
receives  a  generalised  application  in  which  it  is  trans- 
ferred from  the  dogmatic  sphere  to  the  ethical,  and 
indeed  —  if  the  expression  may  be  permitted  —  to 
the  Christian -social  sphere.  The  often -expressed 
sympathy  of  our  author  for  the  world  of  sinners  is 
not  merely  an  expression  of  his  dogmatic  convic- 
tion with  which  certain  Ebionite  or  Judaising  traits 
are  brought  into  a  quite  external  connection,  the 
purpose  of  this  binding  together  of  heterogeneous 
elements  being  to  smooth  the  way  for  an  external 
compromise  between  the  various  parties  in  the  Early 
Church ;   that  is  a  fundamental  error    which  wholly 


170  THE    GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

misrepresents  what  is  most  essential  in  I.,uke's  way 
of  thought,  and  certainly  also  misrepresents  the  great 
majority  of  the  Christian  churches  of  his  time. 
Luke's  love  for  sinners  arises  at  least  as  much,  if  not 
more,  from  his  ethico-social  views  in  general  as 
from  his  Paulinism ;  it  is  to  a  great  extent  the 
religious  expression  of  a  human  sympathy  with  the 
poor  and  lowly,  who  are  despised  by  those  who 
are  of  better  social  station  and  legally  "  righteous " 
(the  respectables),  but  are  highly  esteemed  by 
God  on  account  of  their  humility  and  longing  for 
salvation.  And  as  Luke  certainly  did  not  stand 
alone  in  this,  but  represented  the  prevailing  temper 
of  the  whole  of  early  Christianity,  we  may  here 
recognise  what  the  really  comprehensible  and  attrac- 
tive side  of  Pauline  doctrine  was  for  the  majority 
of  the  Christian  communities — not,  by  any  means, 
the  doctrine  of  justification,  not  his  Rabbinical 
dialectic  or  transcendental  speculations,  but  his  truly 
humane  and  all-embracing  love,  wholly  opposed  to 
both  Gentile  and  Jewish  aristocratic  intolerance  or 
exclusiveness  towards  those  who  in  the  eyes  of 
the  world  are  despised  as  of  no  account,  but  who 
have  been  chosen  by  God  (1  Cor.  i.  20-29  ;  cf.  Luke 
X.  21,  vi.  20  ff.,  i.  51  if.,  xiv.  21-24). 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE 

CHAPTER  VII 

The  Final  Conflict,  Defeat  and  Victory 

(Luke  xviii.  15-xxiv.  53) 

In  xviii.  15,  Luke  returns  again,  after  the  conclusion 
of  his  long  interpolation,  to  the  text  of  the  foundation 
narrative    (Mark   x.    13),    and   follows   its   order,    in 
essentials,  up  to  the  story  of  the  Passion.    Only  the  dis- 
course suggested  by  the  ambitious  request  of  the  sons 
of  Zebedee  (Mark  x.  35-45)  is  passed  over  by  Luke, 
because  he  intends  to  give  his   substitute  for  it  in 
the  story   of  the   Last   Supper.     After  the  cure  of 
the   blind  man   at   Jericho  he   inserts   the  story  of 
the  chief  of  the  publicans,  Zacchseus,  and  the  parable 
of  the  Pounds.     The  former  (xix.   1-10)  is  peculiar 
to  Luke.     As  a  companion  picture  to  that  of  the 
blind  beggar  Bartim^us  ("son  of  the  unclean")  he 
gives   us  that  of  the  publican  Zacchaeus   (meaning 
"pure")    as   the    representative   of  men   who   were 
despised  by  the  Jews  and  placed  by  them  on  the 
same  level   with   the   heathen,  but   who  by  reason 
of  their  penitence  and  faith  in  Jesus  were  purified 
from  their   guilt   and    made  worthy  to  have   Jesus 
come  to  them,  and  thus  were  taken  up  among  the 
sons  of  Abraham's   faith   and   into   the   true   Israel 

171 


172  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

of  God.  The  saying  of  Jesus  to  Zacchseus,  "  To- 
day is  salvation  come  unto  this  house,  forasmuch 
as  he  also  is  a  son  of  Abraham/'  reminds  us  of  the 
Pauline  description  of  the  spiritual  sons  of  Abraham 
(Gal.  iii.  9,  29;  Rom.  iv.  11  fF.). 

The  parable  of  the  Pounds  (xix.  11-27)  has  a  double 
application,  which  is  always  a  certain  proof  that  a 
simple  groundwork  has  undergone  expansion  and 
elaboration.  The  original  groundwork  consisted  only 
of  the  picture  of  the  faithful  and  unfaithful  servant, 
and  served  to  emphasise  the  duty  of  the  faithful  use  of 
earthly  riches.  The  lesson  of  the  parable  is  declared 
in  xvi.  10-12,  verses  which  originally  belonged,  doubt- 
less, not  to  the  parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward,  but 
to  that  of  the  Pounds.  With  this  is  interwoven, 
however,  the  quite  disparate  picture  of  the  prince 
who  went  into  a  far  country  to  receive  for  himself  a 
kingdom,  and  whose  subjects  meanwhile  revolted 
against  him  ;  for  which  reason  they  were  put  to  death 
by  him  on  his  return  (verses  12,  14,  27).  This  second 
story  serves,  indeed,  as  a  frame  for  the  first  about  the 
servants,  but  it  has  no  inner  connection  with  it.  How 
have  the  two  parts  come  into  their  present  combination  ? 
Were  they  originally  two  separate  parables,  which 
had  already  been  fused  together  in  the  oral  tradition, 
or  were  welded  together  by  the  Evangelist  ?  Neither 
of  these  alternatives  is  probable.  For  the  story  of 
the  prince  going  into  a  far  country  and  of  his 
rebellious  subjects  is  no  proper  parable,  it  does  not 
set  forth  a  general  truth  of  the  higher  life  by 
means  of  events  taken  from  ordinary  experience ;  it 
is  rather  an  allegory,  every  feature  of  which  had  an 
allegorical   significance.     The   prince   who  goes  into 


FINAL  CONFLICT,  DEFEAT  AND  VICTORY    173 

a  far  country  in  order  to  receive  for  himself  a  kingdom 
signifies  Christ,  who  has  left  the  scene  of  His  earthly 
work  in  order  to  be  exalted  to  be  King  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  to  be  heavenly  Lord  of  the 
Messianic  community.  The  rebellious  citizens  who 
will  not  have  Him  to  be  King  over  them  are  the 
Jews,  who  refused,  after  Jesus'  departure  from  the 
earth,  to  acknowledge  Him  as  their  lawful  sovereign. 
His  return  after  receiving  a  kingdom  signifies  the 
Parousia  of  Christ,  and  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion 
stands  for  the  judgment  on  unbelieving  Judaism. 
It  is  clear  that  an  elaborate  allegory  of  this  kind  is 
quite  different  from  the  simple  parables  of  Jesus ;  it 
cannot,  therefore,  have  been  handed  down  as  such, 
but  was  doubtless  composed  by  the  Evangelist, 
influenced  probably  by  a  reminiscence  of  the  account 
given  by  Josephus  {Aiit.,  xvii.  11.  1-4)  of  the  journey 
of  Archelaus  to  Rome  to  obtain  the  kingship  (instead 
of  which,  however,  he  only  obtained  an  ethnarchy), 
and  the  arrival  there  at  the  same  time  of  a  Jewish 
embassy,  to  protest  against  his  rule.  These  incidents 
have  been  applied  by  the  Evangelist  to  give  to  the 
parable  of  the  Pounds  a  secondary,  eschatological 
significance.  To  this  purpose,  too,  must  be  referred 
what  he  says  in  verse  11  about  the  occasion  of 
the  whole  parable,  that  the  people  thought  the 
Kingdom  of  God  would  immediately  appear.  He 
desires  to  restrain  this  impatient  expectation  of 
the  Parousia  by  the  reminder  that  Christ  Himself 
must  first  receive  a  kingdom  before  He  returned 
from  the  far  country  to  which  He  had  departed  ; 
but,  the  Evangelist  reminds  men,  retribution  will 
not  on  that  account  fail — neither  the  reward  of  the 


174  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

true  servants,  nor  the  punishment  of  the  unfaithful 
and  rebelHous. 

In  his  account  of  the  triumphal  entry,  in  which  he 
in  other  respects  follows  Mark,  Luke  makes  (xix.  38) 
the  crowd  of  enthusiastic  disciples  hail  Jesus  definitely 
as  the  king  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
(whereas  Mark  speaks  less  definitely  of  the  coming 
kingdom  of  our  father  David),  and  adds  words  which 
recall  the  hymn  of  the  angels  in  the  birth-story, 
"  Peace  in  heaven,  and  glory  in  the  highest " — the 
earthly  echo,  as  it  were,  of  the  heavenly  greeting 
with  which  the  first  entry  of  the  Heavenly  King  into 
His  earthly  Kingdom  was  hailed.  The  narrative  which 
follows  in  Mark's  Gospel,  of  the  cursing  of  the  barren 
fig-tree,  symbolising  the  unfruitful  Jewish  nation,  is 
omitted  by  Luke,  because  he  has  already  given  the 
parable  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  miracle-story 
(xiii.  6-9) ;  in  place  of  it  he  gives,  perhaps  as  a 
substitute  for  this  curse,  which  seems  to  him  too 
severe — a  touching  picture  of  Jesus,  at  the  approach 
to  the  city,  weeping  tears  of  pity  over  it,  because  it 
had  been  blind  to  the  salvation  which  had  come  near 
unto  it,  and  was  now  irrevocably  condemned  to  the 
judgment  of  destruction  (xix.  41-44).  The  cleansing 
of  the  Temple  which,  according  to  JNIark,  plays  so 
important  a  part  in  the  course  of  events  during  the 
Passover  week  in  Jerusalem,  is  reported  by  I^uke  in 
such  an  abbreviated  form  that  he  seems  to  have 
wished  to  make  it  an  episode  of  small  importance, 
and  he  does  not  make  this  the  cause,  as  Mark  does — 
and  doubtless  with  historical  justification — of  the 
murderous  plans  of  the  chief  priests  and  rulers 
against  Jesus,  but  finds  the  cause  in  His  daily  teach- 


FINAL  CONFLICT,  DEFEAT  AND  VICTORY    175 

ing  ill  the  Temple  ;  referring,  for  example,  the  official 
question  as  to  His  authority  for  "  doing  these  things  " 
to  the  previously  mentioned  teaching  (xx.  2  ;  cf.  xx.  1 
and  xix.  47),  not  to  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple,  as 
in  JNIark.  What  moved  the  Evangelist  to  this 
obviously  intentional  departure  from  the  narrative 
which  he  is  in  the  main  following,  was  without  doubt 
his  dislike,  evident  elsewhere  in  his  writings  (especially 
in  Acts),  of  anything  which  looks  like  violence,  like  a 
revolt  against  established  custom  and  order.  Just  as 
he  gives,  for  this  reason,  a  very  much  softened  picture 
of  the  anti-legalistic  reforming  action  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  and  almost  reduces  the  point  at  issue  to  a  less 
dangerous  question  of  teaching,  so  in  the  same  way 
he  has  suppressed  the  decisive  consequences  of  Jesus' 
reforming  act,  and  has  instead  made  Jesus'  harmless 
teaching,  which  won  the  approval  of  "  all  the  people," 
the  occasion  of  the  enmity  of  the  rulers  of  the  people 
(verse  47).  In  this  way  the  antithesis  of  religious 
principle  between  the  legal  positivism  of  the  Jewish 
hierarchy,  as  the  representative  of  Judaism  in  general, 
and  the  moral  and  spiritual  idealism  of  the  prophet  and 
reformer  of  Nazareth  is  practically  lost  sight  of,  and 
in  its  stead  there  appears  only  the  social  antithesis 
between  the  jealousy  of  the  upper  classes  about  the 
privileges  of  their  position  and  the  favourite  teacher 
of  the  populace,  who,  moreover,  in  confining  Himself 
to  harmless  teaching,  gives  no  occasion  to  the  civil 
authority  (Rome)  to  harbour  any  suspicion  against 
Him.  This  instance  is  thoroughly  characteristic  of  the 
whole  mode  of  thought  and  literary  method  of  the 
author,  who  has  written  the  history  of  the  beginnings 
of  Christianity  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  apologist. 


176  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

The  polemical  discourses  at  Jerusalem  are  reported 
by  Luke  in  the  same  order  as  by  his  source,  and  in 
general  agreement  with  it,  the  sole  exception  being 
the  dialogue  with  the  Scribe  regarding  the  greatest 
commandment,  for  which  he  has  already  given  a 
substitute  in  x.  25  ff.  That  he  had  the  story  before 
him  at  this  point  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  he  pre- 
serves the  beginning  and  end  of  this  story  as  told 
in  Mark  (xii.  28  and  34),  and  has  attached  it  to  the 
polemical  discourse  about  the  resurrection  (Luke  xx. 
39,  40).  In  the  great  eschatological  discourse,  he 
gives  to  the  apocalyptic  enigmas  of  a  time  of  sore 
distress  a  quite  definite  and  plain  reference  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  dispersal  of  the 
captive  Jews  among  all  nations,  and  represents 
Jerusalem  as  trodden  under  foot  by  the  Gentiles 
"  until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  shall  be  fulfilled  "  (xxi. 
24),  by  which  is  meant  the  restoration  of  Israel,  after 
the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  to  which  Paid  looked 
forward.  The  saying  in  Mark  xiii.  32,  that  the  day 
and  the  hour  of  the  end  were  known  to  none  but 
God,  has  been  omitted  by  Luke  here,  perhaps  because 
he  intended  to  bring  it  in  later,  in  Acts  i.  7. 

In  the  story  of  the  Passion,  I^uke  departs  in  many 
respects  from  his  source,  whereas  Matthew  holds 
more  closely  to  it  and  takes  no  notice  of  Lukes 
divergences.  The  anointing  in  the  house  of  Simon 
at  Bethany  is  passed  over  by  Luke,  because  he  has, 
in  place  of  it,  the  earlier  anointing  in  the  house  of 
Simon  the  Pharisee  (vii.  36  fF.  ;  cf.  above,  p.  134). 

The  betrayal  by  Judas,  Luke  endeavours  to  make 
more  intelligible  by  saying  (xxii.  3)  that  Satan  entered 
into  him,  a  statement  which  is  further  elaborated  in 


FINAL  CONFLICT,  DEFEAT  AND  VICTORY    177 

the  Fourth  Gospel.     The  discourses  of  Jesus  at  the 
Last  Supper  are  reported  by  Luke  in  a  form  which 
is  for  the  most  part  peculiar  to  himself     From  the 
first  the  note  of  farewell  is  struck  by  Jesus'  declaration 
that  He  had  desired  with  longing  to  eat  this  Passover 
with  His  disciples  before  He  suffered,  for  He  will  not 
eat  it  again  until  it  be  fulfilled  (or,  according  to  Cod. 
D,  eaten  new)  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  (xxii.  16) — an 
anticipation  of  the  thought  of  verse  18,  which  belongs 
to  the  common  tradition,  "  I  will  drink  no  more  of 
the  fruit  of  the  vine  until  the  Kingdom  of  God  has 
come,"  which  no  doubt  bears  the  same  meaning  as 
the  more  definite  phrase   in    Mark,  "  until   the   day 
when  I  drink  it  new  in  the  Kingdom  of  God."     But 
whereas  in  the  parallel  passages  this  saying  is  only 
loosely    connected    with    the    distribution     of    the 
symbolic  cup  at  the  Last  Supper,  in  Luke  (verse  17) 
it   forms   the  essential  explanation  of  the  fact  that 
Jesus  handed  the  cup  to  His  disciples  immediately 
after   the  prayer   of  thanksgiving  which   He  offered 
over  it,  with  the  command  to  divide  it  among  them- 
selves (alone)  ;  it  is  intended,  that  is,  to  declare  that 
He  Himself  for  the  present,  until  the  coming  of  the 
new  order  of  things  which  is  to  be  introduced  by  the 
Divine  Kingship,  will  abstain  from  the  use  of  wine. 
That  this  is  the  sense  of  verses  17  f.  can  scarcely  be 
doubted,^   however   obscure   may  be   the   motive  of 
this  abstinence,  which  at  a  Paschal  meal  (if  such  it 
really   was)   is   doubly  surprising.       Perhaps  it  may 
be  explained  as  a  kind  of  vow,  in  which  the  confident 
belief  in  the  near  approach  of  the  hoped-for  end  was 
expressed  {cf.  Acts  xxiii.  12).     A  trait  so  peculiar  has 
^  Cf.  B.  Weiss-Meyer,  Komm.,  pp.  527  f. 


VOL.    II 


13 


178  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

certainly  not  been  invented  by  the  Evangelist,  but 
taken  from  the  earliest  tradition.  Not  until  after  this 
distribution  and  explanation  of  the  first  cup  does  Luke 
proceed  to  tell  of  the  distribution  of  the  symbolic 
bread  and  cup  of  the  Supper  ;  and  it  is  only  in  the  first 
half  (down  to  the  words,  "  This  is  my  body  ")  that  his 
account  runs  parallel  to  that  of  the  other  Evangelists. 
Peculiar  to  him  is  the  addition  "  which  is  given  for 
you :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me,"  and  also  the 
formula  used  in  the  distribution  of  the  second  cup  (20), 
"  and  the  cup  also  [sc.  he  took  and  gave  to  them]  after 
the  supper,  saying,  '  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant 
in  my  blood,  which  is  shed  for  you.'"  This  Lucan 
version  of  the  words  of  Jesus  at  the  Supper  (19b,  20) 
is  evidently  derived  from  1  Cor.  xi.  24  f.,  with  which 
it  is  almost  verbally  identical ;  only  the  latter  part 
of  verse  20,  "  which  is  shed  for  you,"  is  adopted 
from  Mark  xiv.  24  and  added  to  the  Pauline 
words  in  a  grammatically  awkward  way.  The 
question  arises  whether  the  Evangelist  himself  inter- 
polated into  his  narrative  these  sayings  derived  from 
1  Cor.,  thus  displacing  another  form  of  the  tradition, 
or  whether  the  interpolation  is  due  to  a  later  hand, 
the  original  Lucan  narrative  having  in  that  case 
closed  with  "  This  is  my  body."  In  favour  of  the 
latter  is  the  fact  that  verses  19b  and  20  are  wanting 
in  important  Western  manuscripts  (Cod.  D),  and 
the  omission  of  these  important  words  is  as  difficult 
to  explain  as  the  insertion  of  them  is  easy  to  account 
for.  The  omission  of  the  distribution  of  the  symbolic 
cup  was  unwelcome,  and  it  was  therefore  added  to 
the  Lucan  account,  which  originally  contained  only 
one  giving  of  the  cup,  without  any  reference  to  the 


FINAL  CONFLICT,  DEFEAT  AND  VICTORY    179 

ritual  of  the  Supper  (verse  17)  in  the  form  of  a 
second  giving  of  the  cup  (verse  20),  by  means  of  an 
interpolation  derived  from  1  Cor/  We  shall  have 
more  to  say  on  this  point  in  a  later  context. 

The  prediction  of  the  betrayal,  which  the  parallel 
narratives  place  at  the  beginning  of  the  meal,  is 
only  inserted  by  Luke  at  this  point  (verses  21-23),  and 
in  a  simpler  form,  without  special  reference  to  Judas ; 
only  in  verse  22,  where  the  "  going  "  of  the  Son  of 
Man  is  referred  to  the  fore-ordination  of  God,  which 
nevertheless  does  not  exclude  the  accursed  guilt  of 
the  betrayer,  does  he  follow  the  lines  of  the  Marcan 
apologetic  (xiv.  21) ;  except  for  this,  he  seems  here, 
as  also  in  what  precedes  and  follows,  to  use  a  special, 
and  as  it  seems,  indeed,  an  older  form  of  the  tradition. 
To  the  question  of  the  disciples,  which  of  them  was 
meant  by  the  betrayer  (verse  23),  he  subjoins  the  strife 
about  precedence  which  Mark  narrates  earlier,  in 
connection  with  the  ambitious  request  of  the  sons  of 
Zebedee  (x.  41  fF.).  Jesus  calms  the  dispute  with 
the  striking  saying,  "It  shall  not  be  so  among  you 
as  it  is  among  worldly  rulers  and  wield  ers  of  power, 
but  the  greatest  among  you  shall  be  as  the  youngest, 
and  the  leader  as  he  that  serves  "  ;  and  He  pointed  to 
His  own  example,  for  He  did  not  play  the  part  of 
the  master  among  them,  who  makes  others  serve  him 
(at  table),  but  rather  of  the  servant  (verse  27).  Here 
we  have  the  original  form  of  the  saying  which  in 
Mark  and  INIatthew  has  been  elaborated  in  a  dogmatic 

1  Cf.  Westcott  and  Hort,  Select  Readings,  p.  64  :  "  These  diffi- 
culties ,  .  .  leave  no  moral  doubt  that  the  words  in  question  were 
absent  from  the  original  text  of  Luke."  So,  too,  Zahn,  Eiitleitung, 
ii.  358  f.;  Brandt.,  Ev.  Gesch.,  p.  301. 


180  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

sense  and  applied  to  the  atoning  death  of  the  Son 
of  Man,  and  in  John  has  been  illustrated  by  the 
symbolic  act  of  the  feet-washing.  After  this  rebuke 
of  the  ambition  of  the  disciples,  they  are,  however, 
promised  that  those  who  remain  faithful  to  their 
Master  amid  all  attacks  on  the  part  of  the  hostile 
world  shall  share  the  position  of  authority  which 
is  destined  for  Him  by  His  Father,  shall  eat  and 
drink  at  His  table  in  His  Kingdom,  and  shall  sit 
on  thrones  judging  (that  is,  ruling)  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel  (verses  29  fF.) — a  saying,  the  realistic  stamp 
of  which  should  not  be  obliterated  by  allegorising, 
but  recognised  as  a  mark  of  the  completest  genuine- 
ness {cf.  xii.  32  and  the  note  thereon,  p.  153).  To  the 
promise  of  lordship  given  to  all  the  disciples  Luke 
immediately  attaches,  in  intentional  contrast,  the 
prediction  of  Peter's  denial  (verses  31-34),  which  the 
parallel  narratives  represent  as  given  later,  on  the 
way  to  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  in  connection  with 
that  of  the  flight  of  the  Apostles  in  general.  To  this 
last  there  is  found  in  Luke  only  the  slight  allusion  in 
verse  31,  "Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you  (pi.)  that 
he  may  sift  you  as  wheat."  The  more  definite  say- 
ing in  Mark  xiv.  27  f.,  that  the  disciples  shall  all 
be  offended,  and  be  scattered  like  the  sheep  of  a 
shepherdless  flock,  has  been  suppressed  by  Luke, 
because  it  was  not  appropriate  to  his  representation 
of  the  ensuing  history  and  was  opposed  to  his  feeling 
of  respect  for  the  original  Apostles ;  the  same  feel- 
ing is  expressed  in  the  saying  in  verse  32,  which  is 
intended  to  make  Peter's  fall  more  forgivable  by 
recalling  his  subsequent  conversion  and  position  of 
influence  as  a  pillar  of  the  Church.     These  discourses 


FINAL  CONFLICT,  DEFEAT  AND  VICTORY    181 

at  the  Last  Supper  close  with  the  command,  pecuUar 
to  Luke,  to  buy  a  sword.  That  is  now  the  most 
necessary  thing :  so  much  so,  that  purse  and  scrip, 
and  even  cloak,  should  be  given  in  exchange  for 
one  (verse  36).  According  to  the  usual  interpreta- 
tion, these  words  were  only  meant  in  the  sense  that 
the  disciples  must  henceforth  reckon  on  the  enmity 
of  the  world.  But  the  disciples  themselves  certainly 
did  not  understand  them  in  this  sense,  for  they 
answered,  "  Lord,  here  are  two  swords "  (verse  38), 
to  which  Jesus  answered,  "  It  is  enough."  That  this 
was  irony  directed  against  the  disciples'  misunder- 
standing of  His  allegorically  meant  command  is  not 
suggested  by  the  text.  As  Jesus'  words  run,  they 
could  scarcely  be  understood  otherwise  than  in  the 
literal  sense ;  if  this  was  not  Jesus'  meaning,  a  clear 
correction  of  the  misunderstanding  might  have  been 
expected,  not  an  ironic  saying  which  was  itself 
open  to  misunderstanding.  If  the  text,  then,  im- 
poses upon  us  a  literal  interpretation  of  the  words, 
they  imply,  since  the  only  reason  for  procuring 
swords  is  to  use  them  as  weapons,  that  Jesus 
intended  to  defend  Himself  against  an  attempted 
assassination,  and  such  an  attack,  therefore,  must  have 
been  what  He  expected  from  the  enmity,  which  was 
well  known  to  Him,  of  the  hierarchs,  not  an  official 
arrest  by  the  servants  of  the  Government.  There- 
fore, as  soon  as  He  recognised  that  it  was  the  latter 
with  which  He  had  to  deal.  He  immediately  restrained 
the  attempt  at  resistance  on  the  part  of  His  disciples 
(verse  51,  "  Hold,  no  more!  ").  But  however  well  this 
decision  of  Jesus  to  defend  Himself  with  arms 
against  hireling  assassins    suits  the  historical  situa- 


182  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

tion,  it  by  no  means  suits  the  dogmatic  theory, 
which  arose  subsequently  from  the  apologetic  re- 
flection of  the  community,  of  the  divinely  ordained 
necessity  of  the  atoning  death  of  Christ,  which 
He  Himself  had  known  of  long  beforehand  and 
predicted.  It  is  therefore  quite  intelligible  that, 
later,  people  did  not  know  what  to  make  of  the 
sword-buying,  and  it  is  therefore  omitted  in  the 
other  Gospels.  I.uke,  however,  has  here,  as  in  the 
account  of  the  Supper  (p.  177  f.),  preserved  a  fragment 
of  the  oldest  tradition,  from  which  he  attempted 
to  remove  the  strangeness  and  difficulty  by  making 
Jesus  at  the  same  time  refer  to  the  necessity  which 
was  laid  on  Him,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  of 
meeting  the  death  of  a  criminal  (verse  37),  M^hich  is 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  intention  to  defend 
Himself.  It  is  just  because  this  appeared  from  the 
later  standpoint  unthinkable,  that  the  saying  about 
buying  a  sword  (verses  36,  38)  cannot  be  held  to 
be  a  later  legend,  but  must  belong  to  very  early, 
historically  valuable,  tradition. 

In  the  scene  in  Gethsemane  Luke  has  added  the 
appearance  of  the  angel  to  Jesus  to  strengthen 
Him,  and  the  question  of  the  disciples  at  the  arrest, 
whether  they  should  smite  with  the  sword,  which 
implies  that  several  of  them  were  armed,  and  thus 
confirms  verse  38.  Jesus  forbids  them  to  fight 
(verse  51,  "Hold,  no  more!"),  and  heals  the  ear 
of  the  apparitor — one  of  the  legends  which  can  be 
explained  from  the  motives  which  are  peculiar  to 
Luke.  Then  Luke  strangely  represents  the  words 
of  Mark  xiv.  48  f  as  being  addressed  to  the  chief 
priests  and   elders,   as  though   these  had    come  out 


I 


FINAL  CONFLICT,  DEFEAT  AND  VICTORY    183 

in  person  along  with  the  soldiers,  and  adds,  "  This 
is  your  hour  (ordained  by  God)  and  the  power  of 
darkness  "  (verse  53).  Of  the  flight  of  the  disciples, 
however  (Mark  xiv.  50),  he  says  nothing,  doubtless 
from  delicacy. 

The  denial  of  Peter,  and  the  mocking  of  Jesus  by 
the  soldiers,  are  represented  by  Luke  as  preceding  the 
trial  before  the  Sanhedrin,  which  only  began  at  day- 
break. According  to  this  (though  not  according  to 
Mark's  account),  it  becomes  possible  for  Jesus  to  be 
present  at  the  time  of  the  denial,  and  by  His  reproach- 
ful look  to  move  Peter  to  repentance — the  depth  and 
bitterness  of  which  is  evidenced  by  his  bitter  weeping 
(xxii.  61  f.).  The  trial  is  related  by  Luke  more  briefly 
than  by  Mark  ;  in  particular,  he  passes  over  the  accus- 
ation about  the  saying  attributed  to  Jesus  to  the  effect 
that  He  would  break  down  the  material  Temple  and 
build  up  a  supersensible  temple  (Mark  xiv.  58),  doubt- 
less from  the  same  motives  which  led  him  to  reduce 
the  cleansing  of  the  Temple — the  practical  illustra- 
tion of  this  saying — to  a  mere  episode  of  no  special 
significance  ;  our  prudent  and  universally  conciliatory 
historian  naturally  likes  to  soften  down  anything 
that  could  make  his  heroes  appear  bold  innovators 
and  reckless  opponents  of  established  usages,  even  if 
these  were  only  the  Jewish  customs  of  worship. 
The  same  purpose  of  showing  that  the  complete 
loyalty  and  unimpeachable  good-citizenship  of  Jesus 
(and  consequently  of  the  Christian  community)  was 
testified  to  by  all  the  authorities  concerned,  rules  and 
directs  his  further  account  of  the  judicial  proceedings. 
For  this  reason  Luke  cannot  allow  that  Jesus,  as  Mark 
reported,  made  no  answer  whatever   to   Pilate,  His 


I 


184  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

legally  constituted  judge  ;  instead,  according  to  Luke, 
to  the  first  question,  whether  He  was  the  king  of  the 
Jews,  He  promptly  replied  in  the  affirmative,  where- 
upon   Pilate — frankly,  one   does   not    see   why — re- 
cognised and  declared  Jesus'  innocence  (xxiii.  3  f.). 
Then,   hearing  that  He  belonged   to  Herod's  juris- 
diction, he  sent  Him  to  Herod,  who,  after  mocking 
Him  in  frivolous  fashion,  sent  Him  back  to  Pilate.    He 
thereupon  twice  repeated  before  the  chief  priests  the 
solemn  declaration  (verses  14  f.,  22)  that  neither  he  nor 
Herod,  the  Roman  and  the  Jewish  authorities,  found 
any  fault  in  Jesus  ;  finally,  however,  overcome  by  the 
fury  of  the  mob,  which  was  stirred  up  by  the  chief 
priests,  he  delivered  Jesus  over  to  their  will.     Now, 
we  cannot  exactly  say  that  this  representation  of  the 
trial  is    wholly  unhistorical  ;   that   it   has   a   certain 
kernel  of  genuine  history  is  confirmed  by  the  trust- 
worthy account  in  Mark.     But  it  must,  on  the  other 
hand,  be  clearly  recognised  that  a  repeated  declara- 
tion of  innocence  in  the  case  of  one  who  was  subse- 
quently condemned,  such  as  Luke,  and  similarly  John, 
has  put   into  the  mouth  of  Pilate,  the  procurator, 
passes  the  bounds  of  probability  in    the   case   of  a 
Roman  official ;  and  also  that  the  attempt  to  hand 
over  the  trial  to  the  Jewish  authorities  is  too  little  in 
accordance  with  the  methods  of  Roman  policy  and 
administration  to  allow  us  to  hold  these  things  to  be 
historical,  even  apart  from  the  fact  that  the  silence  of 
the  other  Evangelists  would  in  itself  throw  doubt  on 
the  Lucan  additions  to  the  narrative. 

When  Jesus  is  led  away  to  the  place  of  execution 
at  Golgotha,  Luke  represents  that  He  was  not  merely, 
as  Mark  tells  us,  followed  afar  off  by  a  number  of 


FINAL  CONFLICT,  DEFEAT  AND  VICTORY    185 

women-disciples  from  Galilee,  but  accompanied  by  an 
imposing  procession  of  mourners,  consisting  of  a  great 
multitude  of  the  people,  and  of  sympathising  women 
from  Jerusalem,  whom  Jesus  addressed  in  moving 
words  of  prophecy,  predicting  the  future  destruction 
of  the  blind  city  (xxiii.  27-31),  thus  reiterating,  at 
His  departure,  the  thought  which  had  moved  His 
compassionate  soul  to  painful  emotion  at  His  entry 
into  the  city  (xix.  41  f.).  And  while  Mark  speaks  of 
only  one  cry  of  lamentation  uttered  by  the  Crucified, 
in  the  words  of  Ps.  xxii.,  immediately  before  His 
death,  it  is  in  harmony  with  Luke's  sympathetic 
nature  to  lighten  the  grim  silence  of  those  fateful 
hours  when  Jesus  hung  upon  the  cross  by  some 
tender  utterances  of  mercy  and  consolation.  First 
the  prayer  for  His  enemies,  who  "  know  not  what 
they  do" — which  Luke  similarly  records  in  the  case 
of  the  dying  Stephen — then  the  promise  of  mercy  to 
the  penitent  thief  (verses  40-43),  an  episode  peculiar 
to  Luke,  which  stands  in  contradiction,  it  is  true, 
with  the  earliest  tradition,  according  to  which  both 
of  those  who  were  crucified  with  Him  reviled  Him 
(Mark  xv.  32),  but  is  admirably  adapted  to  exhibit 
the  merciful  tenderness  of  the  Saviour  to  the  lost 
who  long  for  salvation.  Finally,  Luke  has  sub- 
stituted for  the  cry  of  lamentation  from  Ps.  xxii., 
and  the  loud  death-cry,  the  consolatory  saying  from 
Ps.  xxxi.  5,  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commit 
my  spirit"  (xxiii.  46).  To  the  rending  of  the  veil  of 
the  Temple,  which  Mark  records,  Luke  adds  the 
darkening  of  the  sun ;  the  heaven  shrouds  itself  in 
darkness  at  midday  for  the  passing  of  the  Lord,  just 
as  His  birth  was  celebrated  by  a  miraculous  bright- 


186  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

ness  in  the  heavens  by  night.  While,  according  to 
Mark,  the  centurion  at  the  cross,  as  the  representative 
of  heathendom,  recognised  tlie  Crucified  as  the  "  Son 
of  God,"  Luke  has  "  transferred  to  the  ethical  plane  " 
( Brandt)  this  dogmatic  confession  :  the  centurion  de- 
clares Jesus  to  be  "a  righteous  man,"  i.e.  an  innocent 
person,  the  blamelessness  of  Christianity  as  exempli- 
fied in  the  person  of  its  Founder  being  thus  once  more 
solemnly  attested  from  the  lips  of  a  Roman  official — 
quite  in  harmony  with  the  apologetic  tendency  which 
runs  throughout  this  Gospel.  The  statement,  too, 
that  all  the  people  remorsefully  beat  their  breasts,  is 
less  in  accordance  with  the  historical  situation  (as 
pictured  by  Mark)  than  with  the  anxiety  of  Luke  to 
remove  the  guilt  of  the  rejection  of  Jesus  from  the 
lower  classes  and  ascribe  it  only  to  the  upper  classes 
of  the  Jews. 

The  last  chapter  of  the  Gospel  narrates  the  events 
of  the  Easter  Sunday.  As  in  Mark,  three  women- 
disciples  (the  two  Maries,  with  Joanna  in  Luke,  and 
Salome  in  Mark)  go  in  the  early  morning  to  the 
sepulchre,  with  the  intention  of  embalming  the  body 
of  Jesus.  They  find  the  stone  rolled  away,  and 
beside  it  two  men  in  shining  raiment  (Mark  :  a  youth 
in  a  white  garment),  by  which  are  meant  angels. 
These  give  to  the  frightened  women  the  comforting 
assurance  that  the  Crucified,  whom  they  sought,  is 
not  in  the  grave,  but  is  risen.  So  far  Luke  follows  the 
ground-document.  At  this  point,  however,  he  makes 
a  significant  departure  from  it.  Whereas  in  INIark  the 
women  were  charged  to  tell  His  disciples  that  the 
risen  Master  was  going  before  them  into  Galilee,  and 
that  they  should  see  Him  there,  Luke  omits  the  com- 


FINAL  CONFLICT,  DEFEAT  AND  VICTORY    187 

mand  to  go  to  Galilee.  As  he  does  not,  however,  like 
to  pass  over  without  any  reference  the  mention  of 
Galilee  which  he  found  in  the  document  before  him, 
he  gives  it  a  different  turn,  viz.  that  the  women  were 
reminded  by  the  angels  of  what  Jesus  had  said  to  them 
while  He  was  still  in  Galilee  regarding  His  approach- 
ing death  and  resurrection  (xxiv.  6) ;  thus,  instead  of 
a  reference  forward  to  the  seeing  of  Jesus  again  in 
Galilee  in  the  near  future,  we  have  a  reference  back 
to  their  former  intercourse  with  Jesus  in  Galilee. 
The  reason  for  this  alteration  is  that  Luke  wished  to 
make  the  scene  of  the  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord, 
not  Gahlee,  but  Jerusalem  ;  the  subsequent  centre  of 
the  Early  Church,  and  the  seat  of  Apostohc  authority, 
was  also  to  be  the  birthplace  of  the  Church  ;  therefore, 
even  those  first  experiences  of  the  disciples,  from 
which,  in  a  miraculous  fashion,  their  conviction  that  the 
Crucified  was  alive  grew  up  and  became  the  standard 
to  which  the  scattered  disciples  rallied  again  and 
united  to  form  a  community,  were  not  to  take  place 
in  distant  Galilee,  but  in  Jerusalem  itself,  on  the  con- 
secrated ground  upon  which  the  disciples  had  lost 
their  Master,  and  where  the  disciples  had  gathered 
together  again  and  closed  their  ranks  about  their  un- 
seen Head.  It  was  these  motives,  which  so  naturally 
suggested  themselves  to  later  apologetic  reflection, 
which  led  Luke  (and  subsequently  John)  to  place  the 
appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus,  not  in  distant  Galilee, 
but  in  Jerusalem,  and  immediately  upon  the  Easter 
day  itself  That  was,  however,  a  bold  alteration  of 
the  earhest  tradition  ;  for  that  this  placed  at  least  the 
first  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  in  Galilee,  and 
therefore  some  little  time  after  the  day  of  His  death. 


188  THE   GOSPEL   OF   LUKE 

is  to  be  taken  as  beyond  doubt,  on  the  ground  of  the 
genuine  conclusion  of  Mark  (xvi.  7  f.),  with  which 
agrees  also  the  fragment  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter  {sup., 
p.  84  f.).  Confirmation  of  this  may  be  found  in  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  which,  no  doubt  following  its 
usual  method  of  combhiation,  tells  of  two  appearances, 
one  in  Jerusalem,  to  the  women  as  they  returned  from 
the  sepulchre,  and  one  in  Gahlee,  to  the  assembled 
disciples ;  but  the  first  of  these,  in  which  Jesus  only 
repeats  the  charge  which  had  just  before  been  given 
to  the  women  by  the  angel,  is  so  obviously  void  and 
aimless,  that  it  is  impossible  to  see  in  it  anything  else 
than  an  artificial  attempt  to  harmonise  the  later  legend 
of  the  appearances  at  Jerusalem  w^tli  the  earlier  tradi- 
tion, attested  by  Mark,  which  knew  only  of  Galilgean 
appearances. 

From  this  follows  the  further  conclusion  that  all 
that  Luke  xxiv.  tells  us  of  the  appearances  of  Jesus 
on  the  Easter  day  in  and  about  Jerusalem  does  not 
rest  upon  the  earliest  tradition,  but  is  intended  to 
supplant  it.  It  is  not  necessarily  on  that  account 
freely  invented  by  the  Evangelist ;  from  analogies 
elsewhere,  it  is  possible  that  he  had  before  him  legends 
of  appearances  of  Christ  in  Judaea,  which  were 
probably  current  in  the  primitive  community  along- 
side of  the  Galilaean  tradition,  and  which  he  then,  with 
his  usual  freedom,  worked  up  and  put  in  the  place  of 
the  older  tradition.  So,  in  particular,  the  story  of  the 
appearance  to  the  disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus 
may  be  a  no  longer  recognisable  legend  of  the 
Jerusalem  tradition  ;  but  the  moulding  of  the  legend 
into  this  beautiful  and  artistic  story  we  owe  to  the  skill 
of  the  epic  poet  whom  we  have  recognised  in  Luke 


FINAL  CONFLICT,  DEFEAT  AND  VICTORY    189 

from  the  stories  of  the  Childhood  at  the  outset  of  his 
Gospel.  This  idyll  of  the  Easter  joy  overcoming  the 
Good  Friday  mourning  is  worthy  to  take  its  place 
beside  those  exquisite  pictures  which  adorn  the  fore- 
court of  the  sacred  history.  It  combines  dogmatic 
reflection  and  poetic  intuition  into  such  an  admirable 
harmony  that,  at  first  sight,  it  appears  to  have  the 
naturalness  of  actual  truth,  and  is  only  recognised  as 
allegory  upon  a  closer  examination.  To  two  disciples 
not  belonging  to  the  Twelve,  of  whom  one  was  called 
Cleopas  ("  the  famous  "),  the  Lord  appears  upon  the 
road,  while  their  eyes,  at  first,  are  holden  that  they 
should  not  know  Him.  The  necessity  of  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  as  a  means  to  His  exaltation  is  explained  to 
them  out  of  the  Scriptures.  Finally,  in  the  breaking 
of  bread  at  the  evening  meal  they  suddenly  recognise 
the  Lord  ;  they  are  convinced  that  He  is  alive,  even 
though  He  withdraws  Himself  again  from  their  bodily 
eyes  ;  and,  returning  home,  they  tell  the  disciples  what 
has  happened  to  them  on  their  journey.  What  else 
is  this  than  an  allegory  of  the  manifestation  of  Christ 
as  it  happened  to  the  most  famous  of  the  Apostles, 
Paul,  on  the  way  from  Jerusalem  to  Damascus,  but 
which  also  elsewhere,  whenever  two  or  three,  or  a 
company  of  disciples,  are  gathered  together  in  His 
name,  constantly  repeats  itself  anew,  in  particular  in 
every  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  sacra- 
mental union  with  the  Crucified  and  Risen  One  ?  In 
striking  contrast  with  this  ideal  narrative  stands  the 
harsh  realism  of  the  following  narrative  of  the  appear- 
ance of  Jesus  at  Jerusalem  to  the  Eleven,  who  were 
convinced  of  His  corporeity  by  feeling  His  hands  and 
feet,  and   seeing    Him   eat  some  fish  (xxiv.  39-48). 


190  THE   GOSPEL   OF   lATKE 

That  the  material  corporeity  here  impHed  can  hardly 
be  reconciled  with  His  sudden  appearances  and  dis- 
appearances and  with  His  subsequent  ascension,  and 
that  we  have  here  not  history  but  legend,  is  clear ; 
moreover,  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  this 
materialistic  representation  of  the  resurrection-body 
stands  in  contradiction  with  the  genuine  Pauline 
view  of  the  spirituality  of  the  risen  Lord  and  of  the 
character  of  His  body  of  "glory"  {S6^a).  Then  the 
Scriptures  are  opened  up  to  the  Eleven,  as  previously 
to  the  disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus,  in  order  that 
they  may  recognise  the  fore-ordained  necessity  of  the 
suffering  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and,  as  a  con- 
sequence, their  own  vocation  to  proclaim,  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  repentance  and  forgiveness  of  sin 
among  all  peoples,  beginning  at  Jerusalem. 

The  Evangelist  closes  his  Gospel  with  the  brief 
statement  that  Jesus,  after  this  farewell  discourse, 
went  out  with  His  disciples  to  Bethany,  and,  as  He 
blessed  them,  was  parted  from  them ;  whereupon 
they  returned  to  Jerusalem  and  praised  God  in  the 
Temple.  How  this  "  departure "  of  Jesus  is  to  be 
conceived,  the  Evangelist  seems  originally  to  have 
left  vague,  since  the  genuineness  of  the  phrase  "  and 
he  was  taken  up  into  heaven  "  is  open  to  suspicion. 
Yet,  even  if  they  were  originally  wanting,  the 
"  departure "  can  scarcely  mean  anything  else  than 
His  Ascension,  which  the  author,  in  the  second 
part  of  his  historical  work,  describes  more  fully 
(Acts  i.  2-11) ;  and  it  is  doubtless  only  for  this  reason 
that  he  has  not  definitely  mentioned  it  at  the  end  of 
his  Gospel. 


THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES 

CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Beginnings  of  the  Church 

(Acts  i.  1-xii.  25) 

The  author  of  this  work  is  the  same  who  wrote  the 
third  Gospel  (and  provisionally,  therefore,  we  may 
simply  call  him  Luke).  Since  in  i.  1  he  refers  to  the 
Gospel  as  the  first  division  of  his  historical  work,  he 
gives  us  the  right  to  assume  that  the  point  of  view 
which  is  announced  at  the  outset  of  the  Gospel  also 
governs  his  presentation  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
His  object  therefore,  here  as  there  (Luke  i.  4),  in  writ- 
ing his  history  was  to  supply  his  reader  with  the  basis 
of  a  firm  religious  conviction  {aa-cpdXeiav).  The  reader 
Theophilus  was  doubtless,  to  judge  from  his  name, 
of  Greek  origin,  and  therefore  a  Gentile  Christian. 
To  confirm  him,  and  so  the  Gentile  Christians  of  his 
time  in  general,  in  the  conviction  of  the  truth  of  his 
Christian  belief  by  showing  the  strength  of  its  historic 
foundation,  was,  according  to  the  author's  own  state- 
ment, the  primary  aim  of  his  work,  with  which  was 
very  naturally  connected  the  wider  aim  of  defending 
this  faith  in  the  eyes  of  the  Gentile  world,  and  especially 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Roman  civil  authorities,  by  proving 
its  complete  political  innocence,  and  the  frequently 

191 


192  THE    ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTI>ES 

attested  loyalty  of  its  first  preachers.  But  a  proof 
of  the  inner  religious  and  outward  political  justifica- 
tion of  the  Gentile-Christian  Church  could  not  be 
given  without  at  the  same  time  putting  Judaism 
in  the  wrong,  since  it  had  in  irreligious  blindness 
rejected  this  belief,  and  in  disloyal  factiousness  was 
everywhere  arousing  riots  and  persecution  against 
the  innocent  Christians.  Thus,  with  the  twofold 
apologetic  aim  is  quite  naturally  combined  a  polemic 
against  the  Jews.  The  more  distinctly  the  Jews 
could  be  shown  to  be  in  the  wrong,  from  the  religious 
point  of  view,  in  their  enmity  against  Christ,  the 
more  clearly  was  it  evident  that  the  Gentile-Christian 
Church  was  in  the  right  in  regarding  itself  as  the  true 
people  of  God,  as  the  legitimate  heir  of  the  Old 
Testament  promises.  And  the  more  definitely  all 
the  previous  persecutions  of  the  Christians  were 
referred  to  the  instigation  of  jealous  Jews,  the  more 
clear  became  the  political  innocence  of  the  Christian 
Church,  and  its  claim  to  toleration  from  the  Romans. 
But  it  corresponded  not  merely  with  the  apologetic 
aim  of  the  writer,  but  also  with  the  conviction 
and  tone  of  feeling  of  the  Gentile  Church  of  the 
time,  to  emphasise,  on  the  one  hand,  the  antithesis 
between  Christianity  and  Judaism,  in  view  of  the 
hostility  of  the  Jews  as  a  nation  towards  Christ, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  agreement,  the 
essential  unity,  of  Christianity  with  Judaism  as  a  I 
divinely  revealed  and  legally  acknowledged  religion. 
But  at  the  same  time  it  was  inevitable  that  in 
proportion  as  the  religious  distinction  between 
Christianity  and  Judaism  became  of  less  significance 
in    the    consciousness   of   the   increasingly   universal 


THE    BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   CHURCH       193 

Church,  that,  also,  between  Gentile  and  Jewish 
Christians  should  become  of  less  importance.  This 
latter  distinction  did  not  in  the  time  of  the  writer  by 
any  means  retain  its  original  sharpness  ;  on  both  sides 
the  opposition  had  been  softened,  obscured,  almost 
obliterated.  The  victorious  Gentile  Christianity  had 
no  longer  anything  to  fear  from  the  insignificant 
Jewish-Christian  minority  as  regards  its  right  to 
exist  and  its  freedom  from  the  Law,  and  had,  more- 
over, never  properly  understood  the  specifically 
Pauline  explanation  of  the  abrogation  of  the  Law, 
and  was  the  less  inclined  to  see  a  point  of  controversy 
in  it  the  more  this  question  lost  its  practical  im- 
portance. The  Jewish-Christian  minority,  on  their 
part,  had  accepted  the  position  as  regards  the  un- 
alterable fact  of  the  predominance  of  Gentile 
Christianity,  and  in  the  authority  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  a  revelation  of  God  they  brought  with 
them  into  the  young  Church  a  gift  of  inestimable 
value,  which  naturally  wound  an  ever  closer  bond  of 
•  union  about  the  two  parties  the  more  the  Gentile 
Christians  familiarised  themselves  with  this  Word 
of  God,  the  authority  of  which  they  reverently 
acknowledged.  This  process  has  so  much  antecedent 
probability  in  its  favour,  and  is  so  strongly  confirmed 
by  the  evidence  of  the  literature  of  the  second 
century,  that  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  we  are 
justified  in  assuming  it.  If  this  opposition  within 
Christianity  had  at  the  time  when  Acts  was  written 
so  greatly  diminished  in  intensity  and  had  so  far 
disappeared  that  it  was  of  very  little  importance  in 
comparison  with  the  outward  opposition,  it  is  quite 
intelligible  that  the  author  of  this  apologetic  history 


VOL.  II 


13 


194  THE   ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

could  not,  or  would  not,  see  that  opposition  at  the 
beginning  of  Christianity;  it  would  have  disturbed 
his  purpose.  He  understood,  that  is,  primitive 
Christianity  and  the  origin  of  the  Gentile-Christian 
Church  in  the  light  of  his  own  present,  both  in 
regard  to  its  actual  circumstances  and  as  regards  its 
apologetic  interests ;  and  both  the  interests  and  the 
circumstances  of  his  own  time  influenced  his  concep- 
tion of  the  history  of  the  past  in  the  same  direction. 
It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  the  history  should  be 
seen  from  a  point  of  view  which  rendered  a  right 
representation,  in  some  essential  points,  difficult 
almost  to  impossibility.  To  this  extent  it  is  un- 
deniably true  that  the  author  of  Acts  was  ruled  by 
practical  interests  in  his  treatment  of  his  material. 
In  a  greater  or  less  degree  this  is  always  the  case 
in  regard  to  every  record  of  religious  history :  it 
has  always  practical  ends,  aiming  at  edification,  at 
strengthening,  confirming,  justifying,  and  defending 
faith ;  in  the  figures  of  the  past  it  seeks  to  find  lofty 
ideals,  in  its  events  warning  and  instructive  examples 
and  patterns  for  the  present.  By  these  practical 
aims  its  objectivity  is  always  more  or  less  disturbed. 
That  this  is  true  in  the  case  of  Acts,  every 
unprejudiced  reader  must  admit.  But  it  was  a 
mistake  to  assume  that  its  aim  was  to  win  from 
Jewish  Christianity  recognition  for  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity by  means  of  concessions  to  the  former,  and, 
in  the  interest  of  an  agreement  between  them,  to 
draw  an  artificial  imaginary  picture  of  both  tendencies, 
especially  of  the  Pauline.  This  hypothesis  cannot 
be  accepted,  if  only  because  the  strongly  anti-Jewish 
attitude  and  the  strong  Gentile-Christian  sympathies 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   CHURCH      195 

which  Acts  everywhere  displays  are  obviously  a  most 
inappropriate  means  of  gaining  the  assumed  end  of 
winning  and  reconciling  Jewish  Christianity.  More- 
over the  presuppositions  of  that  hypothesis  — 
that  in  the  second  century  Cxentile  Christianity  had 
still  to  buy  and  beg  from  Jewish  Christianity,  at  the 
price  of  half  its  content,  the  right  to  exist,  is  not  in 
accordance  with  the  historical  circumstances.  Nay, 
half  a  century  earlier,  when  Paul  wrote  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  the  position  of  things  was  that,  on 
the  contrary,  it  seemed  necessary  to  explain  the 
inferior  position  of  the  Jews  in  the  Christian  Church, 
and  to  maintain  before  the  Gentile  Christians,  who 
were  already  certain  of  victory,  the  ultimate  justi- 
fication of  their  national  hopes  (Rom.  ix.-xi.). 

So  much  may  be  said  provisionally  in  regard  to  the 
purpose  of  Acts ;  we  shall  frequently  have  to  recur 
to  the  point  in  our  detailed  treatment  of  the  book. 
With  regard  to  his  methods  also  the  author  gives  us 
some  information  in  the  preface  to  the  Gospel,  of 
which  we  found  numerous  confirmations  in  the  course 
of  the  book.  He  had  carefully  investigated  all  the 
old  traditions,  had  therefore  used  whatever  he  could 
discover  in  either  written  or  verbal  sources,  and 
moreover  desired  to  present  this  material  exactly  in 
proper  order.  What  this  means  is  shown  at  large  in 
the  Gospel.  The  author  everywhere  endeavoured  to 
bring  individual  traditions  into  their  ideally  appro- 
priate connection,  and  thus  place  them  in  w^hat  is,  in 
his  opinion,  the  proper  light.  With  this  object  he 
has  not  only  permitted  himself  the  greatest  freedom 
in  the  arrangement  of  his  material,  but  has  also  in 
some  cases  freely  moulded  his  material,  as  in  the  case 


196  THE   ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

of  the  sermon  at  Nazareth  or  the  visit  of  the  mother 
and  brethren  of  Jesus,  and  has  added,  when  he 
thought  fit,  new,  freely  composed  pictures,  as  the 
expression  of  his  Christian  ideas  {e.g.  the  stories  of 
the  Childhood,  the  mission  of  the  seventy  disciples, 
Peter's  draught  of  fishes,  the  appearance  to  the 
disciples  on  the  road  to  Emmaus).  In  all  this  he 
shows  a  creative  freedom  which  it  would  be  impossible 
to  reconcile  with  our  conceptions  of  writing  history. 
But  the  fact  is  that  the  ancient  conceptions  of  history 
were  very  different,  and  Luke  might  well  be  of 
opinion  that  he  was  exhibiting  history  in  the  true 
light  by  this  very  process  of  filling  in  the  gaps  in  the 
tradition,  restoring  the  colour  where  it  had  become 
faint,  erasing  what  was  disturbing  or  unedifying,  or 
clothing  it  in  another  and  less  dangerous  form.  In 
Acts  he  has  followed  the  same  procedure.  Here,  too, 
he  wished  to  write  a  history,  and,  to  that  end,  he  has 
used  sources  and  traditions  so  far  as  he  had  access 
to  them.  But  he  gives  the  history  in  the  way  in 
which  it  appeared  to  his  own  mind  and  that  of  his 
contemporaries,  and  which  seemed  to  answer  to  the 
purpose  of  edifying  his  Gentile-Christian  readers  and 
the  defence  of  Christianity.  Therefore  each  of  his 
narratives  must  be  examined  with  care ;  but  even 
when  they  do  not  give  strictly  accurate  accounts  of 
events,  they  are  not  without  historical  value,  for,  in 
any  case,  they  at  least  show  us  the  form  which  the 
history  of  primitive  Christianity  took  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  later  times,  and  starting  from  that  we  can 
indirectly  infer  the  actual  course  of  events. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  attaches  itself  immediately 
to  the  end  of  the  Gospel,  taking  for  its  impressive 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   CHURCH      197 

opening  picture  the  scene  with  which  the  Gospel 
closes.  It  is  true  there  are  some  discrepancies  in  the 
two  narratives,  which  are  deserving  of  notice,  in  so 
far  as  they  show  how  little  account  Luke  made  of 
such  discrepancies  when  repeating  one  and  the  same 
story  {cf.  Acts,  ix.,  xxii.,  xxvi.),  and  therefore  how 
little  importance  he  can  have  attached  to  exactitude 
of  detail.^  Whereas  the  Gospel  makes  the  Ascension 
take  place  on  the  evening  of  the  Easter  day,  it  is  now 
postponed  till  the  fortieth  day  after  Easter :  for  exactly 
as  long  a  period  as  Moses  had  intercourse  with  God 
upon  Mount  Sinai  and  received  His  commandments 
for  the  people  of  Israel,  do  the  disciples  have  inter- 
course with  their  glorified  Lord  and  receive  His 
instructions  concerning  the  Kingdom  of  God  (i.  3). 
When  Jesus  bids  them  remain  in  Jerusalem  and 
there  wait  for  the  promise  of  the  Father  (the  mission 
of  the  Spirit),  they  ask  Him  whether  He  will  at  this 
time  restore  the  Kingdom  to  Israel  (verse  6).  They 
expected,  therefore,  from  Jesus  the  realisation  of  the 
theocracy  promised  by  the  prophets  in  a  politico- 
religious  ideal  condition  of  Israel,  which  is  quite  in  con- 
formity with  the  hope  of  the  Kingdom  as  proclaimed 
in  the  Gospels.  Even  in  the  answer  to  this  question 
there  is  no  indication  that  its  presupposition  regard- 
ing the  character  of  the  expected  Kingdom  of  God 
was  mistaken,  and  needed  correction :  it  is  here,  as 
in  the  earlier  answer  to  the  sons  of  Zebedee  (Mark 

1  The  close  affinity  of  this  story  of  the  Ascension  with  the 
account  given  by  Josephus  of  the  translation  of  Moses  (Ant.,  iv. 
8.  48)  has  been  pointed  out  by  Holtzmann  and  Krenkel  (Josephus 
und  Lukas,  pp.  148  fF.),  and  they  have  justly  inferred  therefrom  that 
the  passage  in  Josephus  influenced  Luke's  narrative. 


198  THE    ACTS  OF   THE    APOSTLES 

X.  39  f.),  tacitly  accepted;  it  is  only  the  desire  to 
know  the  exact  point  of  time  which  is  rebuked,  on 
the  ground  that  the  Father  has  reserved  this  to  His 
own  power,  and  the  disciples  are  then  told  what  they 
are  immediately  to  experience,  and  what  they  are 
afterwards  to  do,  when  they  have  received  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  the  equipment  for  their  vocation  to  be 
witnesses.  The  latter  is  now  more  exactly  defined 
as  regards  its  principal  stages  than  in  I^uke  xxiv. 
47,  "  Ye  shall  be  my  witnesses  in  Jerusalem,  and 
in  all  Judasa  and  Samaria,  and  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth "  (verse  8).  From  the  later  attitude  of  the 
disciples  towards  the  mission  to  the  Gentiles  when 
begun  by  Paul,  it  is  to  be  concluded  that  they  did 
not  remember  any  such  command  of  Jesus  ;  and  that 
we,  therefore,  should  see  in  verse  8  a  programme 
for  the  development  of  Christianity  attributed  to 
Jesus,  which  the  historian  has  set  forth  as  the  thesis 
of  his  book,  and  on  which  he  has  moulded  his  work. 
According  to  this  scheme,  it  may  be  simply  divided 
as  follow^s:  In  the  first  part  (chaps,  i.-xii.)  the 
beginnings  of  the  community  at  Jerusalem  are  first 
portrayed  (i.-v.),  then  the  extension  of  Christianity 
to  Judsea  and  Samaria,  in  consequence  of  the  first 
persecutions  (vi.-xii.) ;  with  chapter  xiii.  begins  the 
second  main  division,  which  describes  the  extension 
of  the  Gospel  beyond  Palestine  by  Paul.  This  again 
falls  into  two  sections  :  in  the  first,  the  three  missionary 
journeys  of  the  Apostle  (xiii.-xx.)  are  described ;  in 
the  second  (xxi.-xxviii.).  his  arrest  and  trial,  the 
story  being  continued  up  to  his  arrival  at  Rome, 
as  the  point  at  which  the  mission  acquired  a  firm 
foothold  in  the  western  part  of  the  Roman  Empire 


THE    BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   CHURCH      199 

and  ensured  its  extension  to  the  farthest  bounds  of 
the  West. 

After  the  return  of  the  disciples  from  the  Mount 
of  Ohves,  the  scene  of  the  Ascension,  the  number  of 
"  The  Twelve "  was,  on  the  proposal  of  Peter, 
completed  by  the  choice  of  Matthew  in  place  of  the 
traitor  Judas.  In  the  speech  delivered  by  Peter 
upon  this  occasion,  the  traitor's  end  is  described 
otherwise  than  in  Matthew  (xxvii.  5) :  evidently, 
several  versions  of  the  story  were  current.  More- 
over, this  first  speech  in  Acts  shows  at  once  with 
what  freedom  the  author  has  acted  in  the  composition 
of  the  speeches  which  he  puts  into  the  mouth  of  his 
characters :  not  only  does  he  make  Peter  relate  in 
detail  an  event  which  had  occurred  only  a  short  time 
before,  and  which  is  expressly  said  to  have  been 
generally  known,  but  he  also  makes  him  speak  of  the 
Jewish  language,  which  he  was  of  course  himself 
speaking,  as  "  their  [_i.e.  the  Jews']  own  dialect "  (verse 
19).  These  words  cannot  be  separated  from  the  rest  of 
the  speech  as  an  addition  of  the  narrator ;  they  form 
part  of  it,  and  unmistakably  betray  that  it  cannot 
really  have  been  spoken  by  Peter  in  this  form,  but  is 
a  composition  of  the  author,  who,  by  an  oversight, 
has  here  fallen  a  little  out  of  character.  As  similar 
phenomena  will  meet  us  later  on  more  frequently, 
and  in  more  important  cases,  it  may  be  well  to  note 
here  that  a  change  of  role  such  as  this  is  not  to  be 
explained  as  a  "tendency"  fiction,  but  as  an  accidental 
literary  blemish. 

The  fulfilment  of  the  promise  given  by  Jesus  at 
His  departure  took  place,  according  to  chapter  ii., 
under   miraculous   circumstances,  in    which  we  can 


200  THE   ACTS  OF   THE    APOSTLES 

without   difficulty  recognise  the  symboUcal  allegory 
of  the  narrator.     As  we  speak  of  the  "  afflatus  "  or  the 
"  glow  "  of  inspiration,  it  seems  natural  to  bring  the 
Spirit  with  which  holy  men  of  God   are   filled   into 
close  connection  with  wind  (in  Hebrew  and  Greek 
the   affinity  of  the   word    itself  suggests   this)   and 
with   fire.     This   affinity  took   shape  for  the  poetic 
imagination    of  our   author   in   outward  miraculous 
events  :  he  represents  the  communication  of  the  Spirit 
as  accompanied    by  the    sound    of  a   mighty   wind, 
which,  coming  down  from  heaven,  filled  the  whole 
house  where  the  disciples  were  assembled,  and  by  the 
appearance  of  tongues,  dividing  like  tongues  of  flame, 
which  rested  on  the  disciples.     So  had  God  revealed 
Himself  in  the  wilderness,  and  at  Sinai ;  so  did  the 
Jewish  Rabbis  believe  that  when  they  were  engaged 
in  pious  meditation  there  often  streamed  down  about 
them    a    miraculous    fire    or    light ;    so    should    the 
"  Greater  than  John  the  Baptist "  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  with  fire.     That  the  fire  here  takes 
the  form  of  tongues,  points  to  the  ensuing  narrative : 
the  disciples,  filled  with  the   Holy  Spirit,  began   to 
speak   in   foreign   languages,    and   the   members    of 
different  peoples  who  were  assembled    for  the  feast 
heard  the  disciples  speak,  each  in  his  own  language. 
Whether  the  miracle  which   is   here   narrated  took 
place   in   the   hearers   or  the  speakers ;   whether,   in 
other  words,  the  disciples  themselves,  in  consequence 
of  being   endowed    with    the    Spirit,    were    enabled 
to  speak  in  foreign  languages  which   they  had   not 
known  before,  or  whether  their  speech  was  only  the 
"  speaking  with  tongues  "  which  occurs  elsewhere  in 
early  Christianity,  which   was,  by   a   miracle,  heard 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CHURCH      201 

by  the  listeners  in  their  own  different  languages, 
must  remain  an  open  question.  This  only  is  certain, 
that  here  the  intention  is  to  describe  an  actual 
miracle,  which  is  distinguished  from  the  usual  speak- 
ing with  tongues,  which  is  not  precisely  miraculous, 
by  its  peculiarly  miraculous  character.  That  the 
author  was  acquainted  with  the  latter,  in  the  form 
described  by  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xiv.,  is  not  only  probable 
in  itself,  but  is  confirmed  by  the  cases  mentioned 
later  (x.  46,  xix.  6),  in  which  the  reception  of  the 
Spirit  manifests  itself  in  a  "  speaking  with  tongues  " 
{yXwa-a-ai?  XaXeiv)  ;  here  the  expression  used  scarcely 
justifies  us  in  thinking  of  a  speaking  in  foreign 
languages,  for  it  is  the  same  expression,  and  has 
doubtless  the  same  significance,  as  that  which  Paul 
uses  for  the  ecstatic  manifestations  in  the  Corinthian 
church,  and  in  that  case  we  have  certainly  not 
to  think  of  a  speaking  in  foreign  languages  {i.e. 
languages  not  learned  before),  but  of  ecstatic  utter- 
ances of  feeling  in  unintelligible  sounds,  with  which 
neither  the  speaker  nor  the  hearers  was  able  to 
associate  clear  conceptions,  unless  someone  present 
was  able  to  understand  and  to  interpret  this  wordless 
hymn  in  intelligible  language  {cf.  vol.  i.  p.  168  f.). 
Utterances  of  pious  inspiration  of  this  kind  were  held 
in  high  esteem  in  the  first  Christian  communities  as 
a  specific  sign  of  being  endowed  with  the  Spirit,  and 
Paul  himself  reckoned  them  among  the  "  charisms," 
even  if  he  rated  their  value  for  purposes  of  edification 
rather  low ;  but  for  us  there  is  no  reason  to  regard 
them  as  a  supernatural  miracle,  since  we  can  quite 
well  understand  them  from  a  psychological  point  of 
view,  and  find    numerous  analogies   to  them  in   the 


202  THE   ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTLES 

experience  of  all  times.  But  from  this  "  speaking 
with  tongues,"  as  found  elsewhere,  the  occurrences  at 
Pentecost  are,  according  to  the  Lucan  representation, 
essentially  distinguished  by  the  fact  that  here  the 
listeners  are  said  to  have  heard  their  own  languages 
spoken.  This  does  not  at  all  agree  with  the  Pauline 
description  of  the  "  speaking  with  tongues,"  which 
was  without  power  to  edify  just  because  the  hearers 
could  not  understand  anything  definite  from  it, 
and  had  consequently  no  definite  thoughts  brought 
to  their  minds  ;  and  for  this  reason  a  stranger  who 
was  not  familiar  with  the  phenomenon  might  form 
the  impression  that  such  "  speakers  with  tongues " 
were  mad  (1  Cor.  xiv.  23). 

A  trace  of  the  true  Pauline  representation  of  the 
"  speaking  with  tongues  "  has  been  preserved  even  in 
the  Lucan  narrative,  though,  it  must  be  admitted, 
not  in  agreement  with  what  is  said  just  before  about 
the  hearers  understanding  what  was  said  ;  I  mean 
the  statement  that  some  mocked,  and  said  that  the 
disciples  were  filled  with  new  wine  (verse  13).  This  is 
precisely  what  we  have  to  imagine  in  the  case  of  the 
Corinthian  "  speaking  with  tongues,"  according  to 
Paul — an  ecstatic,  inarticulate  speech,  similar  to  the 
babbling  of  drunkards  or  madmen.  But  excellently 
as  this  trait  agrees  with  all  that  we  learn  elsewhere 
about  the  early  Christian  "  speaking  with  tongues," 
it  makes  it  the  more  inconceivable  how  this  same 
"  speaking  with  tongues,"  which  made  upon  some 
hearers  the  impression  of  drunken  babbling,  could  have 
been  understood  by  others,  and  in  fact  the  majority, 
as  the  speaking  of  their  own  languages.  That  this 
was  impossible,  except  by  an  absolute  miracle,  is  clear. 


t 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CHURCH      203 

The  question  therefore  takes  this  shape  for  us  :  How 
did  the  author  come  to  compose  such  an  account, 
which  on  the  one  side  allows  us  to  recognise  the 
"speaking  with  tongues"  of  early  Christian  enthusiasm 
which  is  well  known  from  other  sources,  and  in  no 
way  supernatural,  but,  on  the  other,  implies  an  un- 
heard of  and  absolutely  supernatural  speaking  in 
foreign  languages  ?  The  explanation  is  simply  that 
there  lies  at  the  basis  of  our  narrative  the  tradition  of 
an  important  event,  in  which,  in  a  large  gathering,  the 
"  speaking  with  tongues  "  of  the  young  community  of 
disciples  made  a  deep  impression  on  those  present,  and 
was  recognised  as  the  effect  of  high  inspiration;  but  this 
tradition  has  been  remoulded  by  the  author  with  the 
greatest  freedom,  and  embellished  with  an  addition  of 
an  allegorical  character.  The  miracle  of  the  "  gift  of 
languages  "  is  therefore  to  be  ascribed  exclusively  to 
the  narrator,  who  has  here  imitated  the  Jewish  legend 
according  to  which  the  Voice  which  gave  the  Law  at 
Sinai  divides  itself  into  the  seventy  languages  of  the 
peoples  of  the  world.  Just  as  this  legend  signified 
the  destination  of  Law  to  all  nations,  so  by  this 
analogous  miracle  of  speech  at  the  Christian  Pente- 
cost the  historian  desires  to  express  the  thought 
that  the  Spirit  of  the  gospel  was  destined  from  the 
first  for  all  nations,  and  not  simply  for  Israel :  the 
universality  of  the  Christian  salvation,  which  has 
already  been  expressed  in  the  successively  wider 
spheres  to  which  the  Apostles  were  commissioned  to 
witness,  in  i.  8,  is  illustrated  in  the  miracle  at  Pente- 
cost in  an  allegorical  scene.  But  this  allegorical 
colouring  is  painted  upon  a  background  of  historical 
tradition   still   clearly  visible    through    the    miracle- 


204  THE   ACTS   OF   THE    APOSTLES 

picture  which  has  been  superimposed  upon  it,  and 
allows  us  to  recognise  the  familiar  features  of  the 
early  Christian  "  speaking  with  tongues."  What 
was  the  character  of  the  event  which  lies  at  the  basis 
of  this  tradition  we  cannot  indeed  certainly  determine, 
but  at  the  same  time  the  conjecture  is  a  natural  one 
that  it  may  have  been  the  same  event  which  is  alluded 
to  by  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xv.  6,  when  a  gathering  of  more 
than  five  hundred  brethren  was  seized  with  that  kind 
of  enthusiasm  which  took  the  form  of  visions  of  Christ. 
That  occurrences  of  this  kind  should  have  played  an 
important  part  in  the  beginnings  of  Christianity  is, 
according  to  all  the  analogies  of  history,  extremely 
probable. 

The  charge  of  drunkenness  brought  against  the 
disciples  furnishes  the  occasion  for  a  discourse  of 
Peter  (ii.  14-36).  In  this  the  remarkable  phenomenon 
of  the  speaking  with  tongues  (there  is  no  further 
reference  to  the  "gift  of  languages,"  which  confirms 
the  view  given  above)  is  first  explained  as  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  prophecy  of  Joel  about  the  outpouring  of 
the  Spirit  and  the  general  gift  of  prophecy  in  the  last 
(Messianic)  times  ;  then  the  exaltation  of  Jesus  to  be 
Lord  and  Messiah  is  proved  from  passages  in  the 
Psalms  (Ps.  xvi.,  cxxxii.,  ex.),  the  reference  of  which 
to  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  Jesus  is  indirectly 
inferred  from  the  fact  that  David  himself  was  not 
preserved  either  from  death  or  corruption,  nor  had  he 
ascended  to  heaven,  therefore  the  hope  expressed  in 
those  Psalms  cannot  refer  to  himself,  but  only  to  Jesus, 
the  Messiah — a  method  of  proof  which  was  without 
doubt  frequently  used  in  early  Christian  apologetic, 
and  also  in  the  later  polemics  of  the  Christians  against 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   CHURCH      205 

the  Jews.  Out  of  this  material  of  early  Christian 
apologetic,  with  which  he  was  familiar,  our  historian 
may  well  have  composed  this  speech  without  needing 
to  use  any  special  tradition.  That  we  have  not  here 
the  real  speech  of  Peter,  but  the  thoughts  of  the 
narrator  put  into  his  mouth,  is  proved  by  the 
repetition  of  the  same  arguments  in  the  mouth  of 
Paul  in  xiii.  35  fF.  ;  and  also  by  the  close  of  this  speech 
of  Peter  (verse  38),  in  which  is  mentioned  already  a 
calling  of  "  those  who  are  afar  off,"  i.e.  the  heathen — 
a  thought  which  was  still  far  from  the  minds  of  the 
original  Apostles,  as  the  later  negotiations  with  Paul 
allow  us  clearly  to  recognise.  It  is  therefore  quite 
vain  to  seek  a  source  for  this  speech,  while  as  for 
thinking  of  an  Aramaic  original,  that  is  forbidden 
by  the  citation  of  the  Old  Testament  according  to 
the  Greek  version  of  the  LXX. 

When  the  effect  of  this  first  Christian  missionary 
discourse  in  producing  a  great  increase  in  the  number 
of  believers  has  been  recorded,  there  follows  a 
description  of  the  earliest  circumstances  and  ex- 
periences of  the  primitive  community,  in  two 
symmetrical  groupings  (ii.  42-iv.  31  and  iv.  32- 
V.  42),  each  of  which  first  paints  the  inner  life  of  the 
community  in  ideal  traits,  then  the  outward  success 
produced  by  miraculous  acts,  and  finally  records  the 
persecutions,  the  narrative  of  the  second  group 
containing,  however,  an  enhancement  of  the  events 
of  the  first.  The  inner  life  of  the  primitive  Christian 
community  is  described  by  Luke  as  a  religious- 
socialistic  brotherhood,  bound  together  partly  by 
the  common  dependence  for  edification  upon  the 
preaching  of  the  Apostles  and  prayer,  partly  by  a 


206  THE    ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTLES 

common  brotherhood -meal  and  an  almost  complete 
community  of  goods.  The  latter  is  doubtless 
exaggerated  by  Acts  when  it  says  that  all  who 
possessed  houses  or  lands  sold  them  and  laid  the 
proceeds  at  the  Apostles'  feet,  to  be  distributed 
among  all  as  each  had  need  (ii.  44,  iv.  34  f.).  With 
this  complete  community  of  goods  there  could  not 
have  been  any  poor  left  in  the  community  to  need 
a  special  organisation  to  look  after  them,  such  as  is 
mentioned  later  on  in  Acts  itself  (vi.).  And  if  the 
selling  of  houses  had  been  a  universal  custom,  how 
could  Mary  the  mother  of  Mark  still  have  possessed 
a  house  in  Jerusalem  (xii.  12)  ?  And  if  a//  owners 
of  lands  had  sold  them  for  the  benefit  of  the  common 
purse,  why  is  this  act  specially  mentioned  in  the  case 
of  Barnabas  (iv.  36  f.)  and  of  Ananias  {v.  1)?  Yet 
these  very  statements,  which  evidently  rest  upon  a 
definite  tradition,  show  us,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
the  picture  given  in  Acts,  even  if  it  is  over-idealised, 
has  nevertheless  an  historical  basis,  and  is  no  mere 
legendary  illustration  of  the  "  world-renouncing " 
spirit  of  the  early  Christians.  We  ought  to  keep 
in  view,  much  more  than  German  criticism  has 
hitherto  done,  the  indisputable  fact  that  the  primitive 
Christian  community  was  not  a  school  united  by 
idealistic  theories,  nor  a  church  united  by  spiritual 
doctrines,  but  simply  a  religious  brotherhood  which 
expected  from  the  coming  in  the  near  future  of  the 
heavenly  Messiah,  Jesus,  a  new  organisation  of  things 
on  earth  which  would  bring  happiness  to  men  ;  but 
how  could  such  a  hope  have  maintained  itself  if  it 
had  remained  a  mere  empty  hope,  and  had  not 
translated    itself  into   practice,  and   anticipated   the 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CHURCH      207 

expected  condition  of  happiness  at  least  in  the  form 
of  a  Hfe  of  brotherly  union  and  mutual  succour  ?  No 
one  who  knows  men  can  have  any  doubt  that  in  the 
earliest  communities  of  Christians,  in  addition  to 
faith  and  hope  in  Jesus  the  Messiah,  the  social 
expression  of  brotherly  love  in  the  form  of  a 
community  of  goods — carried  to  a  considerable  extent 
— and  in  common  meals,  formed  the  most  essential 
bond  of  union.  How  important  in  those  times  was 
the  practical  question  how  and  whence  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  material  needs  of  the  community  could 
be  obtained  can  be  seen,  not  only  in  the  account  in 
Acts  of  the  first  disputes  within  the  Christian  body — - 
which,  most  significantly,  were  not  concerned  with 
points  of  doctrine,  but  about  the  care  of  the  poor — 
but  also  in  the  Gospel  stories  of  the  feeding  of  the 
multitudes  by  Jesus,  in  which  just  these  anxieties  of 
the  primitive  community  have  found  an  allegorical 
expression  (p.  26  f.). 

That  in  a  community  founded  upon  the  belief  in 
the  miracle  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  and  upon  the 
hope  of  the  miracle  of  His  return  to  estabhsh  His 
Kingdom,  there  were  not  wanting  events  of  a  more  or 
less  miraculous  character,  will  appear  entirely  natural. 
There  is  therefore  no  objection  to  supposing  that  the 
miracles  of  the  Apostles  which  are  recorded  in  Acts 
rest  upon  some  basis  of  historical  tradition,  though 
they  doubtless  assumed  their  present  form  under  the 
moulding  hand  of  the  author.  How  much  in  the 
stories  of  the  healing  of  the  lame  man,  or  the  punish- 
ment of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  is  to  be  put  down  to 
the  account  of  the  narrator,  how  much  to  tradition, 
can   no   longer   be   discovered.     The  significance  of 


208  THE   ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

these  stories  in  their  present  position  in  a  didactic 
history  consists  in  the  fact  that  they  are  intended  to 
explain  either  the  growing  successes  of  the  community 
or  the  beginnings  of  persecution  ;  and  at  the  same 
time  they  serve  the  author  as  appropriate  occasions 
for  the  introduction  of  missionary  or  apologetic  dis- 
courses by  the  Apostles.  The  missionary  discourse 
of  Peter  introduced  by  the  healing  of  the  lame  man 
(iii.  12-26)  explains,  in  the  first  place,  that  this  miracle 
is  not  performed  by  the  strength  of  inan  but  in  the 
power  of  faith  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  is  therefore  a 
mighty  work  of  God,  intended  to  honour  His  Servant 
Jesus,  the  consecrated  and  sinless  Prince  of  Life, 
whom  they  (the  Jews)  had  rejected  and  slain,  but 
whom  God  had  raised  from  the  dead.  This  guilt  of 
theirs  they  had,  indeed,  incurred  in  ignorance,  not 
recognising  the  Messianic  dignity  of  Jesus,  and  there- 
by had  been  fulfilled  the  decree  made  known  by  the 
prophets,  that  Messiah  must  suffer.  Therefore  they 
must  repent,  in  order  to  obtain  forgiveness  and  to 
share  in  the  blessings  which  the  restoration  of  all 
things  by  Christ  on  His  return  from  heaven  would 
bring  to  all  nations,  but  which  were  primarily  designed 
for  them  as  the  sons  of  the  Covenant  People.  Here 
again,  as  in  ii.  33,  the  reference  to  the  destination  of 
the  Kingdom  of  Messiah  for  all  nations  betrays  the 
Pauline  standpoint  (Rom.  i.  16)  of  the  historian,  who 
has  composed  this  speech  from  the  same  point  of  view 
as  the  former  ones.  The  defence  before  the  Council 
(iv.  8-12)  is,  according  to  Luke's  favourite  habit  of 
adapting  the  situation  to  the  speech  which  he  has  to 
report,  introduced  by  the  somewhat  improbable 
question  of  the  judge,  by  what  power,  or  in  what 


1 


THE    BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   CHURCH      209 

name,  they  had  done  this  (miracle  of  heahng  the  lame 
man) ;  whereupon  Peter  points  to  the  name  of  the 
crucified  and  risen  Jesus,  in  whom  was  fulfilled  the 
prophecy  about  the  stone  which  the  builders  rejected 
which  had  become  the  head  of  the  corner,  and  in 
whom  alone  salvation,  the  Messianic  deliverance,  was 
vouchsafed  (Ps.  cxviii.  22;  cf.  Mark  xii.  10).  "This 
epresentation  aims  equally  at  the  exaltation  of  the 
original  Apostles  and  the  shaming  of  their  incapable 
opponents,  in  whose  very  presence  they  urge,  un- 
contradicted, all  the  arguments  that  formed  the 
apologetic  and  polemic  armoury  of  the  Christian 
community"  (Holtzmann).  But  when  the  narrator 
proceeds  to  relate  that  the  joyfulness  with  which 
the  disciples  met  the  charge,  and  the  indisputable 
fact  of  their  having  performed  the  miracle,  made 
so  powerful  an  impression  on  the  Sanhedrin  that 
they  let  them  go  with  a  simple  warning,  this  can 
hardly  be  considered  probable  in  the  case  of  a  body 
which  only  a  short  time  before  had  procured  the 
execution  of  Jesus.  This  impression  is  strengthened 
by  the  proceedings  which  are  reported  in  connection 
with  the  second  arrest  of  the  disciples  (v.  17-42). 
On  that  occasion  the  imprisoned  Apostles  are  first 
released  from  prison  by  an  angel,  the  doors  mean- 
while remaining  shut,  the  guards  standing  w^ithout 
and  seeing  nothing  (verses  19  and  23).  Then  the 
captain  of  the  Temple-guard  betakes  himself  with 
his  men  to  the  Temple,  where  the  disciples  are  teach- 
ing, and  courteously  urges  them  (for  he  is  prevented 
from  using  force  by  the  fear  of  the  people,  who  seem 
to  take  the  side  of  the  Apostles)  to  accompany  him  to 
the  presence   of  the   Council,  which    calls   them   to 

VOL,    II  14 


210  THE    ACTS   OF   THE    APOSTLES 

account  for  the  excitement  aroused  by  their  teaching. 
Peter  declares  this  teaching  to  be  a  duty  laid  upon 
them  by  obedience  to  the  God  who  had  raised  up 
Jesus  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  to  which  facts 
they  were  witnesses  together  with  the  Holy  Spirit 
which  God  had  given  to  those  who  obey  Jesus.  There- 
upon, the  highly  respected  Pharisee  Gamaliel  puts  in 
a  plea  on  behalf  of  the  Apostles,  and  advises  prudent 
tolerance,  since  it  is  not  certain  whether,  after  all, 
this  work  of  the  Apostles  may  not  be  from  God. 
In  conformity  with  this  advice,  the  Apostles  are 
released  after  chastisement,  with  the  renewed  com- 
mand to  refrain  from  preaching  Christ ;  but  neverthe- 
less preach  undisturbed  the  whole  day  long  in  the 
Temple  and  in  private  houses.  This  narrative  is,  from 
beginning  to  end,  so  full  of  improbabilities  and  im- 
possibilities of  every  kind  that  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion of  its  having  any  historical  foundation ;  the 
question  can  only  be  whether  it  reached  Luke  as  a 
legendary  tradition,  or  whether  it  was  freely  invented 
by  him.  So  much  is  in  any  case  certain,  that  this 
second  story  of  arrest  is  related  to  the  first  (chap,  iv.) 
as  an  imitation  raised  into  the  sphere  of  the  miracu- 
lous, and  that  the  summary  account  of  the  miracles 
of  Peter  in  v.  15  makes  the  impression  of  a  deliberate 
attempt  to  outbid  other  miracle-stories  found  else- 
where. In  particular,  the  miraculous  "judgment" 
upon  Ananias  and  Sapphira  (v.  1-11)  proves  itself 
by  its  physical  and  moral  impossibility  to  be  a  legend, 
the  historical  background  of  which  —  perhaps  the 
sudden  death,  attributed  to  a  Divine  visitation,  of  a 
married  couple  who  had  offended  in  some  way — is 
unknown,  but  of  which  the  "  tendency "  embellish- 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CHURCH      211 

ment  serves  the  end  partly  of  an  exaltation  of  Peter 
as  the  head  of  the  Apostles,  partly  of  the  edification 
and  warning  of  readers.  All  this  suggests  that  in  these 
chapters  we  have  before  us,  for  the  most  part,  freely 
invented  pictures,  in  which  the  inventive  genius  of 
the  narrator  has  set  forth  his  representation  of  the 
ideal  circumstances  of  the  primitive  community. 
This  impression  of  their  unhistorical  character  is 
strengthened  by  the  surprising  historical  errors  in 
Gamahel's  speech  (v.  36  f ).  The  rising  of  Theudas 
took  place,  according  to  Josephus  {Ant.  xx.,  5.  1),  in 
the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Claudius,  and  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Procurator  Cuspius  Fadus,  about 
the  years  44-46  of  our  era,  therefore  not  "  before 
these  days,"  but  about  a  decade  later.  And  it  was 
not  "  after  this "  that  Judas  of  Galilee  arose ;  it 
was  a  full  generation  before  Theudas  that  the  rising 
of  Judas  took  place.  This  anachronism  can  only  be 
explained  as  due  to  an  inaccurate  recollection  of 
the  passage  in  Josephus  in  which  the  account  of 
Theudas  is  immediately  followed  by  a  mention  of 
the  ill  fate  of  two  sons  of  Judas  of  Galilee. 
The  author  of  the  speech  of  Gamaliel,  therefore, 
presumably  had  that  passage  in  the  History  of 
Josephus  in  his  recollection,  but  confused  the  obscure 
sons  with  the  well-known  father,  Judas,  and  thus 
came  to  make  the  appearance  of  the  latter  subsequent 
to  that  of  Theudas.^  Incidentally,  this  is  one  of  the 
most  decisive  proofs  of  the  dependance  of  the  author 
of  the  Lucan  writings  upon  the  works  of  Josephus. 
In  chapter  vi.  is  introduced  the  story  of  Stephen, 

^   Cf.   Krenkel,  Josephus  und  Ltikas,  pp.    163-173;    and  see  also 
Holtzmann,  Kommentar. 


210 


THFACTS   OF 


account  for  th  exciteni' 
Peter  declare^this  teacli 
them   by  olx-tence  to 
Jesus  to  l)c-  jiPriiur 
tliev  were  whesses  tc 
which  (i()(l  )ia<^ri\  en  to 
upon,  tlic  his^'-ly  resjx  > 
a  plea  on  Ijchd"  of  thr 
tolerance,  sint    it    is 
this  work  of  he  Aj» 
In    confoiiiiit    with 
released   after  -hast 
niand  to  refr.ii  fro 
less   preach    iidist 
Temple  and  iiDri\ 
heirinniriLr  t 
possibilities  m|  n 
tion   of    its    li\ 
(jiicstion  can   - 
legendary  trad 
by  him.     So 
second  story 
as  an  imitati 

lous.  nnri    i) 
nf  1 


i 


THE 

ment  serves  the  «<l  Pii^*!^* 
as  the  head  of  the  A^^^ 
andwaniim:ofr»ii«^ 
^7#chapter>  we  ha^e  hefat^ 
invented  pictniw.  •  •■■• 
the  namtor  has  «!  fartk  ^ 
ideal  circuniit^w*  »   •■' 
This  impWMioo  o( 
strengthened  hr  th^ 
Gamaiiels  ipccv. 
took  place,  aecardmf 
the  reiin»  of  the 
ministration  of  the 
the  years  VM6  d  am  m 
these  daw"  but  abou*.  a  m 

m 

not  **  after  this     uu:  i«: 
was  a  full  gCMH 
of  Jodas  took  piai 
expiamed  as  doe  in  m 
the  puaafte  in  Um^ 
T'-     Theudas  i«>  trnmedatihr 
the  ill  faiL 
The  waAm  o 
presofnaHh-  ha 
Joseph  i; 
scMis  wiUi  l: 


212  THE    ACTS   OF   THE    APOSTLES 

with  which  begins  the  expansion  of  Christianity  be- 
yond the  narrow  borders  of  its  quiet  Hfe  in  Jerusalem. 
The  discontent  of  the  Hellenists  at  the  neglect  of 
their  widows  in  the  daily  distribution  of  alms  gave 
the  occasion,  according  to  the  narrative  in  Acts,  for 
the  appointment  of  seven  deacons,  who,  to  judge  from 
their  names,  were  all  Hellenists ;  the  first  and  most 
important  among  them  being  Stephen,  who  signalised 
himself  not  only  by  working  miracles  but  by  disput- 
ing with  the  Jewish  Schools,  and  thereby  laid  himself 
open  to  accusation,  the  statement  being  attributed 
to  him  that  Jesus  would  destroy  "this  place"  (the 
Temple)  and  change  the  customs  of  Moses.  This 
narrative  is  noteworthy  in  many  respects.  In  the 
first  place,  it  was  a  question  of  the  care  of  the  poor 
about  which  the  first  dissension  arose  in  the 
connnunity,  and  for  the  regulation  of  which  the 
first  officials  of  the  community  were  appointed. 
The  care  of  the  poor  was  not,  therefore,  a  matter  of 
subsidiary  importance,  but  an  essential  keystone  of 
the  primitive  community ;  and  this  was  naturally 
the  case,  for  in  the  mutual  helpfulness  of  the 
members  in  respect  to  their  material  needs  was 
found  a  provisional  commencement  and  foretaste  of 
those  "  times  of  refreshing "  which  were  to  be 
expected  as  a  consequence  of  the  "  restoration  of 
all  things"  by  the  return  of  the  I^ord  Jesus  Christ. 
Secondly,  the  contending  parties  were  Hellenists  and 
Hebrews,  i.e.  Greek-speaking  Jews  or  proselytes 
from  the  Greek  "  Diaspora,"  and  Aramaic-speaking 
Jews  from  Palestine.  The  latter  regarded  them- 
selves as  the  pure  and  full-blooded  Jews,  alongside 
of  whom  the   Hellenistic  Jews  did  not  rank  as  of 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   CHURCH      21S 

equal  birth  and  standing.  These  higher  claims  of 
the  "  Hebrews "  were  therefore  already  making 
themselves  felt  in  the  early  Christian  care  of  the 
poor  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  Hellenists  —  thus 
prefiguring  the  later  opposition  between  Jewish  and 
Gentile  Christians.  Thirdly,  the  Hellenists  were 
the  first  who,  in  their  controversies  with  the  Jewish 
Schools,  were  able  to  defend  the  Christian  faith  with 
success ;  and  this  was  naturally  the  case,  for  they 
had  the  advantage,  as  compared  with  the  Palestinian 
Messianic  community,  of  possessing  a  familiarity  with 
the  Greek  language  and  culture  which  put  them 
in  a  position  to  make  their  belief  the  object  of 
theological  reflection  and  to  champion  it  with 
arguments  drawn  from  the  arsenal  of  the  Jewish 
scholastic  wisdom.  Fourthly,  it  was  from  this 
coming-forward  of  the  Hellenists  that  there  arose 
the  first  serious  conflict  between  the  Christian 
community  and  Judaism,  because  Christianity  now 
began  to  be  charged  with  an  anti-Judaic  bias,  of 
which  there  had  been  no  trace  in  the  earlier  attitude 
of  the  community.  This  also  is  quite  intelligible. 
The  Hellenists  were,  in  consequence  of  their  constant 
intercourse  with  the  world  of  Greek  culture,  never 
so  strictly  Jewish  and  so  narrowly  legal-minded  as 
the  Palestinian  Jews ;  many  elements  of  Greek 
thought  had  found  an  entrance  to  their  minds,  and 
had  so  modified  the  simplicity  of  their  Jewish  faith 
that  it  was  only  by  means  of  allegorising  exegesis  that 
they  could  reconcile  themselves  to  many  doctrines 
and  usages  of  the  Law.  For  that  reason  it  was 
natural  that  they,  much  more  than  the  Palestinian 
members    of   the    Christian    community,  should    be 


214  THE   ACTS   OF   THE    APOSTLES 

disposed  and  enabled  to  perceive  the  necessity  for  a 
reform  of  Judaism  involved  in  faith  in  the  crucified 
Messiah,  Jesus.  In  this  connection  it  is  also  a  signifi- 
cant circumstance  that  the  accusation  brought  against 
Stephen  (vi.  14)  is  very  like  that  brought  against 
Jesus  (Mark  xiv.  57  f.) ;  in  both  cases,  no  doubt  the 
accusation  is  declared  by  the  narrator  to  be  the 
statement  of  a  false  witness,  but  the  following  speech 
of  Stephen,  and — if  we  may  lay  no  stress  on  the 
historicity  of  that— in  any  case  the  result  of  the  trial, 
indicate  that  here,  as  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  there  was 
some  foundation  for  the  charge.  From  this  it 
follows  that  the  Hellenist  Stephen  grasped  more 
fully  than  the  Apostles,  Jesus'  purpose  of  reform,  and 
made  no  concealment  of  his  perception  of  it,  but 
by  that  very  means  gave  occasion  for  the  breach 
between  the  Christian  community  and  Judaism 
which  was  a  necessary  condition  of  the  growth  of  an 
independent  Christian  religion  and  Church. 

Stephen's  speech  (vii.  2-53)  aims  at  proving  from 
the  history  of  Israel  that  this  people  had  always 
resisted  with  ingratitude  and  slowness  of  heart  God's 
purpose  of  salvation,  revealed  to  them  by  many 
tokens  of  mercy.  In  particular,  after  a  somewhat 
prolix  introduction,  this  thought  is  illustrated  from 
three  epochs  of  Israel's  history.  (1)  From  the  story  of 
Moses,  whom  God  sent  to  be  the  ruler  and  deliverer 
of  his  people,  in  order  to  give  salvation  through  him, 
to  reveal  words  of  life,  and  by  type  and  prophecy 
to  point  onward  to  Christ,  and  whom,  nevertheless, 
the  Israelites  did  not  understand,  but  denied  and 
rejected  (25,  35-39) ;  in  punishment  for  which  God 
turned  away  from  them,  and  gave  them  over  to  the 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   CHURCH      215 

worship  of  heathen  idols  (verse  42  f.).  (2)  From  the 
story  of  David  and  Solomon,  of  whom  the  former 
found  acceptance  with  God,  making  request  (only) 
that  he  might  build  Him  a  tabernacle,  while  the 
latter  (presumptuously)  built  Him  a  house,  whereas 
the  Most  High,  who  has  made  all  things,  dwelleth 
not  in  houses  made  by  men's  hands  (verses  46-50). 
(3)  From  the  whole  history  of  the  prophets,  since  the 
fathers  had,  from  of  old,  persecuted  and  slain  all 
the  fore-runners  of  Christ,  even  as  their  children  had 
now  become  the  betrayers  and  murderers  of  the 
Righteous  One  (Christ).  Thus  they  had  always 
shown  themselves  stiff-necked  and  uncircumcised  in 
heart  and  ears,  men  who  kept  not  the  law  which  they 
had  received  by  the  ministration  of  angels  (verses 
51-53).  It  is  plain  that  this  speech  has  very  little 
relation  to  the  immediate  occasion  of  the  charge  in 
vi.  14 ;  only  the  few  verses  47-50,  in  which  un- 
mistakably the  building  of  the  Temple  is  repudiated 
as  an  undertaking  which  was  displeasing  to  God, 
have  direct  reference  to  the  charge  of  his  accusers, 
which,  it  must  be  admitted,  they  do  not  refute,  but 
confirm.  The  remainder  has  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  his  defence,  but  is  a  harsh  indictment  of  the 
Jewish  people,  as  having  always  shown  itself  un- 
worthy of  the  revelation  given  to  it  by  God,  and 
having  thereby  incurred  the  loss  of  His  blessing. 
This  speech  has  its  nearest  analogue  in  the  Nazareth 
sermon  of  Jesus  in  Luke  iv.  In  both  cases  the 
rejection  of  Israel  is  inferred  from  historical  examples, 
the  passionate  wrath  of  the  listeners  is  evoked,  and 
their  murderous  thoughts  express  themselves  in 
tumultuous  violence,  but  in  the  former  case  they  are 


216  THE   ACTS   OF   THE    APOSTLES 

not  actually  carried  into  effect.  In  both  cases  the 
contents  and  aim  of  the  speech  is  remarkably  unsuit- 
able to  the  situation  to  which  the  narrator  has  referred 
it — a  situation  which  seems  to  demand  a  discourse 
calculated  to  conciliate  rather  than  to  exasperate  the 
audience.  Accordingly,  the  similar  problem  of  the  two 
speeches  is  to  be  explained  in  a  similar  way  :  neither 
was  really  delivered  as  it  is  given,  but  both  were 
composed  by  the  narrator,  and  placed  in  a  prominent 
position  at  the  outset  as  a  kind  of  programme  to 
indicate  the  subsequent  course  of  the  history. 
Neither  speech  implies  the  use  of  any  historical 
source,  but  both  are  free  variations  of  the  thoughts 
of  Rom.  xi.  7-10,  19-22,  though  without  the  con- 
soling prospects  which  Paul  still  holds  out  to  fallen 
Israel ;  the  relative  anti- Judaism  of  Paul  (Rom.  xi. 
28)  has  become  absolute  in  this  member  of  the 
Pauline  School.  The  conjecture  deserves  notice  also, 
that  the  author  had  in  mind,  when  composing 
Stephen's  defence,  the  speech  of  Josephus  to  his 
countrymen  {B.J.,  v.  9.  4),  in  which,  just  as  here,  the 
reproach  of  stifF-neckedness  and  blood-thirstiness  is 
justified  out  of  the  history  of  Israel,  from  Abraham 
down  to  the  speaker's  own  day.^  Moreover,  the 
numerous  divergences  from  the  Old  Testament 
narrative  which  are  found  here  (verses  2-4,  22,  38, 
53)  have  their  nearest  parallels  in  the  writings  of 
Josephus. 

The  death  of  Stephen,  which  Luke  describes  in  a 
way  which  recalls  his  narrative,  in  the  Gospel,  of  the 
death  of  Jesus  {cf.  vii.  5Q,  59,  60,  with  Luke  xxii.  69, 
xxiii.  34,  46),  was  the  beginning  of  a  persecution  of 

1   Krenkel,  Josephus  und  Lukas,  p.  176  f. 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   CHURCH      217 

some  severity,  which  had  as  its  consequence  the 
dispersion  of  the  members  of  the  Jerusalem  com- 
munity over  Judaea  and  Samaria  (viii.  1).  The  first 
steps  towards  that  extension  of  Christianity  which 
was  indicated  in  advance  in  Christ's  saying  in  i.  8, 
were  made  in  the  course  of  this  dispersion.  It  is 
especially  the  activity  of  Philip  the  deacon  which  is 
described,  as  being  a  preparation  and  prototype  of  the 
great  mission  to  the  Gentiles  of  Saul-Paul,  who  has 
already  been  mentioned  incidentally  in  connection 
with  the  tragedy  of  Stephen's  death  (viii.  5-13, 
26-40). 

At  this  point  Acts  introduces  the  peculiar  episode 
of  the  conversion  of  a  magician  named  Simon,  who 
gave  himself  out  to  be  something  great,  and  in 
consequence  of  his  enchantments  was  held  by  his 
fellow-countrymen  to  be  "the  Great  Power  of  God." 
When  this  man  saw  that  by  laying  on  of  the  Apostles' 
hands  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given,  he  offered  them 
money,  desiring  to  buy  this  power  of  communicating 
the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  laying  on  of  hands ;  where- 
upon Peter  rebuked  him  sharply,  and  commanded 
him  to  repent  of  his  unworthy  thought.  This 
narrative  is  instructiv^e  in  many  respects.  It  trans- 
lates us  to  a  time  at  which  the  magical  conception  of 
the  communication  of  the  Spirit  by  the  sacramental 
act  of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  the  specific 
supernatural  endowment  of  the  Apostles  for  the 
performance  of  this  act,  had  grown  up  in  the 
Christian  churches,  and  when  these  had  thus  come 
into  rivalry  with  the  Gnostic  sects,  such  as  the 
Simonians,  who  boasted  of  their  mystical  knowledge 
and   their  magical   powers.      It  is  just  this  rivalry 


218  THE   ACTS   OF   THE   APOSTLES 

between  the  Christian  communities,  which  were 
themselves  infected  with  Gnostic-magic  conceptions, 
and  the  older  Gnostic  sects,  which  had  built  up  their 
syncretistic  religion  out  of  heathenism  and  Judaism, 
and  now  began  to  come  into  hostile  contact  with 
Christianity — it  is  this  rivalry  which  lies  at  the  heart  of 
our  narrative,  and  this  narrative  therefore  carries  back 
the  circumstances  of  its  own  time  (second  century) 
into  the  Apostolic  period  and  gives  a  typical  illustra- 
tion of  them  in  an  imaginary  incident.  In  view  of 
these  important  points,  the  questions  are  of  sub- 
ordinate importance  whether  there  was  an  historical 
Simon  Magus ;  and  if  this  question  can  be  answered 
in  the  affirmative  with  some  probability,  in  what 
relation  he  stood  to  the  Gnostic  sect  of  Simonians  ; 
was  he  actually  their  founder,  or  only  their  deified 
hero,  to  whom  heathen  myths  concerning  the  gods 
were  referred  ?  We  shall  recur  to  this  in  a  later 
context.  The  question,  too,  can  only  be  suggested 
here,  whether  the  author  was  aware  of  the  identifica- 
tion which  occurs  in  the  Jewish-Christian  literature 
of  the  second  century  of  Simon  the  magician  and 
arch-heretic  with  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  of  Paul's 
collection  (2  Cor.  viii.)  with  Simon's  offer  of  money 
to  the  Apostles,  and  whether,  perhaps,  he  intended  to 
cut  the  ground  from  beneath  this  anti-Pauline  legend 
by  placing  the  story  of  Simon  before  the  conversion 
of  Saul,  and  thus  excluding  the  identification  of  Simon 
with  Paul. 

The  following  narrative  of  the  conversion  of  the 
Ethiopian  by  Philip  (viii.  26-40)  forms  a  further 
preparation  for  the  Pauline  mission  to  the  Gentiles. 
The    miraculous   interposition   of  the   angel   at   the 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CHURCH      219 

beginning  (26  and  29),  and  the  miraculous  translation 
of  Philip  at  the  close  (39),  may  be  put  down  to  legend  ; 
but  it  serves  also  to  show  that  the  first  instance  of  the 
conversion  of  a  Gentile  took  place  under  the  direct 
ordering  and  guidance  of  God,  which  is  repeated 
in  the  case  of  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  by  Peter 
in  chapter  x. 

When  Saul  has  first  been  introduced  at  the  death 
of  Stephen  as  a  sympathiser  with  the  persecution, 
and  when  a  preparation  has  been  made  for  his  later 
missionary  activity  in  that  of  Philip,  the  event  is 
narrated  which  w^as  decisive  for  the  future  progress  of 
the  diffusion  of  Christianity :  the  conversion  of  the 
enemy  of  Christ  into  the  leading  Apostle  of  Christ  (ix. 
1-19).  The  kernel  of  this  narrative — that  Paul  had 
earlier  been  a  violent  persecutor  of  the  Christian  com- 
munity, had  been  suddenly  converted  by  a  miraculous 
revelation  of  Christ,  and  at  the  same  time  called  to  be 
an  Apostle — is  proved  by  the  witness  of  Paul  him- 
self to  be  an  historical  fact.  How,  exactly,  we  are  to 
conceive  the  decisive  event  was  discussed  above  upon 
the  ground  of  direct  and  indirect  indications  in  the 
Pauline  letters  (vol.  i.  p.  85  fF.).  As  regards  the 
details  of  the  event  recorded  in  Acts,  the  author  him- 
self seems  to  have  laid  no  special  weight  upon  them, 
since  in  repeating  the  story  upon  two  occasions,  he  tells 
it  in  each  case  somewhat  differently — incidentally  a 
remarkable  proof  of  the  great  freedom  which  the 
author  allows  himself  in  the  treatment  of  the  literal 
facts  of  his  narrative.  Since,  according  to  Acts, 
the  miraculous  revelation  of  Christ  was  received 
not  only  by  Paul  himself  but  also,  in  part,  by  his 
companions,  in  so  far  that   these   are   once   said  to 


222  THE   ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTLES 

This  narrative  disagrees  in  many  respects  with  Paul's 
own  version  of  the  facts  in  Gal.  i.  17  fF.  The  journey 
into  Arabia  mentioned  there  is  here  omitted.  The 
interval  before  the  journey  to  Jerusalem  is  there  given 
as  three  years,  here  only  as  "  many  days  "  ;  the  visit  to 
Jerusalem  lasts  there  only  fourteen  days,  and  brings 
Paul  into  contact  only  with  Peter  and  James  the 
Lord's  brother ;  of  his  being  made  known  to  the 
Apostles  in  general,  of  public  preaching  and  disputa- 
tion, and  persecution  aroused  in  consequence,  there  is 
there  no  mention.  These  differences  are  too  consider- 
able for  it  to  be  possible  to  harmonise  them  or  to  regard 
them  as  accidental ;  and  though  it  is  a  matter  of  con- 
troversy whether  the  author  of  Acts  had  the  definite 
intention  of  correcting  in  his  account  of  these  events 
the  description  given  by  Paul  in  Galatians,  it  cannot 
in  any  case  be  overlooked  that  this  description  is 
determined  by  the  presupposition  that  Paul,  soon 
after  his  conversion,  entered  into  relations  with  the 
original  community  of  disciples  and  began  under 
their  sanction  his  public  activity  as  a  teacher  in 
Jerusalem — a  presupposition  which  does  not  corres- 
pond to  the  facts,  but  finds  its  explanation  in  the 
view  regarding  the  Apostle  Paul  and  his  relation  to 
the  original  Apostles  which  had  grown  up  in  ecclesi- 
astical circles  in  the  second  century. 

With  the  departure  of  Paul  from  Jerusalem,  the 
author  of  Acts  drops  the  thread  of  his  history  in 
order  to  recount,  in  the  first  place,  some  events  of 
Peter's  activity  outside  Jerusalem,  which,  as  a  prelude 
and  counterpart  to  the  activities  of  Paul,  have  here 
their  appropriate  place.  The  two  miracle-stories  of 
the  cure  of  the  lame  man  iEneas  at  Lydda,  and  the 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CHURCH     223 

raising  from  the  dead  of  Tabitha  at  Joppa  (ix.  32-43), 
are  variations  of  similar  miracle-stories  in  the  Gospel 
history ;  the  story  of  the  raising  of  the  dead  woman, 
especially,  reminds  us  so  exactly  of  the  raising  of  the 
daughter  of  Jairus  in  Mark  v.  22  fF.  that  it  might  be 
considered  a  doublet  of  this  story.  That  traditional 
narratives  of  this  kind  are  accustomed  to  attach 
themselves  to  various  persons  and  places  wherever 
anything  in  the  circumstances  offers  a  point  of 
attachment,  is  a  well-known  phenomenon  of  all 
legendary  history.  Of  greater  importance  is  the 
narrative  of  the  conversion  of  the  Gentile  centurion 
Cornelius  through  Peter  (x.  1-xi.  18).  The  extreme 
importance  which  the  author  attached  to  it  is  shown 
by  the  detailed  character  of  his  narrative,  and  by  the 
recapitulation  of  it  in  the  discourse  of  Peter  (xi.  1-17), 
and  especially  by  its  being  led  up  to  by  no  less  than 
three  visions  :  first  that  of  Cornelius,  which  occasioned 
his  sending  to  Peter ;  then  the  vision  of  Peter  in 
which,  by  God-given  signs  and  utterances,  the  abro- 
gation of  the  Old  Testament  law  of  clean  and  un- 
clean meats — that  great  hindrance  to  the  meeting  at 
table,  and  consequently  to  all  intimate  intercourse,  of 
Jew  and  Gentile — was  made  clear  to  him ;  finally, 
the  voice  of  the  Spirit  to  Peter,  which  commanded 
him  to  accept  without  scruple  the  invitation  to  enter 
the  house  of  this  Gentile.  He  begins  his  speech  by 
giving  expression  to  the  perception  which  has  dawned 
on  him  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in 
every  nation  he  that  feareth  God  and  worketh 
righteousness  is  acceptable  to  Him,  i.e.  is  welcomed 
as  a  partaker  in  the  blessings  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Christ.      Then   he  proclaims  Jesus  as   the    Saviour 


224  THE   ACTS  OF  THE    APOSTLES 

anointed  with  Spirit  and  with  power,  whom  the 
Jews  had  crucified  but  whom  God  had  raised  up  and 
appointed  judge  of  living  and  dead,  through  whose 
name  everyone  who  beheves  in  Him  shall  receive 
forgiveness  of  sins,  as  the  prophets  have  testified. 
While  he  was  yet  speaking  the  Holy  Spirit  fell  upon 
all  the  hearers  and  manifested  itself  in  "  speaking 
with  tongues,"  in  which  Peter  recognised  a  Divine 
intimation  that  he  was  to  proceed  to  baptize  Cornelius 
and  his  household.  After  his  return  to  Jerusalem,  the 
Jews  reproached  him  that  he  had  gone  in  to  men 
uncircumcised  and  had  eaten  with  them.  He,  how- 
ever, recounted  to  them,  in  justification  of  his  conduct, 
the  whole  story,  and  thereby  convinced  even  the 
Jerusalem  community  that  "  God  had  also  granted  to 
the  heathen  repentance  unto  life  "  (xi.  18).  This  con- 
clusion of  the  narrative  is  evidently  the  significant 
point ;  it  is  intended  to  show  that  the  beginning,  in 
baptizing  Gentiles,  was  made  by  Peter,  by  the  direct 
ordering  of  God ;  and,  after  some  hesitation,  was 
approved  by  the  original  community.  This  is  con- 
tradicted by  the  subsequent  course  of  events,  not 
only  according  to  Gal.  ii.,  but  also  according  to  Acts 
itself,  for  the  proceedings  of  the  Apostolic  Council 
(chap.  XV.)  would  be  quite  unintelligible  if  the 
questions  which  are  there  obviously  dealt  with  for 
the  first  time,  regarding  the  possibility  of  the  Gentiles 
becoming  Christians,  had  been  already,  in  conse- 
quence of  an  impressive  series  of  miracles,  practically 
solved  and  decided  for  Peter  and  his  fellow-members 
of  the  Jerusalem  community.  The  events  can  there- 
fore hardly  have  occurred  as  here  narrated  ;  both  the 
anachronistic  anticipation  of  the  universal  principle 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF  THE    CHURCH      225 

which  Paul  first  brought  into  operation,  and  the 
preparation  of  multipHed  miracle  by  which  this  in- 
sight is  reached,  show  beyond  doubt  the  ideal  char- 
acter of  the  narrative.  The  question  nevertheless 
suggests  itself  whether  there  may  not  be  some 
historical  basis  for  the  story.  In  favour  of  the  sup- 
position that  there  is,  may  be  noted  the  circumstance 
that  both  the  reproach  brought  against  Peter  in 
Jerusalem  (xi.  3)  and  also  the  revelation  by  vision 
which  forms  the  main  point  of  his  defence  (xi.  5  f.) 
relate,  not  to  the  question  of  principle  involved  in  the 
baptism  of  Gentiles,  but  to  the  ritual  question  whether 
a  Jew  might  so  far  set  aside  the  Mosaic  law  of  clean 
and  unclean  as  to  live  in  the  house  with  and  sit  at 
table  with  Gentiles,  whether  baptized  or  unbaptized. 
This  question  was  not  solved  by  the  Apostolic  Council 
— in  fact,  was  not  even  touched  by  it.  It  was  the 
question  which  gave  rise  to  the  strife  between  Peter 
and  Paul  at  Antioch  ;  and  at  a  much  later  time,  when 
the  permissibility  of  baptizing  Gentiles  had  long 
ceased  to  be  contested,  this  practical  question  had  not 
lost  its  significance,  as  the  Clementine  Homilies 
(i.  22  and  ii.  19)  show.  On  these  grounds,  it  might 
perhaps  be  conjectured  that  the  Cornelius  story  might 
be  based  on  events  in  the  later  life  of  Peter,  similar 
to  those  which  led  to  the  sending  of  "  certain  men 
from  James  "  to  Antioch,  and  to  the  contention  be- 
tween the  Apostles  there.  It  is  true  that  at  that  time 
Peter  actually  adopted  the  narrower  position  of  the 
original  community,  whereas,  according  to  our 
narrative,  on  the  contrary,  the  latter  adopted  his 
advance   in   enlightenment,   of  which,   however,  his 

conduct   at   Antioch    shows    no    trace.      Thus   the 
VOL.  n  15 


226  THE    ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTLES 

historical  "  kernel "  becomes  very  problematical.  In 
any  case,  it  has  been  freely  transformed  in  the  in- 
terests of  the  author's  didactic  purpose,  according  to 
which  "  the  universalism  of  Christianity  had  been 
introduced  by  Peter,  by  word  and  act,  long  before 
Paul"  (Holtzmann),  with  the  approval  of  the  whole 
of  the  original  community  of  disciples.  This  does  not 
correspond  to  actual  history,  but  to  the  ecclesiastical 
postulate  of  a  united  authority  of  the  whole  body  of 
the  Apostles  as  the  basis  of  the  one  universal  Church. 
In  xi.  19  the  author  returns  to  the  extension  of 
the  gospel  in  consequence  of  the  persecution  "  which 
arose  about  Stephen,"  which  he  had  mentioned  in 
viii.  4,  and  narrates  that  it  was  through  some 
Hellenists  of  Cyprus,  who  had  come  to  Antioch, 
the  Syrian  capital,  that  the  gospel  was  here  first 
taught  to  the  Greeks,  and  in  this  way  an  independent 
Christian  community  was  founded,  to  which  the 
name  of  "  Christian  "  was  applied  for  the  first  time. 
On  hearing  of  this  formation  of  a  church  at  Antioch, 
the  church  in  Jerusalem  sent  Barnabas  thither ;  and 
he  brought  Saul  from  Tarsus  and  took  him  with  him 
to  Antioch.  The  two  worked  there  successfully  for  a 
year.  Then  came  prophets,  i.e.  men  who  had  the  gift 
of  prediction  and  inspired  speech,  from  the  Jerusalem 
church  to  Antioch,  and  caused  great  joy  to  the  church 
there.  One  of  these,  named  Agabus,  predicted  a 
general  famine,  which  came  to  pass  (in  Judaea)  in  the 
time  of  Claudius.  In  consequence  of  this  prophecy, 
the  Antiochian  Christians  resolved  to  make  a  collec- 
tion for  the  brethren  in  Judsea,  and  this  was  sent, 
the  author  adds,  by  Barnabas  and  Saul  (xi.  19-30). 
In  this  report  an  historical  kernel  is  to  be  distinguished 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CHURCH      227 

from  some  additions  of  the  narrator.  That  through 
the  activity  of  some  scattered  Hellenists,  whose  freer 
type  of  thought  is  already  known  to  us  from  Stephen, 
the  beginning  of  a  mission  to  the  Gentiles  was  made, 
appears  to  be  quite  in  the  natural  order  of  things, 
and  is  the  less  to  be  doubted  because  Acts  expressly 
distinguishes  this  Hellenistic  mission  to  the  Gentiles 
from  the  mission  to  the  Jews  only  {cf.  verses  19 
and  20),  and  introduces  it  as  something  new,  without 
any  reference  to  the  problematical  story  of  Cornelius, 
which  has  just  before  been  narrated.  The  origin  of 
Gentile  Christianity  is  thus  admitted  by  Acts  to  have 
been  independent  of  the  original  community,  both  in 
regard  to  the  persons  by  whom  it  was  founded  and 
the  place  where  it  first  arose.  This  is  the  historical 
kernel  of  the  narrative,  which  is  the  less  open  to 
doubt  because  here,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
story  of  the  Antiochian  church,  begin  the  "  we " 
sections  of  the  eye-witness,  that  is  of  Luke  the 
Antiochian.^  The  only  question  is  how  far  this 
report  guarantees  the  details  of  the  narrative.  It  is 
obvious  that  the  mention  of  the  fulfilment  of  the 
prophecy  regarding  the  famine  in  the  time  of 
Claudius  is  not  derived  from  it  (verse  28) ;  that  was 
added  by  the  author  from  his  knowledge  of  Josephus, 
who  several  times  mentions  a  famine  which  prevailed 
in  Judsea  in  the  time  of  Claudius  {Ant.,  iii.  15.  3, 
XX.  2.  5  and  5.  2),  during  which  the  queen  Helena 
of  Adiabene  sent  munificent  aid  to  the  inhabitants 

1  According  to  the  reading  in  verse  28  which  has  the  support 
of  the  Western  MSS.  (Cod.  D  and  its  allies),  rjv  8e  ttoWt]  dyaAXiWts. 
o-wecTTpa^jLievwv  Se  rjfxojv  e<f>r)  eis  e^  avTwv  ovofJLaTL  "Aya/3os  a-yjfxacvuyv,  k.t.A. 
The  originality  of  this  reading  cannot,  in  my  opinion,  be  doubted. 


228  THE    ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

of  Jerusalem.^  That  this  famine  was  confined  to 
Judaea,  naturally  did  not  hinder  the  author  from  ex- 
panding it  into  a  universal  one,  as  he  has  done  in  the 
case  of  the  census  of  Quirinius  also  (Luke  ii.).  It  is 
possible  that  it  was  Josephus'  mention  of  the  munifi- 
cence of  Helena  towards  the  people  of  Jerusalem 
which  suggested  the  sending  of  the  collection  of  the 
Antiochians  to  Jerusalem,  which  is  at  all  events 
ante-dated.  But  even  assuming  that  the  Antiochian 
collection  (verse  29)  belongs  to  the  report  of  the  eye- 
witness (verse  28)  and  is  guaranteed  by  it,  it  is  at  any 
rate  certain  that  the  sending  of  the  collection  by  Paul 
and  Barnabas  mentioned  in  xi.  30  cannot  be  historical, 
since  it  stands  in  direct  contradiction  with  the  fact, 
solemnly  attested  by  Paul,  that  in  the  fourteen  years 
between  the  short  visit  (in  Gal.  i.  18  =  Acts  ix.  26) 
and  the  journey  to  the  Apostolic  Council  (Gal.  ii.  1  = 
Acts  XV.  2)  he  had  not  been  in  Jerusalem.  On  the 
latter  occasion  Paul  went  as  a  delegate  from  Antioch 
together  with  Barnabas,  but  not  to  bring  a  collection ; 
on  the  other  hand,  he  travelled  in  Acts  xxi.  without 
Barnabas,  but  bringing  a  collection,  as  we  know 
from  Corinthians  and  from  Rom.  xv.  25  f.,  but  not 
from  Acts,  which  there  says  nothing  about  the 
collection,  only  giving  an  incidental  hint  of  it  in  a 
later  passage  (xxiv.  17).  From  these  considerations, 
the  conjecture  seems  to  me  to  suggest  itself  very 
naturally  that  the  author  has  combined  the  bringing 
of  the  collection  (on  the  last  journey)  with  the 
mission  from  Antioch  together  with  Barnabas  (on 
the  next-to-last  journey),  and  has  thus  made  a  new 
journey,  which  he  places  in  xi.  30  before  these  other 

^  Krenkel,  Josephus  und  Lukas^  p.  1 99  f- 


THE    BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   CHURCH     229 

two.     And  his  motive  in  doing  so  may  perhaps  be 
guessed.     The  bringing  of  the  collection  on  his  last 
journey  was  interpreted  by  the  Judaisers  in  a  hostile 
sense,  as  if  Paul  had  desired  to  buy  with  money  a 
recognition  of  his  Apostolic  authority.     Therefore  it 
seemed  advisable,  in  order  to  turn  the  point  of  this 
suspicion,  to  represent  the  collection  as  brought,  not 
by  Paul  alone,  but  by  him  together  with  Barnabas, 
and,  moreover,  at  an  earlier  time,  when  the  relations 
of    Paul    with    the    original    community    were    still 
untroubled.     The   author's  reason  for  inserting  the 
new  journey  just  at  this  point  may  perhaps  be  most 
simply  explained  by  supposing  that  he  really  found 
in  his  source  here  a  journey  of  Paul  and  Barnabas 
from  Antioch  to  Jerusalem,  namely,  to  the  Apostolic 
Council.     For  that  this  originally  preceded  the  first 
missionary  journey  (chaps,  xiii.  and  xiv.)  is  necessarily 
to  be  supposed,  because  Paul  in    Gal.   i.  21  speaks 
only  of  a  mission  in  Syria  and  Cilicia,  and  because 
it  is  only  on  this  presupposition  that  the  limitation  of 
the  address  of  the  Apostolic  decree  to  the  Christians 
of  Antioch,  Syria,  and  Cilicia  (xv.  23)  becomes  in- 
telligible :  there  were,  in  fact,  at  that  time  no  other 
Gentile  Christians.     If  the  journey  to  the  Apostolic 
Council  stood  at  the  point  where  we  have  now  the 
collection-journey  invented  by  the  author  (xi.   30), 
the  source  would  agree  admirably  with   Gal.  i.  21, 
according  to  which  Paul  had  not,  before  the  Apostolic 
Council,  gone  beyond  Syria  and  Cilicia,  and  had  only 
once  been  in  Jerusalem.     Our  author  has  transferred 
this  journey  to  the  Apostolic  Council  from  its  original 
place  because  he  wanted  to  make  room  here  for  a 
new  collection -journey. 


230  THE   ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

The  first  part  of  Acts  closes  with  the  story  of  the 
martyr-death  of  James  the  Apostle,  and  of  the  libera- 
tion of  Peter  from  prison  by  the  miraculous  inter- 
vention of  an  angel  (chap.  xii.).  The  latter  narrative 
is  only  an  expanded  repetition  of  the  similar  story  in 
V.  19  fF.,  and  a  companion-picture  to  the  miraculous 
liberation  of  Paul  in  xvi.  25-34.  As  there  has  been 
mention,  immediately  before,  of  the  angel  of  death 
who  caused  the  sudden  death  of  the  tyrant  Herod, 
the  conjecture  lies  near  at  hand  that  the  angel  of 
deliverance  is  identical  with  the  angel  of  death,  i.e. 
that  the  sudden  death  of  Herod  was  the  historical 
cause  of  the  unexpected  liberation  of  Peter  from 
prison.  The  story  of  the  death  of  Herod  shows  both 
a  close  affinity  with,  and  at  the  same  time  numerous 
variations  in  detail  from,  the  somewhat  more  realistic 
narrative  in  Josephus  {Ant.,  xix.  8.  2).  Both  are 
probably  based  on  a  popular  legend  which  circulated 
in  various  forms  ;  it  is  from  such  a  source,  rather  than  I 
from  a  written  one,  that  our  author's  narrative  is  taken. 
These  finely  -  conceived  pictures  of  delivering  and 
destroying  angelic  powers,  which  hold  sway  over  the  i 
Church  and  the  world,  form  a  fitting  close  to  the  first 
portion  of  the  Acts,  which  contains  as  much  poetic 
invention  as  truth.  In  the  second  part  we  begin  to  i 
find  ourselves  on  somewhat  firmer  historical  ground. 


THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES 

CHAPTER  IX 

The  Expansion  of  the  Church  through  the 

AVoRK  OF  Paul 

{Acts  xiii.  1-xxviii.  31) 

The  second  part  begins  with  the  report  of  the 
sending  forth  of  the  missionaries  Paul  and  Barnabas 
by  the  heads  of  the  Antiochian  church.  This  is 
prefaced  by  an  enumeration  of  the  prophets  and 
teachers  who  belonged  to  the  Antiochian  church 
itself,  in  contradistinction  to  the  prophets  who  came 
to  it  from  Jerusalem  as  temporary  guests  (xi.  27).  It 
is  worthy  of  notice  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  seem  to 
be  mentioned  here  as  if  they  were  introduced  for  the 
first  time :  probably  in  the  source  on  which  the 
narrative  is  based  they  were  first  mentioned  here, 
which  confirms  our  conjecture  that  the  mention  of 
their  being  sent  to  Jerusalem  in  xi.  30  has  been  ante- 
dated by  the  author.  The  statement  that  their  being 
sent  forth  was  due  to  a  prophetic  revelation  of  the 
Spirit  may  well  be  derived  from  the  source,  whereas 
the  solemn  preparation  for  their  mission  by  fasting, 
prayer,  and  the  laying-on  of  hands,  is  to  be  put  down 
to  the  author's  liking  for  ecclesiastical  correctness. 
As   regards  the   missionary   journey  of  Paul  and 

231 


232  THE    ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

Barnabas  which  is  described  in  the  following  chapters, 
the  definite  statements  regarding  their  route  doubtless 
rest  upon  some  kind  of  tradition,  whether  a  tradition 
of  the  Antiochian  church,  or  a  written  source,  in 
regard  to  which  we  cannot  say  whether,  or  if  so,  how, 
it  is  related  to  the  "  we-source,"  which  first  occurs  in 
xi.  28/  That  this  included  more  than  the  few  "  we- 
sections  "  of  Acts  is  certainly  probable  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  we  cannot  fail  to  observe  that  the  narrative  in 
chapters  xiii.  and  xiv.  contains  too  many  unhistorical 
traits  to  be  referred  back,  in  the  same  direct  sense  as 
the  "  we-sections,"  to  the  report  of  an  eye-witness. 
At  the  outset,  the  narrative  of  the  meeting  which 
took  place  in  Cyprus  between  the  Apostle  Paul  and 
the  Jewish  magian  and  false  prophet  Bar-Jesus  (son 
of  Jesus)  gives  ground  for  doubt.  The  punitive 
miracle  by  ineans  of  which  Paul  is  said  to  have 
brought  about  the  blinding  of  the  sorcerer  is  as 
little  historical  as  the  miraculous  destruction  of 
Ananias  and  Sapphira  by  Peter  (chap.  v.).  The 
magian  here  overcome  by  Paul  is  the  counterpoise 
to  the  magian  Simon  who  was  overthrown  by  Peter 
(Acts  viii.),  and  both  are  perhaps  to  be  referred  back  to 
the  magian  Simon,  a  native  of  Cyprus,  who,  according 
to  Josephus,  was  attached  to  the  suite  of  the  procurator 
Felix,  and  played  the  part  of  pander  in  his  wooing  of 
Drusilla  {Ant.,  xx.  7.  2).  This  was  the  Simon  who, 
as  we  learn  from  the  Clementine  writings,  was  made 
in  Jewish  anti-Pauline  circles  into  a  caricature  of  the 
Apostle  Paul.  If  this  was  known  to  the  author  of 
Acts,  as  may  quite  well  have  been  the  case,  he  must 

1  According  to  the  reading  of  Cod.  D.     See  footnote,  p.  227  supra. 
— Translator. 


THE   EXPANSION   OF  THE   CHURCH      233 

have  desired  to  dispose  of  this  wicked  calumny  against 
his  hero,  and  this  could  be  effected  partly  by  repre- 
senting Simon  Magus — Paul's  double,  according  to 
the  Judaisers— as  having  been  defeated  by  Peter 
before  Paul  appeared  on  the  scene  (viii.  9  f.),  partly 
by  representing  the  same  caricature  of  Paul  as  having 
been,  under  another  form,  visited  with  judgment  by 
Paul  himself  (xiii.  9  fF.).  These  two  narratives,  there- 
fore, are  both  apologetic  fictions,  called  forth  by  the 
same  Judaising  travesty  of  Paul  under  the  features 
of  Simon  Magus ;  ^  to  this  is  due,  in  the  former  case, 
the  offer  of  money  (travesty  of  Paul's  bringing  of  the 
collection),  in  the  latter  case  the  favour  of  the  Roman 
procurator  (travesty  of  Paul's  relations  with  Felix) 
and  the  blinding  of  the  magician  (travesty  of  Paul's 
being  blinded  on  the  road  to  Damascus).  In  addition 
to  this  special  anti- Judaising  purpose,  the  general 
apologetic  purpose  is  here  in  evidence  "  to  show  the 
Roman  Government  as  favourable  to  the  Apostle  of 
the  Gentiles  from  his  first  entry  into  the  Gentile 
world,  and  to  show  at  the  same  time  that  the  dis- 
turbing influence  of  Judaism  must  be  got  rid  of" 
(Weizsacker  and  Holtzmann). 

The  story  that  in  consequence  of  the  healing  of  a 
lame  man  at  Lystra  the  Apostles  were  taken  for  Zeus 
and  Hermes,  and  could  only  with  difficulty  prevent 
the  people  from  worshipping  them  with  sacrifice  (xiv. 
11-18),  must  also  be  considered  an  unhistorical  legend. 
The  enthusiastic  reception  which  the  Apostles  met 

^  This  hypothesis  has  the  support  of  Lipsius  (Quellen  der  r'om. 
Petrussage  und  apokryphe  Apostelgeshichten,  vol.  ii.  p.  2),  Hilgenfeld 
{Zeitschr.f.  wissenschaftl,  Theol.,  1868,  "Magier  Simon  "),  and  Krenkel 
(Josephus  und  Lukas,  pp.  178-189). 


234  THE    ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTLES 

with  in  this  district  may  have  been  embellished  by  the 
author  or  by  tradition  with  traits  taken  from  myths  of 
which  the  scene  was  laid  in  that  very  region,  regard- 
ing the  visits  of  gods  to  men  (Baucis  and  Philemon). 
On  the  other  hand  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  the 
historicity  of  the  stoning,  due  to  the  enmity  of  the 
Jews,  by  which  Paul's  life  was  endangered  at  Lystra 
(xiv.  19),  since  an  experience  of  this  kind  is  mentioned 
by  Paul  himself  (2  Cor.  xi.  15). 

The  culminating  point  of  the  first  missionary  journey 
was,  according  to  the  description  given  in  Acts,  the 
discourse  which  Paul  is  represented  as  delivering 
in  Antioch,  the  capital  of  Pisidia  (xiii.  14-41).  After 
an  historical  introduction  similar  in  character  to  that  in 
Stephen's  speech  (chap,  vii),  but  not  so  detailed,  Paul 
proclaims  Jesus  as  the  Saviour,  sprung,  according  to 
the  promise,  from  David's  seed,  whom  the  Jewish 
authorities  in  ignorance  had  delivered  to  death,  in 
fulfilment  of  the  sayings  of  the  prophets,  but  whom 
God  had  raised  up,  and  thus  fulfilled  the  promises 
given  to  the  fathers,  as  is  shown  from  passages  in  the 
Psalms ;  therefore  the  forgiveness  of  sins  mediated 
through  Christ  is  now  to  be  made  known  to  all ; 
that,  namely,  every  one  that  believeth  in  Him  shall 
be  justified  from  all  things  from  which  they  could 
not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses ;  those  who 
despised  this  message,  however,  are  reminded  of 
the  threatenings  of  the  prophets.  To  argue  about 
the  historicity  of  this  and  other  speeches  in  Acts  is 
really  absurd.  One  need  only  consider  all  the  con- 
ditions which  would  need  to  be  fulfilled  in  order  to 
render  possible  a  verbally  accurate,  or  even  a 
generally  correct,  record  of  such  a  speech.     It  would 


THE   EXPANSION   OF  THE   CHURCH      235 

need  to  have  been  immediately  written  down  by 
someone  who  was  present  (indeed,  to  secure  an  exact 
record,  it  would  need  to  have  been  taken  down  in 
shorthand),  and  these  notes  of  the  various  speeches 
would  need  to  have  been  preserved  by  the  hearers, 
who  were  for  the  most  part  Jews  or  heathen,  and  were 
either  hostile  or  indifferent  towards  what  was  said,  for 
more  than  half  a  century,  and  finally  collected  by 
the  historian  from  the  most  diverse  localities!  Any- 
one who  has  once  made  clear  to  himself  all  these  im- 
possibilities, will  realise  once  for  all  how  he  is  to  look 
upon  all  these  speeches — that,  in  fact,  in  Acts,  just 
as  in  all  secular  historians  of  antiquity,  the  speeches 
are  free  compositions,  in  which  the  author  makes  his 
heroes  speak  as  he  thinks  that  they  might  have 
spoken  in  the  circumstances  of  the  moment.  That 
explains  in  a  natural  way  why  the  fundamental 
thoughts,  and  the  order  in  which  they  are  presented, 
are  almost  the  same  in  most  of  these  Apostolic 
speeches ;  they  are  the  thoughts  of  the  author  him- 
self, who  was  not  able,  and  indeed  did  not  wish,  to 
hide  himself,  even  though  he  had  literary  skill  enough 
to  adapt  the  speeches  in  some  measure  to  the  different 
persons  and  situations.  Thus,  in  this  first  discourse 
of  Paul,  which  is  in  general  very  closely  parallel  to 
the  earlier  discourse  of  Peter,  he  has  not  neglected  to 
weave  in  a  reference  (verse  39)  to  the  Pauline  doctrine 
of  justification.  It  is  true  that  it  is  rather  doubtful 
whether  he  thought  of  it  exactly  as  Paul  did.  The 
formula  "in  Christ  everyone  that  belie veth  shall  be 
justified  [acquitted]  of  all  things  from  which  it  was  im- 
possible to  be  justified  in  the  law  of  Moses  "  is  not 
exactly  Pauline,  and  does  not  exclude  the  possibility 


236  THE   ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTLES 

that  the  justification  by  faith  in  Christ  is  a  mere 
supplement  to  the  partial  or  imperfect  justification 
by  the  Law,  and  is  thus  materially  different  from  the 
Pauline  conception.  But  even  supposing  that  this 
were  so  (and  the  indefiniteness  of  the  expression 
hardly  admits  of  certainty  upon  the  point),  it  would 
obviously  be  a  very  rash  conclusion  that  because  the 
author  has  not  made  Paul  speak  exactly  in  character, 
he  must  have  deliberately  misrepresented  his  teaching, 
in  order  to  adapt  it  to  that  of  Peter.  Of  a  deliberate 
falsification  of  Paulinism  it  would  only  be  possible  to 
speak  if  we  could  assume  an  exact  acquaintance  on 
the  author's  part  with  genuine  Paulinism  ;  but  what 
justification  have  we  for  making  this  assumption  ? 
Anyone  who  is  convinced,  as  the  writer  is,  that  the 
author  of  Acts  was  not  a  hearer  and  disciple  of  Paul, 
but  a  "  deutero- Pauline  "  of  the  second  century,  must 
also  admit  that,  with  the  best  will  in  the  world,  he 
could  not  make  Paul  speak  otherwise  than  just  as 
he  himself  understood  him,  i.e.  in  the  sense  of  the 
transformed  Paulinism  of  his  own  time. 

The  return  from  the  first  missionary  journey  was 
followed,  according  to  Acts,  by  the  journey  of  Paul 
and  Barnabas  to  Jerusalem  to  attend  the  Apostolic 
Council  (xv.).  We  have  already  seen  that  this  journey 
must  have  preceded  the  first  missionary  journey  (xiii., 
xiv.),  and  had  its  original  place  at  the  point  where 
our  author  has  substituted  the  collection-journey  of 
xi.  30.  As  to  the  occasion  of  this  journey  and  the 
negotiations  at  Jerusalem,  our  author  gives  a  report 
which  diverges  in  several  respects  from  that  in 
Gal.  ii.  The  connection  of  the  two  reports  has  been, 
as  is  well  known,  the  subject  of  much  theological 


t 


THE    EXPANSION    OF   THE   CHURCH      237 

controversy,  in  which  the  zeal  of  the  combatants  on 
both  sides  has  not  exactly  contributed  to  the  elucida- 
tion of  the  matter.  Anyone  who  examines  the  two 
passages  calmly,  quietly,  and  without  prepossession 
will  come,  as  I  have  done,  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
only  serious  material  difference  is  in  the  outcome  of 
the  discussions,  the  decree  of  the  Church  which  Acts 
reports ;  the  other  differences  are  rather  of  a  formal 
character,  and  are  easily  to  be  explained  by  our 
author's  habit  of  giving  to  important  events  their 
appropriate  setting  of  graphic  detail. 

That  applies  even  to  the  reason  for  the  journey. 
Paul  speaks  of  a  revelation  which  was  given  to  him  ; 
Acts  speaks  of  his  being  sent  by  the  Antiochian 
Church.  The  one  does  not  exclude  the  other,  and 
some  kind  of  concurrence  of  the  Church  in  Paul's 
resolution  is  the  more  probable  because  the  ultimate 
reason  of  it  was  the  agitation  set  up  by  the  Jewish 
legal  zealots.  This  statement  of  Acts  contains, 
indeed,  a  welcome  expansion  and  explanation  of  the 
enigmatic  word  "revelation"  (Gal.  ii.  1),  since  this, 
according  to  all  analogy,  cannot  have  occurred  to 
Paul  unmediated  and  without  cause,  but  points  to  a 
painful  situation  demanding  a  decision,  such  as  was 
naturally  brought  about  by  the  Judaising  agitation 
in  the  Church.^     Next,  Acts  tells  of  negotiations  of 

^  The  explanation  of  this  journey  to  Jerusalem,  and  the  situation 
which  the  Antiochian  delegates  found  there,  is,  especially  in  the 
longer  reading  of  the  Western  texts  (D  and  allies),  so  clearly  and 
graphically  presented  that  the  conjecture  of  Hilgenfeld  {Akta  Apost., 
p.  284),  that  the  description  in  verses  1-6  is  based  on  the  Lucan 
''  we-source,"  does  not  appear  impossible.  But  one  may  also  think 
of  oral  tradition,  which  would  leave  more  room  for  the  free  invention 
and  elaboration  of  the  author. 


238  THE   ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

tlie  Antiochian  deputies  with  the  Apostles  and 
presbyters,  in  which,  owing  to  the  legahstic  demands 
of  the  Pharisees,  keen  contention  arose,  until  Peter 
and  James,  by  their  speeches  in  Paul's  favour, 
brought  about  a  pacification  and  understanding. 
This  is  not  only  probable  in  itself,  but  is  in  agree- 
ment with  Gal.  ii.  ;  for  though  it  has  been  maintained 
that  there  the  reference  is  to  private  negotiations 
with  the  leading  Apostles,  that  is  certainly  a  mistake, 
for  in  verse  2  "  those  who  were  of  reputation "  are 
distinguished  clearly,  as  a  smaller  circle,  from  a  wider 
one,  and  the  presence  of  the  latter  is  clearly  implied 
by  the  sharp  contention  indicated  in  verses  3  fF.  It 
is  true  that  nothing  is  said  there  of  the  speeches  of 
Peter  and  James ;  but  that  after  hot  debates  an 
agreement  was  not  reached  without  some  calming 
words  from  the  authorities  is  surely  a  self-evident 
assumption.  As  regards  the  content  of  these 
speeches,  we  expect  here,  not  historical  protocols, 
but  compositions  of  the  historian,  in  regard  to  which 
the  only  question  which  can  arise  is  whether  he  has 
put  into  the  mouths  of  his  heroes  words  in  harmony 
with  their  individuality  and  the  situation.  That  this 
is,  generally  at  least,  the  case  cannot  be  contested. 
For  that  the  leading  Apostles  spoke  in  a  sense  favour- 
able to  Paul  is  evidenced  by  the  actual  result — namely, 
that  they  gave  him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship 
and  recognised  his  Gentile-Christians  as  Christian 
brethren.  How  could  this  have  been  possible,  if  they  f 
had  taken  the  side  of  his  opponents,  the  legal  zealots 
of  the  Pharisaic  party  ?  Even  though  Paul  speaks 
in  Gal.  ii.  6  with  some  asperity  and  no  great  reverence 
of   "those  who  were   reputed  to    be   somewhat,"  in 


^ 


THE   EXPANSION    OF   THE   CHURCH      239 

spite  of  the  fact  that  they  had  then  just  recently 
given  him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  still  we  must 
not  forget  that  Paul  wrote  the  letter  to  the  Galatians 
under  the  stress  of  his  violent  struggle  with  Judaising 
agitation  in  Galatia  and  Corinth,  and  that  he,  as  all 
men  of  strong  feeling  are  wont  to  do,  allowed  his 
mood  of  the  moment  to  influence  the  tone  of  his 
narrative  of  things  which  had  happened  in  the  past. 
This  tone  of  the  narrative  certainly  forms  a  contrast 
to  the  peaceful  tone  which  prevails  in  the  speeches  in 
Acts  ;  but  the  fact  of  the  "  right  hand  of  fellowship  " 
which  Paul  records  forms  no  contrast  to  these 
speeches,  but  is  in  harmony  with  them.  The  author 
of  Acts  shows  a  right  instinct  also  in  making  Peter 
support  the  cause  of  Gentile  liberty  with  very  much 
greater  heartiness  and  less  reserve  than  James : 
exactly  the  same  relative  attitudes  of  the  two  men 
will  meet  us  in  a  later  connection.  The  details  of 
the  two  speeches,  however,  give  rise  to  various 
difficulties.  The  thoughts  are  rather  those  which 
the  author  might  naturally  ascribe  to  an  ecclesiasti- 
cally-minded Jewish  Christian  of  his  own  time  than 
those  which  the  Apostles  are  likely  to  have  expressed 
at  the  Apostolic  Council.  When,  in  xv.  7,  Peter 
appears  as  an  instrument  of  God  chosen  from  of  old 
for  the  mission  to  the  Gentiles,  that  agrees  no  doubt 
with  that  view  of  the  later  Church  regarding  the 
attitude  of  the  Apostles  towards  the  mission  to  the 
Gentiles  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  Cornelius  story 
(Acts  X.),  but  it  does  not  agree  with  historical  reality, 
according  to  which  Peter  was  commissioned  and 
endowed  with  strength  to  preach  to  the  Jews,  Paul 
to   preach   to   the  Gentiles  (Gal.  ii.  7).     Moreover, 


240  THE   ACTS   OF   THE    APOSTLES 

the  grounds  on  which  Peter  urges  that  the  Gentile 
Christians  should  be  spared  the  burdens  of  the  Law 
are  not,  indeed,  as  has  often  been  said,  genuinely 
Pauline,  but  they  are  certainly  quite  in  the  spirit  of 
that  ecclesiastical  universalism  in  which  the  moderate 
Jewish  Christian  of  the  second  century  reconciled 
himself  with  the  deutero-Pauline,  but  which,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  have  no  right  to  assume  in  the  case 
of  the  original  Apostles.  If  these  had  really  recog- 
nised the  Law  as  a  yoke  which  neither  they  nor 
their  fathers  were  able  to  bear  (verse  10),  it  would  be 
inconceivable  that  after  this  realisation  no  less  than 
before  it  they  felt  themselves  conscientiously  bound 
to  this  very  Law,  as  Acts  itself  proves  by  many 
instances.  And  if  they  had  really  believed  that  they 
were  to  be  saved  only  through  the  grace  of  Jesus  in 
the  same  way  as  the  heathen  (verse  11),  it  would  be 
impossible  to  understand  why  they  attached  such 
high  value  to  the  Jewish  I^^aw  that  they  continued  to 
maintain  it  as  a  wall  of  partition  between  themselves 
and  their  Gentile  brethren,  and  even  shrank  from 
and  avoided  the  brotherly  intercourse  of  meeting  at 
the  same  table  as  an  injury  to  their  Jewish  con- 
science, as  was  seen  at  Antioch.  To  this  extent  it 
is  true  to  say  that  the  speech  of  Peter  has  a  Pauline 
colouring,  and  gives  no  true  picture  of  the  historical 
Peter's  way  of  thinking ;  but  this  must  not  be  under- 
stood in  the  sense  that  the  historian  has  invented 
a  false  picture  of  Peter,  and  has  really  made  him 
exchange  roles  with  Paul.  There  is  no  question  of 
that ;  the  real  state  of  the  case  is  that  he  makes  Peter 
speak  like  an  ecclesiastical  Jewish  Christian  and  Paul 
like  a  deutero-Pauline  of  his  own  day ;  but,  as  these 


THE   EXPANSION   OF  THE   CHURCH      241 

two  tendencies  had  by  that  time  approached  each 
other  so  nearly  as  to  become  almost  indistinguishable, 
it  comes  to  pass  quite  naturally  that  their  typical 
representatives  in  Acts  seem  to  have  occupied  much 
more  nearly  the  same  position  that  they  did  in 
reality. 

Finally,  as  regards  the  speech  of  James  and  the 
decision  of  the  Church  which  was  brought  about  by 
it,  we  have  here  three  things  to  distinguish  :  (1)  The 
permission  to  the  heathen  of  freedom  from  the  Law, 
(2)  the  assumption  of  the  continued  obligation  of  the 
Law  for  the  Jewish  Christians,  and  (3)  the  command 
to  abstain  from  certain  heathen  offences,  which,  in  spite 
of  their  general  freedom  from  the  Law,  was  laid  upon 
the  Gentiles.  In  regard  to  the  first  point,  the  agree- 
ment with  Paul's  account  is  obvious,  and  is  not  con- 
tested ;  the  motive  assigned  for  this  concession,  the 
sayings  of  the  prophets  which  pointed  to  the  conver- 
sion of  the  heathen  (verses  15  fF.),  is  significant  of  the 
process  of  thought  by  which  Jewish  Christianity  suc- 
ceeded in  reconciling  itself  with  PauHne  universalism, 
when  once  this  had  to  be  recognised  as  an  accomplished 
fact.  As  regards  the  second  point,  the  continued  ob- 
ligation of  the  Law  for  Jewish  Christians,  that  is  not 
expressly  mentioned,  but  obviously  it  forms  the  tacit 
presupposition,  in  regard  to  which  nothing  is  said 
expressly  because  no  one  attacked  or  denied  it ;  on 
this  point  also  there  is  now  general  agreement.  It  is 
only  the  third  point  of  the  decree  proposed  by  James 
(verse  20)  which  gives  occasion  to  critical  difficulties : 
the  Gentiles  are  to  be  required  to  abstain  from  pollu- 
tion of  idols  (that  means,  according  to  verse  29,  from 
eating  the  flesh  of  idol  sacrifices),  from  unchastity, 

VOL.  II  16 


242  THE   ACTS   OF   THE   APOSTLES 

from  things  strangled,  and  from  blood/  The  last 
two  points  find  their  explanation  in  Levit.  xvii.  10  fF., 
where  the  use  of  blood,  and  of  flesh  from  which  the 
blood  has  not  been  drained  (which  is  not  "  kosher  "), 
is  forbidden  to  the  Israelites  and  to  those  who  dwelt 
among  them,  because  the  blood  contained  the   life, 

1  In  Cod.  D  and  its  allies  "things  strangled"  is  wanting,  and  at 
the  end  is  added  the  "  golden  rule,"  '^  Whatsoever  ye  would  not  that 
men  should  do  unto  you,  do  ye  not  to  others."  In  spite  of  the 
good  patristic  evidence  (Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian ;  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  however,  supports  the  received  text),  this  can  scarcely 
be  held  to  be  the  original  text  of  the  decree  of  James.  For  in 
this,  instead  of  a  provision  specially  intended  for  the  regulation  of 
the  Gentile  Christian  life  in  such  a  way  as  to  facilitate  intercourse 
with  Jewish  Christians,  it  gives  an  "  elementary  moral  code  "  which 
has  its  parallels  in  the  "  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,"  i.-vi., 
and  in  apologists  like  Aristides  (xv.  4)  and  Theophilus  (xxi.). 
The  ritual  prohibition  of  eating  flesh  with  the  blood  is  transformed 
into  a  moral  prohibition  of  bloodshed  ('^homicidium,"  Tertullian, 
though  with  some  uncertainty),  and  the  prohibition  of  meats  offered 
to  idols  is  expanded  to  include  idolatry  in  general  ("idololatria," 
Tert.,  Cypr.).  To  this  moral  version  the  "^  golden  rule  "  is  quite  ap- 
propriate as  a  summary  of  the  individual  commands,  whereas  there 
was  in  this  connection  no  place  for  "things  strangled."  Now  it  is 
intelligible,  and  is  indeed  of  frequent  occurrence,  that  a  special  and 
partly  ritual  provision  should  be  transformed  into  a  general  moral 
code,  whereas  the  reverse  pi'ocess  is  unintelligible  and  unheard  of. 
On  this  ground,  Zahn  {Einleitung,  vol.  ii.  pp.  344  f.),  Harnack  [Sitz- 
ungshericht  der  pr.  Akad.  der  Wiss.,  IS99,  xi.),  Holtzmann  (Konun.), 
and  others  who  reject  the  D  text  are  doubtless  right.  Yet  the 
possibility  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  perhaps  the  transformation 
of  the  decree  may  be  due  to  the  author  of  Acts  himself,  and  the 
Western  text  may  have  therefore  faithfully  preserved  the  author's 
version,  whereas  the  Eastern  has  corrected  it  on  the  basis  of  an 
accurate  remembrance,  which  was  retained  in  the  East,  of  the 
original  form  of  the  deci-ee.  In  that  case  the  D  text,  which  has 
such  good  Western  support,  would  be  correct  from  the  point  of 
view  of  textual  criticism,  whereas  historical  accuracy  would  be  on 
the  side  of  the  Eastern  (the  received)  text. 


THE   EXPANSION   OF   THE   CHURCH      243 

and  served  as  a  means  of  expiation,  i.e.  because  it 
was  something  holy,  a  taboo,  which  must  not  be  pro- 
faned. The  second  point,  too  (-Troppela),  recalls  Levit. 
xviii.  6-27,  where  the  Israelites  and  the  strangers  in 
their  midst  are  forbidden  the  sexual  "  abominations 
of  the  heathen,"  namely,  sexual  intercourse  within  the 
proscribed  degrees,  with  the  wife  of  another  man,  with 
a  man's  own  wife  during  her  period  of  menstruation, 
finally  "paiderastia"  and  unnatural  lust.  The  limita- 
tion of  the  enigmatic  prohibition  in  the  Apostolic 
decree  to  marriage  of  near  relatives  is  therefore 
unjustifiable  and  unsupported  by  analogy ;  on  the 
contrary,  the  word  is  here,  as  always  (especially  Apoc. 
ii.  20  fF.),  to  be  understood  in  the  widest  sense,  of 
unchastity  in  general.  As  this  was  regarded  among 
the  heathen  as  something  morally  indifferent,  a  pro- 
hibition of  this  kind  was,  for  Gentile  Christians,  by 
no  means  superfluous.  The  four  abstinences  there- 
fore all  relate  to  heathen  customs  or  immoralities 
which  were  especially  offensive  to  the  Jews  on  account 
of  their  habits  of  legal  and  moral  purity,  the  abandon- 
ment of  which  on  the  part  of  the  Gentile  Christians 
appeared  indispensable  as  a  condition  of  brotherly 
intercourse,  especially  of  fellowship  at  table  in  mixed 
congregations.  This  is  pointed  to  also  in  the  explana- 
tion of  these  demands  in  verse  21,  which  is  to  be 
understood  in  the  sense  that  since  there  has  long 
been  a  Jewish  community  in  every  heathen  town,  at 
least  that  minimum  of  accommodation  to  the  Jewish 
Law  is  to  be  required  of  the  Gentiles  which  even 
the  Law-giver  Moses  required  of  the  strangers  who 
dwelt  among  the  Jews.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  a 
demand   of  that  kind  is  quite  in  keeping  with  the 


244  THE   ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

situation  of  that  time — much  more  so,  at  any  rate, 
than  with  the  time  of  the  author,  a  half  century  or 
so  later,  when  it  would  no  longer  have  been  possible 
to  think  of  imposing  on  the  Gentile  Christians,  now 
become  the  majority,  an  obligation  w^hich  went  so 
deep  into  daily  life  as  abstinence  from  things 
strangled,  i.e.  from  meat  which  was  not  "kosher." 
Yet,  though  such  a  demand  laid  by  the  original 
body  of  disciples  at  Jerusalem  upon  the  Gentile 
Christians  is  perfectly  intelligible,  it  cannot  be  held 
to  be  historical,  because  it  stands  in  open  contradic- 
tion with  the  express  declaration  of  Paul  (Gal.  ii.  6, 
10) :  "  They  of  reputation  laid  nothing  further  upon 
me,  ....  except  that  we  should  remember  the 
poor."  In  his  contention  with  Peter  at  Antioch,  when 
the  question  at  issue  was  the  legitimacy  of  table- 
fellowship  between  Gentile  and  Jewish  Christians,  a 
question  closely  connected  with  the  contents  of  the 
Apostolic  decree,  Paul,  according  to  Gal.  ii.  11  ff.,  did 
not  refer  to  it  by  a  single  syllable.  Further,  in 
1  Cor.  viii.  and  x.,  Paul,  in  discussing  the  question  of 
the  eating  of  meats  offered  to  idols,  not  only  makes 
no  reference  to  the  Apostolic  decree,  but  decides  the 
Question  in  a  liberal  sense  which  is  at  variance  both 
with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Apostolic  decree, 
declaring  the  eating  of  meats  offered  to  idols  to  be  in 
itself  a  thing  indifferent,  and  entrusting  the  decision 
in  particular  cases  to  the  conscience  of  the  individual 
(x.  23-33).  How  could  that  have  been  possible  if 
this  decision  had  been  taken  at  Jerusalem  in  his 
presence  and  he  had  been  commissioned  to  communi- 
cate it  to  the  churches  ?  The  conclusion  to  be  drawn 
from  this,  that   Paul  during  his   missionary  activity 


THE    EXPANSION   OF   THE   CHURCH      245 

knew  nothing  of  any  such  decree,  finds  a  final  con- 
firmation in  Acts  xxi.  25,  where,  at  the  last  meeting 
of  Paul  with  the  "  elders  "  (not  the  Apostles)  of  the 
Jerusalem  church,  James  says :  "  In  regard  to  the 
Gentiles  which  believe,  we  have  decided  that  they 
must  abstain  from  things  offered  to  idols,  from  blood, 
from  things  strangled,  and  from  fornication."  That 
does  not  .read  like  a  reminder  of  a  decree  of  the 
Apostles  which  has  long  been  known  to  Paul,  in  the 
drawing  up  of  which  he  had  himself  had  a  part,  but 
like  the  communication  of  an  arrangement  hitherto 
unknown  to  Paul,  which  had  been  adopted  by  James 
and  the  Jerusalem  presbyters  to  regulate  the  relations 
of  the  Gentile  to  the  Jewish  Christians.  "  It  is  there- 
fore natural  to  conjecture  that  a  written  edict  of  this 
tenor  had  only  recently  been  issued  from  Jerusalem, 
that  Luke  mistakenly  referred  it  to  the  Apostolic 
Council,  and  gave  it  the  embodiment  which  we  find 
in  Acts  XV.  What  had  occasioned  the  issuing  of 
this  decree  we  are  not  told ;  and  whether  it  was 
issued  in  the  fifties  or  the  sixties  is  a  question  of  little 
moment  when  once  it  is  admitted  that  it  was  not 
issued  by  the  Council."^ 

While  Paul  reports,  as  a  sequel  to  the  treaty  of  peace 
at  Jerusalem,  the  contention  between  Peter  and  him- 
self at  Antioch  (Gal.  ii.  11  f. ;  cf.  vol.  i.  p.  120  f ),  Acts 
has  also  to  tell  of  a  contention,  not,  however,  between 
Paul  and  Peter,  but  between  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and 
not  in  regard  to  the  question  of  principle,  but  owing 

^  Harnack,  Sitzungshericht  der  pr.  Akad.  der  Wiss.,  1899,  vol.  xi. 
p.  20.  According  to  Weizsacker  also  {Ap.  Zeitalter,  p.  187),  the 
decree  was  not  issued  by  the  church  in  Jerusalem  until  after  the 
Antiochian  dissension. 


246  THE   ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

to  a  less  important  difference  of  opinion  regarding 
John  Mark  (xv.  37-39).  Without  doubt  we  have 
here  a  softened  reminiscence  of  the  more  serious  strife 
between  the  Apostles,  which  cannot,  moreover,  have 
been  unknown  to  the  author  of  Acts.  We  must 
therefore  suppose  that  he  wished  to  cast  the  mantle 
of  love  over  this,  for  the  Church-consciousness  of  his 
time,  unedifying  scene,  just  as  in  his  Gospel  he  has 
suppressed  Jesus'  sharp  rebuke  of  Peter  which  he 
found  in  Mark  viii.  33,  and  has  given  a  milder  tone  to 
the  words  about  the  mother  and  brethren  of  Jesus 
(Mark  iii.  33).  He  is  everywhere  a  peace-maker, 
and,  in  particular,  desires  to  remove  from  the  revered 
figures  of  the  primitive  Church  every  possible  shadow. 
After  the  departure  of  Barnabas  and  IVIark,  Paul 
entered  on  his  second  missionary  journey  with  Silas 
for  companion,  to  whom,  from  Lycaonia  onward, 
Timothy  was  added  as  a  new  helper  in  the  mission 
(xvi.  1  ff.).  Him,  Acts  records,  Paul  circumcised 
because  of  the  Jews  of  the  district,  who  knew  him  as 
the  son  of  a  Jewish  mother  and  a  Greek  father. 
This  deference  to  Jewish  feeling  on  the  part  of  Paul 
forms  such  a  striking  contrast  to  his  unyielding 
firmness  a  short  time  before  at  Jerusalem  in  the 
similar  case  of  Titus,  that  doubt  as  to  the  correctness 
of  this  statement  seem.s  to  be  justified.  Especially 
the  circumstance  that  Acts  makes  no  reference  at 
all  to  Titus,  whose  uncircumcision  offended  the 
Judaisers  at  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii.  3  f.),  makes  the 
mention  of  the  circumcising  of  Timothy  doubly 
suspicious  ;  one  can  hardly  avoid  the  impression  that 
Acts  aims  at  softening  the  unpleasant  memory  of  I 
Paul's  successful   resistance  to  the  demand  for  the 


THE   EXPANSION   OF  THE   CHURCH      247 

circumcising  of  Titus  by  the  conciliatory  assurance 
of  the  circumcision  of  Timothy,  just  as,  a  Uttle 
before,  it  endeavoured  to  soften  the  memory  of  the 
contention  between  Paul  and  Peter  by  recording 
the  less  significant  contention  with  Barnabas. 

This  time  Paul  found  no  rest  in  Asia  Minor ;  he 
was  urged  onwards  towards  the  West.  The  decisive 
resolution  to  carry  the  gospel  into  Europe  clothed 
itself  for  him  in  the  form  of  a  dream  in  which  he  saw 
a  Macedonian  standing  and  beseeching  him,  "  Come 
over  and  help  us."  He  recognised  in  this  the  Divine 
guidance  in  regard  to  his  further  missionary  progress, 
and  crossed  over  from  Troas  to  Macedonia.  Here 
(xvi.  10)  the  narrative  again  begins  to  use  the 
"  we,"  from  the  report  of  an  eye-witness  (the  Luke- 
source),  which  first  occurred  at  the  beginnings  of  the 
Antiochian  church  (xi.  28).  The  route  from  Troas  to 
Philippi  is  accurately  described.  Then  follows  a  very 
vivid  description  of  how  the  missionaries  spoke  to 
the  women  who  assembled  at  the  place  of  prayer  of 
the  Jews  and  proselytes,  how  a  proselyte  named 
Lydia  was  converted  and  offered  them  hospitality 
at  her  house,  how  then  a  woman  who  practised 
divination,  a  ventriloquist  or  hypnotic  medium,  who 
had  annoyed  the  Apostle  by  crying  after  him,  had  her 
trade  stopped  by  the  Apostle,  and  how  this  led  to  an 
accusation  against  him,  and  judicial  chastisement,  on 
the  ground  of  introducing  illicit  religious  customs.  At 
this  point,  however,  the  hitherto  quite  natural  story 
suddenly  takes  a  very  unnatural  turn — an  earthquake 
during  the  night  opened  the  doors  of  the  prison  and 
broke  the  chains  of  the  prisoners  ;  in  consequence  of 
this  the  jailer  at  once  believed,  took  Paul  and  Silas 


248  THE   ACTS   OF   THE   APOSTLES 

to  his  house  and  cared  for  them.  In  the  morning 
the  chief  magistrates  of  the  town  commanded  them 
to  be  set  at  Hberty,  but  Paul,  appeahng  to  his 
Roman  citizenship,  demanded  satisfaction  for  the 
ill-treatment  that  he  had  received,  and  obtained  it, 
in  so  far  that  the  chief  magistrates  themselves 
appeared  in  person  and  escorted  the  Apostle  out  of 
the  town.  All  this  is  too  improbable  to  allow  us  to 
hold  it  to  be  historical.  It  is  not  confirmed,  either, 
by  Paul  himself,  for  while  he  speaks  of  the  ill- 
treatment  and  contumely  which  he  had  suffered  at 
Philippi  (1  Thess.  ii.  1),  he  says  not  a  word  of  his 
miraculous  deliverance  and  the  splendid  satisfaction 
which  he  had  received.  Moreover,  this  miraculous 
deliverance  by  means  of  an  earthquake  has  its  exact 
counterpart  in  the  two  miraculous  deliverances  of 
Peter  (chaps,  v.  and  xii.),  so  that  obviously  all  three 
are  variations  of  the  same  legend.  And  as  regards 
the  satisfaction,  amounting  to  an  apology,  which  the 
authorities  of  Philippi  were  compelled  to  render  to 
the  Apostle,  the  author  doubtless  intended  to  give 
the  Roman  officials  of  his  own  period  (the  time  of 
Trajan)  a  warning  example  that  they  should  not 
allow  their  official  authority  to  be  compromised  in 
trials  of  Christians  by  careless  procedure  or  com- 
plaisance towards  mob- violence. 

From  Philippi  Paul  and  Silas  made  their  way 
through  Thessalonica  and  began  there  to  preach  in 
the  synagogue,  and  while  few  Jews  were  converted 
by  this  preaching  there  was  a  large  number  of  con- 
verts among  the  proselytes,  both  men  and  women, 
some  of  them  people  of  distinction.  This  roused  the 
jealousy  of  the  Jews,  who  were  able  to  procure  the 


THE   EXPANSION   OF   THE   CHURCH      249 

expulsion  of  the  Apostles  by  the  magistrates  of  the 
town  (xvii.  1-9).  In  Beroea  their  preaching  met 
with  a  better  reception  from  the  Jewish  colony  of 
that  place,  but  the  Jews  from  Thessalonica  stirred 
up  the  populace  against  Paul,  so  that  he  was  obliged 
to  depart  from  the  town,  leaving  the  prosecution 
of  the  work  which  he  had  begun  there  to  his  helpers 
Silas  and  Timothy  (verses  10-15).  This  report  is 
confirmed  by  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  account  which  follows  in 
Acts  of  the  appearance  of  Paul  in  Athens  gives 
rise  to  some  difficulties.  Even  the  circumstance  that 
Paul  fell  into  discussion  in  the  market-place  with 
Epicurean  and  Stoic  philosophers  (xvii.  17  f.)  is  little 
in  accordance  with  his  practice  elsewhere  of  beginning 
his  preaching  in  the  narrow  circles  of  those  who  were 
religiously  receptive  and  desirous  of  salvation.  It  is 
still  more  improbable  that  he  delivered  an  apologetic 
discourse  upon  the  Areopagus,  which  was  no  place  for 
popular  speeches,  but  the  highest  court  of  justice  in 
the  city.  It  is  possible  that  the  narrator  wished 
this  discourse  to  be  regarded  as  a  legal  defence,  after 
the  analogy  of  the  speeches  delivered  by  Peter  and 
by  Stephen  before  the  Sanhedrin,  and  therefore  laid 
the  scene  of  it  on  the  Areopagus ;  but  as  nothing  is 
said  of  a  regular  legal  process  with  accusation, 
examination,  and  reply,  the  whole  situation  has 
obviously  been  freely  invented  in  order  to  give 
the  speech  which  was  to  be  introduced  here  a 
dignified  setting.  As  regards  the  contents  of  the 
speech,  it  is  certainly  to  be  recognised  that  it  does 
much  credit  to  the  literary  skill  of  the  author,  as  an 
able  and  well-conceived  defence  of  Christianity  before 


250  THE   ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTLES 

the  world  of  heathen  culture,  and  to  this  extent,  as 
the  first  example  of  Christian  apologetic  in  the  face  of 
heathenism,  it  has  undeniable  historical  value  ;^  but  we 
must  not  seek  in  it  documentary  evidence  of  the 
character  of  Apostolic  preaching — still  less  than  in  the 
Petrine  speeches  of  the  early  chapters.  The  speech 
begins  by  a  laudatory  reference  to  the  God-fearing 
character  of  the  Greeks,  which  was  shown  in  the  fact 
that  the  Athenians  had  dedicated  an  altar  to  an 
unknown  god.  (This  is  an  allusion  to  the  actual 
occurrence  of  altars  dedicated  "  to  unknown  gods  "  ; 
the  plural  has  been  changed  into  the  singular  by  the 
author  to  serve  his  oratorical  purpose.)  This  God, 
whom  they  worshipped  though  they  knew  Him  not, 
the  speaker  desires  to  set  forth  to  them.  He  is  the 
Creator,  and  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  who 
dwells  not  in  temples  made  with  hands,  nor  needs 
anything  from  man,  for  He  Himself  is  the  source  of 
all  life.  He  has  caused  the  whole  race  of  man  to 
spring  from  a  single  ancestor,  and  has  given  to 
individual  peoples  their  dwelling-places  and  their 
historical  vocation,  that  they  may  seek  God,  if  haply 
they  may  find  Him,  for  He  is  not  far  from  every  one 
of  us,  since  in  Him  we  live  and  move  and  have  our 
being ;  as  even  the  Greek  poets  (the  Stoic  Cleanthes, 
who  taught  in  Athens,  and  the  Cilician  Aratus)  had 
said,  "  We  are  the  offspring  of   God."     Man  ought 

1  Norden,  Antike  Kimstprosa,  ii.  475,  well  I'emarks :  "  If  ever  a 
scientific  book  is  written  on  the  relations  of  Christianity  to  Greek 
philosophy^  the  speech  at  Athens  must  stand  as  the  earliest  catholic 
attempt  at  compromise  between  Chi-istianity  and  the  pure  Hellenic 
Stoicism,  just  as  the  prologue  to  the  Johannine  Gospel  fulfils  a 
similar  function  in  regard  to  Christianity  and  the  Jewish-Hellenic 
Stoicism." 


THE   EXPANSION   OF  THE   CHURCH      251 

not,  therefore,  since  he  is  thus  related  to  God,  to 
worship  material  images.  Hitherto,  it  is  true,  God 
has  in  His  longs ufFering  overlooked  this  ignorance, 
but  now  He  commands  men  everywhere  to  repent, 
since  He  has  appointed  a  day  in  which  He  will  judge 
the  world  by  a  man  whom  He  has  authenticated 
before  all  by  raising  him  from  the  dead,  as  the 
future  ruler  of  the  world.  This  speech  revolves  round 
the  two  poles  of  the  Gentile-Christian  consciousness  : 
the  monotheistic  belief  in  God,  and  the  expectation  of 
the  return  of  the  risen  Jesus  as  ruler  of  the  world. 
Though  it  may  doubtless  be  assumed  to  be  certain 
that  both  points  played  a  prominent  part  in  the 
speeches  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  yet  it  is 
not  to  be  overlooked  that  the  Pauline  Christ  is  not 
primarily  the  Judge  of  the  world,  but  the  Saviour  of 
the  world,  and  that  the  purpose  of  His  resurrection 
is  not  to  mark  Him  out  as  the  appointed  Judge  of  the 
world,  but  as  the  Son  of  God,  in  whom  we  are  to  find 
justification  (Rom.  i.  4,  iv.  25).  Similarly,  the  mild 
censure  of  idolatry  as  "  ignorance "  which  God  has 
overlooked  is  difficult  to  reconcile  with  Rom.  i. 
19  fF.,  where  the  worship  of  images  appears  rather  as 
the  reason  for  the  revelation  of  God's  wrath  ag-ainst 
the  heathen  world.  AA^hether,  too,  Paul  would  have 
adopted  the  saying  of  the  Greek  poet  regarding  the 
kinship  of  men  with  God  is  open  to  doubt,  when  we 
remember  that  Paul  thought  of  man  under  the 
categories  flesh,  soul,  earthly  being,  which  stand  in 
direct  contrast  to  the  heavenly,  spiritual  being  of  God 
(1  Cor.  XV.  45,  ii.  15  f.).  In  all  this  is  betrayed  the 
point  of  view  of  the  author  of  the  speech,  who  stands 
incomparably  nearer  to  the  apologists  of  the  second 


262  THE   ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

century  than  to  genuine  Paulinism.     We  notice,  too, 
the  interesting  fact  that  the  historical  Paul  has  here,  at 
a  stroke,  been  given  by  his  biographer  a  Gentile  aspect, 
as  elsewhere  he  gives  him  a  Jewish  aspect.     If  the 
former  is  not  to  be  explained  by  any  party  tendency, 
then  the  latter  cannot  logically  be  explained  in  that 
way ;  both  alike  find  their  most  natural  explanation  in 
the  mode  of  thought  of  the  Gentile-Christian  church 
in  the  second  century,  which  the  author  has  assumed 
to  be  also  the  mode  of  thought  of  his  hero.     Another 
argument  in  favour  of  the  free  composition  of  the 
speech  on  the  Areopagus  is  its  affinity  in  part  with 
the   speech   of   Stephen   (vii.),    in  part  with   several 
passages  of  Josephus.     As  the  former  was  an  apology 
for  Christianity  before  the  Jewish  authorities,  so  the 
present   speech   is   an     apology  before   the   heathen 
authorities ;   the   occasion   in   both    cases    being   the 
charge  of  making  innovations  in  religion,  culminating 
in  both  cases  in  the  rejection  of  the  service  of  the 
visible  temple,    as   being   in  contradiction  with   the 
spiritual  idea  of  God.     This  pure  monotheism,  form- 
ing  the    common    pole   of    Jewish     and     Christian 
Hellenism,  is  precisely  what  we  find  in  many  passages 
in  Josephus  {Ant.,  viii.  4.  2  ;  Adv.  Apion.,  ii.  16.  22), 
described    in  phrases  which  have  such  close  verbal 
affinity  with  that  of  the  speech  on   the  Areopagus 
that  the  dependence  of  the  author  of  that  speech  upon 
Josephus  is  very  probable.^ 

The  stay  of  the  Apostle  in  Athens  seems  to  have 
been  brief  and  to  have  had  very  little  result,  for  we 
never  hear  anything  in  his  letters  of  the  existence  of 
a   Christian  community  there.     On  the  other  hand, 

'   Krenkel,  Josephus  und  Lukas,  pp.  224-228. 


THE   EXPANSION   OF  THE   CHURCH      253 

Corinth  offered  him  a  rich  field  of  work,  in  which  he 
laboured  for  a  year  and  a  half  (xviii.  10  f.).  Apart 
from  the  ever-recurring  conflict  with  the  Jews,  whose 
machinations  were  in  this  instance  frustrated  by  the 
correct  attitude  of  the  Roman  proconsul  Gallio, 
Acts  unfortunately  gives  us  no  detailed  account  of 
the  history  of  the  foundation  of  the  Corinthian 
church — passes  over,  in  fact,  in  complete  silence  all 
the  inner  difficulties  with  which  Paul  was  so  much 
occupied,  both  personally  when  on  the  spot,  and  in 
his  correspondence.  Whether  the  author  did  this 
because  his  source  here  failed  him  (the  eye-witness 
of  the  "  we-source "  first  met  Paul  again  upon  his 
return  to  Philippi,  xx.  5),  or  because  these  stories 
seemed  to  be  neither  interesting  nor  edifying  for 
later  readers,  is  a  question  which,  in  our  ignorance 
of  the  sources  of  Acts,  we  must  be  content  to 
leave  open. 

There  are  difficulties,  too,  in  the  report  of  the 
journey  which,  according  to  xviii.  21  f.,  Paul  made 
from  Ephesus — before  returning  there  for  his  longer 
stay — to  Antioch  and,  as  used  to  be  supposed,  to 
Jerusalem.  It  is  not  in  itself  very  probable  that 
Paul,  after  what  had  happened  at  Antioch  and  the 
dispute  with  Peter  and  the  James  party  from 
Jerusalem,  would  now  have  gone  up  to  Jerusalem  in 
order  to  keep  a  feast.  Moreover,  the  reception  which 
Paul  later  (chap,  xxi.)  finds  in  Jerusalem  decidedly 
makes  the  impression  that  this  is  the  first  meeting 
(since  the  Council)  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles, 
who  preached  freedom  from  the  Law,  with  the 
legalist  primitive  Church.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
is    not    easy   to    see    any    reason    why    the    author 


254  THE    ACTS   OF  THE  APOSTLES 

should  have  invented  this  whole  journey  without  any 
historical  basis,  and  then  have  given  only  so  cursory 
an  account  of  it.  Besides,  it  is  natural  to  suppose 
that  Paul,  when  he  returned  from  Corinth  to  Asia 
Minor,  was  anxious  to  visit  first  his  churches  in 
Antioch  and  in  Galatia.  We  find  confirmation  of 
this  conjecture,  and  a  simple  solution  of  the  whole 
difftculty,  in  the  expHcit  and  certainly  original  reading 
of  the  Western  text  (D),  in  which  the  purpose  of 
the  journey  is,  indeed,  first  explained  in  xviii.  21  with 
the  words,  "  I  must  by  all  means  keep  the  feast  in 
Jerusalem,"  but  continues  (xix.  1),  "When  Paul  was 
intending  of  his  own  motion  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  the 
the  Spirit  bade  him  return  to  Asia  ;  and  when  he  had 
passed  through  the  upper  regions  he  came  to  Ephesus," 
etc.  The  author  who  wrote  this  cannot  possibly  have 
meant  in  xviii.  22  that  Paul  travelled  up  to 
Jerusalem,  but  only  that  he  went  to  C^esarea  and 
Antioch  to  greet  the  churches  there. \  Only  when 
a  later  hand  had  omitted  the  two  correspond- 
ing statements  of  the  intention  to  travel  up  to 
Jerusalem  and  of  the  non-fulfilment  of  it  on  account 
of  the  (supposed)  contradiction  between  them,  could 
xviii.  22  be  misunderstood  as  referring  to  a  completed 
journey  to  Jerusalem. 

The  account  which  Acts  gives  of  Paul's  work  in 
Ephesus  is  prefaced  by  an  interesting  episode  relating 

1  It  may,  moreover,  be  conjectured  that  in  the  source  used  here 
xix.  1  followed  immediately  upon  xviii.  22,  and  that  verse  23  as  well 
as  the  passage  about  Apollos  was  added  by  the  author  ;  for  in  D, 
xix.  1  does  not  contain  any  reference  to  Apollos  nor  to  the  travel 
notices  of  xviii.  23,  which  the  author  probably  inserted  because  the 
slight  reference  of  the  source  to  his  having  travelled  through  the 
upper  regions  "  seemed  to  him  to  need  some  further  explanation. 


I 


THE   EXPANSION   OF  THE    CHURCH      255 

to  disciples  there  who  had  been  baptized  with  John's 
baptism,  and  to  the  Alexandrian  scholar  ApoUos, 
whose  faith  was  in  some  respects  similar  to  theirs 
(xviii.  24-xix.  7).  It  is  true  that  the  picture  of  this 
man  which  is  given  in  xviii.  25  ff.  is  as  obscure  as  his 
relation  to  the  disciples  of  John  who  are  spoken  of  in 
xix.  2-7.  He  has  this  in  common  with  them,  that  he 
is  only  baptized  with  John's  baptism  ;  but  while  they 
first  heard  from  Paul  of  Jesus  as  the  fulfiller  of  John's 
message,  and  then,  believing,  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  Jesus,  and  received  the  Spirit  by  the  laying- 
on  of  the  hands  of  Paul,  the  Spirit  manifesting  His 
presence  by  their  "  speaking  with  tongues "  and 
"prophesying,"  it  is  on  the  contrary  said  of  Apollos 
that  he  (according  to  D)  had  already  in  his  home 
(Alexandria)  been  instructed  in  the  word,  or  way,  of 
the  Lord,  i.e.  in  regard  to  Christianity,  and  that  he 
spoke  fervently  in  the  Spirit  and  taught  accurately  the 
things  of  the  Lord,  knowing  only  the  baptism  of 
John.  Then,  in  Ephesus,  he  was  taught  more  fully 
the  way  of  God,  and  thereafter  went  with  letters  of 
recommendation  from  Ephesus  to  Corinth,  and  there 
disputed  powerfully  with  the  Jews  and  convinced 
them  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus.  How  are  we  to  reconcile  the  statements  that 
Apollos,  while  he  only  knew  the  baptism  of  John — 
therefore  had  not  been  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus — 
was  filled  with  the  fervency  of  the  (Christian  ?)  Spirit, 
and  taught  accurately  concerning  Jesus  ?  And,  since 
Apollos  is  said  in  that  passage  to  have  belonged  to 
the  disciples  of  John,  how  came  it  that  the  other 
disciples  of  John  remained  so  entirely  unaffected  by 
his  knowledge  of  Christianity  and  his  relations  with 


256  THE   ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

Aquila  and  Priscilla  as,  according  to  xix.  2,  they 
evidently  did  ?  This  want  of  connection  between 
the  two,  the  accounts  of  ApoUos  and  of  the  disciples 
of  John,  might  perhaps  be  most  simply  explained 
by  supposing  that  the  former  has  been  inserted 
by  the  author  (which  is  in  conformity  with  what 
has  been  remarked  on  xix.  1),  while  the  latter  is 
derived  from  his  source.  While  the  sketch  of  Apollos 
is  obscure  and  self-contradictory,  representing  him  as 
a  Christian  before  he  was  baptized  in  the  name  of 
Jesus,  the  picture  of  the  disciples  of  John,  on  the 
other  hand,  who  knew  nothing  either  of  the 
(Christian)  Spirit  or  of  Jesus,  and  first  became 
Christians  through  Paul's  preaching,  is  quite  clear 
and  simple.  Here  there  is,  at  any  rate,  an  historical 
basis.  That  there  was  really  a  school  of  disciples  of 
John  the  Baptist  at  Ephesus,  and  that  it  was  not 
uncommon  to  pass  over  from  it  to  the  Christian 
Church,  may  be  inferred  with  much  probability  from 
the  Gospel  of  John  also.  For  this  reason  it  would 
be  difficult  to  raise  any  valid  objection  against  the 
record  that  such  conversions  did  actually  take  place 
through  Paul's  preaching.  There  is  therefore  no 
ground  for  the  conjecture  that  the  story  of  the 
Ephesian  disciples  of  John  in  xix.  2-7  was  freely 
invented  by  the  author  in  imitation  of  viii.  14  fF.  ; 
the  not  very  probable  narrative  there  is  much  more 
likely  to  be  an  imitation  of  xix.  2  fF. 

Of  the  two  years'  work  of  Paul  at  Ephesus,  Acts 
gives  (xix.  8-40)  only  a  fragmentary  picture.  It 
mentions  miraculous  cures  wrought  by  means  of 
handkerchiefs  of  Paul,  a  legendary  trait,  which  is,  how- 
ever, quite  explicable  in  view  of  the  keen  appetite  for 


THE   EXPANSION   OF   THE   CHURCH      257 

miracle  which  usually  prevails  in  the  lower  strata  of 
society  when  under  the  influence  of  religious  excite- 
ment.    Then  follows  a  story  of  Jewish  exorcists  who 
got  into  trouble  through  misusing  the  name  of  Jesus  ; 
then  the  incident  of  the  burning  of  valuable  books  of 
sorcery ;  finally,  a  popular  tumult  is  described  which 
was  stirred  up  against  Paul  by  a  silversmith  named 
Demetrius   because  he  found  himself  injured  in  his 
trade,  which  depended  on  the  worship  of  Diana,  by 
the   success   of  the   mission.     This  narrative  seems, 
indeed,  from   the  mention  by  name  of  some  of  the 
persons   who   are   prominent   in   it,  to   rest   upon   a 
definite  basis  of  tradition  (perhaps  the  "  we-source  ") ; 
yet  this  cannot  have  been  very  definite,  or  else  was 
not  followed  with    much  accuracy  by  the  narrator, 
for  it  is  difficult  to  make   out  the  role  which  was 
played  by  the  Jew  Alexander  (verses  33  f.)   in  the 
tumult.     Moreover,  Paul's  escape  in  complete  safety 
from   the   tumult  does   not  agree  with   Paul's  own 
reference   to   a   mortal   danger    in   which    he   found 
himself  at   this   time,   in  which   he   even   despaired 
of  deliverance    (2    Cor.    i.    8).      Perhaps  the  author 
has,    in    conformity  with  his  apologetic  aim,   repre- 
sented  the   attitude   of    the    Roman    authorities    as 
more  favourable  than  it  actually  was ;   or  perhaps, 
by  narrating  a  (politically)  innocent  occurrence,   he 
has  sought  to  soften  the  impression  of  a  more  serious 
collision  with  the   Roman  authorities — much  as  he 
did  in  xv.  37  ff*. 

The  journey  of  Paul  through  Macedonia  to  Greece, 
of  which  there  is  confirmation  in  the  Corinthian  letters, 
is  only  mentioned  incidentally  in  xx.  1  f. ;  but,  to  make 
up   for  this,  the  return  journey  through  Macedonia 

VOL.  II  17 


258  THE    ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTLES 

and  Troas  to  Jerusalem  is  reported  very  fully. ^  At 
Philippi  the  writer  of  the  travel-diary,  whom  we 
lost  sight  of  at  Paul's  first  visit  to  Philippi,  seems  to 
have  rejoined  his  company ;  for,  from  verse  25  on, 
the  "we"  appears  again.  The  authority  of  this 
source  attests  the  story  in  xx.  7-12  of  how  Euty- 
chus  fell  from  the  window  and  was  taken  up  as 
dead,  but  was  brought  to  life  again  by  Paul ;  and 
in  the  story  itself  there  is  nothing  impossible,  for 
though  the  narrator  may  of  course  have  thought  of  a 
real  raising  from  the  dead,  this  opinion  of  his  need  not 
hinder  us  from  explaining,  the  occurrence  as  natural, 
since  there  is  nothing  in  the  wording  of  the  narrative 
to  contradict  this  impression.  By  this  strict  reserve 
the  narrative  is  distinguished,  much  to  its  advantage, 
from  the  raising  from  the  dead  which  is  narrated  of 
Peter  in  ix.  36  ff.  If,  therefore,  the  parallelism  of 
the  nai-ratives  is  intentional,  it  would  in  any  case  be 
the  Peter  story  which  was  the  imitation. 

While  the  exact  statements  regarding  the  route  of 
travel  are  derived  from  the  travel-diary,  the  speech 
which  Acts  makes  Paul  deliver  to  the  Ephesian 
elders  at  Miletus  (xx.  18-35)  is  to  be  considered  in 
the  same  light  as  all  the  speeches  in  this  history ;  it 
is  a  composition  of  the  narrator's,  who  has  inserted 
it  here  in  order,  at  the  close  of  Paul's  missionary 
activity,  to    cast  a  glance  back  along   its  course,  to 

1  It  is  worth  noticing  that  in  verse  3  according  to  D,  the  reason 
for  the  land  journey,  instead  of  the  sea  journey  which  was  at  first 
intended,  is  explained  as  being  a  warning  oracle  of  the  Spirit,  which 
here,  as  in  xix.  1 ,  is  omitted  in  the  received  text ;  in  both  cases  D 
has  obviously  the  original  reading,  while  the  redactor  of  the 
received  text  omits  these  oracles  of  the  Spirit  as  savouring  too 
much  of  enthusiasm. 


THE    EXPANSION   OF   THE   CHURCH      259 

testify  to  its  leading  principles,  and  at  the  same  time, 
looking  forward  to  the  future  of  the  Church,  to  put 
various  exhortations  into  the  mouth  of  the  Apostle  as 
he  takes  his  leave.  That  this  is  done  in  an  attractive 
and  sympathetic  fashion  may  well  be  admitted,  with- 
out overlooking  the  fact  that  the  speech  is  in  many 
respects  less  adapted  to  the  situation  of  Paul  than  to 
that  of  his  pious  biographer.  Even  the  definite  pre- 
diction, going  far  beyond  anxious  presentiment,  that 
they  will  henceforth  see  him  no  more,  could  scarcely 
have  been  spoken  by  Paul ;  this  must  be  due  to  the 
author,  with  his  knowledge  of  the  course  of  the  history. 
Moreover,  while  the  attacks  and  plots  are  mentioned 
which  the  Apostle  encountered  from  enemies  without, 
namely,  the  Jews,  the  fightings  and  cares  which 
assailed  him  from  the  side  of  factions  and  opponents 
within  the  churches  themselves,  and  which  at  that 
time  gave  him  as  much  or  more  concern  than  the 
persecutions  from  without  (2  Cor.  vii.  5),  are  passed 
over  in  complete  silence.  This  would  be  as  unin- 
telligible in  a  real  speech  of  Paul  as  it  is  completely 
intelligible  from  the  standpoint  of  the  deutero-Pauline 
author,  who  really — as  his  whole  history  shows — 
knew  little  of  the  controversies  within  the  Christian 
church  of  Apostolic  times,  and  was  not  anxious 
to  tell  what  he  knew.  With  this  is  connected  the 
further  circumstance  that  the  exhortations  addressed 
by  the  speaker  to  the  leaders  of  the  Ephesian  church 
are  couched  in  such  general  language  that  absolutely 
no  picture  of  the  real  condition  and  circumstances  of 
that  church  can  be  gathered  from  them,  whereas  Paul 
always  in  his  letters  (think  of  the  Corinthian  letters, 
for  instance)  discusses  in  such  detail  the  circumstances 


260  THE    ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTLES 

and  needs  of  the  church  to  which  he  is  writing  that 
we  can  make  for  ourselves  a  vivid  picture  of  it.  In- 
stead of  going  into  the  actual  circumstances  of  the 
present,  the  speaker  dwells  rather  on  future  dangers 
which  after  the  departure  of  the  Apostle  will  threaten 
the  church  owing  to  the  efforts  of  seductive  teachers  of 
error.  That  is  exactly  the  way  in  which  the  "  Pastoral 
Epistles  "  also  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Apostle,  as  a 
vaticinium  post  eventum,  a  warning  against  the  hereti- 
cal teachers  of  the  second  century.  The  true  Paul 
was  kept  so  busy  by  the  opponents  of  his  own  time 
that  he  had  no  leisure  to  think  of  the  heretics  of  the 
future.  Another  thing  that  reminds  us  strongly  of 
the  Pastoral  Epistles  is  that  the  leaders  of  the  church 
are  treated  as  the  responsible  representatives  of  the 
church  and  the  guardians  of  the  purity  of  its  faith 
in  the  struggle  against  heresy — a  view  of  which  we 
find  no  trace  in  the  genuine  Pauline  epistles ;  indeed, 
we  may  find  in  this  discourse  the  whole  "  scheme  of  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  "  :  "  diminution  of  the  rights  of  the 
members  of  the  church,  close  association  of  the  ideas  of 
official  status  and  endowment  with  Spirit,  prescription 
of  hierarchic  organisation  of  the  church  as  a  defence 
against  error,  and  the  still-subsisting  identification 
of  the  presbyterate  with  the  office  of  bishop  "  (Holtz- 
mann).  From  the  point  of  view  of  later  circumstances, 
what  is  said  regarding  the  principles  of  Apostolic 
teaching  acquires  a  special  significance.  A^'^hen  the 
speaker  repeatedly  (verses  20,  27)  emphasises  the 
fact  that  he  had  held  nothing  back,  but  communicated 
to  his  hearers  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  that  serves 
not  merely  as  a  defence  of  Paul  against  the  charge 
of  misrepresenting  and   keeping   back   the  truth  of 


\ 


THE   EXPANSION   OF  THE   CHURCH      261 

the  gospel,  which  was  brought  against  him  by  the 
Judaisers,  but  also  as  a  repudiation  of  those  unorthodox 
doctrines  which  were  put  forth  by  gnosticising  and 
libertine  professed  followers  of  Paul  as  the  true  core 
and  the  completion  of  Pauline  teaching.  And  when 
the  speaker  dwells  on  the  unselfishness  of  his  mission- 
ary activity,  and  expressly  holds  it  up  as  a  pattern  for 
his  disciples  (verses  34  f.),  there  is  obviously  in  this  a 
warning  against  covetousness — a  vice  with  which  the 
teachers  of  the  second  century,  especially  the  heretical 
teachers,  are  repeatedly  reproached  in  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  and  elsewhere  {e.g.,  1  Pet.  v.  2  f.  ;  Matt.  x.  9). 
Thus,  this  whole  discourse  appears  to  presuppose 
the  circumstances  of  the  second  century,  and  to  be  a 
defence  not  merely  of  Paul,  but  of  ecclesiastical 
Paulinism,  represented  in  his  person.^ 

Throughout  the  rest  of  Paul's  journey  to  Jerusalem 
the  source  is  closely  followed,  and  the  repeated  warn- 
ings of  the  imminent  danger  and  suffering  are  thus 
confirmed  as  historical.  Especially  as  regards  the 
prediction  of  Agabus  in  xxi.  10  f.,  the  way  in  which 
the  prophet  is  here  introduced  without  reference  to 
the  previous  mention  of  him  (xi.  28)  must  be  derived 
from  the  source  which  the  author  is  using.  Whether 
the  earlier  mention  is  to  be  referred  to  the  same 
source  or  was  freely  invented  by  the  writer,  who  knew 
the  name  from  this  passage  (Hilgenfeld),  remains  an 
open  question. 

In  the  last  section  of  Acts,  which  begins  with  the 

^  The  parallels  cited  by  Krenkel  (^ut  sup.,  pp.  236-240)  from 
Josephus'  account  of  the  farewell  discourses  of  Moses,  Samuel,  and 
King  Agrippa  {Ant.,  iv.  8.  2,  3,  48  ;  vi.  5.  5  ;  B.J.,  ii.  l6.  4  f )  are 
worthy  of  notice. 


262  THE   ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTLES 

arrival  of  Paul  in  Jerusalem,  we  notice  with  especial 
clearness  the  carrying  out  of  the  ideas  which  were 
indicated  at  the  outset  (see  p.  191  f.,  sap.)  as  funda- 
mental in  this  work :  defence  of  Christianity  before 
the  Roman  civil  authority ;  its  agreement  with  the 
Jewish  religion,  alongside  of  the  sharp  opposition 
between  the  Church  and  the  Jewish  people ;  finally, 
the  minimising  of  dissensions  within  Christianity  in 
comparison  with  this  outward  opposition.  This 
applies  especially  to  the  speeches  which  the  author 
has  interwoven  into  this  last  section,  as  to  the  histor- 
icity of  which  the  analogy  of  all  the  other  speeches 
which  we  have  considered  thus  far  leaves  us  in  no 
doubt.  The  case  is  less  certain  in  regard  to  the 
proceedings  here  reported  which  led  to  Paul's  im- 
prisonment. Though  the  connection  of  these  narra- 
tives is  in  many  respects  obscure,  they  contain,  on  the 
other  hand,  such  definite  statements  and  such  vivid 
descriptions  that  we  cannot  help  seeing  in  them  traces 
of  the  "  we-source,"  though  perhaps  used  only  in  ex- 
tracts and  partially  worked  over  by  the  author. 

A  much  debated  point  of  controversy  is  furnished 
by  the  very  first  of  the  scenes  which  take  place  in 
Jerusalem  (xxi.  17-26).  After  mention  of  the  friendly 
reception  of  the  Apostle  and  his  travelling  companions 
in  Jerusalem,  it  is  next  narrated  that  the  presbyters 
assembled  about  James  informed  Paul  that  it  was 
currently  reported  among  the  thousands  of  Jewish 
Christians  who  were  zealous  for  the  Law  that  he 
taught  the  Jews  of  the  Diaspora  to  abandon  it ;  they 
therefore  counselled  him  to  associate  himself  with 
some  men  who  had  taken  upon  them  the  Nazirite 
vow,  letting  himself  be  purified  along  with  them  and 


THE   EXPANSION   OF  THE   CHURCH      263 

bearing  the  costs  of  discharging  their  vow ;  thus  it 
would  be  seen  that  there  was  no  truth  in  this  report, 
and  that  he  too  continued  to  observe  the  Law.  Then, 
too,  as  regards  the  Gentiles  who  believed,  his  adver- 
saries were  not  in  a  position  to  find  fault  with  him 
(verse  25,  ace.  Cod.  D  ^),  as,  by  their  (the  Jerusalem 
presbyters')  decree,  the  Gentiles  had  been  set  free 
from  any  further  obligations  beyond  those  of  ab- 
stinence from  idolatry,  from  blood  (things  strangled), 
and  from  unchastity.  This  counsel  Paul  followed, 
and  it  was  precisely  his  presence  in  the  Temple,  in 
order  to  fulfil  the  vow,  which  gave  occasion  for  the 
tumult  raised  by  the  Jews  which  ended  in  Paul's 
arrest  by  the  Roman  garrison.  Not  without  reason 
have  difficulties  been  found  in  this  narrative.  Was, 
then,  we  must  ask,  the  rumour  of  Paul's  rejection  of  the 
Law  a  groundless  calumny  ?  Had  he  not  really  taught 
that  Christ  was  the  end  of  the  Law  for  everyone  who 
believes,  for  the  Jew  as  well  as  for  the  Gentile  ?  That 
circumcision  was  of  no  more  religious  value  than  un- 
circumcision  ?  That  everyone  who  caused  himself  to 
be  circumcised  had  fallen  from  Christ  and  from  grace  ? 
(Rom.  X.  4 ;  Gal.  v.  2-6).  And  even  if  he  could,  on 
occasion,  become  a  Jew  to  a  Jew  in  order  to  win  him 
for  Christ,  could  he,  in  view  of  his  indifference  in 
principle  towards  the  Mosaic  Law,  wish  to  maintain 
that  he  always  walked  according  to  it  ?  Indeed,  it 
seems  clear  that  the  historical  Paul  could  not,  without 
insincerity,  have  adopted  the  proof  of  his  continued 
observance  of  the  Law  which  was  here  demanded  of 
him.     Which  is  the  more  probable  ?    the  critics  ask  : 

^  After  "^as  touching  the  Gentiles  which  believe,"  D  adds  ovSev 
e'xouo-t  Acyeii/  Tr/aos  o-e,  and  proceeds  rjfjuts  yap  k.t.X. — Translator, 


264  THE   ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTLES 

that  Paul  should  really  have  thus  denied  his  principles, 
or  that  the  author  of  Acts  (not  the  "  we-source")  should 
have  attributed  to  him  here,  as  in  xvi.  3  and  the  speeches 
of  xxiii.,  xxiv.,  xxvi.,  the  role  of  a  law-abiding  Jew?  To 
this  it  is  replied  by  the  other  side  that  it  is  still  a  ques- 
tion whether  Paul  was  not  really  justified  in  denying 
the  reproach  that  he  taught  the  Jews  to  reject  the  Law ; 
he  had,  on  the  other  hand  taught  that  every  Christian 
should  remain  as  he  was  when  he  was  called,  the  Jew 
in  his  circumcision  and  the  Gentile  in  uncircumcision 
(1  Cor.  vii.  17  f.  ;  cf.  Acts  xv.  2,  ace.  D^).  If,  then, 
in  order  to  conciliate  those  who  were  unjustly  oppos- 
ing him,  he  took  part  in  a  Jewish  ceremony,  that  was 
no  denial  of  his  conviction  of  the  religious  worthiess- 
ness  of  the  legal  forms,  but  an  application  of  his  prin- 
ciple of  Christian  freedom,  viz.  that  in  things  indifferent 
each  one  should  act  as  his  conscience  and  the  needs 
of  the  weaker  brother  dictate  (1  Cor.  ix.  19  fF.,  x. 
23 ;  Rom.  xiv. )  Moreover,  it  is  not  strictly  implied 
in  the  wording  of  the  narrative  that  Paul  had  taken 
a  vow  upon  himself,  but  only  that  he  had  undergone 
a  purification,  and  had  assisted  others  in  the  discharge 
of  their  vow  by  a  contribution  of  money,  a  thing  which 
was  frequently  done,  e.g.  by  King  Agrippa,  accord- 
ing to  Josephus,  Ant.,  xix.  6.  1.  Finally,  it  is  asked 
whether  it  is  probable  that  a  story  so  detailed,  and 
involving  such  fine  points  of  Jewish  ritual,  as  that 
which  is  told  in  xxi.  20-26,  could  have  been  freely 
invented  by  the  Gentile- Christian  author  of  Acts 
without   any    dependence   on   the   source   which   he 

1  After  "  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  no  small  dissension  and 
disputation  with  them,"  D  has  eXcyev  yap  6  11.  /Aevetv  oiJtws  Ka^ws 
cTrto-Tcucrav  Sua-^^ypL^oixevos. — Translator. 


THE   EXPANSION   OF   THE   CHURCH      265 

follows  both  before  and  after  ?  I  admit  that  these 
difficulties  appear  to  me  too  serious  to  permit  me  to 
deny  that  the  story  has  any  historical  basis.  How 
far  accommodation  is  rightly  possible  in  things  which 
one  holds  to  be  indifferent  is  a  question  to  which 
such  different  answers  would  be  given  by  different 
persons  that  it  seems  useless  to  make  any  a  priori 
assertions  in  regard  to  it.  That  Paul  held  com- 
promise for  the  sake  of  peace  to  be  admissible  in 
principle  is  certain  {cf.  1  Cor.  viii.  1  f.,  x.  23 ;  Rom. 
xiv.).  We  should  not  be  justified  in  giving  a  definite 
opinion  as  to  whether  he  ought  to  have  practised  it 
in  the  present  case  unless  we  were  exactly  acquainted 
with  all  the  circumstances.  Perhaps  we  come  nearest 
to  the  truth  if  we  suppose  that  the  narrative  has  a 
foundation  of  fact,  but  that  the  motive  assigned  for 
Paul's  action  (in  verse  24),  to  which  objection  is 
taken,  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  author,  in  regard  to 
whom  we  have  long  recognised  that,  in  the  light  of 
the  ecclesiastical  circumstances  of  his  own  time,  he 
thought  of  his  hero  as  more  conservative  than  he 
really  was.^ 

Immediately  after  Paul  had  been  torn  from  the 
hands  of  the  .Jewish  mob  by  the  intervention  of  the 
Roman  soldiers  and  led  away  to  the  castle.  Acts 
represents  him  as  delivering  his  first  defence  before 
the  assembled  people  (chap.  xxii.).  He  recounts  how 
he  had  at  first  been  a  Jew  zealous  for  the  Law  and 
a  bitter  persecutor  of  the  Christians,  then  by  the 
miraculous  vision  on  the  road  to  Damascus  had  been 

^  This  is  the  opinion  of  Wendt,  Komm.  z.  Ap.  G.,  pp.  346  fF.,  and 
Joh.  Weiss,  Uher  Ahsicht  und  literar.  Char  aider  der  Apostelgeschickte, 
pp.  36  fF.,  where  the  question  is  discussed  with  much  discrimination. 


^66  THE   ACTS   OF   THE    APOSTLES 

converted  to  Christianity  and,  by  a  second  vision  in 
the  Temple,  had  been  sent  forth  as  an  apostle  to 
the  heathen,  because  his  testimony  to  Christ  w^ould 
not  be  received  in  Jerusalem.  At  this  significant 
statement,  which  forms  the  main  point  of  the  speech 
— that  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  was  the  cause  of  the 
mission  to  the  Gentiles — the  popular  excitement  broke 
out  afresh,  whereupon  Paul  was  led  away  to  be  ex- 
amined by  scourging,  which  he  prevented,  however, 
by  appealing  to  his  right  as  a  Roman  citizen.  On 
the  following  day  he  is  brought  before  the  Jewish 
Sanhedrin.  The  proceedings  here  begin  in  a  very 
dramatic  fashion.  When  Paul  appeals  to  the  good 
conscience  in  which  he  has  always  lived,  the  High 
Priest  commands  him  to  be  smitten  on  the  mouth ; 
whereupon  Paul  allows  himself  to  be  carried  away  by 
indignation,  and  calls  him  a  "  whited  wall,"  for  lower- 
ing his  judicial  dignity  by  an  illegal  act  of  violence. 
When  he  is  told  that  it  is  the  High  Priest  whom  he 
is  abusing,  he  excuses  himself  by  saying  that  he  did 
not  know  it.  If  this  beginning  arouses  some  surprise, 
this  is  increased  by  the  astute  stroke  of  Paul  in  de- 
claring, in  order  to  win  the  support  of  the  Pharisees 
among  his  judges,  that  he  is  a  Pharisee  and  is  being 
accused  because  of  his  belief  in  the  resurrection 
(xxiii.  6).  The  strangest  thing  of  all,  however,  is 
that  the  Sanhedrin  not  only  allowed  this  assertion  to 
pass  unchallenged,  but  immediately  began  to  quarrel 
over  this  article  of  belief  in  regard  to  which  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees  were  opposed,  while  the  Pharisees  even 
testified  to  Paul's  innocence  (verse  9).  The  improba- 
bility of  these  proceedings  is  so  obvious,  that  we  may 
spare  ourselves  the  trouble  of  justifying  Paul  in  regard 


THE   EXPANSION   OF   THE   CHURCH      267 

to  the  moral  difficulties  which  are  involved.  But  at 
the  same  time  we  must  not  understand  the  author 
too  pedantically,  as  if  he  intended  to  imply  that  the 
belief  of  the  Apostle  was  exactly  identical  with  that 
of  the  Pharisees.  We  must  make  allowance  for  the 
taste  of  the  author  for  dramatically  painted  scenes, 
and  also  for  his  antipathy  to  the  Jewish  hierarchy. 
There  is  more  historical  probability  in  the  following 
account  of  the  plot  of  the  Jews  against  Paul,  who 
was  informed  by  his  sister's  son  of  the  intended 
attempt  at  assassination,  and  was  thereupon  sent,  for 
safety,  under  a  strong  military  escort,  to  Csesarea,  to 
Felix,  the  procurator  of  Judaea  (xxiii.  12-35). 

In  regard  to  the  two  years'  imprisonment  of  Paul 
at  Ciesarea,  Acts  seems  to  have  little  in  the  way  of 
fact  to  narrate ;  it  therefore  inserts  here  several 
apologetic  discourses.  The  first,  that  delivered  before 
the  tribunal  of  Felix  (xxiv.  10-21),  seeks  to  rebut  the 
accusation  of  the  Jews  which  charged  him  with  stirring 
up  sedition  among  the  people  and  desecrating  the 
Temple,  by  proving  both  that  his  faith  was  one  with 
the  faith  of  the  Jews  in  regard  to  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets,  and  that  his  conduct  had  been  blameless 
before  God  and  man.  Towards  his  own  people, 
moreover,  he  had  been  so  far  from  feeling  any  enmity 
that  he  had  come  to  Jerusalem  for  the  very  purpose  of 
bringing  alms  and  offerings,  and  while  he  was  discharg- 
ing this  duty  with  all  quietness  he  was  encountered 
by  his  accusers  in  the  Temple.  These  could  them- 
selves testify  whether  they  or  the  Council  could  find 
any  fault  in  him,  except  that  he  acknowledged  his 
belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Criticism  of 
this  speech  must  not,  naturally,  start  from  the  point 


'268  THE   ACTS   OF   THE   APOSTLES 

of  view  that  Paul  really  delivered  it  (could  anyone 
suppose  it  possible  that  the  historian  found  the  report 
of  the  trial  in  the  judicial  archives  of  Caesarea,  and 
copied  it  out ! ) ;  the  only  question  is  whether  it  serves 
the  apologetic  purpose  of  Acts.  In  this  respect  it 
is  very  characteristic.  It  is,  we  must  especially 
notice,  a?i  apology  for  Christianity  before  the  Roman 
Government.  In  relation  to  the  Roman  authority, 
the  point  was  to  defend  it  against  the  charge  of  being 
a  religio  illicita,  and  of  a  revolutionary  character 
which  caused  popular  outbreaks,  by  showing  that  it 
stood  on  the  basis  of  historic  Judaism  and  was 
constituted  a  special  sect  by  mere  doctrinal 
differences  from  the  latter,  and  by  emphasising  its 
innocence  in  regard  to  civil  affairs,  and  representing 
the  hatred  of  the  Jews  as  caused  by  no  provocation 
on  the  part  of  the  Christians,  but  as  due  solely  to 
dogmatic  fanaticism.  That  was  exactly  the  stand- 
point of  Christian  apologetic  in  the  second  century. 
In  its  dealings  with  the  heathen  State,  Christianity 
took  up  its  position  on  the  basis  of  Judaism  as  a 
rehgion,  sharing  its  belief  in  a  revelation  and  its 
ancient  records,  and  therefore  claiming  the  toleration 
which  was  accorded  to  it  by  the  State ;  at  the  same 
time,  however,  it  placed  itself  in  the  sharpest  opposi- 
tion to  the  Jewish  people,  whose  hatred  v^as  derived 
from  causeless  fanaticism.  This  apologetic  aim  is 
admirably  attained  by  the  speech  before  Felix :  to 
find  in  it  a  dogmatic  confession  of  faith,  or  even  a 
Judaising  attitude  fictitiously  attributed  to  Paul  to 
conciliate  Jewish  Christians,  is  wholly  to  misunder- 
stand its  meaning ;  the  author  has  not  thought 
at  all  of  tendencies  adapted  to  party  relationships  of 


THE    EXPANSION   OF   THE   CHURCH      269 

that  kind  within  Christianity,  at  any  rate  here,  where 
he  is  wholly  and  solely  concerned  with  the  position 
of  Christianity  in  the  Roman  State.  The  under- 
estimation or  neglect  of  this  feature  of  Acts,  and 
the  over-estimation  of  its  relationship  to  the  parties 
within  the  Church,  have  done  much  to  hinder  an 
unprejudiced  understanding  of  the  book. 

The  speech  before  the  Jewish  King  Agrippa  and 
the  Roman  Festus  (xxvi.  1-23)  is  slightly  different 
in  aim  and  content.  As  the  last  of  the  apologetic 
discourses,  it  very  appropriately  unites  the  aims  of 
the  earlier  one  before  the  Jews  (chap,  xxii.)  and  that 
before  the  Roman  Governor  (chap.  xxiv.).  Paul 
declares  that  he  is  being  accused  on  account  of  his 
faith  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  Messianic  prophecies 
of  Israel.  Formerly  he  had  lived  as  a  strict  Pharisee 
and  persecuted  the  Church  of  Christ,  but  had  been 
converted  by  a  heavenly  vision  to  belief  in  Jesus 
and  called  to  witness  for  Him  among  the  Gentiles. 
Obeying  this  heavenly  vision,  he  had  since  then 
fulfilled  his  calling,  proclaiming  in  Damascus,  in 
Jerusalem,  throughout  the  whole  of  Judeea,  and 
among  the  Gentiles,  that  men  should  turn  from 
darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  to 
God,  and  do  works  meet  for  repentance,  in  order 
through  faith  in  Jesus  to  obtain  forgiveness  of 
sins  and  a  share  in  the  inheritance  of  the  saints. 
Such  was  the  testimony  that  he  had  borne  hitherto 
before  small  and  great,  and  in  doing  so  he  was  saying 
nothing  else  than  what  Moses  and  the  Prophets  had 
foretold,  namely,  that  Messiah  should  suffer,  and, 
as  the  first-born  from  the  dead,  should  bring  light 
both  to  Israel  and  the  Gentiles.     This  speech  before 


270  THE    ACTS   OF  THE    APOSTLES 

Agrippa,  who  was  well  acquainted  with  the  Jewish 
religion,  makes  more  prominent  than  that  before 
Felix  the  new  and  distinctive  element  in  the  faith 
and  preaching  of  Paul :  the  proclamation  of  a  suffer- 
ing and  risen  Messiah,  whose  salvation  is  destined 
for  the  Gentiles  also  (verse  23).  The  defence, 
however,  rests  upon  two  grounds,  of  which  one  or 
other  had  been  prominent  in  each  of  the  two 
preceding  longer  speeches:  (1)  that  Paul  had  not 
come  to  his  Christian  faith  and  Apostolic  calling 
by  his  own  will,  but  by  the  overmastering  power  of 
a  revelation  from  heaven,  which  he,  as  a  pious  and 
believing  Pharisee,  could  not  resist ;  (2)  that  the 
preaching  which  had  this  supernatural  beginning  did 
not  contain  any  arbitrary  innovation,  but  was  in 
complete  harmony  with  the  Old  Testament  re\  ela- 
tion, especially  with  the  (Messianic)  hopes  of  the 
fathers.  Here  we  have,  in  fact,  something  like  a 
short  summary  of  the  faith,  not  indeed  of  Paul  him- 
self, but  of  his  biographer  and  the  Gentile-Christian 
Church  of  his  time,  namely,  that  Christianity  is  the 
religion  of  faith  in  the  God  of  Israel  and  in  the 
promises  to  the  fathers,  which  has  been  opened  up  to 
the  Gentiles  also  by  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus 
the  Messiah.  It  is  therefore  in  essentials  nothing  else 
than  what  Moses  and  the  Prophets  have  already 
announced  ;  but  this  old  revelation  has  now  become, 
through  the  new  revelation  of  God  in  Jesus  the 
Messiah,  a  universal  light,  for  Gentile  as  well  as  Jew, 
to  all  whom  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  turns  from 
Satan  (false  gods)  to  God,  and  so  becomes  to  them 
the  means  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  the  hope 
of  salvation.      That  these  thoughts  do  not  exactly 


THE   EXPANSION   OF  THE   CHURCH      271 

coincide  with  the  theology  of  Paul  himself  is,  of 
course,  indisputable,  but  it  would  be  quite  mistaken 
to  suppose  that  it  is  an  intentional  misrepresentation 
of  it  in  the  direction,  and  in  the  interest,  of  Petrin- 
ism  ;  rather,  it  is  the  simplified  precipitate  of  Paulin- 
ism  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Gentile-Christian 
Church,  which  could  not  grasp  the  subtleties  of  the 
Pauline  dialectic,  and,  it  must  be  admitted,  had  little 
understanding  of  the  deeper  mysticism  of  the  Apostle. 
The  effect  of  these  defences  was,  according  to 
Luke's  account,  increasingly  favourable  to  Paul.  Of 
Felix,  it  is  said  that  he  made  a  pretext  to  adjourn  the 
trial,  and  so  dismissed  Paul's  Jewish  accusers,  being 
well  acquainted  with  the  character  of  this  teaching 
(xxiv.  22  f. ).  This  means,  without  doubt,  that  he  knew 
enough  of  Christianity  to  be  aware  that  the  Jewish 
complaints  against  it  were  groundless,  and  accord- 
ingly he  made  Paul's  confinement  as  little  irksome 
as  possible.  It  is  no  doubt  difficult  to  say  why, 
on  this  assumption,  he  kept  him  imprisoned  at  all, 
and  did  not  simply  set  him  at  liberty.  As  this  fact 
of  the  long  imprisonment  by  the  Roman  authorities 
could  not  be  very  easily  explained  from  the  pre- 
suppositions of  Acts,  the  author  has  sought  a  reason 
for  it  in  the  well-known  greed  and  venality  of  the 
Roman  Governors  of  the  Provinces ;  in  the  hope  of 
receiving  money,  as  he  says  in  xxiv.  26,  Felix  kept 
Paul  in  bonds  for  two  years,  and  then,  on  his 
departure,  did  not  set  him  free,  in  order  thereby  to 
show  the  Jews  a  favour — neither  of  them  very 
probable  reasons,  for  how  could  Felix  hope  to  obtain 
any  considerable  ransom  from  a  poor  tentmaker  and 
missionary  ;  and  if  he  desired  to  please  the  Jews,  why 


272  THE   ACTS   OF   THE    APOSTLES 

did  he  not  simply  deliver  his  prisoner  over  to  them  ? 
In  the  case  of  Festiis,  who  followed  Felix  as  Governor, 
the'  same  reasons   are  repeated  ;    he,   too,  wished  to 
show  the  Jews  a  ftivour,  and  therefore  proposed  the 
resumption  of  the  trial  in  Jerusalem,  although  he,  as 
Paul  told  him  to  his  face,  knew  quite  well  that  Paul 
had    done   the    Jews   no  wrong.      Thereupon    Paul 
appealed  to  Csesar,  in  order  to  withdraw  himself  from 
Jewish  jurisdiction.     The  defence  before  Festus  and 
Agrippa  made,   according  to  Acts,  so   powerful  an 
impression  upon  the  latter  that  he  himself  showed 
signs  of  a  disposition  to  become  a  Christian,  and  if 
he  did  not  quite  go  so  far,  both  he  and  Festus  were 
so  fully  convinced  of  Paul's  complete  innocence,  that 
nothing  stood  in  the  way  of  his  liberation  except  the 
appeal  which  he  had  previously  made  to  the  Emperor 
(xxvi.  31  f.)     This  whole  account  decidedly  makes 
the  impression  that  the  author's  fragmentary  know- 
ledge  of  this  period  was  supplemented  by  edifying 
material  of  an  apologetic  character.     He  has  told  the 
story  of  the  trial  of  Paul  from  exactly  the  same  point 
of  view  as  he  told,  in  the  Gospel,  the  story  of  the 
trial  of  Jesus.     In  both  cases  it  is  only  the  Jewish 
hierarchs  who  appear  as  fanatical  persecutors,  whilst 
the  Roman  judges,  in  harmony  with  the  Jewish  kings 
( Antipas,  Agrippa),  are  convinced  of  the  innocence  of 
the   accused,    and   give    unambiguous  expression   to 
that  conviction,  but  allow  themselves  to  be  prevented 
by   worldly   motives   from   resolving,    in  accordance 
with  that  conviction,  to  set  the  prisoner  free.     This 
representation  is,  however,  too  closely  suggested  by 
the  interest  of  the  Church  in  relation  to  the  Roman 
Government  to   be    considered   as   historically  true. 


THE   EXPANSION   OF  THE   CHURCH      273 

"  When  the  proof  of  the  innocence  of  Paul,  not 
merely  in  relation  to  the  Roman  administration,  but 
even  as  regards  the  Jewish  hierarchy,  is  constantly 
given  with  such  completeness  that  even  the  Jew 
Agrippa  is  forced  to  acknowledge  it,  it  finally  comes 
to  be  incredible  that  he  should  be  kept  so  long  in 
prison  and  ultimately  deported  to  Rome "  (Holtz- 
mann).  Another  argument  in  favour  of  the  free 
composition  of  this  section  are  the  numerous  parallels 
with  Josephus,  some  of  which  are  so  striking  as  to 
suggest  direct  imitation.^ 

With  the  departure  of  Paul  from  Ctesarea  the 
report  of  the  eye-witness  begins  again  (xxvii.  1).  He 
proves  himself  to  be  so  by  the  exact  description  of 
the  route  of  travel  and  the  very  graphic  picture  of  the 
storm  and  the  shipwreck.  It  is  noteworthy,  too, 
that  in  this  section  there  are  no  miracle  stories, 
properly  so  called  ;  for  what  is  said  of  the  reassuring 
dream  of  Paul  during  the  storm  (xxvii.  23),  of  his 
escape  from  a  danger  which  threatened  his  life  in 
Malta,  of  the  cures  wrought  by  him  there  (xxviii. 
3-6,  8  f ),  in  no  way  goes  beyond  what  is  naturally 
possible  and  probable.  The  hypothesis  that  the  report 
of  the  eye-witness  originally  gave  fuller  information 
regarding  the  three  months'  stay  in  Malta,  which  has 
been  abbreviated  by  the  redactor,  is  possible,  but  not 
exactly  probable,  and  in  any  case  is  not  susceptible  of 
proof  The  statement  in  xxviii.  15,  that  the  Christian 
brethren  from  the  church  at  Rome  came  to  meet 
the    Apostle    as    far    as    Appii    (Forum)  and    Tres 

1  Krenkelj  ut  sup.,  pp.  255-280.  Cf.,  e.g.,  Acts  xxiii.  22  f.  with 
Jos.,  Vit.,  17,  24;  Acts  xxiv.  25,  26  with  Jos.,  Ant.,  xx.  8.  5  and 
ix.  5. ;  Acts  xxv.  1 1  with  Jos,,  Vit.,  29. 

VOL.  II  18 


274  THE    ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

Tabernae  is  covered  by  the  report  of  the  eye-witness 
and  is  quite  in  harmony  with  what  we  should  infer 
from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  regarding  the 
attitude  of  that  predominantly  Gentile  -  Christian 
church  ;  from  the  members  of  such  a  church  it  was 
only  to  be  expected  that  they  would  accord  a  warm 
welcome  to  the  Apostle,  whom  they  did  not  as  yet 
know  personally,  but  who  had  introduced  himself  to 
them  in  so  impressive  a  fashion  by  his  letter. 

The  close  of  Acts  is  formed  by  the  address  of  Paul 
to  the  heads  of  the  Jewish  colony  in  Rome  (xxviii. 
17-28).  In  view  of  all  that  we  have  observed 
hitherto  regarding  the  speeches  in  this  book,  we  shall 
not  expect  exact  historical  reminiscence  in  this 
address.  Just  in  the  manner  with  which  we  have  be- 
come familiar  in  the  other  apologetic  discourses,  Paul 
assures  his  hearers  that  he  has  come  to  be  imprisoned 
by  the  Romans  through  no  fault  of  his  own,  owing  to 
the  machinations  of  the  Jews.  The  Romans  had 
desired  to  set  him  at  liberty  when  they  had  convinced 
themselves  of  his  innocence,  but  the  opposition  of  the 
Jews  had  obliged  him  to  appeal  to  the  Emperor ;  but 
in  doing  so  it  was  not  his  intention  to  accuse  his  own 
nation,  nay,  it  was  for  the  hope  of  Israel  that  he  bore 
this  chain,  and  for  that  reason  he  had  sought  to  come 
to  a  friendly  understanding  with  them.  The  Jews 
replied  that  they  had  heard  nothing  against  him,  and 
would  be  glad  to  hear  his  views,  as  they  knew, 
concerning  this  sect,  that  it  was  everywhere  spoken 
against.  (This  sounds  as  if  they  had  previously  had 
no  accurate  knowledge,  not  only  of  Paul,  but  of  the 
Christian  communities  in  general,  which  would  be 
very  improbable  in  view  of  the  existence  of  one  at 


THE   EXPANSION    OF   THE   CHURCH      275 

Rome.  Perhaps  the  author  only  intended  to  make 
them  say  that  they  were  ready  to  Hsten,  in  an  un- 
prejudiced spirit,  to  the  preaching  of  Paul.)  When, 
on  a  later  day,  Paul  preached  to  them  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  and  sought  to  convince  them  from  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  only  a  part  of  them 
believed,  and  the  assembly  broke  up  in  dissension, 
whereupon  Paul  applied  to  them  a  saying  from  Isa. 
iv.  9  f.,  in  which  the  hardening  of  Israel  is  declared 
by  the  prophet  to  be  their  inevitable  punishment. 
This  saying  he  now  saw  finally  fulfilled,  and  therefore 
he  concluded  by  declaring  to  the  Jews,  "  Be  it  known 
unto  you  that  this  salvation  of  God  is  offered  unto 
the  Gentiles,  and  that  they  will  hear  it."  So  separating 
himself  from  the  Jews,  the  imprisoned  Apostle  worked 
two  years  without  hindrance  as  a  witness  for  Christ 
in  the  capital  of  the  heathen  world  (xxviii.  30  f ). 

Thus  was  repeated  once  again,  in  Rome,  what 
Paul,  according  to  the  representation  of  Acts,  had 
often  experienced  in  the  course  of  his  missionary 
journeys  :  that  his  attempt  to  find  a  point  of  attach- 
ment in  the  Jews  of  the  Diaspora  was  frustrated  by 
their  repugnance  to  the  crucified  Messiah  Jesus,  and 
he  was  obliged  to  confine  his  work  entirely  to  the 
heathen.  This  representation  of  Acts  has  been  held 
by  some  to  be  a  "tendency"  fiction,  intended  to 
justify  Paul's  mission  to  the  Gentiles  in  the  eyes  of 
the  Jewish  Christians  as  not  originally  intended,  but 
brought  about  against  the  will  of  the  Apostle  by  the 
actual  resistance  of  the  Jews.  But  this  is,  in  several 
respects,  mistaken.  It  is  especially  to  be  observed  that 
the  commencing  of  the  missionary  preaching  with  the 
Jews  of  the  Diaspora  was  so  inevitable  that  we  should 


276  THE   ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

be  obliged  to  assume  it  even  if  Acts  said  nothing 
about  it.^  Naturally,  it  was  not  Paul's  intention  to 
confine  his  work  to  the  Jews  ;  but  neither  does  Acts  say 
that,  but  repeatedly  indicates  that  in  these  discourses 
in  the  synagogues  he  addressed  himself  to  the  pious 
Gentiles  who  took  part  therein  (the  a-e^ofxevoi),  and 
found  in  these  his  most  receptive  hearers.  Where  else 
than  in  the  synagogue  could  he  have  found  these 
Gentiles  who  were  interested  in  the  Jewish  faith  in 
God  ?  And  if  in  thus  making  the  synagogue  the 
starting-point  of  his  missionary  activity  his  experience 
was  that  it  w^as  precisely  the  Jews  who  showed  least 
receptivity  for  his  preaching  and  offered  most  resist- 
ance to  it,  must  not  this  experience  have  seemed  to 
him  a  divine  judgment  ?  And  must  not  this  judg- 
ment appear,  from  his  teleological  standpoint,  as  an 
appointed  means  to  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  ? 
That  Paul  really  looked  at  the  matter  in  this  light 
is  shown  beyond  question  by  his  authentic  declaration 
in  Rom.  x.  16-xi.  31,  where  he  again  and  again 
expresses  the  thought,  in  many  different  forms,  that 
Israel  must,  according  to  the  divine  appointment,  be 
hardened  in  unbelief,  in  order  that  its  fall  and  depriva- 
tion of  privilege  might  be  the  cause  of  blessing  and 
salvation  to  the  Gentiles.  Certainly,  therefore,  not 
only  according  to  Acts,  but  equally  in  Paul's    own 

1  According  to  Hausrath's  convincing  argument,  even  the  choice 
of  the  route  of  travel  in  Paul's  missionary  journeys  was  determined 
with  reference  to  the  Jewish  synagogues  to  be  found  in  the  various 
towns.  It  is,  moreover,  to  be  noticed  that  Paul  himself,  in  Rom.  x. 
18  f.,  emphasises  it  as  a  consequence  of  his  missionary  preaching 
that  thereby  a  knowledge  of  Christ  had  been  extended  to  the  Jews 
throughout  the  whole  world,  so  that  their  unbelief  could  not  be 
excused  as  due  to  ignorance  (cf.  vol  i.  p.  240). 


THE   EXPANSION   OF  THE   CHURCH      277 

teaching,  the  believing  Gentiles  take  the  place  of  the 
unbelieving  Jews ;  but  that  does  not  mean  that  the 
mission  to  the  Gentiles  arose  only  incidentally  and 
accidentally  owing  to  the  caprice  of  the  Jews ;  the 
unbelief  of  the  Jews  and  the  faith  of  the  Gentiles 
alike  have  their  cause  in  the  eternal  counsel  of  God, 
and  therefore  each  is  a  divine  necessity,  raised  far 
above  all  chance  and  human  caprice.  It  is  indeed 
impossible  to  see  that  there  is  anything  un-Pauline  in 
these  thoughts.  I  hold,  on  the  contrary,  that  they 
are  derived  from  nowhere  else  than  from  Paul  himself 
— to  be  accurate,  from  Rom.  ix.-xi.^  It  is  true  that  in 
one  point  the  thought  of  Acts  differs  from  that  which 
is  set  forth  there,  but  the  divergence  is  so  far  from 
indicating  a  Judaising  tendency  that  it  is  due  rather 
to  the  exaggeration  of  Paul's  love  of  the  Gentiles  into 
absolute  anti-Judaism.  The  difference  is,  that  while 
Paul  thought  of  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  as  divinely 
determined,  with  a  view  to  the  salvation  of  the 
Gentiles,  but,  after  all,  as  only  a  temporary  judgment 
which  will  be  in  the  future  removed,  and  replaced 
by  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  only  after,  instead 
of  before,  the  Gentiles,  Acts  has  abandoned  this 
reconciling  view  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
describes  the  Jews  as  unconditionally  and  hopelessly 
rejected.  It  is  precisely  this  extreme  anti- Judaism 
which  is  the  most  characteristic  motive  of  Acts,  and 
which  underlies  its  many  and  carefully  painted 
pictures  of  the  Jewish  unbelief.  That  is  not,  how- 
ever, to  be  explained  on  the  hypothesis  of  a 
conciliatory  tendency  towards  the  Jewish  Christians, 

^  The  quotation  from  Isaiah  which  forms  the  point  of  Acts  xxviii. 
is  also  the  main  point  of  the  Pauline  argument  in  Rom.  xi.  8. 


278  THE   ACTS   OF  THE   APOSTLES 

but  on  the  ground  of  the  strong  self-regard  of 
Gentile  Christianity  and  its  deep-rooted  antipathy 
to  the  Jewish  people  in  general.  And  this  brings  us 
to  the  last  reason  which  obliges  us  to  hold  the 
above-named  hypothesis  to  be  unsatisfactory.  It  pre- 
supposes a  relation  between  Gentile  and  Jewish 
Christians  which  had  either  never  existed,  or  at  least 
existed  no  longer  in  the  second  century.  At  no  time 
after  the  Apostolic  Council,  and  therefore  at  no  time 
after  he  began  to  found  churches,  had  Gentile 
Christianity  been  in  a  position  in  which  it  was 
obliged  to  bargain  with  the  Jewish  Christians  for  the 
right  to  exist  and  only  secure  it  by  compromises. 
Its  existence  was  already,  when  Paul  wrote  Romans, 
so  firmly  assured,  its  self-confidence  was  so  strong, 
its  certainty  of  victory  so  proud,  that  Paul  found 
it  actually  necessary  to  damp  this  self-confidence, 
which  was  already  tending  in  the  direction  of  arro- 
gance and  contempt  for  the  Jews  (Rom.  xi.  17-25). 
How  is  it  conceivable  that  in  the  next  half-century 
things  could  alter  so  much  to  the  detriment  of  the 
Gentile  Christians  that  they  were  compelled  to 
justify  their  existence  in  the  eyes  of  the  Jewish 
Christians  by  skilful  historical  fictions  ?  The  con- 
trary, however,  is  quite  conceivable,  namely,  that  the 
attitude  of  the  Gentile  Christians  to  the  Je^dsh 
Christians  which  betrays  itself  even  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  had  developed  in  the  course  of  the 
next  half-century  into  the  uncompromising  anti- 
Judaism  which  Acts  everywhere  displays.  As 
regards  the  Jewish  Christians,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  is  no  doubt  the  case  that  in  the  time  of  Paul 
they  found  an  offence  in  the  character  and  success  of 


THE   EXPANSION   OF   THE   CHURCH      279 

his  mission  to  the  Gentiles  and  in  the  growing 
preponderance  of  Gentile  Christianity — an  offence 
which  Paul  sets  himself  to  mitigate  in  Rom.  ix.-xi. 
But  that  the  Judaic  Christianity  of  the  second 
century,  so  far  as  it  maintained  connection  with  the 
universal  Church  (and  there  was  no  need  for  the 
author  to  take  account  of  any  which  did  not),  dis- 
puted the  right  of  Gentile  Christianity  to  exist,  is  a 
wholly  groundless  and  impossible  hypothesis.  In- 
deed, Acts  itself  gives  evidence  against  it,  inasmuch 
as,  in  conformity,  evidently,  with  the  general  view  of 
the  Church  of  the  time,  it  ascribes  to  the  original 
Jewish-Christian  community  and  its  Apostles  the 
merit  of  taking  part  in — nay,  more,  of  initiating — the 
mission  to  the  Gentiles ;  which  implies  that  the 
latter  can  no  longer  have  been  a  point  of  controversy 
between  different  ecclesiastical  parties.  With  this, 
however,  falls  to  the  ground  the  presupposition  on 
which  alone  the  special  purpose  of  justifying  the 
Pauline  mission  to  the  Gentiles  in  Acts  could  be 
thought  probable,  and  this  hypothesis  must  therefore 
be  considered  untenable. 

As  to  the  reason  why  Acts  tells  us  nothing  further  of 
what  befell  Paul  at  Rome  and  of  the  result  of  his  trial, 
we  can  only  suggest  hypotheses,  of  which  the  most 
probable  are : — (1)  The  tragic  turn  taken  by  the  trial 
was  so  much  opposed  to  the  apologetic  interest  which 
rules  throughout  the  whole  description  of  the  trial  in 
Acts,  that  such  a  conclusion  would  have  sounded  a 
harshly  discordant  note,  and  it  therefore  seemed  better 
to  suppress  it.  (2)  It  may  have  seemed  to  the  author 
less  needful  to  retell  this  tragic  story  because  it  was 
well  known  to  his  hearers  by  a  living  tradition. 


THE  LUCAN  WRITINGS 

CHAPTER   X 

Origin  and  Characteristics 

In  order  to  reach  a  decision  in  regard  to  the  historical 
value  of  the  Lucan  writings,  we  must  first  inquire 
into  the  sources  used  by  the  author,  and  then  into  the 
way  in  which  they  were  worked  up  as  regards  the 
selection,  arrangement,  moulding,  and  expansion  of 
the  material.  When  that  has  been  done,  we  may 
be  able  to  form  a  conclusion  regarding  the  literary 
and  religious  characteristics  of  the  author. 

In  Acts  we  found  evidence  of  the  use  of  a  docu- 
ment written  by  a  pupil  and  occasional  travelling- 
companion  of  Paul,  which,  on  account  of  the 
narratives  being  frequently  couched  in  the  first 
person  plural,  we  designated  the  "we-source."  It 
occurred  first  in  xi.  28,  when  the  origin  of  the  church 
at  Antioch  was  narrated,  from  which  we  concluded 
that  the  author  was  the  Luke  who  came  from 
Antioch,^  and  who  is  mentioned  also  in  Philem.  24, 
Col.  iv.  14,  and  2  Tim.  iv.  11  among  the  com- 
panions of  Paul.  But  this  source  can  hardly  be 
thought  of  as  confined  to  the  few  and  unconnected 
passages   which    are   introduced    by   the    "  we " ;    it 

^   Eusebius,  H.E.,  iii.  4  :  AovkSs  to  fxkv  ycvos  wv  twv  air  AvTio^^ctas. 

280 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS         281 

must  have  contained  a  continuous  narrative  of  the 
missionary  journeys  and  imprisonment  of  Paul,  and 
therefore  must  be  considered  to  have  formed  the 
basis  of  the  second  part  of  Acts,  from  chapter  xiii. 
onward,  to  which  xi.  19-30  is  related  as  a  pre- 
paration and  introduction.  The  sources  of  the 
first  part  of  Acts,  too  (chaps,  i.-xii.,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  section  xi.  19-30),  have  lately  been 
the  subject  of  very  diligent  inquiry,  but  the  result 
has  not  been  in  proportion  to  the  diligence  displayed. 
I  will  not  assert  that  documentary  sources  may 
not  have  been  used  even  here,  but  I  do  not 
believe  that  their  use  can  be  convincingly  shown, 
or  that  we  need  to  assume  them  in  order  to  explain 
the  facts  as  we  find  them.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
hypothesis  of  an  oral  tradition  consisting  of  remi- 
niscences and  legend  current  in  the  Palestinian  and 
Syrian  churches,  to  which  the  literary  art  of  the 
narrator  gave  for  the  first  time  a  more  definite  form, 
completely  suffices  to  explain  the  facts  of  the  first 
half  of  Acts,  and  is,  indeed,  better  adapted  to  explain 
them  than  the  assumption  of  any  sort  of  fixed  docu- 
mentary source.  The  question  seems  to  me,  more- 
over, to  be  of  no  very  great  significance. 

The  Gospel  of  Luke  has  at  least  two  written 
sources :  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and  the  primitive 
Aramaic  Gospel,  which  was  probably  used  by  Mark 
also,  in  one  or  several  of  the  Greek  versions  of  it. 
The  Gospel  of  Mark,  with  the  exception  of  the  omitted 
section  vi.  45-viii.  26,  can  be  rediscovered  in  Luke  in 
a  generally  similar  order,  and  often  with  an  almost 
verbally  identical  text.  But  Luke,  in  conformity 
with  his  desire  for  completeness  (i.  1-4),  has  enriched 


284  THE   LUCAN   WRITINGS 

followed  by  wailing  women,  and  as  addressing  to  them 
a  solemn  warning  of  future  calamities.  Instead  of 
the  lamentation  from  Ps.  xxii.,  he  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Jesus  three  other  sayings  from  the  cross, 
which  give  a  last  beautiful  expression  to  His  mercy 
and  love  towards  sinners,  and  His  filial  submission  to 
the  will  of  God.  The  burial,  and  the  discovery  of 
the  empty  grave  by  the  women,  are  narrated  by  him 
in  close  conformity  with  Mark's  account,  omitting 
only  the  declaration  that  they  should  see  the  risen 
Jesus  again  in  Galilee.  Peculiar  to  him,  however, 
are  the  stories  of  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ 
upon  the  Easter  day  to  the  disciples  at  Emmaus  and 
to  the  eleven  disciples  at  Jerusalem,  and  of  His 
departure  (Ascension)  at  Bethany. 

If  we  inquire  whence  all  this  material  is  derived, 
there  can  be  no  question  of  its  all  being  drawn  from 
documentary  sources.  Both  in  the  prologue  of  the 
first  two  chapters,  in  the  genealogy,  and  also  in 
the  epilogue  of  the  closing  chapter,  Luke  goes  his 
own  independent  way.  No  doubt  he  has  here  used 
legendary  material  derived  from  many  different 
quarters — Christian,  Jewish,  and  even  heathen — but 
the  form  into  which  he  has  cast  it  is  exclusively  the 
work  of  his  poetic  intuition  and  literary  art.  It 
would  be  doing  a  grave  injustice  to  the  high  artistic 
talent  of  the  author  to  leave  him  no  original  creative 
ability  and  to  make  him  everywhere  only  a  copyist 
from  his  sources.  It  is  otherwise,  no  doubt,  in  the 
case  of  those  narratives  and  discourses  which  Luke 
has  in  common  with  Matthew ;  for  these  a  second 
source  must  be  assumed,  which  cannot  be  our  Gospel 
of  Matthew ;   for  the  form   and  arrangement   there 


ORIGIN   AND    CHARACTERISTICS         285 

given  to  the  common  material  is  everywhere  divergent 
from  the  Lucan,  and  for  the  most  part  secondary,  as 
we  shall  see  later.  It  can  therefore  only  be  a  case 
of  a  source  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke.  As  we 
have  already  found  it  probable  that  an  Aramaic 
primitive  Gospel  is  to  be  assumed  as  the  source  of  the 
Gospel  of  Mark,  I  do  not  see  what  is  to  hinder  us  from 
seeing  in  this  primitive  Gospel,  upon  the  basis  of  which 
Mark  has  composed  his  Greek  Gospel,  the  common 
source  of  the  further  material  which  Luke  and  Matthew 
have  added  to  the  Marcan  narrative.  This  hypothesis 
seems  to  me  much  simpler  and  more  natural  than  the 
now  widely  received  hypothesis  of  the  "  collection 
of  discourses."  For  the  existence  of  such  a  source, 
consisting  solely  of  discourses  without  any  narrative, 
is,  in  my  opinion,  highly  improbable  in  itself,  and  is 
not  supported  by  a  single  patristic  testimony  (for  the 
notice  in  Papias,  which  we  shall  have  to  discuss  later, 
proves  nothing  in  favour  of  it),  while,  on  the  contrary, 
the  Fathers,  as  is  well  known,  often  speak  of  a  Hebrew 
Gospel,  or  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  thereby 
testifying  to  the  existence  of  an  Aramaic  Gospel  (for 
that  is  doubtless  what  is  really  meant),  which  naturally 
did  not  arise  out  of  the  Greek,  but  preceded  it.  In 
that  case,  however,  this  must  be  regarded  as  the 
common  source  from  which  our  canonical  Evangelists 
have  derived  their  material,  whether  immediately,  like 
Mark,  or  mediately,  through  a  Greek  translation 
of  the  primitive  Gospel,  like  Luke  and  Matthew. 
Such  translations,  which  were  at  the  same  time 
revisions  and  expansions  of  the  original  source,  arose 
in  large  numbers,  in  imitation  of  Mark's  Gospel,  in 
the  last  decades   of  the  first   century,  and  those  of 


286  THE   LUCAxN   WRITINGS 

them  which  best  answered  to  the  needs  of  the  Church 
won  for  themselves  a  more  or  less  wide  acceptance. 
That  is  clearly  implied  by  the  introduction  to  Luke's 
Gospel  (i.  1).  And  there  is  nothing  more  natural 
than  that  the  author  of  a  new  Greek  Gospel  should 
take  the  work  of  the  first  or  best  of  his  predecessors 
(Mark)  as  the  ground-plan  of  his  own,  while  filling  in 
the  gaps  in  it  from  the  common  source,  and  at  times 
from  other  fuller  sources.  We  shall  see  later  that 
this  simple  hypothesis  offers  the  simplest  explanation 
of  the  origin  even  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  the  most 
problematical  of  all. 

Almost  more  important  than  the  question  regard- 
ing the  sources  is  the  question  regarding  the  way  in 
which  the  author  has  worked  up  his  material — 
regarding,  that  is,  his  special  point  of  view  and 
literary  methods.  Here  the  twofold  character  of 
Luke's  work — Gospel  and  Acts — comes  to  our  aid. 
In  both  cases  we  can  to  some  extent  check  his  account 
by  parallel  testimony — in  the  one  case  by  Mark  and 
Matthew,  in  the  other  by  the  Pauline  Epistles — and 
if  in  both  works  the  same  peculiarities  of  treatment 
can  be  perceived,  we  can  deduce  with  some  certainty 
the  peculiarities  of  the  author  and  the  historical 
value  of  his  work. 

Luke's  freedom,  and  at  the  same  time  his  purpose- 
fulness,  in  the  way  he  handles  his  material,  are  shown, 
in  the  first  place,  by  his  arrangement  of  it.  The  two- 
fold division  of  Mark's  Gospel  is  extended  by  him 
into  a  threefold  division  by  the  insertion  of  the  journey 
through  Samaria,  so  that  his  material  is  divided  into 
three  fairly  equal  parts,  according  to  the  geographical 
theatres  of  the  action — Galilee,  Samaria,  and  Judeea. 


■m."p- 


ORIGIN    AND   CHARACTERISTICS         287 

Similarly,  the  material  of  Acts  arranges  itself  geo- 
graphically according  to  the  scheme  set  forth  in  i.  8  : 
beginnings  in  Jerusalem ;  extension  to  Judsea  and 
Samaria;  expansion  throughout  the  whole  heathen 
world  as  far  as  its  centre,  Rome.  With  this  geographi- 
cal arrangement  there  coincides  a  second  division 
according  to  the  principal  heroes  of  the  action : 
the  first  half  has  for  its  centre  Peter,  the  leader 
of  the  mission  to  the  Jews ;  the  second  half,  Paul, 
the  missionary  to  the  Gentiles.  Luke  pursues  the 
parallel  between  these  two  with  remarkable  diligence 
through  all  the  details  of  their  actions  and  sufferings, 
as  if  he  wanted  by  this  symmetry  of  treatment  to 
suggest  to  the  reader  that  neither  of  the  two  was 
before  or  behind  the  other.  The  counterpart  of  this 
parallel  between  Peter  and  Paul  which  prevails  in 
Acts  is  formed  by  the  parallel  in  the  Gospel  between 
the  sending  forth  of  the  Twelve  to  a  mission  in  Galilee 
and  of  the  Seventy  to  a  mission  in  Samaria.  Not 
seldom,  too,  Luke  allows  himself  to  alter  the  tradi- 
tional arrangement  in  order  to  serve  his  literary 
purpose.  Thus  he  has  transferred  the  sermon  at 
Nazareth  from  its  original  place  and  inserted  it  at 
the  beginning  of  Jesus'  public  ministry,  in  order  to 
typify  in  advance  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  and  their 
rejection ;  and  this  is  confirmed  once  again  by  the 
discourse  of  Paul  in  Rome.  Similarly,  in  Acts  he 
has  anticipated  the  beginning  of  Paul's  missionary 
activity  by  the  story  of  the  conversion  of  Cornelius 
through  Peter ;  whereas,  according  to  Gal.  ii.,  Peter 
appears  at  the  Apostolic  Council  as  exclusively  a 
worker  among  the  Jews,  and  the  ground  would 
have  been  cut  from  beneath  the  whole  controversy 


288  THE    LUCAN   WRITINGS 

at  the  Council  had  the  incident  of  the  conversion 
of  CorneHus  preceded  it.  Similarly,  he  has  ante- 
dated Paul's  collection-journey,  placing  it  before  the 
beginning  of  his  missionary  journeys  (xi.  30),  whereas 
it  ought  really  to  fall  at  the  end  of  the  missionary 
journeys  (chap,  xxi.) ;  and  in  order  to  make  room  for 
the  collection-journey  at  this  earlier  date,  which 
seemed  to  him  desirable,  he  has  postponed  the  journey 
of  the  Antiochian  delegates  to  the  Apostolic  Council 
to  a  date  after  the  first  missionary  journey  (chap,  xv.) 
— two  interdependent  transpositions,  which  our  author 
held  to  be  advisable  in  the  interest  of  the  purpose  of 
his  history. 

After  these  deliberate  transpositions,  we  have  to 
notice  the  alterations  and  retouchings  of  the  tradi- 
tional material,  by  which  sometimes  hardnesses  are 
softened,  sometimes  high  lights  are  touched  in,  and 
thus  a  harmonious  colouring  is  given  to  the  whole, 
calculated  to  make  an  edifying  impression  on  those 
within  and  an  impression  of  innocence  on  those  with- 
out. The  austerely  heroic  features  of  Mark's  picture 
of  Christ  are  toned  down,  omitted,  painted  over  into 
something  more  edifying,  or  simply  suppressed.  So, 
above  all,  in  the  case  of  Jesus'  breach  with  His 
family  (Mark  iii.  31),  the  sharpness  of  which  is  toned 
down  in  the  corresponding  passage  (Luke  viii. 
19  ff.),  while  its  significance  is  shown  by  means  of  a 
skilful  transformation  at  another  place  (ii.  48  f.) ; 
the  polemic  against  human  ordinances  is  omitted 
(Mark  vii.  1  fF.) ;  the  saying  about  breaking  down 
the  Temple  is  suppressed  (Mark  xiv.  58) ;  the 
importance  of  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple  is 
minimised ;  the  anointing  at  Bethany,  which  caused 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS         289 

difficulties  on  account  of  its  Messianic  background, 
was  replaced  by  the  touching  incident  of  the  anoint- 
ing in  the  house  of  Simon  the  Pharisee ;  the  tragic 
and  awful  cry  of  despair  from  the  cross  is  replaced 
by  three  touching  and  edifying  farewell  sayings. 
Similarly,  in  Acts  the  inner  life  of  the  community 
is  painted  in  the  rosiest  colours  as  an  untroubled 
idyll  of  peace  and  joy ;  and  if  at  any  time  a  faint 
shadow  of  difference  of  opinion  occurs,  harmony 
is  at  once  restored  by  the  combined  effort  of  all 
parties  ;  of  the  serious  dissonances  and  hard  struggles 
of  the  Apostolic  times  as  we  learn  to  know  them  from 
Paul's  letters  there  are  only  faint  traces  in  the  Lucan 
narrative.  The  contention  at  the  Apostolic  Council 
about  the  circumcision  of  the  Gentile  Christians  is,  in- 
deed, mentioned,  but  it  is  confined  to  the  outer  circles 
of  the  community — it  does  not  penetrate  into  the 
Apostolic  body  ;  Peter  speaks  of  the  Law  in  as  liberal 
a  fashion  as  if  he  were  a  disciple  of  Paul ;  the  conten- 
tion between  Paul  and  Peter  at  Antioch  (Gal.  ii.  II) 
is  quite  suppressed,  and  replaced  by  a  comparatively 
unimportant  dissension  between  Paul  and  Barnabas 
with  reference  to  JNIark ;  then,  again,  Titus,  about 
whom  the  strife  of  parties  had  raged  at  the  Apostolic 
Council,  is  completely  ignored  throughout  the  whole 
of  Acts ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  expressly  told 
of  Timothy  that  he  had  undergone  circumcision,  and 
similarly  that  Paul  himself,  in  order  to  placate  Jewish- 
Christian  fanaticism,  had  accepted  the  requirement 
that  he  should  take  part  in  a  Jewish  ceremony  (xxi. 
26).  Everywhere  there  is  manifest  the  same  effort  to 
remove  from  the  hard  realities  of  history  that  which 
is  unedifying,  to  tone  down  the  oppositions  within 

VOL.  II  19 


290  THE   LUCAN   WRITINGS 

Christianity,  to  reduce  conflicts  of  principle  to  insigni- 
ficant differences  of  opinion — in  short,  to  draw  an 
ideal  picture  of  peace  and  innocence,  from  which  the 
Christian  could  gain  edification  while  the  non-Christian 
could  convince  himself  of  the  inofFensiveness  of  the 
Christian  cause. 

The  same  purpose  of  idealising  history  in  the 
interest  of  the  edification  of  the  reader  is  served 
by  Luke's  independent  expansions  of  his  material. 
That  the  opening  and  closing  stories  of  the 
Gospel  belong  to  this  category  has  been  remarked 
above.  To  it  belong  also  the  allegorical  narratives 
of  Peter's  miraculous  draught  of  fishes,  of  the 
mission  of  the  seventy  disciples,  of  the  appearance 
of  the  angel  in  Gethsemane,  of  the  healing  of  the 
High  Priest's  servant's  ear ;  the  miracles  of  Pente- 
cost, which  are  obviously  symbolic ;  the  judgment 
upon  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  and  upon  the  sorcerer 
Elymas  or  Bar- Jesus ;  the  miraculous  deliverances 
of  Peter  and  Paul  from  prison  by  angels  and  earth- 
quakes. Yet  it  must  be  admitted  that  in  these  and 
similar  cases  it  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty 
how  far  a  traditional  story  has  been  remoulded  by 
the  narrator,  and  how  far  the  narrative  has  been 
freely  invented  by  him.  But  the  latter  is  to  be 
maintained  with  certainty  in  regard  to  the  whole  of 
the  speeches  in  Acts ;  they  are  as  certainly  free 
compositions  of  the  narrator  as  the  speeches  are 
known  to  have  been  in  the  case  of  his  favourite 
model  Josephus  and  of  all  the  other  historians  of 
antiquity.  They  are  not  therefore  "  fictitious "  in 
our  sense,  since  the  custom  was  then  generally 
prevalent ;  it  was,  in  fact,  expected  of  a  skilful  writer 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS  291 

that  he  should  adorn  his  narrative  with  cleverly 
composed  speeches,  and  it  did  not  occur  to  anyone  to 
ask  from  what  source  or  by  what  line  of  tradition 
he  had  received  information  regarding  the  actual 
delivery  of  such  speeches.  The  fact  is  that  antiquity 
did  not  distinguish  between  historical  reality  and 
poetic  truth  quite  in  the  same  way  that  we  do ; 
therefore  we  are  not  justified,  when  studying  ancient 
historians,  in  applying  to  them  the  standard  of  our 
present-day  demand  for  realistic  exactness.  If  that 
be  admitted  as  generally  true,  we  should  draw  the 
inference  in  matters  of  detail  and  not  continually 
renew  the  foolish  strife  as  to  how  much  in  this  or 
that  speech  in  Acts  is  drawn  from  a  "  source,"  or 
from  tradition.^  In  so  doing  we  are  wronging  the 
author  as  much  as  if  we  were  to  ask  for  the  source 
of  his  beautiful  opening  and  closing  stories.  Just  as 
he  shows  himself  in  these  a  simple  poet  of  sensitive 
feeling  and  fine  tact,  so  in  the  composition  of  his 
speeches  he  shows  himself  a  thoughtful  writer  of  high 
literary  culture,  according  to  the  standards  of  his 
age.  If  we  compare  the  Apostolic  discourses  of  Acts 
with  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
the  essential  distinction  is  obvious  at  the  first  glance. 
The  former  are  reflective  products  of  literary  art ; 
the  latter  (with  the  exception  of  the  discourse  at 
Nazareth  in  iv.  17  f.)  are  simple  reproductions  of  the 
sayings  of  Christ  as  preserved  by  tradition,  in  which 
reverence  forbade  the  making  of  essential  alterations. 

1  The  traditional  apologetic  argument  from  the  skilful  and 
often  impressive  composition  of  these  speeches  to  their  historical 
reality  is  of  so  touching  a  naivete  that  it  is  hardly  possible  to  treat 
it  seriously. 


292  THE    LUCAN    WRITINGS 

Here  we  have,  in  the  main,  genuine  "  source"  material, 
which  the  author  has  only  here  and  there  smoothed 
down  from  a  stylistic  point  of  view,  explained,  and — 
in  the  parables — once  or  twice  expanded. 

Luke,  therefore,  as  is  obvious  from  all  these  con- 
siderations, certainly  desired  to  write  true  history, 
and  to  this  end  used  the  best  sources  diligently ;  but 
he  understood  the  historian's  task  in  the  sense  of 
his  own  time,  and  not  of  ours.  What  he  aimed  at 
was  not  so  much  the  objective  presentation  of  what 
had  really  happened,  as  the  production  of  a  beautiful 
and  edifying  picture,  pleasing  and  impressive  to  the 
taste  of  the  reader,  of  ideal  truth,  which,  to  him,  as 
to  the  whole  of  antiquity,  seemed  infinitely  higher 
than  objective  reality.  Accordingly,  he  used,  in  the 
handling  of  his  material,  a  measure  of  subjective 
freedom  which  we  should  never  allow  to  an  historian. 
Any  special  tendency  in  favour  of  one  party  or 
another,  as  for  example  the  promotion  of  a  recon- 
ciliation between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians, 
by  means  of  historical  fictions,  was  far  from  his 
mind.  He  was  much  too  naive  for  that.  He  nar- 
rated things  according  to  his  bona  fide  conception 
of  them,  but  that  means  as  best  commended  itself 
to  his  aesthetic  taste  and  his  religious  temperament. 
His  tender,  sensitive,  and  sympathetic  nature  had 
little  taste  for  sharp  antitheses  and  heroic  struggles, 
but  delighted  in  pictures  of  peace  and  traits  of  com- 
passionate love.  With  this  corresponds  especially 
his  portrait  of  Christ :  it  is  not  the  heroic  reformer 
and  assailant  of  an  ossified  Judaism  whom  Mark  has 
drawn,  but  the  merciful  Saviour  of  the  sinner  and 
the  poor,  whom  Luke  again  and  again   sets   before 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS         293 

us  in  glowing  colours.  That  is  not,  of  course, 
the  whole  of  the  historical  Jesus,  of  M'^hose  character 
the  strenuous  hero  of  Mark  shows  another  aspect ; 
but  it  is  an  essential,  and  perhaps  for  the  history  of 
Christianity  the  most  important,  side  of  the  historical 
Jesus,  which  Luke,  by  reason  of  his  personal  affinity 
of  mind  with  it,  was  enabled  to  apprehend  and  to 
preserve  with  special  skill.  With  the  religious  love 
of  the  Saviour  which  lays  hold  on  repentant  sinners 
forgivingly  and  with  saving  power  there  is  most 
closely  connected  in  Luke's  picture  of  Christ  an 
ethico-social  love  to  the  poor  and  lowly  and  disinclin- 
ation towards  the  proud  and  sated  rich.  At  His 
first  appearance  in  Galilee,  Jesus  declares  it  to  be  His 
task  to  preach  good  tidings  to  the  poor.  In  the 
"  Sermon  on  the  Plain "  it  is  the  (literally,  not 
spiritually)  poor  who  are  called  blessed,  as  those  to 
whom  the  coming  Kingdom  of  God  will  bring  con- 
solation and  satisfaction.  Poor  shepherds  are  the 
first  to  whom  the  birth  of  the  Saviour  is  made 
known.  He  praises  the  Father  because  He  has 
hidden  the  secret  of  the  gospel  from  the  wise  and 
prudent  and  revealed  it  unto  babes.  I^azarus  the 
beggar  goes  to  Abraham's  bosom,  and  Dives  to  hell. 
None  of  the  first-invited  wealthy  and  worldly  guests 
partake  of  God's  feast,  but  the  humble  people  who 
are  gathered  from  the  streets.  At  the  very  begin- 
ning, in  the  song  of  Mary,  there  stands,  as  a  kind  of 
social  programme,  the  declaration,  "  God  scattereth 
the  proud,  He  putteth  down  the  mighty  from  their 
seats  and  exalteth  the  humble.  He  filleth  the  hungry 
with  good  things,  and  the  rich  He  sendeth  empty 
away"    (i.    51).       In    harmony    with    this,    there    is 


294  THE   LUCAN   WRITINGS 

demanded  from  the  followers  of  Jesus  above  all 
active  benevolence  and  renunciation  of  their  own 
possessions  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  (xii.  33,  xiv. 
33,  xviii.  22).  Wealth,  as  such,  even  appears  as  "  the 
unrighteous  Mammon,"  or  idol,  which  can  only  be 
rendered  innocuous  by  using  it  in  the  form  of  alms 
to  purchase  friends  for  the  eternal  habitations  (xvi.  9). 
Alms  have  power  to  purify,  and  to  cancel  sin  (xi.  41, 
xix.  9).  In  general,  turning  from  the  world,  re- 
nunciation of  earthly  goods,  the  severing  of  all  earthly 
ties,  even  that  of  the  family,  are  the  duty  of  the 
disciples,  who  are  to  look  forward  to  and  announce 
the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  (ix.  57-62,  xiv. 
26-33).  In  this,  as  in  the  description  of  the 
community  of  goods  of  the  primitive  Church,  some 
have  found  traces  of  the  influence  of  a  special 
"  Ebionitic  source  "  upon  the  Lucan  writings.  That 
is  wholly  mistaken.  There  never  was  such  a  source. 
What  Luke  here  records  belongs  to  the  most 
authentic  stratum  of  the  gospel  tradition.  The 
preference  of  Jesus  for  the  poor  as  compared  with 
the  rich  is  as  certainly  historical  as  His  mercifulness 
towards  sinners  and  His  sternness  towards  the  proud 
and  self-righteous.  The  former  is  as  little  derived 
from  Ebionism  as  the  latter  from  Paulinism ;  both 
alike  are  inseparably  connected  traits  of  the  religious 
socialism  of  the  historical  Jesus,  which  Luke  did  not 
invent,  but  only  grasped  and  described  wdth  special 
emphasis,  precisely  because  they  were  particularly 
sympathetic  to  his  own  temper  and  tone  of  mind. 

A  further  trait,  closely  related  to  the  last,  which 
runs  through  Luke's  writings  from  beginning  to  end, 
is    his    enmity    towards    the   Jews    and    friendliness 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS  295 

towards  the  heathen.  It  is  unreservedly  expressed 
in  Jesus'  first  sermon  at  Nazareth.  It  underHes  the 
mission  of  the  Seventy  Disciples — peculiar  to  Luke — 
as  the  representatives  of  the  mission  to  the  heathen, 
and  he  celebrates  their  success  much  more  highly 
than  that  of  the  Twelve.  So,  too,  the  Samaritans, 
who  were  counted  heretics  and  heathen  by  the  Jews, 
are  conspicuously  preferred  in  the  parable  of  the 
Good  Samaritan  and  in  the  story  of  the  ten  lepers. 
It  is  in  harmony  with  this  that  Luke  has  omitted  the 
command  not  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  heathen, 
and  the  saying  about  the  mission  of  Christ  being 
exclusively  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel, 
both  of  which  Matthew  has  retained  from  the  oldest 
tradition,  and  which  Luke  must  therefore  have 
known.  It  is  the  more  remarkable  and  the  more 
significant  in  regard  to  Luke  and  the  Gentile 
Christianity  of  his  time  in  general,  that  he  has  not 
based  the  Pauline  thought  of  the  universal  destina- 
tion of  the  Christian  salvation  upon  the  Pauline 
teaching  regarding  the  end  of  the  Law.  He  takes 
up,  on  the  contrary,  a  remarkably  conservative 
attitude  towards  the  Jewish  Law,  as  towards  all 
existing  ordinances  ;  for  that  we  have  the  testimony, 
apart  from  the  saying  about  the  imperishable  validity 
of  the  Law  (xvi.  17),  of  a  number  of  traits  which  are 
undoubtedly  to  be  put  down  to  Luke  himself.  Even 
in  the  story  of  the  Childhood,  the  submission  of 
Jesus  to  the  usages  of  the  Jewish  Law  is  intentionally 
emphasised.  The  strong  sayings  against  Jewish 
legalism  which  Mark  reports  are  partly  omitted, 
partly  softened,  and  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple  is 
reduced  to  insignificance.     Of  the  first  disciples  it 


296  THE   LUCAN   WRITINGS 

is  said  in  Acts  that  they  continued  daily  in  the  holy 
place  (the  Temple),  and  were  in  favour  with  all  the 
people  (the  Jews).  Paul  is  repeatedly  made  to 
testify,  both  in  word  and  act,^  his  loyalty  towards  the 
Law  and  the  faith  of  the  fathers ;  nay,  even  to 
testify  to  the  teaching  of  the  Pharisees,  in  a  way 
that  appears  to  us  very  curious  in  the  author  of 
the  letters  to  the  Galatians  and  Romans.  In  short, 
while  the  historical  Paul  was  anti-legalistic  but  not 
anti-Judaic,  his  biographer,  on  the  contrary,  was 
anti- Judaic  but  not  anti-legalistic.  That  is  not  to  be 
explained  by  some  special  "  tendency "  in  Luke's 
writings  designed  to  promote  union ;  it  corresponds 
to  the  general  habit  of  thought  of  the  ecclesiastical 
deutero-Paulinism  of  his  time,  in  which  the  breach 
with  Judaism  had  been  completed  and  the  dissensions 
of  the  Apostolic  time  left  behind,  while  the  ordering 
of  church-life  by  means  of  a  new  law,  freely  modelled 
on  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  had  become  a  pressing 
need. 

But  this  conservative  attitude  towards  the  Law  is 
connected  with  a  further  point  of  view  which  is  of 
paramount  importance  in  reference  to  Luke's  work  as 
an  historian,  namely,  its  apologetic  aim.  He  wished 
to  write  the  history  of  early  Christianity  in  such  a  way 
that  it  should  not  only  be  edifying  to  his  Christian 
readers,  but  also  adapted  not  to  offend  those  without, 
and  calculated  to  give  them  the  impression  of  the 
political  innocence  and  loyalty  of  Christianity.  To 
this  end  he  has  suppressed  anything  in  his  heroes 
which  could  in  any  way  be  interpreted  as  contrary  to 

1  Word — xxiii.   6;    xxiv.    14   ff.  ;    xxvi.   4   fF.,  22.     Act — xvi.   3; 
xxi.  24  fF, 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS  297 

established  order  and  custom,  while  he  emphasises 
their  conservative  attitude  towards  the  usages  and 
beliefs  of  the  fathers,  especially  their  good  repute 
with  the  authorities,  Roman  as  well  as  Jewish.^  Just 
as  Jesus  falls  a  victim  to  the  hatred  of  the  Jewish 
hierarchs  only,  and  is  repeatedly  and  formally 
acquitted  by  His  civil  rulers,  Pilate  and  Herod,  so 
it  was  constantly  with  Paul ;  whenever  Jewish 
fanaticism  hounded  on  the  mob  to  persecute  the 
Apostle,  in  Philippi,  in  Corinth,  in  Ephesus,  and  in 
Jerusalem,  the  civil  authorities,  in  some  way  or  other, 
either  first  or  last,  acted  in  his  favour.  In  Philippi 
the  rulers  of  the  city  make  a  formal  apology  for  their 
over-hasty  proceedings  against  Paul ;  in  Corinth  the 
proconsul  Gallio  curtly  dismisses  his  Jewish  accusers, 
on  the  ground  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  these 
theological  questions ;  in  Ephesus  the  Asiarchs,  who 
are  friendly  to  Paul,  send  him  warning  not  to  expose 
himself  to  danger  by  appearing  in  the  theatre ;  in 
Jerusalem  Paul  is  rescued  from  the  hands  of  the 
raging  mob  by  the  intervention  of  the  Roman 
soldiers,  and  it  is  under  their  strong  escort,  to  protect 
him  against  a  murderous  attack  by  his  fellow-country- 
men, that  he  is  conveyed  to  Csesarea.  Finally,  in 
the  repeated  trials  here,  before  the  Romans  Felix 
and  Festus,  and  the  Jewish  King  Agrippa  (who 
here  plays  a  role  of  assessor  similar  to  that  which 
Herod  played  to  Pilate  in  the  trial  of  Jesus),  the  in- 

1  The  question,  which  naturally  suggests  itself,  whether  this 
insistence  on  the  respect  of  Christianity  for  law  and  order  was 
consistent  with  Luke's  pronounced  socialism,  is,  from  an  objective 
point  of  view,  doubtless  to  be  answered  in  the  negative,  but  it  does 
not  appear  probable  that  Luke  was  conscious  of  the  inconsistency. 


.298  THE   LUCAN    WRITINGS 

nocence  of  Paul  is  so  clearly  recognised  and  acknow- 
ledged that  the  only  thing  which  is  unintelligihle  to  the 
reader  is  how  it  was  possible  that  Paul  was  not  set 
at  liberty,  instead  of  the  trial  and  imprisonment  pro- 
ceeding until  Paul  finally  appeared  before  the  judg- 
ment-seat of  the  Roman  Emperor.  Obviously  Luke, 
whether  he  knew  the  actual  history  of  these  proceed- 
ings or  not,  has  in  any  case  very  decidedly  adapted 
his  account  of  them  to  his  apologetic  aim ;  in 
particular,  the  speeches  delivered  by  Paul  on  these 
occasions  are  composed  so  exclusively  from  this  point 
of  view  that  they  might  be  described  as  pattern 
speeches  for  the  defence  by  a  Christian  advocate  on 
behalf  of  fellow-believers  when  accused  before  the 
Roman  authorities. 

We  have  thus  seen  that  Luke,  in  both  his  historical 
works,  has  adapted  his  representation  of  the  history  to 
his  practical  aims,  and  sought  to  serve  the  ends  of 
religious  edification  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  de- 
fence of  Christianity  at  the  bar  of  the  Roman  world- 
power  on  the  other.  As  the  occasion  for  the  latter 
did  not  arise  until  the  second  century,  when,  under 
Trajan,  official  trials  of  Christians  first  occurred  in 
Asia  Minor,  we  have  here  a  definite  point  of  departure 
for  the  determination  of  the  time  of  composition  of 
the  writings  of  Luke  which  suggests  a  date  in  the  first 
decades  of  the  second  century.  There  is  a  second 
argument  confirmatory  of  this  in  the  relation  of  the 
Lucan  writings  to  the  works  of  Josephus.  The  de- 
pendence of  the  former  on  the  latter,  previously 
suggested  by  other  scholars,  has  lately  been  proved 
by  INI  ax  Krenkel  in  the  work  which  we  have  so 
often   had   occasion   to   cite,   Josephus  U7id   Lukas, 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS         299 

by  so  comprehensive  and  thorough  a  comparison  of 
the  two,  that  while  some  details  of  his  argument  may 
be  questioned,  the  general  impression  made  by  it 
cannot  be  resisted,  and  compels  the  recognition  of 
the  dependence  of  the  Lucan  writings  on  Josephus 
as  a  fact.  Now  as  Josephus'  literary  activity  falls  in 
the  last  two  decades  of  the  first  century  and  extends 
into  the  beginning  of  the  second,  it  necessarily  follows 
that  the  composition  of  the  Lucan  writings  cannot  fall 
eaidier  than  the  beginning  of  the  second  century. 
Here  we  have  a  sure  landmark  for  early  Christian 
chronology  which  rises  above  the  fogs  of  patristic 
tradition,  and  of  which  the  significance  for  other 
questions  must  not  be  underestimated.  In  the  first 
place,  as  regards  the  author  of  the  two  writings :  if 
they  were  written  as  late  as  this,  it  is  very  improbable 
that  they  are  directly  derived  from  Luke,  the  travel- 
ling companion  of  Paul,  since  he  must  at  this  time 
have  been  an  old  man  of  nearly  a  hundred.  From 
this  Antiochian  Luke  is  derived,  it  may  be  conjectured 
with  great  probability,  at  least  the  "  we-source  "  which 
is  used  in  Acts  ;  but  we  have  seen  that  this  source  is 
used  by  the  author  of  Acts  with  just  the  same  freedom 
with  which  he  has  handled  the  Gospel  sources — with 
rearrangements,  omissions,  additions,  of  so  far-reach- 
ing a  character  that  the  general  impression  of  the 
Apostle  Paul  and  of  his  relation  to  the  primitive  com- 
munity becomes  considerably  altered  from  that  which 
meets  us  in  the  authentic  witness  of  the  Pauline 
letters.  Would  so  free  a  handling  of  the  "  we-source  " 
on  the  part  of  the  author  of  Acts  be  psychologically 
possible  if  he  himself  were  the  author  of  that  source 
and  the  immediate  disciple  and  travelling- companion 


300  THE    LUCAN   WRITINGS 

of  Paul  ?     I  think  that,  for  every  unprejudiced  person, 
this  question  answers  itself.     The  author  of  the  Gospel 
and  Acts,  which  have  been  attributed  by  tradition  to 
Luke,  on  account  of  the  Lucan  source  which   was 
worked  up  in  the  latter,  was  therefore  in   reality  a 
Gentile  Christian  of  post-apostolic  times,  and  prob- 
ably a  member  of  the  Roman  church,  among  whose 
archives  he  may  have  found  the  Lucan  travel  memoirs. 
He  was,  moreover,  a  man  of  literary  culture,  well 
acquainted  with   the    writings   of  Josephus,  and    of 
remarkable  literary  talent,  who  understood  admirably 
how  to  present,  in  accordance  with  the  taste  of  his 
time — which    delighted  in  idealised    biographies  and 
descriptions  of  travel — the  beginnings  of  Christianity 
in  a  form  which  would  not  only  appeal  to  Christians 
but  was  calculated  also  to  attract  and  convince  the 
Gr^eco-Roman  world.     His  work   does   not,  indeed, 
consist  of  history  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term, 
but  of  "  truth  and   poetic   imagination "    ( Wakrheit 
und  Dichtung — in  allusion  to  Goethe's  Dichtung  und 
Wafii^heit),  in  accordance  with  the  tastes  and  ideas 
of  his  time  and  with  the  way  in  which  history  was 
generally  written   at   that   period.     And   it   is   pre- 
cisely this  mixture   of  truth   and    imagination,  this 
adaptation  of  the  history  to  the  needs  of  pious  feeling, 
this  sublimation  of  the  reality  into  the  ideal  world  of 
faith,  that  gives  the  Lucan  writings  the  incomparable 
value  which  they  have  had  for  the  Christianity  of  all 
ages,  and  which  they  still  retain ;   for  we  must  not 
forget  what  Aristotle  said  long  ago,  that   poetry  is 
truer  than  history. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MATTHEW 

CHAPTER  XI 

The  Stories  of  the  Birth  and  Infancy 

(Matt.  i.  and  ii.) 

JMatthew — so,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  we  may  call 
the  author  of  the  first  canonical  Gospel,  without 
thereby  intending  to  prejudge  the  question  of  its  re- 
lation to  the  Apostle — prefaces,  like  Luke,  his  account 
of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  with  a  proem  on  His 
birth  and  childhood  which,  however,  is  completely 
different  in  every  respect  from  the  Lucan  story. 
That  the  latter  cannot  have  had  any  historical  foun- 
dation we  have  already  seen ;  we  have  now  to  in- 
quire whether  Matthew's  narrative  had  any  such 
basis,  or,  if  not,  how  otherwise  his  divergence  from 
Luke  is  to  be  explained.  The  genealogy  with  which 
he  begins  carries  the  descent  of  Jesus  back  through 
three  times  fourteen  generations,  through  Zerubbabel 
and  David  to  Abraham.  But  the  well-articulated 
symmetry  of  this  genealogical  tree  is  purchased  at  the 
cost  of  numerous  offences  against  historical  accuracy. 
In  order  to  make  fourteen  generations  between  David 
and  the  Babylonian  exile,  four  generations  of  the 
Davidic  line  are  simply  left  out.  Moreover,  the  full 
number  of  fourteen  can  only  be  made  up  by  counting 

301 


302  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

either  David  at  the  beginning  or  Jeconiah  at  the  end 
twice  over ;  in  the  third  series,  which  covers  the  six 
hundred  years  from  the  beginning  of  the  exile  to  the 
birth  of  Jesus,  forty-six  years  must  be  allotted  to  each 
generation,  which,  according  to  the  elsewhere  uni- 
versally current  reckoning  of  the  average  length  of  a 
generation  {i.e.  the  age  of  the  father  at  the  birth 
of  the  son),  is  much  too  long.  Moreover,  the 
Matth£ean  genealogy  from  David  to  Zerubbabel, 
and  again  from  the  latter  to  Joseph's  father,  con- 
tains quite  different  names  from  the  Lucan  genealogy 
— in  the  one,  Joseph's  father  is  called  Heti,  in  the 
other  Jacob ;  even  if  these  were  brothers,  one  of 
whom,  according  to  the  custom  of  Levirate  marriage, 
might  represent  the  other  in  a  Hebrew  genealogy, 
they  must  have  had  the  same  father,  but  instead  of 
that  the  difference  of  the  names  goes  back  to 
Zerubbabel,  and  begins  again  with  his  ancestors.  A 
reconciliation  of  these  differences  is  impossible  ;  it  is 
also  unnecessary,  since  the  Matthsean  genealogy  shows 
itself  by  its  other  defects  to  be  a  free  compilation 
with  as  little  claim  to  historicity  as  Luke's.  Both 
genealogies  are  alike  free  inventions,  guided  by 
different  motives,  the  influence  of  which  explains 
their  differences.  Luke,  with  his  popular  sympathies, 
preferred  not  to  derive  the  descent  of  Jesus  from 
the  ruling  dynasty,  but  from  an  obscure  collateral 
branch ;  Matthew,  on  the  other  hand,  held  the  royal 
line  to  be  the  only  one  worthy  of  the  Messianic 
King.  Again,  the  Jewish-Christian  circles  in  which 
this  genealogy  originated — for  it  was  not  constructed 
by  the   author^ — attached    importance   only  to   the 

1  As  the  genealogy  is  designed  to  prove  the  Davidic  son  ship  of 


STORIES   OF   THE    BIRTH   AND   INFANCY  303 

Davidic  and  Abrahamic  sonship  of  Jesus  the  Messiah, 
whereas  the  Gentile- Christian  Luke  had  an  interest 
in  tracing  Him,  as  the  second  Adam,  back  to  the 
primal  man. 

The  birth-story  is  told  by  Matthew  very  much 
more  briefly  than  by  Luke.  It  would,  however, 
be  a  mistake  to  see  in  this  brevity  a  proof  of  the 
greater  antiquity  of  his  narrative.  We  have  seen 
above  in  regard  to  the  miraculous  birth  (p.  117) 
that  it  was  originally  foreign  to  the  Lucan  writings, 
and  was  only  interpolated  into  his  story  of  the  child- 
hood by  a  later  hand.  The  Gospel  of  Matthew  is 
therefore  the  first  and,  indeed,  the  only  canonical 
writing  of  which  this  narrative  forms  an  integral 
part,  a  circumstance  which  is  in  itself  a  sufficient 
proof  of  the  late  redaction  of  the  Gospel.  Of  course 
the  redactor  did  not  invent  it  himself,  but  found  it 
as  a  legend  which  was  already  current  in  his  time  in 
certain  quarters  ;  to  that  is  due  the  abrupt  fashion 
in  which  he  introduces  it,  saying  nothing  of  the  events 
which  concerned  Mary,  and  representing  the  super- 
Jesus,  it  presupposes  the  natural  fatherhood  of  Joseph,  the  de- 
scendant of  David^  and  cannot  therefore  have  been  composed  by 
the  Evangelist,  who  goes  on  to  tell  of  the  supernatural  concep- 
tion of  Jesus,  but  must  be  derived  from  a  circle  and  a  period  in 
which  nothing  was  known  of  the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus.  There- 
fore verse  l6  must  originally  have  run  "and  Joseph  begat  Jesus." 
This  original  version  is  still  traceable  in  the  reading  preserved  by 
the  Syriac  translation  of  the  Gospels  lately  discovered  at  Sinai, 
with  which  also  one  of  the  Latin  versions  agrees  :  "  Joseph,  to  whom 
was  betrothed  the  Virgin  Mary,  begat  Jesus."  {Cf.  Merx,  Die  vier 
Kanonischen  Evangelien  nach  ihrem  dltesten  bekannten  Text,  and 
P.  Rorbach,  Geboren  vo7i  der  Jtingfrau.)  The  present  canonical 
wording  of  verse  l6  is  therefore  a  correction,  similar  to  the  ws 
€voju,i^cTo  of  Luke  iii.  33. 


304  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

natural  facts  as  only  subsequently  made  known  to 
Joseph  in  a  dream.  That  he  knew  the  Lucan  birth- 
story  according  to  our  canonical  text  is  not  probable ; 
in  any  case  he  has  not  taken  it  into  account ;  he  pre- 
supposes on  the  part  of  his  readers,  belief  in  the 
miraculous  birth  of  the  Messiah,  and  only  seeks  to 
confirm  it  by  representing  it  as  the  fulfilment  of  the 
Isaian  prophecy  of  the  birth  of  Immanuel.  It  is 
true  that  in  this  passage  (vii.  14)  Isaiah  was  not 
thinking  of  the  future  birth  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  nor 
of  a  supernatural  birth  at  all,  but  of  the  natural  birth, 
within  a  year's  time,  of  a  child  within  whose  lifetime 
the  Divine  help  should  be  so  signally  given  to  His 
people  Israel  that  the  child  should  justly  bear  the 
name  "  God  with  us " ;  but  for  Christian  readers  it 
was  natural  to  interpret  this  passage  as  a  reference 
to  Jesus  the  Messiah,  in  whom  the  promise  "  God 
with  us "  had  first  been  fulfilled  ;  and  as  the  word 
which  the  prophet  here  uses  of  the  mother  of  the 
child  {almah)  might  mean  either  virgin  or  young 
woman  (the  sense  in  which  Isaiah  used  it),  it  was 
possible  to  look  upon  this  passage  as  a  prophecy  of 
the  'virgin-birth  or  supernatural  conception  of  Jesus. 
Of  course  only  such  readers  of  Isaiah  as  already  had 
reason  on  other  grounds  to  think  of  Jesus  as  more 
than  a  natural  man  could  have  any  occasion  to  in- 
terpret the  passage  in  this  way.  The  prophecy  is 
not,  therefore,  to  be  regarded  as  the  actual  source 
of  the  legend  of  the  miraculous  birth  ;  its  source  is 
rather  to  be  sought  in  the  motives  and  analogies  of 
non-Jewish  religious  history,  of  which  we  shall  have 
more  to  say  later. 

In   its   later   course,    also,   the  childhood-story  of 


STORIES   OF   THE   BIRTH    AND   INFANCY  305 

Matthew  diverges  completely  from  that  of  Luke.  If 
Luke  found  it  necessary  to  account  for  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  the  Nazarene,  in  the  Judaean  town  of  Bethlehem 
by  an  elaborate  contrivance  (p.  105  f ),  Matthew,  on 
the  other  hand,  simply  assumes  the  birth  at  Bethlehem 
as  something  self-evident  (ii.  1),  and  confirms  it  by 
a  saying  from  the  prophets  (ii.  6  =  Micah  v.  1).  In 
this  Gospel  both  parents  of  Jesus  are  residing  from 
the  first  at  Bethlehem  in  the  land  of  Judaea,  and  are 
only  later  led  to  settle  in  Nazareth  by  an  oracle. 
This  is  obviously  a  correction  of  historical  reality  in 
accordance  with  ideal  postulates,  which  goes  far  be- 
yond Luke  ;  the  point  being  that  it  seemed  in  accord- 
ance with  theocratic  decorum  that  the  Messiah 
should  belong,  even  as  regards  the  home  of  His 
family,  to  the  purely  Jewish  Judaea,  and  not  to 
"  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles."  Luke  had  represented 
i  the  new-born  Saviour  as  proclaimed  by  companies  of 
angels  who  appeared  with  a  heavenly  radiance,  and 
as  first  greeted  by  poor  shepherds.  This  heavenly 
radiance  is  derived  from  Isaiah,  who  prophesied  under 
this  figure  the  future  glory  of  the  people  of  God 
(Ix.  1  IF.) :  "  Arise,  shine,  for  thy  day  is  breaking  and 
the  glory  (splendour)  of  Jahweh  beams  upon  thee ! 
Behold,  darkness  covers  the  earth,  and  gross  darkness 
the  peoples,  but  upon  thee  doth  Jahweh  shine,  and  his 
glory  is  visible  upon  thee !  The  nations  draw  near 
to  thy  light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy  dawn 
....  the  riches  of  the  sea  are  given  unto  thee,  and 
the  treasures  of  the  people  flow  in  upon  thee  ....  the 
Sabaeans  throng  to  thee ;  they  bring  unto  thee  gold 
and  incense,  and  they  sing  hymns  of  praise  to  Jahweh." 

The  latter  part  of  the  prophecy  was  not  applied  by 
VOL.  II  20 


3()6  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

Luke,  because  poor  shepherds  seemed  to  him  the 
most  fitting  representatives  of  "the  poor,  to  whom 
the  gospel  is  preached."  It  could  not,  however,  fail 
to  be  the  case  that  once  legend  had  taken  possession 
of  that  passage  and  had  begun  to  interpret  it  Messi- 
anically,  it  should  seek  to  represent  the  coming  of 
the  peoples  and  their  great  ones  to  pay  homage  and 
bring  offerings  as  fulfilled  in  the  life  of  Jesus  the 
Messiah,  Again,  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  recalled  a 
similar  oracle  which  the  seer  and  magician  Balaam, 
who  came  from  the  Euphrates,  had  proclaimed  in 
old  times  concerning  the  future  glory  of  Israel.  "  A 
star  Cometh  forth  from  Jacob;  from  Israel  there  ariseth 
a  ruler's  sceptre  "  (Num.  xxiv.  17).  This  pictorial  ex- 
pression had  already  suggested  to  Jewish  theology 
the  expectation  of  a  Messianic  Star  or  "  sign  in  (or 
from)  heaven,"  as  the  signal  for  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah  [cf.  Apoc.  xii.  1  with  Matt.  xvi.  1).  How 
natural  it  was  for  Christian  legend  to  represent  the 
birth  of  Jesus  the  Messiah  as  proclaimed  by  the 
appearance  of  a  wonderful  star !  And  as  of  old 
Balaam,  a  INIagian  from  the  East,  had  seen  that  star 
arise  out  of  Jacob,  so  now  it  must  be  Magians  from 
the  East  who  perceived  the  miraculous  Messianic 
star.  Further,  as  Balaam  came  from  afar,  in  order 
to  bless  Israel,  and  as,  in  Isaiah,  nations  and  kings 
were  to  come  to  pay  homage  to  the  God  of  Israel  with 
hymns  and  offerings ;  so  now  the  Magians  from  the 
East  must  be  drawn  and  guided  to  Bethlehem  by  the 
miraculous  star  which  announced  the  Messiah,  in 
order  to  offer  to  the  new-born  King  of  the  Jews 
their  homage,  and  their  tribute  of  gold,  frankincense 
and  myrrh  (Isa.  Ix.  6  with  Ps.  xlv.  9).     Thus  out  of 


STORIES   OF  THE   BIRTH   AND   INFANCY  307 

prophetic  word-pictures  which  had  already  received 
a  Messianic  interpretation  among  the  Jews  was 
formed  the  Christian  legend  of  the  coming  of  the 
"  Wise  Men  "  from  the  East,  which  our  Evangelist 
thought  the  more  worthy  of  insertion  in  his  book, 
since  he  saw  in  these  Magians  the  representatives 
of  the  heathen  who  were  turning  to  Christ,  among 
whom  there  were  in  his  time  many  wise  and  in- 
fluential men — otherwise  than  in  the  time  of  Paul 
(1  Cor.  ii.). 

This  narrative  further  suggested  to  him  the 
addition  of  another  legend  which  was  originally 
unconnected  with  it — that  of  the  persecution  and 
flight  of  the  Messianic  Child.  This  story,  too,  had 
its  prototypes  and  roots  in  the  Jewish  apocalyptic 
writings,  and  beyond  that  in  the  common  stock  of 
universal  folk-lore.  According  to  Apoc.  xii.  1  f.,  the 
demonic  dragon  seeks  to  devour  the  new-born  child 
of  the  woman  with  the  crown  of  twelve  stars  (Israel's 
son,  the  Messiah),  but  the  child  is  caught  away  to 
God,  and  the  woman  flees  into  the  desert.  The 
dragon,  which  is  derived  from  the  Babylonian 
mythology,  is  interpreted  in  the  Christian  legend 
as  the  false  Jewish  King,  who,  as  the  rival  of  the 
true  King  of  the  Jews,  Jesus,  endeavours  to  destroy 
Him ;  just  as,  in  fact,  the  last  "  King  of  the  Jews," 
the  pseudo- Messiah  Barcochba,  as  the  rival  of  Jesus, 
the  Christ,  endeavoured  to  destroy  the  Christian 
Church.  And  as,  according  to  Apoc.  xii.  17,  the 
dragon,  in  his  wrath  at  the  escape  of  the  woman  and 
her  son,  "  made  war  with  the  remnant  of  her  seed," 
so  in  Matthew,  King  Herod,  in  wrath  at  the  frustra- 
tion of  his  designs,  causes  the  children  of  Bethlehem 


308  THE   GOSPEL  OF   MATTHEW 

to  be  slain.  Instead  of  the  undefined  place  in  the 
wilderness  where  the  woman  of  the  Apocalypse  hid 
herself,  the  Evangelist  has  chosen  Egypt,  which  lay 
beyond  the  wilderness,  as  the  refuge  of  the  persecuted 
Messiah,  Jesus,  because  the  young  Messiah  was  to  be 
brought  from  the  same  country  from  which  of  old  the 
young  Israel  had  come  out.  This  motive  he  himself 
indicates  by  representing  the  saying  of  the  prophet, 
•'  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  son  " — which  in 
Hosea  xi.  1  means  the  people  of  Israel — as  fulfilled 
in  Jesus. 

The  quotation  by  which  Matthew  finally  seeks  to 
sanction  the  removal  of  the  family  of  Jesus  to 
Nazareth  (ii.  23),  which  he  represents  as  caused  by  a 
revelation  in  a  dream,  is  less  felicitous. 

Parallels  to  this  narrative  of  the  persecution  and 
deliverance  of  the  Messianic  Child  are  found  in 
great  numbers  throughout  all  folk-lore.  In  the  first 
place  we  may  recall  the  myth  of  the  birth  of  Apollo. 
When  Leto  had  conceived  by  Zeus,  it  was  prophesied 
to  the  dragon  Python  that  her  son  would  slay  him ; 
therefore  he  pursued  Leto,  in  order  to  destroy  her  and 
her  son,  but  Boreas  delivered  the  persecuted  goddess 
to  the  care  of  Poseidon,  who  brought  her  to  an 
island  and  concealed  her,  by  the  billows  of  the  sea, 
from  the  pursuing  dragon.  The  popularity  of  this 
myth  is  proved  by  pictures  of  Leto  fleeing  with  her 
children  from  the  dragon  which  have  been  found 
upon  coins  in  Asia  Minor  ^ ;  probably  the  same  story 
is  the  basis  of  the  apocalyptic  vision  of  the  persecution 
of  the  Messianic  Child  by  the  dragon  in  Apoc.  xii. 
Further,  we  may  recall  the  deliverance  of  the  child 

1  Dietrich,  Abraxas,  p.  117  ff. 


STORIES   OF   THE   BIRTH   AND   INFANCY  309 

Moses  by  Pharaoh's  daughter  (Ex.  ii.) ;  in  the 
Rabbinic  legend,  the  exposure  of  the  child  took  place 
at  the  command  of  Pharaoh,  because  he  had  been 
warned  by  a  scribe  of  the  danger  which  threatened 
him.^  There  is  a  similar  story  in  the  Assyrian  legend 
of  the  deliverance  of  the  young  Sargon,  whom  his 
mother,  in  order  to  save  him  from  the  enmity  of  his 
uncle,  exposed  in  an  ark  of  reeds  in  the  Euphrates, 
and  whom  a  water-bearer  drew  out  of  the  water  and 
brought  up."  An  Indian  legend  related  of  the  god- 
man  Krishna  that  King  Kansa,  in  consequence  of  a 
warning  oracle,  plotted  against  the  life  of  the  new- 
born Krishna,  who  was  a  prince  of  his  own  house,  and 
when  he  escaped,  caused  all  the  boys  of  like  age  in 
his  country  to  be  put  to  death  ;  Krishna,  however, 
grew  up  in  the  house  of  poor  shepherds  with  whom 
his  father  had  concealed  him.^  Cyrus  the  young  King 
of  Persia  was  ordered  to  be  put  to  death  by  his 
grandfather  Astyages,  in  consequence  of  a  threaten- 
ing vision  which  he  had  seen  in  a  dream,  but  the 
shepherd  who  had  been  charged  to  slay  him  brought 
him  up  as  his  own  child.*  Before  the  birth  of 
Augustus,  the  senate,  in  consequence  of  an  oracle 
which  announced  that  the  birth  of  a  Roman  king 
was  about  to  take  place,  issued  an  order  that  all 
the  children  born  in  that  year  were  to  be  put  to 
death,  but  the  parents  of  Augustus  did  not  obey  the 
order.^     The  common  motive  of  all   these   legends, 

1  Josephus,  Afit.,  ii.  9-  2. 

2  Smith,  Early  History  of  Babylonia,  p.  46. 

2  Wheeler,  History  of  India,  London,  1807,  i.  462  f. 
4  Herodotus,  i.  108-113. 
^  Suetonius,  Octavianus,  P^. 


310 


THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 


the  ultimate  roots  of  which  are  perhaps  to  be  sought 
in  sun-myths,  is  to  enhance  the  dignity  of  the  hfe  of 
a  great  man  by  representing  him  as  from  the  first 
the  centre  of  a  struggle  between  the  powers  of  good 
and  e/il. 


I 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MATTHEW 

CHAPTER  XII 

From  the  Baptism  of  John  to  the  Departure 
OF  Jesus  from  Galilee 

(Matt.  hi.  1-xviii.  35) 

While  Matthew's  proem  is  not  dependent  on  any 
gospel  source,  his  dependence  on  Mark  immediately 
shows  itself  in  the  first  of  the  narratives  which  are 
common  to  the  Synoptists.  "In  those  days  came 
John  the  Baptist,  preaching  in  the  wilderness  of 
Judea."  Of  what  days  is  Matthew  speaking  (iii.  1)? 
From  what  immediately  precedes,  we  should  have  to 
think  of  the  time  when  the  "  young  child  "  Jesus  was 
brought  back  from  Egypt  by  His  parents  and  taken  to 
Nazareth,  and  the  appearance  of  John  the  Baptist 
would  therefore  take  place  in  the  earliest  youth  of 
Jesus.  That  is  historically  impossible,  and  is  in 
contradiction  with  the  note  of  time  in  Luke,  who  can 
have  had  no  reason  for  contradicting  Matthew.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  Evangelist  in  saying  "  in  those  days  " 
cannot  have  meant  the  time  which  the  context  would 
seem  necessarily  to  imply.  How  came  he,  then,  to 
use  this  expression  ?  The  explanation  is  that  he  had 
it  before  him  in  Mark  i.  9,  where  it  is  said  of  Jesus 
that  "  He  came  in  those  days   (namely,  when  John 

3U 


312  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

was    baptizing)    to    Jordan."     The    resemblance    to 
Elijah  in  the  outward  appearance  and  manner  of  life 
of  the  Baptist  is  pictured  by  Matthew  (iii.  4)  in  close 
conformity  with  Mark  (i.  6),  whereas  Luke  has  here 
passed  over  this,  because  he  had  already  indicated  it 
in   a   general   way   in   his   birth -story   (i.    15).     The 
preaching  of  the  Baptist,  however,  runs  in  Matthew 
exactly  as  in  Luke,  with  the  exception  of  the  special 
exhortations    in    the    latter   to    the    various    classes 
among  John's  hearers ;   in  this,  therefore,  he  follows 
a  source  which  is  fuller  than  Mark,  and  which  he  uses 
in  common  with  Luke.     It  is  peculiar  to  him  that 
he  does  not,  like  Luke,  represent   the  preaching  of 
repentance  as  directed  to  the  multitudes,  but  specially 
to  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  making  it  a  prelude 
to  the  great  polemic  of  Jesus  against  the  Pharisees 
(Matt,  xxiii.) ;  in  contradiction,  it  must  be  admitted, 
to  the  historical  fact  that  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees 
held    aloof    from    the    baptism   of    John,    as    Luke 
distinctly  says  in  vii.  30,  and  Matthew  himself  admits 
in  xxi.  26  and  32.     The  desire  to  find  in  the  work  of 
John  the  exact  prototype  of  that  of  Jesus  moved  him 
also  to  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Baptist  the  same 
preaching  of  the  Kingdom  as  into  that  of  Jesus  Him- 
self (iii.  2),  for  which  there  is  no  confirmation  in  any 
of  the  parallel  narratives. 

Matthew's  story  of  the  Baptism  of  Jesus  is 
extremely  instructive  in  its  divergence  from,  as  well 
as  in  its  agreement  with,  the  common  text.  In 
iii.  14  f.  he  narrates  that  John  desired  to  prevent 
Jesus  from  being  baptized  by  him,  because  he,  John, 
needed  rather  to  be  baptized  by  Jesus,  to  which  Jesus 
answered  that  it  befitted  him  to  fulfil  all  righteous- 


THE   BAPTISM   AND   TEMPTATION        313 

ness,  i.e.  to  conform  to  all  that  belonged  to  the 
righteousness  of  a  true  Israelite.  According  to  this, 
John  recognised  Jesus  from  the  first  as  his  superior, 
nay,  actually  recognised  Him  as  Messiah,  which 
would  not  have  been  possible  without  supernatural 
knowledge.  Besides,  the  other  Evangelists  know 
nothing  of  it,  and  Matthew  himself  at  a  later  point 
(xi.  3)  tells  of  the  question  addressed  by  the  Baptist 
to  Jesus,  which  implies  the  contrary  of  such  a  con- 
fession. Obviously  we  have  here  an  addition  made 
by  Matthew  to  the  older  text,  the  object  of  which  is 
easy  to  perceive.  To  later  Christological  views  it 
was  offensive  that  the  Son  of  God  should  have  sub- 
mitted, like  anyone  else,  to  the  baptism  of  John,  but 
the  well-known  story  could  not  be  suppressed,  and 
therefore  it  must  at  least  be  modified  in  a  way  which 
would  remove  the  difficulty.  This  was  done  by 
making  the  Baptist  himself  recognise  the  higher  rank 
of  Jesus,  and  explaining  the  Baptism  of  Jesus  as  a 
mere  accommodation  to  a  good  practice.  A  similar 
thought  is  expressed  in  the  story  of  the  Baptism  in 
the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  which  was  used 
by  the  Jewish- Christian  party  of  the  Nazarenes. 
Jesus  is  invited  by  His  mother  and  His  brethren  to 
go  with  them  to  John  and  be  baptized  by  him  for 
the  forgiveness  of  sins.  He  replies  :  "  What  sin  have 
I  committed,  that  I  should  go  and  be  baptized  by 
him — unless  this  very  word  of  mine  is  a  sin  of 
ignorance  ?  "  And,  accordingly.  He  goes  to  baptism 
against  His  will,  compelled  by  His  relatives,  but 
Himself  not  needing  it.  After  the  baptism  Matthew, 
like  Luke,  reports  the  opening  of  the  heavens  as  an 
objective  occurrence ;  like  Mark,  the  descent  of  the 


314  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

Spirit  as  subjectively  perceived  by  Jesus  ;  and,  lastly, 
the  voice  from  heaven  as  an  objective  utterance  in 
the  third  person  ("This  is  my  beloved  Son"), 
intended,  therefore,  not  so  much  for  Jesus  Himself 
as  for  the  other  hearers.  Thus  the  Baptism  is  here 
no  longer  the  moment  of  the  real  exaltation  of  Jesus 
to  be  the  Messianic  Son  of  God,  for  in  this  Gospel  He 
is  so  from  the  supernatural  birth,  but  only  the  solemn 
attestation  of  His  Sonship. 

The  story  of  the  Temptation  is  told  by  Matthew 
just  in  the  same  way  as  by  Luke,  only  that  the  second 
and  third  temptations  are  reversed,  the  resultant 
order  leading  up  to  a  more  natural  climax  than  that 
of  Luke ;  after  the  temptation  to  worship  the  devil, 
the  vehement  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan ! "  is 
appropriate  as  the  close  of  the  whole.  Whether  this 
version  is  the  more  original  is,  nevertheless,  question- 
able^ ;  if  it  is,  why  should  Luke  have  altered  it  ?  The 
introduction  to  the  narrative  reads,  indeed,  more 
smoothly  in  Matthew  than  in  l^uke,  since  the  incon- 
sistency between  the  statements  that  the  temptation 
occurred  after,  and  also  during,  the  forty  days  {sup. 
p.  118)  is  removed,  but  this  advantage  is,  perhaps,  too 
dearly  purchased  by  the  curious  represenation  that 
Jesus  was  led  by  the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness  for 
the  very  purpose  of  being  tempted  by  the  devil.  At 
the  close  Matthew  says,  "  Then  the  devil  left  him  " 
(not,  as  I^uke  says,  "  for  a  season "),  "  and  behold, 
angels  came  and  ministered  to  him  "  (as  in  Mark). 

After  the  temptation,  INIatthew  makes   Jesus   re- 

1  It  is,  however,  to  be  remarked  that  Justin  Martyr  {Dial.,  103 
and  125)  cites  the  story  of  the  Temptation,  which  he  found  in  the 
"  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  "  according  to  Matthew's  version. 


THE   SERMON   ON   THE    MOUNT  315 

move  immediately  from  Nazareth  to  Capernaum  in 
order  to  take  up  His  abode  there  permanently,  and 
by  this  the  promise  of  Isaiah  of  a  dawning  of  the 
light  in  dark  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles  is  fulfilled 
(iv.  13  fF.).  According  to  Mark,  it  was  not  until 
after  the  call  of  the  first  two  disciples  that  Jesus  went 
with  these  to  their  home  in  Capernaum,  and  not  then 
with  the  intention  of  settling  there  (Mark  i.  21). 
The  change  was  doubtless  made  by  Matthew  for  the 
sake  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophetic  saying.  The 
call  of  the  first  two  disciples  is  next  narrated,  the 
account  in  Mark  being  followed.  But  whereas  Mark 
depicts  the  first  public  appearance  of  Jesus  on  the 
Sabbath  at  Capernaum,  the  first  works  of  healing, 
and  the  growing  multitudes,  in  very  graphic  fashion, 
Matthew  gives,  in  the  first  instance,  a  mere  summary 
notice  of  the  general  teaching  and  healing  ministry  of 
Jesus  (iv.  23  f.),  which  betrays  its  dependence  on 
Mark  i.  32  ff.  by  the  fact  that  it  is  again  brought  in 
by  Matthew  at  the  point  where  Mark  has  it  (viii.  16  f ). 
He  postpones  the  narrative  of  individual  acts  of  heal- 
ing in  order,  in  the  first  place,  to  give  a  full  specimen 
of  Jesus'  teaching.  This  seemed  fitting,  if  only  for 
the  reason  that  Mark  (i.  22)  had  spoken  of  the  great 
impression  made  by  the  first  appearance  of  Jesus  as  a 
teacher  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum ;  this  result 
should  in  Matthew's  view  be  explained  by  a  more  de- 
tailed representation  of  the  mighty  work  of  Jesus  as 
a  teacher.  I^uke,  too,  opens  the  work  of  Jesus  with 
an  introductory  sermon,  and  uses  for  this  purpose  the 
sermon  at  Nazareth,  which  he  ante-dates  and  expands, 
but  which  is  inappropriate,  partly  because  it  makes 
reference  to  His  previous  work  in  Capernaum,  and 


316  THE   GOSPEI-   OF   MATTHEW 

partly  because  its  effect  was  by  no  means  favourable. 
Very  much  better  adapted  to  serve  the  purpose  of  a 
typical  example  of  Jesus'  teaching  is  the  next  discourse, 
which,  according  to  Luke,  Jesus  delivered  soon  after 
the  choice  of  the  Twelve,  and  to  the  circle  of  the 
disciples  (Luke  vi.  20-49).  Even  if  this  was  not,  in 
the  simpler  form  in  which  Luke  had  taken  it  from 
his  source,  sufficient  for  Matthew's  purpose,  it  could 
be  used  as  an  appropriate  framework  in  which  to  in- 
sert further  material  of  the  same  kind.  Thus  it  was 
that  Matthew,  before  following  Mark  in  his  further 
account  of  the  activity  of  Jesus,  placed  at  the  com- 
mencement the  great  "  Sermon  on  the  Mount,"  the 
counterpart,  expanded  by  numerous  interpolations,  of 
the  I^rucan  "  Sermon  on  the  Plain."  This  seems  to 
have  been  delivered  on  the  plain  at  the  foot  of  the 
mountain  upon  which,  just  before,  the  twelve  disciples 
had  been  chosen  (Luke  vi.  12  f.,  17  ff.);  Matthew, 
however,  who  here  passes  over  the  choice  of  the  dis- 
ciples, transfers  the  scene  of  it  to  the  mountain  itself, 
which  he  makes  Jesus  ascend  for  the  special  purpose 
of  delivering  His  great  opening  discourse  from  it,  as 
from  a  pulpit  (v.  1).  For  this  deliberate  alteration 
he  had,  doubtless,  a  deeper  reason.  This  mountain 
recalls  at  once  Mount  Sinai,  from  which,  in  the  times 
of  old,  Moses  had  proclaimed  to  the  people  the  Law 
of  God.  Thus  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  marked 
out  by  its  very  scene  as  the  antithesis  of  the  Old 
Testament  giving  of  the  Law,  as  the  giving  of  the 
true  Law  of  the  New  Covenant.^     And  He  who  here 

^  Cf.  Brandtj  Die  evang.  Gesch.  354.  The  representation  of  the 
mountain  is  connected  with  the  fact  that  Matthew  thought  of  this 
sermon  as  a  solemn   declaration    of  the    principles    and   precepts 


THE   SERMON   ON   THE   MOUNT  317 

speaks  is  no  longer  the  teacher  who  instructs  His 
disciples  in  parables  concerning  the  nature  and  growth 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  but  the  Lord  of  the  new 
People  of  God,  who  with  the  God-given  authority  of 
a  second  Moses  prescribes  to  His  people  the  funda- 
mental laws  of  their  Christian  life.  Accordingly  the 
"  disciples  "  who  form  the  audience  are  not  only  the 
Twelve — who,  in  Matthew,  are  not  even  chosen  at  this 
time — but  the  company  of  disciples  in  general,  the 
"  People  of  God  "  of  the  New  Covenant.  It  is  in  this 
sense  that  the  discourse  is  to  be  understood.  The 
historical  discourse  of  Jesus  to  the  first  disciples,  which 
Luke  has  preserved,  is  transformed  by  Matthew  into 
a  counterpart  of  the  giving  of  the  Law  at  Sinai,  the 
establishment  of  the  New  Law  for  the  People  of  the 
New  Covenant,  and  in  the  process  the  original  thoughts 
and  motives  of  the  Galileean  work  of  Jesus  have  been 
largely  reminted  to  suit  the  ideas  and  needs  of  later 
generations. 

The  discourse  begins,  as  in  Luke,  with  beatitudes 
(v.  3  ff. ).  But  while  in  Luke  the  four  beatitudes 
are  followed  by  four  "  woes,"  the  latter  are  here 
omitted  and  replaced  by  an  equal  number  of  new 
beatitudes,  which  give  a  further  development  to  the 

of  the  new  religious  relation,  as  the  giving  of  the  Law  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven^  analogous  to  the  giving  of  the  Old  Testament 
Law,  and  therefore,  like  it,  given  forth  from  the  top  of  a  mountain. 
As  on  Sinai  God  spake  with  Moses  while  the  people  stood  afar  off, 
and  only  looked  on,  so  the  Evangelist  makes  the  great  multitudes, 
drawn  from  all  parts  of  the  land,  stand  in  sight  of  Jesus,  lower 
down  the  mountain,  while  on  the  top  only  the  disciples  approach 
close  to  Him  and  hear  what  the  Master  says.  Only  this  parallel 
with  Exod.  XX.  18-22  explains  the  otherwise  very  peculiar  repre- 
sentation of  Matt.  iv.  25-v.  2. 


318  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

thoughts  of  the  first  series.  But  there  are  changes 
also  in  the  original  form  of  the  beatitudes.  In  Luke 
the  poor  and  the  hungry  were  blessed,  whom  we  are 
to  think  of,  no  doubt,  as  pious  men,  but  also  as 
actually  poor  and  needy  (p.  125) ;  here,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  actual  poor  are  made  into  the  "poor  in 
spirit,"  and  the  hungry  into  those  who  "  hunger  and 
thirst  after  righteousness,"  which  implies  a  corre- 
sponding change  in  the  meaning  of  the  satisfaction 
which  is  promised  to  them.  The  conception  "  poor  in 
spirit "  is  not  very  easy  to  define,  as  the  constant  hesita- 
tion of  the  exegetes  shows ;  and  the  reason  that  it  is 
not  so,  is  that  it  was  not  the  original  thought ;  the 
addition  of  the  determination  "  in  spirit "  suffices  to 
obscure  the  original  literal  sense  of  the  term  "  poor," 
but  it  fails  to  express  any  other  definite  sense,  so  that 
now  the  meaning  of  the  saying  is  rather  to  be  vaguely 
apprehended  than  distinctly  defined.  The  meaning 
which  perhaps  most  naturally  commends  itself  is 
"  those  who  feel  themselves  to  be  poor,  without  means, 
strength,  or  help,  whether  in  a  moral  or  in  a  natural 
sense,  or  both,  and  therefore  long  for  help  from 
above."  That  a  chameleon-hued  conception  of  this 
kind,  which  cannot  be  fixed  down  either  to  a  literal 
or  metaphorical,  natural  or  moral  significance,  is  less 
original  than  the  simpler  one,  is  immediately  obvious, 
and  is  confirmed,  moreover,  by  the  fact  that  both  in 
the  Clementine  Homilies  (xv.  10)  and  in  the  Epistle 
of  Polycarp  (ii.  3)  this  beatitude  is  cited  in  the  simple 
form,  without  the  addition  of  "  in  spirit."  ^     There  is, 

1  Otto  Holtzmann,  Leben  Jesu,  p.  187,  rightly  remarks  that 
Matthew  in  verse  4,  where  the  beatitude  is  pronounced  simply  upon 
"  those  who  mourn  "   without  any  reference  to  mourning  for  sin, 


THE   SERMON   ON   THE    MOUNT  319 

therefore,  no  room  for  doubt  that  the  original  beati- 
tude upon  the  poor,  which  did  not  cause  the  shghtest 
difficulty  to  the  primitive  community,  was  no  longer 
in  accordance  with  the  later  ecclesiastical  ideas 
which  Matthew  represents — a  notable  indication  of 
the  transformation  of  the  social  attitude  and  position 
of  the  Church  in  its  growing  catholicity  during  the 
second  century.  A  Church  to  which  there  already 
belonged  numerous  members  of  the  propertied 
classes,  and  which  was  inevitably  only  too  much  dis- 
posed to  give  these  men  of  wealth  and  standing  a 
position  of  honour  and  influence  corresponding  to 
their  social  position  in  the  world — a  condition  of 
things  against  which  the  Epistle  of  James,  indeed, 
vigorously  protests  (ii.  1-7),  but  in  doing  so  clearly 
testifies  to  its  existence — such  a  Church  could  only 
find  a  difficulty  in  the  Lucan  beatitude  upon  the 
poor,  in  contrast  with  the  rich,  which  it  seemed  ad- 
visable, indeed  necessary,  to  remove  by  a  spiritual 
interpretation.^  This  applies,  not  only  to  the  "  poor 
in  spirit,"  but  also  to  those  who  hunger  and  thirst 
after  righteousness.  The  beatitude  upon  the  meek  who 
shall  "  inherit  the  land  "  is  verbally  from  Ps.  xxxvii. 
11,  and  (as  it  is  quoted  according  to  the  LXX)  is  pro- 

or  other  ethical  qualification,  "  has  left  a  clear  indication  that  he 
has  altered  the  original  wording  "  (of  the  other  beatitudes).  Cf. 
also  H.  Holtzmann  in  the  3rd  edition  of  his  Konmentar  zu  den 
Synopt.  Ev.  p.  201  f.  The  dative  tw  Trveu/Axai  is  cei'tainly  an  explana- 
tory addition  which  has  grown  up  with  the  Greek  version  of  the 
words  of  Jesus,  as  is  also  ttjv  8LKaLocrvvr]v  in  verse  6  and  IveKcv 
SiKatocrvvT]^  in  verse  10,  and  probably  also  rrj  KapSia  in  verse  8. 

1  Cf.  Brandt,  Ei\  Gesch.,  p.  358  f  :  "  Matthew  obviously  was  in 
closer  i-elations  than  Mark  with  the  leaders  of  church  politics,  who 
already  knew  how  to  value  worldly  means." 


320  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

bably  an  addition  of  the  Evangelist.  The  beatitudes 
upon  the  merciful,  the  pure  in  heart,  and  the  peace- 
makers, are  so  much  in  accordance  with  other  utter- 
ances of  Jesus,  that  they,  whether  they  rest  upon  an 
older  tradition  or  not,^  are  certainly  spoken  in  the  spirit 
of  Jesus  ;  and  indeed  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
beatitudes  of  the  Matthasan  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
are  an  inestimable  enrichment  of  the  Gospel  tradition 
and  a  splendid  revelation  of  the  genuine  Spirit  of 
Christ  which  was  present  in  His  Church. 

The  sayings  with  reference  to  the  duties  of  the 
disciples  which  follow  the  beatitudes  (verses  13-16), 
comparing  them  to  the  salt  of  the  earth  and  the  light 
of  the  world,  are  gathered  together  by  our  Evangelist 
on  account  of  their  connection  of  subject.  The 
parallels  in  the  other  Gospels  stand  in  a  different  con- 
text, but  are  also  connected  with  the  duties  of 
disciples  (Luke  xiv.  34  f.  ;  Mark  iv.  21).  In  verse 
16,  however,  the  interpretation  of  "letting  one's  light 
shine  "  as  a  reference  to  the  practice  of  good  works 
instead  of  to  diligence  in  teaching  is  peculiar  to 
Matthew,  and  is  certainly  far  from  the  original  sense 
of  this  saying.  It  shows  that  in  the  author's  time 
the  interest  in  the  special  missionary  duty  of  the 
disciples  in  the  narrower  sense,  i.e.  the  original 
apostles,  had  waned  in  comparison  with  the  general 
ecclesiastical  interest,  that  the  members  of  the  Church 
in  general  should  do  honour  to  the  Christian  name 
by  a  blameless  walk  and  the  diligent  practice  of 
good  works  in  brotherly  love  {cf.  1  Pet.  ii.  12).  ^ 


^  The  beatitude  upon  the  merciful  rests  upon  the  often  quoted 
saying  of  the  Lord,  eAeSre  tVa  iXerjOrJTe  (Clem.  R.,  i.  13.  2;  Clem. 
Al.,  Strom.,  ii.  18.  91  ;  Acta  Joha/mis,  ed  Zahn,  73). 


f 


THE    SERMON   ON   THE   MOUNT  321 

In  verse  17  Jesus  begins  to  speak  of  His  attitude 
towards  the  law,  and  speaks  in  a  peculiar  fashion, 
reported  only  here,  which  makes  the  impression  of 
deciding  an  ecclesiastical  controversy  by  giving  each 
side  its  due.  In  the  first  place,  the  general  principle 
is  laid  down,  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy 
the  law  or  the  prophets  "  {i.e.  the  word  of  God  in  the 
Old  Testament) ;  "I  am  not  come  to  destroy  but  to 
fulfil."  Next,  the  negative  side  of  this  statement  is 
emphasised :  so  far  from  the  law's  being  destroyed, 
not  the  smallest  letter  of  it  shall  perish  (verse  18  f.) ; 
then  the  positive  side:  Christ  brings  about,  and 
teaches,  the  true  fufilling  of  the  law  (verses  20-48). 
That  is,  Jesus  will  give  the  law  its  full  validity 
according  to  its  true  divine  intention,  for  He  demands 
from  His  disciples  a  better  righteousness  than  that  of 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  a  righteousness  which  is 
not  confined  to  mere  outward  legality,  but  consists 
in  the  pure  motive  which  is  well-pleasing  to  God. 
That  is  illustrated  by  six  examples.  (1)  Not  merely 
murder,  but  anger  against  one's  neighbour  and  bitter 
speech  to  him  is  before  God  a  sin  deserving  of 
punishment.  (2)  To  lust  after  the  wife  of  another 
is  to  commit  adultery  in  one's  heart.  (3)  Divorce, 
which  was  permitted  by  the  law,  and  about  which 
there  was  in  practice  a  good  deal  of  laxity  among  the 
Jews,  is  contrary  to  the  Divine  will,  except  for  the 
cause  of  unfaithfulness,  as  JNIatthew  adds,  thus  modify- 
ing the  absoluteness  of  the  statement,  as  he  does  also 
where  this  saying  is  repeated  (xix.  3  ff.).  (4)  Swear- 
ing is  unconditionally  forbidden.  (5)  In  place  of  the 
legal  principle  of  compensation  the  disciples  are  to 
adopt  the  principle  of  the  patient  bearing  of  wrong. 

VOL.   II  "1 


322  THE   GOSPEL    OF   MATTHEW 

(6)  In  place  of  loving  only  one's  neighbour  (fellow- 
countryman.  Lev.  xix.  18)  and  hating  one's  enemy, 
to  love  one's  enemy  is  to  be  the  rule.  At  this  point 
Matthew  returns  to  the  Lucan  framework  and  sums 
up  this  exposition  of  the  "  better  righteousness "  in 
the  saying,  "Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  as  your  Father 
in  heaven  is  perfect " ;  corresponding  to  the  Toucan 
saying,  "  Be  merciful,  as  your  Father  is  merciful,"  a 
difference  which  is  perhaps  due  merely  to  different 
translations  of  the  same  word  in  the  Aramaic.^  The 
only  difficulty  in  this  passage  is  the  introductory 
declaration  of  the  unalterable  validity  of  the  law 
(verse  18  f.).  How  does  that  agree,  we  must  ask, 
with  the  prohibition  of  divorce  and  of  oaths,  both  of 
which  were  provided  for  by  the  Mosaic  law  ?  And 
what  of  the  command  to  interrupt  the  making  of  an 
offering  (verse  23  f.) — -which  is  forbidden  in  the  law 
— in  order  to  discharge  an  obligation  imposed  by 
love  ?  And  are  not  the  ceremonial  laws,  e.g.,  regarding 
unclean  meats,  invalidated  by  the  statement  that  only 
that  which  goes  out  of  the  heart,  not  that  which 
enters  into  a  man  from  without,  can  make  him 
unclean?  (Mark  vii.  17  ff.  =  Matt.  xv.  17  ff.).  In  view 
of  these  criticisms  of  the  law  we  may  conjecture 
that  verses  17-19  were  not  spoken  by  Jesus,  but  put 
into  His  mouth  by  the  Evangelist  or  his  source.  In 
support  of  this  conjecture  the  following  arguments 
may  be  adduced:  (1)  The  expressions  to  fulfil 
{-TrXrjpcoa-ai),  and  to  abolish  [KaTaXvcrai),  the  law,  are 
specifically  Pauline  formulae,  the  latter  only  occurring 

^  rP??'j  which,  according  to  Nestle  {Philologia  Sacra)  may  mean 
either  " blameless "  or  "kind."  Cf.  also  Deut.  xviii.  13,  "^Thou 
shalt  be  perfect  (reXeios)  before  the  Lord  thy  God." 


THE   SERMON   ON   THE    MOUNT  323 

again  in  Gal.  ii.  18.  (2)  Verse  17  contains  a  defence 
against  a  charge  which  could  not  have  been  brought 
against  Jesus  prior  to  the  saying  mentioned  in  Mark 
xiv.  58,  since,  for  all  His  freedom  in  dealing  with  the 
tradition  of  the  schools,  His  manner  of  life  was  not 
contrary  to  the  Mosaic  law.  (3)  The  phrase  "  Think 
not  that  I  am  come "  (verse  17),  is  found  again  in 
Matt.  X.  34  in  a  saying  peculiar  to  Matthew.  (4)  In 
verse  19  the  estimate  of  the  teacher  who  teaches 
against  the  law  as  "the  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven "  seems  to  contain  an  allusion  to  Paul,  who 
had  described  himself  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  19  as  the  least 
{iXdxt(rTo<i)  of  the  apostles.  (5)  Verses  18  and  19 
do  not  seem  appropriate  in  this  connection  as  an  intro- 
duction to  the  exposition  of  the  "better  righteousness," 
for  such  an  exposition  "  could  not  possibly  have  been 
founded  by  Jesus  upon  the  basis  of  the  absolute 
authority  of  the  letter,  for  in  this  respect  the  Pharisees 
could  not  be  surpassed  "  (Holtzmann).  On  the  other 
side,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  verse  18  has  a  parallel  in 
Luke  xvi.  17,  where  the  same  thought  of  the  per- 
manent vaHdity  of  every  letter  of  the  law  is  expressed 
in  a  slightly  simpler  form ;  there  must  therefore  have 
been  a  saying  of  this  kind  in  the  common  source  of 
Matthew  and  Luke,  and  it  must  accordingly  belong 
to  the  oldest  tradition.  Further,  the  Talmud  has 
preserved  a  parallel  to  verse  17  in  the  Aramaic  saying 
of  Jesus,  "  I  am  not  come  to  take  away  from  the  law 
of  Moses,  but  to  add  to  it."  ^  Finally,  it  is  not  to  be 
overlooked  that  the  attitude  of  the  primitive  com- 
munity was  quite  in  harmony  with  a  principle  of  this 
kind,  for  in  its  belief  and  practice  the  law  retained, 

1  A.  Meyer,  Die  Muttersprache  Jesu,  p.  80. 


324  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

up  to  the  time  of  Paul,  an  unquestioned  authority. 
In  view  of  all  these  considerations  the  preponderant 
probability  is  in  favour  of  tracing  back  at  least  the 
contents  of  verse  17  f.  to  a  saying  of  Jesus,  while 
verse  19,  on  the  other  hand,  might  well  be  a  later 
addition.  Only  the  form  and  position  of  verses  17 
and  18  are  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Evangelist,  who 
intended  to  give  in  verse  17  a  formal  statement  of 
the  mean^  which  was  to  be  maintained  between 
antinomianism,  on  the  one  hand,  and  legalism  on  the 
other,  and  then  brought  in  verse  18  in  order  to  tone 
down  this  Judaising  conservative  saying  by  sug- 
gesting that  the  following  examples  of  the  deeper 
meaning  of  the  law  will  show  in  what  sense  the 
permanent  validity  of  the  law  is  to  be  understood, 
not  with  reference  to  the  letter,  but  to  its  moral 
essence.  Luke  followed  exactly  the  same  procedure 
in  regard  to  the  saying  in  xvi.  17,  placing  it  between 
two  sayings  of  which  the  one  (verse  16)  puts  the 
Gospel  in  the  place  of  the  law,  while  the  other  (18) 
increases  the  stringency  of  the  law  of  marriage ;  by 
these  surroundings  he  sought  to  guard  against  any 
Judaising  application  of  the  saying  in  verse  17.  To 
this  extent  it  must  be  admitted  that  those  exegetes 
who  propose  to  understand  Matt.  v.  18  =  Luke 
xvi.  17  of  the  permanent  validity  of  the  ethical  spirit 
of  the  law,  only,  are  right  as  regards  the  meaning  of 
the   Evangelists,  but   the   question  remains  whether 

^  The  same  end  is  served  by  the  addition  of  the  "  prophets  "  to 
the  law,  which  is  not  found  either  in  the  Talmudic  parable  nor  in 
the  quotation  in  the  Clementine  Homilies,  iii.  51,  and  which,  in  the 
mind  of  the  Evangelist,  widened  the  meaning  of  "the  law"  to 
include  the  Old  Testament  revelation  as  a  whole. 


THE   SERMON   ON   THE   MOUNT  325 

that  is  also  the  meaning  of  the  saying  in  the  mouth 
of  Jesus  ?     That  is  another  question  which  could  only 
be  answered  in  the  affirmative  if  it  could  be  supposed 
that  this  saying  was  originally  spoken  in   the  same 
connection   in   which    it    now   occurs   in   our   texts. 
That,  however,  is  undoubtedly  not  the  case,  as  the 
different  connections  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  two 
Gospels  would   alone  suffice  to  prove,  so  we   must 
understand  the  original  sense  of  the  saying  according 
to  its  clear  and  unambiguous  wording ;  as  a  declara- 
tion, that  is,  of  the  permanent  validity  of  the  letter 
of  the  Mosaic  law.     How  it  is  related  in  that  case 
to  other  sayings  of  Jesus  of  a  different  purport  is  a 
further  question  to  which  we  shall  return  in  a  later 
connection.     Here,  we  have  only  to  add  that  just  as 
the  beginning  of  the  section  dealing  with  the  giving 
of   the    law    (verses    17-20)    is    to    be    referred   to 
reminiscences  of  sayings  of  Jesus,  so  it  is  also  with 
the  remainder  of  it  as  regards  its  contents,  but  the 
form  of  the  sayings  and  their  combination  is  due  to 
the  Evangelist ;  that  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  some 
of  these   sayings  occur   in   Luke — and  are  even  in 
some  cases  repeated  in  JNIatthew — in  quite  a  different 
connection  and,  to  some  extent,  in  a  different  form. 
For  instance,  the  six-times  repeated   formula  which 
occurs  only  in  this  JNIattheean  version  of  the  giving 
of  the  law,  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  to  them 
of  old  time,  but  I  say  unto  you,"  can  hardly  be  derived 
from  Jesus  Himself,  since  He  ascribed  to  the  law  of 
the  fathers,  even  in  its  letter,  an  unalterable  validity, 
and  therefore  could  hardly  have  thus  decisively  set 
Himself  as  the  ?iezv  law-giver  over  against   the  old. 
It  is  therefore  rather  to  be  regarded  as  the  expression 


326  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

of  the  Church's  consciousness,  which  saw  in  Christi- 
anity the  "  new  law  "  and  in  Christ  the  perfect  Law- 
giver, who  had  not,  indeed,  done  away  with  the  old, 
but  by  supplementing  it  and  giving  it  a  deeper 
interpretation,  had,  in  truth,  fulfilled  it. 

The  saying  about  love  to  enemies  concluded  in 
Luke  (vi.  36)  with  the  exhortation  to  be  merciful,  as 
our  Father  is  merciful,  to  which  was  appropriately 
attached  the  warning  against  censorious  judgments. 
In  Matthew  (v.  48)  this  saying  receives  a  wider 
scope,  "  Ye  shall  be  perfect,  as  your  heavenly  Father 
is  perfect,"  and  thus  forms  the  transition  to  the 
mirror  of  all  the  Christian  virtues  in  chap.  vi.  It 
is  only  in  chap.  vii.  that  the  thread  of  the  Lucan 
discourse  is  taken  up  again  with  the  warning  against 
judging  others.  Obviously,  therefore,  Matt.  vi.  is 
an  interpolation  into  the  framework  of  the  original 
discourse  as  preserved  by  Luke.  The  keynote  is 
given  by  the  exhortation  in  verse  1  not  to  practise 
piety  in  order  to  be  seen  of  men,  for  those  who  do 
so  will  receive  no  reward  from  God.  And  this  is 
illustrated  by  .the  three  examples  of  almsgiving, 
prayer,  and  fasting.  Prayer,  therefore,  appears  here 
under  the  aspect  of  a  good  work,  for  which  we  may 
expect  a  reward  from  God  (verse  6),  whereas  in  Mark 
(xi.  22  ff.)  and  Luke  it  is  an  utterance  of  confident 
faith  springing  from  the  natural  human  sense  of  need 
of  help,  the  result  of  which  depends  upon  this  power 
of  faith.  The  question  which  of  these  two  ways  of 
regarding  it  is  the  more  primitive  and  the  more  in 
accordance  with  the  mind  of  Jesus,  answers  itself. 
We  have  seen  above  (p.  147  f.)  that  the  Matthsean  form 
of  the  Lord's  Prayer  is  also  secondary  as  compared 


THE   SERMON   ON   THE   MOUNT  327 

with  that  given  in  J^uke.  In  the  warning  against 
hypocritical  ulterior  motives  in  the  practices  of 
piety  there  is  attached,  further,  a  warning  against 
worldly-mindedness  (vi.  19-34).  Here  Matthew  has 
for  the  most  part  made  use  of  the  sayings  which  in 
Luke  are  attached  to  the  parable  of  the  rich  fool 
(xii.  22-40),  and  occasioned  by  the  request  made  to 
Jesus  to  settle  a  dispute  between  two  brothers  regard- 
ing an  inheritance ;  we  have  seen  above  (p.  152)  that 
this  was  probably  the  original  connection.  Only 
verses  22-24  are  found  in  I^uke  in  two  different 
passages  (xi.  44  IF.  and  xvi.  13),  and  contexts  which 
are  less  appropriate  to  them  than  that  in  Matthew. 
In  vi.  22  the  eye  as  the  light  of  the  body  is  compared 
with  the  inner  light  (the  ethico-religious  sense  of 
truth) ;  what  the  normal  or  abnormal  condition  of 
the  eye  signifies  for  the  bodily  life,  the  soundness  or 
darkening  of  the  inner  light  signifies  for  the  spiritual 
life.  This  thought  is  clearer  in  the  simpler  version  of 
Matthew  than  in  that  of  Luke,  who  has  also  attached 
this  figure  inappropriately,  so  far  as  its  meaning  is 
concerned,  under  the  influence  of  a  mere  association 
of  ideas,  to  the  other  figure  of  the  lamp  on  the  lamp- 
stand  (xi.  33  f.).  The  saying,  too,  that  a  man  cannot 
serve  two  masters — cannot,  that  is,  serve  God  and 
mammon  at  the  same  time — which  Luke  (xvi.  13)  has 
attached  to  the  parable  of  the  dishonest  steward,  is 
found  in  Matthew  in  a  more  appropriate  setting  under 
the  warning  against  worldliness  (vi.  24).  The  exhor- 
tation to  pious  trust  in  God,  who  feeds  the  birds  of 
the  air  and  clothes  the  lilies  of  the  field  without  their 
taking  any  care  or  trouble,  and  who,  much  more,  shall 
give  His  children  what  they  need,  leads  up  in  all  the 


328  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

Evangelists  to  the  command  to  strive  for  (Matthew 
adds :  before  all  else)  the  Kingdom  of  God,  i.e.,  to 
establish  the  sovereignty  of  God  upon  earth,  since 
with  the  fulfilment  of  this  highest  aim  all  lesser  needs 
will  find  their  appropriate  satisfaction.  To  the 
sovereignty  of  God  Matthew  adds,  as  an  object  to  be 
striven  after,  the  righteousness  of  God,  i.e.  a  condition 
of  righteousness  which  the  judicial  verdict  of  God  can 
approve,  which  is  the  qualification  for  partaking  in  the 
blessedness  which  is  to  be  brought  about  by  the  reign 
of  God. 

With  the  prohibition  of  censorious  judgments 
(vii.  1)  Matthew  returns  to  the  order  of  the  Lucan 
discourse  to  the  disciples  (vi.  37),  but  interweaves  wdth 
it  many  sayings  which  are  found  also  in  Luke,  but 
in  a  different  connection.  Peculiar  to  Matthew  is 
the  warning  (vii.  6)  against  profaning  that  which  is 
holy  (the  gospel)  by  giving  it  to  the  unworthy.  The 
exhortation  to  confident  supplication  which  is  assured 
of  an  answer  (vii.  7-11)  is,  in  Luke,  introduced  by  the 
parable  of  the  importunate  friend  whose  request  is 
granted  because  of  his  persistence  (xi.  5-13).  The 
golden  rule  of  mutual  obligation  which  is  found  in 
Luke  vi.  31  in  a  very  appropriate  setting,  is  brought 
in  here  by  Matthew  (vii.  12)  without  any  connection, 
and  amplified  by  the  additional  saying  that  this  is  the 
essence  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  The  saying 
(vii.  13  f.)  about  the  strait  gate  and  the  narrow  way 
to  life,  which  but  few  find,  which  in  Luke  (xiii.  23  f.) 
forms  the  answer  to  the  question  whether  but  few  are 
saved,  and  introduces  the  warning  to  the  Galila?an 
fellow-countrymen  of  Jesus  against  a  false  confidence 
based  on  their  outward  relations  with  Him,  serves  in 


THE   SERMON   ON   THE   MOUNT  329 

Matthew  to  introduce  a  warning  against  false  prophets 
(vii.  15),  who  in  their  outward  bearing  appear  harmless 
as  sheep,  but  in  their  intentions  are  as  dangerous  as 
ravening  wolves.  As  the  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits, 
so  men  may  be  known  by  their  fruits  (vii.  16-20),  i.e. 
by  their  moral  conduct ;  in  a  later  repetition  of  this 
figure  (xii.  33  fF.)  the  fruits  are  to  be  understood  as 
their  utterances,  in  which  the  fulness  (the  contents)  of 
the  heart  is  made  known.  The  same  double  inter- 
pretation is  given  in  Luke,  who  in  vi.  45  makes  the 
fruits  the  utterances  of  the  lips,  but  in  vi.  46  directly 
opposes  the  unprofitable  repetition  of  "  Lord  !  Lord  !  " 
to  the  doing  of  the  will  of  Jesus.  It  is  very  probable 
that  Jesus  frequently  used  this  figure  of  the  fruits,  and, 
according  to  the  circumstances,  may  have  referred  it 
on  one  occasion  to  words  and  on  another  to  actions. 
While  in  Luke  the  figure  of  the  tree  and  its  fruits  is 
very  appropriately  followed  by  the  concluding  parable, 
in  which  the  right  hearing  and  doing  of  the  words  of 
Jesus  is  compared  with  the  solid  and  well-built  house, 
the  superficial  and  unfruitful  hearing  with  the  house  on 
insecure  foundations  which  tumbles  down,  Matthew, 
on  the  other  hand,  has  here  added  a  prediction — which 
connects  itself  rather  with  the  warning  against  false 
prophets  in  verse  15 — of  the  coming  of  false  disciples, 
who  shall,  indeed,  prophesy  in  Jesus'  name,  cast  out 
devils,  and  perform  many  mighty  deeds,  but  in  spite  of 
that  shall  be  denied  and  rejected  by  Him  (at  the  day 
of  judgment)  because  they  did  not  do  the  will  of  His 
Heavenly  Father  but  "  worked  iniquity  "  (lawlessness) 
(vii.  21  ff.).  This  is  a  transformation,  very  character- 
istic of  Matthew,  of  a  saying  of  which  Luke  has 
preserved  the  original  form  (xiii.  25  ff.),  in  which  the 


330  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

Jewish  fellow-countrymen  of  Jesus  were  warned 
against  a  false  confidence  in  their  outward  relations 
with  the  Messiah,  and  which  similarly  closes  with  the 
quotation  from  Ps.  vi.  8.  Matthew  makes  these 
Jewish  contemporaries  of  Jesus  into  future  heretical 
teachers,  who  in  spite  of  their  emphatic  profession 
of  Christianity  ("  Lord  !  Lord  !  ")  and  their  capacity 
as  prophets  and  wonder-workers,  are  nevertheless  to 
be  excluded  from  the  Church  on  account  of  their 
lawless  conduct.  This  is  clearly  a  reference  to  anti- 
nomian  and  enthusiastic  teachers  who,  in  the  second 
century,  arose  among  the  Gnostics,  or  in  close 
relations  with  them,  and  opposed  the  beginning  of 
the  ecclesiastical  ordering  of  faith  and  life.  Thus  we 
have  at  the  close  of  the  Matthasan  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  a  confirmation  of  the  conclusion  which  we 
had  drawn  from  its  transformation  of  the  Lucan 
beatitudes  and  from  the  section  giving  the  (new)  law 
(v.  3  7  fF.),  namely,  that  it  is  a  compilation  of  the 
Evangelist,  from  the  point  of  view  of  his  own  time, 
which  handles  in  a  somewhat  free  fashion  the  dis- 
courses of  Jesus  as  they  were  preserved  by  tradition. 

In  chapter  viii.  the  narrative  of  the  healing  of  the 
leper  is  first  (verses  1-4)  repeated  m  the  same  form 
as  in  Mark  i.  40  fF.  Then  follows,  in  verses  5-13,  the 
healing  of  the  centurion's  servant  at  Capernaum, 
which  Luke  also  places  immediately  after  the  Sermon 
on  the  Plain  (vii.  2-10),  and  which  was  therefore 
probably  found  at  this  point  in  the  common  source. 
Peculiar  to  Matthew  is  the  concluding  saying  (11  fF.) 
about  the  coming  of  men  from  the  East  and  from 
the  West  to  eat  bread  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, 
while  the  children  of  the  Kingdom   (the  Jews)  are 


THE    WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE       331 

cast  out — a  saying  which  is  appropriate  in  Luke 
xiii.  28  f.  in  connection  with  the  warning  to  Jesus' 
fellow-countrymen  which  we  have  just  discussed,  but 
is  quite  inappropriate  in  Matthew  as  an  addition  to 
the  story  of  healing  in  viii.  1-10,  since  here,  at  the 
first  beginning  of  Jesus'  public  ministry,  there  was 
no  reason  to  pronounce  such  a  sentence  of  rejection 
upon  the  Jewish  people.  The  Evangelist  has 
probably  inserted  it  here  only  because  he  misunder- 
stood the  saying  in  verse  10,  "I  have  not  found  so 
great  faith,  no,  not  in  Israel,"  in  a  condemnatory 
sense,  as  a  complaint  of  the  unbelief  of  Israel.  The 
incidents  of  the  two  disciples  in  viii.  19-22  have  their 
parallels  in  Luke  ix.  57-62,  where  they  are  told  more 
fully  ;  Matthew  has  obviously  abbreviated  them,  and 
the  position  of  the  narrative  is  more  appropriate  in 
Luke,  since  Jesus  is  there  on  His  journey  to 
Jerusalem,  and  therefore  actually  homeless,  while 
at  the  beginning  of  His  Galilaean  ministry  (Matt,  ix.) 
that  can  hardly  have  been  the  case.  The  following 
narratives  of  the  stilling  of  the  storm  on  the  lake 
and  the  healing  of  the  Gaderene  (Gerasene) 
demoniacs  are  similarly  connected  with  one  another 
in  Mark  and  Luke,  but  in  a  later  context,  after  the 
parabolic  discourse,  which  is  doubtless  their  original 
position,  since  the  discourse  was  delivered  from  the 
ship  and  the  crossing  would  therefore  naturally 
follow  immediately  after  it  {cf.  Mark  iv.  1  and  36). 
That  Matthew  has  put  them  at  an  earlier  point  is 
doubtless  to  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  the 
general  order  of  the  source  has  been  disturbed  by  his 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  The  story  of  the  demoniac 
is  much  abbreviated  in  Matthew,  and  he  has  made 


332  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

the  one  demoniac  into  two,  probably  because  he 
wanted  to  bring  in  here,  by  combining  the  two 
related  stories  of  healing,  the  healing  of  the  demoniac 
in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum,  which  he  had 
previously  passed  oa  er  without  mention.  In  doing 
so  he  has  dropped  the  characteristic  point  in  the 
source  that  the  madman  supposed  himself  to  be 
possessed  by  a  whole  legion  of  devils.  And  yet  this 
multitude  of  devils  is  the  presupposition  for  the  further 
story  of  the  destruction  of  the  herd  of  swine,  caused 
by  the  entering  into  them  of  the  whole  legion  of 
devils.  By  omitting  the  "  legion,"  Matthew  has  left  it 
uncertain  how  we  are  to  imagine  this  comprehensive 
action  of  the  two  demons  upon  the  whole  herd.  It 
is  therefore  not  at  all  a  case  of  Matthew's  giving  the 
simpler,  Mark  the  fantastically  elaborated,  narrative. 
The  conception  which  forms  the  basis  of  the  story  is 
very  fantastic  in  both  cases ;  but  in  Mark  there  is  at 
least  a  certain  connection  to  be  imagined  between 
cause  and  effect,  with  which,  as  is  well  known,  even 
fairy-tales  cannot  dispense,  whereas  JNIatthew,  by  his 
abbreviation  of  the  story,  has  lost  this.  There  is  a 
similar  abbreviation  in  the  story  which  follows  in 
Matthew  of  the  healing  of  the  paralytic  (ix.  1-8). 
Whereas  Mark  and  Luke  narrate  that  the  bearers 
of  the  sick  man,  prevented  from  approaching  by  the 
press,  brought  their  sick  friend  before  Jesus  by  the 
remarkable  method  of  lowering  him  from  the  roof  (we 
must  think,  of  course,  of  the  flat  Oriental  roof,  to  which 
there  was  an  external  staircase),  whereupon  Jesus  re- 
cognised their  faith,  Matthew  omits  the  extraordinary 
method  of  approach,  and  yet  records  that  Jesus  recog- 
nised their  faith.     How  He  did  so  is  left  quite  un- 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE       333 

explained,  and  here  again  the  abbreviated  secondary 
account  betrays  itself  by  failing  to  indicate  the  causal 
connection.  The  disciple  who  was  called  from  the 
tax-gatherer's  office  is  named  Levi  by  both  the  other 
Synoptic  writers ;  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  however, 
names  him  Matthew  (ix.  9),  which  is  probably  the  sur- 
name which  Levi  received  as  an  Apostle.  The  use 
of  it  here,  at  the  time  of  his  call,  is  an  inaccuracy 
of  the  narrator  similar  to  the  mention  of  the  surname 
Peter  at  the  call  of  Simon  (Matt.  iv.  18).  In  the 
defence  of  Jesus  against  the  charge  of  consorting  with 
sinners  which  arose  from  His  sitting  at  meat  with 
tax-gatherers  (in  the  house  of  Levi)  there  occurs  the 
quotation,  only  found  in  JNIatthew,  "  Go  and  learn 
what  this  meaneth,  I  will  have  mercy  and  not 
sacrifice"  (ix.  13),  which  was  probably  interpolated 
into  the  discourse  by  the  Evangelist ;  for  (1)  it  is  not 
appropriate  to  the  context,  where  there  is  certainly 
no  reference  to  sacrifice  or  any  other  part  of  the 
ceremonial  system,  and  (2)  the  following  "for  I 
am  not  come  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners,"  can 
only  refer  back  to  verse  12  and  not  to  verse  13. 
The  question  about  fasting  is  doubtless  wrongly 
ascribed  by  Matthew  to  the  disciples  of  John  them- 
selves (ix.  14),  for  in  Mark  they  are  only  mentioned 
by  those  who  put  the  question  in  order  to  contrast 
them  with  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  In  the  stories  of 
Jairus'  daughter  and  the  woman  with  the  issue, 
Matthew  has  again  abbreviated  at  the  expense  of 
vividness  and  probability.  Whereas  in  JNIark  and 
Luke  Jairus  at  first  only  asks  for  aid  for  his  daughter, 
who  is  grievously  ill,  and  it  is  only  in  the  course  of 
the  narrative  that  the  news  of  her  death  is  brought, 


334  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

Matthew,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  him  beg  from 
the  first  for  the  raising  to  life  of  his  daughter,  who 
has  just  died.  Later  on,  Matthew  omits  the  question 
of  Jesus,  "  Who  touched  me  ? "  and  the  fear  of  the 
woman  at  finding  herself  detected  ;  but  he  betrays 
that  he  had  both  before  him  in  his  source  by  the 
remark  that  Jesus  turned  Himself  about  {a-Tpacpei?, 
verse  22  =  Mark  v.  30),  and  by  the  words  "  Be  of 
good  cheer,  daughter,"  which  imply  that  she  had 
previously  been  afraid.  In  the  house  of  J  aims, 
Jesus  found  not  only  a  tumult  of  weeping  and 
wailing,  which  was  natural,  but  also  players  of 
instruments,  which  is  very  unlikely,  since  the  maiden 
was  only  just  dead.  The  conclusion  in  Matthew 
(ix.  26),  that  the  fame  thereof  went  abroad  through 
the  whole  land,  is  in  contradiction  with  the  command 
in  Mark  not  to  make  it  known,  and  is  probably  taken 
from  Luke  vii.  17,  where  the  story  of  the  raising  of 
the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain  ends  in  the  same 
way.  The  stories  which  follow,  of  the  healing  of 
two  blind  men  and  a  dumb  man  (ix.  27-34),  are 
imitations  of  the  story  in  Mark  of  the  blind  man  at 
Bethsaida  (Matthew  is  fond  of  double  miracles)  and 
of  the  deaf-mute  (Mark  vii.  32  f.,  viii.  22  f.). 

The  chapter  about  the  sending  forth  of  the  Twelve 
begins  in  Matthew,  as  in  Mark  and  Luke,  "  And  he 
called  to  him  his  twelve  disciples,  and  gave  them 
power  over  unclean  spirits,"  etc.,  although  nothing 
has  been  said  previously  of  the  twelve  disciples,  since 
Matthew,  in  his  preoccupation  with  the  great  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  has  omitted  their  call  (Mark  iii.  14  = 
Luke  vi.  13).  He  now  gives  their  names  (x.  2-4) 
parenthetically,  and  then  proceeds  to  give   the   dis- 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE       335 

course  which  Jesus  addressed  to  them  before  sending 
them  out.  This  he  begins  (x.  5  f.)  with  the  pecuHar 
command  not  to  go  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  nor 
to  enter  into  any  town  of  the  Samaritans,  but  only  to 
go  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel ;  similarly, 
Jesus  says  in  His  conversation  with  the  Canaanitish 
woman  that  He  is  only  sent  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel  (xv.  24).  This  parallel  favours  the 
originality  of  the  saying,  which  the  Evangelist,  who 
at  the  close  of  his  work  so  strongly  emphasises  the 
universality  of  the  gospel,  would  certainly  not  have 
put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  if  he  had  not  found  it  in 
his  source.  The  exhortation  in  Jesus'  charge  to  the 
disciples,  which  in  the  older  account  takes  the  form 
that  they  should  not  "  take  with  them  "  any  baggage 
or  any  money  (Mark,  "copper";  Luke,  "silver"),  is 
understood,  or  altered,  by  Matthew  (x.  9)  to  mean  that 
they  should  not  "gain"  any  money  (gold  or  copper), 
that  is,  by  their  missionary  work  ;  rather,  they  are  to 
give  their  work  freely,  as  they  have  also  received  their 
Apostolic  gift  freely  (x.  8).  That  this  warning  not 
to  make  their  evangelical  preaching  a  means  of  gain 
would  have  been  quite  superfluous  at  the  time  when 
Jesus  sent  out  the  first  disciples  is  certain ;  it  is 
equally  certain  that  the  ecclesiastical  Evangelist  in 
the  second  century  might  feel  moved  to  give  such  an 
exhortation  by  experiences  such  as  are  referred  to  in 
the  Pastoral  Epistles  (1  Tim.  vi.  5  flf.)  and  in  1  Pet. 
V.  2.  That  Matthew  has  altered  the  original  form  of 
the  saying  is  also  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  does 
not  harmonise  at  all  with  the  words  of  the  source 
which  he  has  retained.  The  warning  not  to  make 
missionary  preaching  a  means  of  gain  has  a  sense  in 


336  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

relation  to  the  gaining  of  money,  of  greater  or  less 
value,  but  what  is  the  meaning  of  saying  that  they 
are  not  to  gain  (by  their  missionary  preaching)  a 
wallet,  or  two  coats,  or  shoes,  or  a  staff  (x.  10)  ?  The 
attentive  reader  can  hardly  fail  to  observe  that 
Matthew,  by  this  new  application  of  the  saying  (warn- 
ing against  superfluous  baggage)  as  a  warning  against 
making  their  preaching  a  means  of  gain,  has  altered 
the  sense  of  the  passage  in  the  source  in  a  way  Mhich 
leads  to  a  quite  contradictory  combination  of  incom- 
patible ideas.  In  the  following  verses  (11-16)  the  two 
sources  are  combined  which  Luke  used  separately  in 
his  accounts  of  the  mission  of  the  Twelve  (lAike  ix. 
1-5  =  Mark  vi.  7-13)  and  the  mission  of  the  Seventy 
(Luke  X.  1-16).  The  saying  in  Matt.  x.  10  comes 
from  the  latter — "the  workman  is  worthy  of  his 
meat"  (Luke  x.  7,  "his  hire") — so  do  the  com- 
parison of  the  inhospitable  town  with  Sodom  and 
Gomorrha  (x.  15  =  Luke  x.  12),  and  the  comparison 
of  the  disciples  with  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves 
(x.  16  =  Luke  X.  3),  to  which  Matthew  adds  the  ex- 
hortation to  be  wise  as  serpents  and  harmless  as 
doves.  This  forms  the  transition  to  the  second  part 
of  the  discourse,  in  which  Matthew,  turning  aside 
from  the  historical  situation  implied  in  the  ground- 
document,  makes  Jesus  Himself  predict  the  later 
persecutions  of  the  Christians,  and  encourage  the 
disciples  to  confess  their  faith  boldly.  Here  various 
sayings  are  gathered  together,  most  of  which  are  also 
found  in  Luke,  but  in  another  connection,  and  at  a 
later  point  in  the  narrative,  at  the  close  of  Jesus' 
Galilaean  ministry,  where  they  are  more  appropriate 
(Luke    xii.   2-9,  51-53;    xiv.    25  27).      Peculiar   to 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE      337 

Matthew  (x.  23)  is  the  direction  that  when  perse- 
cuted in  one  city  they  were  to  flee  to  another,  since 
they  would  not  have  gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel 
before  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man-  a  saying 
which  expresses  the  apocalyptic  expectations  of  the 
primitive  community,  and  its  narrow  limitation  of  the 
Messianic  salvation  to  Israel,  in  so  uncompromising 
a  fashion  that  its  inconsistency  with  the  Evangelist's 
idea  of  a  universal  mission  (xxiv.  14,  xxviii.  19  f.) 
has  always  been  found  surprising.  That,  however, 
is  a  proof  that  the  saying  was  not  invented  by  the 
Evangelist,  but  taken  from  his  source,  as  in  the  case 
of  X.  5  f.  Sayings  of  that  kind,  which  reflect  the 
narrow  Jewish-Christian  outlook  of  the  source,  have 
been  omitted  by  the  other  Evangelists,  but  have 
been  preserved  by  Matthew,  not  because  he  himself 
still  shared  this  narrow  view,  but  simply  because  they 
belonged  to  the  oldest  tradition,  and  their  preser- 
vation no  longer  seemed  to  the  latest  Evangelist,  in 
the  circumstances  of  the  Church  in  his  time,  likely 
to  give  rise  to  practical  difficulties. 

In  chapter  xi.,  Matthew  first  tells  of  the  question 
addressed  to  Jesus  by  John  the  Baptist,  "  through  his 
disciples  "  (as  he  says,  more  vaguely  than  Luke,  who 
mentions  two  disciples),  whether  Jesus  was  the  ex- 
pected Messiah.  The  answer  of  Jesus  is  given  in  the 
same  form  as  in  Luke,  and  so,  in  the  main,  is  the 
eulogy  upon  John  the  Baptist  which  follows.  The 
two  verses,  however  (Luke  vii.  29  f.),  which  speak  of 
the  results  of  John's  preaching  and  its  reception  on 
the  part  of  the  people  and  on  the  part  of  the  Pharisees, 
are  wanting  in  Matthew,  who  substitutes  some  other 
sayings  about  John,  which  are  more  or  less   closely 

VOL,   II  %% 


338  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

paralleled  in  Luke  xvi.  16  and  Mark  ix.  13.  In  Luke 
we  find,  "  The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John : 
thenceforward  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
preached,  and  every  man  presseth  into  it";  in  Matthew 
(xi.  12  fL),  "  From  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  even 
until  now  the  kingdom  of  heaven  suffereth  violence, 
and  the  violent  take  it  by  force.  For  all  the  prophets 
and  the  law  prophesied  until  John,  and,  if  ye  will 
receive  it,  this  is  Elias  who  was  to  come  "  {cf.  Mark 
ix.  13).  These  last  two  verses  (13  f.)  are  appropriate 
in  the  discourse  upon  John  the  Baptist,  and  attach 
themselves  so  naturally  to  verse  1 1  as  the  explanation 
of  the  remarkable  significance  of  John  that  it  is  very 
probable  that  this  is  their  original  position.  On 
the  other  hand,  this  can  hardly  be  supposed  in  regard 
to  verse  12 :  it  makes  the  impression  of  being  an 
interpolation ;  its  Lucan  parallel,  also,  stands  in  no 
connection  with  its  setting  (xvi.  16).  Nor  can  we  be 
certain  of  the  original  form  of  this  saying,  any  more 
than  of  its  original  position.  Are  we  to  take  the 
Lruean  form  as  the  more  original  because  it  is  the 
simpler  ?  If  so,  how  does  Matthew  come  to  say  that 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  stormed,  and  the  stormers 
have  snatched  it  ?  Is  that  blame  or  praise  ?  Does  it 
refer  to  the  zeal  of  the  good,  or  the  violence  of  zealots  ? 
Or  is  it  simply  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the 
Aramaic  word  in  the  source  ?  ^  No  certainty  can 
be  arrived  at  in  regard  to  it,  and  all  that  can  be 
asserted  with  probability  is  that  this  saying,  which 
distinguishes  so  clearly  between  the  days  of  John  and 
the  present  in  which  the  gospel  is  preached,  cannot 

^   Meyer,  Die  Muttersprache  Jesu,  pp.  88  f.,  suggests  a  confusion 
between  DH'^pn  (pious)  and  D''3''p.n  (violent). 


THE   WORK   OF   JESUS   IN   GALILEE       339 

have  been  spoken  at  a  time  when  John  had  hardly  left 
the  scene,  and  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  had  hardly 
begun.  It  probably  comes,  hke  I^uke  vii.  29  f.  {sup., 
pp.  132  f.),  from  the  apologetic  reflection  of  the  com- 
munity. To  the  parable  of  the  capricious  children  (xi. 
20  fF.)  Matthew  attaches,  not  inappropriately  as  regards 
subject  matter,  though  somewhat  too  early  as  regards 
time,  the  woes  upon  the  impenitent  towns  of  Chorazin, 
Bethsaida,  and  Capernaum  which  Luke  (x.  13  fF.) 
inserts  in  the  discourse  at  the  sending  forth  of  the 
Seventy,  therefore  at  the  end  of  the  Galilaean  ministry. 
This  threatening  of  judgment  against  these  cities  is 
immediately  followed  in  Matthew  by  its  counterpart, 
the  offering  of  praise  to  God  for  having  given  His 
revelation  to  babes  (xi.  25  fF.).  In  Luke  (x.  17,  21) 
this  thanksgiving  is  appropriately  occasioned  by  the 
joyful  report  brought  by  the  returning  Seventy  of 
the  success  of  their  mission  ;  in  Matthew,  who  makes 
no  mention  of  this  mission,  there  is  no  historical 
occasion  for  it.  To  the  thanksgiving  is  attached  in 
both  Gospels  the  liturgical  Christological  confession 
{sup.,  p.  144).  But  the  special  benediction  which  in 
Luke  is  pronounced,  immediately  afterwards,  upon  the 
disciples  is  here  omitted  and  left  over  for  the  parable- 
chapter  (xiii.  16).  Instead,  Matthew  gives  to  the  hymn 
of  Jesus  a  beautiful  conclusion  in  the  Saviour's  invita- 
tion (xi.  28  f.),  "Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labour 
and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.  Take 
my  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me,  for  I  am  meek 
and  lowly  of  heart,  and  ye  shall  find  rest  to  your 
souls.  For  my  yoke  is  easy,  and  my  burden  is  light." 
These  words  are  near  akin  to  those  in  which,  accord- 
ing to  Sirach,  li.  23  fF,  the  Divine  Wisdom  calls  men 


340  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

to  herself:  "Come  unto  me,  ye  who  are  without 
knowledge ;  abide  in  the  house  of  instruction. 
Because  ye  have  need  of  instruction,  and  your  soul 
thirsteth  after  it,  1  have  opened  my  mouth.  Come  ! 
Buy  for  naught !  Bow  your  neck  to  the  yoke  and 
receive  instruction  ;  it  is  easy  to  find.  Behold  how  I 
have  laboured  but  little,  and  yet  I  have  found  rest 
and  happiness."  We  shall  not  go  far  astray  in  seeing, 
in  this  saying  from  the  Jewish  Teacher  of  Wisdom, 
the  germ  of  the  sublime  evangelical  saying  which 
Matthew  has  preserved  in  the  Saviour's  invitation.^ 

In  chapter  xii.  Matthew  brings  in  some  narratives 
of  cures  which  occurred  at  an  earlier  point  in  the 
source.  As  regards  divergences  of  detail,  I  refer 
to  what  was  said  incidentally  when  discussing  the 
account  of  them  in  Mark's  Gospel.  In  connection 
with  the  general  statement  about  the  many  cures 
wrought  by  Jesus,  Matthew  adds  a  quotation  from 
Isaiah  (xlii.  1-4)  which  he  finds  to  be  fulfilled  in  this 
saving  work  of  the  mild  and  patient  teacher  (xii.  15- 
21).  The  occasion  of  the  Pharisees'  charge  against 
Jesus  of  being  in  league  with  Beelzebub  is,  in  IMatthew 
as  in  Luke,  the  cure  of  one  possessed  of  a  deaf  and 
dumb  devil,  which  made  such  an  impression  on  the 
multitudes  that  they  asked,  "  Is  not  this  David's  Son  " 
{i.e.  the  Messiah)?  (xii.  22  fF.).  This  probable  ex- 
planation of  the  Pharisees'  charge,  which  Matthew 
has  already  suggested  once  before  (ix.  34),  is  not  found 
in  Mark,  and  therefore  points  to  another  source — that 
which  is  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke.  From  this 
is    derived    also   Jesus'   defence    of    Himself,    which 

^   Cf.   Spitta,  Zur  Gesch.  tmd  Literatur  des   Urchristentiims,  ii.  1 80. 
We  shall  return  to  the  passage  (Matt.  xi.  25-30)  at  a  later  point. 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE       341 

resembles  that  in  Luke  more  closely  than  that  in 
Mark.  The  latter  is  expanded  in  both  cases  by  the 
allusion,  recognisable  as  an  interpolation,  to  the 
Jewish  exorcists,  who  were  logically  open  to  the  same 
accusation  (verse  27),  from  which,  then,  the  conclusion 
is  drawn  (verse  28  =  Luke  xi.  20),  "but  if  I  by  the  Spirit 
[Luke,  "  finger  "]  of  God  cast  out  devils,  then  is  the 
kingdom  of  God  come  nigh  unto  you" — a  conclusion 
which  is  anything  but  a  clear  consequence  of  what 
immediately  precedes,  since  there  the  work  of  the 
Jewish  exorcists  is  put  upon  the  same  footing  as  that 
of  Jesus,  and  therefore  the  epoch-making  significance 
of  the  latter  is  obscured.  Probably  this  saying 
(verse  28)  was  first  brought  into  this  connection  by 
the  Evangelists.  In  itself  it  contains  the  clear 
thought  that  in  the  victorious  power  of  Jesus  over 
the  demons  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  God  upon 
earth  was  made  known,  while  its  full  realisation  in 
the  reorganisation  of  social  conditions  still  remained 
an  object  of  hope  and  endeavour.  In  xii.  31,  Matthew 
returns  to  the  Marcan  source  in  order  to  bring  in  his 
saying  about  the  unforgivable  sin  of  blasphemy 
against  the  Holy  Spirit.  To  strengthen  the  state- 
ment he  makes  the  addition  (parallel  with  I^uke  xii. 
10)  that  even  blasphemy  against  the  Son  of  JNIan 
might  be  forgiven,  but  not  that  against  the  Spirit. 
This  certainly  is  not  specially  appropriate  in  this 
connection,  as,  according  to  the  Marcan  account,  the 
blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit  consisted  precisely 
in  the  accusation  against  Jesus  of  being  in  league 
with  the  devil  (Mark  iii.  30),  and  is  therefore  not  to 
be  distinguished  from  blasphemy  against  the  Son  of 
Man.     Perhaps  the  explanation  of  this  difficulty  is  to 


342  THE  GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

be  found  in  the  phrase  "the  sons  of  men"  (Mark  iii. 
28).  In  xii.  tVS-37  the  image  of  the  tree  and  its  fruit, 
from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  is  repeated.  There 
follows,  in  conformity  with  Luke's  order,  the  demand 
of  the  Pharisees  for  a  sign,  and  Jesus'  answer  to  it, 
in  which  the  "  sign  of  Jonah  "  (verse  40)  (by  which, 
according  to  the  correct  interpretation  in  Luke  (xi.  32), 
the  prophet's  preaching  of  repentance  at  Nineveh  is 
to  be  understood)  is  referred  to  the  deliverance  of 
the  prophet  from  the  fish's  belly  as  a  type  of  the 
resurrection  of  Christ.  The  misunderstanding  is 
very  characteristic  of  the  appetite  for  miracle,  which, 
in  spite  of  Jesus'  reproof,  could  not  be  overcome,  and 
of  the  whole  body  of  apologetic  of  that  time,  which 
was  closely  connected  with  it,  and  which  based  itself 
by  preference  on  bold  typological  interpretations  of 
Old  Testament  prophecy.  Of  this,  the  literature  of 
the  second  century  offers  numberless  examples. 
In  verses  43-45,  without  any  real  relation  to  what 
precedes,  the  saying  is  brought  in,  which  in  Luke 
forms  the  conclusion  of  Jesus'  defence  against  the 
charge  of  complicity  with  Beelzebub,  about  the 
unclean  spirit  which,  after  being  cast  out,  returns 
again  with  seven  others  (Luke  xi.  24  fF.),  and  by  a 
rather  forced  application  to  "this  [the  present]  evil 
generation  "  is  brought  into  some  kind  of  connection 
with  verse  39.  The  close  of  the  chapter  (xii.  46-50) 
is  formed  by  the  story  of  the  visit  of  Jesus'  relatives 
and  His  refusal  to  see  them,  which  is  placed  by  Mark 
immediately  after  the  discourse  about  the  Beelzebub 
charge,  while  Luke  (who  anticipates  the  main  point 
of  it  in  his  story  about  the  twelve-year-old  Jesus) 
tells  it  in  another  place  and  in  a  form  which  softens 


THE    WORK   OF   JESUS   IN   GALILEE       343 

the  difficulties  (viii.  19  f.).  Matthew  follows  Mark 
more  closely,  but  omits  the  motive  which  he  assigns 
(Mark  iii.  21)  for  the  visit  of  the  relatives,  because  it 
was  not  in  harmony  with  his  story  of  the  virgin  birth  ; 
consequently  Jesus'  treatment  of  His  relatives  here 
takes  on  the  appearance  of  a  harshness  for  which  there 
is  no  motive. 

Like  Mark,  Matthew  next  reports  a  discourse  con- 
sisting of  a  series  of  parables  (chap.  xiii.).  He  follows 
the  ground-document  in  its  view  of  the  purpose 
of  the  parables  (p.  16  f.),  but  with  the  noteworthy 
alteration  that  he  makes  the  failure  of  the  multitude 
to  understand,  which,  there,  is  only  the  intentional 
effect,  the  presupposition  and  reason  of  Jesus'  choice 
of  this  method  of  teaching  (verse  13) :  "  Therefore 
speak  I  with  them  in  parables :  because  seeing,  they 
see  not ;  and  hearing,  they  hear  not,  neither  do 
they  understand."  Then,  however,  he  adds  in  full 
the  quotation  from  Isaiah  which  is  referred  to  in 
the  parallel  passages  also,  according  to  which  the 
failure  to  understand  is  a  Divine  judgment.  We 
cannot,  therefore,  say  that  Matthew  did  not  share 
the  predestinarian  view  of  the  earlier  Evangelist 
as  to  the  purpose  in  the  parables  of  baffling 
the  understanding  and  hardening  the  hearts  of  the 
hearers,  but  only  that  he  sought  to  soften  it  by 
making  this  judgment  the  penal  consequence  of  their 
already  existing  absence  of  understanding,  for  which 
they  were  themselves  to  blame.  Historically  regarded, 
this  view  that  Jesus  punished  the  people's  want  of 
understanding  by  speaking  in  parables,  so  that  they 
might  not  be  able  to  understand  anything  at  all,  has  as 
little  probability  as  the  simple  predestinarian  view  of 


344  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

Mark,  that  the  parables  served  the  Divine  purpose  of 
hardening  the  hearts  of  those  who  heard  them.  In 
contrast  to  the  people,  who  "  see  not,"  the  disciples  are 
then  declared  blessed,  because  they  are  allowed  to  see 
and  hear  what  many  prophets  and  righteous  men  have 
vainly  desired  to  see  and  to  bear  (16  f.).  This  saying 
is  found  in  Luke  (x.  23  f.)  in  a  more  appropriate 
setting.  There  the  disciples  are  declared  blessed 
because  they  are  allowed  really  to  experience  the 
victorious  coming  of  Messiah's  Kingdom,  to  which 
the  prophets  of  old  could  only  look  forward  with 
longing.  Here,  however,  this  is  preceded  by  another 
contrast— that  between  the  disciples,  whose  minds  are 
opened  to  understand  the  secrets  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Heaven,  and  their  blind  and  unreceptive  con- 
temporaries ;  and  the  saying  thus  acquires  an  un- 
certainty of  meaning  which  it  had  not  in  Luke — 
but  even  there  it  is  not  in  its  original  place,  and  we 
cannot  therefore  discover  where  this  was. 

While  the  first  parable  and  its  interpretation  are 
given  by  Matthew  in  essential  agreement  with  Mark, 
the  following  parable  of  the  gradual  growth  and 
ripening  of  the  seed  is  expanded  into  an  allegory  by 
the  addition  of  the  antithesis  to  the  good  seed — the 
bad,  which  is  sown  by  an  enemy  amongst  it,  and  grows 
up  alongside  of  the  good  seed  until  the  harvest,  when 
the  separation  shall  be  made.  In  the  interpretation 
it  is  allegorised  point  by  point.  The  two  kinds  of 
seed  are  made  to  mean  the  children  of  the  Kingdom 
and  the  children  of  the  devil,  the  reapers  are  the 
angels  of  the  Son  of  Man,  who  at  the  Judgment 
shall  drive  out  of  His  Kingdom  all  who  cause  offence 
and  work   iniquity  and   cast  them  into  the  furnace 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN    GALILEE       345 

(hell) ;  until  then,  however,  the  tares  are  not  to  be 
violently  rooted  out,  since  the  wheat  would  be  up- 
rooted with  them.  It  is  obvious  that  this  allegory 
cannot  be  held  to  be  a  parable  of  Jesus,  but  is  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  reflection  of  the  Evangelist,  and  we 
have  only  to  ask  what  he  meant  by  it  ?  The  inter- 
pretation of  the  tares  as  the  doers  of  iniquity  and 
those  who  cause  offence  reminds  us  so  exactly  of  the 
description  in  similar  terms  of  those  who  are  excluded 
from  the  Kingdom  (vii.  23),  that  we  are  obliged  to 
think  of  them  as  the  same  people,  viz.  antinomians 
and  "  false  prophets  "  (heretical  teachers),  who,  by 
claiming  emancipation  from  the  ethical  usage  of  the 
community,  gave  rise  to  offences  in  it  and  caused 
the  love  of  many  to  grow  cold  (xxiv.  12).  Whether 
these  children  of  the  devil  were  to  be  at  once  ex- 
cluded, or  tolerated  in  the  Church  until  Christ  at  His 
return  should  Himself  purge  the  Church  of  these 
tares  and  deliver  them  over  to  the  judgment  which 
they  deserved,  was  a  question  which  greatly  exercised 
the  Church  of  the  second  century  during  its  struggle 
with  heresy.  To  this  question  the  Evangelist  has 
addressed  himself  in  his  parable  of  the  tares,  pleading 
for  tolerance  within  the  Church  and  against  rigorism 
in  Church-discipline.  How  important  this  question 
was  to  him  he  shows  also  by  referring  to  it  again  in 
chapter  xviii.,  and  giving  detailed  instructions  regard- 
ing the  conduct  of  Church-discipline.  But  it  can 
hardly  be  doubted  that  such  questions  of  penitential 
discipline  point  to  the  second  century. 

In  verses  31  ff.,  INIatthew  places  Mark's  third 
parable,  that  of  the  Mustard-seed,  side  by  side  with  the 
related  parable  of  the  Leaven,  which  is  found  in  the 


346  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

same  connection  in  Luke  xiii.  18-21,  and  seems  to 
report  both  parables,  now  according  to  the  former  and 
now  according  to  the  latter  (or,  to  the  source  which  is 
common  to  him  and  to  Luke).  He  begins  like  Luke, 
then  weaves  in  a  parenthetical  reference  from  Mark 
to  the  smallness  of  the  mustard-seed,  and  in  doing  so 
compares  it,  like  Mark,  with  the  herbs,  and,  like 
Luke,  makes  it  grow  into  a  tree ;  then  he  drops  the 
narrative  form  of  Luke  and  takes  up  the  descriptive 
form  of  Mark,  ending  the  parable  as  the  latter  does  ; 
then  he  jumps  to  Luke's  second  parable,  and  gives 
this  word  for  word  according  to  Luke,  but  in  the 
closing  observation  in  verse  34  he  returns  to  Mark 
and  takes  verbally  from  him  the  statement  that  Jesus 
said  nothing  except  in  parables,  which  is  appropriate 
in  Mark,  but  in  Matthew  is  contradicted  by  the 
long  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Then  we  have,  within 
the  space  of  a  few  verses,  a  characteristic  example 
of  Matthew's  method  of  combining  his  sources 
into  a  kind  of  mosaic.  In  order  to  complete  the 
favourite  number  seven,  Matthew  goes  on  to  add 
(verses  44-50)  to  the  previous  four  parables,  which  he 
has  in  common  with  his  two  predecessors,  three  more 
of  his  own — the  connected  pair  of  the  Pearl  of  Great 
Price  and  the  Hidden  Treasure,  which  illustrate  the 
supreme  value  of  the  possession  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  and  the  parable  of  the  Draw-net,  which,  like  that 
of  the  Tares,  typifies  the  future  judgment.  In  conclu- 
sion, the  Evangelist  makes  Jesus  address  to  the  dis- 
ciples the  question  whether  they  have  understood  all 
these  things.  And  when  they  answer  that  they  have, 
he  adds  :  "  Therefore  every  scribe  that  is  instructed 
unto  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  is  like  a  householder 


THE   WORK   OF  JESUS   IN   GALILEE       347 

who  brings  forth  out  of  his  storehouse  things  new  and 
old  "  {verse  52).  If  this  is  to  be  taken  as  a  saying  of 
Jesus,  it  seems  to  assert  that  every  teacher  who,  Hke 
Himself,  desired  to  serve  the  cause  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  must  not  merely  hold  to  the  old  traditions,  but 
must  also  bring  forward  new  truths  when  the  time 
demands  it.  Though  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the 
thought  is  worthy  of  Jesus,  yet  serious  difficulties 
arise  regarding  the  originality  of  the  form  and  position 
of  the  saying  as  it  is  here  found.  What  is  the 
connection  of  thought  to  which  the  introductory 
"  therefore  "  points  ?  And  is  it  probable  that  Jesus, 
who  taught  "  not  as  the  scribes  "  (Mark  i.  22),  would 
have  classed  Himself  in  the  category  of  "well-schooled 
scribes "  ?  It  seems  to  me  more  probable  that,  if 
Matthew  got  it  from  his  source,  it  springs  from  early 
Christian  apologetic  and  contains  a  defence  of  the 
Christian  teachers  against  the  accusation  brought  by 
the  Jews  of  innovation  and  heresy. 

The  narratives  which  in  the  source  follow  this  series 
of  parables — the  Gerasene  demoniac,  Jairus'  daughter, 
and  the  woman  with  an  issue — have  been  already  giv^en 
by  Matthew  at  an  earlier  point  (viii.  23-ix.  26),  so  he 
now  goes  straight  on  to  the  narrative  which  follows 
these  in  the  source,  of  the  offence  which  was  felt 
against  Jesus  by  the  Nazarenes,  which  he  gives 
according  to  Mark's  account,  otherwise  than  in  Luke 
(iv.  16-30),  except  that,  on  Christological  grounds, 
he  alters  Mark's  statement  that,  by  reason  of  the 
unbelief  of  His  townsmen,  Jesus  could  not  there  do 
any  miracle,  into  the  simple  statement  that  He  did  not 
there  do  any  miracle  (xiii.  38).  In  the  ground-docu- 
ment  there   follows   next   the  sending  forth  of  the 


'JfewraB 


THZ  t^«fPEL  OF   MATTHEW 


coisod*^  about  Herod  and  the 

.  the  return  of  the  disenues 
rrom   rheir  n  ry  journey.     As   Matthew  bai 

already  recountd  the  sending  forth  of  the  disciples 
in  chapter  x..  he^ives  here  only  the  episode  of  Herod 
and  John  the  Bptist  (xiv.   1-12),     As  a  substitute, 
however,  for  the*eturn  of  the  disciples,  which  he  has 
lost  sight  of  owig  to  the  distance  of  the  narrative  of 
their  being  sent  Itth,  he  makes  (verse  12)  the  disciples 
of  John  come  tcJesus  with  the  report  of  his  death, 
which,  however,had  taken   place  at  a  much  earlier 
period  (the  episde  of  the  death  of  the  Baptist  having 
only  been  brou«it  in  here  in  illustration  of  xiv.  2), 
and  he  makes  Jeus,  after  receivJMrfljm  report,  -vith- 
draw  to  the  eastrn  side  of  tl 
causal  connectioi  here  sug^ 
makes  the  retireient  of  J* 
from  Herod,  is 
Jesus  returned 
only  on  the  ai 
of  Johns  d'\i 
disciples  of 


crossing  ol 


on 

savi 


m 


PETERS  CONFK8SIO 


4 


Hit) 
in  \\v\  t'aith 


hostile  world  so  kmg  ss  sht 
in  her  power  to  ovoforoe  : 

In  chapters  xv.-xxiL  Mai-  -      .^lH^k  iloscly, 

and  I  m*v  refer  to  whnr  h|is»  beeii  sakaKnc  at  the 
relevant  passaijes.  ^  ...,  in  Petcrscontcssion  arc 
traits  peculiar  to  Matthew  to  be  noto  x\-i.  13  ID). 
Even  the  qnej^tion  oi  Jesus  takes  a  liffcrcnt  form. 
"Who  dc»  the  people  say  that  the  So  oi  Man  is  C " 
(or,  I,  the  Soil  of  Man.  a:  \v    '         c  lias  in  this 

Evangelist  a  Messiaiiic  si^aiinc'aiic*e,  tb  answer  seems 
to  be  antic^Mted  in  the  question.  »iit  this  is  not 
so,  inasmoch  as  tlie  answer  here  is  rely  '•  Tlioii 

29),  but  hs  the  addition 

.  Cind,"  V  view  of  the 

*    li  L  -|  I  litally  supcr- 

j  to  te  ecclesiastical 

^     t,  od  higher  coni- 

•  Son  of  Mar*  as  it  does  in 

David-"     In  his  we  may  see 

with  that  in  he  Pauline  an- 

•*  after  the  fish  '  and  "  after 

on  of  the  latf  (Ijurch  dogma 

11  more  sigrficant,  however, 

fession  of  Peer  is  the  cwdlhi- 

Althugh    rarhrr,   al 

g  on  the  sei^Matt.  xiv,  n.'J). 

ted  \jj  have  i»  a  hody  iithicd 

,  thou    art  tc:  Son  ol   i.*n\," 

now   pronou' '  d    hhssrd    hf- 

ave  not  rcvettrd  it.  nolo  him. 

^ven.      Here  w  'an  Imrdly    Inil 

tfj  Gah  i.  I2um1   10  ;  nn   I'nul 

jaliofj    of    .1'  J  ,    (  hri'il    \vhn'h. 


art  the  Chris: 
"the  Son  of  the  I. 
Birth-story.  b»  dou 
tural  sense;  si 

iiigelist^lLls- 
iient. 


IJ48  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

disciples,  then  the  episode  about  Herod  and  the  exe- 
cution of  the  Baptist,  then  the  return  of  the  disciples 
from  their  missionary  journey.  As  Matthew  had 
already  recounted  the  sending  forth  of  the  disciples 
in  chapter  x.,  he  gives  here  only  the  episode  of  Herod 
and  John  the  Baptist  (xiv.  1-12).  As  a  substitute, 
however,  for  the  return  of  the  disciples,  which  he  has 
lost  sight  of  owing  to  the  distance  of  the  narrative  of 
their  being  sent  forth,  he  makes  (verse  12)  the  disciples 
of  John  come  to  Jesus  with  the  report  of  his  death, 
which,  however,  had  taken  place  at  a  much  earlier 
period  (the  episode  of  the  death  of  the  Baptist  having 
only  been  brought  in  here  in  illustration  of  xiv.  2), 
and  he  makes  Jesus,  after  receiving  this  report,  with- 
draw to  the  eastern  side  of  the  lake  (verse  13).  The 
causal  connection  here  suggested  by  Matthew,  which 
makes  the  retirement  of  Jesus  appear  to  be  a  flight 
from  Herod,  is  inherently  improbable,  especially  as 
Jesus  returned  again  the  following  night,  and  rests 
only  on  the  anachronistic  combination  of  the  coming 
of  John's  disciples  (verse  12)  with  the  return  of  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  (Mark  vi.  30  f.),  to  which  there  the 
crossing  of  the  lake  is  attached,  but  for  quite  other 
reasons.  The  stories  which  here  follow  in  Mark,  of 
the  miraculous  feeding  of  the  multitudes  and  the 
walking  of  Jesus  on  the  sea,  are  told  in  a  similar  way 
by  Matthew,  only  that  in  the  latter  case  he  makes  the 
addition  that  Peter  wished  to  imitate  Jesus  in  walking 
on  the  water,  but  sank  because  he  doubted,  and  was 
saved  by  the  hand  of  Jesus  (xiv.  28-32) — an  enhance- 
ment of  the  miracle  which  also  contains  a  transparent 
and  impressive  allegory  of  the  fact  that  the  Church 
would  only  be  able  to  withstand  the  storms  of  the 


PETER'S   CONFESSION  349 

hostile  world  so  long  as  she  did  not  waver  in  her  faith 
in  her  power  to  overcome  the  world. 

In  chapters  xv.-xvii.  Matthew  follows  Mark  closely, 
and  I  may  refer  to  what  lias  been  said  above  at  the 
relevant  passages.  Only  in  Peter's  confession  are 
traits  peculiar  to  Matthew  to  be  noted  (xvi.  13-19). 
Even  the  question  of  Jesus  takes  a  different  form, 
"  Who  do  the  people  say  that  the  Son  of  Man  is  ? " 
(or,  I,  the  Son  of  Man,  am  ?).  As  the  title  has  in  this 
Evangelist  a  JMessianic  significance,  the  answer  seems 
to  be  anticipated  in  the  question.  But  this  is  not 
so,  inasmuch  as  the  answer  here  is  not  merely  "  Thou 
art  the  Christ"  (Mark  viii.  29),  but  has  the  addition 
"  the  Son  of  the  Living  God,"  which,  in  view  of  the 
Birth-story,  is  doubtless  meant  in  a  specifically  super- 
natural sense ;  so  that,  according  to  the  ecclesiastical 
Evangelist,  it  forms  the  counterpart,  and  higher  com- 
plement, to  the  simple  "  Son  of  Man,"  as  it  does  in 
xxii.  43  to  the  "  Son  of  David."  In  this  we  may  see 
an  advance  analogous  with  that  in  the  Pauhne  an- 
tithesis between  Christ  "  after  the  flesh  "  and  "  after 
the  spirit,"  in  the  direction  of  the  later  Church  dogma 
of  the  two  natures.  Still  more  significant,  however, 
than  the  form  of  the  confession  of  Peter  is  the  exalta- 
tion of  Peter  which  follows.  Although  earlier,  at 
the  miracle  of  the  M^alking  on  the  sea  (Matt.  xiv.  33), 
the  disciples  are  represented  to  have  as  a  body  uttered 
the  confession,  "  Truly,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God," 
Peter  is,  nevertheless,  now  pronounced  blessed  be- 
cause flesh  and  blood  have  not  revealed  it  unto  him, 
but  the  Father  in  heaven.  Here  we  can  hardly  fail 
to  recognise  an  allusion  to  Gal.  i.  12  and  16  ;  as  Paul 
there  contrasts  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ  which, 


350  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

by  the  special  favour  of  the  Father,  has  been  granted 
to  him,  with  all  mere  human  instruction   and  con- 
verse with  flesh  and  blood  ;  so  here  the  same  immedi- 
ate Divine  revelation  is  ascribed  to  Peter  as  Jm  special 
privilege,  and  the  basis  of  his  pre-eminent  position  in 
the  Church,  to  which  he  is  entitled  in  virtue  of  his 
Divinely  inspired  confession  of  Christ.      This  bene- 
diction upon  Peter  was  followed,  according   to   tlie 
Evangelist,  by  his  formal  appointment  as  the  bearer 
of  supreme  authority  within  the  Church,  the  words 
being   attributed  to   Jesus :  "  And  I  say  unto  thee, 
thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my 
church,    and    the   gates    of    hell    shall    not    prevail 
against  it.     And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven ;   and  what  thou  shalt  bind 
on  earth   shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  what  thou 
shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."     In 
spite  of  all  attempts  on  the  part  of  Protestants  to 
weaken  the  force  of  these  words,  it  cannot  be  doubted 
that  this  passage   contains  the  solemn  proclamation 
of  the  primacy  of  Pete7\     He  is  declared  to  be  the 
foundation  of  the  Church,  the  possessor  of  the  keys  ; 
therefore  the  steward  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  {cf. 
Apoc.    iii.    7),    and   the   sovereign    lawgiver,    whose 
decision   regarding   what   is   permitted    and   what  is 
forbidden  (that  is  the  meaning  of  "  binding  and  loos- 
ing ")  has  the  authority  of  a  Divinely  sanctioned  law. 
And  though  what  is  here  said  to    Peter   cannot  be 
simply  appropriated,  without  more  ado,  to  the  Roman 
successors  of  Peter,  yet  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that 
these  words  embody  the  fundamental  thought  upon 
which  the  system  of  the  Catholic  Church  has  been 
logically  built  up.     It  is,  however,  for  that  reason  the 


PETER'S   CONFESSION  351 

more  certain  to  everyone  who  is  capable  of  forming  an 
historical  judgment  that  these  words,  so  far  from  rest- 
ing on  ancient  tradition,  not  to  speak  of  being  derived 
from  Jesus'  own  mouth,  are  the  Evangelist's  expres- 
sion of  his  own  ecclesiastical  view,  and  therefore  a 
most  important  evidence  of  the  character  and  origin 
of  this  Gospel.  "  The  preaching  of  Jesus  was  con- 
cerned with  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  ;  the  conception 
of  the  €KK\}]cria,  on  the  other  hand,  was  introduced 
by  Paul  (as,  moreover,  the  e«:/fA^;c^/a  of  God,  not  yet  of 
Christ),  as  also  was  the  image  of  building,  1  Cor.  iii. 
10,  Eph.  ii.  19  fF."  (Holtzmann,  Komm.).  But  the 
conception  of  the  Church  as  built  on  the  foundation 
of  Peter  is  absolutely  unthinkable  as  occurring  in  the 
first  century,  for  at  that  time  Christ  Himself  was  still 
always  thought  of  as  the  sole  foundation  (1  Cor.  iii. 
9  fF.) ;  and  if  in  the  deutero-Pauline  letter  to  the 
Ephesians  the  apostles  and  prophets  are  named  along- 
side of  Christ,  the  Corner-stone,  as  the  foundation 
of  the  holy  temple  of  the  Church,  it  is  still  a  long 
step  from  that  to  the  assertion  of  our  Evangelist 
that  Peter  alone  was  the  rock-foundation  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.  Finally,  the  authority  here  given 
to  him  as  administrator  and  lawgiver  of  the  King- 
dom of  God  stands  in  striking  contradiction  with  the 
rebuke  which  is  immediately  afterwards  addressed 
to  Peter  for  not  thinking  the  thoughts  of  God,  but 
of  men ;  in  contradiction  with  the  weak  and  hesitat- 
ing conduct  of  Peter  at  Antioch,  which  led  Paul  to 
accuse  him  of  hypocrisy ;  in  contradiction  with  the 
conviction  of  Paul  that  he  was  of  equal  standing 
with  the  other  Apostles,  and  that  none  of  them  were 
lords  over  the  faith  of  the  churches  (2  Cor.  i.  24) ; 


352  THE    GOSPEL   OF  MATTHEW 

in  contradiction  with  the  great  saying  of  Jesus,  that 
whosoever  will  be  first,  or  a  great  one,  among  the 
disciples  shall  be  the  servant  of  all  (Mark  ix.  35,  x. 
44).  Of  the  position  of  commanding  authority  such 
as  is  ascribed  to  Peter  in  this  passage  of  Matthew 
there  is  no  trace  in  early  Christian  literature  up  to 
the  middle  of  the  second  century  ;  but  in  the  Clemen- 
tine Homilies,  which  date  from  that  period,  Peter  is 
exalted  just  in  this  fashion.  Therefore,  in  Matt, 
xvi.  18  f.,  what  we  are  to  recognise  is  precisely  the 
first  expression  of  the  specifically  Catholic  self-conscious- 
ness of  the  Church,  which  towards  the  middle  of  the 
second  century  began  to  consolidate  itself  under  the 
watchwords  "  Peter  "  or — what  comes  practically  to 
the  same  thing — of  the  "  New  Law." 

At  the  close  of  chapter  xvii.  Matthew  gives  the 
story,  peculiar  to  himself,  of  the  stater  in  the  fish's 
mouth,  which,  taken  in  its  literal  sense,  is  so  extra- 
ordinary a  miracle  that  even  expositors  who  are  in 
general  prepared  to  believe  in  miracles  have  not 
found  it  easy  to  accept.  Here,  therefore,  there  is 
little  difficulty  about  accepting  the  allegorical  explana- 
tion which  is  naturally  suggested  by  the  preceding 
conversation  regarding  the  paying  of  the  di-drachma. 
The  question  was  whether  the  Jewish  poll-tax,  which 
had  to  be  paid  to  the  Roman  treasury  instead  of  the 
former  Temple-tax,  ought  to  be  paid  by  Christians  or 
not.  The  Evangelist  represents  this  question  as 
decided  by  Jesus  in  the  sense  that,  while  Christians 
ought,  properly  speaking,  to  be  free  from  the  tax  as 
sons  of  the  house  (of  God),  yet,  nevertheless,  in 
order  to  avoid  giving  offence,  they  must  not  claim 
exemption  from  this  duty ;  the  means  for  discharging 


THE    WORK   OF  JESUS   IN    GALILEE       353 

it  will  be  provided  in  the  exercise  of  their  calling. 
In  connection  with  this  it  is  possible  to  think  either 
of  the  various  earthly  callings  of  individual  Christians, 
in  which  case  the  stater  in  the  fish's  mouth  would  be 
an  allegory  of  the  profit  made  by  each  in  the 
exercise  of  his  calling  ;  or  the  taking  of  the  fish  may 
be  understood  in  the  symbolical  sense  which  is 
familiar  from  Jesus'  saying  about  "  fishers  of  men," 
in  which  case  it  would  only  apply  to  the  special 
calling  of  the  Christian  missionaries,  and  the  sense 
of  it  would  be  that  if  Christians  diligently  pursued 
their  missionary  work  among  the  heathen,  the  com- 
mon purse  of  the  community  would  never  lack  the 
necessary  means  to  defray,  in  case  of  need,  all  the 
demands  of  the  State  upon  its  individual  members 
out  of  the  common  funds.  Which  of  these  is  to  be 
preferred,  may  be  left  to  the  taste  of  the  reader. 

In  the  discourse  in  chapter  xviii.,  occasioned  by 
the  dispute  about  precedence  among  the  disciples, 
different  points  of  view  are    combined  which  have 
no    clear   connection  with    one   another,   but   which 
can  be  all  included  under  the  general  idea  of  rules 
for  the  inner  social  life  of  the  Christian  community. 
In  the  first  place,  an  actual  child  is  set  in  the  midst 
as  a  type  of  the  unassuming  modesty  which  is  the 
true  qualification  for  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.     But, 
farther  on,  the  child  is  looked  upon  no  longer  as  an 
example  of  this  virtue,  but  a  symbol  of  the  humble 
members  of  the  community,  who  are  to  be  an  object 
of  loving,  unselfish,  sympathetic  kindness  and  care, 
since  to  receive  them  is  the  same  as  to  receive  Christ 
Himself,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  to  offend  them  by 

arrogant  contempt  involves  terrible  guilt.     Then,  by 
VOL.  II  23 


354  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

a  loose  association  of  ideas,  the  giving  of  offence  sug- 
gests offence  caused  to  oneself  through  the  functions 
of  the  senses  or  the  members  (verses  8  f.).  Thereafter 
the  discourse  recurs  to  the  warning  about  despising 
"  these  little  ones,"  whose  guardian  angels  stand  before 
God,  but  it  remains  doubtful  whether  the  reference 
is  to  actual  children,  or  to  the  humbler  brethren  in 
the  Church  (as  in  verse  6).  In  any  case,  the  latter 
is  necessarily  the  meaning  in  the  further  course  of 
the  sermon,  where  "  these  little  ones  "  are  synonymous 
with  "those  who  go  astray,"  whose  being  saved,  or 
prevented  from  being  lost,  is  the  object  of  the  Divine 
will  (verses  12-14).  Here  the  discourse  connects 
with  the  Lucan  parable  of  the  Lost  Sheep,  the  close 
of  which,  "  There  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels 
over  one  sinner  that  repenteth  "  (Luke  xv.  10),  was 
obviously  in  Matthew's  mind,  and  influenced  the 
peculiar  turn  of  expression,  "  It  is  not  willed  in  the 

pvesence   of  (ovk  ea-n    OeXyj/xa    ejULirpoaOev   too    TraTpo^   vjixoov) 

your  Father  in  heaven  that  one  of  these  little  ones 
should  be  lost"  (xviii.  14).  After  this  saying  about 
the  Divine  love  to  sinners  there  follow  directions 
for  the  exercise  of  discipline  within  the  Church 
towards  sinful  brethren,  and  for  excluding  them 
from  fellowship  in  case  of  impenitent  defiance ;  and 
there  is  ascribed  to  the  decision  of  the  Church — not 
here  in  the  making  of  laws,  but  in  judging  offenders 
— validity  before  the  judgment-seat  of  God,  while 
to  her  united  prayer  the  promise  is  given  that  it 
shall  be  answered  by  God,  and  the  presence  of 
Christ  is  assured  to  her  when  meeting  in  His  name. 
To  these  rules  for  the  public  discipline  of  the 
Church    there    is    attached,    finally,    an    exhortation 


• 


THE   WORK   OF   JESUS   IN   GALILEE       355 

to  placability  on  the  part  of  individuals  towards 
those  who  injure  them ;  in  connection  with  which 
the  parable  of  the  Unmerciful  Servant  is  used  to 
illustrate  the  thought  that  whosoever  will  not 
forgive  his  brother  shall  fail  to  obtain  the  forgive- 
ness of  God.  Thus  this  discourse  brings  together 
various  sayings  regarding  the  moral  relationship  of 
the  members  of  the  Christian  community  towards 
one  another,  some  of  which  rest  upon  very  early 
tradition,  while  some  presuppose  the  practical  ex- 
perience of  an  already  developed  Church-life,  and 
lay  down  the  lines  for  an  organised  system  of  peni- 
tential discipline. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MATTHEW 

CHAPTER  XIII 

The  Last  Journey  and  Final  Conflict 

(Matt,  xix.-xxviii.) 

The  events  and  discourses  during  the  journey  to 
Jerusalem,  which  in  Luke  form  the  contents  of  his 
long  interpolation,  are  reported  in  Matthew  in  the 
same  sequence  as  in  Mark.  In  the  story  of  the 
rich  young  man  (xix.  16  fF.),  Matthew's  peculiar 
version  of  the  answer  of  Jesus  (verse  17)  is  note- 
worthy :  "  Why  askest  thou  me  about  that  which 
is  good?  There  is  One  who  is  good."  It  is  clear 
that  this  answer,  which  does  not  fit  the  young  man's 
question,  has  arisen  from  a  modification  of  the 
original  form  of  the  answer  which  is  preserved  in 
Mark:  "Why  callest  thou  me  good?  None  is 
good  save  God."  This  humble  refusal  of  the  de- 
scription "good"  as  appropriate  only  to  God  (in 
the  absolute  sense,  it  is  to  be  understood,  of  perfect 
holiness)  the  later  Evangelist  could  no  longer 
reconcile  with  his  exalted  view  of  the  Person  of 
Christ  as  the  supernaturally  conceived  Son  of  God, 
and  he  has  therefore  recast,  in  this  somewhat  artificial 
fashion,  the  saying  of  Jesus  which  was  preserved  by 
tradition.    Even  Luke  had  not  thought  this  necessary, 

356 


LAST  JOURNEY   AND  FINAL   CONFLICT    357 

and  Matthew  therefore  betrays  himself  here  again 
as  the  latest,  the  "  ecclesiastical "  Evangelist.  In 
the  same  way  his  version  of  the  saying  of  Jesus  in 
verse  21,  "If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go  and  sell,"  etc., 
already  suggests  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  the 
two  planes  of  morality  —  the  higher  perfection  of 
the  ascetic  life  in  voluntary  poverty  and  chastity 
{cf.  xix.  12).  In  regard  to  Peter's  question  about 
reward  which  follows  here  (verses  27  ff.)  and  the 
promise  of  Jesus,  we  have  already  had  something 
to  say  in  our  discussion  of  Mark's  Gospel  (p.  48  f.). 
Pecuhar  to  Matthew  is  the  parable  of  the  Labourers 
in  the  Vineyard  (xx.  1-16),  which  the  Evangelist 
uses  to  illustrate  the  saying  about  the  first  and  the 
last  (xix.  30  =  Mark  x.  31),  which  he  accordingly 
repeats  at  the  close  (xx.  16).  The  wording  of  the 
parable  does  not  necessitate  an  allegorisation  of  the 
labourers  who  are  called  at  different  times  of  the 
day  as  representing  various  classes  of  men,  grades 
of  society,  or  nations.  The  point  of  the  parable,  if 
we  consider  the  story  alone,  without  taking  the 
closing  saying  into  account,  is  the  simple  thought  ^ 
that  those  who  are  called  early  and  those  who  are 
called  late  are  equal  in  the  Kingdom  of  God ;  God 
will  display  His  free  grace  towards  the  latter  in 
spite  of  their  little  service,  while  He  gives  the  former 
their  due  according  to  their  deserts.  No  one  has 
the  right  on  that  account  to  find  fault  with  the  free 
goodness  of  God  towards  even  the  unworthy  as 
unjust.  Criticism  of  this  kind,  such  as  the  Pharisees 
directed  against  the  love  of  Jesus  towards  sinners, 
would  only  be  a  sign  of  miserable  jealousy.     That  is 

^   Cf.  Jiilicher,  Die  Gleicknisse  Jesu,  ii.  459-471. 


358  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

the  same  thought  which  is  illustrated  in  the  parable  of 
the  Prodigal  Son  by  the  attitude  of  the  father  towards 
his  two  sons — a  defence  of  the  Divine  mercy  against 
the  charge  of  injustice  which  naturally  suggested  itself 
to  legal-minded  men.  But  by  the  connection  of  the 
parable — a  connection  perhaps  due  to  the  Evangelist 
himself — with  the  saying  about  the  first  being  last, 
the  further  thought  seems  to  be  added  that  those 
who  were  first  called  and  who  in  their  self-righteous- 
ness bargained  for  a  reward  will  for  that  very  reason 
be  set  back,  humiliated,  and  punished,  while  the 
humble  shall  receive  the  reward  of  grace  before 
them — a  reference  to  the  rejection  of  the  Pharisees 
and  the  gracious  reception  of  sinners,  as  in  xxi.  31  f. 

In  his  account  of  the  events  of  the  first  days  at 
Jerusalem,  Matthew  has  somewhat  obscured  the 
accurate  order  as  given  in  Mark's  account.  In 
particular,  he  makes  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple 
follow  immediately  after  the  entry  into  Jerusalem, 
upon  the  same  day,  whereas  it  did  not  take  place 
until  the  following  day ;  and  the  cursing  of  the  fig- 
tree,  which  in  Mark  is  separated  from  the  perception 
of  its  withering,  is  brought  by  him  into  juxtaposition 
with  it.  In  his  account  of  the  cleansing  of  the 
Temple  he  certainly  follows  the  source  more  closely 
than  liuke  does,  but  he  does  not  bring  out  its  full 
significance  so  clearly  as  Mark  does,  since  in  xxi.  14  ff. 
he  represents  the  anger  of  the  hierarchs  as  caused 
by  the  cures  wrought  by  Jesus  in  the  Temple  and 
by  the  acclamations  of  the  children — an  addition 
of  the  Evangelist  which  can  hardly  be  historical, 
and  which  only  serves  to  throw  into  the  shade  the 
decisive  significance  of  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple. 


LAST  JOURNEY   AND   FINAL  CONFLICT    359 

Like  Luke,  too,  Matthew  diverges  from  Mark  in 
referring  the  question  of  the  hierarchs  regarding 
Jesus'  authority  to  His  teaching  in  the  Temple  (xxi. 
23),  whereas  according  to  Mark's  account,  which  has 
historical  probability  on  its  side,  it  referred  to  His 
reforming  act  of  cleansing  the  Temple. 

The  answering  of  this  question  is  followed  in 
Matthew  (xxi.  28  ff.)  by  the  parable,  which  is  peculiar 
to  him,  of  the  Two  Sons,  of  whom  the  one  at  first 
rejects  in  words  his  father's  command  to  go  and  work 
in  his  vineyard,  but  obeys  it  in  act,  whereas  the  other 
does  the  reverse,  professing  obedience  but  not  obey- 
ing in  reality.  The  interpretation,  which  he  adds,  as 
a  reference  to  the  opposite  conduct  of  the  publicans 
and  harlots  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  Pharisees 
and  chief  priests  on  the  other,  in  regard  to  John  the 
Baptist,  the  preacher  of  repentance  (v^erses  31  f.), 
recalls  Luke  vii.  29  f.,  and  is  closely  connected,  as 
regards  its  substance,  with  the  parable  which  there 
follows  of  the  capricious  children  in  the  market-place 
(Luke  vii.  31  fF.),  which  would  therefore  find  a  more 
appropriate  place  here  than  there,  where  it  has  less 
connection  with  the  context  (p.  132  f).  To  the 
parable  of  the  Husbandmen  {sup.,  p.  57)  Matthew 
attaches,  as  a  third  in  this  series,  that  of  the  Royal 
Marriage-feast  (xxii.  1-14),  in  which  he  has  expanded 
the  parable  of  the  Great  Supper,  recorded  by  Luke 
in  a  simpler  and  more  original  form,  into  a  Messianic 
allegory ;  for  the  marriage  feast  made  by  the  king 
for  his  son  is  the  regular  image  for  the  bliss  which 
will  attend  the  coming  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom. 
This  is  also  suggested  by  certain  other  features  added 
by  Matthew,  which  betray  themselves  as  an  artificial 


360  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

allegory  because  they  do  not  suit  the  natural  course 
of  the  narrative.  The  first  (verses  6  f.),  about  the 
invited  guests  who  ill-treated  and  slew  the  mes- 
sengers, in  punishment  for  which  the  king  sent  and 
destroyed  their  city,  has  the  fault,  which  is  not 
unusual  in  allegories,  of  falling  out  of  the  figure  into 
the  reality  (the  destruction  of  Jerusalem),  and  thus 
robbing  the  allegory  of  all  its  force  by  loading  it  with 
improbable  and  not  easily  imaginable  traits.  This 
intrusion  of  reality  has  a  parallel  in  the  Lucan 
parable  of  the  Pounds,  where  it  breaks  through  in 
a  way  which  is  equally  disturbing  to  the  simple  story 
of  the  parable  (xix.  14  and  27).  Equally  inappro- 
priate to  the  situation  is  the  other  addition  about  the 
guest  who  had  come  in  without  a  wedding-garment 
(if  he  had  just  been  brought  straight  in  from  the 
street,  how  could  he  possibly  have  brought  a  wedding- 
garment  with  him?),  and  who,  for  this  reason,  was 
bound  hand  and  foot  and  cast  into  outer  darkness 
(xxii.  11  fF.).  Enigmatic  as  this  trait  appears  in  the 
narrative,  it  can  be  simply  enough  explained  if  we 
look  for  the  key  to  it  in  the  Apocalypse,  in  the 
passage  which  tells  of  the  marriage  of  the  Lamb 
(xix.  7  fF.),  where  it  is  said  that  unto  the  Bride  (the 
Church)  it  was  granted  to  array  herself  in  "  fine  linen 
clean  and  shining,"  and  that  "  the  fine  linen  is  the 
righteous  deeds  {SiKai(t)/ui.aTa)  of  the  saints."  It  is  from 
this  apocalyptic  figure  that  we  must  take  the  inter- 
pretation of  that  allegorical  trait  in  the  parable :  he 
who  desires  to  have  a  part  in  the  blessedness  of  the 
Messianic  Kingdom,  access  to  which  is  open  to  all, 
must  show  himself  worthy  of  it  by  good  deeds 
answering  to  the  Divine  will ;  otherwise  he  will  be 


LAST  JOURNEY   AND   FINAL  CONFLICT    361 

turned  out  again  as  unworthy,  even  if  he  is  already 
among  the  festal  company  of  the  Christian  Church. 
"  This  is  certainly  an  addition  of  Matthew,  for  the 
thought  is  in  line  with  that  of  vii.  23,  xiii.  41,  xxiv. 
12 :  love  with  its  fruits  must  be  added  to  faith " 
(Holtzmann,  Komm.).  It  is  ethically  conditioned 
universalism — the  ecclesiastical  version  of  the  Pauline 
universalism,  which  has  a  doctrinal  basis — to  which 
the  Evangelist  gives  expression  here,  as  in  the  eschato- 
logical  parables  of  chapter  xxv.  It  is  this  distinction 
between  mere  outward  adherents  and  genuine, 
morally  worthy  members  of  the  Christian  community, 
that  is  referred  to  also  in  the  antithesis  of  the  many 
called  and  the  few  chosen  in  Matt.  xxii.  14,  which  in 
this  connection  at  any  rate  is  not  to  be  thought  of 
as  bearing  a  predestinarian  sense.^  In  his  account  of 
the  other  sayings,  in  answer  to  the  questions  about 
the  tribute-money,  the  resurrection,  the  greatest 
commandment,  the  Son  of  David,  Matthew  follows 
Mark  {cf.  sup.,  pp.  58  fF.),  except  that  in  the  question 
regarding  the  "  great "  commandment  (as  he  calls  it, 
instead  of  the  "  first ")  the  "  understanding  "  answer  of 
the  Scribe  (Mark.  xii.  33),  that  the  love  of  God  and 
of  man  was  more  than  all  burnt  offering  and  sacri- 
fice is  omitted,  perhaps  because  he  was  unwilling  to 
attribute  so  much  "  understanding  "  to  a  Scribe.  He 
has  omitted,  too,  the  beautiful  story,  told  by  both 
his  predecessors,  about  the  widow's  mite  which  was 

^  The  saying,  which  is  not  specially  appropriate  in  this  con- 
nection (for,  after  all,  among  all  the  guests,  only  one  is  cast  out !), 
seems  to  have  been  inserted  here  by  Matthew  as  a  quotation  from  an 
unknown  writing,  which  may  be  alluded  to  also  in  Barnabas,  cap.  v. 

(yeypaTTTat). 


362  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

worth  more  than  all  the  gifts  which  the  rich  made 
out  of  their  superfiuity  (Mark  xii.  41-44).  The  reason 
for  this  omission  is  easily  understood  in  the  case  of 
the  Evangelist  of  the  cathoUc  world-church,  who 
also  found  it  necessary  to  change  the  beatitude  upon 
the  poor  and  hungry  to  that  upon  the  spiritually 
poor  and  hungry. 

The  brief  remark  in  the  source  about  the  vanity 
and  avarice  of  the  Scribes  (Matt.  xii.  38-40)  has  been 
worked  up  by  Matthew,  along  with  other  material 
from  his  sources — from  which  Luke  also  derived  the 
polemic  against  the  Pharisees  (xi.  37-52)  in  his  great 
interpolation — into  a  great  polemical  discourse  against 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  (chap,  xxiii.).  Luke  gives, 
first,  three  woes  against  the  Pharisees,  and  then  three 
against  the  lawyers,  but  Matthew  combines  both 
sets  of  adversaries  from  the  beginning,  and  gives 
seven  woes  in  all  against  them.  Not  all  the  sayings, 
however,  apply  equally  well  to  both  categories.  It 
could  only  be  said  of  the  Scribes,  not  of  the  Pharisees, 
that  they  sat  in  Moses'  seat  and  loved  to  be  called 
Rabbi  (teacher)  by  the  people.  What  is  meant  by 
that  is  the  well-known  fact  that  the  Jewish  lawyers 
claimed  for  their  traditional  ordinances  at  least  as 
great  authority  as  for  the  law  of  Moses  itself. 
Against  the  genuineness  of  the  previously  enunciated 
principle  (verse  3)  that  men  ought  to  do  and  observe 
what  these  teachers  said,  but  not  to  imitate  their 
works,  since  they  themselves  did  not  do  what  they 
said,  objections  have  been  raised  on  the  ground 
that  it  does  not  seem  to  be  in  harmony  with 
other  utterances  of  Jesus  regarding  the  "  human 
ordinances "   of  the   Jewish   schools    (xv.  3-14)  and 


LAST  JOURNEY   AND   FINAL   CONFLICT    363 

regarding  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees, 
which  is  explained  in  xvi.  12  to  mean  their  doctrine. 
But  according  to  the  more  original  version  of  this 
saying  in  Luke  (xii.  1),  what  is  meant  by  the  leaven 
of  the  Pharisees  (Matthew  alone  adds  the  Sadducees) 
is  their  hypocrisy,  therefore  just  the  same  discrepancy 
between  their  words  and  actions  as  is  censured  in 
this  whole  polemical  discourse.  In  xv.  3  fF.  the 
"  ordinances  of  men "  set  up  by  the  Jewish  schools 
are  contrasted  with  the  JNIosaic  Law  as  an  authori- 
tative standard,  so  that  neither  is  this  passage  in 
contradiction  with  xxiii.  3,  since  here  authority  is  only 
ascribed  to  the  words  of  the  Scribes  in  so  far  as  they 
"  sit  in  Moses'  seat,"  i.e.  apply  his  law.  That  Jesus 
recognised  the  authority  of  the  Mosaic  Law  cannot 
be  doubted,  in  view  of  Matt.  v.  17  f.  =  Luke  xvi.  17 
{sup.,  p.  323  f.).  And  xxiii.  3  is  in  harmony  not  only 
with  this  but  also  with  xxiii.  23  =  Luke  xi.  42  ;  this 
saying,  which  is  given  by  both  Evangelists,  "This 
ought  ye  to  have  done  [the  moral  commandments  of 
the  Law]  and  not  to  have  left  the  other  undone,"  is  a 
very  significant  expression  of  the  conservative  atti- 
tude of  Jesus  towards  the  Law,  in  which  He  certainly 
emphasised  the  ethical  side  as  the  main  thing,  but  did 
not  on  that  account  wish  to  do  away  with  the  literal : 
xxiii.  3  and  23  may  well  be  regarded  as  an  authentic 
commentary  upon  v.  17  f.  At  the  end  of  the  polemical 
discourse  (verse  33)  Matthew  makes  Jesus  repeat 
the  invective  which  we  have  met  with  before  in  the 
preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  (iii.  7),  "  Generation  of 
vipers,  how  shall  ye  escape  the  condemnation  of  hell  ? " 
and  the  discourse  closes  with  the  prediction  of  the 
Divine  judgment  upon   the   prophet-slaying   nation 


364  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

and  city  of  the  Jews  (verses  34-39),  which  in  the 
Lucan  parallel  (xi.  49  ff.,  xiii.  34  f.)  is  introduced  as 
a  word  of  the  "  Wisdom  of  God,"  i.e.  a  quotation 
from  an  apocalyptic  "Book  of  Wisdom"^  (p.  151). 
The  woe  pronounced  against  Jerusalem  is  given  here 
by  INIatthew  in  its  original  connection,  which  in  Luke 
has  been  disturbed. 

The  eschatological  discourse  in  Matt.  xxiv.  is 
introduced,  as  in  the  other  Gospels,  by  a  prediction 
of  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  and  the  question 
of  the  disciples  as  to  when  this  is  to  take  place, 
to  which  Matthew,  however,  has  added  a  further 
question  which  anticipates  the  content  of  the  dis- 
course— and  alone  retained  an  interest  for  his  readers 
— regarding  the  sign  of  the  Parousia  of  Christ  and 
of  the  end  of  the  world  (xxiv.  3).  Farther  on,  the 
eschatological  discourse  shows  many  divergences  from 
Mark  xiii.,  some  of  which  point  to  later  additions, 
and  some  to  the  earliest  tradition.  To  the  former 
belong  certainly  verses  10-12,  where,  among  the  signs 
of  the  end,  are  mentioned  not  only,  as  in  Mark  xiii. 
9  fF.,  the  persecution  of  the  Christians  by  the  hostile 
world,  but  also  dissensions  within  the  Christian 
community  itself,  mutual  hatreds  and  offences,  the 
appearance  of  many  false  prophets,  who  shall  mislead 
many,  widespread  lawlessness,  the  love  of  many 
growing  cold.     The  allusion  here  is,  without  doubt, 

1  The  conjecture  naturally  suggests  itself  that  this  book  of 
revelations  is  identical  with  the  apocalypse  which  underlies  Matt, 
xxiv.  and  its  parallels  in  the  other  Evangelists  (p.  68).  The  date 
would  agree,  as  the  martyrdom  of  Zachariah,  the  son  of  Bariich, 
mentioned  in  xxiii.  35  falls  in  the  year  67  or  68,  for  the  reference 
is  probably  to  the  same  events  as  are  mentioned  by  Josephus  as 
occurring  in  the  last  years  of  the  Jewish  war  {B.J.,  iv.  5.  4). 


f 


LAST  JOURNEY   AND   FINAL   CONFLICT    365 

to  the  same  heretical  teachers  who  are  described  at 
the  close  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (vii.  23),  and 
in  the  parable  of  the  Tares  (xiii.  41),  as  workers  of 
iniquity,  namely,  heretical  antinomians  and  libertines, 
who  gave  so  much  trouble  to  the  Church  of  the  second 
century  {cf.  Apoc.  ii.  2,  4).  To  the  saying  "  He  that 
endureth  unto  the  end  shall  be  saved  "  Matthew  adds, 
"And  this  gospel  of  the  kingdom  [namely,  that 
which  lies  before  the  reader]  must  first  be  made 
known  throughout  the  whole  world  for  a  testimony 
to  the  heathen,  and  [only]  then  shall  the  end  come  " — 
an  assertion  of  the  Evangelist  which  stands  in  striking 
contrast  with  the  rapid  course  of  events  described 
in  the  context,  as  also  with  x.  23  and  xvi.  28.  It 
serves  the  purpose,  however,  of  postponing,  in  accord- 
ance with  actual  experience,  the  catastrophe  which 
the  apocalypses  anticipate  within  so  short  a  period. 
If  these  additions  betray  the  correcting  hand  of  the 
late,  ecclesiastical  Evangelist,  he  has,  on  the  other 
hand,  preserved  in  what  follows,  in  its  most  original 
form,  the  early  Christian  apocalypse  which  was  con- 
tained in  the  common  source.  In  verse  15  the 
mysterious  "  abomination  of  desolation,"  which  Luke 
had  interpreted  as  a  reference  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  is  defined  more  exactly  than  in  Mark  by 
the  words  "which  is  spoken  of  by  the  prophet 
Daniel "  and  "  standing  in  the  holy  place,"  which 
makes  the  indefinite  "where  it  ought  not"  (Mark) 
into  a  direct  reference  to  the  Temple.  By  this  the 
interpretation  of  the  expected  "  abomination  "  as  the 
setting  up  of  a  statue  of  the  Emperor  in  the  Temple, 
which  had  been  in  contemplation  since  Claudius  and 
kept  the  imagination  of  the  Jews  in  a  constant  state 


366  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

of  excitement  for  decades,  is  placed  beyond  doubt. 
In  verse  20  it  is  said,  "  Pray  that  your  flight  may  not 
be  in  the  winter  or  on  the  Sabbath  " ;  the  itahcised 
words  being-  pecuHar  to  Matthew,  though  certainly 
not  added  by  him  but  retained  from  the  source  as 
the  original  form  of  the  saying.  The  same  applies 
to  verse  29,  *'  Immediately  after  those  days  the  sun 
shall  be  darkened,"  etc.  By  this  "  immediately," 
which  is  preserved  only  by  Matthew,  the  appearance 
of  the  Son  of  Man  described  just  afterwards  is 
attached  in  immediate  temporal  sequence  to  the 
frightful  affliction  for  which  the  "abomination  of 
desolation "  should  give  the  signal.  Naturally,  this 
saying,  which  was  contradicted  by  the  course  of 
events,  could  not  have  been  added  by  the  Evangelist, 
who  has  clearly  implied  his  contrary  experience  in 
verse  14,  but  must  have  been  taken  over  from  the 
apocalypse  which  he  had  before  him  in  his  source, 
as  unsuspectingly  as  the  similar  sayings  in  x.  23  and 
xvi.  28.  But  to  argue  from  this  to  the  early  com- 
position of  our  Gospel  would  be  quite  a  mistake  ;  the 
explanation  rather  is  that  the  Evangelist  here  shows 
the  characteristic  ecclesiastical  reverence  for  ancient 
oracular  sayings,  of  which  the  disharmony  with 
history  is  no  longer  noticed,  and  which,  as  mysterious, 
are  verbally  retained  on  the  assumption  that  their 
enigmatic  sense  shall  at  some  time  be  revealed  and 
in  some  way  fulfilled.  To  the  early  matter  peculiar 
to   our   Gospel^    belong,  finally,    the   more   detailed 

1  Cf.  Wernle,  Die  synoptische  Frage,  p.  146.  If,  in  the  discourse 
about  the  Parousia,  Mattliew  has  preserved  much  that  is  ancient 
more  faithfully  than  Mark,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  influence 
of  the  catastrophe  of  a.d.   70  is    hardly    traceable,  that  does  not 


LAST   JOURNEY   AND   FINAL   CONFLICT     3(i7 

picture  of  the  Parousia  in  verse  30  f. :  the  sign  of  the 
Son  of  Man  in  heaven  {cf.  Apoc.  xxi.  7),  the  lamenta- 
tion of  the  races  of  mankind  when  they  see  (Apoc. 
i.  7)  the  Son  of  Man  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven 
(Dan.  vii.  13)  with  great  power  and  glory,  and 
sending  His  angels  forth  to  summon  the  faithful 
with  the  loud  trumpet-call  (1  Thess.  iv.  16, 1  Cor.  xv. 
52) — all  features  of  the  common  material  of  the 
apocalypses. 

To  the  eschatological  discourse  which  is  common  to 
all  the  Synoptists,  Mattliew  adds  in  chapter  xxv.  three 
eschatological  parables.  The  first,  that  of  the  wise 
and  foolish  virgins,  is  an  expansion  and  modification 
of  the  shorter  parable  in  Luke  xii.  35  IF.  As  there 
the  master,  returning  from  the  marriage,  is  awaited 
by  his  servants,  who  open  immediately  to  him  when 
he  knocks,  and,  as  a  reward,  are  made  to  sit  at  meat 
at  his  table,  so  here  the  bridegroom,  coming  to  the 
marriage,  is  awaited  by  the  bridesmaids,  who  on  his 
arrival  are  allowed  to  go  in  with  him  to  the  marriage- 
feast,  while  those  who  were  unprepared  beg  in  vain 
for  admission.  Even  the  image  of  the  lighted  lamps 
is  taken  from  the  simpler  parable  (xii.  35) :  "  Let  your 
loins  be  girded  about  and  your  lamps  burning."  There 
is  no  indication  of  an  allegorical  meaning  in  the  details  ; 
the  point  is  the  same  in  the  simpler  Lucan  and  in  the 
fuller  Matthfiean  form— a  want  of  preparedness  ex- 
cludes from  partaking  in  the  Messianic  Kingdom.    The 

necessarily  prove  the  priority  of  Matthew,  even  in  relation  to  Luke, 
but  perhaps  rather  his  reverence  for  authoritative  documents ;  for 
Matthew  himself  the  "  immediately  "  and  the  "  not  on  the  Sabbath  " 
have  no  longer  any  meaning,  but  he  has  not  the  courage  to  sacrifice 
these  archaic  touches. 


368  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

parable  of  the  Talents  (verses  14-30)  is  a  variation 
of  the  Lucan  parable  of  the  Pounds  (xix.  12-27),  and 
the  suggestion  for  both  is  found  in  Mark  (xiii.  34)  in 
the  brief  simile  of  the  master  going  away  on  a  journey 
and  entrusting  to  his  servants  the  care  of  his  property, 
while  he  "gives  each  of  them  his  (special)  work." 
This  allotted  task  is  more  closely  defined  in  the  parable 
as  the  duty  of  trading  with  the  capital  entrusted  to 
them,  in  order  by  investing  it  to  increase  it  for  the 
advantage  of  the  owner.  While  Luke,  however, 
speaks  of  ten  servants,  each  of  whom  received  the 
same  capital  (one  "mina"),  Matthew  gives  each  of 
the  three  servants  a  different  capital  according  to  his 
ability,  i.e.  capacity  for  work — five  talents  to  the  first, 
two  to  the  second,  and  one  to  the  third.  Each  of  the 
two  faithful  servants  trades  with  his  capital,  and 
each  doubles  the  amount  entrusted  to  him ;  for  this 
they  are  rewarded  by  the  master  on  his  return,  by 
being  made  rulers  over  many  things  (their  sphere  of 
labour  and  their  resources  increased),  and  in  addition 
they  are  bidden  to  enter  into  the  joy  of  their  lord, 
i.e.  to  the  Messianic  feast.  The  idle  servant,  how- 
ever, who  has  buried  his  talent  and  excuses  his 
idleness  by  his  fear  of  the  hardness  of  his  avaricious 
master,  not  only  has  his  talent  taken  from  him  and 
given  to  the  possessor  of  the  ten  talents,  but  he 
himself  is  cast  out  into  outer  darkness,  where  there  is 
weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth — i.e.,  he  is  excluded 
from  the  feast  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom.  This 
eschatological  reference  to  the  reward  of  the  faithful 
and  punishment  of  the  unfaithful  betrays  itself,  even  in 
the  simpler  Matthsean  version,  as  an  allegorising  addi- 
tion to  the  original  parable,  which  was  only  intended 


LAST  JOURNEY   AND   FINAL   CONFLICT    369 

to  illustrate  the  simple  thought  that  faithful  work 
would  be  rewarded  by  growing  success,  while  un- 
faithfulness would  be  punished  by  the  loss  even  of 
what  one  had,  by  means  of  a  story  drawn  from 
everyday  circumstances.^  That  it  was  not  originally 
intended  as  an  allegory  is  shown  by  the  unfavourable 
characterisation  of  the  master  in  verse  24,  which  has 
its  nearest  analogues  in  the  unjust  judge  and  the 
unfaithful  steward ;  in  all  these  cases  the  un-ideal  traits, 
which  are  taken  from  life,  and  merely  serve  to  give 
vividness  to  the  story,  resist  every  attempt  to 
allegorise  them.  This  does  not  exclude  the  possibility 
that  the  Evangelists  have  embellished  the  original 
framework  of  the  parable  with  allegorical  traits  ;  here 
Matthew  has  done  this  only  to  a  small  extent,  Luke 
much  more  largely  (p.  172  f ),  while  in  the  parable  of 
the  Supper  the  reverse  is  the  case.  At  the  close  of  the 
whole  eschatological  discourse  Matthew  has  placed  the 
dramatic  picture,  peculiar  to  him  (it  is  not  a  parable), 
of  the  judgment  of  the  nations  which  the  Son  of  Man 
at  His  Parousia  shall  hold,  amid  His  angels,  determin- 
ing the  worth  and  fate  of  men  by  the  standard  of 
the  works  of  love  which  they  have  done  or  not  done 
towards  His  humblest  brethren,  i.e.  the  Christians 
(xxv.  31-46).  That  the  Evangelist  is  here  thinking 
of  a  judgment  of  the  world,  not  however  of  Christians 
but  of  the  heathen  nations  {eOvrj)  is  clear ;  the 
Christians  are  the  humble  brethren  of  Christ,  who 
are  represented  as  deserving  to  receive  kindness  from 
the  nations.  That  he  can  recognise  among  these 
heathen  nations  some  who  are  blessed  by  God,  and 
for  whom  the  Kingdom   is   prepared,  because   they 

^  Cf,  Jiilicher,  Gleicknisse  Jesu,  ii.  481  f. 


370  THE    GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

have  displayed  the  moral  character  which  is  appro- 
priate to  it,  and  therefore  have  unconsciously  served 
Christ  Himself,  whom  they  never  knew,  is  a  beautiful 
evidence  of  the  ethically  humane  temper  of  the 
author,  who  represents  the  want  of  Christian  faith 
among  the  heathen  as  replaced  by  Christ-like  love, 
and  thus  puts  his  ethically  based  universalism  side 
by  side  with  the  dogmatically  based  universalism  of 
Paul. 

In  the  story  of  the  Passion,  Matthew  keeps  much 
more  close  than  Luke  does  to  the  Marcan  source : 
individual  divergences  from  it  have  been  pointed  out 
in  treating  the  earlier  Gospels.  Peculiar  to  him  are 
only  a  few  little  episodes,  such  as  the  suicide  of  the 
traitor  (xxvii.  3-10),  in  which  he  gives  a  rather 
different  version  of  the  legend  from  that  which 
Luke  gives  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (i.  15-20). 
Whether  he  had  access  to  another  tradition  or  has 
freely  moulded  his  version  in  accordance  with  the 
types  and  figurative  language  of  the  Old  Testament 
(2  Sam.  xvii.  23,  Zech.  xi.  12  f.,  Jer.  xxxii.  6  fF.)  may 
be  left  an  open  question.  Further  episodes  intro- 
duced by  him  are  the  dream  of  Pilate's  wife  and 
Pilate's  symbolical  hand-washing  (xxvii.  19  and 
24),  both  highly  improbable,  and  only  serving  the 
purpose  of  emphasising  the  innocence  of  Jesus  by  re- 
peated solemn  testimonies.  An  obviously  legendary 
trait  of  late  origin  is  the  story  that  after  the  death 
of  Jesus  the  rocks  were  split  by  an  earthquake,  the 
graves  opened,  and  many  bodies  of  the  saints  which 
slept  arose,  and,  after  Jesus'  resurrection,  came  forth 
and  appeared  to  many  in  the  Holy  City  (xxvii. 
51  ff.).     It  has,  to  begin  with,  the  inherent  difficulty 


LAST  JOURNEY   AND   FINAL   CONFLICT     371 

that  it  is  not  easy  to  see  any  reason  why  the  saints 
who  arose  immediately  after  Jesus'  death  should  have 
only  come  out  of  their  graves  after  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus,  and  how  they  kept  alive  in  their  graves  in 
the  meantime.  The  explanation  of  this  difficulty  is 
obviously  to  be  found  in  the  collision  of  two  conflict- 
ing motives  in  the  formation  of  the  legend.  On  the 
one  hand,  the  earthquake  belonged  to  the  moment  of 
Jesus'  death,  which  was  thus  solemnised  by  heaven 
and  earth  alike ;  and  it  was  natural  to  imagine  the 
opening  of  the  graves  and  the  rising  of  the  dead  as 
simultaneous  with  the  earthquake.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  seemed  to  offisnd  the  reverent  sense  of  what 
was  fitting  that  other  saints  should  have  left  their 
graves  before  Christ ;  their  coming  forth  ought  rather 
to  occur  after  His  resurrection,  and  therefore  the 
risen  saints  must  wait  in  their  graves  until  then 
before  showing  themselves  in  the  city.  Another 
thing  which  is  peculiar  to  Matthew  is  the  quite  im- 
probable story  that  the  chief  priests  asked  Pilate  for 
a  guard  to  protect  the  grave  from  the  disciples, 
who,  they  feared,  would  otherwise  steal  the  body ; 
and  that  after  the  resurrection  had  taken  place,  the 
chief  priests  bribed  the  guards  to  say  that  the  body 
had  been  stolen  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus  while  they 
slept ;  so  that  this  report  was  current  among  the  Jews 
down  to  the  writer's  day  (xxvii.  62-66  and  xxviii. 
11-15).  The  only  historical  fact  in  this  narrative  is, 
without  doubt,  the  existence  of  a  report  of  that  kind 
among  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  the  writer,  or,  it  may 
be,  of  his  source  (for  that  this  and  the  preceding 
legend  came  into  our  Gospel  from  a  Jewish-Christian 
source  of  some  antiquity  is  the  more  probable  since 


372  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

we  find  something  similar  in  the  Gospel  of  Peter) ; 
in  order  to  discredit  this  report  the  Christian  legend 
sought  to  explain  its  origin  in  the  foregoing  manner. 
In  the  narrative  of  Jesus'  resurrection  and  appear- 
ance to  the  disciples  we  can  unfortunately  only  com- 
pare the  Marcan  parallel  in  the  first  part  (xxviii.  1- 
10),  since  Mark  xvi.  9-20  is  not  genuine.  According 
to  Mark,  the  two  Maries  and  Salome  (Luke,  "Joanna") 
came  on  the  Easter  morning  to  the  tomb,  found  it 
empty,  and  were  told  by  a  young  man  in  white 
apparel  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  which  had  hap- 
pened in  the  meantime,  and  sent  to  His  disciples  with 
the  message  that  they  were  to  await  the  appearance 
of  Jesus  in  Galilee ;  whereupon  they  went  away  in 
terror,  and  said  nothing  to  anyone.  JNIatthew  makes 
only  the  two  Maries  come  to  the  grave  ;  the  third  of 
the  women  he  does  not  mention,  perhaps  from  a 
harmonistic  motive,  because  tradition  was  uncertain 
as  to  her  name.  Then  he  tells  of  the  resurrection,  or 
rather  of  the  opening  of  the  grave,  as  though  it  had 
occurred  immediately  under  the  eyes  of  the  women, 
whereas  in  the  source  it  is  not  the  event  itself,  but 
only  its  result,  which  comes  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
women.  Moreover,  Matthew's  account  of  the  course 
of  events  is  not  very  clear.  He  tells  of  the  earth- 
quake, of  the  coming  down  of  an  angel  from  heaven 
who  rolled  away  the  stone  from  the  door  and  seated 
himself  upon  it,  of  the  alarm  of  the  guards,  of  the 
cheering  tidings  given  by  the  angel  to  the  frightened 
women  that  Jesus  had  arisen  ;  but,  after  all,  the  main 
thing,  the  actual  resurrection  of  Jesus,  is  not  related. 
We  learn  nothing  definite  either  as  to  the  when  or 
the  how  of  the  decisive  event ;  indeed,  if  we  look  at  the 


i 


LAST   JOURNEY    AND   FINAL   CONFLICT     373 

matter  closely,  there  is  no  room  left  in  the  chain  of 
events  in  Matthew's  narrative  for  the  occurrence  of 
the  resurrection,  for  it  naturally  cannot  have  occurred 
before  the  opening  of  the  grave,  but  if  it  happened 
after  that,  then  it  must  have  been  witnessed  by  the 
women,  as  well  as  the  coming  down  of  the  angel  and 
the  rolling  away  of  the  stone.  But  they  would  not 
have  needed  to  be  told  by  the  angel  about  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  if  they  had  themselves  just  witnessed 
it.  No  unprejudiced  person  who  attempts  to  realise 
to  himself  Matthew's  account  of  the  events  of  the 
Easter  morning  will  be  able  to  get  rid  of  this  difficulty. 
The  sole  explanation  of  it  lies  in  the  fact  that  the 
INIatthgean  account  is  not  original  writing  or  original 
thinking,  but  is  only  a  secondary  elaboration  of  the 
Marcan  source,  in  which  the  imported  embellishments 
do  not  harmonise  with  the  original.  Whereas  in 
the  source  the  opening  of  the  grave  and  the  resur- 
rection take  place,  so  to  speak,  behind  the  scenes, 
and  are  only  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
women,  and  of  the  reader,  through  the  angel- 
messenger,  INIatthew,  in  order  to  make  the  Marcan 
narrative  more  lively  and  dramatic,  has  brought  one 
half  of  the  events  (the  opening  of  the  grave)  which 
Mark  left  in  the  obscurity  of  the  background  into 
the  foreground  of  the  picture  while  leaving  the  other 
half  (the  resurrection)  still  in  the  background  ;  which 
naturally  makes  a  serious  breach  in  the  unity  and 
conceivability  of  the  whole  occurrence.  It  is  the 
same  with  a  second  difficulty  which  presents  itself 
in  the  further  course  of  JNIatthew's  narrative.  Just 
as  in  Mark,  the  women  are  here  charged  to  tell  the 
disciples   that   Jesus   has  risen  and  has  gone  before 


374  THE   GOSPEL   OF    MATTHEW 

them  into  Galilee,  and  that  they  shall  see  Him  there ; 
but  whereas  we  should  expect  to  be  told  only  of  the 
appearance  of  Jesus  to  the  disciples  in  Galilee  which 
is  here  announced,  immediately  after  the  departure 
of  the  women  from  the  open  grave  an  appearance  of 
Jesus  to  them  as  they  went  is  described,  the  only 
object  of  which  appears  to  have  been  to  repeat  the 
direction  to  tell  the  disciples  which  had  already  been 
given  by  the  angel.  To  what  end,  one  involuntarily 
asks,  is  this  aimless  repetition  ?  If  Jesus  could  appear 
to  the  women  as  they  returned  from  the  grave,  what 
need  was  there  for  the  special  revelation  of  the  angel 
immediately  before  ?  Could  not  what  the  angel  had 
to  tell  them  have  been  communicated  at  once  by  the 
appearance  of  Jesus  in  person?  But  what,  in  any 
case,  was  the  object  of  directing  the  disciples  to 
expect  His  appearance  in  Galilee,  and  not  immedi- 
ately ?  If  Jesus  could  now  appear  to  the  women, 
why  could  He  not  at  once  appear  to  the  disciples  in 
Jerusalem  ?  This  difficulty,  which  must  strike  every 
thoughtful  reader  of  the  JNIattheean  narrative,  is  to  be 
explained,  like  the  former  one,  by  the  fact  that  this 
narrative  is  a  working  over  of  a  simpler  source.  In 
the  latter,  and  therefore  in  the  oldest  tradition,  there 
was  no  thought  of  an  appearance  of  Jesus  in  Jeru- 
salem {cf.  sup.,  p.  84  f.).  Galilee  was  assumed  to 
have  been  the  sole  scene  of  the  appearances.  Later, 
however,  alongside  of  the  Galilcean  tradition,  legends 
became  current  of  appearances  in  and  near  Jerusalem 
to  individual  disciples,  especially  to  INIary  JNIagdalene. 
On  the  basis  of  this  group  of  legends,  Luke  and  John 
(xx.)  had  transferred  the  appearance  to  the  eleven 
disciples  to  Jerusalem,  thereby  coming  into  conflict 


LAST  JOURNEY   AND   FINAL   CONFLICT    375 

with  the  GaHl^ean  tradition.  Matthew,  on  the  other 
hand,  held  to  this  as  the  oldest  and  best  supported, 
but,  after  his  conservative  and  harmonistie  fashion, 
was  unwilling  to  pass  over  the  Judsean  tradition  of 
an  appearance  of  the  risen  Christ  to  Mary  Magdalene 
{cf.  John  XX.  14  fF.),  and  therefore  narrated  the 
appearance  to  the  two  Maries  on  their  way  back  from 
the  grave.  The  counterpart  of  this  combination  is 
found  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  which  in  chapter  xx., 
following  in  Luke's  track,  holds  to  the  Judsean 
tradition,  but  afterwards,  in  chapter  xxi.,  brings  in 
the  Galilsean  tradition. 

The  close  of  the  Gospel  (xxviii.  16-20)  is  formed  by 
the  very  significant  scene  of  the  parting  of  the  risen 
Christ  from  the  eleven  disciples  upon  the  mountain 
in  Galilee  whither  He  had  bidden  them  repair.  The 
very  scene  of  this  event,  "  the  mountain,"  gives  us  a 
hint  that  now  again,  at  the  close,  we  find  ourselves 
upon  the  same  ideal  height  as  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Gospel,  at  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  again  in 
the  middle  of  the  Gospel,  at  the  Transfiguration. 
The  mount  of  the  Sermon  and  of  the  Transfiguration 
is  the  New  Testament  counterpart  to  Mount  Sinai, 
where  Moses  gave  the  Law,  and  where  the  glory  of 
God  was  reflected  in  his  face.  The  mount  of  the 
leave-taking  is  the  New  Testament  counterpart  to 
Mount  Nebo,  whence  Moses,  when  about  to  leave 
the  earth,  looked  out  upon  the  Land  of  Promise 
and  beheld  the  glorious  future  of  his  people.  So 
now  the  Evangelist  represents  Jesus  here,  now  no 
longer  belonging  to  the  earth,  as  showing  Himself 
once  more  to  His  disciples,  in  order  to  give  them 
solemn  assurance  of  the  destiny  which  they  shared 


376  THE    GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

with  Him  of  exercising  universal  dominion,  in  order 
to  send  them  forth  as  His  messengers  to  the  con- 
version of  all  nations,  and  to  leave  with  them  the 
promise  of  His  abiding  spiritual  presence.  These 
last  words  which  the  Evangelist  here  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Christ  at  His  departure  contain,  therefore, 
a  brief  summary  of  his  Christian  confession :  Christ 
is  the  ruler  of  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth ;  all 
nations  are  destined  to  become  His  disciples  by 
means  of  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  are  to  be  taught 
and  trained  in  the  keeping  of  all  the  commandments 
of  Christ ;  finally,  Christ  is  present  with  His  disciples 
to  help  them  even  in  the  present  world  "  all  the  days  " 
until  the  end.  Here  there  is  in  the  first  place,  at 
least,  so  much  clear — that  this  parting  discourse  does 
not  rest  on  any  tradition  with  an  historical  basis  or 
origin,  but  is  only  to  be  regarded  as  a  confession  of 
the  faith  of  the  Evangelist  and  the  Church  of  his 
time.  Of  a  command  of  Jesus  to  baptize,  there  is 
no  trace  in  Paul's  writings.  Indeed,  from  1  Cor. 
i.  17  it  is  to  be  concluded  that  in  Apostolic  times 
nothing  was  known  of  such  a  command,  and  it  was 
only  later  that  the  custom  of  baptism,  which  had 
come  into  use,  was  sanctioned  by  being  traced  back 
to  a  command  of  Christ ;  but  in  this  an  historical 
reminiscence  betrays  itself  in  the  fact  that  the 
baptismal  command  is,  at  least,  not  placed  in  the 
earthly  lifetime  of  Jesus,  but  in  the  super-earthly 
life  of  the  risen  Christ  the  Lord.  Finally,  the 
baptismal  formula — "in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  "—would  be 
absolutely  unthinkable  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus.     It  is 


LAST  JOURNEY  AND   FINAL  CONFLICT    377 

nowhere  found  in  the  whole  of  the  first  century,  or 
even  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  whenever  there  is  mention 
of  baptism,  the  standing  formula  is  always  the  simple 
into  the  (or,  in  the)  name  of  Jesus,  into  Jesus  Christ. 
On  the  contrary,  the  Trinitarian  formula  is  found 
first  in  Justin  Martyr,  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  and  even  here  not  yet  exactly  in  the  same 
form  as  in  Matthew  (instead  of  "  of  the  Son,"  it  runs 
"  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,"  ApoL,  i.  61).  Another 
thinsr  which,  not  less  than  the  Trinitarian  formula, 
points  to  a  riper  stage  of  the  Church's  consciousness 
is  that  the  promise  of  Christ,  and  the  faith  of  the 
Church,  are  no  longer  primarily  directed,  as  they 
still  are  in  Acts  (i.  11),  to  the  visible  return  of  Christ 
from  heaven,  but  to  an  abiding,  invisible  presence 
with  His  Church  on  earth.  Herein  is  manifested 
the  change  which  was  completed  in  the  course  of  the 
second  century  from  the  apocalyptic  and  eschatological 
frame  of  mind  to  the  expectation  of  an  historical 
permanence  of  the  Church — a  change  which  did  not, 
indeed,  entirely  do  away  with  the  hope  of  the  Parousia, 
but  greatly  weakened  the  interest  in  it,  and  sub- 
ordinated it  to  the  more  practical  interests  of  the 
upbuilding  of  the  Church  to  be  a  worthy  abiding- 
place  for  the  spiritual  presence  of  Christ.^  The 
parallel  offered  by  the  Johannine  Gospel  naturally 
suggests  itself. 

1  According  to  Brandt,  Ev.  Gesch.,  p.  358,  we  are  to  recognise  in 
this  whole  scene  of  the  appearance  in  Matthew  "  nothing  else  than 
an  historical  representation  of  the  sanctioning  of  Church-organisa- 
tion, as  a  foundation  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  authority  of 
this  organisation  and  of  the  Apostolic  succession  of  its  heads." 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MATTHEW 

CHAPTER  XIV 

Origin  and  Characteristics 

Critical  opinion  is  still  sharply  divided  in  its  estimate 
of  this  Gospel.  And  this  is  intelligible  enough.  It  is 
not  without  reason  that  this  Gospel  has  been  described 
as  the  Gospel  of  contradictions.  "  Here  are  elements 
both  of  the  earliest  and  the  latest  date ;  here  are  the 
narrow  and  the  broad,  the  conservative  and  the  re- 
forming, the  legal  and  the  spiritual,  the  Judaean  and 
the  universalist."^  The  character  of  this  Gospel  used 
generally  to  be  described  as  chiefly  Jewish-Christian, 
because  in  the  story  of  Jesus'  life  the  fulfilment  of 
Old  Testament  prophecies  and  types  is  everywhere 
pointed  out.  But  to  prove  the  truth  of  Christianity 
out  of  the  Old  Testament  was  the  standing  practice 
in  the  apologetic  of  the  Church,  without  distinction  of 
party — in  the  Gentile-Christian  writings  of  Clement 
of  Rome  and  Barnabas,  of  Justin,  and  of  the  other 
Apologists,  not  less  than  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew. 
It  is  true  that  this  Gospel  contains  some  really  Jewish- 
Christian  elements,  such  as  the  sayings  about  the 
permanent   validity   of    the   Mosaic    Law   and    the 

1  Carpenter,   The  First   Three  Gospels,  their  Origin  a?id  Relaiion- 
shij},  2nd  ed.,  pp.  337  f. 

378 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS  379 

authority  of  the  Teachers  of  the  Law  (v.  17  f.,  xxiii. 
3,  23),  the  limitation  of  missionary  activity  to  the 
Jewish  people  in  x.  5  f.,  xv.  24,  xvi.  28  ;  the  assump- 
tion of  the  permanence  of  the  Twelve  Tribes  in  the 
new  world  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom  (xix.  28),  and 
of  the  sacrificial  system  and  Temple  worship  in 
V.  23  f.  and  xxiii.  18  f .  ;  finally,  the  description  of 
Jerusalem  as  "  the  holy  city "  and  "  the  city  of  the 
great  King'"  (God)  (iv.  5,  v.  35,  xxvii.  53).  On  the 
other  side  we  have  the  fact  that  it  is  precisely  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew  which  has  the  most  definite 
utterances  regarding  the  rejection  of  Israel  and  the 
transference  of  salvation  to  the  heathen  (viii.  12, 
xxi.  43,  xxiii.  28,  xxiv.  14).  The  destination  of 
Christianity  for  the  whole  world  is  manifested  at  the 
very  beginning  in  the  homage  of  the  wise  men  from 
the  East,  and  is  solemnly  sanctioned  in  the  farewell 
command  of  Christ  to  baptise  all  nations  (xxviii.  19). 
No  doubt,  this  Christian  universalism  has  a  different 
basis  from  that  which  Paul  gives  it,  a  basis  not 
doctrinal  but  ethical ;  it  rests  upon  belief  in  the 
universal  authority  of  the  will  of  God  which  was 
made  known  by  Christ,  and  upon  the  universal 
obligation,  and  enablement,  of  all  men  to  fulfil  it 
by  doing  good,  by  works  of  love  in  which  we  serve 
Christ  Himself,  as  is  shown  in  the  impressive  picture 
of  the  final  Judgment  (xxv.  34  fF.). 

In  its  combination  of  the  most  heterogeneous  ele- 
ments, the  Gospel  of  Matthew  shows  itself  to  be  an 
ecclesiastical  Gospel-harmony  in  which  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  Church,  on  its  way  to  become  the 
universal  world-Church,  has  found  its  classical  ex- 
pression.    The  tendencies  which  were  to   culminate 


380  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

in  the  dogma,  ethics,  and  organisation  of  the 
Church  CathoUc  are  all  visible  in  this  Gospel.  It 
is  ecclesiastical  in  its  baptismal  formula  (xxviii.  19), 
the  germ  of  the  regida  jidei  and  of  the  Apostles' 
Creed.  It  is  ecclesiastical  in  its  doctrine  of  Christ, 
in  which  the  idea  of  the  Son  of  David  and  of  Abraham 
is  harmoniously  combined  with  that  of  the  true,  super- 
naturally  born  Son  of  God,  to  whom  is  given  all  power 
in  heaven  and  in  earth,  who  gives  to  His  people  who 
are  gathered  out  of  all  nations  a  New  Law,  which,  as 
the  perfect  fulfilment  of  the  old  imperfect  Law,  takes 
the  place  of  the  latter  {cf.  the  antitheses  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  JNlount),  who  as  Ruler  of  the  world  shall  in 
the  future  judge  not  only  Israel  but  all  nations,  and 
who  must  therefore  be  endowed  with  the  Divine 
goodness  and  power  without  any  limitation  (xix.  17, 
xiii.  58  ;  cf.  Mark  x.  18,  vi.  5).  It  is  ecclesiastical 
in  its  doctrine  of  salvation :  all  have  access  to  the 
Christian  community,  but  only  those  shall  share  in 
its  salvation  who  adorn  themselves  with  the  wedding- 
garment  of  the  good  works  of  the  saints,  i.e.  who 
keep  the  commandments  of  Christ ;  indeed,  works  of 
love  stand  so  high  in  the  estimation  of  the  Judge  of 
the  world  that  He  even  allows  them,  in  the  case  of 
the  virtuous  heathen,  to  take  the  place  of  faith  as  a 
ground  of  gracious  recognition.  Conversely,  heretics 
are  rejected  by  Him  because  they  do  not  keep  the 
law  of  Christ,  but  cause  offences  and  division,  in 
consequence  of  which  the  love  of  many  grows  cold. 
It  is  ecclesiastical  in  its  ethics,  according  to  which 
fasting  and  prayer  and  almsgiving,  in  so  far  as  they 
are  practised  in  the  right  spirit  and  not  for  display, 
are  works  well-pleasing  to  God,  which  may  count  on 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS  381 

receiving  a  special  reward  from  Him  (vi.  1-6  ;  cf.,  on  • 
the  other  hand,  Mark  ii.  18-22),  and  according  to 
which  the  ascetic  Hfe  in  voluntary  poverty  and 
celibacy  is  already  counted  a  higher  "  perfection " 
'^xix.  21,  12).  It  is  ecclesiastical,  finally,  in  the 
authority  ascribed  to  Peter  as  the  foundation  of  the 
universal  "  Church,"  the  possessor  of  the  power  of 
the  keys,  whose  binding  and  loosing  is  sanctioned 
beforehand  in  heaven.  To  these  main  points  we 
may  add  some  subsidiary  features  :  the  beginnings  of 
the  organisation  of  a  penitential  discipline  (xviii. 
15  ff.),  the  warning  against  making  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel  a  means  of  livelihood  or  source  of  gain 
(x.  9),  the  commendation  of  hospitality  towards 
itinerant  prophets  (x.  41  f),  the  rejection  of  the 
beatitude  upon  the  poor  and  of  the  socialistic  tendency 
of  the  primitive  community ;  ^  finally,  the  notable 
cooling  down  of  the  eschatological  expectations  which 
is  expressed  especially  in  the  closing  saying  about 
the  unseen  presence  of  Christ  in  His  Church.^     If  we 

^  Why^  asks  Brandt  {Ev.  Gesch.,  p.  539),  has  Matthew  omitted  the 
passages  about  the  widow's  mite  and  the  refusal  of  Jesus  to  arbi- 
ti'ate  in  the  dispute  about  an  inheritance  (Luke  xii.  13  ff".)  ?  And 
he  answers  the  question  excellently:  "Matthew  obviously  stood 
nearer  than  Luke  to  the  leaders  of  ecclesiastical  policy,  who  already 
knew  how  to  value  earthly  property  and  did  not  despise  the  office 
of  judge."  This  ecclesiastical  opportiinisvi,  which  makes  compromises 
between  the  abstract  ideal  of  the  enthusiastic  beginnings  and  the 
real  conditions  of  life  in  human  society,  out  of  which  grew  the 
whole  system  of  ecclesiastical  morality,  is  the  unmistakable  sign  of 
a  period  far  removed  from  the  Apostolic  beginnings — of  a  date  later 
still  than  Luke's. 

2  Cf.  Carpenter,  First  Three  Gospels,  p.  369  :  "  But  how  long  a 
time  must  have  elapsed  before  such  an  interpretation  of  the  Church's 
hope  could  have  been  possible,  and  still  more  before  it  could  clothe 
itself  in  symbolic  form." 


382  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

combine  all  these  features  we  have,  trait  for  trait,  the 
picture  of  the  faith  and  life  of  the  Church  in  the  first 
half  of  the  second  century. 

If,  with  the  impression  of  the  ecclesiastical  character 
of  Matthew's  Gospel  which  we  have  gained  from 
studying  its  peculiarities,  we  proceed  to  inquire  into 
its  origin,  we  shall  be  able,  by  the  help  of  this  Ariadne 
thread,  to  find  our  way  more  easily  through  the 
labyrinth  of  ecclesiastical  tradition.  In  the  early 
Church,  Matthew's  Gospel  was  held  to  be  the  work 
of  the  Apostle  Matthew,  who  was  supposed  to  have 
written  it  in  Hebrew.  This  tradition  rests  partly  on 
the  statement  which  Eusebius  records  {H.E.,  iii.  39) 
as  having  been  made  by  Papias,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis, 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  according  to 
which  Matthew  wrote,  in  the  Hebrew  language,  a 
collection  of  the  Sayings  {\6yia,  sc.  of  Jesus),  which 
each  one  then  interpreted  as  best  he  could  ;  partly  on 
the  fact  that,  among  the  Jewish  Christians  of  the 
second  century  and  later,  an  Aramaic  Gospel  was 
in  use,  which  they  ascribed  to  the  Apostle  Matthew 
and  asserted  to  be  the  original  of  the  Church's 
Gospel  of  JNIatthew,  as  Jerome  reports,  not  without 
raising  some  objections  on  his  own  part.  As  regards 
the  statement  of  Papias,  it  has  been  usual,  since 
Schleiermacher,  to  understand  it  as  referring  to  a 
mere  "  collection  of  sayings  "  in  contradistinction  to 
a  Gospel  such  as  our  Matthew ;  but  this  is  certainly 
a  mistake.  Neither  Eusebius  nor  any  other  of  the 
Fathers  understood  the  statement  of  Papias  in  this 
sense— or  indeed  knew  anything  of  the  existence  of 
such  a  collection  of  sayings.  It  is,  moreover,  obvious 
that  in  the  passage  in  question  Papias  only  intended 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS  883 

to  give  his  view  regarding  the  origin  of  the  then  well- 
known  Gospels ;  when  he  spoke  of  the  Xoyia  he  was 
referring  to  the  Gospel  a  parte  potiori,  because  to 
him — he  had  written  an  exposition  of  the  sayings  of 
the  Lord — this  part  of  its  contents  was  the  most 
important ;  in  the  immediately  preceding  statement 
regarding  the  Gospel  of  JNIark,  after  first  describing 
its  contents  more  exactly  as  "  that  which  was  said 
or  done  by  Christ,"  he  subsequently  refers  to  it  under 
the  inclusive  term  "  the  sayings  of  the  Lord  "  {KvpiaKol 
\6yoi).  The  early  Fathers  were  certainly  right  in 
understanding  the  statement  of  Papias  as  meant  to 
describe  the  original  of  the  present  Gospel  of  Matthew 
as  written  in  Hebrew  (Aramaic)  by  the  Apostle 
Matthew.  But  this  tradition  is  inherently  untenable, 
since  it  is  contradicted  by  the  actual  character  of 
our  Gospel  of  Matthew ;  for  this  is  neither  a  unity 
nor  a  direct  translation  from  the  Aramaic,  nor  was 
it  composed  by  an  Apostle.  It  is  worked  up  from 
a  number  of  sources — in  part,  at  least,  from  Greek 
sources — and  by  a  redactor  who  was  certainly  not 
an  Apostle,  but  was  far  removed  both  in  date  and 
sentiment  from  the  Apostolic  age,  as  the  character- 
istics of  the  work  which  we  have  discussed  above 
clearly  indicate.  If,  therefore,  we  wish  to  form  an 
historical  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
this  can  only  be  done — so  far  as,  in  the  obscurity  of 
literary  matters  in  early  Christianity,  it  can  be  done 
at  all — by  means  of  an  investigation  of  its  sources 
which,  in  the  meantime,  leaves  that  tradition  out 
of  account. 

Of  these   sources,    the   most    important   was    the 
Gospel  of  Mark,  as  the   foregoing   analyses  of  the 


384  THE    GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

contents  of  the  two  Gospels  show.  Matthew  follows 
Mark's  general  order  from  beginning  to  end,  and 
where  he  breaks  through  it  in  order  to  insert  new 
material  this  is  always  evidenced  by  gaping  seams, 
by  inconcinnities  and  illogicalities  which  can  only 
be  explained  on  the  hypothesis  of  the  interruption 
of  an  underlying  order,  which  can  be  no  other  than 
that  of  Mark.  The  narratives  and  the  discourses  of 
Mark  have  been  reproduced  by  Matthew  almost 
entire.  The  few  exceptions  can  be  explained,  partly 
from  their  appearing  to  him  too  trivial  (the  young 
man  who  fled  on  the  night  of  the  arrest,  Mark  xiv. 
51  f. ;  the  parable  of  the  Seed  Growing  Secretly,  iv. 
26  ff.,  for  which  he  substitutes  the  parable  of  the 
Tares),  partly  from  his  having  combined  similar 
narratives  into  one  for  the  sake  of  brevity  (the 
tw^o  cures  of  demoniacs,  Mark  i.  21  fF.  and  v.  2  fF., 
are  combined  into  the  cure  of  two  demoniacs  on 
the  same  occasion.  Matt.  viii.  28  fF. ;  the  cure  of  the 
blind  man  at  Bethsaida  and  of  the  deaf-mute,  Mark 
vii.  32  fF,  viii.  22  fF,  give  place  to  the  cures  of 
two  blind  men  and  a  dumb  man,  Matt.  ix.  27-34) ;  in 
some  cases,  from  the  point  of  a  narrative  not  appeal- 
ing to  him  (the  healer  who  "  followed  not  with  us," 
Mark  ix.  38  fF,  where  the  lesson,  verse  40,  "  He  that 
is  not  against  us  is  for  us,"  seemed  to  conflict  with 
the  saying  in  Matt.  xii.  30,  "  He  who  is  not  with 
me  is  against  me " ;  the  passage  about  the  widow's 
mite,  which  raised  difficulties  from  the  practical 
point  of  view,  cf.  sup.,  pp.  361  f.,  381).  The  abbrevi- 
ated form  in  which  Matthew  reproduces  the  narratives 
of  Mark,  omitting  the  graphic  details,  constantly 
betrays  the  secondary   character  of  his  description. 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS  385 

A  similar  impression  as  regards  relative  priority, 
though  on  different  grounds,  is  made  by  a  com- 
parison between  the  records  of  discourses  in  the 
two  Gospels.  We  may  recall,  for  example,  the 
defence  against  the  accusation  of  being  in  league 
with  Beelzebub  (Mark  iii.  23  ff.  =  Matt.  xii.  25  ff.) ; 
the  charge  to  the  Twelve,  which  in  Mark  vi.  7  ff. 
is  as  brief  and  as  appropriate  to  the  occasion  as  in 
Matt.  X.  it  is  overladen  with  material  not  appropriate 
to  the  situation ;  in  particular,  the  parable-discourse, 
in  which  Matthew  first  reproduces  the  three  parables 
of  Mark,  expanding  the  second  into  the  parable  of 
the  Tares,  while  after  the  third  he  adds  the  parable 
of  the  leaven  and  the  reflection  with  which  Mark 
closes  the  whole  (Mark  iv.  33  f.  =  Matt.  xiii.  34),  but 
then  immediately  proceeds  to  give,  in  addition  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  parable  of  the  Tares,  the 
three  further  parables  of  the  Hidden  Treasure,  the 
Pearl  of  Great  Price,  and  the  Draw-net,  and  finally 
concludes  with  a  second  closing  reflection  of  his 
own  minting  (xiii.  51  ff).  For  the  rest,  I  may  refer 
to  the  above  analyses  of  the  contents  of  the  two 
Gospels,  from  which  every  unprejudiced  reader 
must  draw  the  general  impression  that  the  priority 
is  on  the  side  of  Mark,  the  dependence  on  the  side 
of  IVIatthew.  This  general  impression  cannot  be 
removed  even  by  the  individual  exceptions  in  the 
case  of  a  few  sayings,  which  should  not,  however, 
be  overlooked.  Among  these  is  perhaps  to  be 
reckoned  (Mark  vii.  27),  "  Let  the  children  Ji7^st  be 
satisfied,"  which  sounds  like  a  softening  of  the 
harsher  saying  in  Matt.  xv.  24    and    26 ;   and   here 

belongs  certainly  Mark  x.  12,  where  the  prohibition 
VOL.  II  25 


386  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

of  the  divorce  of  the  husband  by  the  wife  is  not 
original,  but  is  introduced  by  Mark  in  view  of 
the  circumstances  of  the  Roman  world,  for  the 
Jewish  marriage-laws  gave  no  occasion  for  such  a 
prohibition.  Further,  we  have  seen  above  that  in 
the  apocalyptic  discourse  the  version  of  Matt.  xxiv. 
15  ff.  shows  numerous  traces  of  greater  antiquity 
than  the  parallels  in  Mark  xiii.  14  fF.  ;  but,  as  we 
remarked  above,  no  argument  for  the  higher 
antiquity  of  the  whole  canonical  Matthew  can  be 
drawn  from  these  archaisms— the  only  conclusion 
which  can  be  drawn  from  them  is  that  even  Mark 
has  a  pre-canonical  Gospel-source,  to  which  Matthew 
also  had  access,  and  which  in  certain  cases  the  latter 
reproduced  more  exactly  than  the  former. 

Matthew  therefore,  like  Luke,  has  used  the  Gospel 
of  Mark  as  the  ground-plan  of  his  own  work  ;  but 
he  has  enriched  it,  as  Luke  has  also  done,  by  the 
addition  of  much  new  material,  which  is  for  the  most 
part  parallel  to  the  new  material  in  Luke,  and  has 
the  closest  affinity  with  it  as  regards  subject-matter. 
But  the  material  has  been  worked  up  in  a  different 
way  in  the  two  cases.  While  Luke  has  gathered 
together  his  additions — apart  from  his  prologue  and 
epilogue — chiefly  into  two  great  interpolations  (vi. 
20-vhi.  3  and  ix.  51-xviii.  4),  within  which  he  has 
placed  the  different  sections  in  the  loose  connection  in 
which  he  found  them  in  his  source,  often  inserting  a 
particular  occasion  or  situation  as  the  frame  for  the 
individual  sayings  or  discourses,  Matthew,  on  the  other 
hand,  has  distributed  his  new  material  over  the  whole 
extent  of  Mark's  Gospel,  and  has  gathered  together 
the  individual  sayings,  according  to  their  connection 


ORIGIN    AND   CHARACTERISTICS         387 

of  subject,  into  long  discourses,  which  he  inserts 
wherever  there  is  an  appropriate  place  in  the  Gospel 
history,  namely,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (v.-vii.), 
the  charge  to  the  Twelve  (x.),  the  parable-discourse 
(xiii.),  the  discourse  on  the  mutual  relations  of  the 
members  of  the  Christian  community  (xviii.),  the 
polemic  against  the  Pharisees  (xxiii.),  the  apocalyptic 
discourse  (xxiv.),  and  the  eschatological  exhortation 
in  XXV.  In  almost  every  case  he  has  marked  the 
interpolation  of  these  seven  great  discourses  into  the 
Marcan  text  by  the  closing  words,  "  When  Jesus  had 
finished  these  sayings  (vii.  28,  xi.  1,  xiii.  51,  xix.  1, 
xxvi.  1).  It  is  obviously  very  improbable  that  Luke, 
if  he  had  had  before  him  these  long  discourses  of 
Matthew,  would  have  broken  them  up  into  fragments 
and  redistributed  them — much  more  improbable  than 
the  converse,  that  Matthew  has  collected  into  his 
great  groups  of  discourses,  sayings  of  Jesus  which 
in  the  tradition  had  no  close  connection.  As  regards 
their  subject-matter,  too,  the  shorter  discourses  and 
the  sayings  attached  to  definite  occasions  in  Luke 
have  been  found  in  the  foregoing  analysis  to  be 
more  original  in  form  and  arrangement  than  the 
elaborate  discourses  of  Matthew — recall,  for  example, 
Luke's  Sermon  on  the  Plain  (vi.  20  fF.),  compared 
with  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  of  Matt,  v.-vii., 
or  the  missionary  discourse  in  Matt,  x.,  where  he 
represents  as  spoken  at  the  sending  forth  of  the 
Twelve  all  that  Luke  distributes  between  this  and 
the  sending  forth  of  the  Seventy,  much  of  which  is 
inappropriate  to  the  occasion  of  the  first  mission  in 
Galilee.  There  are  comparatively  few  cases  in  which 
a  saying  or  a  parable  appears  to  be  in  a  more  original 


388  THE   GOSPEL   OF   MATTHEW 

form  as  compared  with  the  Lucan  parallel.  Among 
these  should  perhaps  be  reckoned  the  saying  about 
the  inner  hght  in  Matt.  vi.  22  =  Luke  xi.  84  f. ;  the 
lament  over  Jerusalem  (Matt,  xxiii.  37  f.)  in  a  more 
appropriate  context  than  Luke  xiii.  34  f.  ;  the  dis- 
course about  the  Parousia  (Matt.  xxiv.  15  fF.)  com- 
pared with  Luke's  direct  allusion  to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  in  xxi.  20  ;  the  parable  of  the  Talents 
(Matt.  XXV.  14  fF.)  compared  with  Luke  xix.  12  fF., 
where  the  eschatological  interpolation  disturbs  the 
story  as  much  as  the  Matthasan  extension  of  the 
parable  of  the  Invited  Guests. 

Not  all  the  additional  material,  however,  which 
Matthew  has  as  compared  with  Mark  is  found  also 
in  Luke,  any  more  than  all  the  additional  material 
of  Luke  is  found  in  Matthew.  Each  has  a  not 
inconsiderable  number  of  narratives  and  discourses 
which  are  peculiar  to  him  alone.  We  may  briefly 
collect  what  is  peculiar  to  each  of  the  two  Evangelists. 

(1)  Matthew:— 

The  earlier  history,  chapters  i.  and  ii.,  which  is 
parallel  with  Luke's  but  quite  different  from  it.  The 
justification  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  by  John,  iii,  14  fF. 
The  transformation  and  expansion  of  the  Beatitudes, 
V.  3-9  (instead  of  the  woes  against  the  rich  in 
Luke).  The  giving  of  the  New  Law,  v.  17  fF. 
The  warning  against  profaning  that  which  is  holy, 
vii.  6.  The  warning  against  false  prophets  and 
heretical  teacheis,  vii.  15,  21  f  The  prohibition  of 
preaching  to  the  Gentiles,  x.  5  f.  Prohibition  of 
making  gain  by  preaching,  x.  8  f  The  command, 
when  persecuted  in  one  city  to  flee  unto  another,  and 
the  promise  that  the  Son  of  Man  should  come  before 


ORIGIN    AND   CHARACTERISTICS         389 

the  mission  to  the  Jews  was  completed,  x.  23.  The 
Saviour's  invitation,  xi.  28  fF.  The  sign  of  Jonah 
interpreted  as  a  reference  to  the  resurrection,  xii.  40. 
The  pecuhar  saying  regarding  the  Sabbath,  and 
quotation  from  Hosea,  in  xii.  5  if.  The  parables  of 
the  Tares,  Hidden  Treasure,  Pearl,  and  Draw-net, 
xiii.  The  saying  about  the  Scribe  "  instructed  unto 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  xiii.  51.  The  bringing  of 
the  news  of  John  the  Baptist's  death  by  his  disciples, 
xiv.  12.  Peter's  walking  on  the  sea  and  sinking,  xiv. 
32  ;  and,  in  the  same  passage,  the  first  confession  of 
Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  by  the  disciples.  The  anti- 
Pharisaic  saying  about  the  plants  that  must  be  rooted 
out,  XV.  13.  The  exaltation  of  Peter,  xvi.  17  ff. 
The  miracle  of  the  stater  in  the  fish's  mouth,  xvii. 
24  ff.  Rules  for  Church  discipline,  xxiii.  15  fF. 
Parable  of  the  Unmerciful  Servant,  xviii.  23  ff. 
Saying  about  that  which  is  good  and  Him  who  is 
good,  xix.  17.  Counsels  of  evangelical  perfection, 
xix.  12,  21.  Parable  of  the  Labourers  in  the 
Vineyard,  xx.  1  fF.  Healings,  and  acclamations  of 
the  children,  in  the  Temple,  xxi.  14  fF.  Parable  of 
the  Two  Sons,  xxi.  28  fF.  Prediction  of  offences  and 
apostasy  caused  by  false  prophets,  xxi  v.  10  fF. 
Parable  of  the  Foolish  Virgins,  and  picture  of  the 
Last  Judgment,  xxv.  Suicide  of  Judas,  xxvii.  3. 
Dream  of  Pilate's  wife,  and  Pilate's  hand-washing, 
xxvii.  19  f.  Miracles  at  and  after  the  death  of  Jesus, 
xxvii.  21  f.  The  guard  set  over  the  sepulchre,  xxvii. 
62  ff,  xxviii.  11  ff  The  opening  of  the  grave  by  the 
angel,  xxviii.  2  f.  Appearance  of  Jesus  to  the  two 
Maries,  xxviii.  9  f.  The  parting  command  of  Christ 
to  the  eleven,  xxviii.  18  f. 


390  THE   GOSPEL   OF    MATTHEW 

(2)  Matter  peculiar  to  Luke  :  — 

The  stories  of  the  Childhood,  and  the  genealogy. 
The  moral  precepts  of  the  Baptist,  iii.  10  fF.  Peculiar 
form  of  the  Nazareth  sermon,  iv.  17  fF.  Peter's 
draught  of  fishes,  v.  4  fF.  Woes  against  the  rich, 
vi.  24  fF.  Raising  of  the  widow's  son  at  Nain,  vii. 
11  fF.  Anointing  by  the  penitent  woman,  vii.  36  fF. 
Names  of  the  women  who  ministered  to  Jesus,  viii. 
1  fF.  Inhospitality  of  the  Samaritan  village  and 
fiery  zeal  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  ix.  51  fF.  Mission 
of  the  Seventy,  x.  1  fF.  Report  of  their  success,  and 
Jesus'  answer,  x.  17  fF.  Parable  of  the  Good 
Samaritan,  x.  30  fF.  The  incident  of  Martha  and 
Mary,  x.  38  fF.  Parables  inculcating  persistent 
prayer,  xi.  5  fF.,  xviii.  1  f.  Pious  enthusiasm  and 
pious  action,  xi.  27  f.  Refusal  to  arbitrate  in  a 
question  of  inheritance,  and  parable  of  the  Rich  Fool, 
xii.  13  fF  Parables  of  the  reward  of  watchful  and 
loyal  servants,  xii.  35  fF,  42  fF  Warning  against  self- 
satisfaction,  and  parable  of  the  Barren  Fig-tree,  xiii. 
1-9,  25  fF  Two  cures  upon  the  Sabbath,  xiii.  10  fF. 
and  xiv.  1  fF.  Jesus  warned  against  Herod,  xiii.  31  fF. 
Discourse  at  the  feast  in  the  Pharisee's  house,  xiv.  7  fF. 
Parables  about  building  a  tower  and  commencing  a 
campaign,  xiv.  28  fF. ;  the  Lost  Piece  of  Silver  and 
the  Prodigal  Son,  xv.  8  fF,  12  fF. ;  the  Unjust  Steward, 
xvi.  1  fF. ;  Dives  and  Lazarus,  xvi.  19  fF.  Saying 
about  fulfilment  of  duty  without  claiming  reward, 
xvii.  7  fF.  Healing  of  the  ten  lepers,  xvii.  12  fF. 
The  unperceived  coming  of  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
xvii.  20  f.  Parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican, 
xviii.  9  fF.  Visit  to  the  house  of  Zacchgeus,  xix.  1  fF. 
Jesus  weeps  over  Jerusalem,  xix.  41  fF.     Sayings  at 


ORIGIN    AND   CHARACTERISTICS         391 

the  Last  Supper,  xxii.  15  f.,  28-32,  35-38.  Appearance 
of  the  angel  in  Gethsemane,  xxii.  43.  Trial  before 
Herod,  xxiii.  7  fF.  Sayings  on  the  way  to  Golgotha, 
xxiii.  27  ff.  The  words  from  the  cross,  xxiii.  34, 
40-43,  46.  Appearance  to  the  disciples  on  the  way  to 
Emmaus,  xxiv.  13  fF.,  and  to  the  eleven  at  Jerusalem, 
xxiv.  36  fF. 

How  are  we  to  explain  the  fact  that  alongside  of 
so  much  that  is  common  to  both  in  the  non-Marcan 
matter  there  is  so  much  that  is  peculiar  to  each  ? 
It  is  hardly  compatible  with  the  use  of  one  by  the 
other.  Least  of  all  can  we  think  of  a  use  of  JNIatthew 
by  Luke.  There  is  not  one  word  in  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  which  indicates  dependence  upon  Matthew  ;  in 
the  parts  common  to  both,  the  greater  originality  is 
almost  always  on  the  side  of  Luke,  and  even  the 
proportionately  rare  exceptions  can  be  explained  by 
the  independent,  and  in  some  cases  less  felicitous, 
handling  of  the  source  material  by  Luke,  without 
any  reference  to  JNIatthew.  Moreover,  an  acquaint- 
ance with  our  Gospel  of  JNIatthew  on  the  part  of  the 
author  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  is  excluded  by  his 
preface,  which  implies  that  among  his  many  pre- 
decessors there  had  been  no  Apostle  or  eye-witness  : 
all  of  them  had  received  their  knowledge  at  second- 
hand. That  is  incontestable  evidence  of  the  fact  that 
at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  when  Luke 
wrote  his  Gospel,  nothing  was  known  of  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew,  any  more  than  of  that  of  John.  In  face 
of  this  authentic  evidence,  the  legends  of  Church 
tradition  regarding  the  Apostolic  authorship  of  these 
Gospels  have  no  claims  to  consideration.  It  would 
be  much  easier  to  think  of  Matthew's  having  used 


392  THE   GOSPEL   OF  MATTHEW 

I.iike  than  of  Luke's  having  used  Matthew.  I  can, 
however,  leave  this  question  open  the  less  reluctantly 
because  in  any  case  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  could  not 
be  explained  as  derived  solely  from  Luke  and  JNIark. 
The  differences  between  JNIatthew  and  Luke  in  their 
common  material,  and  especially  in  the  matter 
peculiar  to  each,  are  much  too  considerable  for  that. 
There  remains,  therefore,  no  alternative  but  to  assume 
another  source  besides  Mark  which  was  common  to 
both. 

What  has  been  said  above  regarding  this  source  in 
our  discussion  of  Luke's  Gospel  (p.  284  f.)  receives 
confirmation  here,  since  the  relation  of  JNIatthew  to 
Luke  can  be  most  simply  explained  by  means  of  the 
hypothesis  that  both  have  used,  besides  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  one  or  more  of  the  Greek  translations  and 
redactions  of  the  primitive  Aramaic  Gospel,  while 
each  has  also  used  other  sources  in  addition.  From 
the  original  Aramaic  Gospel,  Mark,  as  we  have  found 
it  to  be  probable,  compiled  his  Greek  Gospel,  which 
accordingly  betrays  in  its  strongly  Semitic  style  the 
most  direct  dependence  on  an  Aramaic  source.  After 
him,  many  others  (Luke  i.  1)  tried  their  hands  at  the 
translating  and  working  up  of  this  material,  and  by 
using  their  preparatory  work  Luke  supplemented 
INIark  and  at  the  same  time  smoothed  the  latter 's 
language  into  a  more  readable  Greek,  everywhere 
taking  into  account,  as  regards  the  subject-matter 
also,  the  interests  and  needs  of  his  Greek  readers. 
Meanwhile  the  use  of  these  Gospels  was  confined  to 
the  Gentile-Christian  churches  of  the  West,  while  the 
Palestinian  and  Syrian  churches  continued  to  hold  to 
the  original  Aramaic  Gospel,  expanding  it,  however, 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS         393 

by  the  addition  of  legendary  narratives  or  of  discourses 
of  Jesus  drawn  from  the  oral  tradition  current  among 
them.  Then,  as  these  Jewish-Christian  supplements 
to  the  original  Gospel  were  translated  for  the  use  of 
the  Greek-speaking  Jewish  Christians  of  Asia  and 
Egypt,  there  arose  that  apocryphal  Gospel  literature 
which,  according  to  the  evidence  of  the  Fathers, 
was  widely  circulated  and  used  in  the  West  during 
the  second  century  under  the  titles  Gospel  of 
the  Hebrews,  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites,  Gospel  of 
the  Egyptians,  Gospel  of  Peter.  The  more  the 
breach  was  widened,  however,  between  the  Jewish- 
Christian  Gospel-making  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
Gentile-Christian  (Mark  and  Luke)  on  the  other, 
the  more  pressing  became  the  need  in  the  Church, 
which  was  now  drawing  together  into  a  unity,  for  a 
harmonising  Gospel  which  should  lead  the  two 
streams  of  evangelical  tradition,  which  had  hitherto 
followed  separate  courses,  into  a  common  channel, 
and  should  take  from  each  what  was  best,  that  is  to 
say,  what  was  most  useful  to  the  Church,  and  omit 
what  was  less  important  or  less  useful. 

Out  of  this  need  for  an  ecclesiastical  combination 
of  the  Gospel-making  activities  which  had  hitherto 
taken  different  directions  among  the  Gentile  and 
Jewish  Christians,  there  finally  arose  our  Gospel  of 
Matthew.  To  this  is  due  its  constant  vacillation 
from  one  side  to  the  other,  even  to  the  very  style, 
which  is  less  Greek  than  Luke  and  less  Semitic  than 
Mark,  while  of  its  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament 
some  follow  the  LXX  and  some  the  original  Hebrew. 
To  this  is  due  also,  in  its  subject-matter,  its  affinity 
with   Mark  and  Luke  in  the   most  outspoken  uni- 


394  THE   GOSPEL   OF  MATTHEW 

versalism,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  with  the  Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews  in  its  ingenuous  preservation  of  many 
conservative  traits  of  legaUsm  and  particularism 
which  were  found  in  the  latter,  and  also  of  many- 
legends  of  obviously  Jewish  origin.  For  this  very 
reason — because,  namely,  it  was  specially  adapted  to 
meet  the  general  needs  of  the  Church — it  naturally 
became  at  once  the  favourite  Gospel  of  the  Church. 
Here  the  Church  found  what  belonged  to  each  of  its 
separate  tendencies  united  in  one,  their  inconvenient 
extravagances  skilfully  removed ;  in  particular,  the 
stormy  and  revolutionary  character  of  early  Christian 
enthusiasm  and  socialism  was  moderated  to  the  proper 
mean  of  ecclesiastical  practicability,  in  such  a  way 
that  it  no  longer  presented  itself  as  a  danger  to 
the  position  of  an  organised  Church  which  was  now 
coming  into  amicable  relations  with  ordinary  social 
life.  In  this  way  is  to  be  explained  the  combination 
in  this  Gospel  of  the  earliest  with  the  latest,  of 
narrow  with  broad,  of  legal  and  spiritual,  of  Jewish 
and  universalistic  ;  it  has  not,  in  fact,  been  composed 
as  a  unity  by  a  single  author ;  many  different  hands, 
nay,  many  generations  of  early  Christianity,  have 
laboured  at  it ;  it  has  grown  out  of  the  primitive 
Gospel  by  a  very  complicated  process  of  transforma- 
tion, expansion,  modification,  and  combination ;  it 
has  grown  up  with  and  out  of  the  Church.  When 
and  whence  it  acquired  the  title  "  According  to 
Matthew "  we  do  not  know.  It  is  possible  that  the 
Aramaic  Gospel  had  already  been  brought  into 
some  kind  of  connection  with  the  Apostle  of  this 
name,  and  that  this  was  the  basis  of  the  claim  which 
Jerome  mentions  as  being  made  by  the  Palestinian 


ORIGIN   AND   CHARACTERISTICS  395 

Jewish-Christians  that  their  "  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews "  was  the  original  of  the  canonical 
JNIatthew/  If  this  were  the  case,  an  ecclesiastical 
Gospel  which  combined  the  Jewish-Christian  Gospel 
tradition  of  the  East  with  the  Gentile-Christian 
Gospel  tradition  of  the  West  into  a  single  whole 
might  be  called  the  "  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  " 
with  as  good  right  as  the  third  Gospel  was  called 
by  Luke's  name  because  the  author  had  used  Lucan 
traditions  as  sources.  But  it  is  also  possible  that, 
without  any  historical  ground,  the  Church,  which, 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  time,  wanted  an 
Apostolical  authority  for  the  harmonising  presenta- 
tion of  the  Gospel  story  which  had  only  come  to 
maturity  comparatively  late,  affixed  the  name  of 
Matthew  as  that  of  the  Apostle  who,  from  his 
previous  occupation  as  a  tax-collector,  might  be  con- 
sidered the  most  likely  to  be  skilful  with  the  pen. 
The  earliest  mention  of  the  Gospel  under  his  name 
occurs  in  the  statement  of  Papias  discussed  above, 
which  dates  from  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
The  earliest  "  quotations "  (Ignatius,  Justin)  are  so 
inexact  that  it  is  impossible  to  tell  whether  they 
were  taken  from  the  canonical  Matthew  itself  or 
from  some  apocryphal  Gospel  which  preceded  it  or 
circulated  alongside  of  it.  The  latter  is  the  more 
probable. 

^  That  it  was  not  really  so,  but  a  collateral  branch  from  the 
parent  stem  of  the  original  Aramaic  Gospel^  will  be  shown 
later. 


THE  PREACHING  OF  JESUS  AND  THE  FAITH  OF 
THE  FIRST  DISCIPLES 


CHAPTER  XV 

The  Proclamation  of  the  Approaching 
Reign  of  God 

According  to  Mark  i.  15,  Jesus  began  His  ministry 
with  the  proclamation,  "The  time  is  fulfilled,  the 
kingdom  [reign]  of  God  is  at  hand ;  repent  ye,  and 
believe  the  gospel."  The  content  of  His  preaching  is 
still  more  simply  summarised  in  Matthew  (iv.  17) : 
"  Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens  is  at  hand." 
This  expression,  which  Matthew  uses  almost  uni- 
formly instead  of  the  "  kingdom  of  God "  which  is 
customary  elsewhere,  has  in  essence  exactly  the  same 
signification  ;  it  is  the  literal  translation  of  the  Jewish 
expression  Malkuth  Shamayim  (Heb.)  or  Malkutha 
Dishmaya  (Aram.),  in  which  "Heaven"  is  only  the 
then  customary  paraphrase  for  the  name  "God."^ 
By  this  is  meant,  not  a  territory  which  has  its  locality 
or  origin  in  heaven,  but  a  "  reign "  of  God  who 
dwells  in  heaven — the  rule  which  He,  exalted  above 

1  As  the  chief  experts  in  JeAvish  theology,  Dalman  ( Worte  Jesii, 
pp.  15  fF.  =  E.T.  91  ff.)  and  Schiirer  (NTliche  Zeitgeschichte,  ii.  453  f. 
=  E.T.  ii.  2.  170),  are  agreed  in  this  interpretation,  it  is  to  be 
preferred  to  the  local  interpretation,  which  is  also  possible,  "the 
Kingdom  which  is  coming  from  heaven." 

396 


THE   APPROACHING   REIGN    OF   GOD       S97 

the  world,  exercises  over  the  world,  and  which  His 
saints  are  to  experience  in  a  corresponding  condition 
of  happiness.  As  modern  ideas  are  apt  to  associate 
themselves  with  the  words  "  Kingdom  of  God  "  and 
confuse  its  original  sense,  it  seems  advisable  to  use 
instead  the  more  exact  rendering  "  Reign  of  God  " 
( Gottesherrschqft). 

If  the  traditional  opinion  were  correct,  that  Jesus 
meant  by  the  Kingdom  of  God,  of  which  He  pro- 
claimed the  approach,  something  entirely  different 
from  that  which  was  understood  by  the  Jews  of  His 
time,  it  would  be  natural  to  expect  that  He  would 
explain  exactly  the  nev/  sense  which  He  was  giving 
to  the  old  name,  in  order  to  obviate  any  misunder- 
standing of  the  meaning  of  His  proclamation  that  the 
expected  Kingdom  was  at  hand.  But  neither  Jesus 
nor  John  the  Baptist,  who  already  before  Him  had 
made  the  same  proclamation  (Matt.  iii.  2),  found  it 
necessary  to  give  such  a  definition,  explanation,  or 
correction  of  the  meaning  of  the  Reign  of  God.  We 
have  therefore  no  right  to  assume  that  they  attached 
to  the  term  a  different  connotation  from  that  which 
was  generally  current  among  their  nation.  That 
Jahweh  was  the  King  of  Israel  is  one  of  the  oldest 
ideas  of  the  Israelitish  religion;  for  it  was  based  upon 
the  belief  that  Israel  was  the  people  of  Jahweh,  and 
Jahweh  the  God  and  King  of  Israel.  In  pre-Exilic 
times  the  exercise  of  this  Divine  Kingship  was  seen 
in  the  earthly  rule  of  the  Davidic  kings,  who,  as  the 
instruments  of  the  Divine  King,  are  called  His  "sons" 
(2  Sam.  vii.,  Ps.  ii.,  etc.).  The  well-being  of  the 
nation,  its  power  in  the  world  and  its  happy  internal 
condition,  such  as  obtained  under  the  rule  of  David, 


398  THE    PREACHING    OF  JESUS 

seemed  to  later  times  to  represent  the  realised  ideal 
of  the  Reign  of  God  in  Israel.  As  later  times 
always  fell  more  or  less  short  of  this  ideal,  the  prophets 
hoped  for  a  better  future,  in  which  such  a  condition 
of  Israel  as  seemed  to  be  demanded  by  the  idea  of 
the  Reign  of  God  should  come  to  realisation.  And 
so  long  as  the  Davidic  kingdom  still  stood,  the 
realisation  of  the  full  ideal  of  the  Reign  of  God 
might  be  conceived  as  about  to  be  effected  in  the 
historical  course  of  events,  by  a  favourable  turn  of 
political  affairs  under  the  Divine  guidance.  Things 
were  changed,  however,  in  post-Exilic  times,  when 
the  Jewish  state  passed  from  the  domination  of  one 
foreign  power  to  that  of  another,  and  still  more  so 
when  the  heathen  power  began  to  lay  hands  upon 
the  most  sacred  possession  of  the  Jewish  people — its 
religion.  From  that  time  forward  the  actual  state  of 
things  appeared  to  a  seer  like  the  author  of  the  Book 
of  Daniel  so  full  of  gloom  that  he  could  see  in  it 
only  the  direct  opposite  of  the  Reign  of  God — only 
the  increasing  hostility  of  the  world-powers  against 
God  and  His  Kingdom.  The  Reign  of  God  seemed 
to  have  withdrawn  itself  more  or  less  completely  into 
heaven,  and  to  have  abandoned  the  world  to  the 
hostile  powers.  But  only  until  a  fixed  and  not  very 
distant  period  ;  then,  so  it  was  hoped,  the  present 
godless  era  would  come  to  an  end,  and  a  new  era 
would  be  miraculously  introduced  by  God ;  the 
world-powers  would  fall,  and  the  Reign  of  God 
would  be  made  manifest  from  heaven,  represented 
by  the  victorious  rule  of  "the  saints  of  the  Most 
High,"  i.e.  the  Jews.  This  expectation — resting  on 
a  pessimistic  estimate  of  the  present  and  a  dualistic 


THE   APPROACHING   REIGN   OF   GOD     399 

background^ — of  a  sudden  introduction  of  the  Reign 
of  God  by  a  miraculous  catastrophe  which  should 
bring  to  an  end  the  present  world-era  (ason)  and 
open  a  new  one,  remained  thenceforward  the  ruling 
temper  and  attitude  of  mind  in  the  apocalyptic 
circles  of  Judaism.  It  was  no  longer  from  the 
world,  and  from  the  natural  development  of  events, 
but  only  as  a  miracle  of  Omnipotence,  issuing 
from  above,  that  the  promised  deliverance  from  the 
present  utterly  corrupt  condition  of  things  could  be 
hoped  for.  Thus,  for  example,  the  Aramaic  prayer 
of  Kaddish,  which  goes  back  to  a  remote  period, 
closes  with  the  words,  "  Exalted  and  glorified  be 
His  great  name  in  the  world  which  He  has  made 
according  to  His  will.  JVIay  He  establish  His  king- 
ship (and  may  His  salvation  put  forth  its  blossom, 
and  may  His  Messiah  come  near  and  deliver  His 
people)  in  your  lifetimes  and  in  the  lifetime  of  the 
whole  house  of  Israel,  speedily  and  soon!"  The 
bracketed  words  are  a  later  addition,  but  give  a  quite 
correct  explanation  of  the  sense  which  the  author  of 
the  prayer  attached  to  the  establishment  of  the  King- 
dom of  God,  the  redemption  of  Israel  by  the  coming 
Messiah.  In  the  "  Midrash  "  on  the  Song  of  Solomon 
(ii.  12)  we  have  the  words,  "  The  time  is  at  hand  for 
the  Reign  of  God  to  be  manifested  "  ;  and  it  is  to  take 

1  Wellhausen  and  J.  Weiss  have  rightly  indicated  the  dualism  of 
the  Iranian  religion  as  at  least  a  contributory  factor  in  throwing 
the  apocalyptic  hopes,  since  the  time  of  Daniel,  into  a  transcen- 
dental form.  According  to  Dalman  also  [JVorte  Jesii,  p.  124  — E.T. 
1 52),  the  conception  of  the  "  age  "  =  aeon  was  introduced  into  Jewish 
thinking  from  Greek  thought  either  directly  or  through  the  inter- 
mediacy  of  the  Syrians ;  but  the  sharp  antithesis  of  the  future  and 
the  present  aeon  is  not  of  Greek  but  of  Persian  origin. 


400  THE   PREACHING    OF  JESUS 

the  place  of  the  "  Reign  of  Iniquity  "  (the  world-power 
which  is  hostile  to  God),  which  is  destined  to  destruc- 
tion. Especially  instructive  is  the  apocalypse  known 
as  the  Assumption  of  Moses,  which  probably  origi- 
nated shortly  before  our  era,^  where,  in  chapter  x.,  it  is 
said :  "  Then  shall  His  [God's]  rule  appear  over  all 
His  creatures,  then  shall  the  Devil  be  no  more,  and 
with  him  shall  misery  come  to  an  end.  The  Heavenly 
One  shall  rise  up  from  His  throne  and  go  forth  from 
His  holy  dwelling  in  indignation  and  wrath  because 
of  His  children.  The  Highest,  the  alone  eternal  God, 
shall  visibly  come  forth  in  order  to  punish  the  heathen 
and  destroy  all  their  idols.  Then  shalt  thou  be  happy, 
O  Israel,  and  mount  up  on  eagles'  wings  and  look 
down  upon  thine  enemies  upon  the  earth."  The  con- 
ception of  the  seer  appears  to  be  that,  up  to  the 
present,  the  Devil  reigns  upon  earth  and  ill-treats  the 
children  of  God,  i.e.  the  Jews,  but  that  in  the  im- 
mediate future,  God,  incensed  at  this,  shall  rise  up 
out  of  His  calm,  come  forth  in  His  might,  seize  the 
reins  of  power,  make  an  end  of  the  Devil,  punish  the 
heathen,  and  exalt  Israel  to  victory  and  happiness. 
This  was  the  hope  cherished  at  the  time  of  the  birth 
of  Jesus  in  the  circles  of  the  "  quiet  in  the  land,"  who 
belonged  neither  to  the  Pharisaic  party  nor  to  the 
sect  of  the  Essenes,  but  shared  with  the  former  their 
ardent  Messianic  hopes,  and  with  the  latter  the  in- 
wardness of  a  pure  and  world-renouncing  morality, 
who  hoped  not  merely  for  the  deliverance  of  Israel 
from  external  enemies,  but  also  for  the  deliverance  of 
the  pious  poor  from  the  yoke   of  those   proud   and 

^  According  to  Clemen,  in  Kautzsch's  Pseudepigraphien  des  Alten 
Testaments. 


THE    APPROACHING    REIGN   OF   GOD     401 

"  ungodly  "  men  who,  under  the  cloak  of  an  outward 
(legal)  righteousness,  gave  themselves  up  to  avarice, 
self-indulgence,  and  contentiousness.^ 

Now  if,  as  we  may  with  the  greatest  probability 
assume,  it  was  just  from  this  section  of  the  Judaism 
of  the  time  that  both  Jesus  and  John  the  Baptist 
sprang,  everything  suggests  that  they  both  shared  the 
view  which  was  cherished  in  those  circles  regarding 
the  Reign  of  God  which  should  bring  deliverance. 
And  this  supposition  finds  an  unmistakable  con- 
firmation in  the  testimony  of  our  Gospels,  which 
prove  that  '^'for  Jesus  the  Reign  of  God  is  ahvays 
an  eschatological  conception,  and  can  only  be  spoken 
of  as  present  because  the  end  is  already  drawing 
near"  (Dalman).  If  that  is  overlooked,  and  what 
was  eschatological,  apocalyptic,  catastrophic,  in  Jesus' 
expectation  of  the  Kingdom  is  subordinated  to  our 
modern  ethical,  evolutionary,  philosophic  conception 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  the  inevitable  consequence 
is  that  the  heroic  enthusiasm  of  Jesus,  which  had  its 
roots  in  these  apocalyptic  expectations,  which  inspired 
His  actions,  and  which  was  the  cause  of  His  sufferings 
as  well  as  of  His  successes,  fails  to  be  understood,  and 
what  is  most  characteristic  in  His  mighty  appear- 
ance on  the  field  of  history  is  painted  over  with  an 
ideal  picture  of  universal  humanity  until  it  becomes 

1  Cf.  the  polemic  in  Assumption  of  Moses  vii.  with  the  complaints 
in  Enoch  xciv.-civ.,  and  with  both  Luke  i.  51  fF.,  vi.  20-26,  and 
Matt,  xxiii.  An  interesting,  if  perhaps  rather  idealised,  picture  of 
these  '■'  quiet  in  the  land "  has  been  drawn  by  Cremer  (Paulin. 
Rechtfertigungslehre,  pp.  14.0-159).  But  I  can  scarcely  admit  that 
the  antithesis  which  he  there  constructs  between  their  attitude 
and  that  of  the  apocryphal  and  apocalyptic  literature  of  the  Judaism 
of  the  time  is  justified. 

VOL.  II  26 


402  THE    PREACHIiNG    OF   JESUS 

unrecognisable.  Examples  of  this  are  found  every- 
wliere  in  the  "  Life  of  Jesus "  literature ;  for  the 
last  decade,  however,  a  wholesome  reaction  has  set  in 
in  the  direction  of  a  strictly  historical  conception, 
which  has,  however,  not  yet  been  carried  to  its  logical 
issue.^ 

In  face  of  rationalising  attempts  to  emphasise 
occasional  sayings  of  Jesus  which  seem  to  indicate  the 
actual  presence  of  the  Kingdom  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  it  appear  that  this  was  the  real  meaning  of 
Jesus  in  contrast  to  the  Baptist  and  the  Jews,  it 
must,  as  Weiss  rightly  remarks,  be  emphasised  once 
more  that  ''the  proclamation  of  the  coming  Kingdom 
is  the  normal,  the  sayings  which  speak  of  it  as  though 
it  were  present  are  exceptional.  It  is  not  only  in 
point  of  numbers  that  the  sayings  which  refer  it  to 
the  future  are  predominant,  they  are  also  the  most 
important  in  point  of  content.  The  fundamental 
character  of  the  preaching  of  Jesus  is,  in  point  of 
fact,  prophetic  ;  its  key-note  is  hope — hope,  no  doubt, 
which  is  certain  of  its  goal,  but,  after  all,  simply 
hope."  As  Jesus  from  His  first  appearance  repeated 
the  Baptist's  prophecy  of  the  near  approach  of  the 
Reign  of  God,  so,  later,  when  He  sent  forth  His 
disciples,  He  charged  them  to  proclaim,  not  the 
presence,  but  the  approach,  of  the  Reign  of  God 
(Luke  X.  9,  11).  He  taught  His  disciples  to  pray, 
riiy    Kingdom    come,"    which     certainly    implies 


«< '' 


^  Out  of  the  very  numerous  treatises  and  monogra})hs  of  this  char- 
acter I  may  single  out  as  especially  worthy  of  attention  J.  Weiss's 
Predigt  Jesu  v.  Reich  Gottes  and  Georg  Schnederman's  Jesu  Ver- 
kundigung  und  Lehre  vom  Reich  Gottes,  and  the  relevant  section  in 
Dalman's  JVorte  Jesii. 


THE   APPROACHING    REIGN   OF  GOD       403 

that  it  has  not  yet  come.  In  the  beatitudes  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  or  Sermon  on  the  Plain 
(Luke  vi.  20  ff.),  He  explains  the  promise  to  the 
poor  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  "  is  "  theirs,  by  using 
the  future  tense  in  the  sayings  which  follow :  those 
who  now  hunger  and  mourn  shall  be  satisfied,  shall 
laugh  for  joy,  namely,  at  the  coming  of  the  Reign 
of  God,  which  shall  introduce  a  new  order  of  all 
things  for  the  benefit  of  the  saints  who  now  suffer 
under  the  injustice  of  the  world  ;  they  are  pronounced 
blessed  not  because  of  what  they  now  are,  not  because 
of  the  excellence  of  their  inward  character,  or  of  the 
religious  advantages  which  they  now  possess,  but 
entirely  because  of  the  future  happiness  which  they 
have  reason  to  hope  for  in  the  near  future  from  a 
manifestation  of  the  power  of  God,  who  shall  redress 
the  injustices  of  the  present.  It  was  Matthew  who 
first,  from  the  point  of  view  of  altered  circumstances 
and  ecclesiastical  interests,  obscured  and  spiritualised 
the  clear  sense  of  the  original  Lucan  beatitudes 
in  such  a  way  that  we  can  certainly  find  in  his 
beatitudes  the  thought  of  the  inner  blessedness 
which  is  now  received  by  the  spiritually  poor,  the 
humble  and  meek,  the  pure  in  heart,  the  merciful, 
and  those  who  hunger  after  righteousness ;  yet  even 
here,  in  the  promise  that  the  meek  shall  inherit  the 
land,  the  original  eschatological  sense  shows  through 
clearly  enough.  And  how  could  one  fail  to  recognise 
this  sense  in  that  word  of  encouragement  to  the  "little 
flock,"  "  Fear  not,  it  is  your  Father's  good  pleasure  to 
give  you  the  kingship"  (Luke  xii.  32)?  This  promise 
is  repeated  in  a  fuller  form  at  the  Last  Supper :  "  As 
my  Father  has  appointed  unto  me  a  kingship,  so  I 


104  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

appoint  unto  you,  that  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my 
table  under  my  kingly  rule,  and  sit  on  thrones 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel"  (Luke  xxii.  29  = 
Matt.  xix.  28).  In  the  same  context  is  found  also 
the  noteworthy  saying,  "  I  will  drink  no  more  of 
the  fruit  of  the  vine  until  the  reign  of  God  be 
come"  (Luke  xxii.  18  =  Mark  xiv.  25:  "until  the 
day  when  I  shall  drink  it  new  under  the  reign  of 
God ").  In  the  passages  which  have  just  been 
quoted  we  can  hardly  think  of  anything  else  than 
the  approaching  introduction  upon  earth  by  the  in- 
tervention of  the  Divine  power  of  a  new  order  of 
things,  in  the  interest  of  Jesus  and  His  disciples — 
an  era  which,  in  spite  of  its  being  completely  "  new," 
is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  so  diverse  from  the  present 
that  there  will  not  be  eating  and  drinking  in  it.  To 
force  upon  these  words  a  reference  to  blessedness  in 
another  world  is  an  entirely  arbitrary  proceeding.  If 
we  take  into  account  also  the  question  which  Acts  (i.  6) 
represents  the  disciples  before  the  Ascension  as 
addressing  to  their  departing  Master,  "  Wilt  thou  at 
this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ? "  we  may 
rightly  see  in  this  a  true  expression  of  the  funda- 
mentally eschatological  temper  of  mind  of  the  primi- 
tive Church ;  but  how  could  that  have  been  possible 
if  Jesus  Himself  had  taught  nothing  of  the  kind,  or, 
indeed,  the  direct  opposite  ?  "  Jesus  was  too  wise  to 
have  spoken  in  imagery  which  set  in  motion  all  the 
national  hopes  and  passions,  if  He  had  actually  meant 
something  quite  contrary  to  these  ;  and  the  Gospels 
are  not  so  untrustworthy  as  to  have  turned  Jesus' 
teaching  into  its  exact  opposite"  (Keim). 

That  the  unanimous  testimony  of  these  quite  un- 


THE   APPROACHING    REIGN   OF   GOD      405 

ambiguous  eschatological  utterances  regarding  the 
Reign  of  God  could  be  invalidated  by  isolated  say- 
ings of  an  opposite  tenor  is  a  iwiori  improbable, 
and  can,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  be  shown,  by  a  careful 
examination  of  these  alleged  instances  to  the  contrary, 
to  be  a  mistake.  The  leading  instance  in  favour  of 
a  present  inward  and  spiritual  Kingdom  of  God  is, 
of  course,  Luke  xvii.  20  f. :  "  The  kingdom  of  God 
Cometh  not  with  observation  ;  they  shall  not  say,  Lo 
here  !  or,  Lo  there  !  for,  behold,  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  within  you."  Now  we  have  seen  above  (p.  167) 
that  this  saying  is  in  flagrant  contradiction  with  what 
follows,  where  the  sudden,  catastrophic,  startling 
coming  of  the  Messianic  era  is  expressed  with  the  ut- 
most possible  definiteness.  Now  as  it  is  impossible  that 
Jesus  can  have  given  in  one  breath  such  contradictory 
teaching,  there  remains  only  a  choice  between  two 
hypotheses  :  either  the  saying  had  in  its  original  form 
a  wholly  different  sense,  the  exact  opposite  of  that 
given  above,  a  point  on  which  the  experts  in  Aramaic 
are  not  at  present  agreed ;  or  (as  is  more  probable) 
the  saying  was  freely  invented  by  the  Evangelist,  in 
consequence  of  the  Pauline  and  Johannine  spiritualisa- 
tion  of  the  primitive  Christian  idea  of  the  Kingdom 
{cf.  Rom.  xiv.  17,  John  xviii.  36),  and  inserted  in  this 
passage  in  order  to  put  a  timely  check  upon  the  too 
ardent  apocalyptic  expectations  to  which  the  follow- 
ing sayings  seemed  to  give  too  nmch  countenance. 
In  either  case,  Luke  xvii.  20  f.  can  no  longer  be 
quoted  as  an  argument  against  the  eschatological 
sense  of  the  "  Reign  of  God  "  ;  on  the  contrary,  the 
continuation  of  this  passage  (22-37)  offers  the  strongest 
evidence  in  favour  of  this  sense. 


406  THE    PREACHING   OF   JESUS 

Again,  in  the  saying  of  Jesus  when  defending  Him- 
self against  the  charge  of  being  in  league  with  Beel- 
zebub (Luke  xi.  20  =  JNIatt.  xii.  28)  some  have  found  a 
proof  that  Jesus  had  drawn  from  the  success  of  His 
healing  power  over  tlie  demoniacs  the  conviction  that 
the  Ueign  of  God  had  not  only  come  nigh  {>'jyyiKeu), 
but  actually  arrived  {ecpOaa-ev),  and  was  a  present 
reality.  But  if  we  consider  that  immediately  before 
the  disciples  had  been  commissioned  to  preach  that 
the  Reign  of  God  was  at  hand  (Luke  x.  9,  11  : 
'/lyyiK-ev  e(^'  vfxa?),  it  appears  vcry  doubtful  whether  the 
Evangelist  really  meant,  in  altering  the  expression 
in  xi.  20,  to  alter  the  thought  in  this  way,  or 
whether  it  was  merely  that  the  same  word  in  the 
Aramaic  source  chanced  to  be  translated  in  two 
different  ways.  Yet  even  assuming  that  the  "  com- 
ing" {ecpOacrev)  in  xi.  20  really  meant  something 
more  than  the  "  coming  nigh  "  {i'/yyiKev)  which  is  else- 
where usual,  it  does  not  by  any  means  follow  from 
that  that  the  thought  of  a  present  and  inward  King- 
dom of  God  has  been  put  m  the  place  of  the  eschato- 
logical  hope,  which  before  as  well  as  after,  and  up  to 
the  end  of  the  Gospel,  remains  the  ruling  idea.  It 
is  not  to  be  doubted  that  Jesus  did  see  in  the  fre- 
quent success  of  His  cures  of  demoniacs  a  sign  and 
guarantee  of  the  ftict  that  the  rule  of  Satan  and  his 
demons  was  coming  to  an  end  ;  that  God  was  about 
to  grasp  the  reins  of  government  and  exhibit  His 
victorious  might ;  that  therefore  the  end  of  the  old 
and  the  beginning  of  the  new  era  was  coming  to  pass. 
But  "  one  swallow  does  not  make  a  summer,"  even 
though  it  be  welcomed  as  the  harbinger  of  its  ap- 
proach ;    between   isolated    victories   of  the    Divine 


THE   APPROACHING   REIGN    OF   GOD     407 

spiritual  power  over  diseases  caused  by  demons  and 
the  realisation  of  the  Reign  of  God  in  the  redemption 
and  renewing  of  the  whole  life  of  the  nation  there  is, 
after  all,  a  great   difference.     And  since  it  was  the 
latter  and  not  the  former  which  was   the  object   of 
the  hopes  of  all,  therefore  what  Jesus  preached  from 
first  to  last  was  only  the  promise  of  an  approaching 
eschatoloo-ical  sood,  which  was  to  be  brought  about 
by  a  miraculous   intervention  of  Divine  power,  not 
instruction  about  an  already  present  social  life  of  a 
moral   and    spiritual   order   which   was   to   be   "  de- 
veloped "  by  human  effort.     The  difference  in  kind 
between  these  two   views  is  too  great  to  admit  of 
their  being   reconciled    by   means    of    any   kind    of 
logical  or  psychological  dialectic ;  it  must  simply  be 
recognised  as  an  historical   fact  and  understood  as 
the  expression  of  the  difference  between  the  systems 
of  thought  of  two  different  periods,  between  which 
lies   a   development   of  nearly  two   thousand  years. 
But,  as  we  know  from  experience,  nothing  contributes 
so  much  to  make  the  understanding  of  this  historical 
development     of     Christian    thought    difficult    and 
obscure  as  the  traditional  habit  of  carrying  back  our 
modern  ideas  into  the  entirely  different  world  of  the 
faith  and  hope  of  Jesus  and  His  contemporaries. 

But,  people  ask,  did  not  Jesus  Himself  teach  an 
inner  "  development  "  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  the 
parables  of  the  Sower,  the  Seed  Growing  Secretly,  the 
Tares  among  the  Wheat  ?  This  objection  is  only  of 
weight  so  long  as  the  parables  are  taken  for  allegories 
in  which  every  single  trait  must  have  a  symbolical 
meaning.  But  the  parables,  as  has  been  generally 
recognised  since  B.  Weiss  and  Jiilicher,  are  no  com- 


408  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

plex  allegories,  but  simply  aim  at  illustrating  simple 
religious  truths  by  means  of  familiar  circumstances 
of  daily  life.  Thus,  even  the  parables  about  the  seed 
do  not,  as  we  saw  above  (p.  16  f.),  unveil  doctrinal 
mysteries  regarding  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  King- 
of  God,  but  illustrate  for  the  use  and  edification  of 
those  who  look  anxiously  for  the  coming  of  the 
Reign  of  God,  the  practical  truth  that  this  coming 
cannot  be  forced  or  hastened  by  human  interference  ; 
it  can  only  be  prepared  for  by  the  proclamation  of 
the  good  tidings,  but  whether,  and  how  far,  this 
shall  be  followed  by  results,  and  how  quickly  or 
slowly  the  seed  shall  ripen  to  harvest,  does  not 
depend  on  our  labour  or  anxiety  ;  therefore  we  must 
wait  patiently  until  God's  time  and  hour  comes. 
And  we  are  not  to  be  discouraged  by  the  still  imper- 
ceptible beginnings  of  the  result  of  the  preaching,  nor 
by  the,  in  some  cases,  unserviceable  or  unreliable 
character  of  the  multitudes  who  flock  to  hear  it :  all 
these  defects  of  the  present  time  of  preparation  will 
disappear  with  the  coming  of  the  great  day  of  the 
consummation  of  all  things.^  If  we  follow  this  prin- 
ciple of  not  allegorising  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
parables  about  the  seed,  we  find  indeed  present  and 
future,  preparation  and  fulfilment,  seed  and  harvest 
more  closely  connected  than  elsewhere ;  but  they  do 
not  on  that  account  by  any  means  fall  out  of  the 
frame  of  the  eschatological  preaching  of  Jesus  regard- 
ing the  Kingdom.  In  particular,  the  modern  thought 
that  the   Kingdom  is  already  present  in  the  ethical 

^  Cf.  Jiilicher,  Gleichnisse  Jem,  ii.  581  ;  J.  Weiss,  Predigt  vom 
Reich  Goites,  2iid  ed.,  pp.  84  f. ;  Weinel,  Die  Bildersprache  Jesu, 
pp.  22  f.  and  44  fF. 


THE   APPROACHING   REIGN   OF   GOD      409 

ideals  of  human  society,  and  is  to  be  further 
"  developed  "  by  its  moral  action,  is  wholly  foreign, 
nay  opposed,  to  them.  Its  coming  is  still  future, 
in  the  day  of  the  harvest ;  and  the  harvest  cannot 
be  brought  about  by  human  effort,  but  can  only  be 
waited  for  with  patience. 

It  is  no  less  mistaken  to  draw  from  the  parables 
of  the  Hidden  Treasure  and  the  Pearl  of  Great  Price 
the  thought  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  to  be  won 
by  some  pious  sacrifice,  and  is  therefore  an  already 
present  condition  of  blessedness  consisting  of  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  peace,  and  fellowship  with  God.  These 
parables  really  embody  only  the  practical  lesson  that 
we  should  stake  everything,  and  shun  no  sacrifice, 
in  order  to  win  the  supreme  good  of  sharing  in  the 
blessings  of  the  Reign  of  God  ;  but  of  what  this  good 
consists,  or  when  and  how  it  comes,  they  do  not  say. 
But  of  this  we  are  informed  with  all  the  clearness 
we  can  desire  by  the  saying,  "  Everyone  who  has  left 
houses,  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or  father,  or  mother, 
or  children,  or  lands,  for  my  name's  sake,  shall  receive 
manifold  compensation  and  inherit  eternal  life"  (Matt. 
xix.  29  =  Mark  x.  30,  according  to  Cod.  D  ;  cf.  above, 
p.  48  f.).  That  w^hich  is  to  be  won,  the  good  which 
is  to  be  purchased  by  the  sacrifice  of  self  and  the 
renunciation  of  the  world,  does  not,  according  to 
this,  consist  in  a  present  inward  condition  of  mind, 
but  in  the  future  abundant  reward  and  compensation 
which  the  Reign  of  God  shall  bring  about  at  the 
renewal  of  all  things  {-TraXivyevecria,  verse  28).  Only  in 
so  far  as  the  hope  of  this  future  reward  gives  already 
in  the  present  a  certain  foretaste  of  it,  can  it  be  said 
that  the  preaching  of  the  Kingdom  offers  a  present 


4.10  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

blessin<^- ;  hut  in  so  far  as  hope  is  not  identical  with 
the  thing  lioped  for  (Rom.  viii.  24),  in  so  far  the 
essence  of  the  evangelical  Kingdonn  of  God  does  not 
consist  in  the  present  "  rehgious  blessedness."  And 
still  less  does  it  consist  in  the  present  "  ethical  good," 
the  virtuous  frame  of  mind  and  conduct,  as  has 
been  erroneously  concluded  from  Matt.  vi.  33. 
Righteousness,  in  the  sense  of  human  virtue,  is, 
according  to  Matt.  v.  20,  the  condition  of  entering  into 
the  blessedness  brought  about  by  the  Reign  of  God  ; 
how  then  could  it  be  identical  with  the  latter  ? 
Rather,  it  is  divided  from  it  toto  ccelo ;  for  it  is 
human  action,  and  the  Reign  of  God  is  Divine  action. 
Moreover,  in  Matt.  vi.  33  there  is  no  direct  reference 
to  the  human  virtue  of  righteousness ;  what  is  said 
is  that  the  highest  aim  of  our  efforts  should  be 
the  reign  and  the  righteousness  of  God.  These  two 
terms,  God's  reign  and  God's  righteousness,  are  exact 
correlates.  The  former  describes  the  Divine  rule  and 
the  resulting  condition  of  the  saints,  their  salvation 
and  partaking  in  eternal  life  ;  the  latter  describes  the 
Divine  judgment  and  the  resulting  condition  of  the 
saints,  their  acquittal  and  their  claim  to  eternal  life. 
This  partaking  in  the  life  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
is  conditional  upon  the  sentence  of  God  as  Judge, 
declaring  the  saint  to  be  righteous  and  worthy  of 
entrance  into  life.  To  be  recognised  as  righteous 
by  God's  judgment  should  therefore  be  the  first  care 
of  men ;  the  means  to  this  is,  of  course,  ethical 
righteousness  of  thought  and  life,  change  of  heart, 
doing  of  the  will  of  God  (v.  20,  vii.  21),  of  which  we 
shall  have  more  to  say  later.  If,  therefore,  this  moral 
conduct  on  man's  part  is  the  condition  of  the  Divine 


THE   APPROACHING    REIGN   OF   GOD       411 

recognition  of  his  righteousness,  and  that  in  turn  is 
the  condition  of  his  partaking  in  eternal  hfe  under 
the  Reign  of  God,  it  is  no  doubt  possible  to  say 
that  the  partaking  of  the  individual  in  the  blessedness 
of  the  Reign  of  God  is  bound  up  with  his  righteous- 
ness as  an  indispensable  condition ;  but  it  is  not 
possible  to  say  that  the  Reign  of  God  is  brought 
about  by  the  righteousness  of  men,  still  less  that  it 
essentially  consists  in  the  right  conduct  of  men.  In 
face  of  all  such  modernising  interpretations,  whatever 
confirmation  they  may  have  in  present-day  theo- 
logical and  ethical  doctrine,  the  exegete  and  historian 
must  insist  that  in  the  preaching  of  Jesus  the  Reign 
of  God  is  always  and  exclusively  an  eschatological 
conception. 

If  we  inquire,  further,  how  Jesus  thought  of  the 
reahsation  of  the  Reign  of  God  in  detail,  we  must 
be  careful  not  to  ascribe  to  Him  an  exact  and 
rigidly  defined  programme  of  the  future.  This 
He  had  not,  any  more  than  His  Jewish  fellow- 
countrymen  and  contemporaries.^  The  same  vacilla- 
tion which  runs  through  Jewish  eschatology,  between 
earthly  and  heavenly,  material  and  spiritual,  pictures 
of  the  future — a  consequence  of  the  intermixture  of 
Hellenistic  with  ancient  Jewish  modes  of  thought — 
is  found  also  in  the  Gospel  pictures  of  the  "last 
things."  In  addition  to  this  uncertainty  which  is 
founded  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  there  is  another 
source   of  uncertainty  in   the   fact  that  we  cannot 

1  Schiirer  (NTliche,  Zeitgeschichte,  ii.  440  ft".  =  E.T.  ii.  2.  154  ff.) 
gives  an  instructive  summary  of  "  Messianic  Doctrine  "  according 
to  the  Apoc.  Baruch  and  2  EsdraSj  but  indicates  that  there  was 
much  uncertainty  in  regard  to  the  details. 


412  THE    PREACHING    OF  JESUS 

always  definitely  distinguish  between  elements  which 
represent  the  eschatological  beliefs  of  the  primitive 
community,  or  of  the  Evangelists,  and  those  which 
are  derived  from  Jesus  Himself.  To  the  former 
doubtless  belong  {cf.  above,  p.  35  f.,  and  further 
remarks  below)  the  prophecies  of  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  Man,  and  the  description  of  the  afflictions 
which  should  precede  the  Messianic  period  in  the 
apocalyptic  discourse  Mark  xiii  =  Matt,  xxiv  = 
Luke  xxi.  But,  at  the  same  time,  there  are  a  few 
leading  points  which  may  be  signalised  as  certainly 
belonging  to  the  preaching  of  Jesus. 

In  the  first  place,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the 
Reign  of  God,  or  future  age,  will  begin  soon  and 
suddenly,  its  appearing  being  visible  to  all.  It  will 
be  a  crisis,  a  terrible  shattering  and  reversal  of  the 
present  condition  of  the  world,  only  comparable  to 
such  catastrophes  as  the  Flood,  or  the  rain  of  brim- 
stone upon  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  (Luke  xvii.  22  fF.). 
How  soon  this  catastrophe  shall  occur  is  not  more 
closely  defined.  On  one  occasion  it  is  said  that 
some  of  "  those  which  stand  here  "  shall  see  the  Reign 
of  God  come  wath  power  (Mark  ix.  1  =  Matt.  xvi.  28  : 
"  until  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  his 
kingdom.")  According  to  Matt.  x.  23,  the  disciples 
will  not  have  finished  preaching  the  gospel  in  the 
cities  of  Israel  before  the  Son  of  Man  comes.  In 
both  passages,  therefore,  the  time  is  fixed  for  the 
appearing  of  the  Reign  of  God  and  of  the  JNIessiah 
within  the  lifetime  of  the  generation  of  Jesus'  con- 
temporaries ;  even  if  the  form  of  this  prediction  is 
secondary  in  Matthew,  there  is  nothing  against  its 
genuineness    in    Mark.      The    suggestion    has    been 


THE   APPROACHING    REIGN   OF   GOD      413 

made  that  later  on,  influenced  by  His  disappoint- 
ment at  the  dulness  of  the  people,  Jesus  no  longer 
expected  so  early  a  fulfilment  of  His  hopes.  Cer- 
tainly a  hesitation  on  this  point  corresponding  to 
the  changing  experiences  and  circumstances  of  the 
Prophet  would  be  intelligible  enough.  But  there  is 
much  which  tends  rather  to  suggest  that  towards 
the  close  of  His  Galila^an  period,  and  in  Jerusalem, 
He  even  thought  of  the  decisive  moment  as  very 
much  nearer  than  before. 

That  the  Reign  of  God  would  be  introduced  by  a 
great  Day  of  Judgment  was  a  standing  assumption 
of  the  prophets,  which  uniformly  prevails  in  Jewish 
apocalyptic  also,  sometimes  in  the  form  that  the  judg- 
ment of  hostile  world-powers  and  apostate  Israelites 
shall  be  held  by  God  Himself,  before  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah  (Enoch  xc),  or  without  any  reference 
to  His  coming  (Assumption  of  Moses  x.),  sometimes 
in  the  form  that  Messiah,  immediately  upon  His 
appearance,  shall  destroy  the  enemies  of  the  people 
of  God,  whether  by  His  might  as  a  Warrior  or 
by  His  sentence  as  Judge  ("by  the  word  of  His 
mouth,"  Psalms  of  Solomon  xvii.  ;  similarly,  2  Esdras 
and  the  Similitudes  of  Enoch).  The  preaching  of 
John  the  Baptist,  too,  proclaimed  this  approaching 
Judgment,  but  not  as  exercised  upon  the  heathen 
nations  while  sparing  the  children  of  Abraham ;  on 
the  contrary,  at  the  Messianic  assize  it  would  profit  a 
man  nothing  merely  to  be  a  child  of  Abraham  unless 
he  repented  and  brought  forth  the  corresponding  fruit 
of  good  actions.  Here,  therefore,  in  contrast  to  the 
usual  Jewish  hopes  of  national  triumph,  we  have,  as 
the  principal  point,  the  moral  responsibility  of  indi- 


414  THE    PREACHING   OF   JESUS 

viduiils.  And  the  same  thing  is  found  in  the  preach- 
ing' of  Jesus.  At  tlie  threshold  of  the  Reign  of  God 
stands  the  Judgment ;  not  conceived,  however,  as 
the  punishment  of  the  heathen  nations,  but  as  the 
decision  of  the  future  fate  of  each  individual,  M^hether 
he  should  enter  into  life  or  be  cast  into  hell,  into 
darkness.  "  The  Judgment  thus  acquires  a  quite 
different  sense  and  a  quite  different  result,  coming 
to  signify  the  rendering  of  one's  personal  account 
before  God"  ( Wellhausen).  It  is  not  an  exercise  of 
God's  power  against  the  heathen,  but  the  moral 
value  of  each  individual  life,  which  shall  be  made 
manifest.  Prayers  offered  in  secret,  and  quiet, 
unboastful  beneficence,  shall  be  openly  rewarded 
by  the  Father  in  heaven,  the  faithful  labourer  shall 
enter  into  the  joy  of  his  Lord ;  but  proud  and  self- 
satisfied  sinners,  the  unmerciful  and  unforgiving, 
those  who  say  "  Lord !  Lord ! "  but  do  not  do  the 
will  of  God,  shall  be  excluded  from  the  fellowship 
of  the  blessed  ;  judgment  shall  separate  the  wheat 
from  the  tares,  the  good  from  the  bad,  consum- 
mating and  making  manifest  distinctions  which 
are  already  present  in  the  moral  character  of  indi- 
viduals (Mark  ix.  43  ff  ;  Matt.  vi.  4-18,  vii.  21  ff, 
X.  28,  xiii.  41  ff ,  xviii.  34  f.,  xxv.  21-30,  31-46).  There 
is  some  obscurity  as  to  the  relation  of  this  future 
decisive  separation  to  the  division  and  reward  which 
happens  immediately  after  death.  When  the  rich 
man  in  the  parable  ( Luke  xvi.  22  f. )  goes  immediately 
after  death  to  the  place  of  torment,  and  Lazarus  to 
Abraham's  bosom,  or  when  the  promise  is  given  to 
the  thief  on  the  cross  that  he  shall  that  day  be  w^ith 
Jesus   in   Paradise  (Luke    xxiii.  43),  that   does   not 


THE   APPROACHING   REIGN   OF   GOD       415 

seem  to  refer  to  a  merely  provisional  intermediate 
state,  but  to  a  definitive  condition  of  blessedness  or 
unblessedness.  But  if  so,  what  place  is  there  for  the 
future  judgment  or  for  the  future  resurrection? 
However,  both  these  passages,  which  are  peculiar  to 
Luke,  are  probably  of  secondary  origin. 

Jesus  was  at  one  with  the  Pharisees  in  teaching 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  defended  it  against 
the  doubts  of  the  Sadducees,  appealing  to  Scripture 
and  the  Divine  omnipotence  (Mark  xii.  24  fF.).  The 
penetrating  interpretation  of  the  formula  "  the  God 
of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,"  to  the  effect  that  God 
was  not  the  God  of  the  dead  but  of  the  living,  would 
in  itself  prove  rather  the  continued  life  of  immortal 
souls  as  taught  by  the  Essenes  than  the  bodily  resur- 
rection of  the  dead.  But  Jesus  spoke  too  clearly  of 
a  future  resurrection  of  the  dead  to  allow  us  to 
ascribe  to  Him  the  Hellenistic  or  Essene  doctrine  of 
immortality.  It  remains  problematical  in  what  form 
Jesus  thought  of  the  resurrection ;  whether  as  a 
restoration  of  the  former  earthly  body,  or  the  clothing 
of  the  soul  in  a  higher  super-earthly  corporeity.  A 
statement  which  appears  to  favour  the  latter  view  is, 
"  When  they  shall  arise  from  the  dead,  they  shall 
neither  marry  nor  give  in  marriage,  but  shall  be  as 
the  angels  in  heaven  "  (Mark  xii.  25),  if  this  be  under- 
stood to  imply  an  angelic  corporeity  and  not  simply 
resemblance  to  the  angels  in  the  absence  of  marrying 
and  giving  in  marriage.  The  other  view  is  favoured 
by  the  presupposition  that  the  risen  patriarchs  sliall 
eat  at  the  Messianic  feast,  which  can  hardly  be 
understood  in  a  non-literal  sense,  and  that  in  general 
the  scene  of  the  Messianic  glory  and  of  the  Kingdom 


416  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

of  God  is  not  the  heavens  above  but  the  earth, 
more  especially  the  land  of  Canaan ;  how  super- 
earthly  bodies  are  to  be  adapted  to  this  earthly 
dweUing-place  it  is  difficult  to  conceive.  Further, 
it  is  not  clear  whether  the  resurrection  is  to  be 
thought  of  as  a  universal  resurrection  before  the 
Judgment  and  for  the  purpose  of  being  judged,  or 
only  as  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  to  share  in 
the  Messianic  glory  ?  The  latter  is  clearly  implied 
in  the  Lucan  version  :  "  Those  who  shall  be  accounted 
worthy  to  obtain  that  world  and  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead "  (Luke  xx.  35).  The  former,  on  the 
other  hand,  seems  to  be  assumed  in  Matt.  xii.  41, 
where  it  is  said  of  the  men  of  Nineveh  in  Jonah's 
day,  that  at  the  Judgment  they  shall  rise  up 
against  this  generation  and  condemn  it ;  but  in 
the  Aramaic  original  the  sense  of  this  saying  was 
probably  only  that  if  the  men  of  Nineveh  were 
to  contend  in  judgment  with  this  generation 
they  would  be  victorious,  i.e.  that  they  were  more 
righteous  before  God  than  the  Jews,  which  does 
not  necessarily  imply  a  reference  to  the  future  Judg- 
ment {cf.  Wellhausen,  Skizzen  unci  Voi^arbeiten, 
vi.  188). 

The  condition  of  happiness  under  the  Reign  of 
God,  to  which  the  saints  are  to  be  admitted  on  the 
ground  of  the  Judgment  (while  the  godless  are  to  be 
excluded  from  it  and  cast  into  outer  darkness,  or 
into  the  fire  of  Gehenna),  is  summed  up  in  the  con- 
ceptions Life  and  Joy.  To  enter  into  life,  or  eternal 
life,  to  receive  it  or  inherit  it,  is  equivalent  to  enter- 
ing into,  or  inheriting,  the  blessings  of  the  Reign  of 
God.      Since   the   future   age  will   be    of  unending 


THE    APPROACHING   REIGN   OF   GOD      417 

duration,  life  in  it  will  be  eternal,  and  to  obtain  it 
is  to  be  delivered  from  destruction,  from  corruption. 
As  regards  the  more  detailed  imagination  of  this 
eternal  life,  or  life  of  partaking  in  [the  blessings  of] 
the  Reign  of  God,  Jesus  simply  shared  the  hopes 
current  among  the  Jews  of  His  time.  As  against 
the  theological  tendency  .to  spiritualise  the  con- 
ception, Dalman  is  doubtless  right  in  remarking, 
"  Nor  is  there  any  call  for  peculiar  speculations  in 
regard  to  the  conception  of  'the  life'  as  being  .  .  . 
'the  sum  total  of  all  that  constitutes  life  in  its 
fullest  sense — the  true  life.'  The  difference  between 
the  preaching  of  Jesus  and  Jewish  views  consists, 
not  in  the  idea  of  'the  life,'  but  in  what  Jesus 
has  to  say  of  the  theocracy  {Gottesherrschaft)  and 
of  the  righteousness  without  which  hfe  in  the 
theocracy  can  never  be  attained"  {Worte  Jesu, 
p.  132  =  E.T.  162).  Naturally,  it  consists  in  a  con- 
dition of  perfect  happiness,  of  complete  joy  and 
satisfaction.  Therefore  the  loyal  servant  has  held 
out  to  him  as  his  reward  the  prospect  of  enter- 
ing into  the  "joy  of  his  Lord"  (Matt.  xxv.  21). 
Frequently  this  joy  is  represented  as  a  partaking  in 
the  Messianic  feast,  the  guest  at  which  shall  sit  at 
meat  with  the  patriarchs,  or  eat  and  drink  at  Christ's 
table  (Matt.  viii.  11  ;  Luke  xiii.  29,  xxii.  30).  Now 
as  that  is  certainly  not  to  be  thought  of  as  a 
mere  figure,^  and  as  the  scene  of  this  festal  joy  is 

1  Dalman,  ut  sup.,  p.  81  (  =  E.T.  Ill):  "Even  for  Jesus,  this 
repast  was  no  mere  figure  of  speech."  Joh.  Weiss  (ut  sup.,  p.  120) 
considers  the  arguments  for  the  figurative  interpretation  of  this 
conception  "  extraordinarily  trivial  " — meaning  thereby,  no  doubt, 
superficial  and  untenable. 

VOL.  II  2' 


418  THE   PREACHING   OF   JESUS 

certainly  the  "land"  of  Canaan  (Matt.  v.  5;  cf.  Ps. 
xxxvii.  11,  Enoch  v.  7,  xc.  20),  Jesus  seems  to  have 
thought   of  the  condition   of  the   partakers   in   the 
Reion    of  God,    not   as    a   supersensuous   existence 
comparable  to  that  of  heavenly  spiritual  beings,  but 
as  an  earthly  existence  raised  to  a  higher  power  and 
freed  from  the  evils  of  the  present  life.     That  was 
certainly  the  way  in  which  the  primitive  community 
of  His  followers  understood  it,  as  may  be  concluded 
from    the   fact   that   they  supposed   the    description 
which   is    found   in    Apoc.  Baruch   (xxix.   5)  of  the 
fabulous    fruit  fulness    of    field     and     vine    (in    the 
Messianic   times)   to    be  a   prophecy  of  Jesus ;    and 
even  though  they  were  mistaken  in  this,  the  mistake 
would    be   unintelligible   if  Jesus   had   thought  and 
taught   the   direct  opposite — if   He  had  represented 
the  unending  life  under  the  Reign  of  God  as  com- 
pletely  freed    from    earthly   conditions,    and    as   the 
blessedness  of  heavenly  spirits.     This  misunderstand- 
ing,   which    affects    the    whole    conception    of    the 
Messianic   movement,    is    based   on   the   assumption 
that  it   is   legitimate   to   carry  back   the  later  tran- 
scendental   conception    of    "  eternal    life "    into    the 
older    idea    of    the    "  future    world "    or    period    of 
Messianic  salvation,  whereas  the  latter,  retaining  the 
impress   of  its   Old  Testament  origin,  rests  entirely 
on  an  earthly  and  realistic  basis.     It  was  this  conflict 
of  conceptions  which,  at   a  later  period,  led  to  the 
separation  of  this  earthly  Messianic  time  of  salvation 
("Days   of  the   Messiah"),  as   a  temporally-limited 
preliminary  period,  from  the  final  heavenly  consum- 
mation— the   general   resurrection  and  judgment   of 
the  world  being  placed  between — and  thus  gave  rise 


THE   APPROACHING   REIGN   OF   GOD     419 

to  the  conception  known  as  Chiliasm.^  This  was 
an  expedient  intended  to  reconcile  the  later  tran- 
scendental view  of  "eternal  life"  with  the  view 
which  came  down  from  the  prophets  and  was  never 
given  up  either  in  Judaism  or  in  early  Christianity — 
the  view  of  the  Messianic  time  of  salvation  as  of 
a  life  of  blessedness  under  the  Reign  of  God 
upon  earth. 

Only  in  one  point  have  we  hitherto  found  a  material 
divergence  between  the  hopes  of  the  future  cherished 
by  Jesus  and  by  the  Jews  :  He  makes  no  allusion  to 
the  victory  of  the  Jewish  nation  over  the  heathen 
nations.  This  is  certainly  a  difference  of  which  the 
importance  must  not  be  underrated,  but  of  which  the 
true  explanation  can  hardly  be  found  in  the  traditional 
assumption  that  Jesus  had  separated  the  hoped-for 
Reign  of  God  from  any  close  connection  with  the 
Jewish  people,  and  had  thought  of  it  as  destined 
for  all  men.  That  is  directly  contradicted  by  the 
dialogue  of  Jesus  with  the  Syrophoenician  woman, 
in  which  He  declared  that  He  was  only  sent  to  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  and  that  it  was  not 
right  to  take  the  bread  which  was  meant  for  the 
children  of  the  house  and  give  it  to  the  dogs  (heathen) 
(Matt.  XV.  24  fF.).  So,  too,  He  commanded  His  dis- 
ciples not  to  go  into  the  "  way  of  the  Gentiles,"  nor 
to  enter  any  city  of  the  Samaritans,  but  only  to  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel  (Matt.  x.  5).  He 
never  sought  out  the  Gentiles  ;  only  when  they  came 
to  Him  unsought  and  asked  His  help  did  He,  by  way 

1  We  shall  recur  later  to  this  conception,  which  is  found  in  the 
apocalypses  of  Ezra  and  Baruch  and  the  canonical  Revelation  at  the 
end  of  the  first  century. 


420 


THE   PREACHING    OF   JESUS 


of  exception,  answer  their  earnest  petitions,  as  in  the 
cases  of  the  Syrophcenician  woman  and  the  centurion 
of  Capernaum.  When  He  expressed  His  joyful  sur- 
prise at  the  faith  of  the  latter  (Matt.  viii.  10),  that 
only  shows  that  He  had  not  thought  at  all  of  the 
possibility  of  Gentiles  believing.  Matthew  brings 
in  here  the  saying  which  Luke  inserts  in  another 
and  no  doubt  a  more  correct  connection  (Luke  xiii. 
28  f.  =  Matt.  viii.  11  f.) :  "  Many  shall  come  from  the 
east  and  from  the  west  and  shall  sit  at  meat  with 
Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  but  the  children  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast 
out  into  outer  darkness."  That  does  not,  after  all, 
go  beyond  the  expectation  of  the  prophets  that  only 
a  remnant  of  Israel  should  be  saved,  and  that  many 
Gentiles  should  come,  along  with  this  saved  remnant, 
to  pray  at  Zion ;  but  the  main  stock  of  the  people 
of  God  remains  throughout  always  Israel,  and  its 
capital  Jerusalem  as  the  centre  of  its  worship.  This 
must  have  been  Jesus'  meaning  too,  when,  at  the 
Last  Supper  (according  to  Luke  xxii.  29),  He 
promised  the  Twelve  that  they  should  sit  on  thrones 
judging  the  Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel,  i.e.  that  they 
should  have  a  share  in  His  Messianic  rule  ove7'  the 
people  of  Israel ;  of  a  rule  over  the  nations  of  the 
world  there  is,  in  the  genuine  sayings  of  Jesus,  no 
mention.  The  passage  about  the  Son  of  Man  judg- 
ing all  the  nations  (Matt.  xxv.  31  f )  does  not  come 
from  Jesus  but  from  the  ecclesiastical  Evangelist,  as 
does  the  saying  about  preaching  the  gospel  in  the 
whole  world  (Matt.  xxiv.  14)  and  the  command  to 
baptize  all  nations  (xxviii.  18  f.),  the  origin  of  which 
from  the  later  convictions  of  the  Church  is  betrayed 


THE    APPROACHING   REIGN   OF   GOD     421 

by  the  Trinitarian  formula.  The  attitude  of  the 
older  Apostles,  too,  towards  the  mission  to  the  Gentiles 
is  a  sure  sign  that  they  knew  nothing  of  any  such 
command  of  Jesus.  There  are  many  traces  in  the 
version  which  the  Evangelists  give  of  the  parables  of 
Jesus  that  they  had  a  tendency  to  put  their  own  con- 
viction of  the  universal  destiny  of  Christianity  into 
the  mouth  of  Jesus  (while  in  reality  the  thought  of 
founding  a  new  Church  was  foreign  to  His  mind). 
Thus  Luke  in  the  parable  of  the  Great  Supper  (xiv. 
21  fF.),  after  the  refusal  of  those  who  were  first  invited, 
represents  two  other  invitations  as  being  issued  ;  not 
merely  to  the  poor  of  the  town,  but  also  to  those 
"  in  the  highways  and  hedges,"  by  which  he  doubtless 
meant  the  heathen.  That  is  not  found  in  JNIatthew  ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  he  has,  in  the  parable  of  the 
Wicked  Husbandmen  (xxi.  43),  the  threat,  "The 
kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you  and  given 
unto  a  people  who  shall  bring  forth  the  fruits  thereof," 
by  which  the  Evangelist  doubtless  means  the  Gentile 
Church.  But  in  the  parable  in  Mark  (xii.  11)  it  is 
expressed  in  a  still  vaguer  fashion :  "  He  will  take 
the  vineyard  [of  the  Israelitish  theocracy]  and  give 
it  unto  others,"  by  which  is  certainly  meant  not  the 
Gentiles,  but  another  section  of  the  Jewish  people, 
namely  that  "  little  flock  "  of  the  weary  and  heavy- 
laden,  of  the  simple  and  poor,  who,  under  the  stress 
of  deep  poverty  and  religious  neglect,  longed  for 
deliverance  and  eagerly  accepted  the  message  of 
Jesus ;  to  them  Jesus  promised  that  His  Father 
would  give  them  the  Kingship  (Luke  vi.  20,  xii.  32  ; 
cf.  X.  21).  That  means,  "instead  of  a  world-rule 
of  the  nation  of  Israel,  a  reign  of  these  righteous 


4252  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

men "  (J.  Weiss) ;  instead  of  the  national  political 
ideal  of  the  Pharisee,  the  socio-religious  ideal  of  the 
"  Quiet  in  the  Land,"  the  promise  that  the  coming 
Reign  of  God  would  bring  them  deliverance  from 
their  present  distress,  comfort,  joy,  satisfaction, 
authority — these  were  the  "  glad  tidings  "  that  Jesus 
brought  to  the  poor  and  to  "  sinners."  The  question 
regarding  the  relation  of  the  Jews  as  a  nation  to 
the  heathen  nations  was  thus  wholly  relegated  to 
the  background — the  subjugation  of  them  by  the 
Jews,  which  to  the  Pharisees  was  the  main  thing,  never 
entered  the  mind  of  Jesus.  One  might,  on  the  con- 
trary, draw  from  the  famous  saying  "  Render  unto 
Csesar  the  things  which  are  Ceesar's,  and  unto  God  the 
things  which  are  God's  "  (Mark  xii.  17),  the  conclu- 
sion that  He  held  possible  the  continued  existence 
of  the  outward  political  rule  of  the  Romans  along- 
side of  the  Reign  of  God,  which  should  manifest 
itself  in  the  establishment  of  new  social  and  religious 
conditions  within  the  nation.  But  about  this  we  can 
have  no  certain  knowledge  ;  I  hold  it  to  be  most  prob- 
able that  as  regards  these  details  of  the  realisation 
of  the  Reign  of  God  Jesus  did  not  form  any  exactly 
defined  conception,  but  left  the  disposition  of  these 
matters  in  the  hands  of  His  God  and  Father. 

"  In  all  the  points  which  have  hitherto  been 
discussed,  Jesus  did  not  come  into  any  conflict 
with  His  nation  as  a  whole — neither  with  the  heads 
of  it  nor  with  the  masses.  No  one,  it  is  true,  with 
the  exception  of  the  Baptist,  had  dared  to  go  so  far 
as  Jesus  had  done.  But  it  was  possible  for  an 
Israelite  to  listen  to  Him,  to  let  himself  be  led  and 
carried  away  by  Him,  and  look  forward  to  the  things 


THE   APPROACHING   REIGN   OF  GOD     423 

which  He  was  to  bring,  and  yet  remain  all  the  time 
a  thorough  Israelite."^  In  fact,  even  the  one  point 
which  we  mentioned  a  moment  ago  in  which  Jesus 
was  at  variance  with  the  Messianic  expectations 
of  the  Pharisees,  namely  the  subordination  of  the 
national,  political  side,  was  not  wholly  new,  but 
corresponded  to  a  certain  under-current  in  the 
popular  religion  of  the  time,  of  which  John  the 
Baptist  had  already  appeared  as  the  spokesman, 
when  he  sharply  attacked  the  racial  arrogance  of  the 
Pharisees.  If  we  ask,  however,  what  it  really  was 
in  Jesus'  proclamation  of  the  near  approach  of  the 
Reign  of  God  that  was  specially  new  and  arresting, 
the  answer  can  only  be  that  it  was  not  any  kind  of 
new  content  but  the  new  character  of  the  pixaching 
and  the  Preacher.  John  had  been  a  preacher  of 
repentance,  who,  by  proclaiming  the  nearness  of  the 
Judgment,  sought  to  rouse,  alarm,  and  sway  the 
sinful  masses — an  endeavour  with  which  his  outward 
ascetic  appearance  was  in  keeping.  But  an  ascetic 
is  not  a  man  of  inspiration,  and  there  is  nothing 
inspiring  in  the  preaching  of  penitence.  It  is  there- 
fore intelligible  enough  that  no  miracles  are  recorded 
of  John,  and  that  no  legends  of  miracle  gathered 
about  his  person ;  for  that  is  always  the  expression 
of  enthusiastic  reverence  on  the  part  of  the  masses 
for  a  personality  which  powerfully  lays  hold  upon 
them  and  fires  their  hearts  and  imaginations.  This 
was  the  character  of  Jesus.     He  inspired  others  be- 

^  Schnedermann,  Jesu  Ferkundigung  und  Lehre  vom  Reich  Gottes, 
p.  127.  How^  out  of  this  common  ground  of  the  Jewish  idea  of 
the  Kingdom  there  grew  up  the  opposition  and  the  strife  against 
the  Pharisees,  is  excellently  told  by  Schnedermann. 


424  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

cause  He  was  Himself  inspired ;  He  was  a  man  of 
inspiration,  of  spiritual  enthusiasm,  whose  preaching 
was  not  traditional  scholasticism,  and  not  the  preach- 
ing of  penitence,  but  good  tidings  of  salvation  for 
all  who  needed  salvation.  From  His  words,  looks, 
and  bearing  men  drew  the  impression  that  a  higher, 
mysterious  power  worked  in  and  through  Him  (Mark 
i.  27) — a  Divine  Spirit,  as  some  felt ;  a  demonic 
spirit,  as  others  caluminously  asserted — in  any  case, 
a  wonderful  power  of  touching  hearts,  of  driving  out 
evil  spirits,  of  healing  the  body.  Into  the  mystery 
of  such  a  Spirit-filled  Personality  we  can  never, 
indeed,  fully  penetrate,  because  we  can  never  wholly 
explain  whence  comes  the  Spirit,  or  how,  or  why 
(John  iii.  8).  Yet  even  here  w^e  may  form  some 
idea  of  the  psychological  conditions.  The  conviction 
inspired  in  Jesus  by  the  Baptist  of  the  near  approach 
of  the  Reign  of  God  did  not  give  rise  in  His  case 
to  an  awe-inspiring  proclamation  of  judgment,  but 
to  a  joyful  proclamation  of  deliverance  (Luke  iv.  18) ; 
because  He  saw  in  the  masses  of  His  nation  not  so 
much  guilt-laden  sinners  as  a  shepherdless  flock,  ill- 
treated  and  deserted,  which  was  deserving  of  pity 
(Matt.  ix.  36).  With  the  eye  of  trustful  love  He  re- 
cognised, beneath  the  obvious  misery  of  the  neglected 
religious  condition,  which  stood  in  close  causal  con- 
nection with  the  miserable  economic  condition,^  of 
the  masses,  a  glimmering  spark  of  pious  hope  and 
yearning  after  salvation  and  higher  things— a  spark 

1  On  this,  cf.  Holtzmann,  NTliche  Theologie,  i.  132  ff.  ;  Joh. 
Weiss,  Predigt  Jesu  vom  Reich  Gottes,  129  f ■ ;  Friedlander,  Ziir 
Entstehungsgeschichte  des  Christentums,  3rd  Section,  "  Pharisaer  und 
Amhaarez,"  pp.  37  f. 


THE   APPROACHING   REIGN   OF  GOD     425 

which  must  not  be  extinguished  by  arrogant  exclusion 
and  condemnation,  but  met  with  the  tender  succour 
of  a  seeking,  merciful  love.  Therefore  He  did  not 
separate  Himself  like  the  Pharisees  from  the  masses, 
whom  they  despised  as  unclean  (the  'am  haarets),  nor 
retire  like  John  to  the  desert  and  wait  for  the  masses 
to  come  to  Him,  but  Himself  went  to  the  people, 
sought  them  out  in  their  synagogues  on  the  Sabbath 
as  well  as  at  their  work  during  the  week,  went  into 
the  houses  that  were  open  to  Him,  to  the  bedsides 
of  the  sick  when  His  help  was  asked  for,  as  well  as 
to  the  guest-table  at  which  the  despised  publicans 
sat.  This  welcoming  love  which  sought  and  saved 
the  lost  was  something  new  which  had  not  been  seen 
before,  whether  in  the  self-satisfied  religious  correct- 
ness of  Pharisaism  or  in  the  anxious  asceticism  of 
the  Essene  order,  or  in  the  stern  preacher  of 
repentance,  John  the  Baptist.  It  was  a  revival 
of  the  best  spirit  of  the  ancient  prophets,  of  a  Hosea 
or  a  Jeremiah  ;  and  yet  different  from  theirs,  because 
it  had  for  background  a  different  period — a  time  of 
feverish  tension,  in  which  despair  of  the  present  and 
expectation  of  the  apocalyptic  catastrophe  had  reached 
their  highest  point  and  had  created  the  deepest 
unrest  among  the  people.  The  union  in  the  mind 
of  Jesus  of  this  glow  of  apocalyptic  hope  with  the 
unfailing  warmth  and  practical  energy  of  pitying 
love  to  the  poor,  the  distressed,  the  sinful,  was  the 
secret  of  the  magical  charm  of  His  personality,  of  the ' 
enthusiam  and  heroism  of  His  public  life,  of  His  irre- 
sistible influence  over  the  masses,  and  of  His  power 
to  attract  and  rivet  the  devotion  of  individuals, 
especially  those  of  a  gentle  and  sensitive  nature  ;  and 


426  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

it  was  that,  too,  which  led  to  His  collision  with  the 
ruling  authorities  both  of  His  nation  and  of  the  foreign 
world-power — in  short,  it  was  the  cause  both  of  His 
success  and  of  His  fate. 

It  was  not  the  proclamation  of  the  approach  of  the 
Reign  of  God,  in  itself,  which  brought  Jesus  into 
conflict  with  the  ruling  party  of  the  Pharisees,  who 
shared  the  general  Messianic  hopes,  and  were  not 
likely,  in  the  early  stages  of  Jesus'  work,  to  notice 
the  absence  of  the  national,  political  element,  and  of 
enmity  towards  the  heathen,  from  His  teaching.  But 
that  Jesus  should  feel  Himself  urged  by  the  impulse 
of  merciful  love  towards  the  multitudes  whom  the 
Pharisees  held  to  be  "  sinners,"  that  is,  profane  people 
who  did  not  keep  the  Law — that  seemed  to  these 
legal  zealots  to  be  inconceivable  and  unpardonable  in 
a  prophet.  When  Jesus  replied  to  these  reproaches 
with  the  saying  "  They  that  are  whole  need  not  a 
physician,  but  they  that  are  sick ;  I  came  not  to  call 
the  righteous  (to  take  part  in  the  salvation  which  the 
Reign  of  God  shall  bring),  but  sinners"  (Mark  ii.  17), 
that  seemed  at  first  sight  to  imply  the  recognition  of 
the  righteousness  of  those  who  blamed  Him ;  but  on 
closer  examination  it  contained  the  sharpest  criticism 
on  their  kind  of  piety,  and  the  denial  of  their  con- 
viction that  the  Messianic  salvation  was  only  destined 
for  legally  righteous  people  like  themselves.  But 
when  Jesus  further  declared  the  forgiveness  of  the 
sins  of  the  paralytic,  in  whose  face  He  read  humble 
penitence,  the  teachers  of  the  Law  found  in  this  an 
encroachment  upon  the  sovereign  rights  of  God,  who 
alone  could  forgive  sins  (Mark  ii.  7).  In  truth,  ac- 
cording to  their  opinion,  God  Himself  could  not  forgive 


THE   APPROACHING   REIGN   OF   GOD      427 

of  free  grace,  but  exacts  the  payment  of  every  debt, 
or  compensation  for  it  in  good  works  and  expiatory 
suffering.^  When  Jesus,  following  the  impulse  of 
love,  in  which  He  recognised  His  divine  authorisa- 
tion, restored  the  soul  of  the  penitent  sinner,  before 
healing  his  body,  by  the  comforting  word  of  forgive- 
ness, His  action  was  as  certainly  in  full  harmony  with 
the  religion  of  the  prophets  and  the  psalmists  as  it 
was  completely  opposed  to  the  legal  religion  of  the 
Pharisees.  To  this  were  soon  added  the  various 
causes  of  offence  which  Jesus  and  His  disciples  gave 
to  the  legal  zealots  by  their  laxer  observances  of  the 
Sabbath  and  their  indifference  in  regard  to  the 
customary  fastings  and  ceremonial  purifications  of  the 
Pharisees.  In  the  ensuing  conflicts  Jesus  soon  passed 
from  defence  to  attack,  which  was  finally  intensified 
into  a  destructive  criticism  of  the  whole  Pharisaic 
system  of  piety.  In  essence,  all  these  conflicts  turned 
on  that  opposition  of  spirit  and  letter  which  Paul 
afterwards  carried  to  its  logical  issue  in  the  sphere  of 
dogma.  This  does  not  mean  that  Jesus  went  to  the 
same  lengths  as  Paul  did  in  declaring  the  abrogation 
of  the  Mosaic  Law — we  shall  see  later  how  far  He  was 
from  doing  so — but  by  His  zeal  against  the  new-made 
ordinances  of  the  Jewish  Schools  and  the  heartless 
fanaticism  of  the  Pharisees  He  attacked  in  principle 
the  legalistic  spirit  in  religion.  By  His  enthusiastic 
hope  of  the  coming  Reign  of  God,  which  should  make 
all  things  new.  He  felt  Himself  raised  above  the  petti- 
nesses of  the  legalists  who  strained  out  gnats  and 
swallowed  camels ;  and  His  merciful  love,  combined 
with  that  boldness  of  genius  which  carries  with  it  its 

^  Weber,  Altsynagogalc  pal'dstinensischc  TheoL,  pp.  300  fF. 


V2H  THE   PREACHING    OF  JESUS 

own  justification,  raised  Him  far  above  all  the  barriers 
which  religious  and  social  pride  had  set  up.  Thus 
from  the  combination  of  these  two  ruling  motive- 
forces  in  the  soul  of  Jesus  there  arose,  by  an  inner 
necessity,  the  conflict  of  principle  with  Pharisaic 
Judaism,  the  tragic  issue  of  which  was  to  be  the 
means  to  a  fuller  victory  of  His  spirit  than  He 
Himself  had  ever  expected. 


THE  PREACHING  OF  JESUS  AND  THE  FAITH  OF 
THE  FIRST  DISCIPLES 

CHAPTER  XVI 

The  Call  to  Repentance 

"  Repent,  for  the  reign  of  God  is  at  hand  "  :  that  is 
the  summary  which  the  EvangeUsts  give  of  the  preach- 
ing of  Jesus.  The  promise  of  a  reUgious  blessing,  now 
nigh  at  hand,  which  should  carry  with  it  the  highest 
happiness,  was  therefore  the  basis  of  this  fundamental 
ethical  demand  of  repentance.  This  basing  of  Jesus' 
ethical  demands  upon  an  ardent  eschatological  hope 
is  to  be  noted  as  significant  of  the  special  character 
of  His  moral  teaching ;  it  was  not  derived  from  calm 
reflection  on  the  conditions  and  needs  of  human 
nature  and  society,  but  from  the  enthusiasm  of  His 
faith  in  the  approaching  Day  of  God  which  shall  make 
all  things  new  and  decide  the  fate  of  each  individual 
for  good  or  ill,  for  life  or  destruction.  Since  only 
those  shall  share  in  the  blessings  of  the  Reign  of  God 
who  are  pronounced  "righteous"  by  the  judgment 
of  God,  therefore  the  call  to  repentance  is  addressed 
to  all.  It  is  not  merely  gross  sinners  who  are  called 
on  to  turn  from  their  evil  way  and  give  up  their 
iniquities  ;  even  those  who  are  counted  righteous  in 
their  own  eyes  and  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  are  not 

429 


430  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

"  good  "  according  to  the  standard  and  the  judgment  of 
God,  who  alone  is  truly  good.  For  evil  thoughts  find  a 
place  in  their  hearts— evil  passions,  sinful  lusts,  earthly 
cares,  and,  as  the  worst  despotism  of  all,  the  idolatry 
of  "  Mammon."  A  heart  thus  impure,  oscillating  be- 
tween various  interests,  serving  many  masters  at  once, 
cannot  please  God,  who  desires  to  be  loved  with  the 
whole  heart  and  soul  (Deut.  vi.  5  ;  Mark  xii.  29). 
Therefore  the  natural  mind,  given  up  as  it  is  to 
selfishness  and  worldly  lusts,  must  change  the  direction 
which  it  has  hitherto  followed  and  give  itself  up  to 
God  without  reserve ;  the  heart  must  wrench  itself 
free  from  the  earth,  in  the  perishable  things  of  which 
it  has  hitherto  found  its  treasure,  in  order  to  seek 
the  Reign  of  God  as  the  only  true,  or  the  highest 
(Matthew),  good,  and  the  righteousness  of  God,  which 
is  the  sole  condition  of  obtaining  its  blessings  (Matt, 
vi.  33  =  Luke  xii.  31). 

But  that  the  righteousness  which  can  be  recognised 
by  God  as  w^orthy  to  have  a  part  in  His  Kingdom 
must  be  bettei'  than  that  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
was,  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  onwards 
(Matt.  V.  20),  the  constant  theme  of  the  moral  preach- 
ing of  Jesus.  Wherein  lay  the  distinction  between 
righteousness,  as  Jesus  understood  it,  and  that  of 
the  Pharisees?  The  righteousness  which  Jesus  de- 
manded does  not  consist  in  the  mere  outward  legality 
of  what  is  done  or  not  done,  nor  in  the  practice  of 
good  w^orks  done  for  appearance'  sake,  but  in  a  purity 
and  goodness  of  man's  inmost  spirit  like  to  that  of 
God.  Not  merely  the  deed  of  murder  or  adultery  is 
guilty  before  God,  but  even  the  cherishing  in  the 
heart  of  the  passion  of  anger,  or  revenge,  or  lustful 


THE   CALL  TO   REPENTANCE  431 

desire.     Alms-giving,   prayer,   and   fasting   are   only 
valuable  so  far  as  they  are  the  genuine  expression  of 
a  corresponding  attitude  of  mind  and  heart ;   if,  on 
the  other  hand,  they  are  mere  external  works  {opus 
opeimtum),  and   seek  honour  from  men  in  addition 
to  merit  before  God,  they  have  their  reward  in  the 
former   only.     Similarly,   Jesus   condemns   as    mere 
hypocrisy  the  Pharisaic  over-esteem  for  ritual  correct- 
ness at  the  expense  of  moral  duties  ;  He  frequently 
quotes  the  saying  of  Hosea,  "  I  will  have  mercy,  and 
not  sacrifice "  ;    He  defends  the  doing   of  works   of 
necessity  and  works  of  love  upon  the  Sabbath,  since 
the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the 
Sabbath.     Against  the  rigorous  ordinances  of  puri- 
fication insisted  on  by  the  teachers  of  the  Law  He 
utters  a  saying  which  logically  carries   with   it   the 
overthrow  of  legalism,  viz.  that  external  matters  such 
as  eating  and  drinking  with  unwashen  hands  do  not 
defile  a  man,  but  only  the  sinful  thoughts  which  pro- 
ceed out  of  the   heart.     On   the  same  occasion  He 
reproaches  the  legalists  because,  while  claiming  to  be 
defenders  of  the    Law   they  rather   make    it   of  no 
effect  by  their  "  ordinances   of  men  " — by  teaching, 
for  example,  that  the  making  of  a  gift  to  the  Temple 
is  a  better  thing  than  the  fulfilment  of  duty  towards 
parents  (Mark  vii.  6  fF.).     In  all  this  Jesus  followed 
the  footsteps  of  the  ancient  prophets,  who    empha- 
sised, in  contrast  to  the  hypocritical  religiosity  of  the 
popular  worship,  the  true  will  of  God  as  it  is  mani- 
fested in  the  fundamental   order   of  human   society 
and  in  the  uncorrupted  ethical  consciousness. 

But  Jesus  went  beyond  the  prophets  in  teaching 
us  to  find  an  example  and  stimulus  for  our  striving 


432  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

after  true  righteousness   in    God's    fatherly  love   to- 
wards us.     Of  old,  God  had  said  to  the   people   of 
Israel,  "  Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy"  (Levit.  xi.  44), 
thus  making  the  exaltation  of  Jahweh  above  the  impure 
world  the  motive  and  example  of  Levitical  holiness, 
that  is,  the  separation  of  Israel  from  the  heathen  life 
of  her  neighbours.     But  now  Jesus  said,  "  Love  your 
enemies,  so  shall  ye  be  the  children  of  the  Highest, 
for  he  is  kind  to  the  unthankful  and  the  evil.     Be  ye 
merciful  as  your  Father  is  merciful"  (Luke  vi.  35  f. 
=  Matt.  V.  45  f. :  "  that  ye  may  be  the  children  of 
your  Father  in  heaven ;   for  he  maketh  his   sun   to 
shine  upon  the  evil  and  upon  the  good,  and  sendeth 
his  rain  upon  the  j ust  and  upon  the  unjust.  ...  So 
shall  ye  be  perfect,  as  your  Father  in  heaven  is  per- 
fect ").     The  greatness  of  this  saying  is  not  diminished 
even  if  we  must  give  up  the  traditional  opinion  that 
the  application  of  the  name  Father  to  God  by  Jesus 
was  a  new  thing.     Even  in  the  canonical  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament,  God  is  often  called  the  Father 
of  Israel,'  and  the  Israelites  are  called  His  children 
— sometimes   in   reference   to   the   relation    of    pro- 
tection on  the  one  side  and   defence   on   the   other 
which  subsists   between    God   and    His   people,  but 
sometimes  also  in  the  sense  that  God  is  the  author  of 
Israel's  being,  its  creator.      In  the  post-Exilic  apocry- 
phal writings.  Father  is  used  of  the  relationship  of 
God   to   individual   saints.     Sirach    calls    God    "  the 
Father  and  Lord  of  my  life"  (xxiii,   1,  4,  li.   10) ;  the 
author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom  calls  not  only  the 

1  Deut.  xiv.  1,  xxxii.  5  f.  ;  Hos.  ii.  1  ;  Isa.  i.  4,  xxx.  9,  xliii.  6, 
xlv.  11,  Ixiii.  16,  Ixiv.  7  ;  Jer.  iii.  4,  14,  19,  xxxi.  8,  20;  Mai.  ii.  10. 
Cf.  Ps.  ciii.  13. 


THE   CALL  TO   REPENTANCE  433 

people  of  Israel  (xviii.  13)  but  also  individual  righteous 
men  "sons"  or  "children"  of  God  (Wisd.  ii.  13,  18), 
and  addresses  God  as  Father  (ii.  16,  xiv.  3) ;  so,  in 
Tobit  xiii.  4,  God  is  called  "  Our  Father,"  while  in 
Enoch  Ixii.  11  and  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  xvii.  30, 
pious  Israelites  are  called  "sons  of  God."     Dalman 
quotes  a  number  of  sayings  from  the  Rabbis  of  the 
early  centuries  of  our  era  in  which  God  is  described 
as  the  "  Heavenly  Father,"  with  the  suggestion  of  a 
relationship   of    fatherly   love    and    childlike    trust. 
The  designation  "  Our  Father  in  Heaven  "  was,  ac- 
cording to  Dalman,  "  a  popular   substitute   for   the 
name  of  God,  which  was  no  longer  used,"  and  Jesus 
simply  "  adopted  it  from  the  popular  usage  of  His 
time  "  ;  nor  was  it  anything  new  in  the  Jewish  religion 
for  the  Fatherhood  of  God  to  be  spoken  of  in  relation 
to  individuals,  and  thought  of  as  the  ground  of  a  pious 
trust  in  God.^     It  is  the  same  here  as  with  the  con- 
ception of  the  Reign  of  God  {sup.,  p.  423) ;  the  con- 
tent of  the  doctrine  was  not  new ;  only  the  way  in 
which  Jesus  preached  and  practically  applied  it.     It 
was  far  from  the  mind  of  Jesus,  as  a  true   son    of 
Israel,  to  proclaim  a  new  God,  in  the  sense  in  which 
Marcion   thought    He   had  put   the  loving   Father- 
God  in  the  place  of  the   holy  and   righteous   God 
of  the  Jews ;  Jesus,  as  well  as  the  Jews,  knew  the 
God   of  judgment,  who  is  to  be  feared  more   than 
men,  because  He  can  destroy  both  body  and  soul  in 
hell,^   and   the   Jews,    on  their  part,   were   not   un- 

1  Dalman,  Worte  Jesu,  pp.  154  f.  (  =  E.T.  188  f.). 

2  Cf.  Cremer,  Paulin.  Rechlfertigungslehre,  p.  231  :  "There  is  no 
suggestion  of  a  new  knowledge  of  God  which  had  dawned  on  Jesus 
and  was  witnessed  to  by  Him,  by  which  God  the  Father  was  put  in 

VOL.  II  8^ 


434  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

acquainted  with  the  thought  of  God  as  a  merciful 
and  loving  Father. 

The  distinction,  therefore,  lay  not  so  much  in  the 
conception  of  God  in  the  one  case  and  the  other,  as, 
rather,  in  the  way  in  which  feeling  and  will  reacted 
upon  that  conception.  In  the  case  of  the  Jews,  trust 
in  the  fatherly  attitude  of  God  could  never  attain  all- 
pervading  and  dominant  importance  because  the  legal 
relation  of  king  and  subject,  or  master  and  servant, 
always  formed  the  ruling  centre  of  the  national  legal 
religion  ;  for  the  mind  of  Jesus,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
is  precisely  the  fatherly  goodness,  which  for  others 
stood  only  alongside  of,  or  behind,  other  attributes  of 
God,  which  becomes  the  main  point,  the  essential 
character,  to  which  power  and  glory  and  righteous- 
ness are  subordinated.  And  why  is  that?  Manifestly 
because  He  could  not  help  thinking  of  that  which  He 
recognised  as  highest  in  Himself  as  being  also  the 
highest  in  God,  His  essential  being.  His  own  heart, 
which,  for  all  its  purity  and  separateness  from  sin  felt 
itself  drawn  out  in  tender  pity  and  the  saving  energy 
of  love  towards  the  misery  of  sinners,  was  for  Him 
the  guarantee  that  this  holy  and  saving  love  was  also 
supreme  in  God.  We  may  call  this  profound 
intuition  of  love  which  directly  determined  the 
content  of  His  God-consciousness  a  religious  "revela- 
tion," which,  by  arising  in  His  heart,  made  Him  the 
"  First-born  of  the  sons  of  God  "  (Rom.  viii.  29),  to 
whose  likeness  we  are  all  to  be  conformed.     But  this 

the  place  of  God  the  Judge.  On  the  contrary,  just  as  the  expecta- 
tion of  the  Judgment  cannot  be  dissociated  from  the  idea  of  the 
fSacriXeia,  the  Fatherhood  by  no  means  excludes  the  Judgment  of 
God." 


THE   CALL  TO   REPENTANCE  435 

revelation  need  not  be  supposed  to  be  a  supernatural 
miracle,  since  it  is  just  the  outcome  of  the  Divine 
endowment  of  reason  which  lies  in  our  human  nature, 
of  that  "  Logos  "  which  is  "  the  light  of  men,  which 
lighteneth  every  man  "  (John  i.  4,  9).  Because  Jesus 
was  merciful  Himself,  He  thought  of  God  as  the 
merciful  Father ;  and  because  He  thought  of  God  in 
this  way  He  demanded  of  men  that  by  becoming  like 
God  they  should  become  true  sons  of  God  (Luke  vi. 
35  f. ).  Sonship  to  God  is  therefore,  in  the  thought  of 
Jesus,  not  a  present  reality,  but  an  ideal  standard ; 
not  a  relationship  of  nature  with  God  as  the  ground 
of  our  life  which  can  be  asserted  of  humanity  as  such, 
and  which  might  serve  as  the  presupposition  of  our 
moral  effort,  but  a  likeness  of  character  to  the  perfect 
type  of  goodness  which  we  see  in  God,  and  which 
every  individual  is  to  strive  after  by  moral  effort. 
From  this  there  results  an  ambiguity  in  the  thought 
of  sonship  to  God  similar  to  that  which  is  found  in 
Paul.  In  so  far  as  it  is  an  ideal  which  has  still  to 
be  striven  after — and  that  is  for  Jesus  the  leading 
thought — it  is,  strictly  speaking,  not  yet  actual,  but 
has  still  to  become  so  in  the  future.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  so  far  as  it  has  not  only  its  perfect  type 
but  also  its  basis  and  guarantee  in  the  Father- will  of 
God,  he  who  believes  in  this  fatherly  will  of  God  may 
feel  himself  even  in  the  present  a  child  of  God — in 
process  of  becoming.  Now  the  possibility  of  "  becom- 
ing "  implies  a  certain  "  being,"  and  that  not  only  on 
God's  side  but  also  on  man's,  and  therefore  the  thought 
of  sonship  to  God,  in  the  sense  of  an  ideal  in  process  of 
realisation,  needed  the  supplement  which  is  supplied 
by  the  Pauline  and  Johannine  teaching  about  the 


436  THE    PREACHING    OF  JESUS 

indwelling  Spirit  of  God,  which  moreover  only  em- 
bodied in  doctrinal  form  a  truth  which  was  given  in 
Jesus'  enthusiasm  of  faith  and  love  as  inner  personal 
experience. 

To  the  Father-will  of  God,  in  so  far  as  it  is  the 
motive  of  the  religious  and  ethical  attitude  of  man,  cor- 
responds the  twofold  command  to  love  God  with  the 
whole  heart  and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves.  The 
first  part  is  found  in  Deut.  vi.  5  as  the  fundamental 
demand  of  monotheistic  faith  in  God,  the  second  in 
Levit.  xix.  18  as  the  command  to  love  one's  fellow- 
countryman  as  oneself.  Hillel  had  already  extended 
this  command  to  the  love  of  mankind  in  general,  and 
described  this  as  the  kernel,  the  quintessence  of  the 
whole  Law.  Here  again,  therefore,  it  has  to  be  said 
that  the  content  of  the  twofold  command  was  not 
new,  but  Jesus'  way  of  taking  it  in  earnest  certainly 
was  so.  In  Judaism  the  higher  insight  of  Hillel  had 
not  been  able  to  produce  its  full  effect,  because  not 
even  this  Pharisaic  teacher  himself,  much  less  others, 
could  get  free  from  the  fundamental  mistake  of  all 
legalistic  religion  and  morality,  the  splitting  up  of 
the  Divine  will  into  a  number  of  positive  com- 
mandments (the  Pharisees  counted  613)  which  at 
bottom  were  all  equally  obligatory  because  given 
by  God ;  and  the  ritual  ordinances,  while  theoreti- 
cally at  least  of  equal  importance,  were  practically 
more  important  than  the  moral.  It  was  this  that 
condemned  the  religion  and  morality  of  Judaism 
to  the  torpor  and  externality  which  had  begun  in 
Pharisaism  and  was  completed  in  Talmudism.  Jesus 
broke  the  spell  by  the  fact  that  He  had  not  only 
theoretically  recognised  the  love  of  God  and  our  neigh- 


THE   CAI.L   TO    REPENTANCE  437 

hour  as  the  most  important  thing,  but  had  practically 
experienced  it  as  an  overmasteringly  powerful  spiritual 
impulse,  which  raised  Him  far  above  all  the  pettinesses 
of  the  Scribes.  And  as  for  Him  this  experience  united 
the  love  of  God  and  love  of  man  into  one  indivisible 
living  impulse  and  motive.  He  combined  the  two 
commandments  as  of  equal  importance  into  the  two- 
fold command  in  which  the  epitome  of  the  whole 
Law  is  contained,  the  whole  will  of  God  for  us,  in 
its  essential  inner  unity,  included.  By  this,  religion 
and  morality,  which  in  Judaism  w^ere  always  tending 
to  fall  apart,  are  bound  together  with  cords  that 
cannot  be  loosed ;  henceforth  there  should  be  no 
religion  which  manifested  itself  only  in  morally 
worthless  ceremonies,  in  purely  ritual  "  holiness." 
Even  the  ceremonies  of  the  cultus  come  to  be 
estimated  in  a  different  way ;  they  are  no  longer  a 
service  to  be  rendered  to  God  by  which  man  may 
acquire  merit  in  the  sight  of  God  or  buy  His  favour, 
but  the  natural  expression  of  pious  feeling,  and  are 
only  of  value  in  so  far  as  they  are  the  outward  em- 
bodiment of  a  corresponding  inward  frame  of  mind. 
Where  this  is  wanting,  prayer  and  fasting  are  mere 
empty  show,  hypocrisy  (Matt.  vi.).  The  keeping  of 
the  Sabbath,  too,  is  not  a  service  which  man  does  to 
God,  but  a  benefit  intended  by  God  for  man  (Mark 
ii.  28) ;  therefore  the  best,  the  worthiest  way  of  keep- 
ing the  day  is  by  doing  good  to  one's  neighbour  (Mark 
iii.  4  and  liuke  vi.  9).  Therefore  ceremonial  worship 
must  never  be  preferred  before  the  fulfilment  of  plain 
moral  duties.  "  1  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice," 
Jesus  quotes  from  Hosea ;  and  He  most  sharply  con- 
demns the   practice   of  the    Pharisees,  which    set   a 


438  THE   PREACHING    OF  JESUS 

pious  offering  above  duty  to  parents,  and  turned 
prayer  into  a  means  of  satisfying  vanity  and  avarice. 
In  contrast  with  this,  He  commands  that  even  the 
performance  of  an  act  of  worship,  such  as  sacrifice, 
shall  be  interrupted  in  order  not  to  delay  the  more 
pressing  duty  of  reconciliation  with  an  offended 
brother  for  a  single  moment  (Matt.  v.  23  f.). 

Thus,  in  place  of  the  ceremonial  worship  of  God 
there  is  to  be  substituted  moral  beneficence  towards 
men.  Service  rendered  to  men,  God  looks  on  as 
though  done  to  Himself  (Matt.  xxv.  40).  Conversely, 
all  moral  action  must  spring  from  and  be  in  accord- 
ance with  the  religious  motive  of  whole-hearted  love 
to  God.  It  is  to  consist,  on  the  one  hand,  of  imitation 
of  the  absolute  goodness  of  God  in  a  faithful  willing 
and  doing  of  good  to  all,  which  perseveres  in  spite  of 
provocation  and  enmity ;  and  on  the  other  hand  of 
an  unconditional  surrender  to  the  fatherly  will  of  God 
in  child-like  trust  and  humble  resignation.  It  is  in  a 
pure  love  of  one's  neighbour,  free  from  all  self-seeking, 
and  a  pure  trust  in  God,  free  from  all  worldly  anxiety, 
that  the  attitude  of  mind  consists  which  is  in  con- 
formity with  the  fatherly  will  of  God,  and  which 
therefore  makes  a  man  a  true  child  of  God,  or,  to 
put  it  otherwise,  constitutes  his  true  "  righteousness," 
which  is  certain  to  be  accepted  by  God.  In  the 
detailed  development  of  these  two  main  thoughts, 
which  run  through  the  whole  preaching  of  Jesus, 
there  can  be  distinguished,  however,  two  different 
tones — one  of  a  cheerful  and  confident  wisdom  which 
combines  its  quiet  and  harmonious  strain  with  an 
idyllic,  optimistic  view  of  Nature ;  the  other  a  stern, 
ascetic  rigorism,  the  heroic  demands  of  which  have  as 


THE   CALL  TO   REPENTANCE  439 

their  dark  background  an  ascetic,  pessimistic  estimate 
of  the  present  world  and  an  ardent  expectation  of 
apocalyptic  catastrophies.  According  to  Renan  and 
Keim,  these  different  moods  belong  to  two  different 
periods  of  the  public  life  of  Jesus — its  beginning  and 
its  close.  That  is  not  indeed  impossible,  but  it  cannot 
be  proved ;  for  in  the  account  given  in  our  Gospels 
(which  do  not  necessarily,  of  course,  reproduce  the 
historical  order)  the  softer  and  the  harder  tone  are 
found  side  by  side  from  the  first,  and  often  pass  into 
one  another.  However  we  may  explain  this,  the  fact 
must  not  be  overlooked  or  concealed  by  the  unpre- 
judiced historian ;  he  must  not  allow  his  judgment 
to  be  warped  by  apologetic  or  polemical  motives  into 
suppressing  either  of  these  different  tones  in  the 
preaching  of  Jesus. 

It  is  easy  to  understand  why  rationalism  always 
preferred  the  cheerful,  optimistic,  harmonious  strain 
in  the  preaching  of  Jesus,  with  which  it  naturally 
sympathised,  and  which,  in  fact,  contains  a  rational 
truth  suitable  to  all  times,  the  universal  human  ideal. 
Of  unequalled  loftiness  and  imperishable  value  are 
those  sayings  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount : — "  Love 
your  enemies,  and  pray  for  your  persecutors,  that  ye 
may  be  the  sons  of  your  Father  in  heaven  ;  for  he 
maketh  his  sun  to  shine  upon  the  good  and  upon 
the  evil,  upon  the  righteous  and  the  unrighteous." 
"  Take  no  thought  for  your  life,  what  ye  shall  eat, 
nor  for  your  body,  what  ye  shall  put  on.  Is  not  the 
life  more  than  meat  and  the  body  more  than  raiment  ? 
Behold  the  birds  of  the  air,  they  sow  not  neither  do 
they  reap  nor  gather  into  barns,  yet  your  heavenly 
Father  feedeth  them.    Are  ye  not  of  much  more  value 


440  THE   PREACHING   OP  JESUS 

than  they  ?     ^Vhich  of  you  by  taking  thought  can  add 
a  cubit  to  the  length  of  his  Hfe  ?     And  why  take  ye 
thought  for  raiment  ?     Behold  the  lilies  of  the  field, 
how  they  grow  ;  they  toil  not,  neither  do  they  spin, 
but  I   say  unto  you  that   Solomon  in  all  his  glory 
was  not  arrayed  like  one  of  these.     But  if  God  so 
clothe  the  grass  of  the  field,  which  to-day  is,  and 
to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven,  shall  he  not  much 
more  clothe  you,  O  ye  of  little  faith  ?     Therefore  ye 
shall  not  be  anxious,  nor  say.  What  shall  we  eat?  or, 
AVhat  shall  we  drink  ?  or,  W  herewithal  shall  we  be 
clothed  ?     After  all  these  things  do  the  Gentiles  seek. 
But   your   heavenly  Father   knoweth   that   ye  have 
need  of  these  things.     Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  his  righteousness,  and  all  these  things  shall 
be  added  unto  you.     Therefore  take  no  thought  for 
the  morrow ;  for  the  morrow  shall  take  thought  for 
the  things  of  itself.     Sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the 
evil  thereof."     In  such  sayings  we  see  a  tone  of  mind 
in  which  the  inward  piety  and  submission  to  God's 
will  of  the  true  Israelite  seems  to  be  united  to  the 
inward  freedom  and  harmonious  view  of  the  world  of 
the  Hellenic  sage ;  they  sound  like  the  primal  utter- 
ances of  human  wisdom,  like  elemental  truths,  which 
Nature  herself  seems  to   reveal   to   the   pure   mind, 
and  which  are  therefore  as  imperishable  as  the  eternal 
laws  of  the  world-order.     But  we  must  not   forget 
that    Nature,  after   all,  is   not   really  able   to   teach 
such  truths ;  to  cool  reason  she  shows,  in  addition  to 
this  cheerful  side,  another  and  a  very  dark  one — the 
hard  struggle  for  existence,  the  unnumbered  woes  of 
the  suffering  creation,  from  which  man  himself  is  not 
by  any  means  exempt;    and  if  Nature  showers  her 


THE   CALL  TO    REPENTANCE  441 

good   things    impartially    upon    righteous    and    un- 
righteous, she  does  the  same  with    her   evil   things. 
The  optimistic  view  of  life  is  therefore  always  not  so 
much  read  out  of  Nature  as  read  into  it.     For  Jesus, 
too,  it  was  certainly  the  inner  revelation  of  God,  the 
intimate  union  with  God  of  His  trustful  and  loving 
heart,  which  enabled    Him   intuitively  to   recognise 
and  gratefully  to  reverence  in  Nature,  and  in  the  lives 
of  the  simple  and  child-like  souls  who  stand  close  to 
Nature,  the  loving  care  of  the  heavenly  Father.     The 
cheerful,  optimistic  outlook  upon  the  world  of  Nature 
and  on  childhood  (Mark  x.  13  fF. ;  Luke  x.  21)  is  in- 
contestably  a  characteristic  trait  of  the  religious  life 
of  Jesus,  an  expression  of  His  child-like  trust  in  God 
and  of  the  purity,  freedom,  and  healthfulness  of  His 
mind.     And  because  it  springs  from  inward  religion, 
this  optimistic  view  of   Nature   does   not   remain   a 
mere  theory  or  an  aesthetic  mood,  but  becomes  the 
motive  of  a  corresponding  ethical  attitude.     The  con- 
fident faith  that  all  that  happens  even  in  Nature  is 
ruled  by  the  will  of  God,  who  cares  much  more,  even, 
for  the  good  of  His  human  children  than  for  other 
creatures,  frees  us  from  the  trammels  of  earthly  care 
and  fear  (Matt.  vi.  25  fF.).     The  thought  of  the  un- 
bounded goodness  of  God,  which,  raised  far   above 
human  weakness,  showers  the  abundance  of  its  natural 
goods  even  upon  the  unthankful  and  the  evil,  becomes 
the  motive  for  a  similar  magnanimity  and  patience  in 
benevolence  and  beneficence  towards  even  those  who 
reward  it  with  hostility  (Matt.  v.  44  f.).     In  so  far  as 
we  understand  the  love  to  enemies  which  Jesus  com- 
manded as  freedom  from  vengeful  feelings,  as  a  con- 
stant readiness  to  forgive  and  be  reconciled,  and  as  the 


442  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

persistent  endeavour  not  to  be  overcome  by  evil  but 
to  overcome  evil  with  good, — in  short,  as  unconquer- 
able faithfulness  in  love  to  one's  neighbour, — we  must 
recognise  it  as  an  exalted  virtue  which  often,  indeed, 
goes  beyond  our  capacity,  but  not  entirely  beyond 
our  comprehension  and  the  approval  of  our  under- 
standing ;  the  less  so  as  similar  teaching  has  been  given 
by  other  sages  (Buddha,  Plato,  Seneca,  Epictetus). 

But  it  must  be  admitted  that  this  attitude  is  not 
constant ;  Jesus  also  gave  commandments  of  so  severe 
an  ascetic  rigorism  that  they  cannot  be  thought  of  as 
universally  applicable  rules  for  an  orderly  condition 
of  human  society,  but  are  rather  to  be  thought  of 
as  corresponding  to  a  special  historical  situation.  A 
notable  example  is  the  saying  which  Luke  records 
in  connection  with  the  command  to  love  our  enemies 
(vi.  29),  but  Matthew,  perhaps  more  correctly,  un- 
connected with  this,  as  an  independent  antithesis  to 
the  old  law  of  retaliation  (v.  30  fF.),  "  I  say  unto  you, 
resist  not  evil,  but  whosoever  smites  thee  upon  the 
right  cheek,  offer  unto  him  the  other  also,  and  he 
who  will  go  to  law  with  thee  to  take  thy  cloak,  let 
him  have  thy  mantle  also."  It  is  clear  that  this 
saying  could  not  be  carried  out  in  any  society,  for  it 
would  do  away  with  all  equitable  order  and  play  into 
the  hands  of  brutal  violence.  It  cannot,  moreover,  be 
reconciled  with  that  other  saying  of  Jesus,  "  Whatso- 
ever ye  would  that  men  should  do  unto  you,  do  ye 
also  unto  them"  (Matt.  vii.  12  =  Luke  vi.  31). 
According  to  this,  no  one  is  to  treat  another  simply 
as  a  means  to  his  ends,  but  each  must  regard  the 
other  as  the  possessor  of  similar  ethical  rights.  From 
this  it  obviously  follows  that  each  may  demand  from 


THE   CALL  TO    REPENTANCE  443 

the  other  the  same  respect  for  his  own  rights  and 
personal  dignity.  The  principle  of  mutual  obliga- 
tions and  mutual  rights  which  underlies  the  saying 
that  we  are  to  love  our  neighbours  as  ourselves, 
excludes  the  abandonment  of  our  own  rights  by 
submitting  to  wrongs  inflicted  by  others,  not  less 
than  disregard  of  the  rights  of  others  by  injustice 
on  our  part.  But  as  man's  natural  instinct  of  self- 
defence  is  apt  to  react  against  wrong  inflicted  by 
others  in  passionate  feeling  (anger,  revenge),  and  as 
in  doing  so  the  bounds  between  mere  self-defence 
against  the  offered  injustice  and  the  doing  of  injustice 
on  one's  own  part  are  very  easily  crossed,  Jesus  sets 
up,  in  contrast  to  the  natural  impulse  of  self-love, 
its  opposite — unconditional  abandonment  of  all  self- 
love,  the  surrender  of  one's  own  rights,  as  the  ascetic 
radical  cure.  It  is  only  from  this  point  of  view  of 
extreme  ascetic  rigorism,  not  from  some  idea  of 
moral  influence  on  one's  opponent,  that  we  are  to 
understand  the  precept  of  non-resistance ;  it  is  not 
intended  as  a  rule  for  the  ordinary  conditions  of 
human  society,  but  asserts  the  principle,  in  a  time 
when  the  world  is  breaking  up  and  all  social  values 
are  cast  into  the  fire  of  the  Judgment,  that,  by  heroic 
victory  over  self,  the  naked  soul  is  to  be  saved, 
and,  by  complete  contempt  for  honour  or  shame 
in  this  perishing  world,  the  glory  of  the  world  to 
come  is  to  be  secured.^     That  it  is  only  in  view  of 

^  Cf,  Joh.  Weiss,  Predigt  Jesu  vo7n  Reich  Gottcs,  2nd  ed.,  pp.  150  fF. 
Also,  on  p.  139,  the  pei'tinent  remark  about  the  "useless  trouble 
people  give  themselves  to  weaken  these  bold  and  forceful  words 
by  giving  them  an  unnatural  interpretation,  i.e.  by  taking  the  heart 
out  of  them  in  order  to  be  able  to  maintain  their  permanent  and 
literal  applicability  to  all  periods." 


444  THE   PREACHING   OF   JESUS 

this  dark  eschatological  background  that  the  bold 
paradox  of  non-resistance  is  to  be  understood  is  made 
clear  by  the  two  related  sayings,  "  Be  reconciled  to 
thine  adversary  quickly,  while  thou  art  on  the  way 
with  him  (to  the  judge),  in  order  that  the  adversary 
may  not  deliver  thee  to  the  judge  and  thou  be  cast 
into  prison"  (JNlatt.  v.  25),  i.e.,  in  view  of  the  nearness 
of  the  Judgment,  a  man  should  extricate  himself 
from  all  earthly  quarrels  as  speedily  as  may  be ;  and 
again,  "  He  who  will  save  his  life  shall  lose  it ;  but 
he  who  will  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  and  the  gospel's 
shall  save  it.  For  what  doth  it  profit  a  man  to  gain 
the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  life  ?  Or  what  shall 
a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  life  ?  "  (Mark  viii.  35  f. 
=  Luke  ix.  24  f,  =  Matt.  xvi.  25).  It  is  customary  to 
interpret  this  saying  in  the  sense  that  by  giving  up  the 
natural  life,  i.e.  by  overcoming  the  lower  impulses,  the 
higher  life,  rich  in  all  spiritual  blessings,  is  to  be  won. 
But  that  is  rather  a  practical  application  of  it  than  an 
exposition  of  the  original  sense  of  the  saying ;  this 
is  rather,  "  Whoso ver  in  this  last  critical  time,  through 
fear  for  his  life,  becomes  cowardly  or  disloyal,  shall 
certainly  at  the  Judgment  lose  his  life,  and  then 
whatever  he  has  gained  will  profit  him  nothing ;  but 
he  who  is  ready  to  stake  his  life  upon  the  success  of 
the  Messianic  cause  is  certain  to  receive  in  the  world 
to  come  the  eternal  life  (of  the  resurrection),  and 
therewith  all  other  blessings  besides  (Matt.  xix.  29). 

The  same  eschatologically  coloured  asceticism  is 
found  also  in  numerous  passages  in  which  Jesus 
demands  of  His  followers  a  complete  severance  from 
all  that  binds  them  to  this  present  world,  even  in- 
cluding  family  ties.     There  is  the  familiar  story  of 


THE   CALL   TO   REPENTANCE  445 

the  rich  young  man  who,  in  answer  to  his  query  what 
he  must  do  in  order  to  inherit  eternal  hfe,  received 
the  commandment  to  sell  all  that  he  had  and  give 
to  the  poor,  that  so  he  might  have  treasure  in  heaven — 
a  bond,  so  to  speak,  lodged  in  heaven,  which  assured 
his  claim  to  eternal  life.  INIatthew  was  no  longer 
willinsf  to  understand  that  as  a  demand  of  general 
application,  and  therefore  weakened  it  into  an  individ- 
ual and  conditional  counsel,  "  If  thou  wilt  be  perfect," 
etc.  But  in  Mark  and  Luke  the  command  is  quite 
unconditional,  and  that  this  was  the  original  meaning 
is  clear  from  the  saying  of  Jesus  which  follows  in  all 
the  Gospels — that  it  is  as  impossible  for  a  rich  man 
to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  as  for  a  camel 
to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle ;  so  impossible, 
indeed,  that  it  could  only  be  effected  by  a  Divinely 
wrought  miracle.  Obviously  Jesus  judged  riches 
in  themselves  to  be  something  corrupting — to  be 
the  greatest,  the  most  irresistible  danger  to  the  soul 
of  the  possessor;  to  be,  in  fact,  an  idol  (Mammon) 
which  held  men  so  completely  bound  in  his  service 
that  it  was  impossible  to  serve  God  at  the  same  time 
(Matt.  vi.  24).  For  this  reason  riches  are  called  in  Luke 
(xvi.  9,  11)  the  "Mammon  of  unrighteousness,"  "un- 
righteous Mammon,"  not  on  the  ground  of  the 
unrighteous  manner  in  which,  in  that  particular 
case,  it  had  been  obtained,  but  because  it  is  itself  a 
power  hostile  to  God,  which  makes  righteousness,  in 
the  gospel  sense,  impossible  for  the  man  who  has  it 
or  is  striving  after  it.  Therefore  Jesus  commanded 
men  not  merely  in  individual  cases  and  by  way  of 
test,  but  quite  generally  and  literally,  to  jettison  this 
soul- destroying  cargo  and  rim  for  shelter,  along  with 


446  THE    PREACHING    OF  JESUS 

the  poor,  into  the  safe  harbour  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
"  Sell  what  you  have,  and  give  alms  ;  make  for  your- 
selves purses  that  wax  not  old,  a  treasure  in  heaven, 
that  fadeth  not  away,  where  no  thief  can  break  in 
and  no  moth  destroy.  For  where  your  treasure  is, 
there  will  your  heart  be  also.  .  .  .  Whosoever  of  you 
forsaketh  not  all  that  he  hath,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple  " 
(I^uke  xii.  33,  xiv.  33).  It  is  obviously  to  do  vio- 
lence to  these  words  to  give  them  the  spiritualising 
interpretation  that  a  man  is  merely  not  to  set  his 
heart  upon  wealth  in  an  avaricious  or  miserly  way, 
but,  apart  from  that,  may  well  retain  it  and  prudently 
apply  it  to  morally  good  ends.  That  is  the  view  we 
modern  Protestant  Christians  take,  because  we  think 
of  all  earthly  goods  as  a  means  to  ethical  action, 
equally  capable  of  a  good  or  a  bad  use  ;  and  we 
should  therefore  judge  the  renunciation  of  all  one's 
possessions,  which  would  deprive  one  of  the  means 
of  all  independent  moral  action,  to  be  not  ethically 
right.  But  Jesus  thought  in  every  respect  quite 
differently  on  this  point.  In  common  with  all  anti- 
quity. He  saw  in  riches  not  a  means  of  productive 
moral  action  but  merely  a  means  of  enjoyment ;  and 
in  common  with  the  pious  Jews  of  His  time^  He 
saw  in  the  rich,  as  a  class,  born  worldlings,  oppressors 
of  the  pious  poor,  despisers  and  enemies  of  the  Reign 
of  God.  Finally,  He  lived  in  the  fixed  conviction  that 
He  stood  at  the  close  of  one  era  of  the  world  and 
the  beginning  of  another :  in  view  of  this  impending 
world-catastrophe,  this  decisive  day  of  the  judgment 
of  God,  He  could  not  think  of  giving  rules  for  the 

1  Cf.  the  apocalypses  The  Assumption  of  Moses  (vii.),  and  Enoch 
xciv.,  xcvi.,  xcviii.,  cviii.     See  above,  p.  401. 


THE   CALL   TO   REPENTANCE  447 

moral  use  of  wealth  in  a  society  organised  upon  a  per- 
manent basis.  His  object  was  that  everyone,  in  order 
to  prepare  for  the  world  to  come,  should  free  himself 
as  speedily  as  possible  from  the  fetters  which  bound 
him  to  the  present  passing  world.  *'  Let  your  loins 
be  girded  about  and  your  lights  burning,  and  be 
ye  like  serv^ants  who  wait  for  their  lord's  return  from 
the  wedding,  that  they  may  open  to  him  at  once 
when  he  comes  and  knocks."  This  exhortation  to  be 
ready  follows  immediately  upon  the  passage  quoted 
above  about  selling  one's  possessions  and  laying  up 
treasure  in  heaven  (Luke  xii.  33-36) — a  clear  proof 
that  the  apocalyptic  expectation  of  the  approaching 
end  of  the  world  is  the  simple  explanation  of  Jesus' 
pessimistic  estimate  of  earthly  possessions.  Instead 
of  twisting  round  His  rigoristic  utterances  upon 
this  point  and  endeavouring  to  force  them  into 
accordance  with  our  present  social  ethics,  we  should 
familiarise  ourselves  once  for  all  with  the  thought 
that  Jesus  did  not  come  forward  as  a  teacher  of  the 
ethics  of  pure  reason,  but  as  an  enthusiastic  prophet 
of  the  approaching  Reign  of  God,  and  that  it  was  just 
by  this  means  that  He  became  the  source  and  founder 
of  the  religion  of  redemption  ;  but  anyone  who  seeks 
to  make  eschatological  prophetic  enthusiasm  a  per- 
manent authority  and  standard  of  social  ethics  is 
acting  no  more  wisely  than  one  who  should  attempt 
to  warm  his  hearth  and  cook  his  dinner  with  the 
flames  of  a  volcano. 

But  it  was  not  merely  upon  earthly  possessions 
that  Jesus  declared  war:  His  demand  for  a  radical 
breach  with  the  present  world  did  not  stop  short  of 
the  sacred  ties  of  family,  of  piety  towards  parents,  of 


448  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

the  love  of  wife  and  children.  When  one  who  was 
called  to  follow  Him  wished  first  to  go  and  bury  his 
father,  Jesus  said  to  him,  "  Let  the  dead  bury  their 
dead  ;  but  go  thou  and  preach  the  kingdom  of  God  "  ; 
and  another,  who  desired  to  take  leave  of  his  family, 
He  forbade  with  the  words,  "  Whoso  putteth  his  hand 
to  the  plough  and  looketh  back,  is  not  fit  for  the 
kingdom  of  God"  (Luke  ix.  60  fF.).  Naturally,  here, 
too,  the  exegetical  art  of  theologians  has  not  lacked 
means  of  explaining  and  softening  down  these  hard 
sayings :  they  were  only  intended  to  test  those  to  whom 
they  were  spoken,  Jesus  foresaw  that  the  delay  would 
prove  fatal  to  their  good  resolutions,  and  so  forth. 
But  the  truth  is  rather  that  it  was  not  a  question  of 
individual  exceptions  but  of  a  general  principle — the 
same  principle  which  Jesus  Himself  followed  in  His 
conduct  towards  His  mother  and  brethren,  and  to 
which  He  gave  the  sharpest  and  most  unmistakable 
expression  in  the  saying,  "  Whosoever  cometh  unto 
me  and  hateth  not  his  father  and  mother,  wife,  chil- 
dren, brethren  and  sisters,  yea  his  own  life  also,  can- 
not be  my  disciple "  (Luke  xiv.  26  =  Matt.  x.  37  f.). 
Obviously,  this  saying  is  unsuitable  to  the  Church's 
catalogue  of  domestic  virtues  and  duties ;  accord- 
ingly, the  ecclesiastical  Evangelist  IVIatthew  already 
found  it  needful  to  give  it  the  unexceptionable  turn, 
"  Whoso  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me,  is  not 
worthy  of  me."  In  this  weakened  form  it  may  of 
course  be  understood  to  mean  that  in  case  of  a  colli- 
sion between  family  duties  and  the  cause  of  Christ 
the  latter  must  take  precedence ;  and  we,  moreover, 
assume  that  such  cases  of  painful  conflict  of  duties 
can  only  be  rare  exceptions.     But  if  that  had  been 


THE   CALL   TO    REPENTANCE  449 

Jesus'  meaning  it  would  seem  to  have  been  expressed, 
in  the  form  recorded  by  Luke,  which  is  doubtless 
the  original  form,  in  a  way  which  invited  misunder- 
standing. As  the  saying  stands,  it  can  indeed  only 
be  understood  on  the  assumption  that  Jesus  regarded 
family  ties  as  an  absolute  hindrance  to  discipleship, 
and  therefore  tolerated  no  compromise  between  the 
two  interests,  but  demanded  on  the  part  of  His 
disciples  as  decisive  a  breach  with  all  family  ties  as 
He  had  made  in  His  own  case  (according  to  JVIark 
iii.  33).  That  may  certainly  appear  strange  in  the  case 
of  one  who  rated  the  sacredness  of  marriage  so  highly 
that  He  forbade  its  dissolution,  who  put  the  perfor- 
mance of  filial  duty  above  religious  oblations  (Mark 
vii.  10  ff.),  and  who  often  showed  Himself  a  lover  of 
little  children  (Mark  ix.  36,  x.  13  fF.).  But  we  must 
never  forget  that  "in  His  breast  there  dwelt  two 
souls,"  ^  and  that  the  ardent  expectation  of  a  new 
world  must  involve  a  transposition  of  values  in  the 
present  order  of  things.  The  enthusiastic  prophet  of 
the  Reign  of  God,  of  the  New  Age  in  which  there 
should  be  no  more  marrying  or  giving  in  marriage, 
in  which  all  sacrifices  of  family  happiness  will  be  com- 
pensated a  hundred-fold  in  new  forms  of  social  life 
(Matt.  xix.  29,  xxii.  30),  could  not  but  hold  de- 
pendence on  parents  or  children  and  husband  or  wife 
as,  not  less  than  gold  and  possessions,  fetters  from 
which  one  must  free  oneself  by  a  heroic  resolution,  in 
order  to  gain  a  share  in  the  eternal  life  of  the  age  to 
come.     Only  from  this  point  of  view  is  it  possible  to 

1  An  allusion  to  Faust : — 

"  Zwei  Seelen  wohnen,  ach  !  in  meiuer  Brust." 

— Translator 
VOL.  II  29 


450  THE   PREACHING    OF  JESUS 

explain  why  Jesus  gave  no  positive  precepts  regarding 
the  relations  of  husband  and  wife,  the  bringing  up  of 
children,  the  exercise  of  one's  earthly  calling,^  and  the 
duties  of  citizenship.^  This  complete  ignoring  of  all 
that  makes  the  concrete  content  of  social  ethics  would 
be  unintelligible  if  Jesus  had  intended  to  be  a  teacher 
of  humane  morals  for  men  in  this  present  world,  but 
it  becomes  quite  intelligible  on  the  assumption,  w^hich 
apart  from  this  is  quite  clearly  evidenced,  that  He 
believed  in,  hoped  for,  and  proclaimed  the  approach- 
ing end  of  the  old  natural  order  of  things  and  the 
commencement  of  a  new  order  of  things  which  was 
to  be  brought  into  existence  by  the  exercise  of  super- 
natural power.  For  this  reason,  the  often-expressed 
opinion  is  untenable,  that  Jesus  had  given  no  positive 
social  rules  because  He  desired  to  leave  to  the  natural 
development  of  things  the  formation  of  a  new,  ethi- 
cal, social  order  in  the  community  of  His  disciples. 
This  is  to  overlook  the  fact  that  He  did  not  look 
forward  to  any  natural  development  of  things  at  all, 
but  expected  a  catastrophe  which  should  make  all 
things  new  at  one  stroke.  But  even  if  the  content 
of  this  hope,  which  Jesus  shared  with  the  men  of  His 
own  race  and  time,  has  proved  to  be  illusory,  never- 
theless the  enthusiasm  of  faith  and  love  which  lived 
and  worked  in  Him  and  in  His  disciples  was  a  reality 

1  In  the  sayings  in  Matt.  vi.  25  ff.  religious  idealism  finds  such 
bold  expression  that  it  does  not  seem  easy  to  combine  with  it  the 
assignment  of  a  positive  ethical  value  to  work. 

2  No  positive  prescription  in  this  respect  is  to  be  found  in  the 
saying  in  Matt.  xii.  17,  since  the  separation  which  is  here  enjoined 
between  religion  and  politics,  and  the  submission  to  the  Roman 
administration,  do  not  rest  on  any  positive  interest  in  political 
matters  but  rather  upon  its  opposite. 


THE   CALL  TO    REPENTANCE  451 

of  the  highest  order ;  it  was,  in  fact,  the  beginning 
of  a  new  ethical  and  rehgious  spirit,  out  of  which, 
moreover,  new  forms  of  society  and  a  new  social 
ethic  have  actually,  in  course  of  time,  developed. 
The  saying  "  He  that  will  be  great  among  you,  let 
him  be  your  servant ;  and  he  who  will  be  first,  let  him 
be  the  servant  of  all"  (Mark  x.  43),  in  which  the 
fundamental  attitude  of  Jesus  finds  classical  expres- 
sion, became  the  positive  principle  of  Christian 
social  ethics,  and  gave  the  initial  incentiv^e  to  the 
transformation  of  human  society,  the  driving  and 
directing  power  of  which  still  continues  to  exercise 
its  influence,  since  this  ideal  is  still  far  from  realised. 
In  this  respect  it  is  true  that  the  whole  historical 
development  of  Christian  ethics  stands  in  a  relation- 
ship of  cause  and  effect  with  Jesus'  character  and 
life-work.  But  we  ought  not  to  overlook  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  later  forms  of  development 
conditioned  by  many  contributory  factors  and  the 
actual  original  content  of  the  personal  consciousness 
of  Jesus ;  and  we  ought  not  to  make  Him,  without 
more  ado,  a  moral  law-giver  for  all  time,  which  He 
neither  desired  to  be,  nor,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
could  be.  His  demand  of  a  world-renouncing  asceti- 
cism was  the  practical  consequence  of  His  apocalyptic 
belief  in  the  approaching  end  of  the  world,  which  was 
to  be  brought  about  by  supernatural  means  ;  since  we 
no  longer  share  this  belief,  the  ascetic  demands  which 
rest  upon  it  can  no  longer  be  for  us  of  direct  validity. 
But  that  does  not  hinder  the  temper  of  mind  which 
lies  at  the  basis  of  them  from  being  of  abiding  and 
typical  significance — the  temper,  namely,  which  con- 
sists in  the  suppression  of  all  selfish  desire,  and  in 


452  THE    PREACHING    OF  JESUS 

unconditional  surrender  to  the  will  of  God.  But  since 
for  us  the  Divine  will  no  longer  manifests  itself  in 
the  supernatural  catastrophe  of  the  Judgment  but  in 
the  natural  course  of  the  history  of  the  world,  our 
submission  to  the  Divine  will  does  not  show  itself  in 
breaking  with  the  historical  conditions  of  social  life, 
but  in  the  shaping  of  these  in  an  ethical  direction. 
This  transition  from  apocalyptic  asceticism  to  rational 
ethics  was  begun  even  by  the  Apostolic  community  ; 
the  Church  completed  it.  The  transformation  of 
early  Christian  enthusiasm  into  the  beliefs  and  morals 
of  the  Church  forms  the  core  of  the  history  of  early 
Christianity ;  and  the  way  to  the  understanding  of 
that  history  is  barred  whenever  the  later  develop- 
ments are  wrongly  dated  back  to  the  beginning. 

In  view  of  the  apocalyptic  foundation  of  Jesus' 
ethics,  it  was  inevitable  that  the  thought  of  reward 
should  occupy  a  prominent  place  in  them.  The 
question  of  Peter,  "  I^o,  we  have  left  all  and  followed 
thee;  what  shall  we  have  therefore?"  (Matt.  xix.  27  ff.), 
is  not  rebuked  as  unbecoming ;  instead,  the  prospect 
is  held  out  to  all  the  disciples  of  receiving  as  the  re- 
ward for  their  present  sacrifices  a  rich  compensation  in 
the  world  to  come,  and  to  the  Twelve,  in  particular,  a 
share  in  the  Messianic  Reign.  The  conversion  of  one's 
earthly  possessions  into  alms  is,  especially,  often  recom- 
mended as  the  means  of  laying  up  treasure  in  heaven 
{i.e..,  of  securing  a  claim  upon  eternal  life),  or  of  ensur- 
ing for  oneself  a  welcome  in  the  eternal  habitations 
by  reason  of  the  gratitude  of  the  poor  who  have  been 
the  recipients  (Matt.  xix.  21  ;  Luke  xi.  41,  xii.  33, 
xiv.  14,  xvi.  9).  It  cannot  be  denied  that  in  these 
sayings,  as  also  in  those   regarding   the   reward   for 


4 


THE   CALL  TO    REPENTANCE  453 

fasting  and  prayer  (Matt.  vi.  4,  6,  18),  the  Jewish 
view  of  the  merit  of  "  good  works "  of  this  kind  is 
accepted  without  alteration.  It  is  therefore  the  inore 
worthy  of  note  that  these  Jewish  views,  which  in 
theory  are  retained,  are  sometimes  inferentially  con- 
tradicted or  corrected  by  other  sayings.  In  the 
parable  of  the  Labourers  in  the  Vineyard,  the  legal 
view  of  reward  as  a  proportionate  return  for  the 
service  rendered  is  assumed  at  the  outset,  but  is 
practically  set  aside  by  the  fact  that  in  the  end  all 
the  workers  receive  the  same  payment  (Matt.  xx. 
13  fF.) ;  for  when  the  payment  is  no  longer  in  pro- 
portion to  the  measure  of  the  service,  it  is  no  longer 
the  legal  equivalent  of  it,  but  becomes  a  free  gift  of 
grace  which  is  given  to  all  who  follow  the  Divine 
command  in  willing  obedience.  And  since  the 
reward  consists  in  the  inestimable  blessing  of  a  share 
in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  which  is  beyond  all  com- 
parison greater  than  all  human  services  and  sacrifices, 
there  cannot  really  be  any  question  of  the  exact 
equivalence  of  service  and  reward,  and  all  reward 
becomes,  properly  speaking,  a  matter  of  grace,  so 
that  in  Luke  vi.  32-35  the  terms  grace  (x"/^'?)  and 
reward  {fxia-Ooi)  are  used  interchangeably.  According 
to  Luke  xvii.  7-10,  we  men  have  in  God's  eyes  as 
little  actual  claim  to  reward  as  servants  who  have 
simply  done  their  duty  ;  at  the  same  time,  according 
to  Luke  xii.  37,  the  Lord  will  reward  the  faithfulness 
and  watchfulness  of  His  servants  so  richly  that  He  will 
make  them  sit  at  His  table  and  serve  them  Himself. 
The  two  representations  are  so  far  agreed  that  in  both 
the  thought  of  a  legal  due  is  rejected,  and  the  idea  of 
a  gift  of  grace  is    substituted.     Finally,  the   ethical 


454  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

and  teleological  version  of  the  idea  of  reward,  which 
has  secured  a  place  in  all  ethical  systems,  may  be 
found  in  the  parable  of  the  Talents,  inasmuch  as  the 
servants  who  have  been  faithful  in  a  few  things  are 
made  rulers  over  many  things"  (Matt.  xxv.  21  ft'.), 
i.e.  their  sphere  of  activity  is  extended  in  proportion 
to  the  capacity  they  have  shown.  This  thought,  that 
faithfulness  shown  in  a  narrow  sphere  leads  on  to  a 
higher  degree  of  power,  or  that  social  eminence  is 
conditioned  by  social  service  (Mark  x.  43),  contains 
that  element  of  truth  in  the  idea  of  reward  which 
society  is  concerned  to  maintain. 

It  is  the  same  with  the  question  of  the  Law  as  it  is 
with  the  question  of  reward.  The  traditional  Jewish 
view  is  not  denied,  but  expressly  accepted ;  but  this 
conservatism  is  broken  through  by  sayings  in  which 
a  new  spirit  involuntarily  betrays  itself.  An  express 
declaration  by  Jesus  of  the  permanent  validity  of 
the  Mosaic  Law,  nay,  even  of  every  letter  of  it,  is 
found  in  Matt.  v.  18  f . :  "Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away,  one  jot  or  one  tittle 
shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law  until  all  be  ful- 
filled. Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  break  one  of  these 
least  commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall 
be  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  but  whoso- 
ever doeth  and  teacheth  them,  the  same  shall  be 
great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  It  is,  no  doubt, 
possible  to  regard  the  second  half  of  this  verse  (19), 
which  is  peculiar  to  Matthew,  as  a  later,  emphasising, 
addition  ;  but  the  genuineness  of  verse  1 8  cannot  well 
be  doubted,  since  the  same  saying  is  found  in  a 
somewhat  different  form,  and  in  an  entirely  different 
connection,    in    Luke    xvi.    17.      Moreover,   in    the 


THE   CALL  TO   REPENTANCE  455 

polemic  against  the  Pharisees,  two  sayings  of  a  similar 
conservative  character  are  to  be  found  :  "  All  that 
they  (the  Pharisees  and  scribes)  say  unto  you,  that 
hold  and  do  ;  but  do  not  according  to  their  works,  for 
they  say,  and  do  not.  .  .  .  Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and 
Pharisees  ;  for  ye  tithe  mint,  anise,  and  cummin,  and 
neglect  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law,  righteous- 
ness, mercy,  and  faith  :  these  ought  to  be  done,  with- 
out leaving  the  others  undone  (Matt,  xxiii.  3,  23). 
Here,  therefore,  the  current  practice  of  the  Jewish 
teachers  of  the  Law  is  no  doubt  rejected,  but  not 
the  Law  itself,  the  observance  of  which  is  rather 
commanded.  With  this  agrees  the  attitude  of  the 
primitive  community,  which  could  not  have  so  con- 
fidently maintained  the  observance  of  the  Law  as  a 
self-evident  duty,  and  defended  it  against  Paul,  if 
Jesus  had  in  any  way  taught  His  disciples  to  cast  off 
the  yoke  of  the  Law.  For  these  reasons  the  inter- 
pretation of  Matt.  V.  18  (  =  Luke  xvi.  17),  which  makes 
them  mean  that  permanent  significance  belongs  to 
the  spirit,  not  the  letter,  of  the  Law,  is  not  tenable. 
It  was,  no  doubt,  in  this  sense  that  the  Church,  and 
probably  even  the  Evangelists,  understood  them  {cf. 
sup.,  p.  324) ;  but  that  cannot  possibly  have  been  the 
original  sense  of  the  saying,  because  it  is  in  such  strik- 
ing contradiction  with  the  literal  sense.  We  cannot, 
therefore,  help  agreeing  with  the  pronouncement  of 
B.  Weiss :  "  That  Jesus  described  or  treated  the 
legal  system  of  life  and  worship,  the  Divine  origin  of 
which  He  recognised,  as  in  itself  defective  and  not  in 
accordance  with  His  views,  that  He  claimed  the  right 
freely  to  exercise  authority  over  it,  and  used  this  right 
in  order  to  release  His  disciples  from  its  yoke,  is,  from 


456  THE    PREACHING    OF  JESUS 

the  point  of  view  of  historical  investigation,  inconceiv- 
able and  inadmissible."  But  Holtzmann  is  not  less 
justified  in  his  assertion  that  "  while  owning  allegiance 
to,  and  submitting  to  the  authority  of,  the  Law  with 
all  the  piety  of  a  religious  Jew,  Jesus  at  the  same  time 
gradually  outgrew  the  trammels  of  legalism,  and 
attained  without  a  struggle  to  an  emotional  certainty 
of  the  higher  authority  which  He  carried  within 
Himself:  in  the  first  instance,  no  doubt,  to  a  pt^acfical 
application  of  it.  We  can  only  ask  whether,  and  how 
far,  it  subsequently  worked  out  into  an  objective 
intellectual  certainty.  There  are,  in  fact,  stages  on 
this  road."  In  the  first  instance,  it  was  not  the 
commandments  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  but  only  the 
ordinances  of  the  Pharisaic  schools,  against  which 
Jesus,  with  sound  ethical  insight,  protested.  Thus 
He  repudiated  the  practice  of  ostentatious  fasting,  and 
defended  His  disciples  for  not  fasting  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  inappropriate  to  the  present  joyful  period. 
On  this  occasion,  too,  He  uttered  the  significant 
saying  about  the  new  patch  being  unsuitable  to  the 
old  garment,  and  the  new  wine  to  the  old  wine-skins 
(Mark  ii.  21)— a  saying  of  which  the  significance  goes 
far  beyond  the  actual  matter  of  controversy,  since  it 
asserts  nothing  less  than  the  impossibility  of  uniting 
the  new  content  of  life  under  the  Reign  of  God,  which 
was  now  commencing,  with  the  old  forms  of  Hfe  under 
the  Law.  In  the  same  way  Jesus  rejected  the 
rigorism  of  the  Pharisaic  Sabbath  observance,  on  the 
ground  that  man  was  not  made  for  the  Sabbath,  but 
the  Sabbath  for  man,  and  therefore  the  son  of  man, 
i.e.  man  in  general,  was  lord  also  of  the  Sabbath 
(Mark  ii.  28).     That  asserts  the  relativity  of  the  law 


THE   CALL  TO   REPENTANCE  457 

of  the  Sabbath,  compared  with  the  unconditionality  of 
the  ethical  end  of  man  in  himself,  in  a  manner  of 
which  the  logical  consequence  is  to  call  in  question 
the  unconditional  validity  of  the  ritual  Law  as  a 
whole,  and  not  merely  the  treatment  of  it  by  the 
Jewish  schools.  The  conflict  came  to  a  still  sharper 
issue  in  regard  to  the  Rabbinic  ordinances  of  cere- 
monial purity  (Mark  vii.  8  ff.).  In  the  first  place, 
indeed,  here  also  it  is  only  the  revealed  Law  of 
Scripture  which  is  contrasted  with  the  ordinances  of 
tradition ;  but  in  the  course  of  His  polemic  Jesus 
asserts  a  principle  of  much  wider  scope,  which  would 
also  invalidate  the  Mosaic  dietary  and  ceremonial 
laws :  "  Nothing  that  enters  into  a  man  from  without 
can  make  him  unclean,  but  that  which  comes  forth 
from  him  (the  evil  thoughts  of  the  heart),  that  it  is 
which  defiles  him."  In  His  treatment  of  the  question 
about  divorce  Jesus  goes  still  further  (Mark  x.  2-12) ; 
here  it  is  not  merely  Scripture  which  is  set  against 
tradition,  but  Scripture  against  Scripture — namely, 
the  revelation  of  God  at  the  creation  (according  to 
Gen.  i.  27,  ii.  24)  against  the  Mosaic  Law  of  mar- 
riage which  permits  and  regulates  divorce.  It  is 
true  that  in  the  version  of  Matt.  xix.  9  and  v.  32, 
according  to  which  the  unfaithfulness  of  the  wife 
forms  an  exception  to  the  prohibition  of  divorce, 
Jesus  would  seem  only  to  have  taken  up  the  stricter 
standpoint  of  the  school  of  Shammai  as  against  the 
laxer  theory  of  Hillel ;  but  according  to  the  certainly 
more  original  version  of  the  other  Evangelists,  His 
condemnation  of  divorce  was  unconditional,  and  in 
this  case  it  is  evidently  a  direct  correction  of  the 
Mosaic  Law,  the  appointment  of  which  is  declared 


458  THE   PREACHING   OF   JESUS 

to  have  been  a  concession  to  the  weakness  and  the 
liard-heartedness  of  men,  which  did  not  correspond  to 
the  original  intention  of  the  Creator.  Similarly,  the 
permission  of  retaliation  in  the  Mosaic  Law  is  cor- 
rected by  the  ascetic  command  to  submit  to  injustice, 
of  which  we  have  spoken  above  (p.  442).  Finally, 
there  is  the  very  significant  saying  which  is  ascribed 
to  Jesus,  though,  according  to  the  Evangelists,  only 
by  false  witnesses  (Mark  xiv.  58,  xv.  29),  "  I  will 
destroy  this  temple  made  with  hands,  and  in  three 
days  will  set  up  another  made  without  hands."  If 
this  saying  was  really  spoken  by  Jesus  (which  is,  of 
course,  not  certain,  though  it  is  not  improbable),  it 
could  hardly  mean  anything  else  than  a  prediction  of 
the  speedy  end  of  the  sensuous  Temple  service  and  its 
replacement  by  a  more  spiritual  service  of  God.  A 
saying  of  that  kind  might  well  be  the  outcome  of 
Jesus'  impression  of  the  impossibility  of  reforming 
the  Jewish  hierarchy,  which  stood  or  fell  along  with 
the  Temple  service ;  and  since  it  is  derived  from  the 
last  days  of  Jesus'  life,  it  seems  to  favour  the  con- 
jecture that  Jesus,  taught  by  experience  and  under  the 
growing  pressure  of  His  struggle  with  the  hierarchy, 
in  the  end  abandoned  more  and  more  completely  His 
original  attitude  of  acceptance  of  the  Law.  It  should 
not,  however,  be  overlooked  that  the  conservative 
sayings  quoted  above  from  the  anti- Pharisaic  polemic 
(Matt,  xxiii.  3,  23)  likewise  belong  to  the  last  days  of 
the  hfe  of  Jesus,  while  the  liberal  saying  about  the 
new  wine  and  the  old  wine-skins  belongs  to  an 
earlier  period  (Mark  ii.  21).  There  remains,  there- 
fore, nothing  for  it  but  to  admit  that,  in  judging  the 
attitude  of  Jesus  to  the  Jewish  Law,  various  sayings 


1 


I 


» 


THE   CALL   TO   REPENTANCE  459 

not  altofjether  without  contradiction  have  to  be  taken 
into  account.  Such  contradictions  would  find  their 
most  natural  explanation  in  a  change  of  mood,  such 
as  is  found  in  other  heroic  pioneers,  as,  for  example, 
in  Luther.  In  lofty  moments  of  prophetic  inspiration, 
of  enthusiastic  hope  of  a  new  world,  and  of  passionate 
struggle  against  the  low  reality,  Jesus  felt  Himself 
raised  more  and  more  above  the  legal  limitations  of 
His  nation,  until  He  formed  the  impression  that  their 
end  was  at  hand.  But  from  that  to  a  conscious  breach 
with  the  Law  is  a  long  step,  which  Jesus  Himself 
never  completed  ;  its  completion  was  reserved  for  His 
Apostle,  Paul. 


THE  PREACHING  OF  JESUS  AND  THE  FAITH  OF 
THE  FIRST  DISCIPLES 


CHAPTER  XVII 

The  Messianic  Beliefs  of  Jesus  and  His 
Earliest  Followers 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  according  to  the  view 
and  the  representation  of  our  EvangeHsts  Jesus  was, 
from  His  first  appearance,  the  Messiah  ;  Himself  testi- 
fied that  He  was  so  by  deed   and   word ;    and   was 
acknowledged  as   such    by  human  and   superhuman 
testimony.     That  is  self-evident  in  Luke  and  Matthew, 
whose  narratives  of  the  Childhood  introduce  Jesus  with 
due  solemnity  as  the  Messiah  and  Son  of  God  ;  whose 
narratives  of  the  Temptation  describe  the  victory  of 
the  Messiah  over  Satan ;  and  in  whose  Gospels  Jesus 
declares  Himself  at  His  first  pubHc  appearance  to  be 
the  fulfiller  of  the  Law  (Matt.  v.   17  fF.)  and  of  the 
promises  (Luke  iv.   17  fF.).     But  even  in  Mark  the 
position  is  not  really  different.     Although  he  has  no 
story  of  the  Childhood,  he  tells  how  at  Jesus'  Baptism 
He  was  made  the  Christ,  or  the  Son  of  God,  by  re- 
ceiving the  Spirit  which  was  sent  down  from  heaven, 
and  declared  to  be  so  by  a  heavenly  voice ;  therefore 
the  Baptism  is  to  him  the  "  beginning  of  the  gospel 

460 


THE    MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF   JESUS      461 

of  Jesus  as  the  Christ."^  He  does  not  think  of  it 
merely  as  a  subjective  (visionary)  occurrence  in  the 
consciousness  of  Jesus,  but  as  a  mysterious  objective 
event  by  which  Jesus  became  a  vehicle  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  entered  into  a  mysterious  relationship  to 
the  world  of  spirits,  which  immediately  manifested 
itself  in  His  being  driven  forth  by  the  Spirit  into  the 
wilderness,  tempted  by  Satan,  and  served  by  angels  ; 
but,  further,  also  by  the  fact  that  the  demonic  spirits 
of  the  possessed  recognised  and  acknowledged  Him 
as  "  the  Holy  One  of  God,"  i.e.  the  Messiah  (i.  24,  34). 
In  marked  contrast  with  this  conception  of  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus,  which  is  common  to  all  our 
Gospels,  stands  the  statement,  which  is  also  common 
to  them,  that  Jesus  at  the  close  of  His  Galilaean 
ministry,  in  the  course  of  a  journey  into  the  district  of 
Caesarea  Philippi,  asked  His  disciples  whom  the  people 
took  Him  to  be ;  whereupon  they  answered,  "  John 
the  Baptist,  or  Elias,  or  one  of  the  prophets."  Then 
He  asked  them  whom  they  themselves  took  Him  to 
be  ;  whereupon  Peter  answered,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ " 
("  the  Christ  of  God,"  Luke  ;  "  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God,"  Matthew).  In  connection  with  this 
narrative,  several  questions  force  themselves  upon  the 
unprejudiced  reader  ;  above  all,  the  question  how  it 
was  possible  that  the  people  did  not  yet  recognise 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah  in  spite  of  the  many  astounding 
miracles  which  He  had  already  performed,  and  in  spite 
of  His,  in  some  cases,  quite  clear  Messianic  self- witness, 
and  in  spite  of  the  utterances  of  the  demons,  to  whom 

^  The  genuineness  of  the  words  vlov  Oeov  is  doubtful  ;  if  genuine, 
they  are  to  be  understood  in  the  same  sense  as  the  voice  at  the 
Baptism  (i.  11). 


4()'2  THE    IMIEACHINO    OF  JESUS 

a  higher  knowledge  was    universally  ascribed.     But 
the  representation  that  the  disciples  now  for  the  first 
time  expressed  their  belief  in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus 
is  also  surprising.     In    Matthew   they  are    certainly 
reported  to  have  said  at  an  earlier  point,  after   the 
miracle  of  the  walking  on  the  sea  (xiv.  33),  "  Thou 
art  in  truth  the  son  of  God  " ;  but  this  notice,  which 
is  peculiar  to  Matthew,  makes  it  even  more  difficult 
to  account  for  the  way  in  which  this  same  Evangelist 
emphasises  Peter's  confession  as  something  new  and 
as  derived  from  a  Divine  revelation  (xvi.  17  fF.).     In 
fact,  w^e  are  here  confronted  by  a  dilemma.     If  all  the 
preceding  Messianic  deeds  and  words  are  historical, 
the  incident   on    the  way  to  Ceesarea  would   hardly 
have  been  possible ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  latter 
is   historical,  the  representation  of  the   Evangelists, 
who   introduce   Jesus  from  the  first  as  the  Messiah 
and    Son    of   God,    does    not    rest    upon    historical 
reminiscence,  but  only  upon  dogmatic  or  apologetic 
presuppositions  and  postulates.     And  this   very  cir- 
cumstance —  that    it    so    strikingly    contradicts    the 
general   presuppositions   of  the   Evangelists — is   the 
strongest   proof  of  the   historical    character    of  the 
confession  of  Peter  at  Ca^sarea  Philippi,  for  which  a 
further  argument  may  be  derived  from  the  mention 
of  this  definite   locahty.     However,  new  difficulties 
present    themselves    in    the    further    course    of   the 
narrative,    even    if   w^e    leave    out    of   account    the 
wholly  unhistorical  exaltation  of  Peter  in  Matthew 
{sup.,  p.  349  f.)  and  confine  our  consideration  to  the 
representation  in   Mark.     Immediately  after   Peter's 
confession,  he  tells  us,  Jesus  urgently  charged    His 
disciples  that   they  should  tell   no   man    concerning 


THE   MESSIANIC    BELIEFS   OF  JESUS     463 

Him — namely,  what  had  just  been  said,  that  He 
was  the  Messiah  (as  Luke  and  Matthew  add  by  way 
of  explanation).  Thereupon  He  began  to  teach  them 
about  the  necessity  that  the  Son  of  INIan  must  suffer 
and  be  rejected  by  the  Jewish  hierarchy,  and  be  put 
to  death,  and  after  three  days  rise  again.  Peter  then 
urged  Him  to  avoid  this  fate,  but  Jesus  rebuked  him 
as  a  "  Satan,  whose  thoughts  were  not  the  thoughts  of 
God  but  of  man." 

Here  there  arises,  in  the  first  place,  the  question. 
Why  did  Jesus  forbid  His  disciples  to  speak  of  His 
Messiahship  ?  If  He  Himself  claimed  to  be  the 
Messiah,  must  He  not  have  desired  that  the  belief  of 
His  disciples  should  be  made  known  to  all  the  people 
and  shared  by  as  many  as  possible  ?  In  fact,  it  is  so 
difficult  to  form  a  conception  of  a  Messiah  who  only 
desires  to  be  so  in  secret,  that  it  is  quite  conceivable 
how  critics  like  JNIartineau  {Seat  of  Authority,  pp.  349 
fF.),  AVellhausen,  Lagarde,  and  Havet  have  concluded 
that  Jesus  did  not  really  desire  to  be  received  as  the 
Messiah  at  all.^  Most  expositors,  however,  think  that 
the  difficulty  which  presents  itself  here  can  be  solved 
by  supposing  that  it  was  owing  to  His  wisdom  and 
prudence  as  a  teacher  that  Jesus  forbade  the  making 
known  of  His  Messiahship,  because  He  feared  that 
the  people  would  take  Him  for  a  political  Messiah, 
whereas  He  himself  only  desired  to  be  a  spiritual 
Messiah,  or,  alternatively,  to  become  by  His  suffering 
and  death  a  heavenly  Messiah.  A^'^idely  current  as 
this  view  is,  it  seems  to  be  beset  with  grave  difficulties. 

^  This  opinion  seems  to  have  been  adopted,  although  upon  some- 
what different  grounds,  by  Wrede,  Das  Messiasgeheimniss  in  den  Ev., 
pp.  220,  229. 


464  THE   PREACHING   OF   JESUS 

Would  it  not,  we  are  compelled  to  ask,  have  been  the 
simplest  way  to  avoid  being  misunderstood  by  the 
people  if  Jesus  had  openly  and  clearly  declared  that 
He  was  indeed  the  Messiah — not,  however,  in  the  old 
Jewish  sense,  but  in  this  or  that  new  sense  ?  But  we 
nowhere  find  that  He  gave  such  a  new  interpretation 
of  the  traditional  Jewish  conception  of  the  Messiah 
any  more  than  of  the  traditional  conception  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  And  yet  there  would  have  been 
an  urgent  necessity  for  doing  so  in  both  cases,  not 
merely  for  the  sake  of  the  people  but  also  for  the  sake 
of  the  disciples ;  for  the  Evangelists  often  allow  us  to 
see  how  completely  the  disciples  shared  the  popular 
Jewish  conception  of  Messiah  and  His  Kingdom,  e.g., 
in  the  request  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee  for  the  places  of 
honour  at  the  right  and  left  of  the  Messiah  in  His  glory 
(Mark  x.  37),  or  in  the  Messianic  acclamations  of  the 
Passover  pilgrims  (among  whom  were  included  the 
disciples)  who  at  the  entry  into  Jerusalem  greeted 
Jesus  as  the  "  son  of  David  "  and  blessed  the  "  coming 
kingdom  of  our  father  David  "  (Mark  xi.  9  f .  =  Matt, 
xxi.  9).  On  the  hypothesis  that  the  motive  of  Jesus 
in  forbidding  the  making  known  of  His  Messiahship 
was  a  wise  and  prudent  avoidance  of  a  teaching  which 
was  liable  to  be  misunderstood,  we  should  certainly 
expect  that  on  occasions  such  as  these  Jesus  would 
not  have  neglected  the  opportunity  of  giving  His 
disciples  an  explanation  which  could  not  fail  to  be 
understood  regarding  the  mistaken  character  of  these 
expectations  and  the  true  meaning  of  His  own  idea 
of  the  Messiah.  As  He  never  did  that,  but  on  the 
contrary  by  His  tacit  acceptance  of  Peter's  confession 
and   of  the    Messianic    ovation    at    the    entry   into 


I 


THE    MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF  JESUS      465 

Jerusalem,  and  by  many  sayings,  too,  such  as  those  at 
the  Last  Supper  (Luke  xxii.  18,  29  f.)  seemed  rather  to 
confirm  than  to  reject  the  popular  Messianic  opinions, 
the  above  hypothesis  can  hardly  be  considered  tenable. 
But  even  the  more  radical  hypothesis  that  Jesus  did 
not  believe  Himself  to  be  the  JNIessiah  or  give  Him- 
self out  to  be  so,  which  would  no  doubt  provide  the 
simplest  explanation  of  the  command  not  to  speak 
of  His  Messiahship,  seems  to  me  to  make  shipwreck 
on  the  above-mentioned  well-authenticated  facts.  If 
Jesus  altogether  refused  and  rejected  the  Messianic 
idea,  why  did  He  accept  the  confession  of  Peter? 
Why  did  He  permit  without  protest  the  acclamations 
of  the  Passover  pilgrims  ?  Why  did  He  speak  of  places 
of  honour  and  thrones  of  judgment  in  His  Kingdom  ? 
We  may  leave  out  of  account  His  confession  of  His 
Messiahship  before  the  Sanhedrin,  because  its  histori- 
city is  uncertain  (none  of  the  disciples  were  present  to 
hear  it,  and  the  apocalyptic  prediction  which  is  added 
in  Mark  xiv.  62  certainly  reflects  the  conceptions  of 
the  Church).  On  the  other  hand,  the  controversy 
with  the  Scribes  regarding  the  "  son  of  David "  is 
certainly  one  of  the  instances  against  the  theory. 

According  to  the  original  version  in  Mark  (xii.  35  f.), 
Jesus  asked  how  it  was  that  the  Scribes  said  that 
the  Christ  was  the  son  of  David,  whereas  David  him- 
self calls  Him  Lord  (in  Ps.  ex.),  how  then  could  he  be 
his  son  ?  The  sense  of  this  question  is  not  doubtful : 
Jesus  simply  wishes  to  show  that  the  assertion  of  the 
Scribes  that  the  Messiah  was  the  son  of  David  was 
false,  because  it  contradicted  the  utterance  of  David 
himself,  who  was  inspired,  and  therefore  infallible.     It 

is  a  refutation  of  a  hostile  assertion  by  showing  its 
VOL  II  30 


466  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

inconsistency  with  something  universally  admitted, 
similar  to  that  in  the  case  of  the  Beelzebub  charge. 
But  what  motive  can  Jesus  have  had  in  refuting  the 
scholastic  opinion  regarding  the  Davidic  sonship  of 
the  Messiah  ?  Certainly  not  mere  love  of  disputation, 
but  a  very  practical  and  personal  interest.  He  saw 
in  tliat  opinion  a  hindrance  which  stood  in  the  way 
of  belief  in  His  Divine  appointment  to  be  the  Messiah, 
since  He  Himself  could  not  boast  of  Davidic  descent. 
His  anxiety  to  refute  that  opinion  by  Scriptural  argu- 
ments certainly  shows  that  at  least  the  thought  of 
His  being  destined  to  be  the  future  Messiah  or 
theocratic  Head  of  the  renewed  people  of  God  occu- 
pied Him  seriously  at  that  time.  How  could  that 
have  failed  to  be  so  after  the  Messianic  acclamations 
at  His  entry  into  Jerusalem  ?  When  the  behef  in 
His  destiny  to  be  the  Messiah  in  the  coming  Kingdom 
of  God  (for  it  could  be  a  question  of  that  only)  met 
Him  for  the  first  time  in  Peter's  confession,  this 
thought  was  still  so  new  to  Him,  the  greatness  of  the 
gift  and  of  the  task  was  so  awe-inspiring,  that  He 
shrank  back  in  terror  from  it  and  sought,  like  Jeremiah 
of  old,  to  escape  His  prophetic  calling  ;  a  condition  of 
surprise  and  alarm  such  as  this  would  naturally  ex- 
plain the  command  not  to  make  known  their  belief. 
When,  however,  on  the  way  to  Jerusalem  the  com- 
pany of  His  enthusiastic  adherents  became  ever  larger 
and  larger,  when  His  passing  through  Jericho,  and 
from  there  onwards  the  whole  journey  up  to  Jerusalem, 
took  the  form  of  a  triumphal  progress,  till  finally  the 
enthusiasm  of  the  companies  of  pious  pilgrims  could 
no  longer  be  restrained  but  broke  out  into  cries  of 
jubilation  which  hailed  Him  as  Messiah,  He  could 


* 


THE    MESSIANIC    BELIEFS   OF  JESUS     467 

not  and  would  not  any  longer  resist ;  He  no  longer 
forbade  the  JNIessianic  salutations,  but  let  the  joyful 
enthusiasm  take  its  course  ;  nay,  when  His  opponents 
pointed  out  to  Him  the  danger  of  these  acclamations 
He  is  said  to  have  answered,  "  If  these  should  be 
silent,  the  very  stones  will  cry  out "  (Luke  xix.  40) ; 
He  held  this  popular  enthusiasm  to  be  an  elemental 
power,  not  to  be  hindered  by  any  human  opposition. 
Whether  the  belief  in  His  Messianic  destiny  became 
from  that  time  forward  a  fixed  and  abiding  conviction, 
or  whether  He  did  not  up  to  the  last  attain  to  full 
certainty,^  but  in  pious  resignation  left  the  decision 
of  that  question  to  the  heavenly  Father  who  guides 
the  destinies  of  men — who  can  tell  ?  All  that  we  can 
clearly  recognise  is,  as  it  seems  to  me,  that  Messianic 
ideas  strongly  influenced  the  mind  of  Jesus  during 
the  last  days  at  Jerusalem,  and  form  the  presup- 
position upon  which  we  have  to  understand  His 
speech  and  action  :  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple,  the 
parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen  and  the  other 
discourses  directed  against  the  hierarchy,  the  contro- 
versies regarding  the  tribute-money  and  the  son  of 
David,  the  promises  and  exhortations  addressed  to  the 
disciples,  and,  not  least,  the  anointing  at  Bethany, 
in  which  we  recognise  as  the  historical  basis,  under- 
neath the  legendary  embellishment  of  the  scene,  an 
anointing  as  Messianic  King,  the  complement  and 
continuation  of  the  homage  paid  to  Him  as  Messianic 
King  at  the  entry  into  Jerusalem  {cf.  p.  71  f.)- 

But  because  the  thought  of  His  Messiahship  in  the 

1  The  latter  is  the  view  of  W.  Brandt,  Ev.  Gesck.,  pp.  475  fF., 
whose  discussion  of  the  above  question  is  marked  by  exceptional 
sobriety  and  clearness. 


468  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

simple  original  sense  in  which  the  historical  Jesus 
shared  it  with  His  disciples  and  friends  was  immedi- 
ately afterwards  robbed  of  its  content  by  His 
death,  but  then,  by  the  Easter  visions,  carried  over 
into  the  higher  level  of  apocalyptic  ideas,  under- 
going at  the  same  time  a  change  of  form,  it  meets 
us  in  the  Gospels  for  the  most  part  only  as  theo- 
logically transformed  by  the  later  consciousness  of 
the  community,  and  the  substitution  of  this  con- 
ception for  the  historical  consciousness  of  Jesus 
leads  to  endless  confusion.  Even  criticism  has  been 
largely  led  astray  by  the  presupposition  that 
Mark  because  he  generally  (though  not  always) 
gives  a  more  original  version  of  events  than  the 
other  Evangelists  therefore  gives  the  absolutely 
original  or  really  historical  account.  How  far  he 
is  in  reality  from  doing  so,  how  far  his  representa- 
tion is  already  influenced,  in  the  principal  points 
with  which  we  are  now  concerned,  by  theological 
considerations,  has  been  seen  above  in  connection 
with  his  story  of  the  baptism  of  the  "  Son  of  God," 
and  will  be  seen  still  more  clearly  below  in  connection 
with  the  predictions  of  the  passion  and  resurrection 
of  the  "  Son  of  Man."  The  practice  of  taking  Mark's 
account  in  all  these  cases  for  pure  history,  and  of 
overlooking  completely  his  theological,  apologetic 
tendency,  or  of  reducing  it  to  a  minimum,  has  laid 
an  embargo  upon  sound  and  methodical  criticism  of 
the  Gospels  from  which  we  ought  now  at  last  to 
free  ourselves.  It  must  be  recognised  that  in  regard 
to  the  theological  transformation  of  history  all  our 
Gospels  stand  in  principle  upon  the  same  footing, 
and   that   the   distinction    between    Mark    and    the 


THE   MESSIANIC    BELIEFS   OF   JESUS     469 

other  two  Synoptists,  and  between  them  and  John 
is  only  a  difference  of  degree  between  the  different 
strata  of  theological  reflection  and  ecclesiastical 
ideas. 

That  there  certainly  is  such  a  difference  between 
the  doctrine  of  Christ's  person  in  Mark  and  Matthew 
may  be  recognised — to  return  to  the  question  with 
which  we  were  lately  occupied — in  the  different  forms 
which  they  respectively  give  to  the  question  about 
the  son  of  David.  The  original  aim  of  this  question, 
which  can  still  be  recognised  in  Mark's  account,  was 
to  refute  the  opinion  of  the  Scribes  regarding  the 
Davidic  sonship  of  the  INIessiah ;  this  was  no  longer 
understood  by  Matthew,  because  for  him,  as  his 
genealogy  (i.  1-17)  suffices  to  show,  the  Davidic 
sonship  of  Jesus  was  a  fixed  assumption ;  the  quite 
new  sense  given  to  the  question,  then,  in  Matthew's 
version,  is  how,  on  this  assumption,  David  can  call 
the  JNIessiah  his  Lord.  And  to  this  form  of  the 
question  the  Evangelist  can  only  have  had  in  mind 
the  answer  which  has  thenceforth  been  current  in 
the  Church ;  that,  namely,  Jesus  the  Messiah  was, 
according  to  His  human  nature,  David's  son,  but, 
according  to  His  divine  nature  and  origin  as  Son  of 
God,  was  at  the  same  time  David's  Lord.  This  is 
the  Church  doctrine  of  the  two  natures,  the  founda- 
tion for  which  was  laid  by  Paul  (Rom.  i.  3  f.),  and 
which  is  found  in  Matthew  already  in  the  first  stage 
of  its  ecclesiastical  development.  The  same  view 
has  probably  given  rise  to  the  divergent  form  of  the 
question  of  Jesus  in  Matt.  xvi.  13  and  the  answer 
of  Peter  in  verse  16.  Jesus  asks,  "  Who  do  men 
say    that    the    Son    of    man   is  ? "   and   receives   for 


470  THE   rREACIIING    OF   JESUS 

answer,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  hving 
God."  That  is,  in  Matthew's  meaning,  not,  as  in 
Mark  and  Luke,  merely  an  acknowledgment  of 
the  theocratic  JNIessiahship  of  Jesus,  but  also  of  His 
supernatural  being,  derived  from  His  miraculous 
birth,  as  Son  of  God,  in  contrast  wdth  His  outward 
manifestation  as  Son  of  Man.  The  supernatural 
character  of  Christ's  person  is  emphasised  elsewhere 
in  Matthew  in  a  way  which  goes  decidedly  beyond 
Mark  and  Luke.  Whereas  the  two  latter  found  no 
offence  in  the  saying  of  Jesus  recorded  by  tradition, 
"  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  None  is  good,  save  God 
only,"  Matthew  found  the  human  modesty  of  this 
self- estimate  no  longer  suitable  to  the  supernaturally 
begotten  Son  of  God,  and  therefore  gave  to  the 
saying  the  artificial  turn,  "  Why  askest  thou  me 
about  that  which  is  good  ?  One  there  is  who  is 
good  "  (xix.  17).  And  as  he  removes  the  limitations 
of  His  ethical  perfection,  so  he  does  also  with  the 
conditional ity  of  His  miracle-working  power,  and 
therefore  alters  the  Marcan  statement  that  Jesus 
could  not  do  any  miracle  in  Nazareth  because  of  the 
unbelief  of  His  countrymen  into  the  statement  that 
He  did  not  do  any  miracle  there  {i.e.  intentionally,  in 
punishment  for  their  unbelief)  (INIatt.  xiii.  58  =  Mark 
vi.  5).  How  could  it  be  otherwise  in  a  Gospel  in 
which  Christ  takes  leave  of  His  followers  with  the 
majestic  words,  "  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in 
heaven  and  on  earth"  (xxviii.  18).  To  this  advanced 
stage  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  Mark  has  no  parallels ; 
Luke  has,  however,  in  the  passage  common  to  him 
w^ith  Matthew  (x.  21  f.  =  Matt.  xi.  25  f ),  which  puts 
into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  a  Christological  hymn  which 


THE   MESSIANIC   BELIEFS    OF  JESUS     471 

betrays  its  ecclesiastical  origin   even   in    its    artistic 
metrical  form  :^ — 

"  I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth, 

That  thou  hast  hidden  this  from  the  wise  and  prudent. 
And  hast  revealed  it  unto  babes  : 
Yea,  Father,  so  it  has  seemed  good  in  thy  sight. 

"All  things  have  been  delivered  unto  me  by  my  Father: 
And  none  hath  known  the  Father  save  the  Son  ; 
Nor  hath  any  known  the  Son  save  the  Father, 
And  they  to  whom  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal. 

"■  Come  unto  me  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden^ 

And  I  will  give  you  refreshing. 
Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me  ; 
For  I  am  meek  and  lowly  of  heart : 

So  shall  ye  find  i*efreshing  for  your  souls. 
For  my  yoke  is  easy^  and  my  burden  is  light." 

We  can  hardly  fail  to  recognise  that  this  artistic 
arrangement  of  strophes  in  something  like  a  sonnet- 
form  points  to  the  moulding  hand  of  the  Church. 
But  even  the  contents  of  the  strophes  are,  as  was 
shown  above  (pp.  144,  339),  partly  dependent  upon 
Paul,  partly  upon  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach  (li.  1. 
13  fF.,  23  fF.),  partly  upon  Jeremiah  (vi.  16).  That  a 
composition  such  as  this,  with  its  artistic  form  and 
content,  was  directly  derived  from  Jesus,  I  hold  to  be 
extremely  improbable.  Brandt  pertinently  remarks  :  ^ 
"  Since  the  historic  Christ  is  not  likely  in  one  hymn 
to  have  first  thanked  the  Father,  then  asserted  His 
peculiar    relation    to    God,    and    finally   called    the 

1  According  to  Brandt,  Ev.  Gesch.,  pp.  562  and  576.  Upon  the 
divergences  of  reading,  the  importance  of  which  has  been  much 
exaggerated  by  the  defenders  of  the  historical  genuineness  of  this 
hymn  of  the  Christ,  see  above,  p.  144,  note. 

2  Ev.  Gesch.,  p.  562. 


47fe  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

afflicted  to  Himself,  this  hymn  can  only  have  been 
put  into  His  mouth  later.     And  for  those  who  have 
given  up  the  Gospel  of  John  as  an  historical  source, 
the  assumption  of  the  unique  God-consciousness  of 
Jesus  must  stand  or  fall  with  the  genuineness  of  this 
logion."     This  last  point  is  without  doubt  the  reason 
why  historical  criticism  has  here  spoken  so  hesitatingly 
and  the  apologists  have  been  so  zealous.     We  ought 
not,  at  least,  to  refuse  to  recognise  that  the  w^ords  of 
this  hymn,  if  they  are  allowed  to  mean  what  they 
say  without  arbitrary  softening  down,  really  imply  a 
superhuman   personality,  such  as  the    Christ  of  the 
Church  is,  and  the  historical  Jesus  was  not.     Only  - 
of  the  exalted  Christ  could  men  say,  and  the  Church 
from  Apostolic  times  onwards  did  say,  that  all  things 
were  delivered  unto  Him,  all  power  over  heaven  and 
earth  (INIatt.  xxviii.  18  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  27).     The  earthly 
Jesus  could  not  so  speak,  and  never   did   so  speak,  - 
even  when  He  gave  the  boldest  expression  to    His^ 
Messianic  hopes,  as  in  Luke  xxii.  19,  where  He  says 
that,  as  His  Father  has  granted  unto  Him  the  King- 
ship, He  grants  to  His  disciples  that  they  shall  sit  at 
meat  with  Him  and  bear  rule  over  the  Twelve  Tribes 
of  Israel.     In  saying  that,  He  expresses,  indeed,  His 
belief  that  the    Messianic   rule   over   the   people  of 
Israel  is  destined,  designed,  for  Him ;  but   He  does 
not  assert   that  now,  already,  all  things,  the  whole 
world,  is  delivered  unto  Him.     The  former  assertion 
stands  on  the  historical  basis  of  the  Jewish  Messianic 
beliefs  which  Jesus  shared ;  the  latter  soars  into  the 
transcendental  regions  of  apocalyptic  and  dogmatic 
speculation  about  Christ,  in  a  way  which  only  became 
possible  to  the  Christian  community  after  His  death 


I 


THE    MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF   JESUS      473 

and  the  occurrence  of  the  Easter  visions.  It  has 
indeed  lately  been  proposed  to  understand  the  words 
"  All  things  are  given  unto  me  of  my  Father "  as 
meaning  that  all  truths  of  the  gospel  were  delivered, 
i.e.  revealed,  to  Him  by  His  Father.  But,  in  the  first 
place,  that  would  be  a  strange  use  of  the  word,  which 
elsewhere  is  used  of  human  tradition  in  contrast  with 
Divine  revelation,  but  is  never  used  of  the  latter  ;  and 
even  if  it  were  so,  that  would  not  help  much.  For, 
even  so,  the  relation  of  Christ  to  God  as  His  Father 
would  remain  something  quite  unique,  and  exclusive, 
such  as  is,  of  course,  self-evidently  appropriate  in  the 
case  of  the  supernatural  being  of  the  Church's  Christ 
but  can  hardly  be  accepted  in  the  case  of  the  historic 
Jesus.  That  the  latter  needed  a  unique,  mysterious 
revelation  in  order  to  recognise  God  as  His  Father 
will  be  difficult  to  prove,  seeing  that  so  thorough  an 
expert  in  the  Jewish  religion  of  the  time  as  Dalman 
has  expressly  asserted  that  "  Jesus  took  this  designa- 
tion of  God  from  the  popular  usage  of  His  time," 
and  that  even  the  reference  of  the  fatherly  relation 
to  individuals  within  the  Jewish  nation  was  nothing 
new.^  When,  however,  the  same  scholar  maintains 
that  Jesus  drew  a  sharp  line  between  Himself  and 
the  disciples,  and  prescribed  for  them  the  customary 
Jewish  "  our  Father  in  heaven,"  but  Himself  deliber- 
ately avoided  it,  I  can  find  nothing  of  the  kind  in 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  ;  here  Jesus  speaks  in  so  exactly 
the  same  way  of  "  our  Father,"  "  thy  Father,"  "  your 
Father,"  and  "  my  Father,"  that  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  latter  is  not  to  be  understood  in 
precisely  the  same   sense  as  the  former  expressions, 

1   Dalman,  Worte  Jesu,  p.  154  (E.T.  188). 


1.74  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

niuiicly,  us  indicjiliMg  an  ethico-religioiis  relation  of 
trust  in  the  fatlierly  goodness  of  God,  and  of  imita- 
tion of  it  in  our  own  moral  attitude.  If  Jesus  is  the 
pattern  for  His  disciples  of  this  relation  to  God,  that 
v^ery  fact  implies  the  essential  likeness  of  the  relation- 
ship, and  therefore  excludes  that  uniqueness  which 
is  asserted  in  the  Christological  hymn.  Moreover, 
Dalman  only  finds  it  possible  to  rescue  the  genuineness 
of  this  saying  by  means  of  the  daring  hypothesis  that 
this  way  of  speaking  was  originally  used  figuratively 
of  the  relation  between  father  and  son  in  general,  and 
that  then  this  figure  was  applied  to  the  relation  of 
Jesus  to  His  heavenly  Father.  Apart  from  this 
(extremely  problematical)  figurative  use,  "the  Father" 
and  "  the  Son "  would  have  to  be  understood  as 
theological  terms  which  had  already  attained  to  fixity, 
as  in  Mark  xiii.  32  (  =  Matt.  xxiv.  36),  and  "  we  should 
therefore  have  to  suppose  that  the  text  had  been 
influenced  by  the  language  of  the  Church."  In  the 
baptismal  formula  also  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  Dalman 
admits  that  "  this  use  of  the  name  of  the  Son,  which 
is  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  is 
determined  by  the  phraseology  of  the  Early  Church."  ^ 
What  Dalman  himself  admits  in  this  last  case  must 
equally  apply,  as  it  seems  to  me,  to  xi.  25  fF.  From 
whatever  side  one  looks  at  this  hymn,  one  comes 
back  to  the  same  result,  that  it  is  so  far  apart  in 
thought  and  expression  from  Jesus'  way  of  speaking 
elsewhere  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  that  it  can  as 
little  be  ascribed  to  the  historical  Jesus  as  can  the 
Johannine  discourses.  The  historical  Jesus  can  have 
called  God  His  Father  in  no  other  sense  than  that 

1  Worte  Jesu,  pp.  235,  232,  159  (E.T.  288,  283,  194). 


> 


THE    MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF   JESUS     475 

in  which  He  called  Him  "our  Father."  He  never 
claimed  a  unique,  metaphysical,  superhuman  relation 
of  sonship  to  God,  but  acknowledged  all  those  who 
do  the  will  of  God  as  His  brethren  and  sisters  (Mark 
iii.  35),  thus  including  Himself  in  the  family  of  the 
human  children  of  God. 

Jesus'  customary  way  of  speaking  of  Himself  in  the 
Gospels  is  as  "the  Son  of  man  "  (o  wo?  rod  avOpwirov) ; 
and  the  Evangelists  have  certainly  everywhere  under- 
stood this  as  a  Messianic  self-designation.  But  could 
it  have  been  so  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  Himself  ?  In 
the  Aramaic,  which  was  the  mother-tongue  of  Jesus, 
the  corresponding  word  harnasha  never  denotes  any- 
thing else  than  "  man "  in  general.^  The  question 
therefore  arises,  How  came  a  general  expression  of 
this  kind  to  have  the  special  sense  of  a  INIessianic 
title,  as  it  doubtless  has  in  the  Gospels  ?  Is  it 
possible  to  suppose  that  Jesus  Himself  used  the  term 
in  this  special  sense  ?  Or,  if  not,  how  came  the 
Evangelists  to  put  this  self-designation  into  His 
mouth  ?  It  has  been  held  that  Jesus  called  Himself 
the  Son  of  INIan,  i.e.  man  in  an  emphatic  sense,  in 
order  to  indicate,  on  the  one  hand,  that  nothing 
human  —  misery,  suffering,  death  —  was  foreign  to 
Him ;  or,  again,  that  He  is  the  true  man,  the  realisa- 
tion of  the  ideal  of  humanity.  This  is  a  useful 
theological  conception,  but  little  probable  in  the 
mouth  of  Jesus,  who  was  neither  a  Greek  philosopher 

^  Cf.  A.  Meyer,  Die  Midtersprache  Jesu ;  Lietzmann,  Vher  den 
Menschensohn  ;  especially  Wellhausen's  Aufsatz  iiber  de7i  Menschen- 
so/m  in  the  Skhzen  und  Vorarheiten  of  1899,  where,  also,  the 
philological  objections  of  Dalman  {Worte  Jesu,  pp.  191  ff.)  are 
answered. 


47()  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

nor  a  modern  humanist,  and  also  was  not  speaking 
to  philosophers  or  humanists.  And  how  could  His 
hearers  have  understood  an  enigmatic  saying  of  that 
kind  ?  Would  they  not  sometime  or  other  have 
asked  Him  what  it  really  meant  ?  But  there  is  no 
trace  of  any  such  question,  nor  of  any  explanation 
on  the  part  of  Jesus.  Hence  others  have  supposed 
that  the  title  was  no  riddle  to  the  hearers,  because 
"  Son  of  Man  "  was  already  a  traditional  designation 
of  the  Messiah  in  the  apocalyptic  terminology  of 
the  Jews  of  the  time.  In  explanation  of  it  they 
point  to  Dan.  vii.  13,  "  Behold,  there  came  upon  the 
clouds  of  heaven  one  like  unto  a  son  of  man."  The 
seer,  it  is  true,  understood  by  that,  not  a  personal 
Messiah,  but  a  symbol  of  the  ideal  theocracy,  which 
appears  in  human  form  in  contrast  to  the  animal 
forms  which  symbolised  the  heathen  empires ;  but 
that  did  not  prevent  the  symbolical  human  figure 
from  being  understood  in  later  Jewish  apocalyptic 
as  representing  the  personal  Messiah.  Hence  we  find 
"Son  of  Man"  used,  not  indeed  as  a  standing  ex- 
pression, but  as  an  occasional  title  for  the  Messiah  in 
the  Similitudes  of  Enoch  and  in  2  Esdras,  but  always 
only  with  reference  to  the  Messiah  as  pre-existing 
in  heaven  and  to  be  expected  thence,  never  for  the 
earthly  Messiah.  Is  it  then  probable  that  Jesus 
would  have  chosen  as  His  self-designation  an  ex- 
pression which  in  apocalyptic  language  did  not  mean 
an  earthly  Messiah  but  a  miraculous  JNlessianic  being, 
coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven  ?  As  the  self-desig- 
nation "  Son  of  Man  "  is  found  from  the  beginning  of 
the  Gospels  it  must,  in  this  case,  be  supposed  that 
Jesus  from  the  first  looked  forward  to  a  transcendental 


THE    MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF  JESUS     477 

Messiahship,  to  be  attained  by  suffering  and  death  ; 
that   is,  however,  inherently   very   improbable,  and, 
moreover,  in  contradiction  with  the  Gospels,  accord- 
ing to  which  He  first  began  to  predict  His  death  and 
resurrection   at   the   end   of   His  Galilgean  ministry, 
after  Peter's  confession.     In  view  of  these  considera- 
tions, it  has  been  conjectured  that  Jesus  first  adopted 
this    apocalyptic    self-designation    at    that    time,    in 
order  to  indicate  the  transcendental  character  of  His 
Messiahship,  when  it  first  dawned  upon  His  mind  in 
consequence  of  His  presentiment  of  death,  and  that 
the   carrying  back  of  this  expression  to  His  earlier 
discourses  is  due  to  the  Evangelists.     Ingenious  as 
this  hypothesis  appears,  I  cannot  hold  it  to  be  satis- 
factory :  it  seems  to  me  too  complicated  to  be  true, 
and  it  presupposes  the  historicity  of  the  predictions 
of  the   death    and   resurrection,    which,    in   view   of 
critical  considerations,  cannot  be  maintained;  but  if 
we  are  to  admit  an  anticipation  of  the  Messianic  self- 
designation    "  Son    of    Man "   in   the    Gospels,    why 
should  we  not  take  a  short  step  farther  and  find  the 
source  of  this  Messianic  title,  not  in  the  reflection 
of  Jesus  upon  His  future  death,  but  in  the   reflec- 
tion   of    the    Church    upon    the    past    catastrophic 
death  and  exaltation  of  her   Lord  ?      Another  con- 
sideration which  points  to  this  simplest  solution  of 
the  problem,   is  that  the  absence  of  the   Messianic 
title    Son    of    Man   in    Paul's    writings    would    be 
quite    inexplicable    if    it    had    really   been   familiar 
to    the    disciples   from   the    first    as    the    historical 
self-designation   of   Jesus.       Moreover,   the   way   in 
which     the     seer    of     the     Johannine     Apocalypse 
(i.   13   and   xiv.   14)   sees   "One  like  unto  a  son    of 


\^ 


478  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESMS 

man"^  sitting  upon  the  clouds  reminds  us  much 
more  directly  of  the  Jewish  apocalypses  than  of  the 
Gospel  terminology.  But  if  this  was  unknown 
both  to  Paul  and  to  John  the  author  of  the  Apo- 
calypse, it  cannot  be  derived  from  a  reminiscence  of 
the  real  linguistic  usage  of  Jesus,  but  must  have 
been  made  a  designation  of  Jesus  at  a  later  period, 
especially  from  the  time  when  Greek  Gospels  began 
to  arise,  and  then  attributed  to  Himself. 

This  procedure  can  easily  be  explained.  When 
the  belief  of  the  disciples  in  Jesus'  Messianic  destiny 
appeared  to  be  destroyed  by  His  death  on  the  cross, 
but  soon  afterwards  was  revived  by  the  Easter  visions 
in  such  a  way  that  Jesus  was  now  thought  of  as 
exalted  to  heaven  but  soon  to  come  thence  again  to 
estabhsh  His  Kingdom,  they  could  find  no  more  suit- 
able expression  for  their  new  faith  in  Christ  than 
Daniel's  figure  of  the  coming  of  a  Son  of  Man  from 
heaven  to  assume  the  kingship  over  the  people  of 
God.  "  In  the  whole  Old  Testament  there  was  no 
Messianic  conception  to  be  found  which  corresponded 
so  exactly  as  that  of  Daniel  to  the  Christian  belief 
regarding  the  character  of  Jesus'  Messiahship.  Else- 
where in  the  Old  Testament  the  Messiah  was  always  a 
rising  star,  one  who  raises  himself  out  of  the  dust  and 
stands  up  among  men;  but  Jesus  was  expected  to 
come  back  from  heaven,  where  they  had  seen  Him 
since  His  death.  Now  in  the  vision  of  Daniel  there 
was  mention  of  a  human  figure  which  should  come 
amid  the  clouds  of  heaven  ;  whence,  is  not  said,  and, 
strictly  speaking,  what  is  suggested  is  some  distant 

^  o/Miov  vlov  avOpiliTTov,  a  verbal  imitation  of  K'JN*  "13?  in  Dan.  vii.  13 
but  not,  as  in  the  Gospel,  6  vto?  tov  avOpuiTrov. 


THE    MESSIANIC    BELIEFS   OF  JESUS     479 

region  where  it  had  hitherto  existed  inactive,  hke  other 
things  which  in  the  Jewish  view  pre-existed  in  the 
Divine  wisdom;    further,  he   is  immediately  carried 
away  by  the  clouds  into  the  presence  of  God.     But 
that   did   not   concern   the    Christian;    for   him  the 
representation  of  the  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven 
was  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  find  his  expectation 
of  the  return  of  Jesus  expressed  in  the  whole  passage. 
If  this  apocalyptic  view  had  taken  possession  of  the 
imagination  of  many  at  that  time,  if  it  had  perhaps 
only  lately  attained  a  specially  wide  circulation  among 
the   Jews   and  the   Christians  of  Jewish  nationality 
(it  has,  as   is  well  known,  been  taken    up   into   the 
New  Testament  apocalypses — Apoc.  i.  7,  13,  xiv.  14  ; 
1  Thess.  iv.  16  f. ;  Mark  xiii.  26,  and  parallels),  the 
Christian  Evangelist  could  not  fail  to  indicate  with 
all  emphasis,  in  the  interests  of  his  faith  and  its  pro- 
pagation, that  it  referred  to  Jesus."  ^     It  is,  however, 
to  be  noticed  that  the   oldest  Evangelical   tradition 
shows  a  certain  shrinking  from  representing  the  ex- 
pectation of  the  Parousia  as  expressed  quite  directly 
and  plainly  by  Jesus  Himself     At  first  it  was  only 
the  Daniel  passage  which  was  put  into  His  mouth — 
the  Son  of  ^lan  shall  appear  in  the  clouds  of  heaven 
(Mark  xiii.  26,  xiv.  62) — in  which  the   reference  of 
the  expression  is  still  left  vague — Wellhausen's  word 
is    "furtive"    {versto/iIe7i) — and   needs    a    specifically 
Christian  interpretation  to  affix  it  to   the  person  of 
Jesus  :  a  Jew  might  think  of  this  Son  of  ^lan  only  as 
Messiah,  without  thinking  of  Jesus  in  connection  with 
it ;  and,  indeed,  the  Evangelical  apocalypse  to  which 
Mark  xiii.  26  belongs  probably  has  a   Jewish  basis. 

1   Brandt,  Ev.  Gesch.,  p.  567  ;  cf.  Wellhausen,  nt  sup.,  pp.  208  ff. 


480  THE   PREACHING    OF  JESUS 

From  tliis  practice  of  at  first  attributing  to  Jesus 
only  the  traditional  apocalyptic  way  of  speaking  of 
the  "  cominsf  of  the  Son  of  Man  "  there  arose  later 
the  custom  of  regularly  avoiding  the  "  I "  in  those 
predictions  of  His  fate  which  were  ascribed  to  Him 
with  ever  greater  definiteness,  and  of  always  making 
the  Son  of  Man  the  subject  of  them.  In  this  way 
it  naturally  lost  its  originally  "furtive"  connotation, 
and  became  a  mere  equivalent  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus 
for  the  first  person  singular,  the  standing  expression 
for  His  Messianic  self- designation.  As  men  grew 
accustomed  to  see  in  Jesus  not  merely  the  Messiah 
who  was  to  come  from  heaven  in  the  future,  but 
also  to  presuppose  even  in  His  earthly  life  a  present 
Messiah,  latent  indeed,  but  conscious  from  the  first 
of  His  higher  dignity  and  destiny,  a  definite  expres- 
sion was  needed  for  this  Messianic  consciousness  of 
the  earthly  Jesus ;  and  as  there  M^as  no  traditional 
reminiscence  of  such  an  expression- — for  a  very 
obvious  reason — the  omission  was  readily  supplied 
by  the  apocalyptic  title  which  had  at  first  designated 
only  the  Messiah  as  to  come  from  heaven  in  the 
future.  In  this  respect  it  may  be  said  that  the 
Gospel  use  of  the  Messianic  term  Son  of  Man  in- 
cludes in  embryo  the  whole  history  of  the  early 
Christian  doctrine  of  Christ.  Its  transference  from 
the  apocalyptic  future  back  into  the  historical  past 
is  reflected  in  the  gradual  development  of  the  usage 
of  the  title  Son  of  Man.  This  is  at  first  only 
referred  to  the  heavenly  Jesus  as  the  Christ  who 
is  to  come  (not  come  again)  at  the  Parousia,  then 
to  the  earthly  Jesus  when  predicting  the  path  of 
suffering  and  death  by  which  He  was  to  reach  His 


THE   MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF  JESUS      481 

Messianic  throne  (predictions  of  the  Passion  in  Mark 
viii.  31  f.,  ix.  12,  31,  x.  33  fF.,  45,  xiv.  21,  41),  finally, 
used  in  all  passages  in  which  the  earthly  Jesus  bore 
witness  to  His  Messiahship,  whether  they  were  of 
eschatological  import  or  not.  There  are,  moreover, 
in  Mark  only  two  passages  (ii.  10  and  28)  in  which 
the  title  Son  of  Man  occurs  prior  to  Peter's  con- 
fession, and  without  reference  to  His  sufferings  and 
what  lay  beyond.  In  these  two  passages  the  Evan- 
gelist may  indeed  have  understood  the  word  in  the 
same  sense  as  elsewhere,  but  that  was  not  here  the 
original  meaning,  since  in  both  passages  {sup,,  pp.  8, 
12)  the  context  requires  the  sense  "man"  in  general, 
which  was  doubtless  what  was  meant  by  the  barnasha 
of  the  underlying  Aramaic  text.  The  fact,  however, 
that  the  literal  translation  of  barnasha  coincided 
with  the  apocalyptic  Messianic  title,  of  which  the 
usage  had  become  fixed,  may  have  contributed 
to  efface,  in  Greek  linguistic  usage,  the  original 
eschatological  limitation  of  the  use  of  the  term  Son 
of  Man,  and  to  extend  it  into  a  general  Messianic 
self-designation  of  Jesus.  In  the  later  Gospels  we 
find  it  in  this  wider  sense.  Since  in  several  passages 
one  Evangelist  speaks  of  the  "Son  of  Man "  where 
the  parallels  have  the  simple  "  I,"  ^  the  possibility 
must  be  left  open  that  in  other  passages  also  in 
which  both  Evangelists  have  "  Son  of  Man "  this 
Messianic  term  has  been  substituted  in  the  Greek 
Gospels  for  an  original  "  I  "  or  indeterminate  "  man  " 
{barnasli)}     We  cannot,  however,  expect  to  arrive  at 

1  Cf.  Matt.  V.  1 1  with  Luke  vi.  22  ;  Matt.  x.  32  with  Luke  xii.  8  ; 
Matt.  xvi.  13  with  Luke  ix.  18  and  Mark  viii.  27. 

2  So^  perhaps,  in  Matt.  xi.  19^  Luke  vii.  34,  and  Matt,  viii,  20  = 
VOL.  II  31 


482  THE    PREACHING    OF   JESUS 

complete  certainty  with  regard  to  every  single  passage 
in  our  Gospels  where  the  term  Son  of  Man  occurs. 
So  much,  however,  I  hold  to  be  certain,  that  all 
sayings  with  which  the  use  of  the  title  Son  of  Man  as 
a  Messianic  self-designation  is  inseparably  connected 
are  not  derived  from  Jesus  Himself,  since  this  self- 
designation  cannot  possibly  be  supposed  to  have  been 
used  by  Him. 

This  result  finds  an  illustration,  and  at  the  same 
time  a  fresh  confirmation,  in  the  Gospel  predictions 
of  the  suffering,  death,  and  resurrection  of  the  Son 
of  JNIan,  which  are  often  repeated  from  the  time  of 
Peter's  confession  onwards.  The  threefold  repetition 
with  progressively  increasing  exactitude  of  detail 
(Mark  viii.  31,  ix.  31,  x.  33  f.)  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  here  the  moulding  hand  of  the  Evangelist  has 
been  at  work  in  the  interests  of  primitive  Christian 
apologetic.  It  was  of  the  utmost  importance  to 
reconcile  the  contradiction — full  of  offence  for  Jewish 
minds,  and,  indeed,  for  those  of  all  men — between 
the  tragic  end  and  the  Messianic  dignity  of  Jesus,  by 
explaining  His  death  as  a  means  determined  from 
the  first  in  the  counsel  of  God  for  His  exaltation 
to  heaven ;  from  this  apologetic  interest  sprang  the 
Gospel  predictions  of  the  Passion  as  vaticinia  post 
eventiim.  Before  the  events  came  to  pass,  no  one 
either  in  the  wider  or  narrower  circles  of  the  disciple-  |j 

ship  of  Jesus  had  any  inkling  of  the  tragic  fate 
which  lay  before  Him,  nor  of  the  resurrection  which 
should  follow.  The  catastrophe  came  on  them  so 
unexpectedly,  and  shattered  all  their  hopes  so  com- 

Luke  ix.  58.  In  Matt.  xii.  32  =  Luke  xii.  1 0,  6  uios  r.a.  may  be  derived 
from  ol  vioi  T.a.  in  Mark  iii.  28.     Cf.  Wellhausen,  ut  sup.,  pp.  204  ff. 


THE    MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF   JESUS      483 

pletely  for  the  moment,  that  they  all,  dumbfounded 
by  the  sudden  blow,  took  to  flight.  It  was  only 
afterwards  that  they  learned  from  the  prophetic 
Scriptures  what  they  must  long  since  have  known 
from  the  prophetic  words  of  Jesus,  if  they  had  ever 
really  heard  them,  that  the  Son  of  Man  must,  ac- 
cording to  the  Divine  decree,  suffer  such  things  in 
order  to  enter  into  His  Messianic  glory.  More- 
over, the  Evangelists  themselves  give  a  hint  that  the 
disciples  had  no  knowledge  beforehand  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus.  After  the  Transfiguration,  Mark 
declares,  Jesus  bade  His  disciples  say  nothing  to  any 
man  until  the  Son  of  Man  should  be  risen  from  the 
dead ;  "  and  they  kept  that  saying  to  themselves  and 
questioned  one  with  another  what  the  rising  from  the 
dead  should  mean"  (ix.  9  f.).  Similarly,  after  the 
second  prediction  of  the  Passion  it  is  said,  "  They 
understood  not  that  saying,  and  were  afraid  to  ask 
him "  (ix.  32).  In  Luke  this  failure  to  understand 
the  prediction  of  the  passion  is  even  represented  as  a 
Divinely  imposed  disability  :  "  But  they  understood 
not  this  saying,  and  it  was  hid  from  them,  that  they 
might  not  perceive  it ;  and  they  feared  to  ask  him 
of  that  saying"  (ix.  45).  How  are  we  to  explain  so 
obstinate  a  misunderstanding  of  the  most  unam- 
biguous predictions  ?  The  rationalising  compromises 
(Jesus  did  not  speak  quite  so  clearly,  the  disciples 
did  not  so  completely  fail  to  understand  Him,  and 
the  like)  will  not  do  here ;  in  this  case,  as  in  many 
others,  they  only  serve  to  prevent  any  clear  insight 
into  the  facts.  The  contradiction  between  the  un- 
ambiguous predictions  of  the  Passion  by  Jesus  which 
the   Evangelists   report   and   the   absolute  unintelli- 


484.  THP:    preaching    of   JESUS 

gence   and   ignorance  of  the  whole  of  the  disciples 
in  regard  to  them,  is  to  be  explained  as  solely  and 
simply  due  to  the  contradiction  between  the  theo- 
logical apologetic  poHtulate  that  Jesus   the   Messiah 
must  have  foreknown  and  foretold   His  paradoxical 
fate   as   determined   by  the   Divine  decree,  and  the 
historical  fact   that   before   the   arrest   of  Jesus    no 
one  in   His  following   had  any  apprehension  of  the 
catastrophe,  all  expected  the  very  opposite — victory 
and  glory- — and  similarly  after  His  death  and  before 
the   Easter   visions   no   one   expected   His  resurrec- 
tion ;  on  the  contrary,  the  women  who  came  to  the 
tomb  had  intended  to  embalm  His  body.     If,  then, 
the  predictions  of  the  Passion  and  Resurrection  are 
only  evidence  of  a  theological  apologetic  postulate 
which   stands  in  absolute  contradiction  to  historical 
facts,  they  were   neither  wholly  nor   partly,  neither 
clearly  nor   obscurely,    spoken    by   Jesus,    but   were 
simply  not  spoken  by  Him  at  all,  but  rather,  in  every 
case,  put  into  His  mouth  by  the  Evangelists. 

Against  this  inevitable  result  of  a  logical  and 
methodical  criticism  the  theological  prepossessions  of 
exegetes  have  struggled  vehemently,  doubtless  be- 
cause the  doctrinal  utterances  regarding  the  redeeming 
power  of  Jesus'  death  which  are  similarly  ascribed  to 
Him  stand  or  fall  with  the  predictions  of  the  Passion. 
But  if  we  examine  these  more  closely — those  in 
question  are  Mark  x.  45  and  xiv.  24  with  the 
parallels — we  shall  find  that  they  do  not  contradict, 
but  confirm,  the  result  arrived  at  above.  In 
rebuking  the  disciples  who  were  disputing  about 
precedence  Jesus  is  reported  by  Mark,  whom 
Matthew  follows,  to  have  said,  "  The  Son  of  man  is 


THE    MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF   JESUS     485 

not  come  to  be  served,  but  to  serve,  and  to  give  his 
life  a  ransom  for  many."  This  saying  is  not  to  be 
explained  away  in  the  sense  that  Jesus,  as  the  friend 
of  humanity,  had  dedicated  His  life  to  the  service  of 
many,  had  rendered  service  to  many.  What  is 
meant  is  undoubtedly  nothing  else  than  the  surrender 
of  His  life  to  death  as  an  expiatory  offering,  to 
purchase  the  deliverence  of  many  (namely  of  all 
believers)  from  eternal  death.  It  therefore  expresses 
exactly  the  same  thought  of  a  representative  atone- 
ment as  is  expressed  in  1  Tim.  ii.  6,  1  Cor.  vi.  20,  Rom. 
iii.  25,  etc.  Now  this  view  of  the  death  of  Christ 
as  a  means  of  redemption  is  found  only  once  else- 
where in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  namely,  in  the  words 
of  the  institution  of  the  Supper,  the  derivation  of 
which  from  the  Pauline  theology  is,  for  many  reasons, 
highly  probable,  as  we  shall  see  below.  Is  it  not 
likely  that  the  same  is  the  case  here  ?  The  thought 
of  a  redemption  through  the  atoning  power  of  the 
death  of  Jesus  the  Messiah  could  not  well  arise 
until  the  fact  of  this  death  had  become  the  subject 
of  apologetic  reflection  with  a  view  to  removing  the 
offence  of  the  cross.  The  most  obvious  explanation 
was  to  suppose  that  the  suffering  and  death  of  Jesus 
were  determined  beforehand  by  the  Divine  decree, 
and  were  either  permitted  or  brought  about  by  the 
Divine  providence  in  order  to  test  Him  and  to 
prepare  the  way  to  His  Messianic  exaltation ;  this  is 
the  point  of  view  from  which  the  death  of  Jesus  is 
explained  in  the  sermons  of  the  Apostles  in  Acts,  and 
it  is  very  probable  that  the  primitive  community 
was  satisfied  with  that.  But  the  further  question 
regarding  the  purpose  of  this  paradoxical  fate  of  the 


486  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

Messiah  in  relation  to  the  work  committed  to  Him 
by  God  soon  forced  itself  upon  them.  And  to  this 
a  satisfying  solution  offered  itself  in  the  doctrine — 
founded  on  Isa.  liii.  and  current  in  the  Pharisaic 
theology — of  the  atoning  power  of  the  innocent 
sufferings  of  the  righteous  to  wipe  out  the  guilt  of 
their  adherents ;  the  application  of  this  doctrine  to 
the  death  of  Jesus  made  it  appear  an  atonement 
bringing  salvation  to  His  followers.  It  is  possible 
that  even  in  the  primitive  community  this  thought 
had  occasionally  been  made  use  of  as  an  apologetic 
resource,  but  it  was  only  by  Paul  that  it  was  made 
the  centre  of  the  Christian  faith,  the  foundation  and 
corner-stone  of  the  doctrine  of  redemption.  But  it 
must  not  be  overlooked  that  this  Pauline  doctrine 
of  redemption  was  far  removed  from  the  thoughts 
of  Jesus.  The  salvation  which  He  promised  con- 
sisted in  the  speedy  coming  of  the  Reign  of  God — 
looked  forward  to  by  the  ancient  prophets  and  made 
by  John  the  Baptist  a  subject  of  immediate  expecta- 
tion— with  its  miraculous  consolations  and  blessings 
in  which  all  those  should  share  who  did  the  will  of 
God,  loved  God  and  the  brethren,  renounced  the 
world  and  self;  especially,  renounced  Mammon,  and 
shrank  from  no  sacrifice  for  the  cause  of  God.  In 
this  preaching  of  a  salvation  which  is  through  and 
through  apocalyptic  and  ascetic  there  is  no  room  for 
a  representative  atoning  sacrifice  of  which  the  merits 
are  imputed  to  those  who  believe.  Everywhere 
Jesus  has  made  the  forgiveness  of  sins  dependent 
only  on  the  penitent  and  humble  attitude  of  men 
and  their  willingness  to  forgive  one  another,  without 
anywhere  indicating  that  the  Divine  forgiveness  has 


THE   MESSIANIC    BELIEFS   OF  JESUS      487 

as  its  prerequisite  a  propitiation  of  God  by  a  repre- 
sentative atonement ;  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal 
Son  is  in  this  respect  especially  instructive.^  If, 
therefore,  Jesus  only  expected  salvation  to  be 
brought  about  by  the  coming  Reign  of  God  over  a 
renewed  society,  and  by  the  pious  attitude  of  its 
individual  members,  He  can  have  known  nothing 
of  a  redemption  by  representative  expiation,  and 
cannot  therefore  have  looked  upon  His  own  death 
as  a  means  to  that  end.  An  indirect  confirmation 
of  this  is  furnished  by  the  consideration  that  if  Jesus 
had  (like  Paul)  regarded  His  own  death  as  the 
Divinely  willed  means  of  atonement  and  as  the 
essential  purpose  of  His  JMessianic  mission,  He 
could  not  possibly  have  recommended  His  disciples 
to  buy  swords,^  the  only  object  of  which  could  be  to 
defend  Him  against  the  attacks  of  enemies ;  nor  is 
it  possible  that  in  Gethsemane  He  could  have  prayed 
that  the  cup  might  pass  from  Him,  and  least  of  all 
could  He  have  uttered  the  cry  of  lamentation  from 
the  cross,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me  ?  "  The  striking  contrast  between  these 
three  facts  which  the  Evangelists  record  and  their 
theological  postulates  and  apologetic  constructions 
elsewhere,  is  in  favour  of  the  historical  character  of 
the  former,  and  confirms  the  doubt,  which  is  also 
suggested  by  internal  grounds,  regarding  the 
authenticity   of   all    the    utterances    which   are   put 

1  Cf.  the  remark  of  Jiilicher  cited  above^  p.  159- 

2  Luke  xxii.  SQ  fF.  Cf.  my  essay  "Jesus'  Foreknowledge  of  His 
Death"  in  The  New  World  for  September  1899  (and  also  in  the 
essays  collected  by  Orello  Cone  under  the  title  Evolution  and 
Theology,  pp.  178-203). 


488  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  by  the  Evangelists  concerning 
His  predetermined  death  and  its  redemptive  effect. 

The  sayings  at  the  Last  Supper  form  no  exception, 
since  it  can  be  shown  that  these,  so  far  as  they  are 
to  be  considered  historical,  do  not  refer  to  Jesus' 
death,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  so  far  as  they 
refer  to  His  death  and  its  consequences  they  are 
derived  not  from  Jesus  but  from  Paul,  or  from  the 
Evangelists  who  had  been  influenced  by  him.  The 
words  preserved  by  all  three  Evangelists  —  and 
therefore  doubtless  genuine — which  Jesus  spoke  in 
distributing  the  bread,  "  This  is  my  body  (Mark  xiv. 
22  =  Matt.  xxvi.  26  =  Luke  xxii.  19),  do  not  contain 
in  themselves  any  reference  to  Jesus'  death,  but  admit 
of  a  quite  different  interpretation,  as  is  clear  from 
1  Cor.  x.  17.  They  are  certainly  made  to  refer  to 
His  death  by  the  supplement  which  Luke,  following 
Paul  (1  Cor.  xi.  24),  adds,  "which  is  given  for  you." 
At  the  giving  of  the  cup,  Mark  and  Matthew  both 
make  Jesus  say,  "  This  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant 
which  is  shed  for  many  (Matthew  adds,  "  for  the 
forgiveness  of  sins ").  In  Luke,  we  find  in  this 
passage  (at  least  in  a  part  of  the  MSS.)  a  phrase 
which  combines  Paul  (1  Cor.  xi.  25)  with  Mark 
(xiv.  24) :  "  This  cup  is  the  New  Covenant  in  my 
blood,  which  is  shed  for  you."  In  spite  of  the 
divergences  in  the  form  of  the  phrase,  its  sense  in 
the  three  Evangelists  and  in  Paul  is  essentially  the 
same :  the  cup  denotes  the  new  covenant  which  is 
established  by  means  of  the  blood,  i.e.  the  atoning 
death,  of  Jesus.  From  this  the  celebration  of  the 
Supper  receives  the  significance  of  an  ever-renewed 
memorial  of  the  death  of  Jesus — as  Paul  and  Luke 


THE   MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF  JESUS     489 

say,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me."  While  there 
can  be  no  reason  to  doubt  the  meaning  of  the 
words  of  institution  in  Paul  and  the  Evangelists, 
there  is  every  reason  to  raise  the  question  whether 
these  words  were  originally  spoken  by  Jesus  or  not. 
It  has  lately  been  remarked,  with  good  grounds,  that, 
apart  from  the  words  in  question,  the  description  of 
the  Last  Supper  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  by  no 
means  makes  the  impression  that  thoughts  of  the 
imminent  tragedy,  or  the  sadness  of  a  final  separation, 
ruled  the  hearts  of  the  participants.  On  the  contrary, 
a  tone  of  joyful  confidence  and  the  hope  of  the 
approaching  victorious  issue  of  His  cause  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  saying  of  Jesus,  which  all  the 
Synoptists  report,  "  I  will  drink  no  more  of  the  fruit 
of  the  vine  until  the  day  when  I  drink  it  new 
(Matt. :  "with  you  ")  in  the  kingdom  of  God"  (Luke  : 
"until  the  kingdom  of  God  be  come").  So  it  is  also 
in  the  words  reported  by  Luke  (xxii.  29  f.),  "As 
my  Father  hath  appointed  unto  me  the  kingship, 
so  I  appoint  unto  you,  that  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at 
my  table  in  my  kingdom,  and  sit  on  thrones  judging 
(ruling)  the  twelve  tribes  of  Irsael."  The  traditional 
opinion  of  exegetes,  that  these  words  are  to  be  under- 
stood as  a  pictorial  expression  of  the  super-earthly 
blessedness  which  is  to  be  founded  on  Jesus'  death 
and  resurrection,  has  no  point  of  attachment  in  the 
text.  The  disciples  certainly  did  not  understand 
them  in  that  sense,  as  their  very  earthly  dispute 
about  position  and  precedence  shows,  and  also  their 
complete  discouragement  after  the  catastrophe.  If 
Jesus  had  had  an  entirely  different,  spiritual  con- 
ception of  the  coming  Kingdom  of  God,  He  would 


490  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

certainly,  on  earlier  occasions  and  especially  at  this 
last  opportunity  of  converse  with  them,  have  earnestly 
endeavoured  to  enlighten  them  as  to  their  mistake, 
instead  of  confirming  them  in  it  by  the  saying  about 
drinking  the  new  wine  with  them  in  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  This  saying  has  no  meaning  if  we  accept  the 
traditional  assumption  of  transcendental  hopes.  It  can 
only  have  an  intelligible  meaning  if  it  was  meant  by 
Jesus  in  the  sense  in  which  His  disciples  could  not 
fail  to  understand  it,  namely,  as  referring  to  an 
immediate  victory  of  His  reforming  efforts  to  set 
up  the  true  theocracy,  in  which  the  leadership  of  a 
renewed  people  of  God  should  fall  to  Him  and  to 
His  disciples.  It  is  obvious  to  everyone  that  such  - 
hopes  are  far  removed  from  the  conviction  of  His. 
approaching  death  which  is  presupposed  in  the  words 
of  institution  in  the  Gospels.  How  is  this  con- 
tradiction to  be  explained  ? 

The  key  to  the  explanation  must  be  sought,  not 
in  theological  dialectic  and  not  in  psychological 
subtleties,  of  which  a  rank  crop  has  lately  sprung  up, 
to  the  great  detriment  of  a  plain,  historical  inter- 
pretation, but  simply  in  textual  criticism.  It  was 
remarked  above  (p.  178  f.)  with  reference  to  Luke  xxii. 
19b  and  20,  that  this  verse  and  a  half  was  held  to 
be  spurious  by  some  of  the  leading  modern  authorities 
in  textual  criticism,  because  it  is  wanting  in  many 
codices  (D,  it.  Syr.  Cur.).  Others,  however,  defend 
the  originality  of  this  verse  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
but  admit  that  the  Evangelist  did  not  derive  it  from 
his  source,  but  formed  it  by  combining  Paul  and 
Mark.  I  hold  the  former  view  to  be  the  more 
probable,  but  am  of  opinion  that  for  the  question  in 


THE   MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF  JESUS     491 

hand  it  does  not  much  matter  which  of  the  two 
views  is  correct ;  for  in  either  case,  whether  the 
Evangelist  himself  or  some  later  interpolator  filled 
in  the  gap  with  this  skilful  combination,  it  must  be 
assumed  that  in  the  original  source  used  by  Luke 
verses  19b  and  20  were  not  present.  This  text, 
therefore,  only  recorded  one  giving  of  the  cup,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  meal  (xxii.  17),  without  any 
reference  whatever  to  blood  or  death  or  the  New 
Covenant,  but  with  the  addition  of  the  saying 
(verse  18)  that  Jesus  would  not  drink  again  of  the 
fruit  of  the  vine  until  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  Then  followed  (verse  19a)  the  giving  of 
the  bread,  with  the  simple  explanation,  "  This  is  my 
body " ;  here,  too,  without  a  syllable  of  reference  to 
a  body  broken  in  death  or  delivered  over  to  death, 
for  the  reference  in  verse  19b  belongs  to  the  inter- 
polation taken  from  Paul.  I  hold  it  to  be  very  prob- 
able that  we  have  in  this  shorter  Lucan  text,  as 
preserved  by  Cod.  D,  the  oldest  account  of  the  Last 
Supper;  for  the  deliberate  omission  of  the  second, 
symbolical  cup,  which  was  so  important  for  the 
Church's  view  of  the  Supper,  is  inconceivable  ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  in  later 
times  the  omission  of  this  raised  so  much  difficulty 
that  an  endeavour  was  made  to  fill  in  the  gap  by 
means  of  a  skilful  combination.  But  if  we  are  to  see 
in  the  shorter  Lucan  text  of  Cod.  D  the  most  original 
form  of  the  report  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  there  follows 
the  further  consequence  that  the  words  in  Mark  also, 
who  is  followed  by  Matthew,  "  This  is  my  blood, 
which  is  shed  for  many,"  do  not  belong  to  the  oldest 
tradition,  and  do  not  therefore  contain  a  reminiscence 


492  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

of  what  was  then  spoken  by  Jesus,  but  are  an  addition 
deriA'ed    by    Mark,    the   disciple   of  Paul,  from   the 
Pauline  theology.     A  consideration  which  points  in 
the  same  direction  is  that  Jesus,  even  supposing  He 
had    at   that   time    foreseen   His    death,    could   not 
possibly  have  described  it  as  a  means  of  establishing 
a  new  covenant  which  should  take  the  place  of  the 
old  covenant  of  the  Law  made  with  the  fathers  at 
Sinai ;  His  intention  was  to  fulfil,  not  to  destroy,  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets — not  to  put  a  new  religion  in 
the  place  of  that  revealed  by  God  through  Moses,  but 
to  establish  the  old  prophetic  ideal  of  the  theocracy 
in  new  splendour.     It  was  Paul  who  first  won  from 
reflection  on  the  accursed  death  of  the  Messiah  upon 
the  cross,  the  conviction  that   this   death   had  been 
appointed  in  the  counsel  of  God  to  be  the  end  of  the 
covenant  of  the  Letter  and  the  beginning  of  the  new 
covenant  of  the  Spirit.    It  was  natural  for  the  Apostle, 
to  whom  the  crucified   Christ  had   become  the  key- 
stone of  his  faith,  to  give  to  the  Lord's   Supper  a 
mystical  reference  to  His  atoning  death,  and  to  seek 
support  for  this  new  mystical  conception  in  a   cor- 
responding   re-interpretation    and   extension    of   the 
traditional  words  by  which  Jesus  had  originally  made 
the  common  meal  a  symbol  of  the  inner  fellowship, 
the  covenant  of  brotherhood,  among   His  followers. 
JNloreover,  Paul  has  also  preserved  a  reminiscence  of 
the   original   meaning  of  the  "  breaking   of  bread " 
together,  as  the  love-feast  of  the  Christian  brother- 
hood is  named  in  Acts,  in  interpreting,  as  he  does  in 
1  Cor.  X.  17,  the  "  one  "  bread  as  the  symbol  of  the 
"  one  "  mystical  body  of  Christ,  or  of  the  Christian 
community.     On  the  other  hand,  in  1  Cor.  xi.  24  f. 


THE    MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF  JESUS     493 

he  has  made  the  bread  the  symbol  not  of  the  mystical 
body  but  of  the  actual  body  of  Christ,  and  added  the 
interpretation  of  the  cup  as  symbolising  the  poured- 
forth  blood  of  the  New  Covenant,  and  has  thus  given 
to  the  whole  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  the 
character  of  a  mystical  commemoration  of  the  death  of 
Christ.  This  new  conception  of  it  then  found  its  way, 
through  Mark  the  disciple  of  Paul,  into  the  Evangelical 
tradition,  and  has  carried  with  it  the  alteration  of  the 
original  version  which  is  still  preserved  in  the  shorter 
text  of  Luke.  This  did  not,  however,  everywhere 
displace  the  older  form  of  the  ''  Holy  Communion," 
for  that  this  long  maintained  itself  in  wide  circles  in 
the  Church  is  proved  by  the  Communion  prayers 
in  the  "  Teaching  of  the  Apostles,"  which  have  no 
reference  either  to  the  Gospel  text  or  to  Paul. 

As  the  Gospel  of  Luke  has  preserved  for  us  in  its 
shorter  text  the  oldest,  ante-Pauline,  form  of  the  words 
of  institution,  so  too,  among  the  last  discourses  of 
Jesus  in  the  same  passage,  it  has  preserved  a  peculiar 
saying  which  deserves  more  attention  than  it  has 
usually  received  from  exegetes.  At  the  close  of  the 
Last  Supper,  before  they  went  out  to  Gethsemane, 
Jesus  is  reported  in  Luke  xxii.  36  to  have  said  to  His 
disciples,  "  But  now,  he  that  hath  a  purse,  let  him 
take  it,  and  likewise  his  scrip ;  and  he  who  hath  not 
these,  let  him  sell  his  cloak  and  buy  a  sword.  "^  That 
is  to  say,  the  possession  of  a  sword  is  now  a  press- 
ing necessity  to  you — more  so  than  purse,  or  scrip, 
or  cloak.  Most  expositors  remark  upon  this  that 
Jesus  did  not  seriously  mean  to  command  them  to 
buy  swords,  but  only  spoke  of  doing  so  metaphorically, 
1  For  the  rendering,  cf.  p.  181. — Translator. 


494  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

meaning  that  they  must  be  prepared  for  a  struggle 
with  the  hostile  world.  But  this  interpretation  is 
beset  with  serious  difficulties.  Anyone  who  reads 
these  words  without  a  preconceived  opinion  receives 
the  impression  that  they  are  not  the  pictorial  ex- 
pression of  a  general  truth,  but  contain  a  literal  and 
urgent  command  to  His  disciples  to  provide  them- 
selves with  arms.  It  was  certainly  in  this  sense  that 
the  disciples  understood  them,  for  they  immediately 
pointed  to  two  swords  which  were  at  hand,  whereupon 
Jesus  answered,  "  It  is  enough "  (verse  38).  The 
exegetical  theory  that  this  was  cutting  irony  directed 
against  the  misunderstanding  of  His  words  by  the 
disciples  is  not  suggested  by  the  text.  There  the 
command  to  buy  swords  (verse  36)  could  not  be 
understood  by  the  disciples  otherwise  than  literally, 
so  there  was  no  reason  for  irony,  and  Jesus  would 
have  been  obliged  to  explain  to  His  disciples  clearly 
and  convincingly  that  He  was  not  speaking  of  literal 
arms  but  only  of  spiritual  weapons ;  instead  of  that, 
He  only  says,  "  It  is  enough,"  and  thus  obviously 
confirms  His  hearers  in  the  supposition  that  they  are 
to  provide  themselves  with  weapons  wherewith  to 
defend  themselves  against  the  literal  attacks  of 
enemies.  How  could  Jesus  have  left  His  disciples 
under  an  impression  the  consequences  of  which  might 
have  been  foreseen  (Peter's  sword- stroke),  if  this  had 
not  really  been  His  own  meaning  ?  I  believe  that 
any  reader  of  Luke  xxii.  36-38  who  lays  aside  his 
preconceived  opinion  will  gain  the  impression  that 
Jesus  quite  seriously  commanded  His  disciples  to 
provide  weapons  as  speedily  as  possible.  But  men 
provide  themselves  with  weapons  with  the  intention 


THE    MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF  JESUS     495 

of  using  them  if  need  be,  and  therefore  with  a  view 
to  resisting  the  attacks  of  enemies.  If,  therefore, 
Jesus  spoke  the  words  which  l^uke  reports,  He  must 
have  had  the  intention,  on  that  last  evening,  of 
offering  an  armed  resistance  to  His  enemies.  And 
that  is  quite  conceivable.  He  had  had  opportunities 
enough  during  the  preceding  days  to  convince  Him- 
self of  the  deadly  hatred  of  the  hierarchy,  and  might 
have  received  warnings  from  many  quarters  of  attacks 
upon  His  life  which  were  being  planned  in  these 
circles.  Naturally,  what  He  expected  was  an  assault 
of  hired  assassins ;  against  this  He  intended  His 
disciples  to  defend  Him,  and  for  this  purpose — 
defence  against  assassination  —  two  swords  might 
well  be  enough.  Of  an  arrest  by  the  servants  of 
the  Jewish  (or  Roman  ?)  Government,  Jesus  had 
apparently  never  thought.  That  is  the  more  easy  to 
understand  if  we  remember  that  the  spiritual  rulers 
of  the  Jews  had  been  deprived  of  their  criminal  juris- 
diction by  the  Roman  Government ;  therefore  it  was 
quite  natural  that  Jesus  should  expect,  on  the  part  of 
the  hierarchs — and  it  was  only  from  them  that  danger 
seemed  to  threaten  Him — the  sending  out  of  ruffianly 
assassins,  but  not  an  official  arrest.  In  this  way  the 
intention  of  armed  resistance  which  unmistakably 
appears  in  the  command  to  buy  swords,  can  quite 
well  be  reconciled  with  the  fact  that  after  a  feeble 
attempt  on  the  part  of  a  single  disciple  the  resist- 
ance to  the  servants  of  the  authorities  was  at  once 
voluntarily  abandoned  at  Jesus'  command  ("  Hold  ! 
No  more!"  Luke  xxii.  51). 

If  we  accept  this,  as  it  seems  to  me,  simplest  ex- 
planation of  Luke  xxii.  36  fF.,  it  throws  a  significant 


496  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

light  upon  the  situation  of  Jesus  immediately  before 
the  catastrophe.  In  the  first  place,  it  contains  a 
remarkable  confirmation  of  the  result  which  we 
have  arrived  at  in  examining  the  various  predictions 
of  the  Passion  ;  namely,  that  Jesus  never  thought  of 
a  criminal  trial  and  death  on  the  cross  as  lying  before 
Him.  Just  as  He  journeyed  to  Jerusalem  not  to  die 
there  but  to  overthrow  the  hierarchy,  those  "  Wicked 
Husbandmen,"  and  establish  the  true  theocracy  by 
means  of  a  religious  and  social  reorganisation  of  the 
people  of  God,  so  in  the  last  days,  in  face  of  the  deadly 
enmity  of  the  hierarchs,  He  never  abandoned  His 
joyful  confidence  that  God  destined  the  kingship  for 
Him  and  His  "little  flock"  (Luke  xii.  32,  xxii.  29). 
He  might  well  believe  that  by  God's  help  He  would 
succeed  in  winning  the  people,  who  indeed  heard 
Him  gladly  (Mark  xii.  38),  for  a  reforming  movement 
which  would  lead  to  the  removal  of  the  hierarchy. 
That  this  would  not  be  accomplished  without  resist- 
ance, struggles,  and  dangers,  He  might  well  expect, 
and  therefore  His  confidence  of  victory  may  have 
alternated  with  darker  moods  of  anxious  despondency, 
such  as  are  expressed  in  the  prayers  in  Gethsemane, 
but  also  earlier,  in  words  which  are  certainly  genuine  : 
"  I  am  come  to  kindle  fire  upon  the  earth,  and  how 
fain  would  I  that  it  were  already  burning !  But  I 
have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  and  how  am 
I  oppressed  till  it  be  accomplished  !  Think  ye  that  I 
am  come  to  bring  peace  upon  earth  ?  I  say  unto  you. 
Nay;  but  rather  division  !  "  (Luke  xii  49  ff.).  That 
is  the  authentic  language  of  a  hero  who  is  facing  a 
hard  struggle  and  is  resolved  to  stake  all,  even  to  his 
life,  upon  the  cause  of  God,  but  who,  although  he 


THE   MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF  JESUS     497 

cannot  quite  conceal  from  himself  the  possibility  of 
his  own  defeat,  is  far  from  thinking  of  it  as  a  necessity. 
That  Jesus  was  well  aware  during  those  days  in 
Jerusalem  of  the  dangers  of  His  position  is  most 
clearly  shown  by  the  command  to  buy  swords  in 
order  to  ward  off  attempts  at  assassination.  But  the 
fact  that  He  only  thought  of  attacks  of  that  kind 
shows  that  He  had  not  taken  into  account  the  whole 
difficulty  of  the  position.  It  is  no  diminution  of  His 
heroic  greatness  that  He  underrated,  as  heroes  are 
wont  to  do,  the  forces  of  the  actual  world.  To  the 
pious  Galilaean  the  relation  of  the  Reign  of  God  to 
the  Roman  rule  seemed  of  slight  importance ;  He 
believed  it  possible  to  realise  the  former  without 
coming  into  collision  with  the  latter  ("Render  unto 
Csesar  the  things  which  are  Cassar's  and  unto  God 
the  things  which  are  God's ").  Upon  this  mistake, 
which  does  no  discredit  to  the  heart  of  the  Greatest 
of  Idealists,  His  plans  of  religious  and  social  reform 
made  shipwreck.  That  He  Himself  thought  of  His 
fate  in  this  way,  as  the  shattering  of  His  dearest 
hopes,  is  proved  by  His  last  word  from  the  cross,  "  My 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ? " 

Nothing  could  reconcile  us  to  the  awful  tragedy  of 
such  a  death  of  Jesus  but  the  thought  that,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  it  was  the  dawn  of  a  higher  life. 
The  corn  of  wheat  must  fall  into  the  ground  and  die 
in  order  to  bring  forth  fruit ;  the  Jewish  Messiah, 
the  Reformer  of  a  single  nation,  must  perish,  in  order 
that  in  the  faith  of  the  community  of  His  followers 
"  Christ  after  the  Spirit "  might  arise,  who  should 
become  the  Saviour  of  the  world  and  the  King  of 

the  Kingdom  of  Truth.     All  that  in  the  former  lay 

VOL  11.  2t% 


498  THE   PREACHING    OF   JESUS 

under  individual  and  human,  temporal  and  national, 
limitations,  perished  in  the  unequal  struggle  with  the 
forces  of  this  world.  But  that  which  was  the  Divine 
essence  of  His  being  and  work — the  ideal  of  the 
reign  of  the  heavenly  Father  in  the  hearts  of  His 
cliildren  and  in  the  social  life  of  His  Kingdom  — 
remained  alive  and  marched  victoriously  forward  over 
the  world  ;  it  is  alive  to-day,  and  it  will  live  for  ever. 
The  first  stages  of  the  development  by  which  the 
Jesus  of  History  became  the  Christ  of  Faith  can  still 
be  clearly  traced  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  we 
may  in  conclusion  glance  rapidly  over  them.  That 
which  reanimated  in  the  disciples,  who  had  at  first 
fled  in  fear,  their  belief  in  the  Messiahship  of  their 
Master,  who  had  died  upon  the  cross,  was  the  vision- 
ary experience  which  occurred  sometimes  to  in- 
dividuals (first  to  Peter),  sometimes  to  a  number  of 
persons  together — experiences  similar  to  those  which 
have  occurred  at  all  periods,  and  still  occur,  in  circles 
where  religious  excitement  is  prevalent.  For  all 
their  extraordinary  character,  they  are  nevertheless 
not,  strictly  speaking,  miracles,  for  they  have  their 
sufficient  cause  in  the  psychical  condition  of  the 
persons  to  whom  they  occur ;  they  are  the  effects  of 
psychic  forces,  the  tension  of  which  discharges  and 
relieves  itself  in  them.  They  therefore  fall  under 
the  general  category  of  the  "  enthusiastic  "  (spiritual- 
istic ^)  phenomena  which  characterise  primitive  Christi- 
anity from  its   commencement,  and  which  must  be 

'^  The  word  ptieumatisch  which  Pfleiderer  here  uses — the  brackets 
are  his — cari'ies  no  specific  reference  to  "Spiritualism"  in  the 
narrower^  modern  sense.  See  vol.  i.  chap,  xvii.,  "  Life  in  the  Spirit." 
— Translator, 


THE    MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF  JESUS     499 

assumed  to  have  been  an  important  factor  in  the 
work  of  Jesus  and  in  the  results  produced  by  Him. 
His  personal  enthusiasm  of  faith  and  love,  which 
from  the  first  had  firmly  attached  His  followers  to 
Him,  now  continued  to  work  with  life-giving  power 
in  their  souls,  and  manifested  itself  in  the  form  of 
visions  in  which  they  supposed  they  saw  Him  again 
in  person,  no  longer  in  earthly  and  human  weakness, 
but  as  the  Messiah  exalted  to  the  life  and  lisfht  of 
heaven.  "  So  extraordinary  was  the  impression 
which  He  had  made  on  them,  so  real  was  the  fellow- 
ship in  which  they  stood  with  Him :  He  did  not  let 
go  of  His  own"  (Wellhausen).  On  the  ground  of 
these  visions  experienced  by  many  persons,  and 
repeatedly  (1  Cor.  xv.  5  fF.),  they  were  henceforth 
convinced  that  their  crucified  Master  had  been  raised 
up  by  God  by  an  act  of  omnipotence  and  exalted  to 
the  Messianic  throne  upon  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father  (Ps.  ex.),  installed  into  the  dignity  of  "  Lord  " 
and  "  Christ "  (Acts  ii.  36),  and  appointed  to  come 
again  in  the  near  future  to  judge  both  living  and 
dead,  to  deliver  Israel  from  her  enemies,  and  to 
restore  the  Kingdom  to  Israel  (Acts  i.  6,  x.  42  ;  Luke 
xxiv.  21).  The  importance  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  consisted  for  the  primitive  community  mainly 
in  the  fact  that  it  was  the  guarantee  of  His  speedy 
visible  return  upon  the  clouds  of  heaven  to  carry 
out  His  Messianic  work  upon  earth.  The  primitive 
community  did  not  suppose  His  Messiahship  to  be 
realised  in  His  earthly  life ;  He  there  appeared  only 
as  the  Messiah  designate.  He  became  the  true 
Messiah,  or  indeed,  more  exactly,  the  heavenly  Son 
of  Man  in  the  sense  of  the  Apocalypse,  only  in  con- 


500  THE    PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

sequence  of  His  resurrection  and  exaltation.  In  this 
respect  the  behef  of  the  community  of  disciples 
appeared  to  be  the  same  as  that  of  the  Jewish 
apocalyptic,  which  hkewise  looked  for  a  Messiah 
descending  from  heaven.  Nevertheless,  there  was 
from  the  beginning,  in  the  very  fact  of  the  identi- 
fication of  the  heavenly  Messiah  with  the  crucified 
and  risen  Jesus,  a  significant  distinction  between  them. 
The  vague  conception  of  a  human  personality  exist- 
ing in  heaven  was  filled  in,  through  the  identification 
with  the  historical  Jesus,  with  a  definite  religious 
and  ethical  character  with  familiar  and  winning  traits  ; 
and,  in  addition,  the  time  of  His  "  coming  in  glory  " 
(Parousia)  was  brought  into  the  near  future,  because 
the  Resurrection  was  regarded  as,  in  a  sense,  the 
prelude  to  it,  and  it  became  the  object  of  the  most 
fervent  hope.  The  mood  of  enthusiastic  eschatological 
expectation — of  aversion  from  the  present  transitory 
world  and  eager  longing  for  the  coming  New  World 
which  would  bring  to  the  followers  of  the  Messiah  a 
miraculous  deliverance  from  all  evils,  victory  over 
demonic  and  human  enemies,  and  establishment  of 
the  ideal  condition  of  the  perfect  Reign  of  God — 
now  became,  much  more  distinctly  than  ever  before, 
the  key-note  of  religious  faith  and  life. 

But  it  was  inevitable  that  from  this  centre  of 
hopeful  faith  reflection  should  be  directed  back 
upon  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus,  in  order  to  find  even  I 
here  premonitions  and  pledges  of  His  future  appear- 
ance in  Messianic  splendour.  All  that  in  the  past 
seemed  to  contradict  this — suffering,  shame,  and 
death — must  receive  an  interpretation  which  would 
satisfactorily  reconcile   the   contradiction.     For   this 


THE   MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF  JESUS      501 

line  of  apologetic  reflection  the  Old  Testament  offered 
material  of  inestimable  value.  The  Sacred  Scriptures 
were  now  read  with  new  eyes  ;  types  and  predictions 
of  the  fate  of  the  Lord  Jesus  were  sought  everywhere 
in  them,  and  were  naturally  found.  Thus  there  soon 
grew  up  in  the  assemblies  of  the  Christian  brother- 
hood a  new  understanding  of  the  ancient  Word  of 
God  ;  interpretations  of  passages  in  the  Prophets  and 
Psalms  came  to  light,  of  which  the  schools  of  the 
Jewish  Scribes  had  known  nothing — interpretations 
which  were  sometimes  simple  and  sensible,  some- 
times artificial  and  fantastic,  always,  however,  tending 
to  the  edification  of  Christian  hearers  and  readers,  a 
mighty  weapon  of  faith,  both  for  attack  and  defence. 
Above  all,  it  was  the  story  of  the  Lord's  sufferings 
which  occupied  attention  from  this  point  of  view ; 
types  were  found  for  every  detail  in  the  fate  of 
righteous  sufferers  and  in  the  complaints  of  pious 
psalmists.  Conversely,  some  features  of  the  Passion 
story  were  freely  invented  on  the  basis  of  supposed 
prophecies  of  this  kind,  and  the  traditional  material 
thus  received  a  more  graphic  and  more  edifying 
character.  But  even  apart  from  the  Passion  story 
the  mythopoeic  energy  of  religious  imagination  made 
itself  felt  from  the  beginning.  The  expected  miracle 
of  the  Parousia  threw  back  a  glamour  upon  the 
earthly  life  of  Jesus,  and  filled  the  gaps  in  historical 
knowledge  with  the  pictures  of  pious  imagination. 
The  guiding  principle  was,  that  whatever  miraculous 
acts  and  experiences  the  Old  Testament  had  narrated 
of  its  greatest  men  of  God,  such  as  Moses  and  Elias, 
must  be  fulfilled,  nay  surpassed,  in  the  Messiah.  It 
was   not   cool   reflection  but   prophetic   enthusiasm. 


502  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

reading  the  Old  Testament  throughout  in  the  light 
of  its  fulfilment  by  Jesus  the  Messiah,  which  gave 
rise  to  this  imitation  of  the  Old  Testament  legends  in 
the  Gospels.  Yet  in  this  process,  alongside  of  uncon- 
scious poetic  inventions,  theological  ideas,  especially 
apologetic  motives,  from  the  first  exercised  an 
influence  upon  the  formation  of  the  Gospel  tradition. 
Faith  desired  to  see  even  in  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus 
premonitions  and  pledges  of  that  which  the  exalted 
Christ  had  come  to  mean  for  it  in  the  present  and 
future.  He  who  was  to  come  again  as  King  and 
Judge  must  already  in  His  earthly  life — that  was 
the  self-evident  postulate  of  faith — have  proved  Him- 
self by  many  miraculous  works  to  be  the  Lord  of 
Nature,  the  conqueror  of  the  demons,  and  the  law- 
giver of  the  new  People  of  God,  must  have  been 
authenticated  by  Divine  voices  as  the  Son  of  God 
and  endowed  with  the  miraculous  power  of  the  Spirit. 
From  the  large  number  of  such  ideal  narratives  we 
may  here  particularly  notice  three,  because  in  them  the 
progressive  ante-dating  and  concomitant  heightening 
of  the  Messianic  dignity  and  Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus 
may  be  clearly  recognised.  These  are,  the  Trans- 
figuration, the  Baptism,  and  the  miraculous  Birth. 

The  story  of  the  Transfiguration  is,  in  its  original 
sense,  which  is  still  recognisable  in  Mark,  the  symbolic 
anticipation  of  the  glorification  of  Christ  at  His 
resurrection.  As  Paul  had  previously  (2  Cor.  iii.) 
represented  the  Old  Testament  legend  about  the 
glory  of  God  being  reflected  in  the  face  of  Moses  at 
the  giving  of  the  I^aw  on  Sinai  as  being  surpassed  in 
Christ  as  the  forth-shining  of  the  Divine  glory,  so 
Mark  the  Evangelist,  the  disciple  of  Paul,  represents 


THE   MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF  JESUS     505 

Jesus  as  transfigured  into  a  glorified  form  such  as 
is  appropriate  to  the  heavenly  beings.  Thereupon 
appeared  Moses  and  Elijah,  as  representatives  of  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets,  in  order  to  do  homage  to 
Jesus  as  the  Lord  of  the  New  Covenant.  But  when 
Peter  proposed  to  build  tabernacles  for  these  three 
together — therefore  to  retain  the  old  authorities  side 
by  side  with  Christ — there  came  a  voice  from  heaven 
saying,  "  This  (Jesus)  is  my  Son,  the  beloved, 
hearken  unto  Him."  Then  Moses  and  Elias  dis- 
appeared, and  Jesus  alone  remained  with  the 
astonished  disciples.  That  signifies  that  Christ  has 
been  appointed  by  God  as  the  sole  Lord  and 
mediator  of  the  New  Covenant,  and  before  Him  even 
the  authorities  of  the  Old  Covenant  give  away. 
Then  Jesus  forbids  His  disciples  to  make  this  known 
until  the  Son  of  Man  should  have  risen  from  the 
dead  ;  whereupon  they  asked  one  another  in  amaze- 
ment what  this  rising  from  the  dead  could  mean. 
This  suggests  that  until  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  no 
one  knew  anything  of  what  is  here  narrated,  and  there- 
fore that  it  is  a  mysterious  story  from  the  spiritual 
world,  which  was  first  revealed  to  the  minds  of  the 
disciples  after  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
when  they  were  meditating  upon  the  significance  of 
these  events.  The  purpose  of  the  narrative  is  there- 
fore to  illustrate  the  significance  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  to  show  that  He  was  thereby  made  manifest  as 
a  heavenly,  glorious  Being,  exalted  to  be  "  the  Lord 
who  is  the  Spirit "  and  the  Lord  of  Spirits,  declared 
to  be  the  Son  of  God,  the  object  of  the  special  lov^e 
of  God,  and  the  highest  authority  for  the  people  of 
God.     That  is  precisely  the  content  of  the  doctrine 


504  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

of  Christ  as  held  by  the  primitive  community,  for 
whom  Jesus  was  first  "made  Lord  and  Christ"  by  the 
Resurrection  (Acts  ii.  36,  x.  42,  xvii.  13  ;  Rom.  i.  4). 
Before  long,  however,  the  Christian  community 
was  not  content  to  see  only  in  the  Jesus  of  the 
Exaltation  and  the  Parousia  the  Son  of  God  and 
Messiah ;  He  must  have  been  so  from  the  begin- 
ning of  His  public  life,  for — the  reflection  naturally 
suggested  itself — how  else  could  He  have  done  so 
many  miracles,  how,  especially,  have  healed  so  many 
possessed  by  demons,  unless  "  God  had  been  with 
Him,"  unless  He  had  been  "  anointed  by  God  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  power  "  ?  (Acts  ii.  22,  x.  38). 
But  when  could  that  have  taken  place  ?  What 
moment  of  His  known  life  was  more  appropriate  to  fix 
on  as  that  of  His  being  thus  equipped  with  the  spirit 
and  power  of  the  Messiah  than  the  moment  of  His 
baptism  by  John  ?  Thus  the  appointment  of  Jesus 
to  be  the  Messianic  Son  of  God  was  pushed  back 
from  the  end  of  His  Galilsean  ministry  (the  Trans- 
figuration) to  a  point  before  the  beginning  of  it,  and 
brought  into  connection  with  the  baptism  of  John. 
In  both  cases  the  accompaniments  of  the  supernatural 
act  of  adoption  are  similar  ;  as  at  the  Transfiguration 
there  appear  heavenly  light  and  heavenly  spirits,  so 
here  the  heavens  are  opened  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
descends  upon  Jesus  in  the  form  of  a  dove.  In  an 
extra- canonical  but  very  old  version  of  the  legend 
there  is  also  mention  of  an  appearance  of  fire  which 
at  the  moment  of  the  Baptism  shone  round  about 
Jesus,  just  like  the  fight  at  the  Transfiguration. 
Similarly,  there  follows  a  voice  from  heaven  which 
speaks  the  same  words  as  there  :  "  This  is  [or  '  Thou 


THE   MESSIANIC    BELIEFS   OF   JESUS     505 

art']  my  Son,  the  beloved,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased."  The  words  are  partly  from  Ps.  ii.  and 
partly  from  Isaiah  xlii.  Moreover,  it  is  to  be  noticed 
that  in  Luke,  according  to  the  text  of  Cod.  D,  which 
has  patristic  attestation,  the  voice  at  the  Baptism 
follows  exactly,  without  abbreviation,  the  words  of 
Ps.  ii.,  "  Thou  art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee."  It  is  highly  probable  that  this  was  the  earliest 
form  of  the  words,  and  that  the  altered  form  of  the 
received  text  is  due  to  dogmatic  reasons.  If  so,  the 
significance  of  the  miracle  at  the  Baptism  is  the  more 
clear ;  it  is  the  solemn  installation  of  Jesus  as  Son  of 
God  and  Messiah  by  the  reception  of  the  Divine  Spirit, 
whose  instrument  He  henceforth  is.  Thus,  whereas 
at  first  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  the  moment  of  His 
exaltation  to  the  world  of  heavenly  spirits,  was  held  to 
be  the  moment  of  His  installation  into  the  dignity  of 
Sonship  and  Messiaship,  this  is  now  transferred  to  His 
baptism  as  the  moment  at  which  the  heavenly  Spirit- 
Being  entered  into  the  earthly  Jesus.  That  this  long 
remained  the  prevailing  conception  is  proved  by  the 
custom  which  grew  up  in  Gnostic  circles  in  the 
second  century,  was  accepted  by  the  Church,  and  was 
maintained  down  into  the  fourth  century,  of  celebra- 
ting the  baptism  of  Jesus  as  the  "  Epiphany  "  of  the 
Divine  Christ- spirit  and  the  birthday  of  Christianity.^ 
It  was  only  in  the  fifth  century  that  this  significance 
of  the  feast  of  Epiphany  was  taken  over  by  the  feast 
of  Christmas,  a  change  which  gave  cultural  expression 
to  an  advance  in  Christian  belief  which  had  doubtless 
been  completed  much  earlier. 

In  time,  however,  it  no  longer  seemed  satisfactory 

1  Cf.  Usener,  Religiorisgeschichtlicke  Untersuchungen,  i.  6q  f.,  187. 


506  THE    rUEACHING   OF  JESUS 

to  think  of  the  btiptisin  of  Jesus  as  the  beginning  of 
His  Messianic  Sonship  to  God,  since  this  imphed  a 
too  external,  accidental,  and  separable  relation  of  the 
Divine  to  His  human  person ;  and,  indeed,  according 
to  many  of  the  Gnostics,  the  Christ-spirit  which 
descended  upon  Jesus  at  His  baptism  was  supposed 
to  have  left  Him  again  before  His  sufferings.  The 
only  way  of  satisfying  the  need  which  was  felt  by 
faith  of  thinking  of  the  Divine  element  as  inseparably 
connected  with  Christ's  human  person  seemed  to  be 
to  think  of  the  heavenly  Spirit  as  not  first  descending 
upon,  or  entering  into.  Him  at  some  point  during 
His  earthly  life,  but  as  being  the  constitutive  principle 
of  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  from  His  mother's  womb. 
The  narrative  of  the  supernatural  conception  of  Jesus, 
through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  womb 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  is  found  only  in  the  two  Gospels 
of  Luke  and  Matthew ;  and  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
indeed,  it  is  only  asserted  in  the  two  verses  ^  i.  34,  35, 
while  in  the  whole  of  the  remainder  of  the  Gospel 
and  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  there  is  no  reference 
to  it.  This  gives  ground  for  the  very  probable  con- 
jecture that  those  two  verses  were  interpolated  later 
(although  still  very  early)  into  the  text  of  the  Gospel, 
and  that  this  did  not  therefore  originally  contain  any 
story  of  the  miraculous  birth.  In  Matthew's  Gospel, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  forms  an  integral  part,  and  is 
the  presupposition  of  the  higher  Christology  which 
he  implies  throughout.  Besides  the  doctrinal  need, 
which  we  have  already  indicated,  of  conceiving  the 
divine  and  human  in  Jesus'  Person    as   an  original 

1  With  the  exception  of  the  two  words  w?  eVoftt^ero,  iii.  23,  which 
are  of  a  similar  origin  with  these  two  verses.     Cf.  sup.,  j).  103. 


THE   MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF   JESUS     507 

and  inseparable  unity,  there  have  contributed  more 
or  less  directly  to  the  formation  of  this  legend,  which 
cannot  be  placed  earlier  than  the  second  century,^ 
several  motives  found  in  analogous  legends.  Certain 
indirect  resemblances  to  it  are  offered  by  the  Old 
Testament  legends  of  the  birth  of  Isaac,  of  Samuel, 
of  Samson,  who  were  born  to  their  aged  parents,  after 
long,  unfruitful  marriage,  in  consequence  of  Divine 
enablement,  and  might  therefore  be  considered  as  in 
some  degree  miraculously  conceived.  Another  con- 
tributory influence  was  derived  from  the  figurative 
language  of  Hebrew  poetry,  which  was  the  more 
likely  to  be  understood  literally  by  the  Greek- 
speaking  Christian  communities  because  these  were 
unfamiliar  with  the  pictorial  character  of  Hebrew 
idiom.  When,  in  Psalm  ii.  7,  God  says  to  the  Israelit- 
ish  king,  "  Thou  art  my  son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee,"  what  was  originally  meant  was  only  installa- 
tion into  the  dignity  of  the  theocratic  kingship ;  but 
that  was  no  longer  understood  by  the  Gentile 
Christians,  and  the  words  were  therefore  referred  to 
the  supernatural  begetting  of  the  literal  Son  of  God, 
Jesus  Christ.  And  since  His  Sonship  was  thus  trans- 
ferred from  the  baptism  to  His  origin  in  His  mother's 
womb,  the  voice  from  heaven  at  the  Baptism,  which 
was  originally  in  the  form  of  Psalm  ii.  7,  had, 
naturally,  to  be  altered  into  the  form  of  the  received 
text.  Again,  when  the  prophet  Isaiah  (vii.  14)  said 
of  a  child  which  was  about  to  be  born  of  a  young 

^  According  to  the  view  of  Usener  (ut  sup.),  it  belongs  to  the 
very  latest  portions  of  the  New  Testament.  This  would  seem  to 
be  worth  taking  into  account  in  connection  with  the  question 
regarding  the  age  of  the  canonical  Gospel  of  Matthew. 


508  THE   PREACHING   OF  JESUS 

mother  that  His  name  should  be  called  Immanuel  as 
a  symbol  of  the  help  which  God  would  speedily  give, 
he  was  not  thinking  of  a  miraculous  birth  or  of  a 
future  Messiah ;  but  since  the  name  Immanuel  was 
excellently  suitable  to  the  Messiah,  it  was  natural  to 
imderstand  the  passage  Messianically,  and  then  it  was 
very  easy  for  a  Christian  who  was  not  skilled  in  Hebrew 
to  understand  the  word  almah,  which  in  the  passage 
in  Isaiah  means  a  young  woman,  in  the  sense  of  virgo 
intacta,  and  so  to  read  into  the  passage  the  miraculous 
birth  of  Jesus  the  Messiah.  Of  course  such  bold 
interpretations  were  only  possible  to  men  who  were 
inclined  on  other  grounds  to  take  such  a  view  of  the 
origin  of  Jesus.  These  were  certainly  not,  however, 
originally  the  Jewish  Christians,  for  whom  the  idea 
of  a  begetting  by  the  Holy  Spirit  was  difficult  to 
conceive,  because  in  Hebrew,  spirit  {ruach)  is 
feminine,  and  therefore  is  not  naturally  thought  of  as 
mediating  the  fatherhood ;  indeed,  in  the  Gospel  of 
the  Hebrews  (xvii,  1)  the  Holy  Spirit  is  actually 
called  the  "•  Mother  "  of  Jesus.  It  is  therefore  to  be 
taken  as  certain  that  the  legend  of  Jesus'  miraculous 
birth  grew  up  on  Gentile-Christian  soil.  And  here 
we  have  not  far  to  look  for  analogies.  The  idea  of 
sons  of  gods  belongs  to  the  oldest  and  most  wide- 
spread elements  of  all  mythology  ;  it  lies  at  the  basis 
of  the  worship  of  heroes  in  all  its  different  shapes  and 
forms.  It  was  not  merely  the  mythical  heroes  of 
Greek,  Indian,  and  Persian  epic  who  were  directly  or 
indirectly  referred  to  a  divine  origin ;  in  the  case  of 
men  of  conspicuous  greatness,  also,  who  had  lived  in 
the  clear  daylight  of  history,  and  had  in  one  way  or 
other  made   a  powerful   impression  upon  their  con- 


THE    MESSIANIC   BELIEFS   OF  JESUS     509 

temporaries  and  successors,  it  was  thought  necessary 
to  assume  their  supernatural  origin  as  the  sons  of 
some  god.  Of  the  Indian  founder  of  Buddhism, 
Gautama  Buddha,  legend  tells  that  he  came  down 
from  heaven  in  the  form  of  a  beam  of  light,  or,  in 
another  version,  in  the  form  of  a  white  elephant, 
entered  into  the  womb  of  the  Queen  INIaia  who  was 
living  apart  from  her  consort,  and  "  without  giving  or 
receiving  any  stain  "  became  the  fruit  of  her  womb. 
In  reference  to  Plato  the  philosopher,  a  legend  is 
mentioned  in  the  funeral  oration  pronounced  by  his 
nephew  Speusippus,  which  had  grown  up  even  in 
his  lifetime,  that  he  had  been  begotten  of  his  mother 
Perictione,  not  by  her  husband  but  by  the  god 
Apollo,  for  which  reason  the  Academy  at  Athens 
celebrated  the  memory  of  Plato  on  the  birthday 
of  Apollo.  Of  Alexander  the  Great,  too,  legend  ran 
that  he  had  Zeus  for  his  father.  Similarly,  Scipio 
Africanus  was  held  to  be  a  son  of  Zeus ;  Augustus,  a 
son  of  Apollo.  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  who  was  cele- 
brated among  the  Neo-Pythagoreans  as  a  saint  and 
wonder-worker,  was  held  by  his  countrymen  to  be 
a  son  of  Zeus.  The  motive  of  all  such  legends  is 
accurately  assigned  by  Origen  :  "  The  impulse  which 
led  to  such  a  legend  being  invented  about  Plato  was 
the  belief  that  a  man  of  greater  wisdom  or  power 
than  average  men  must  have  had  his  physical  origin 
from  a  higher  and  divine  seed."  Origen  has  left  it 
to  his  readers  to  add  the  reflection  that  exactly  the 
same  is  true  of  the  Christian  legend.  While  the 
Jews  were  accustomed  to  associate  with  the  term 
Son  of  God  only  the  idea  of  the  Messianic  theocratic 
dignity,  it  was  much  more  natural  for  the   Gentile 


510  THE  prb:aching  of  jesus 

Christians,  to  whom  this  extended  and  figurative 
idea  of  sonship  was  not  famihar,^  to  think  of  Christ 
the  "  Son  of  God  "  as  a  superhuman  or  divine  Being, 
whether  the  conception  took  the  form  that  a 
spiritual  or  divine  being  had  come  down  from  heaven 
and  united  itself  in  the  most  intimate  fellowship 
with  the  human  person  of  Jesus,  or  that  the  person 
of  Jesus  had  been  originally  produced  by  the 
creative  power  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  The  former 
was  the  older  conception,  early  embodied  in  the 
legend  of  the  miracle  at  the  Baptism  and  widely 
accepted,  and  further  elaborated  by  the  Gnostics, 
with  many  variations  ;  the  latter,  the  essential  son- 
ship,  which  is  only  represented  by  Matthew's  Gospel 
(leaving  out  of  account  the  interpolation  in  Luke),  is 
of  later  origin,  and  seems  to  presuppose  a  stronger 
influence  and  influx  of  the  strictly  mythical  element 
upon  and  into  the  legend  and  doctrine.  But  it  served 
the  Church  from  the  first  as  an  excellent  popular 
illustration  of  the  religious  idea  that  in  the  redeeming 
work  of  Jesus  a  divine-human  Being  is  revealed,  and 
that  the  true  revelation  of  God  which  brings  salvation 
does  not  consist  so  much  in  single  miraculous  acts  as 
in  the  whole  character  of  a  man  who  is  born  of  the 
Spirit.  In  this  thought  the  Gospel  legend  of  Christ's 
birth  meets  and  harmonises  with  the  Christological 
speculations  of  the  Pauline  and  Johannine  theology. 

1  Cf.  Dalman,  Worle  Jesii,  p.  236  (E.T.,  p.  288)  :  "  It  was  not 
natural  to  a  Greek  to  employ  the  word  '  son  '  in  the  same  way 
that  the  Hebrew  did  to  designate  a  great  variety  of  relationships. 
He  would  always  be  inclined  to  understand  6  vtos  toi)  Oeov  in  the 
strictest  sense." 


PRINTED    BY    NEILL    AND    CO.,    LTD.,    EDINBURGH. 


i 


I 


11^ 


77 


^ 


O'^X— 


University  of  Toront 
Library 


DO  NOT 

REMOVE 

THE 

CARD 

FROM 

THIS 

POCKET 


Acme  Library  Card  Pocket 
LOWE-MARTIN  CO.  LIMITEI