BS 2415 .G552 1899
Gilbert, George Holley, 1854
-1930.
The revelation of Jesus
THE REVELATION OF JESUS
T&Vfa
THE
REVELATION OF JESUS
A STUDY OF THE PRIMARY SOURCES
OF CHRISTIANITY
BY
GEORGE HOLLEY GILBERT, Ph.D., D.D.
PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE AND INTERPRETATION
IN CHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
AUTHOR OF "THE STUDENT'S LIFE OF JESUS " AND
" THE STUDENT'S LIFE OF PAUL "
Nefaj fgotk
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., Ltd.
I899
All rights reserved
Copyright, 1899,
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
Ncrfoooti ^reS3
J. S. dishing & Co. - Berwick & Smith
Norwood Mass. U.S.A.
TO
IKS fHotlicr ant! i«a SUttfe
ONE EMBODYING THE GENTLENESS AND PATIENCE OF JESUS
AND THE OTHER HIS SELF-FORGETFULNESS
Eijis Book is ©totcateti
IN HIS NAME
PREFACE
No subject of historical investigation lies so near to
the life of the Church as does the revelation of Jesus ;
and yet many subjects have received a far larger meas-
ure of attention. We have, in English, but one scien-
tific discussion of the entire subject of the teaching of
Jesus, so far as I know, and that is a translation of
Professor Wendt's work. Single topics in the teaching
of Jesus have been investigated in recent years in
America and England, as well as on the continent
of Europe, by such eminent scholars as Briggs, Bruce,
Fairbairn, Haupt, and Baldensperger ; and works on
the theology of the New Testament, notably those of
Weiss, Beyschlag, and Bovon, contain a condensed
treatment of the whole teaching of Jesus ; but it still
remains true that this most vital subject has received
relatively little scientific attention.
The revelation of Jesus must be historically investi-
gated, and yet it is so intimately associated with our
most sacred thoughts and feelings that a student shrinks
from claiming that his investigation is absolutely his-
torical. I can only say that this has been my constant
Vlli PREFACE
aim, and that never, in the interpretation of a single
passage or in the presentation of inductions from a
group of passages, have I consciously had regard either
to my own former views or to the theological conse-
quences that might follow from the results at which
I had arrived. I have tried to follow the thought of
Jesus with the utmost accuracy, and I have certainly
done so with the conviction that His thought is of infi-
nite value both to me and to all men. I ask, therefore,
that the reader will not apply to this book any other
test than the historical one. It may be that some of
its results are at variance with this or that creed, or
with some ancient and esteemed system of theology ;
but they may be quite true, nevertheless. Yet whether
they are true or not is a question which can never be
answered by comparing them with traditional beliefs.
A theological test for a historical work is no test at all.
We can get forward in Christian thought only as we
become better grounded in the thought of Jesus. It
would doubtless be wholesome to test our theologies by
the teaching of Jesus ; but it must be fatal to our Chris-
tianity to subordinate His teaching to our theologies.
The revelation of Jesus, as has been said, is a subject
for historical investigation. Its sources are the Gospels.
The time is certainly past when any student need to
apologize for regarding these documents as essentially
trustworthy. This quality is visibly stamped upon
PREFACE ix
them, and the stamp is attested by the unbroken exist-
ence and the unwasting power of the Church itself.
But it is also plain that these writings differ among
themselves in multitudes of details and occasionally in
points of considerable importance, and that they all,
though in varying degree, show the influence of the
times in which they originated. Therefore a scientific
investigation of their content must take account of these
facts, and must seek by critical study to get back as
nearly as possible to the original teaching. But I have
thought it wise not to introduce this critical study of
the text into my book except in instances where it
appeared to be quite necessary.
The teaching of the fourth Gospel is so variously
and so widely unlike that of the Synoptists, at least on
its formal side, that it is presented by itself. The
reader, therefore, can readily observe the differences
between these ancient documents and can judge of its
significance.
It remains to say only this word more, that I have
sought to get at Jesus' point of view, and to observe the
proportions which different subjects have in His teach-
ing. This is the plain duty of one who will make a
historical investigation. To dissect the teaching of
Jesus and arrange its fragments under any artificial
outline of theology is to miss, in large measure, its
meaning and to lose its power. We must go as little
x PREFACE
children and listen to all that Jesus says, and observe
how and when and to whom He speaks, and must also
mark His treatment of men. In this way only can we
approach a right judgment of His revelation.
Hag W rorjo is himself tfje trutrj fnrjicrj P?e rebeate, ant) forjo
v& more anti more repealing to mm tfje tnitjj tofjtcfj P^e is,
btesg tfjiis anti eoerg effort to get nearer to ftfe ujougfjt
anti life.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
PAGES
The New Revelation of God i
CHAPTER II
The Kingdom of Heaven 30
CHAPTER III
The Life of the Kingdom of Heaven .... 62
CHAPTER IV
The Outward Development of the Kingdom of Heaven 145
CHAPTER V
The Person of Jesus the Messiah 167
CHAPTER VI
The Messiah's Earthly Work 229
CHAPTER VII
The Consummation of the Messiah's Kingdom . . 284
Index of Subjects 363
Index of Passages from the Gospels . 367
THE REVELATION OF JESUS
CHAPTER I
The New Revelation of God
In the religion of Jesus, as in all religions, the con-
ception of God is fundamental. The one subject on
which Jesus claimed to have unique and t The point
absolute knowledge was the Heavenly of departure.
Father (Mt. xi. 27). The vital moulding force of His
own inner life was the consciousness of God, and by
this consciousness His views of the kingdom of God
were essentially determined. Moreover, what He
realized in Himself as the light and the power of a
divine life, He sought to realize in each member of
the kingdom which He came to establish. It is,
therefore, necessary, in presenting the truths which
Jesus taught, to begin with His conception of God.
For although it is true that the kingdom of heaven
is largely the burden of the preaching of Jesus,1
1 See W. Liitgert, Das Reich Gotles, p. 8; W. Beyschlag, Neutestament-
liche Theologie, i. 40.
2 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
we cannot begin with that subject because His thought
of the kingdom depends on His thought of God ; nor
should a presentation of the teaching of Jesus begin
with a discussion of His relation to the Law,1 as though
His religious conceptions had their origin in a sense of
the imperfection of that Law. He certainly saw the
Law's imperfection, and early in His ministry began to
criticise both the living interpreters of the Law, and the
Law itself, thereby giving mortal offence to the scribes ;
but His thought of the Law depended upon His thought
of God, and He did not appear in Israel as the promul-
gator of new ideas about the Law, but rather as "insti-
tuting a new religion, revealing a new God to man, and
making man a new being to God." 2
Accordingly, our point of departure, in setting forth
the content of the revelation of Jesus, must be His
thought of God, for this was the fountain-head of all
His religious and ethical teaching. Yet the revelation
of God which Jesus gave to the world was not abso-
lutely new, certainly not as a doctrine.3 Moses and the
prophets had caught occasional glimpses of that truth
in regard to the Divine Being which Jesus fully pos-
sessed, but their glimpses of this truth did not deeply
1 See H. J. Holtzmann, I.ehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie,
i. 130-131.
2 See Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, p. 245.
3 Comp. H. H. Wendt, Die Lehrc Jesu, ii. 139.
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD 3
affect the popular conception of God, while the revela-
tion which Jesus gave in word and in life undoubtedly
marks the greatest advance in the religious history of
mankind. In order, therefore, to appreciate fully the
thought of God which Jesus had, we must consider what
the Jewish people had thought before His time, and
also the views of His contemporaries.
The first of the great prerogatives of the Jewish
people, which are enumerated by Paul, is 2< Father-
the adoption (Rom. ix. 4), that is, the ap- jn™de°o^od
pointment of Israel to be, in a peculiar Testament,
sense, God's son. The apostle, therefore, thought of
God as Israel's father, and he derived this thought
from the Old Testament. God's message to Pharaoh
by Moses involved a paternal relationship to Israel.
Moses was to say, in God's name, " Israel is my son,
my first-born" (Ex. iv. 22). This language implies
that other peoples also were sons of Jehovah, in the
thought of Moses, but Israel was the first-bom, a pecul-
iar treasure from among all peoples (Ex. xix. 5). Again
Deuteronomy represents Moses as saying to the people,
" As a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God
chasteneth thee " (Deut. viii. 5 ; xxxii. 6); and the Lord
says in Hosea that when Israel was a child, He loved
him and called His son out of Egypt (Hos. xi. 1 ; i. 10).
In these passages, and in a few more,1 God is thought
1 See Jer. iii. 4 ; xxxi. 9; I Chron. xxix. 10; Mai. ii. 10.
4 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
of as a father to the people of Israel as a whole, and He is
the father of Israel because He made them a nation, and
established them by His mighty power (Deut. xxxii. 6).
Thus His fatherhood is national rather than individual.
In some instances, however, the Old Testament in-
dividualizes God's fatherhood, at least in those pas-
sages in which the Messianic king is called the Son of
God. The Lord says of the theocratic descendant of
David, " I will be his father and he shall be my son "
(2 Sam. vii. 14), and the Messianic king puts the
decree of Jehovah concerning himself in these words,
" Thou art my son : this day have I begotten thee "
(Ps. ii. 7). With reference to other persons also the
fatherhood of God seems to be individualized in the
Psalter, for He is called the father of the fatherless,
and it is said that the pity which He feels for those
who fear Him is like the pity of a father for his chil-
dren (Ps. lxviii. 5; ciii. 13). And this individualized
fatherhood is suffused with the glow of a divine tender-
ness in Isaiah, where God is one who gathers the lambs
in His arms and carries them in His bosom, and who
comforts His people as a mother comforts her chil-
dren (Is. xl. 11; lxvi. 13). Yet in all these passages,
even those which most nearly approach the spirit of
the Gospels, we see only the relation of God to His
chosen people or to His chosen king. The word
fatJier is not yet a name of God, a description of His
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD 5
very character, but rather " a designation of His cove-
nant relationship with the people." x Moreover, these
words concerning God which we have considered are
only as rare flowers from the heights of Old Testa-
ment revelation, and we cannot judge from their
fragrance how the people as a whole, and through
the centuries, thought of Jehovah.
The foundation of Old Testament life, at least
from the time of Josiah, as well as the foundation
of a large part of Old Testament literature, was the
Law ; and as all the people had trembled when the
Law was given, hearing the thunders and the voice
of the trumpet, and seeing the thick clouds and the
lightnings, so under the Law's regime they continued
to tremble with fear and awe. The Law, it is true,
had a gracious side, when read by the apostle from his
Christian point of view (Rom. x. 5-13), but to one
without his illumination it was, in the main, terribly
stern. The God who stood behind the Law was appre-
hended as a God of holiness and of mighty power,
a God whose favor was to be secured only by strict
observance of its numerous ordinances. Even the
.most earnest spirits under the Old Dispensation found
that the Law developed fear instead of trust, and felt
that it was a yoke too heavy to be borne (Rom. viii.
15; Gal. v. 1; Acts xv. 10). The visions of Isaiah
1 See Hermann Schultz, Alttestamentliche Theologie, p. 528.
6 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
did not alter the severe rule of the Law, or modify
its cold, majestic conception of God. In the Old
Testament ritual God is represented as enthroned
above the cherubim, unapproachable to all the people
save the high priest, and to him on all days of the
year save the Day of Atonement; and to this cere-
monial of worship the life of the saints seems to have
corresponded. God was to them a great king dwell-
ing afar, one who was to be feared and obeyed for
the gifts which He could bestow rather than for the
sake of His own divine companionship.
The Jewish conceptions of God in the time of Jesus
were based upon the Law, but they had been colored
3. Jewish by Greek thought, and had been still more
views of God deeply affected by that amazing development
jesus. of the Law which occupied the synagogue
during the long period between Ezra, "the perfect
scribe," and Jesus the Messiah. It is true that Juda-
ism preserved itself in a marvellous way from foreign
influences. In building a hedge around the Law, as
the men of the Great Synagogue : had taught,2 Judaism
built a strong high wall around itself. The leaders
saw a future for the people only in a rigid fulfilment-
of the Law. Moreover, with the growth of the in-
1 See Schiirer, Die Geschichte desjildischen Vo/kes, ii. 291-292; Weber,
Die Lehren des Talmuds, pp. 6, 38.
2 See Jost, Entdecktes Judenthum, i. 95; Barclay, The Talmud, p. 218.
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD J
fluence of the synagogue came the growth of that
view of the Old Testament which regarded it as the
depository of all useful wisdom. There was nothing
to be learned from other peoples. God had given
but one revelation of His will, and that revelation,
infinite in content, was in the Law.1 And yet the
influence of Greek thought could not be wholly resisted.
The Hellenization of the Jews who were scattered
abroad, especially of the great numbers who dwelt in
Alexandria, reacted upon the ideas of the Jews who
dwelt in Palestine. Then, too, a party arose within
Judaism itself, namely the Sadducees, who were
favorable toward foreign culture and worship.
With reference to the conception of God, which we
are now considering, it became more abstract and tran-
scendental as it came into contact with Greek thought,
and apparently because of this contact. This tendency
toward the abstract is manifest already in the Greek
translation of the Old Testament which was begun as
far back as the third century B.C., and which came to
have such influence even in Palestine that the writers
of the New Testament usually quote from it rather than
from the Hebrew original or from Aramaic versions.
Thus, in this Greek version, God is not called " a man
of war" (Ex. xv. 3), but He is "the Lord who makes
war." Moses does not go up to God in the mountain,
1 See Weber, Die Lehren des Ta/muds, pp. 84-86.
8 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
as the original reads (Ex. xix. 3), but he goes up to the
mount of God. The slave who is to be set free is not
brought unto God (Ex. xxi. 6), but unto the judgment of
God. Moses and those with him did not see the God of
Israel (Ex. xxiv. 9-10), but they saw the place where
He stood. Such changes as these indicate1 that the
translators no longer held just the same conception of
God which the Old Testament writers had.2 They
shrink from the idea that men may come into contact
with Him.
We referred also to the synagogue or rabbinism as
another source of modification of the Old Testament
conception of God. The scribe with the written letter
took the place of the prophet with his living message.
The fundamental principle that a hedge should be built
around the Law to the end that even its least statutes
might not be transgressed, led to an increasing exag-
geration of the ceremonial side of the Law. This may
be seen, for example, in the early apocryphal writings
of Tobit and Judith,3 and still more abundantly in the
Gospels, which reflect current views of their day. It is
illustrated also in the Maccabean period by the fact
that the Jewish soldiers allowed themselves to be cut
1 Comp. J. Drummond, Philo Judaeus,\. 157-166; Langen, Das Juden-
thum in Palaestina zur Zeit Christi, p. 204.
2 A trace of the same tendency appears in Wisdom i. 7.
3 See Tobit i. 6; iv. 10; xii. 9; Judith xii. 2, 7, 9.
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD 9
down in cold blood on the Sabbath, rather than profane
the law of the Sabbath by self-defence (1 Mace. ii. 34-
38). We see from the Gospels that the popular religion
of that day had become wholly externalized and legalis-
tic. Only through the outward and material could men
approach and please the God of heaven. The same
tendency which we have seen illustrated in the Greek
version of the Old Testament appears, at a later day, in
Palestinian literature. The Targums of Onkelos and
Jonathan1 remove from the Old Testament any expres-
sions which imply the personal nearness of God to men.
Thus in Gen. xxviii. 13, which says that Jehovah stood
above the ladder that Jacob saw in his dream, we read
in Onkelos that the glory of Jehovah stood above it ;
and instead of the face of God in Deut. xxxii. 20 we have
His shekinah. In Gen. xviii. 8, where it is said that the
Lord and His two companions ate of the repast fur-
nished by Abraham, Onkelos says, " it seemed to him
as though they ate." Moreover, the Memra, or word
of the Lord, appears in the Targums where the Scrip-
ture text speaks in an anthropomorphic way concerning
God, or uses language that implies His nearness to
men.2 Thus the conception of God became more and
1 Written before 70 A.D. See Gfrorer, Das Jahrhundert des J/ei/s, i.
36-58.
2 See Weber, Die Lehren des Talmuds, pp. 174-179; Langen, Das
Judenthum in Palaestina zur Zeit Christi, p. 213; Gfrorer, Das Jahr-
hundert des I/ei/s, i. 292-293.
10 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
more transcendental.1 It is not He Himself who has
ever come into contact with men, but simply this or that
agent sent from His presence. The elaborate Jewish
doctrine of angels went naturally with this conception
of God, for, as He was thought to be infinitely removed
from contact with mankind, it was necessary to have
many messengers moving between Him and the earth.2
But while this Jewish conception of God was thus
transcendental, it was not spiritual. We may not be
justified in carrying back to the times of Jesus such
ideas as we find in the Talmud of Jerusalem, and yet
the Judaism of this writing probably differs in degree
rather than in kind from the Judaism of the first
century. The Talmud of Jerusalem represents God
as a great rabbi, somewhat as the Greeks in Homer's
time thought of Zeus as an indefinitely magnified man.
The rabbis taught that God spends His time in heaven
as they spent theirs on earth. He studies the Law
three hours each day, and observes all its ordinances.
He keeps the Sabbath. He makes vows, and the
heavenly sanhedrin releases Him when the vow has
been performed. He also fulfils the injunction to
rise up before the hoary head.3 This conception of
1 Comp. Bousset, Die Predigt Jesu in ihrem Gegensatz zwn Judenthum,
p. 14.
2 Comp. Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie, i. 88-89.
8 See Gfrorer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, i. 276; Weber, Die Lehren
des Ta/muds,ipp- 17-18.
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD n
God manifestly had as little ethical elevation as had
the life of the scribes. In this respect it fell immeas-
urably below the prophetic conception of Jehovah.
It is true that a common name of God in the time
of Jesus was the Holy O/ic, but the rabbinic concep-
tion of holiness was superficial. We see the scribe's
idea of holiness in his own life and endeavor. He
washed the outside of cups and platters, while his
own heart was full of extortion and excess (Mt. xxiii.
25). His holiness was ceremonial, not vital. And
this was his thought of the holiness of God. It was
removal from ceremonial uncleanness, and hence was
physical rather than moral. To the Pharisee, the
thought that God could regard with any favor a man
who was Levitically unclean was repellent, and he
drew his robes about him with horror when Jesus
ate with publicans and sinners.
These conceptions of God of which we have spoken
were doubtless not at any time shared by all the
people of Palestine, and certainly not by all in the
Dispersion. Ben Sirach in the second century B.C.,
and John the Baptist at the close of the first century
B.C., are proof that here and there men appeared who
had relatively noble and spiritual conceptions of God,
— conceptions which remind us of the Old Testament
prophets. Ben Sirach, though strongly predestinarian
in his thought of God {e.g. xxxiii. 10-13), and though
12 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
having a legalistic type of religion {e.g. iii. 30), rises
at times to large and worthy views of the Divine
Being. Thus he says that the mercy of God is upon
all flesh (xviii. 13), and he speaks with feeling of the
loving-kindness and compassion of the Lord (xvii. 29).
John the Baptist was far in advance of Ben Sirach
in the spirituality of his religious conceptions. He
was able to commune with God in the wilderness,
without the aid of legal ceremonies which were all
in all to the scribes and Pharisees of his day ; and
he thought of God as one who looks at the heart
rather than at the outward observances of piety.
Therefore he preached repentance, that men might
be prepared for fellowship with this spiritual and
holy God.
As Ben Sirach and John the Baptist represent the
best Palestinian conceptions of God to be found in
their respective ages, conceptions much higher than
the dominant ones, so the Wisdom of Solomon * shows
us that among the Jews of the Dispersion there were
not wanting elevated views of the Lord. Thus the
author of this book says of God, —
" To know Thee is perfect righteousness.
And to know Thy power is the root of immortality.'" (xv. 3.)
1 Probably written ls.C. See Schurer, Die Ceschichte des jiidischen
Volkes, ii. 758 ; Farrar in Wace's Apocrypha, i. 420.
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD 13
Again, he thinks of God as God over all, and of
tender love, when he says, —
" Thou sparest all, for they are Thine, sovereign Soul-lover,
For Thine immortal spirit is in all." (xi. 26.)
But the view of God which was held even by these
exceptional men, though higher than the common
view of their times, was not different from the gen-
eral Old Testament conception. We read in Wisdom
that God is the father of Israel as a people (ix. 7;
xviii. 3), and that the individual righteous man may
call Him father (ii. 16); but the author never thinks
of Him as the father of the sinful and the lost. On
the contrary, he declares that God loves nothing save
the man who dwells with wisdom (vii. 28), and de-
clares that while God dealt in fatherly love with
Israel, He dealt with the Gentiles as a severe king
(xi. 10; xii. 22). Thus the father-name here as in
the Old Testament describes God's treatment of the
righteous rather than the character of God in itself.
We pass now from the Old Testament and the later
Jewish writings to the Gospels; and in doing gl
so we shall find that between the dominant conception
of God
Old Testament conception of God and the grounded in
experience.
conception of Him which Jesus had, the con-
trast is profound ; while between the contemporaneous
Jewish conception and that of Jesus, there is an illimit-
able gulf.
14 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
The teaching of Jesus on the fatherhood of God is a
teaching out of His inmost experience.1 He first knew
God as His own father. The story which Luke gives
us out of the boyhood of Jesus shows that His con-
sciousness of being a child of God must have belonged
to the very opening of His mental and moral life (Lk.
ii. 49). This consciousness surely was not awakened
by the doctors in the temple among whom Jesus sat as
a boy of twelve years. They were not the teachers on
that occasion, but rather the taught. They marvelled at
Jesus' insight into the Scripture — an insight which He
had of course been gaining prior to His twelfth year.
We cannot doubt that this spiritual insight into the
word of God stood in a very close relation to the con-
sciousness of God's presence and fatherly love. From
His later knowledge of the word of God, as indicated
by His teaching, we may surely infer that His earliest
knowledge which He exhibited in the temple was not of
the rabbinical sort. Jesus did not astonish the scribes
by a prodigious memory of the letter of the Law, or
by a precocious subtlety in manipulating the text of
Scripture so as to make it yield a meaning opposite to
its obvious sense. Such a hypothesis would not only
destroy the unity of His spiritual development, but it
would also be in direct antagonism with the fact that
1 Comp. H. J. Holtzmann, Lekrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie,
i. 247.
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD 15
Jesus was conscious at this time of moral harmony with
God, which consciousness could neither spring from a
rabbinical knowledge of Scripture, nor exist by its side.
The knowledge of Scripture shown by the questions
and answers of Jesus must have been of a spiritual sort
— a knowledge of the heart of revelation. It was, of
course, a boy's knowledge, not a man's ; but it was the
knowledge of a boy whose heart was pure, and who
walked continually in the clear light of God. Such a
knowledge presupposes that the words " my Father''
did not express a conception that was new to the spirit
of Jesus when He appeared among the doctors in the
temple, but rather that they expressed a consciousness
which His memory could follow back to the beginning
of His religious life. Indeed, we have no ground to
suppose that Jesus ever thought of God otherwise than
as His father. Nothing suggests that He reached this
conception through a period of struggle and doubt.
When we take up the Synoptic record of the words of
Jesus, we find that His use of the father-name is what
we should expect from the early conversation
r J 5. Use of the
in the temple. Whenever the personal rela- father-name
by Jesus.
tion between God and Himself is involved,
He employs no name but father, if we except a single
passage where he quotes from the twenty-second Psalm
(Mk. xv. 34). In each of the five prayers where the
words of Jesus are given, He addresses God as father
1 6 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
(Mt. xi. 25-27; xxvi. 39, 42; Lk. xxiii. 34, 46), and in
the longest of these, which includes but three verses,
the name is repeated five times. When speaking of
God in the third person, Jesus refers to Him once as
"the great King" (Mt. v. 35), and once as " Lord of
the harvest " (Mt. ix. 38), but in almost every case
He uses the name " God " or the name " father." He
never employs such circumlocutions as "The Blessed
One" and "The Holy One"; and never uses abstract
designations such as " Place," all of which were common
in the synagogue.
The name with which Jesus addresses God is also the
name which He puts upon the lips of His disciples.
They are to enjoy the same intimacy that He enjoys,
and say with Him, " Father " (Mt. vi. 9 ; xxiii. 9). It
is instructive to compare with this usage the language
which Jesus puts on the lips of the Pharisee and the
publican in one of His parables (Lk. xviii. 11-13).
Even the penitent publican, whose spirit was right in
the sight of the Lord, is represented as saying " God,"
and not "Father." This portrayal was doubtless true
to life. In the Gospels no one but Jesus speaks of God
as his father.1
The fatherhood of God, in the teaching of Jesus, is
1 In Jn. i. 18; viii. 27; xiii. 3 the author speaks from his own Chris-
tian point of view; and in iii. 35 he attributes his own Christian usage to
the Baptist.
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD 17
not accidental, not conditioned upon this or that hu-
man circumstance, but it is essential. He is fatherly
because He is God. He is such an one in 5. The name
Himself that He takes thought for our daily Scribes
bread, and numbers the hairs of our heads what God is.
(Mt. vi. 11; x. 30). He is ready to give the kingdom
of heaven and the vision of Himself to the poor in
spirit and the pure in heart (Mt. v. 3, 8). That is to
say, He is in Himself such an one that He freely gives
the best He has to those who desire it. He is the one
who is absolutely and unchangeably good (Mk. x. 18),
and whom, therefore, it is man's first and divinest
obligation to love and serve (Mk. xii. 30 ; Mt. xxii.
37-40). As it is the very nature of a father to give
good gifts to his children, so it is the very nature of
God to give His good gifts to those who ask Him
(Mt. vii. 11 ; Lk. xi. 13).
The character of God's fatherhood is perfectly por-
trayed by Jesus in His story of the Lost Son (Lk.
xv. 11-32). This parable was spoken in defence of
Jesus' acceptance of publicans and other disreputable
people. These classes are represented by the younger
son. Now the father in the parable, through whom
Jesus wishes to set forth the character of the heavenly
Father, longs for the return of the wanderer, and when
he does return freely pardons him. It thus appears
from this story, as elsewhere in the teaching of Jesus,
1 8 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
that He did not call God our father because He created
us, or because He rules over us, or because He made
a covenant with Abraham, but simply and only because
He loves us.
This parable individualizes the divine love, as did also
the missionary activity of Jesus. The Gospels know
nothing of a national fatherhood, of a God whose love
is confined to a particular people. It is the individual
man who has a heavenly Father, and this individualized
fatherhood is the only one of which Jesus speaks. As
He had realized His own moral and spiritual life in the
consciousness that God was His father, so He sought
to give life to the world by a living revelation of the
truth that God loves each separate soul. This is a
prime factor in the religion and ethics of Jesus. It is
seldom or vaguely apprehended in the Old Testament
teaching ; but in the teaching of Jesus it is central and
normative.
It cannot be fairly objected that, since these publi-
cans and sinners who thronged Jesus were Jews, — lost
sheep of the house of Israel, — therefore this story of
the Lost Son does not teach the essential and universal
fatherhood of God. The lost son does not stand simply
for a lost Israelite, a fallen member of the kingdom of
God,1 but he represents the sinner, whether Jew or
Gentile. The father in speaking of him says that he
1 See Weiss, Neulestamentliche Theologie, sechste Ausgabe, p. 74.
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD 19
was " dead," and therefore he stands for all who are
dead, for certainly a Jew who is spiritually dead is in
no better state than a Gentile who is spiritually dead
(Rom. ii. 28-29). And, furthermore, in the preceding
parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin, which
are manifestly parallel to that of the Lost Son, the con-
clusion of Jesus is perfectly general. There is joy in
heaven over one sinner that repenteth, it matters not
whether circumcised or uncircumcised.
Surely it would be a complete misrepresentation of
the spirit of Jesus to say that He regarded the father-
hood of God as being in any degree conditioned on
nationality. For all His teaching, in contrast with
that of the Jews of His time, is wholly inward and
spiritual, and therefore is of necessity universal in its
sweep. It is impossible to suppose that Jesus could
pronounce penitence and meekness and mercifulness
and heart-purity blessed, and yet have meant all the
while that they were blessed when found among the
Jews, but not when found among the Gentiles. If,
however, He regarded these things as valuable in them-
selves, irrespective of outward circumstances, then He
thought of the bestowal of the kingdom of heaven,
the love and grace of God, as independent of out-
ward circumstances. In other words, the fatherhood
of God was not a term to designate His peculiar
friendliness to the Jewish people.
20 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
There is yet another important fact which bears
upon Jesus' conception of the fatherhood of God, and
that is the attitude of Jesus Himself toward men. We
find in the Synoptists as clearly as in John the claim
of Jesus to a unique knowledge of the Father, and con-
sequently the claim that He makes a unique revela-
tion of the Father to men (Mt. xi. 25-27; Lk. ix. 22).
But this revelation was lived as well as spoken. There-
fore in the bearing of Jesus toward men, we see His
conception of the fatherhood of God expressed in unmis-
takable terms. Now, it is true that Jesus considered
Himself sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,
and that He confined His labors chiefly to them, but
it is equally true that this was solely a matter of order.
He told the Canaanitish woman that the children
should be fed first (Mk. vii. 27). This plainly sug-
gested that the Gospel was for all, but that for some
reason it was to be offered first to the Jews. In like
manner, early in the Galilean ministry, Jesus sent the
twelve disciples to the Jews, and forbade their enter-
ing any city of the Samaritans or any way of the Gen-
tiles (Mt. x. 5) ; but at a later day He sent both the
twelve and the entire company of His followers to
work among all nations (Acts i. 8; Mt. xxviii. 19;
1 Cor. xv. 6). The Jews as the first-born son, to whom
were intrusted the oracles of God (Rom. iii. 2), and
from whom came the Messiah and salvation (Rom. ix. 5 ;
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD 21
Jn. iv. 22), were naturally the first to receive the
offer of this salvation and the kingdom of this Mes-
siah ; but then their superior privilege ceased.
A further proof that it was simply a matter of order,
when Jesus limited His personal ministry to the
Jews, is seen in the fact that when in the providence
of God He met Gentiles, and they besought His help,
He never turned them away without a blessing. Thus
He healed a Samaritan leper (Lk. xvii. 18), He healed
the servant of a Gentile centurion (Mt. viii. 13), and
the daughter of a Canaanitish woman (Mk. vii. 26).
There is no indication that they were less dear to Him
than were the Jews.
Therefore, in the fact that Jesus welcomed Jewish
publicans and sinners, we must see His attitude toward
all publicans and all sinners ; and in this attitude of
His we see, as in a clear light, His conception of the
fatherhood of God. If His own love flowed out to
every lost soul, and if He at the same time was con-
scious of perfect union with God, then He must have
believed that God also loves every lost soul, or, in other
words, that His fatherhood is essential and universal.
It happens that in most of the passages in which
Jesus says "your Father," our evangelists represent
Him as addressing His disciples ; but we must not
make hasty inferences from this fact, divorcing it from
the manifest teaching of the life of Jesus. There is
22 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
one discourse in Matthew which was addressed to the
multitudes as well as to the disciples, and in this Jesus
is represented as saying to all who heard Him, " Call
no man your father on earth, for one is your Father
who is in heaven" (Mt. xxiii. I, 9). If we had more
of the addresses of Jesus to the multitudes, we might
have more instances of this same usage. But the argu-
ment from the life of Jesus is alone quite decisive
that, when speaking to publicans and sinners no less
than when speaking to His own disciples, He presented
God as their father.
Now as this fatherhood of God is ethical, a fatherhood
of love, so Jesus teaches that sonship to God is ethical
7. Sonship, in like manner. A man cannot say, God is
hoocUs"" my Father, unless he is inwardly turned
ethical. toward God. Therefore Jesus teaches that,
while God is a father, men become sons (Mt. v. 45,
Greek text).1 As they learn to love their enemies and
to pray for those who persecute them, so they become
sons of their Father who is in heaven (Mt. v. 44).
To be sons of God they must share His spirit ; and
His spirit is manifest in this, that He causes His sun
to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on
the just and the unjust. In other words, His spirit is
one of uncalculating love ; and in this love consists
1 Comp. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 146; Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche
Theologie, i. 84.
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD 23
His perfection (Mt. v. 48). Men become His sons as
they come into the sphere of this love. Hence, that
which constitutes them sons is inward, not outward ;
spiritual rather than physical. But the fatherhood of
God does not begin when this sonship begins. His
fatherhood has neither beginning nor end. He does
not become a father but is one, for the term " father-
hood " is only a human means of describing what
God is. An apostle of Jesus put the same thought in
an abstract form when he said, "God is love" (1 Jn.
iv. 8). The brotherhood of Jesus illustrates the father-
hood of God in the particular under consideration.
Jesus did not become the friend of sinners, but was
such a friend by the very necessity of His own holy
and loving will. The consciousness that God was
His father bound Him to His fellowmen in the bonds
of a brotherly love which in its strength and intensity
corresponded to His sense of His Father's care. The
attitude of His heart toward publicans and sinners,
His willingness to give His life for others, was not a
consequence of His Messianic call, but rather conditioned
that call. The office did not create the love, but the
love prepared the way for the office. Thus in the
thought of Jesus, according to the Synoptists, the father-
hood of God is the eternal heart of God, a term whose
import is essential and universal.
This revelation of the fatherhood of God is the new
24 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
revelation which Jesus made. He gave no other ; there
could be no higher. Whatever Jesus says of God apart
8. other from His fatherhood, while in harmony with
jtsufabom that> is mainlv incidental.1 It is such teach-
God. jng as may De foun(i also m the prophets.
This is true, for example, of the holiness and righteous-
ness of God. Jesus does not speak of these attributes
in particular, but His entire life-work and his entire
revelation imply the loftiest conception of them which
is conceivable. Thus the very mission of Jesus is to
call sinners to repentance, that they may become mem-
bers of the kingdom of heaven and have fellowship
with God (Mk. ii. 17); and the first petition that he
taught His disciples was a petition for the hallowing of
God's name (Mt. vi. 9). God is indeed the infinite
Father, ready to pardon the greatest sinner ; but He
is the Holy Father, and unless sinners are pardoned
and purified, they can never see His face (Mt. v. 8).
Again, Jesus has no explicit teaching on the power and
knowledge of God, but His thought, as made plain by
incidental references, is in line with that of the great
prophets. God marks the fall of a sparrow (Mt.
x. 29), numbers the hairs of our heads (Mt. x. 30),
and is acquainted with all our needs (Mt. vi. 8, 32).
He feeds the birds, He clothes the lilies, He sends sun-
1 Comp. Adeney, "The Transcendental in Christ's Consciousness,"
American Journal of Theology, January, 1899, p. 103.
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD 25
shine and rain, He would have us ask Him for our
daily bread, He has prepared a kingdom for His own,
all right and good things are possible to Him, and He
is lord of heaven and earth (Mt. vi. 26, 30; v. 45;
vi. 11 ; xxv. 34; Mk. xiv. 36; Mt. xi. 25). The new
element in this teaching is that the infinite power and
knowledge of God serve the ends of His fatherly love ;
and hence Jesus rebuked His disciples because they did
not trust God in the storm on the lake (Mk. v. 40).
Since the Almighty is their Father they ought not to
fear the wind and the waves, but should be calm. Here,
then, as elsewhere when speaking of God, it is His
fatherly love which dominates the thought of Jesus.
Nothing is allowed to attract attention from it, or to dim
its brightness. And this central thought is expressed
in the terms and with the accent of absolute certainty.
Jesus knew the Father (Mt. xi. 27).
The Gospel of John is in a peculiar sense the Gospel
of the fatherhood of God. For, in the first place, the
term father is used here with much greater
frequency than in the Synoptic Gospels (about fatherhood of
God in the
ninety times in all) ; and, secondly, God is fourth
spoken of in an absolute sense as " the Fa-
ther," a usage seldom found in the earlier Gospels (Mt.
xi. 27; Mk. xiii. 32 ; Mt. xxviii. 19). The extent of this
usage in John is not quite plain ; for while in some
passages the absolute sense is unmistakable, in others
26 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
it may be questioned. In the conversation with the
Samaritan woman Jesus plainly uses the term father in
the sense of the universal Father. " The hour cometh
and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the
Father in spirit and truth, for such doth the Father
seek to be His worshippers." "Believe me, the hour
cometh when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem
shall ye worship the Father" (Jn. iv. 21, 23). And
there are not a few other passages in this Gospel where
God seems to be called "the Father" in an absolute
sense. In about one-quarter of the passages where God
is called " Father," He is so called in reference to Jesus,
and the language used is "my Father" {e.g. ii. 16; v.
17; vi. 32). In all the remaining instances He is called
"the Father," never but once "your Father," which is
common in the Synoptists. Now in some of these cases
it is possible to hold that the word father is used of God
in view of His relation to His Son, but in some cases
this is not possible. So, for example, in vi. 27, where
we read, " Eternal life which the Son of man shall give
you, for this one the Father sealed, even God." Here
the two terms " God " and " Father " seem to be terms
of equally wide import. Likewise in vi. 46 : " Not
that any one hath seen the Father excepting Him who
is from God : this one hath seen the Father." Here
"the Father" is a synonym of "God." Equally decisive
is the passage xx. 17: "I am not yet ascended to the
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD 27
Father. But go to my brethren and say to them, I
ascend to my Father and your Father and my God and
your God." It is quite clear that the word " Father "
in the first clause is unlimited, for, in the later clauses,
He who is here called "the Father," is called by Jesus
"my Father" and "your Father." Since now there
are some passages where the absolute sense of father
is required, and since in the other passages where the
words ''the Father" are used there is nothing which
requires us to limit the fatherhood, it must be held
probable that the author always employed the word
father in an unlimited sense when he did not associate
a personal pronoun with it. If this be the case, it is
apparent that the universal fatherhood of God is made
very prominent in John. This emphasis may be due
largely to the author of the fourth Gospel and not to
Jesus Himself ; but even in that case it surely bears
witness to the fact that Jesus taught the universal
fatherhood of God, and taught it in a way which deeply
impressed the hearts of men. Otherwise the appear-
ance of this doctrine in an accepted and authoritative
writing of the close of the first century would be
unintelligible.
That God is father in this absolute sense is a fact
which is found elsewhere in John than in the use of the
father-name. It is found, for example, in the statement
that God loved the world up to the point of highest
28 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
sacrifice for it, and in the promise that He will abide
with any one who keeps Christ's words (iii. 16; xiv.
23). It underlies the great thought that Jesus will draw
all men unto Himself by revealing unto them the heart
of the Father, which He will do by the sacrifice of Him-
self (viii. 28 ; xii. 23, 28, 32). It is found also, as in
the earlier Gospels, in the attitude of Jesus toward men.
He offered life to the Samaritan woman, and felt that
in helping her He was accomplishing the Father's will
(iv. 10, 34); and the visit of the Greeks brought before
His soul the vision of a great harvest for the kingdom
of God (xii. 20-24). This attitude of Jesus toward a
woman whom the Jews regarded as an outcast, and this
attitude toward the Gentiles, shows plainly that He
thought of the fatherhood of God as universal.
But in the fourth Gospel, as in the Synoptists, an ethi-
cal fatherhood calls for an ethical sonship. God is the
universal Father, loving the whole world and each in-
dividual in it ; yet Jesus says to the Jews who were re-
jecting Him, " If God were your Father, ye would love
me " (viii. 42). That is to say, these men are not sons of
God, though they are the objects of His love; and until
they become sons of God, His fatherhood is not a reality
to them. It is a reality in itself : God yearns for these
men who are rejecting Jesus, and He offers them life ;
but He cannot express the deep meaning of His father-
hood to them except as they welcome its expression.
THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD 29
Hence it is only the disciples of Jesus of whom it can be
said that God loves them as He loves Jesus (xvii. 23).
The fatherhood of God, in John as in the older Gos-
pels, is a fatherhood in holiness and righteousness (xvii.
n, 25), and a fatherhood which unceasingly expresses
itself in works of love and mercy (v. 1 7).
Such, in brief statement, was the new revelation of
God which Jesus made. It was conveyed by words, and
it was conveyed by a life which overflowed and c d
will forever overflow the largest and deep- sion-
est words of human speech. It rose above the teaching
of scribe and Pharisee as far as the perfect character of
Jesus towered above theirs ; and it stood related to the
purest and loftiest visions of the most spiritual prophets
as the full day stands related to the earliest shimmers of
the dawn. It reveals what God is in Himself, and there-
fore what He is toward every soul which He has made.
It reveals Him as a heavenly Father, and pours into
that word father a tenderness of love, a depth of sym-
pathy, and a spirit of self-sacrifice for man's redemption,
which is as inexpressible as the power and sweetness
of Jesus' own life. It brings God forever near, and
makes His infinite fatherliness toward every human be-
ing as real as the cross, or the flesh and blood of Jesus.
In this revelation of the fatherhood of God, taken in its
length and breadth and depth and height, lies the great
message of Jesus to the world — the centre and the
explanation of all His teaching.
CHAPTER II
The Kingdom of Heaven
We have only a meagre outline of the earliest teach-
ing of Jesus. The evangelists pass over it with few
i. The words, and hasten forward to the events and
t h"n of teachings that belonged in the days when
Jesus. j-]-^ Lord had become famous, dwelling at
greatest length on the momentous close of His earthly
life.
The beginning of the public career of Jesus was
relatively obscure and unimportant. He spent some
eight months in Judea, according to John (Jn. ii. 13;
iv. 35), of which the first three Gospels have no clear
trace. At the beginning of this period He spent a
few days in Jerusalem, and in consequence of His
words and deeds He was recognized by a small num-
ber of the more spiritually minded people as a teacher
from God (Jn. iii. 2), while the religious leaders held
Him to be an unlicensed and dangerous reformer.
Then He retired from Jerusalem to the country of
Judea, and spent two-thirds of a year (about one-third
of His entire ministry) before His enemies in Jerusalem
30
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
31
heard very much about His words or doings. This
period, which only John mentions, seems to be regarded
even by him as of comparatively little importance, for
he touches it very briefly. According to his sketch of
the career of Jesus during these months, He must have
appeared to the Jews as another John the Baptist
(Jn. iii. 22-iv. 3). For, like John, He also was en-
gaged in the work of baptizing, and each was sur-
rounded by a band of disciples. Crowds of people
were thronging both teachers, and if we may trust
the report of the jealous disciples of John, the crowds
who came to Jesus were greater than those who came
to the Baptist. But even in this activity, Jesus retired,
as it were, behind His disciples, inasmuch as He did
not administer baptism, but committed that function
entirely to them. After this obscure period in Judea,
which seems to have had little direct Messianic signifi-
cance, came the beginning of the more effective Gali-
lean ministry. But of the earliest part of this Galilean
work, also, our knowledge is slight. The records tell
us that Jesus began His preaching, not with any ab-
stract doctrine, but with the announcement of a fact,
namely, the fulfilment of ancient prophecies which,
however they had been misunderstood by His hearers,
furnished the great hope of their lives (Mk. i. 15 ;
Mt. iv. 17). So far Jesus seems to have followed in
the steps of the Baptist ; for the heart of John's mes-
32 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
sage, that which had thrilled all the land of Judea and
the country around the Jordan (Mk. i. 15; Mt. hi. 5),
and which was the motive that led men to repentance,
was just this announcement that the kingdom of God
was at hand. This was also the glad tidings in which
Jesus asked men to believe : this was the burden of His
first preaching. While, however, this initial announce-
ment of Jesus was the same as that of His forerunner,
it is quite certain, as will appear later, that He put into
it a far deeper and more spiritual content.
In this earliest teaching of Jesus in Galilee there is
no trace of personal disclosure. It soon begins to be
implied more or less directly {e.g. Mk. ii.
2. The
kingdom of io, 20), but at first it does not appear at all.
many-sided The watchword of the popular preaching of
Jesus, even from the beginning, was "the
kingdom of heaven " ; J and all His teaching, the later
1 It seems probable that the term ordinarily used by Jesus was " king-
dom of heaven'''1 rather than "kingdom of God"; for (i) the Logia of
Matthew, that is the bulk of the words of Jesus which are incorporated in
this Gospel, are regarded as directly apostolic, which, of course, cannot be
said of the narratives of Mark and Luke. (2) The "kingdom of heaven"
is regarded as original because it is more Jewish than the term "king-
dom of God," and the presumption is that Jesus used a current term. The
form of expression is Jewish, for the Greek word for heaven, in this
phrase, is a plural in accordance with the Hebrew, but contrary to the
Greek, usage. Then the expression " kingdom of heaven " has a Jewish
coloring, as compared with " kingdom of God," in that it accords bet-
ter with the popular belief that the kingdom was to come from above.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 33
and more private as well as the earlier and more popu-
lar, aimed at the establishment and completion of this
kingdom. However, it is not easy to define the thought
of these words in a precise manner, just as it is not easy
to state, comprehensively and exactly, what Jesus meant
when He said that He had come "to fulfil" the Law
and the prophets (Mt. v. 17). That fulfilment has
many sides and involves many great truths ; so is it
also with the kingdom of heaven. It needs only a
hasty survey of the words of Jesus to show that He
did not use this term as one uses a definite mathe-
matical expression. It is rather a many-sided, rich,
and poetical symbol, and Jesus at one time gives promi-
nence to one aspect of it, at another time to another
aspect. Thus He says that the kingdom of heaven is
something to be entered at once by those to whom He
is speaking (Mt. vii. 13-14), and again, it is something
which is entered by the righteous after the Son of man
shall have come in His glory (Mt. xxv. 31, 34). At one
time Jesus says to the Pharisees, "The kingdom of
(3) The originality of the term " kingdom of heaven " is favored by the
consideration that the second and third evangelists, since they wrote for
Gentile readers, may more readily be thought to have modified a Jewish
expression, than that the author of the Login, who wrote for Jews, should
have modified the term used by Jesus. See against this view Wendt, Die
Lehre Jesu, ii. 298-300; in agreement with it, Arthur Titius, Die neutesta-
mentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit, p. 27; Stanton, The Jewish and the
Christian Messiah, pp. 209-210.
D
34 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
heaven is among you ; " and again, He teaches that
the kingdom of heaven is the place where Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets rest and are blessed
(Lk. xvii. 21 ; xiii. 28). In one passage the kingdom
is something that can be taken away from the Jews
and be given to the Gentiles (Mt. xxi. 43), and again
it is that for whose coming Jesus instructs His disciples
to pray (Mt. vi. 10). At one time Jesus says to those
who are around Him that unless their righteousness
shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Phari-
sees, they shall not enter the kingdom of heaven
(Mt. v. 20); and at another time He likens the king-
dom of heaven to a field of mingled wheat and tares,
and to a drag-net filled with fish both bad and good
(Mt. xiii. 24-30, 47-50). It is plain that the foremost
idea is not the same in all these passages, but changes
widely as we pass from one to another. We have to
ask, therefore, whether the entire content changes, or
whether there is a constant element in it. I think it
will appear from an examination of all the passages
that there is a constant element in the expression, and
that this constant element is the thought of the divine
rule in the heart of man.
The passages in which the term " kingdom of
heaven," or "kingdom of God," occurs, plainly fall
into several main groups. In the first group, which
is numerous, the rule of God seems to be the chief
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 35
thought. This appears to be the sense of the words
when Jesus announced in Galilee that the kingdom
of heaven was at hand (Mk. i. 15 ; Mt. iv. 3. The
17). The rule of God was realized in His ^ngdom of
' / heaven as a
own soul and His own life, and He knew that divinerule-
He was divinely anointed to realize it in the souls
and lives of others. And this rule of God which was
at hand was indeed the fulfilment of the Old Testa-
ment conception of the kingdom of heaven taken
at its highest levels. : Jesus declared that He had
come to fulfil the Law and the prophets (Mt. v. 17),
to realize in a perfect manner that ideal of life which
they had apprehended but imperfectly. It was the
same truth in another form when He said that the
kingdom of heaven was at hand. His kingdom
is the fulfilment of Law and prophets. The great ideal
of the Old Testament was a theocracy, a divine rule,
not inward alone, nor outward alone, but both inward
and outward, a complete rule of God in human life. 2
To this first group belong, further, such sayings as
the second petition of the Lord's Prayer, "Thy king-
dom come " (Mt. vi. 10), and the exhortation to seek first
God's kingdom and righteousness (Mt. vi. 33). When
Jesus says to those who are attracted by the spirit-
ual suggestions of His parables, " To you is given the
1 Comp. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesn, ii. 131.
2 Comp. Schultz, Alttestamenlliche Theologie, vierte Auflage, pp. 124-125.
36 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
mystery of the kingdom of God," it is plain that the
mystery is just what they were beginning to experi-
ence in their souls, and "the kingdom of heaven" is
the rule of God which was beginning to be realized as
Jesus came to have influence over these men (Mk. iv.
u). Again, the kingdom which comes not "with
observation," of which Jesus spoke to the unbeliev-
ing Pharisees, is a kingdom that consists in God's
spiritual dominion over the hearts of men (Lk. xvii.
20). That was already among them, or in their midst,
yet they saw not its presence in anything material.
It was among them as a spiritual force. Again,
when Jesus speaks of the kingdom of heaven as some-
thing difficult to enter (Mt. xix. 23), as something
which the publicans and harlots enter before the self-
righteous Pharisees (Mt. xxi. 31), and as that from
which the scribe was not far distant who asked Jesus
concerning the great commandment (Mk. xii. 34), the
kingdom of heaven is the rule of heaven, the reign
of God. It is an invisible spiritual good, or a com-
prehensive designation of all spiritual goods. i The
kingdom of heaven2 in this sense of the term was
a present reality to Jesus, and not something to be
realized in a future more or less remote.3 Jesus knew
1 See Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu etc., p. no.
2 Other passages which may probably be reckoned with this class are
Mk. iv. 26-29; 30-32; Mt. xiii. 44-46; xx. 1.
z See J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Coties, pp. 1S-25.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 37
that the divine rule was perfect in Him, the ideal
of Law and prophets made real. Its realization was
future for others, but present for Him, and so an
accomplished fact for the race to which He belonged.
In a second group of passages the kingdom of
heaven denotes, primarily, the company of those who are
under the divine rule. The prominent 4. The
thought is no longer the rule but the ruled. Jhe^mpany
Such is its meaning in the parable of the of thosf w!1°
0 r are under the
Tares and in that of the Drag-net (Mt. xiii. divine rule-
24-30, 47-50). The tares are the sons of the evil one,
and at the end of the age they are to be gathered
out of the kingdom of the Messiah. The sons of the
evil one are, therefore, in the kingdom up to that
time, as the tares are left mixed with the wheat in
the field till the time of harvest. To be gathered
out of the kingdom means to be separated from the
sons of the kingdom. The interest of the parable
centres in the teaching that these two classes — the
sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one —
must remain intermingled until the end of the age.
Therefore the kingdom out of which the "stumbling-
blocks-" are to be gathered is the company of those
who inwardly belong to the Messiah. It is plain
that "kingdom," in this connection, cannot mean the
dominion of God, for the sons of the evil one are
said to be in the kingdom.
$8 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
In like manner, when the kingdom of heaven is
likened to a drag-net, which gathers the bad fish as
well as the good, the foremost thought of the word
" kingdom " is the persons who constitute it. To this
class must be reckoned also the two passages in which
Jesus speaks of being small or great in the kingdom
of heaven. " Whosoever therefore shall break one
of these least commandments and shall teach men so,
shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven ; but
whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven " (Mt. v. 19).
" Among them that are born of women, there hath
not arisen a greater than John the Baptist ; yet he
that is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater
than he" (Mt. xi. 11). It is difficult to regard the
prominent thought of the word "kingdom" in these
passages as that of dominion or rule. We cannot
say, he that is least in the rule of heaven, or great
in the rule of heaven, for rule is not place or society.
And, moreover, the terms " least," " great," and "little "
are relative, and require us to find their complement
in the following expression, "kingdom of heaven."
Their use is natural if the leading thought in the
words "kingdom of heaven" was the company of
those who are under heaven's rule. "Least" of this
number, "great" or "little" in this company, are
expressions whose meaning is plain. The same might
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
39
be claimed if "kingdom of heaven" were taken here
in the sense of a place, but there is no evidence that it
was ever used by Jesus to denote a place 071 earth.
In conclusion, it may be noticed that while the
foremost thought in this second group of passages
is a certain company of persons, these persons cannot
be defined without the aid of the thought of the rule
of God. They are the persons whom God rules ; and
not only so, they are the persons whom He rules
through Jesus the Messiah. The kingdom of heaven
of which Jesus speaks is a kingdom which begins
with Him, and which is extended as loyalty to Him
extends.
There is a third group of passages where the term
"kingdom of heaven" has a content notably different
from that of either of the classes which have 5. The
been considered. This new thought is that the^en™ o"
of the blessings and privileges which belong tlf blessir>gs
d r a ^ of the divine
to those zvho are ?tnder the divine rule. Thus rule-
those who are poor in spirit and those who are perse-
cuted for righteousness' sake are promised the kingdom
of heaven (Mt. v. 3, 10). It is plain that "kingdom,"
in this instance, does not mean, primarily, rule, for they
who are poor in spirit are manifestly, by that very fact,
already under the rule of God ; and that which they
have cannot be that which is promised to them. Nei-
ther can it denote the company of those who are under
40 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
the divine rule, as in the second group of passages,
for they who are poor in spirit and they who are per-
secuted for the sake of righteousness surely belong to
the company who are ruled by God. Therefore, the
kingdom of heaven which is promised to those who
are persecuted for righteousness' sake and to the poor
in spirit may best be understood in the sense of the
rewards which belong to that kingdom, the blessings
and privileges which, either in the present age or in
that which is to come, accompany the rule of God.
Another passage to be considered here is Mt. xxi.
43. At the conclusion of the parable of the La-
borers in the Vineyard, Jesus said to the Jews,
" The kingdom of God shall be taken away from
you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth
the fruits thereof." But clearly Jesus did not mean
by " kingdom of God" in this passage the rule of
God, for the Jews whom He was addressing were, as
a matter of fact, not under that rule. They were the
husbandmen who, in heart, had already killed the
householder's son ; they were hostile to the rule of
God. It could not be taken from them, for they did
not have it. It is manifest also that the word " king-
dom " cannot here denote the company of those who
are under the divine rale ; for it is something which
can be taken from the Jews and be given to others.
What it does mean will appear when we consider the
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 4 1
historical fulfilment of Christ's word. That which was
actually taken from the Jews and given to the Gen-
tiles was the privilege which they had enjoyed of
being God's people in a somewhat exclusive sense.
They had possessed the oracles of God (Rom. iii. 2),
the light of His revelation, and the comfort of the
Messianic hope. But when the grace of God was
rejected by the Jews, it was fully manifested to the
Gentiles. The vineyard of special privilege in which
the Jews had been placed was opened to all peoples
(comp'. Acts i. 8; xiii. 46, etc.). Thus, in this third
group of passages, while the divine rule is still in-
volved, the stress falls on the blessings and privileges
which accompany that rule.
There is a fourth group of passages in which the term
"kingdom of heaven" has a sense different from the
three already noted. This class is numerous, 6. The king-
and the new meaning of the term is clear. It f^^abode
is the place to be occupied in the future age by of thosf vvhu°
r * jos are under the
those zv ho are under the divine rule. In the divine rule-
Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, " Not every one that
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father who
is in heaven " (Mt. vii. 21). It is plain from the follow-
ing verses that Jesus is thinking of the end of the pres-
ent age, and therefore the " kingdom of heaven " is
here a synonym of heaven as the abode of the blessed
42 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Again, the term has the same sense when Jesus says
that many - shall come from the east and the west,
and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in
the kingdom of heaven (Mt. viii. 1 1 ; Lk. xiii. 29).1
In the interpretation of the parable of the Tares, it is
said that the righteous, after the judgment of the wicked,
shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their
Father (Mt. xiii. 43). Parallel to this is the passage in
Mark where Jesus says, " It is better to enter into the
kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes
to be cast into Gehenna" (Mk. ix. 47). Since Gehenna
stands here in contrast to the kingdom of God, it is cer-
tain that this expression denotes the place to which the
righteous go at death.
Another passage belonging to this group is Lk. xxii.
29-30. " I appoint unto you a kingdom even as my
Father appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at
my table in my kingdom ; and ye shall sit on thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel." This language,
"at my table in my kingdom," is local, and the context
shows that Jesus is looking forward to the heavenly con-
summation of His kingdom. The term is employed in
the same sense in the account of the Last Supper, when
Jesus says to His disciples, "Verily I say unto you, I
will in no wise drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine
1 Lk. xvi. 23 does not affirm that Abraham is in Hades. That is
where the rich man is, but Abraham is "afar off."
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 43
until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of
God " (Mk. xiv. 25), "or in the kingdom of my Father"
(Mt. xxvi. 29). Plainly this kingdom lay out beyond His
death and theirs, and has primarily a local sense.1
Such is the fourth group of passages in which the
"kingdom of heaven" is found. The prominent
thought is the future abode of the redeemed. But this
group2 of passages is bound to the first, as are the second
and third, by the idea of God's rule. The kingdom of
heaven as a place or abode is the place where that rule
is perfected, where there are none who oppose it, and
where all its promised rewards are forever realized.
The kingdom of heaven in this sense alone is eschato-
logical ; it belongs entirely to the future. The kingdom
of heaven in the three preceding groups belongs to the
present as well as to the future. As the first and fourth
of these groups are the most numerous, we infer that
Jesus employed the words " kingdom of heaven " most
frequently to denote either the rule of God, or the place
to be occupied in the future by those who are under
that rule.
1 Comp. Wendt, Die I.ehre fesu, ii. 545-546. The view that Jesus
here refers to a partaking of the Christian Eucharist on earth seems impos-
sible, for He would thus partake of the symbols of His own flesh and
blood. See Plummer's Commentary on Luke.
2 Mt. xxv. 1 might be added. I have not attempted to classify every
passage which speaks of the kingdom of heaven, but to cite a sufficient
number of illustrations to justify the classification.
44 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Having shown that Jesus did not attach a constant
meaning to the term " kingdom of heaven," it is now
7. The rule necessary to consider somewhat more closely
ethical and what He meant by the rule of God. Did the
spiritual. expression " kingdom of heaven," in this
sense of it, bring before His mind anything material
and visible ? Did He associate with it any special social
and civil relations ? Was the conception wholly spirit-
ual, or was it partly spiritual and partly material ? Did
His thought begin and end with an inward realization
of the rule of God, or did it begin with this and go on
to an external realization ?
It admits of no debate that Jesus' conception of the
rule of God was preeminently ethical and spiritual.1 He
told the Pharisees that the kingdom was not to come
with observation, so that men could see it and say, " Lo,
here!" or, "There!" (Lk. xvii. 20, 21.) While they
had been speculating in regard to the time of its coming,
it had come and was among them.2 And Jesus did not
say that it had simply begun to come : He said it was
there. Now the kingdom of God was present at that
moment only in the sense of the rule of God in the heart
1 Comp. Wendt, Die I.ehre Jesu, ii. 293-296; Toy, Judaism and
Christianity, p. 340.
2 Comp. on the clause " among you," Meyer's Handbuch ilber die Evan-
gelien des Markus und Lukas, sechste Auflage, pp. 513-514; Haupt,
Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesn, pp. 12-13.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 45
of man. That rule was perfect in Jesus' own case, and
it was beginning to be realized in the hearts of His
disciples.
It appears further that His conception was preemi-
nently ethical and spiritual from the fact that in His
spontaneous teaching He never discussed the relation of
His Gospel to the State, nor spoke, of the consequences
which the acceptance of His Gospel would bring to the
outward relations of man as a member of society. The
only words of His which bear upon this matter were
called out by the questions of His enemies, and are
wholly incidental in His teaching. The beatitudes of
Jesus are not for good citizenship and philanthropy, but
they are for qualities of heart which underlie all good
citizenship, and on which a permanent and wise philan-
thropy must ever depend. His Sermon on the Mount
seldom touches the outward life directly, and then it
does so simply for the sake of the inner life.
But while it is unquestionable that Jesus' conception
of the rule of God is preeminently ethical and spiritual,
the question may still arise whether it is exclu- 8 The divine
sively so. In the discussion of this question ^du^hS^
we must recognize two great facts. First, from Wlthin-
the realization of the divine rule, whether that rule be
limited to the spiritual or not, proceeds exclusively from
within. It is in no degree conditioned on the outward
and the physical. Reliance upon external means for
46 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
the establishment of the kingdom of God was recog-
nized by Jesus in the wilderness as a temptation of
Satan, and was rejected once for all. Repentance and
faith in the Gospel were the primary demands which
He made upon all men.
Jesus did not seek to realize the divine rule by means
of miracles. His works of power did not precede His
call to repentance, but followed it. And furthermore,
miracles were not a constant part of His ministry, as
though He had a fixed policy to reach the heart through
the body.1 He seems to have wrought comparatively
few miracles in the crowded city of Jerusalem, though
the need of physical relief was probably greatest there,
as is ever true of large cities. Miracles of healing
diminished in number as His ministry advanced, and
there were very few in the last six months. Again, Jesus
never sought out the sick to heal them, even in the
period of His greatest activity in their behalf. He
went hither and thither to preach the kingdom, but it
is never said that He went about in order to heal.
It is plain, therefore, that the direct effort of Jesus
to improve the physical condition of men was wholly
incidental in His ministry. It was not carried on sys-
tematically, as though Jesus held it to be a wise method
of accomplishing spiritual results. And His course is
1 Comp. Jn. v. 5, which tells how Jesus once entered a water cure
and healed one sick person only, leaving the multitude in their infirmity.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 47
justified by the effect of His miraculous cures. Of the
multitudes whom Jesus healed, according to the Synop-
tists, there is no direct and conclusive evidence that
a single person accepted Him as the Messiah in conse-
quence of the physical blessing which had been re-
ceived.1 It is perhaps natural to think that Mary Mag-
dalene and the other women who followed Jesus (Lk.
viii. 2-3 ; xxiv. 10) did so because He had healed them,
and Mary Magdalene at least seems to have become a
true disciple. Bartimaeus, when healed, followed Jesus
in the way, doubtless full of gratitude toward Him ; but
we do not know whether he ever accepted Jesus as his
Saviour. It can neither be affirmed nor denied that he
or any other person accepted Jesus as the Messiah be-
cause of a physical blessing received from Him. But
even if there were individuals who were drawn to Jesus
as the Messiah by His physical cures, such instances
must have been rare. Jesus is represented as healing
multitudes,2 and yet He had but a handful of disciples.
The case of one man who, when healed, went out and
disobeyed the word of Jesus, thus hindering His work
(Mk. i. 45), shows that a miraculous cure, as little as
any physical blessing, necessarily brings spiritual re-
sults.3 The Samaritan leper, one of the ten who had
1 Comp. Jn. ix; xi. 45.
2 See The Student's Life of Jesus, p. 200.
3 Comp. Jn. ii. 23-24; xi. 46-48.
48 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
been healed, returned to Jesus and glorified God; but
this statement of course does not imply that he accepted
Jesus as Messiah and Saviour (Lk. xvii. 16).
Jesus sometimes told those whom He had healed
that their faith had saved them (e.g. Mt. ix. 22), but
this salvation was manifestly physical. The faith in
Him which was exercised by persons who desired
healing was simply faith that He was able to heal;
and the healing which they received was according to
their faith (Mt. ix. 28). It was physical deliverance
that they wanted, and only this that they were fitted
to receive.
Further, it is to be borne in mind that the ministry
of Jesus to the physical man was wholly miraculous.
There was not in His practice or His teaching any
effort or plan to work through the physical, by ordi-
nary human means, for the accomplishment of spiritual
results. Now if, in the thought of Jesus, the realiza-
tion of the divine rule could proceed from without in-
ward, we should have expected to find, at least in His
teaching for His disciples, some word justifying this
order. But there is no suggestion of this sort. More-
over, while He Himself ministered miraculously to the
physical man, He evidently did not intend that His
disciples should continue this sort of ministry. During
His own public activity in Galilee He commissioned
them to work miracles, but in His final commission
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
49
there is no reference to miraculous works.1 There
were comparatively few such works in the apostolic
age ; and in the subsequent centuries the Spirit has
not led the Church to undertake miracles or to desire
them. This fact confirms the incidental character of
the element of miraculous healing in the life of Jesus.
His miraculous ministry to the physical man stood in
close relation to His Messianic claim,2 and was not an
example to be permanently imitated in His Church,
after His Messiahship should have been forever estab-
lished by His resurrection from the dead.
Thus, as we have seen, Jesus thought of the rule of
God as a rule to be realized exclusively from within.
If He thought of transformations of society and gov-
ernment as belonging to the divine rule on earth, or
if He ever thought of the exaltation of Israel in a
political sense as a part of the realization of the king-
dom of heaven for His people, it is certain that He
thought of these things as the natural consequences of
an inward realization of God's rule. He began His
work for the Jewish people with a call to repentance
and faith, and closed it with warnings of the judg-
ment which would overtake them because they had
not repented. He sent forth His followers to make
1 The close of Mark's Gospel, xvi. 9-20, is rejected by most critics as
not from the hand of the evangelist.
2 See l'he Student's Life of Jesus, pp. 204-206.
E
50 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
disciples of all nations, presumably by such means as
He had used in winning them to discipleship, that is,
the preaching of the Gospel of the kingdom and the
revelation of the love of God. Jesus did not institute
any social or political reform ; and it is not recorded
of His apostles that they departed in this respect from
the example of their Master.
In regard to the question whether Jesus' conception
of the rule of God was exclusively spiritual, the second
9. Jesus had fact to be noticed is this, that, as far as
no thought of i • r tt ^1 1 j.
a national our records inform us, He never thought
restoration. Q£ a na^ional restoration. There is no proof
that the divine rule meant to Him, at one time, Jewish
independence and the propagation of the Gospel by a
redeemed Jewish kingdom, and that later, after He had
failed to impress the people as a whole, the divine
rule became in His thought wholly spiritual.
We might believe, if we had in view only the Synop-
tic Gospels, that Jesus at the beginning of the Gali-
lean ministry Jwped1 to gain the great mass of the
people ; but even if He had cherished such a hope —
which cannot be proven — this would not imply that
He then associated national independence with the
divine rule. If He hoped to gain the people as a
whole, He surely hoped to gain them by spiritual
motives. He never appealed to them by the motive
1 Comp. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 319-320.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 5 1
of a national future in which they should have power
and glory. On the contrary, He studiously avoided
every complication with the popular Messianic hopes.
We cannot argue from Matthew's use of the word
church, that it implies a change in the thought of Jesus
regarding the scope of His work, for the genuineness of
this word is by no means clear.1 If Jesus, in the critical
hour at Caesarea Philippi, had introduced a new term in
the place of "the kingdom of heaven," we should ex-
pect to find it in all the records, and we should expect
that, from the days of Caesarea Philippi forward, it would
have been used frequently, if not exclusively. But this
is not the case. The new word is not found save in
Matthew, and even he uses it but twice : he continues
the use of the old term " kingdom of heaven." More-
over, there is no apparent reason why the word church
should be used in Mt. xvi. 18, for it plainly has no other
significance than the term " kingdom of heaven," when
we take this in the sense of the company of those who
are under the divine rule. And finally, against the
originality of the word church is the fact that in Mt. xviii.
17 it means a local body of disciples; but, in the time
of Jesus and long after that, the disciples were not sepa-
rated from the synagogue. If, then, this word is origi-
nal, it is a prediction of what was to be some years
1 See Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 612 ; Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche
Theologie, i. 210.
52 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
hence, and indeed is, a prediction of an ecclesiastical
sort. This, however, is not probable, for Jesus gave His
disciples no ecclesiastical organization or directions
whatsoever. We must therefore hold that the word
church is to be ascribed to the author of the Gospel. It
is altogether natural that he should carry back into the
life of Jesus this name which was subsequently applied
to His disciples, and especially so if he thought it had
essentially the same meaning as the term " kingdom of
heaven."
In conclusion on this point, the general Synoptic
picture of the Messianic activity of Jesus is unfavorable
to the view that He began with a conception of the
divine rule which was national in character, and after-
ward advanced to a purely spiritual conception. For,
according to the Synoptists, Jesus avoided everything
which could suggest political claims, or which could
be construed as favoring a national restoration. The
only act which was in line with an outward conception
of the divine rule was the triumphal entry into Jeru-
salem ; but this fell at the close of the public life of
Jesus, when He clearly saw that the Jewish people
was hastening to its judgment, and that the Gospel was
to be carried to the Gentiles.
There is yet one fact which should not be overlooked
when considering the question whether Jesus ever an-
ticipated a national restoration. It is this, that through-
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 53
out His entire ministry He never dropped a word of
contempt, or hatred, or even disrespect, for the foreign
power which was oppressing the Jews. He had doubt-
less toiled with His own hands to earn money with
which to pay the Roman taxes. He could remember
with what rigor the Roman soldiers had suppressed the
Galilean uprising under Judas, which had taken place
when He was a boy of nine years. He must have known
also of the corruption of the social and political life of
Rome. And yet in His preaching Jesus betrays no
sympathy with the political ambitions of the Zealots,
or with the less radical aims of the Pharisees. There
is never a suggestion of opposition to the Roman
government. On the contrary, Jesus recognized Cae-
sar's right to receive tribute, and denied that the pay-
ment of this conflicted with Jehovah's claims (Mk. xii.
I3~I7)- Jesus did not share the popular enmity against
the tax-gatherers — Jews in the employment of Rome;
but He had fellowship with them, and seems to have
regarded their calling as perfectly legitimate.
Now this attitude toward Rome, this absence of the
slightest trace of hostility toward it, is scarcely intelligible
if Jesus at any time thought of the rule of God as neces-
sarily involving a national Jewish restoration. It ac-
cords best with the view that Jesus regarded the divine
rule in the heart as incomparably more important than
any outward state or condition, so that the latter does
54 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
not even come up for consideration. Jesus treats the
political question as non-existent. But it would certainly
be wrong to infer from this that He thought of the
political question as being in itself unimportant. Such
an inference is impossible in view of the genuinely
human and practical sympathy and aim of Jesus. He
who taught that God takes thought for what a man eats
and wears could not have believed that He is indiffer-
ent to any of the organized relations of men ; and there-
fore we cannot conceive that Jesus was indifferent
toward them. He doubtless saw more clearly than any
one else the iniquity of the existing social and political
conditions, and felt deeply the wrong and the shame of
it all ; but nevertheless, in the whole course of His
ministry, He did not voluntarily touch these social and
political questions in a direct manner. He always
aimed beneath them, at the fundamental spiritual con-
dition. First, the reign of God in the heart of man ;
then, social and political health. As far as the records
go, He did not admit the possibility of any other order.
We conclude, then, that Jesus did not at any time
associate a national restoration with the divine rule
which He sought to establish in Israel ; and in regard
to the larger question whether the rule of God in the
teaching of Jesus is exclusively spiritual, we hold that
an affirmative answer must be given. The kingdom
of heaven as the rule of God is wholly ethical and
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 55
religious. Jesus avoids confusing the main issue with
issues that are incidental, and avoids it with the ab-
solute consistency of one whose vision and purpose
are clear and unalterable.
The kingdom of God as the key-word of the Mes-
sianic age, according to the Synoptists, is scarcely
heard in the fourth Gospel. It occurs but
10. The
twice, once near the beginning and once near kingdom of
- 1 c t > 1 1 • 1 t 1 r heaven in the
the close 01 Jesus public work. In the first fourth
passage Jesus speaks of the kingdom of GospeL
God as that which a man cannot see unless he is
born from above, and cannot enter unless born of
water and the Spirit (Jn. hi. 3, 5). In the second
passage Jesus says to Pilate, " My kingdom is not of
this world : if my kingdom were of this world, then
would my servants fight, that I should not be de-
livered to the Jews ; but now is my kingdom not
from hence" (Jn. xviii. 36). Jesus then admits
that He is a king, and describes His kingship as
one of witnessing to the truth. In other words, His
kingdom is the rule of truth, which the Synoptists
call the kingdom of heaven or of God. These two
passages in the fourth Gospel manifestly belong to-
gether, and their conception of the kingdom of God
is that of the first of the four groups of passages in
the Synoptists : it is the divine rule independent of
outward conditions.
56 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
This view of the kingdom of God which meets us
in these isolated passages in the fourth Gospel is
confirmed by the use which this Gospel makes of the
expression eternal life. This is here the summum
bonwm, the great gift of heaven, as the " kingdom
of God " is in the Synoptists. Yet the conception of
eternal life is not coextensive with that of the king-
dom of God.1 This term, in certain passages, has a
meaning quite different from that of life eternal, as
we have already shown; but the "eternal life" of John
corresponds, in a measure, to " kingdom of God " in the
sense of God's rule in the soul. He who has the king-
dom of heaven in this sense of the term has eternal
life. But eternal life is plainly a spiritual good, and
therefore we say that the use of this expression sup-
ports the view that the author of the fourth Gospel
thought of the " kingdom of heaven " as designating,
preeminently, the rule of God in the heart of man.
Jesus' conception of the kingdom of heaven cannot
be fully appreciated until there is put by its side that
conception which was held by the Jews of
kingdom of His day. They thought of the kingdom of
heaven in the
teaching of heaven as something to be realized from
without, and not from within. The pious man
is described as one who zuaited for the kingdom of God
(Mk. xv. 43). When Jesus entered Jerusalem, riding
1 See Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie, i. 277-279.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
57
on an ass, and allowed the crowds to shout hosanna,
His disciples thought that He was now at last to set
up a visible Messianic banner, and they hailed the
coming kingdom of their father David (Mk. xi. 10).
Thus the kingdom was thought of as one that should
come with outward pomp. So the Pharisees asked
Jesus when the kingdom of God should come (Lk.
xvii. 20) ; and it is plain that they expected a coming
which would strike the senses, and hence something
utterly unlike the thought of Jesus, who declared that
the kingdom of heaven cometh not with observation.
The kingdom had come in the midst of them, but
its appearance was so different from what they had
expected, that they did not recognize it.
This idea of a kingdom to be realized from without
appears in the words with which Luke introduces the
parable of the Ten Pounds. He says that Jesus spoke
this parable because His fellow-pilgrims thought that
the kingdom of heaven was about to appear (Lk.
xix. 1 1). The ministry of Jesus was now near its close ;
but they had not at all observed that the kingdom
of God had appeared in Him and His work. Even the
immediate disciples of Jesus, as late as after the resur-
rection, seem to have thought that the kingdom was
to come in some miraculous manner, at any rate it
was not to come through them (Acts i. 6). This signifi-
cant fact shows how deeply rooted was the belief of
58 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
the Jews that the kingdom of heaven was to be es-
tablished from without, in a visible manner. And we
have this same idea of the kingdom in Jewish writings
outside of the New Testament. Thus, for example,
in the Psalms of Solomon, we read that the Messiah will
destroy the ungodly nations by the breath of his mouth,
and He alone will establish the kingdom (xvii. 23-51).
Of the same purport is the teaching of the Talmud. De-
liverance by the Messiah, like the deliverance of Israel
by Moses, is to come from without, miraculously, and
not at all from within. The Jews who are alive at the
coming of the Messiah seem to have no more to do with
the establishment of the kingdom than do the Jews
who are dead, and who at the beginning of the Messi-
anic age are raised up to enjoy the kingdom. Thus
the kingdom was thought of as something external,
which was to be superimposed upon the Jewish
people.1
Again, the Jewish conception of the kingdom of
heaven in the time of Jesus was thoroughly political
and national. This statement is abundantly illustrated
in the Gospels. Thus the third temptation of Jesus,
as recorded by Matthew, presupposes that people
thought of the kingdom of God as a political organism.
1 Comp. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu etc., p. 10 1;
Weber, Die Lehren des TalmuJs, pp. 347-354; Hilgenfeld, Die jiidische
Apokalypiik, p. 86.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
59
For the suggestion that Jesus might secure all the
kingdoms of the world and their glory, — He, a Jewish
carpenter from the little town of Nazareth, — would
have been psychologically impossible had not the popu-
lar view associated world-wide political dominion with
Messiahship ; and it would not have been a temptation
of any power to the mind of Jesus had it not been
deeply rooted in the Jewish heart, and had it not
seemed to have strong support in the Old Testament
itself.
The fourth evangelist tells us that after the miracle
of feeding the five thousand near Bethsaida Julias,
Jesus perceived that the people were about to make
Him king (Jn. vi. 15). This word is capable only of
a political meaning in this place, for Jesus admitted
that He was king in the domain of truth ; and He
would surely have welcomed the recognition of this
fact at any time (Jn. xviii. 37). But the kingship
which the five thousand wished to force upon Him,
He refused because it was political.
Again, we see the character and strength of the
popular view in the request of Salome, seconded by
James and John (Mk. x. 37; Mt. xx. 21). She wished
her sons to sit at Christ's right and left in His glory.
It is obvious that she was thinking of an earthly
glory, and of places of honor in the sight of men.
This family of Salome and Zebedee may be taken as
60 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
representing the prosperous and intelligent class of
society ; and, accordingly, it would be a mistake to
suppose that the political conception of the Messianic
kingdom was confined to the ignorant and poor, who
perhaps suffered most from the foreign despotism.
We have further illustration of the common view in
the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. We can-
not understand this ovation on any other supposition
than this, that the popular conception of the Messiah
was through and through political. Men who had
not cared to hear the divine words which Jesus spoke,
and who were blind to the real proofs of His Messiah-
ship, flung their garments in the road when Jesus
mounted the ass and rode toward the gate of the
city.
A final illustration of the point under discussion is
found in the question of the disciples after the resur-
rection, to which reference has already been made
(Acts i. 6). The kingdom which they thought Jesus
might now restore to Israel cannot be understood
otherwise than in a political sense ; for their ques-
tion turns the thought back to that kingdom which
Israel had lost. It was Israel to which the kingdom
was to be restored : the Messianic age was to be the
age of Israel's dominion. Jerusalem was to be the
capital of the world, and the temple its religious
centre. Jewish law and ritual would be everywhere
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 6 1
in force; and Gentiles would have small participation
in the blessings of the kingdom except as they
adopted circumcision and became Jews.1
Such were the main features of the popular view of
the kingdom of heaven in the time of Jesus. It was
to be a kingdom of this world, though supernaturally
established, and it was to be a kingdom for Israel.
It was thus radically unlike the conception of Jesus.
And yet this teaching of the scribes, like that of
Jesus, rested upon the Old Testament. But one view
was the fulfilment of the Old Testament; the other
was its degradation. One conception centres in God,
and is superior to earthly relations ; the other centres
in man, and consists essentially in earthly good.
1 Comp. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmuds, p. 356; Deane, Pseudepi-
grapha, pp. 297-300.
CHAPTER III
The Life of the Kingdom of Heaven
It was in accord with Jesus' conception of the king-
dom of heaven as a divine rule in the heart of man that
i. Entering He preached repentance as a fundamental ne-
^Re^nt- cessity. This divine rule cannot begin with-
ance. out a turning to God, for it is not a rule of
force but of love, and therefore repentance had a promi-
nent place in the teaching of Jesus. Thus He coupled
a call to repentance with His earliest announcement
of the kingdom (Mk. i. 15), and on the first occasion
when He is recorded to have forgiven sin, He de-
clared that the aim of His mission was to call sinners,
or in the explanatory language of Luke, to call sinners
to repentance (Mk. ii. 17; Lk. v. 32). His third
beatitude was for those who mourn, not over the loss of
national independence, for that subject He ignored as
of comparatively little importance; and not over the
fact of poverty and straitness in earthly goods, for
He taught men not to mourn or be anxious regarding
these things ; and not over the loss of dear friends, for
the beatitudes concern the living in their relation to
62
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 6$
God and to mankind : the beatitude was for those
who mourn over tliemselves, because they are not
under the divine rule.
When Jesus sent out the twelve in the early Gali-
lean ministry, they preached that men should repent,
even as He had preached at the beginning of His
work, and as He doubtless continued to preach (Mk.
i. 15 ; vi. 12). When Jesus was about to leave Gali-
lee, He declared that the Ninevites would rise up
against the present generation in the judgment, and
would condemn it, for they had repented at Jonah's
preaching ; and the queen of the south would con-
demn the present generation, for even she had shown
greater interest in divine truth than they (Mt. xii. 41-
42). It would be more tolerable in the judgment for
Tyre and Sidon, for Sodom and Gomorrah, though
notoriously wicked, than for the present generation
who had not repented at His preaching (Mt. xi. 20-
24). Again, Jesus set forth the great value of re-
pentance when He declared that there is joy in
heaven over one sinner who repents (Lk. xv. 7, 10),
and especially when He told the story of a father
who covered his son with kisses when he returned
with confession of his un worthiness (Lk. xv. 20).
In contrast with the self-righteous Pharisee Jesus set
the publican whose prayer was, " God, be merciful to
me the sinner" (Lk. xviii. 13). It was this kind of
64 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
spirit only which was justified before God. Jesus
told the Jews that except they repented, namely, of
their hostility toward Him, they should all perish.
And the severity of their doom would be comparable
to the fate of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had
mingled with their sacrifices, and to the fate of those
eighteen persons on whom the tower in Siloam fell
(Lk. xiii. 3-5). Finally, Luke's version of the clos-
ing words of Jesus to His disciples represents Him
as saying that the preaching of repentance to all na-
tions was in accordance with the Scripture (Lk.
xxiv. 47).
Thus it appears that Jesus regarded repentance as
of absolutely fundamental importance. The people
who thought that they did not need repentance were,
according to Jesus, in the greatest need of it. He
spoke of them, ironically, as "righteous persons," and
said that ninety-nine of them made less joy in heaven
than one penitent sinner (Mk. ii. 17; Lk. xv. 7).
Punctilious fulfilment of the entire ceremonial law did
not take the place of repentance (Mt. v. 20; xxi. 31).
The primary motive to repentance, in the teaching
of Jesus, is the divine goodness. This thought is re-
flected in the brief record of His earliest preaching,
for He makes the nearness of the kingdom of God
the ground of His call to repentance (Mk. i. 15;
Mt. iv. 17). The kingdom of God that was near
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 65
was primarily the rule of God in the heart ; and the
establishment of this rule in man, with its infinite
heritage of blessing, is a signal manifestation of the
divine love. Again, Jesus encourages men to mourn
over their sins with the assurance that this is the way to
receive comfort from God (Mt. v. 4). He woos men
to repentance by telling them that the repentance of
one sinner makes joy in heaven (Lk. xv. 7, 10), and
by teaching that God awaits their return with a full
pardon and with overflowing love (Lk. xv. 20).
And Jesus' own treatment of sinners, no less than
His teaching, shows clearly that, in His thought, the
fatherhood of God which was being revealed through
Him was the prime motive to repentance. Jesus was
known as the friend of publicans and sinners because
of His sympathetic regard for them (Lk. vii. 34). He
had no fan of judgment in His hand, as His forerunner
expected He would have (Mt. hi. 12), and He did not
begin at once to cleanse thoroughly His threshing-floor.
He did not break the bruised reed, nor quench the
smoking flax (Mt. xii. 20). His most characteristic ser-
mon began with blessed, blessed, blessed. The cry of
His heart was, " Come unto me and I will give you
rest" (Mt. xi. 28). His love sought to be to Jerusalem
like the brooding of the mother-bird's wings (Lk.
xiii. 34).
But while Jesus made the divine goodness or the
66 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
fatherliness of God the primary motive to repentance,
and in His own person brought that goodness into
tenderest contact with men, there is at times a stern
note in His call to sinners. They who refused to
repent under the sunshine of divine love were at
length threatened with summary destruction. And
nothing can exceed the rigor of His language on
these occasions. Thus He declares that the worst of
the heathen cities will fare better in the day of judg-
ment than the lake cities of Galilee in which He has
preached (Mt. xi. 20-24). His unrepentant country-
men are a tree to be cut down, and a people who,
since they have refused the King's invitation, shall be
destroyed (Lk. xiii. 7; Mt. xxii. 7). But this motive
to repentance was made necessary by the persistent
sin of the Jews. It is not an element in the spon-
taneous preaching of Jesus, but a motive which He
was forced to use because all the overtures of His
love were rejected.
The conception which Jesus had of the nature of
repentance may be seen from the story of the Lost
Son. The son came to himself, then arose and came
to his father (Lk. xv. 17). This coming to himself
suggests that his previous state had been one of
stupor, one in which his reason had lain, as it were,
dormant. The expression employed is akin to that
which Luke uses in describing Peter's awakening out
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 6j
of the trance, or ecstatic state, into which he had
fallen while praying upon the housetop in Joppa
(Acts x. 9-10). Peter was in himself when he re-
flected on the significance of the vision; but he was
not in himself previously, that is, he had not reasoned
in a self-conscious manner. So the lost son in " com-
ing to himself " came to his throne as a rational being.
He reasoned about his deplorable state, and recog-
nized the facts as they were. Hence we conclude
that Jesus thought of repentance as based on a clear
seeing, by the sinner, of his own condition. It is an
eminently rational act, but a rational act that carries
the whole man. It is a coming to one's better self,
and also an acting in accordance with this clear and
deep vision of one's true state. This involves a going
back to the Father with confession of sin (Lk. xv. 21).
When the lost son saw his condition, then he said,
"I will arise and go to my father" (Lk. xv. 18).
Jesus everywhere assumes that a man can thus
reason in his heart, and can go to his Father. We
must suppose that He was sincere when He pre-
sented to men motives which should lead them to
repentance. He pronounces a blessing on those who
mourn over their sins, just as upon those who make
peace. The one act is thought of as lying within a
man's power no less truly than the other. Jesus influ-
ences the will of man powerfully by His revelation of
68 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
the love of God, or rather He presents a powerful mo-
tive to the will; but the will has full power to yield or
not yield to the motive. He tells His disciples, when
asked to explain His parables, that the mystery of
the kingdom of heaven is given to them (Mk. iv.
11-12); but He infers that it is given to them from
the fact that they seek it. He did not separate one
and another out of the multitude to whom He spoke
the parables. On the contrary, He spoke the para-
bles, and one and another separated himself from
the crowd, and waited for an explanation of the
word. They sought the mystery of the kingdom of
God ; and because God was their father, Jesus knew
that He had granted what they sought. There is no
suggestion of a decree of God, as that word has
often been used in theology. It is the Father's good
pleasure to reveal the mystery of the kingdom to
babes, and to hide it from the wise and understand-
ing (Lk. x. 21; Mt. xi. 25); but to be "wise" and
"understanding," or to be a "babe" is never treated
by Jesus as something that lies outside a man's own
will and choice. When Jesus said, relative to the
salvation of a rich man, that all tilings are possible
with God, He certainly did not intimate that God
can at pleasure produce repentance (Mt. xix. 26).
He had sought to win a rich young man, and had
failed. He then told His disciples that it was very
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 69
difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
In stating this truth He used a figure which, taken
literally, declares the absolute impossibility of saving
a rich man, for it is wholly impossible for a camel
to go through a needle's eye. The disciples were
exceedingly amazed, thinking that if it was so diffi-
cult to save a rich man, then no one could be saved.
To this Jesus made reply that what is impossible
with men is possible with God, for all things are
possible with Him. He is simply emphasizing, with
these words, the greatness of God's power ; but the
statement cannot be taken literally any more than
that other in which Jesus tells the Pharisees that
they strain out gnats and swallow camels. It means
that God's power — here to accomplish moral results
— is inconceivably greater than man's. But there is
no suggestion that this power is exerted in any pe-
culiar manner in particular cases. Everywhere God
is father, and everywhere men are urged to become
children of the Father. The fact of fatherhood goes
before and gently constrains men to repentance; but
the act of turning is nevertheless their very own.
Mary chose the good part (Lk. x. 42), and of the
people of Jerusalem Jesus said, " I would . . . but
ye would not " (Lk. xiii. 34).
There is yet one point to be noted, in the teaching of
Jesus, in connection with repentance : that is, it secures
JO THE REVELATION OF JESUS
immediate and full pardon. The conception which
Jesus had of the forgiveness of sins differs from that
of the prophets and psalmists only as His conception
of God differed from theirs. The distinctive char-
acteristic of this conception, which is the essential
fatherhood of God, determines His teaching of for-
giveness. The fatherhood of God involves an abound-
ing willingness to pardon every one who seeks pardon.
This is the peculiarity of Jesus' doctrine of forgiveness
— the joyous readiness of God to grant full pardon,
and to grant it simply for the asking. This truth has
its classic expression in the picture of the father's
reception of the returning son (Lk. xv. 11-32). He
is waiting for him, he runs to meet him, he kisses him
fervently. The son has nothing to offer but a con-
fession of sin ; but this is enough for the father, or
rather the fact that he has his son again is enough.
He was lost ; he was dead as far as his relation to his
father was concerned. Now he has come back, and it
is the restoration of this personal relationship which
makes gladness in the home. We may infer from the
father's language that the son could not possibly have
brought with him anything which would have been
worthy of the slightest consideration in comparison with
the return of his child. It is the son, the son though in
abject poverty, that occasions the father's joy.
So Jesus thought of God in relation to a penitent
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 71
sinner. Other words and facts of the Gospel confirm
the lesson of this story. Thus Jesus tells His disciples
to forgive a penitent brother until seventy times seven
(Mt. xviii. 22). What, then, in His thought, must be
the divine willingness to pardon ! And this willingness
of God is further seen in Jesus Himself, for He prom-
ises rest to all who simply come to Him (Mt. xi. 28), and
shows not the slightest hesitation in opening Paradise
to a dying robber who casts himself in penitence upon
His loving pity (Lk. xxiii. 40-43). This abundant
willingness of God to pardon is not lessened by that
obscure word of Jesus in regard to an everlasting sin
(Mk. iii. 28-30; Mt. xii. 31-32 ; Lk. xii. 10). Jesus does
not intimate that the scribes, to whom He was speak-
ing, might dye themselves so deeply in sin as to make
God unwilling to forgive them. He says that they are
in danger of committing the sin of blasphemy against
the Holy Spirit, and that this sin hath not forgiveness ;
but the nature of this sin, as far as it can be inferred
from the context, suggests, as the reason why it is not
forgiven, a lack of penitence on man's part rather than
lack of willingness in God to pardon. For it is implied
that* blasphemy against the Spirit, unlike blasphemy
against the Son of man, has no excuse of ignorance.
It is blasphemy against what is recognized by the soul
as th3 very light and truth of God. It is ascribing to
Satan what one knows to be divine. Now it is easier
72 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
to believe that a soul which has fallen to such a depth
of depravity is unable to turn in penitence to God than
that God is unwilling to forgive so heinous a sin.
Therefore, this saying cannot be allowed to limit God's
willingness to pardon.
We have seen that Jesus thought of the kingdom of
heaven as being, primarily, the reign of God in the
heart. He announced that kingdom as at
b. Receiving
the kingdom hand> and later declared to the Pharisees
of heaven.
that it was among them, because He was
conscious that it was completely realized in Himself.
Therefore His conception of receiving the kingdom
of God was of necessity dominated by the personal
idea. Believing the Gospel, or receiving the kingdom
of God, which is an equivalent expression, meant hear-
ing His word and doing it (Mt. vii. 24). This thought
is deeply impressed upon the Synoptic Gospels, though
Jesus did not, according to these writings, make a
verbal and public claim to Messiahship till near the
close of His ministry. Thus, for example, He said that
one who was but little in the kingdom of heaven was
greater than John the Baptist (Mt. xi. 11), because one
who was but little there, nevertheless, received. Him
as the bringer of that kingdom, while the Baptist
was questioning in that hour whether Jesus was really
the "coming one." Again, confessing Christ or being
ashamed of Him and His words are the facts which
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 73
determine the future of each spirit (Mk. viii. 38; Lk.
xii. 8-9). The greatest calamity that can befall a man
is to cause one who believes in Christ to stumble
(Mk. ix. 42). Of the significance of this personal
claim we shall speak in another connection, but it is
mentioned here as helping to illustrate Jesus' concep-
tion of receiving the kingdom of God or believing in
the Gospel.
We have said that, in the thought of Jesus, to
receive the kingdom of heaven means to hear and
do His word. He lays stress on this practical aspect
of the subject (Mt. vii. 21, 24). He alone believes
the word of Jesus who actually does it. To say
" Lord, Lord " ; to prophesy in His name ; to eat
and drink in His presence ; even to cast out demons
and do mighty works in His name, — these things
are not believing in Him (Mt. vii. 21-23; Lk. xiii. 26-
27). To do these things is not necessarily to do His
word. That word is spiritual, and seeks control of
the entire inner life. Men may prophesy and do
mighty works in His name, and yet be workers of
iniquity. This view of faith, which regards it practi-
cally as the doing of Christ's word, gives prominence
to the will of man. For the word of Jesus, which
calls men to the acceptance of the divine rule and
the doing of the divine will, is a word that calls for
radical self-surrender, and this is ever a supreme act
74 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
of the will. It carries the whole man, intellect and
heart, but it gives prominence to the will. It is
plain that this view of faith which Jesus had is
entirely practical and intelligible.
There are two points in regard to the reception
of the kingdom of God which Jesus emphasizes.
First, it must be received in humility. The first beati-
tude of Jesus is for the poor in spirit (Mt. v. 3),
those who do not with the Pharisee recount their
virtues before the Lord, but who stand afar off from
the altar, who do not lift up so much as their eyes
to heaven, and who smite the breast, saying, " God,
be merciful to me the sinner" (Lk. xviii. 9-14). The
first instance of faith so great that it surprised Jesus
was faith which was accompanied by equally remarka-
ble humility. " I am not worthy," said the centurion,
" that thou shouldest come under my roof " (Mt. viii. 8,
10). Jesus recognized with thanksgiving that it was
the good pleasure of God to reveal the things of the
Gospel to "babes" and* to hide them from the "wise"
and "understanding" (Mt. xi. 25). The "babes"
were His disciples, men who did not take offence
at His lowly appearance, as did the people of Nazareth
(Mk. vi. 3), and who did not think themselves wiser
than He.
The same condition of receiving the kingdom of
God is contained in His words to the disciples when
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 75
they wished to turn away the children who had been
brought for the Master's blessing. " Whosoever shall
not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall
in no wise enter therein " (Mk. x. 15). With this say-
ing we may associate the words and deed with which
He rebuked the disciples' desire to be first. He em-
braced a little child, and said that to receive a little
child in His name was to receive Him, and so to re-
ceive the Father (Mk. ix. 36-37; Lk. ix. 48); and
unless they turned from their selfish striving and
became as little children, they should not enter the
kingdom of heaven (Mt. xviii. 3). To receive the
kingdom of God as a little child is just to receive it
as a gift, simply and joyously, with no vain thought
of deserving it ; 2 and it is that spirit which Jesus sym-
bolically commended when He embraced a little child.
Once and again the Lord set forth this same truth in
the proverbial saying, that he who exalts himself shall
be humbled, and he who humbles himself shall be
exalted (Lk. xviii. 14; Mt. xxiii. 12). It is seen
also in the story of the Lost Son, for he purposes
to ask his father to receive him as one of his hired
servants {Lk. xv. 19). This insistence that the king-
dom of heaven must be received in humility is in
keeping with Jesus' conception of man's ill desert.
1 Comp. Bousset, Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judenthtim,
P- 45-
76 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
The lost son, lost and dead to his father, is His type
of every sinner. When He speaks to the scribes and
Pharisees of the ninety and nine righteous persons
who need no repentance, that is irony ; for in regard
to these same scribes and Pharisees to whom He
thus refers, He elsewhere said that the publicans and
harlots would enter the kingdom of God sooner than
they (Mt. xxi. 31); and He also told His disciples
that unless their righteousness should exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, they
should by no means enter the kingdom of heaven
(Mt. v. 20).
The man whose spirit Jesus holds up as a model
is the man who said, "God, be merciful to me the
sinner." Jesus regarded this as the only right spirit,
because that which He came to seek was lost (Lk.
xix. 10). He refers to all who do not heed His word
as dead, that is, dead toward God, morally and re-
ligiously dead (Lk. ix. 60). But when Jesus says
that He came to seek that which was lost, we cannot
infer that He thought of all men as being equally bad
and equally far from His kingdom. In His own ex-
perience, which we may probably see reflected in the
parable of the Sower, He had found hard soil, rocky
soil, impure soil, and also good soil of different degrees
of fertility (Mk. iv. 1-20). When He sent out the
twelve and the seventy, He anticipated that they would
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN JJ
find a son of peace in one house and not in another
(Lk. x. 6). These sons of peace need His message :
so much is taken for granted ; but they are inwardly
inclined toward Him and His kingdom. Some of
them are near (Mk. xii. 34); some, it may be, at the
very door. There is a vast gulf between them and
such other persons as persecute His messengers
and persecute Him. The kingdom was equally
near to all, but all were not equally near to the
kingdom.
A second condition of receiving the kingdom of
heaven is that a man must receive it as the one tiring
needful, as the hid treasure and the pearl of great price
for which he may rationally sell all that he has (Mt.
xiii. 44-46 ; Lk. x. 38-42). Jesus knew by experi-
ence that the rule of God in the heart was the supreme
good, and He taught that it must be received as such.
A man must think of it rightly in order to receive it
truly. Jesus called upon men to make sacrifices and
endure struggles commensurate with the value of the
kingdom which they sought. They must seek that
kingdom in preference to food and raiment and the
other things of the earthly life (Mt. vi. 25-34). They
must henceforth find the centre of their desire in that
kingdom and not in themselves. They must deny
themselves. They must bear their cross daily after
Him; that is, they must be ready to be crucified for
yS THE REVELATION OF JESUS
His sake (Lk. ix. 23).1 The criminal customarily
bore his cross to the place of execution (Jn. xix. 17).
Hence the demand of Jesus was that His disciples
should be willing to make the last sacrifice for the
kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever was held as a good
must be held in subordination to that kingdom.
Father, mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters,
yea, and life itself, must be hated in comparison with
one's love for the kingdom of heaven (Lk. xiv. 26).
One must renounce all that one has in order to be a
disciple unto the kingdom of God ; for that kingdom
is the rule of God, and the rule of God excludes all
other rule in and over the soul of man (Lk. xiv. 33).
The demand that was made on the rich young ruler,
to sell all that he had, was made in principle in the
case of every one who was called to the kingdom
(Mk. x. 21).
It is here, in connection with entrance into the
kingdom of heaven, that Jesus' references to wealth
chiefly belong. Wealth is not discussed for its own
sake. That is quite plain in the case of the young
ruler who failed to respond to the summons of Jesus
to give away his property and follow Him (Mk. x.
17-31). His refusal led Jesus to remark on the diffi-
culty of a rich man's entering into the kingdom of
heaven ; but the story contains no word or suggestion
1 Comp. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 379, foot-note.
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
79
on the possession of riches by those who are already
in that kingdom. Jesus loved the young man, and
spoke of only one thing which he lacked, and that,
as the sequel shows, was an undue attachment to his
wealth. Had his attachment to Jesus been para-
mount, there is no reason to suppose that he would
have been asked to sell his goods. No such demand
was made on James and John, who belonged to a
family of means (Mk. i. 20), or on Joanna, Mary
Magdalene, and Susanna, who, with Salome and other
women, contributed to the support of Jesus and His
disciples (Mk. xv. 40-41 ; Lk. viii. 2-3). Zacchagus
was probably a wealthy man ; but, unlike the young
ruler, he was ready to accept Jesus, and accordingly
he brought his wealth with him as he came into the
circle of disciples, and began at once to use it in the
service of the kingdom (Lk. xix. 8-9). His wealth
may or may not have been the "mammon of unright-
eousness" (Lk. xvi. 1-13); but in any case, after he
met Jesus, it was his servant and not his master. But
although ZacchGeus brought his riches into the king-
dom of heaven, Jesus taught that it was difficult
for a man in his condition to enter the kingdom —
not indeed because of any antagonism between the
principles of the kingdom and wealth, but simply
because, as a rule, the man who has wealth is not
likely to feel such a need of the kingdom that he
SO THE REVELATION OF JESUS
is willing to put it before his wealth. That was the
case with the young ruler; his wealth absorbed his
affection and made him insensible to the claims of
the heavenly kingdom. And it is just this fatal fas-
cination of wealth that is in the foreground of the
two parables which Jesus spoke concerning rich men.
In one case, there came with the increase of riches
only the thought of more selfish pleasure and ease
(Lk. xii. 16-21); and in the other case is illustrated
the power of riches to make one insensible to the
claims of human suffering (Lk. xvi. 1 9—3 1 ). But
both parables were addressed to men of the world,
not to the disciples of Jesus ; and they were addressed
to men of the world who were lovers of money and
inclined toward covetousness (Lk. xvi. 14; xii. 13-15).
When Jesus told His disciples not to lay up treasures
on earth (Mt. vi. 19-21; Lk. xii. 33), but to lay up
treasures in heaven, and when, according to Luke,
He spoke a beatitude for the poor and hungry, and
pronounced a woe on those who are rich and full
(Lk. vi. 20-21, 24-25), He sought to turn their
thought to the chief thing and to magnify the riches
of His kingdom.1 The statement is relative, as when
He says that one cannot be His disciple except one
hates father and mother (Lk. xiv. 26). This sig-
nifies that the supreme thought should be on the
1 Comp. Wendt, Die I.chre Jesn, ii. 1 67-168.
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 8 I
treasures in heaven, not on earthly treasures ; the
supreme love must be for Jesus, not for father and
mother. But as Jesus did not teach His disciples to
hate father and mother, so neither did He teach
them that it is wrong in itself to lay up treasures
on earth. Riches are dangerous for men of the
world and deceitful for those who have the seed
of the Gospel mixed with thorn-seed in their hearts
(Mk. iv. 18-19); but Jesus has no specific teaching
in regard to the possession of wealth by those who
are truly members of His kingdom. Therefore we
repeat that the references of Jesus to wealth, except
those which use it simply as an illustration, are in
connection with the thought of entering His king-
dom. Hence we can no more appeal to the teaching
or life of Jesus in support of any theory of wealth
or its proper use than we can appeal to Him for
specific instructions regarding any phase of the out-
ward life. He does not give such instructions ; He
is not a legislator. He aims to make men sons of
God and brothers to their fellow-men, and assumes
that when they have this right fundamental attitude,
when He has inspired them with His spirit, they can
be trusted to solve the problems of their outward life.
We have noticed some of the passages which teach
that, in the thought of Jesus, one cannot truly receive the
kingdom of heaven unless one receives it as the highest
G
82 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
good, the one thing needful. It is another expression
of this thought when Jesus speaks of the way of the
kingdom as narrow (Mt. vii. 13-14), and calls on His
hearers to make strenuous efforts to enter (Lk. xiii.
24). Here belongs also the word with which Jesus
checked an ardent candidate for discipleship when He
told him that the Son of man, less favored than the
foxes and the birds, had not where to lay His head
(Mt. viii. 20). One who would follow Him must have
the resolution to face privation and suffering.
The fourth Gospel differs somewhat from the Synop-
tists, at least formally, on the subject of entering into life.
c The Fewer aspects of it are touched, some new
conception of ones appear, and one aspect on which the
entering life. syn0ptists do not dwell is here magnified
1. Believing J _
in Jesus. both in the words of Jesus and in those of
the evangelist. Repentance, forgiveness of sins, and
that complete devotion to the kingdom of God which
is emphasized in the Synoptists do not directly appear
in John, while believing in Jesus is here an almost con-
stant theme. Entering into the kingdom of heaven
is an expression which occurs but once : the King of
the kingdom engrosses the evangelist's attention. The
attitude toward this King, which secures life, is the
attitude of belief, or, since the noun is not used in John,
we will say the attitude of believing. This word is
frequently used in an absolute sense, no object being
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 83
expressed. Thus " he that believeth hath eternal life "
(Jn. vi. 47), and " blessed are they that have not seen
and yet have believed" (Jn. xx. 29). But it is plain
what the evangelist thinks of as the object of the verb
in these passages. " To believe " means always to be-
lieve that Jesus is the Messiah. This follows both from
the multitude of passages in which the expressed object
of belief is Christ, and from those in which believing
and believing in Christ occur in close proximity, as
interchangeable terms (Jn. hi. 15-16; v. 43-44; ix.
35, 38, etc.). It follows also from the fact that no
other object of believing is anywhere expressed which
could be supplied in the passages where the verb is
employed independently. For though in a single case
the passing out of death into life is made to depend
upon believing in God, it does not depend upon this
alone, apart from Christ. For Jesus says, " He that
heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me,
hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but
hath passed out of death into life " (Jn. v. 24). Thus
it is plain that belief in God, in this passage, is belief
in Him as the one who sent Jesus. That is something
quite different from an abstract belief in the Divine
Being irrespective of Jesus. In another passage Jesus
declares that he who believes in Him believes not
in Him, but in the one who sent Him (Jn. xii. 44);
that is to say, he who believes in Jesus thereby believes
84 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
in God: to accept Jesus as the Messiah shows a true
faith in God (Jn. v. 23).
So when the fourth Gospel speaks of believing,
without expressing an object, the author always thinks
of the Messiahship of Jesus. This independent use of
the term believe, as though in the sphere of religion there
were only one thing to be believed, is a striking illustra-
tion of the great importance which the fourth Gospel
attaches to belief in Jesus.
The content of the word believe is learned from the
terms which are employed in parallelism with it. Thus,
in the first place, Jesus uses the word receive as equal
to believe. " I am come in my Father's name, and ye
receive me not. . . . How can ye believe" etc. (Jn.
v. 43-44). Hence to receive Him in His claims, to
take Him as Messiah and Saviour, is a practical defini-
tion of believing in Him. Again Jesus uses the ex-
pression coming to Him as synonymous with believing
on Him (Jn. vi. 35). He tells the Jews that they will
not come to Him that they may have life (Jn. v. 40),
and that all which the Father gives Him shall come
to Him (Jn. vi. 37). It is plain that coming to Him is
a concrete expression for believing on Him, for Jesus
says : "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and
drink. He that believeth on me," etc. (Jn. vii. 37-38).
The next figurative description of believing in Jesus
suggests, more forcibly than the last, its deep spiritual
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 85
significance. It is • the figure of a birth from above,
used only in the conversation with Nicodemus (Jn. iii.
3, 7). This birth, like believing in Jesus, is said to be
necessary to entrance into the kingdom. Now if it is
thus necessary, and yet is mentioned but once in all
the records, it is antecedently probable that it means
essentially the same thing as believing in Jesus, for this
is the only other act which is said to be necessary to
salvation, and it is not probable that a necessary con-
dition of salvation would be mentioned only a single
time. Analysis of the passage fully establishes this
view. The birth from above is later described as a
birth out of ivater and the Spirit (Jn. iii. 5), or simply
as a birth out of the Spirit (Jn. iii. 6, 8). Now a birth
out of water could at that time have referred only to
water-baptism like that of John, for neither Jesus nor
His disciples had yet baptized.1 And such a reference
is quite adequate to the needs of the context. For a
baptism with water symbolized the putting away of sin,
and the statement of Jesus, that a man must be born
of water in order to enter the kingdom of heaven,
does not carry our thought beyond such a voluntary
act of putting away sin. But this putting away of
1 Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 402, foot-note, holds that the reference to
water-baptism was not originally in the narrative, but was added by the
author of the Gospel, and with direct reference to Christian baptism. I see
no sufficient ground for rejecting the words " born of water," and hold that,
if original, it would be an anachronism to refer them to Christian baptism.
86 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
sin, or, as Paul would say, a dying unto sin, is surely
involved in believing on Jesus, for one cannot accept
Him without renouncing sin. Furthermore, since the
birth out of water refers to the cleansing from sin by
way of water-baptism, the birth from the Spirit is
doubtless to be identified with what the Baptist foretold
as Baptism with the Holy Spirit, which was to be
accomplished by the Messiah (Mk. i. 8; Mt. iii. u;
Lk. iii. 16). But this Messianic baptism with the
Holy Spirit is also implied in believing on Jesus.
For as the birth out of water refers to the putting
away of sin, so the birth out of the Spirit refers
to a consecration of the life to God. One born of
the Spirit is spiritual (Jn. iii. 6). But consecra-
tion to God is plainly involved in believing on Jesus ;
it is the great positive element therein. For to be-
lieve Him is to receive Him, and to make His will
our law, which is another way of describing complete
consecration to Him. Therefore it seems plain that
the birth from above involves nothing essential that
is not contained in the conception of believing in Jesus.
The man who believes in Jesus is, by virtue of that
fact, born from above. There is a new life in him.
That belief itself is a veritable birth from above, for
it involves a turning from sin and self, and a consecra-
tion to the will of Jesus. This figure of birth may,
however, be regarded as emphasizing the divine coop-
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 87
eration in the act of believing in Jesus, since the figure
involves the necessity of the Spirit's aid. At this
point the thought of the expression is analogous to
that drawing of the Father which is said to be neces-
sary to faith in Jesus (Jn. vi. 44).
There is yet another figure which conveys the
thought of believing in Jesus, namely, that of eating
Him, or eating His flesh and drinking His blood (Jn.
vi. 51-58). Jesus had told His hearers that the work
of God was that they should believe on Him whom God
had sent (Jn. vi. 29); and then He explained this
one essential work and brought out its inward signifi-
cance by the figure of eating and drinking Himself.
They are to eat the bread which came out of heaven,
and He is that bread. And then putting His thought
in a more vivid and forcible way, He says that they
are to eat His flesh and drink His blood, or they are
to eat Him (Jn. vi. 57).1 This figure of eating and
drinking the flesh and blood of Jesus shows clearly the
comprehensive and vital meaning which the fourth
Gospel attaches to believing in Jesus. It is spiritual
appropriation of Him as the Messiah sent from God.
Therefore it involves conviction of the understanding, al-
1 We have essentially the same thought in the Synoptic account of the
institution of the Lord's Supper (Mk. xiv. 22-24) '■> but the introduction of
this teaching into the address in Capernaum, six months before the last
Passover, is perhaps due to the author of the Gospel.
88 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
legiance of the will, and devotion of the heart. He who
thus believes has indeed passed out of death into life ;
he is born from above, or born of water and the Spirit.
The Gospel of John has much to say of the impor-
tance of knowledge, both in connection with the entrance
2. The place mto hfe and with the development of life in
ofln°fVledr the heart. Thus, to know the Father as
in the fourth '
Gospel. the on]y true qocj and t0 know Jesus Christ
whom He sent, is eternal life (Jn. xvii. 3 ; comp. xii.
50). The disciples are characterized as those who
know Jesus as the Messiah (Jn. xvii. 8, 25), and the
world persecutes the disciples because it does not
know the Father nor Jesus (Jn. xvi. 3). Accord-
ingly one is thought of as passing out of the world
into the discipleship of Jesus, out of death into life,
by means of a certain knowledge of God and of Christ.
This conception is correlative to that other one, promi-
nent in the fourth Gospel, that the mission of Christ
to the world was to make the Father known (Jn. v.
19-20; xiv. 7, 10; xv. 15; xvii. 3). If He came to
make the Father known, then to accept the knowl-
edge which He brought is to accept His mission and
become His disciples.
This knowledge of which the fourth Gospel speaks
is not simply intellectual : it is eminently moral and
religious. This appears, in the first place, in the fact
that its attainment is morally conditioned. It is only
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 89
to the man who has a will to do the teaching, that the
teaching is made known (Jn. vii. 17). Again, Jesus
said to the hostile Jews, " Ye both know me and know
whence I am" (Jn. vii. 28), and again, "Ye know
neither me nor my Father" (Jn. viii. 19), that is to
say, they knew Jesus as a carpenter from Nazareth,
but did not know Him as the Messiah. The entrance
of any spiritual knowledge was made impossible by
their hostility. The name of the Father could be made
known only to the men whom the Father had given to
Jesus, the men who had been won by His love and
light (Jn. xvii. 6). In like manner, when Jesus says
that he who is of God heareth the words of God (Jn.
viii. 47), and he that doeth the truth cometh to the light
(Jn. hi. 21), it is plain that the knowledge which He
gives is spiritually conditioned.
Further, the moral and religious character of the
knowledge of which the fourth Gospel speaks appears
in the fact that its object is the Messiah, or God as
revealed in the Messiah (Jn. xvi. 3 ; xvii. 3), and
that it sets a man free from sin (Jn. viii. 32, 34).
It is a knowledge that sanctifies (Jn. xvii. 17), and,
therefore, Jesus anticipates that as He continues to
reveal the Father to His disciples, the love of God wil]
abide in them more and more richly (Jn. xvii. 26).
Plainly, then, this knowledge, which conditions en-
trance into life, is not thought of as a mere intellectual
QO THE REVELATION OF JESUS
acquisition, but as a moral and religious perception,
a spiritual knowledge which involves the entire man,
will and heart no less than understanding. Hence,
this conception of knowledge is closely related to the
Johannean conception of believing. Both are compre-
hensive spiritual acts ; but one gives a certain promi-
nence to the understanding, while the other gives a
similar prominence to the will ; from the standpoint
of the former the Gospel appears as a revelation, from
that of the latter it appears rather as an invitation and
a claim to allegiance.1
The Johannean conception of entering into life has
one further peculiarity, which is found in the expres-
sions drawn by the Father and given by the
3. Drawn or
given by the Father. " No man can come to me," said
Jesus, " except the Father which sent me
drazv him." "This is the will of the Father, that of
all which He hath given me I should lose nothing "
(Jn. vi. 39, 44, 65). Four times in the prayer of the
seventeenth chapter of John Jesus refers to His
disciples as those who had been given to Him by
the Father (vs. 2, 6, 9, 24), and employs the same
language on one other occasion (Jn. x. 29). The
drawing by the Father which is referred to in Jn.
1 The Synoptic narrative preserves one saying of Jesus which makes
salvation depend upon the knowledge of God which Jesus alone gives,
Mk. xi. 27 j Lk. ix. 22.
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
91
vi. 44 is evidently a drawing which is accomplished
through God's word (Jn. vi. 45). It is an effectual
spiritual influence of His word upon the heart It is
not simply an influence, for the word of the Old Tes-
tament had influence of some sort on all the Jews
whom Jesus addressed, but few of them were drawn
to Him thereby. Those who heard from the Father
and also learned, these were drawn (Jn. vi. 45), and
by virtue of that very fact they were also given to
Jesus.
The thought of this language is not that of a decree,
for this does not accord with the figure of drawing, nor
is it consonant with Jn. vi. 37, which represents the
giving as something which takes place in the present,
and from time to time. The expression refers rather
to the working of God's Spirit upon the hearts of men,
which they either welcome or resist. The Jews who
were hostile toward Jesus had indeed heard from the
Father in the Old Testament, but they had not really
welcomed His influence, and, therefore, had not been
drawn by Him. They who do the truth (Jn. iii. 21),
whether it comes to them through the Old Testament
or along other channels are, as appears from that very
fact, drawn of God. The divine drazving is inferred
from the fact that they are moving toward God, and
this is only another way of saying that they do the
truth. God is not simply trying to draw them, which
92 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
is true of His relation to all men (Jn. iii. 16), but
they are actually drawn of Him. Now the position
of Jesus is that they who are moving toward God will
surely accept Him as the Messiah, because He mani-
fests God. If they have welcomed the light of God
which has reached them through Nature or the Old
Testament, they will welcome Jesus because He brings
that light, and brings it in a hitherto unknown fulness.
They are sure to welcome Him when they know Him.
"Every one who is of the truth heareth my voice"
(Jn. xviii. 37).
We pass now from the thought of Jesus on the sub-
ject of entering into the kingdom of heaven to the
11. Jesus' great word which dominates the life of that
righteous" ° kingdom, the word righteousness. It is plain,
^The from a survey °f tne Synoptic Gospels, that
comprehen- t^e term righteousness does not stand for
siveness of
the term. any particular aspect of character and life, but
rather for a general condition. The righteous are not
those who touch the divine law at a single point, or on
a single side of their nature, but those who conform to
that law at all points and on every side of their nature.
Thus, the word is used to designate the redeemed
(Mt. xiii. 43 ; xxv. 37), where it manifestly describes
an acceptable condition of the entire man. When
Jesus tells His hearers that unless their righteousness
exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees they shall
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 93
in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven, He
does not refer to any particular virtue, but to the en-
tire moral and religious life (Mt. v. 20). His disciples
must apprehend and fulfil the divine will more per-
fectly than had the scribes and Pharisees.
Again, the term is used comprehensively when Jesus
tells His disciples to beware of making a parade of
their righteousness before men, as the Pharisees did
(Mt. vi. 1). What they paraded was their entire re-
ligious life,1 its supposed perfection at every point.
They believed perfection to consist in the observance
of all the traditional law, and that observance they
claimed to fulfil. When Jesus exhorts His followers
to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,
He holds up before them the ideal of true life in its
length and breadth and depth and height (Mt. vi. 33).
This comprehensive use of the word righteousness
was not new with Jesus. We meet it also in the Old
Testament. Righteousness is there sometimes used
as the compendium of all the qualities which belong
to complete manhood in the sight of God. Thus in
the parable of Balaam we read, —
" Let me die the death of the righteous.
And let my last end be like his" (Num. xxiii. 10).
1 The word righteousness, in the Talmudic sense of alms, is later
than the New Testament. See Weber, Die Lehren des Talmuds,
P- 273.
94 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Again, the righteous man is set in contrast with the
ungodly (Ps. i. 6) and with the wicked (Is. iii. io-ii),
and thus the word is plainly used in a general sense.
But the distinctive element in Jesus' conception of
righteousness is spirituality. This element, also, is not
b The wholly new, for the Old Testament prophets
spirituality of ancj pSaimists often exalt the inward above
righteous- x
ness. the outward ; but the teaching of Jesus is
marked off from that of the Old Testament by the
greater prominence which it gives to the spirituality of
righteousness. This is manifest, first, in the frequency
of Christ's references to the subject. He preached the
kingdom of heaven as the divine rule in the heart of
man in contrast to an outward and political kingdom.
The beatitudes of His teaching were nearly all for
states of the heart. He summarized Law and prophets
in the one word love (Mk. xii. 28-34). His ideal char-
acters were those which are ideal to the Father who
sees in secret (Mt. vi. 1, 4, 6, 18).
But still more does the polemic of Jesus against the
merely external righteousness of scribes and Pharisees
serve to bring out into strong light His own conception.
Their righteousness is not sufficient even to secure ad-
mission to the kingdom of heaven, much less to make
one great in it, as they fancied (Mt. v. 20). The sin-
ful woman whose penitent love covered the feet of
Jesus with tears and kisses was exalted above Simon,
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 95
the host, who could doubtless have said regarding the
commandments, as did the young ruler, "All these
things have I observed from my youth up (Lk. vii.
36-50; Mk. x. 20). Publicans and harlots who had
the beginning of an inward religion were destined,
according to Jesus, to enter the kingdom of heaven
before the Pharisees, who had a religion that was
outwardly perfect but nothing more (Mt. xxi. 31).
One penitent sinner causes more joy in heaven than
ninety and nine righteous persons who need no re-
pentance (Lk. xv. 7). The publican in the parable
who brought to God nothing but his sinfulness was
accepted, while the Pharisee who fasted twice a week
and gave tithes of all that he had acquired, in both
particulars going far beyond the actual requirements
of the Law, was not justified (Lk. xviii. 14). The
most vehement denunciations uttered by Jesus were
denunciations of hypocrisy in religion. Because of
this hypocrisy, scribes and Pharisees were whited
sepulchres, serpents, offspring of vipers, and very
sons of Gehenna (Mt. xxiii. 15, 27, 33). Yet these
men were so devoted to their religion that they com-
passed sea and land to make one proselyte to Juda-
ism (Mt. xxiii. 15); they were so scrupulous that they
tithed mint and anise and cummin (Mt. xxiii. 23);
they built the sepulchres of the prophets (Mt. xxiii.
29); they made long prayers (Mk. xii. 40); and they
g6 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
fasted often with sad and disfigured faces (Mt. vi.
16; Lk. xviii. 12). Thus the externalization of their
religion made them worse than the heathen, in the
estimation of Jesus.
Again, the new emphasis placed by Jesus upon the
inward character of righteousness is seen in His pene-
tration to the hidden purpose of the heart, and making
this the sole test. Thus, anger exposes to judgment no
less than the act of murder (Mt. v. 21-22). Adultery
may be committed by a look (Mt. v. 28). The good
deeds which the Father sees are those which are done
in secret (Mt. vi. 3-4), and the prayers which He hears
are those of the inner chamber (Mt. vi. 6). The fast
that is acceptable to Him is that which men do not see
(Mt. vi. 17). The kingdom of heaven does not come
with observation ; it comes invisibly, for it is itself invisi-
ble. At the last day those who, without heart, have
prophesied in the name of Jesus and in His name have
done mighty deeds, will be rejected ; while those who
have shown the loving spirit of Jesus, without thought of
reward and in the most unnoticed ways, are summoned
to inherit the everlasting kingdom (Mt. xxv. 31-46).
Thus in His conception of righteousness Jesus did
not set up a new ideal, but gave a new and perfect
enforcement and illustration of an old ideal. This
enforcement, however, as compared with the concep-
tions of scribes and Pharisees, amounted to a complete
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 97
revolution. His thought was to theirs as spirit is to
form, and as a living simple faith to a complex but
dead religiosity.
It has been shown that the characteristic element in
Jesus' teaching of righteousness was its emphasis on
spirituality. This leads to the question of His c The
attitude toward the statutory legislation of the ^shsteo0fuTs;sus
Old Testament, which in its interpretation by and the Law.
1. The Law
the scribes made up the greater part of the re- m the life of
ligious life of His day. Early in the Galilean Jesi
ministry it was observed that the disciples of Jesus did
not keep the ordinary fasts, and this fact appeared like
a questionable new departure not only" to the Pharisees
but also to the disciples of John the Baptist (Mk.
ii. 18). The Son of man had come eating and drinking,
and His disciples naturally imitated His example (Mt.
xi. 19). But the Pharisees fasted twice in the week, and
apparently John's disciples did the same. Hence the
question which they brought to Jesus. The reply of
Jesus involved two points. First, fasting is an expres-
sion of sorrow of heart ; and since the present is a time
of joy for His disciples, fasting would be as much out
of place as weeping at a wedding feast. Secondly, the
reason why He does not protest against the practice of
the Pharisees and the disciples of John is the fact that
their practice is in logical accord with their principles.
It would be destructive to urge upon them the liberties
98 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
of His disciples while they have not His disciples' joy.
It would be like putting a piece of unfulled cloth upon
an old garment, or new wine into old skins. But Jesus
intimated that a time was approaching when it would
be appropriate for His disciples to fast. That time of
sorrow which is here darkly hinted at began when Jesus
was crucified and continued until the morning of the
resurrection. After that the " bridegroom " was again
with the " children of the bridechamber," and the occa-
sion for fasting was gone. Thus Jesus did not strictly
abolish all fasting for His disciples, but He taught that
so long as they had Him with them, they did right
in disregarding this institution. Yet the principle here
involved was not hostile to the Old Testament Law,
which enjoined a single day of fasting as an expression
of sorrow of heart (Lev. xvi. 29); but it virtually ful-
filled that Law by its removal, through the fellowship
of Jesus, of the inward ground of fasting.
The bitterest opposition of the scribes toward Jesus
was occasioned by what they regarded as a violation
of the Sabbath. Their legislation regarding this day
was their masterpiece of so-called interpretation of the
Mosaic law. This legislation Jesus entirely ignored.
He allowed His disciples to pluck heads of grain on the
Sabbath, and rub it in their hands in order that they
might eat it (Mk. ii. 23). When His conduct was
challenged, He justified it by an appeal to the Scrip-
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 99
tures. The example of David, which the Old Testa-
ment silently approves, was cited as an apology for
the act of His disciples. If David's hunger was a
sufficient excuse for his taking the shew-bread, which
only the priests might eat, then the disciples of Jesus
were justified, for they also ate to satisfy hunger.
Moreover, if this were not true, if they were not justified
in their act, then they would be in bondage to the Sab-
bath as the scribes were ; and thus the purpose of God
in the institution of the day would be defeated, for His
purpose was that the day should serve man, not man
the day (Mk. ii. 27).
Again, Jesus was accused of violating the law of
the Sabbath because He healed the sick on that
day. Three instances are recorded, in two of which
the healing was in a synagogue, and in one in the
house of a Pharisee (Mk. ii. 23-28 ; iii. 1-6 ; Lk.
xiii. 10-17; xiv. 1-6). In the first case He healed a
withered hand, and justified His act on the ground
that it is right to do good on the Sabbath. Here the
appeal is directly to their moral sense. In the second
case He healed a deformed woman, and justified the
act by the practice of His critics. They did not
hesitate to rescue an ox or an ass that had fallen into
a pit : much less should He hesitate to rescue this
daughter of Abraham from the bondage of Satan.
This same line of argument was used in the third
I0O THE REVELATION OF JESUS
case of Sabbath healing. Thus Jesus justified His
conduct on the Sabbath both by Scripture and reason.
Another notable accusation against Jesus was that
He neglected ceremonial cleansing. His disciples did
not wash their hands before eating, that is, did not
regularly perform this ablution as a religious duty
(Mk. vii. 1-23). Therefore the Pharisees held Jesus
to account for violating the tradition of the elders.
In their eyes this tradition was based on the Law, and
was no less sacred than that. Jesus replied that the
tradition of the elders was radically opposed to the
commandment of God, for in holding one they left
the other. Then He declared to the people, in the
hearing of the Pharisees, that a man is defiled by
that which comes from within him, and not by that
which enters him from without. If that which enters
a man cannot defile him, then manifestly the touch
of unwashen hands upon that which enters a man
cannot defile him.
Later, Jesus explained to His disciples this saying
which seemed to them obscure and probably also
antagonistic to the Law. He says in His explanation,
that what is from within defiles because it comes
from the heart, and that what is from without cannot
defile because it does not enter into the heart. Thus
it is plain that He was thinking of moral purity, and
therefore was not necessarily in conflict with the
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN iqi
Levitical law. He did not declare that all sorts of
food are Levitically clean;1 indeed, He did not touch
the matter of Levitical cleanness at all, but He at
once struck deeper, to that which is clean or unclean
for the heart. Of course we may infer from this that
He considered purity of heart of great value, in com-
parison with which Levitical cleanness was an in-
significant thing ; and accordingly we may say with
Wendt2 that Jesus thereby excluded, in principle, all
ceremonial legislation which aimed at Levitical purity,
from the perfect righteousness which is required for
the kingdom of God. But that is not equivalent to
saying that He attacked the Levitical law, and re-
garded it as a plant which His heavenly Father had
not planted (Mt. xv. 13). The "plant" which His
heavenly Father had not planted was the tradition
of the elders. Not so the Levitical law. Through
this ran a clear religious purpose, and that purpose
was to fit the people of Israel for fellowship with
Israel's holy God.3 This law Jesus did not attack,
but fulfilled. As fulfilled in Him, He doubtless
thought of it as inoperative for His disciples, though
they might continue to observe it for a time through
the force of habit, or out of regard for their brethren,
1 This seems to have been the view of the second evangelist, Mk. vii. 19.
2 See Die I.ehre Jesu, ii. 221-224.
8 Comp. Schultz, Alttestamentliche Theologie, ii. 65-78.
102 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
that they might not offend (Mt. xvii. 24-27). Jesus
never spoke a word that favored a violent break with
the reign of the Law, but left the attitude of His dis-
ciples toward that reign to be determined from within,
with the development of their Christian life and thought.
We have thus far seen that Jesus defended Him-
self against specific charges of being a law-breaker.
He broke the traditions, but not the Law. The narra-
tive of His life represents Him as mindful of the Old
Testament statutes. Thus He commanded the healed
leper to show himself to the priests, and to make the
required offering (Mk. i. 44). Not only so, but He
did this with an air of severity, as though to make
more plain that while He recognized it as His duty
to heal the man, He did not forget the Law. Again,
when He healed the ten lepers, He sent them to the
priests (Lk. xvii. 14). He kept the Passover and
paid the temple-tax (Mk. xiv. 12; Mt. xvii. 24). He
commanded the multitudes to observe all things that
are taught in the Law (Mt. xxiii. 3).
When we turn from the practice of Jesus to His
teaching, we see more clearly and fully what His posi-
2. The Law tion was. And, first, He virtually dis-
teachine of tinguished between the moral and the cere-
jesus. monial elements in the Old Testament,
though He did not do this in a formal way. He
teaches that the weightier matters of the Law are judg-
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 103
ment, mercy, and faith (Mt. xxiii. 23), while the duty
of tithing belongs to the less important things. What
He held to be true in regard to tithing, we must sup-
pose that He held true in regard to all similar out-
ward requirements. They were to be regarded as of
secondary value. Judgment, mercy, and love must be
put first. The outward has its place, until the Mes-
sianic fulfilment, but that place is subordinate. Prophets
and Law in their deepest and most vital messages are
summed up by Him in the word love. The ceremonial
element in comparison with that sinks out of sight.
It does not follow, however, that He denied to the
ceremonial law a divine purpose. He did not. It
was for Him a part of the Law which should not pass
away until wholly accomplished. And since its provi-
dential purpose was akin to that of the moral law, we
may agree with Weiss that Jesus recognized it as of bind-
ing authority,1 and in so far we may say that He made
no distinction between the moral and the ceremonial
law. But at the same time it is plain that He made
a practical distinction between them on the ground
of their intrinsic values, and that He exalted the purely
moral precepts of the Law. This position was really
a reversal of the teaching of the scribes, as Jesus Him-
self saw and declared. They exalted the ceremonial
and ignored the moral.
1 See Lehrbuch der bibl. Tkeologie des N. 7., dritte Auflage, pp. 78-79.
104 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
But, secondly, the attitude of Jesus toward the Law
is best characterized by His word fulfil. He says
that He came not to destroy the old but to fulfil it
(Mt. v. 17). This is the great and unique claim which
He makes. Then He explains how He fulfils the
Law, and His explanation runs on this wise. The
letter of the Law is against murder : He prohibits
anger (Mt. v. 21-22). The letter of the Law is against
adultery : He prohibits the look of lust (Mt. v. 27-28).
The Law allowed divorce, therein falling below the
ideal of Genesis : Jesus goes back to that ideal
(Mk. x. 2-12; Mt. xix. 3-12). The Law allowed
the return of evil for evil : He demands the return
of good for evil (Mt. v. 38). The Law allowed hatred
of an enemy : He required love (Mt. v. 43). But while
the Law allowed hatred of an enemy, it must be re-
membered that, according to Jesus Himself, this same
law at its highest made supreme love of God and equal
love of the neighbor the two great commandments
(Mk. xii. 28-34). So Christ's fulfilment of the Law
is a fulfilment of it as a whole. Such a fulfilment is
consistent with direct opposition to details of the Law's
teaching. Thus, for example, hatred of an enemy, in
support of which isolated passages of the Old Testa-
ment can be cited, is absolutely incompatible with
membership in Christ's kingdom. Again, the con-
cession made by the Law to the hardness of men's
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 105
hearts in the matter of divorce, Jesus does not allow
to continue. He reinstates the primal idea of the in-
dissolubleness of the marriage bond and does away
with the Mosaic legislation. Another illustration of
the point in hand is Christ's prohibition of the oaths
in vogue among the Jews (Mt. v. 33-37).
But while there are thus points at which Jesus is
radically opposed to the Law, He can yet declare that
He is not come to destroy it, and that no jot or
tittle shall pass away till all things be accomplished
(Mt. v. 18).1 For there is a higher and a lower in
the Old Testament itself. There are ideals now seen
and again lost to sight. There are concessions to
the imperfect state of man's development. Jesus ful-
filled the great central aims of .the old revelation, and
in so doing set aside that which was merely temporary.
He saw with perfect spiritual vision that ideal which
was seen only in part by the Old Testament lawgiver
and prophet, and He erected this in all its lofty per-
fection as the standard for every member of His
kingdom. Thus He fulfilled, or made perfect, the
Law : first, in His own blameless life, and also in
His teaching. What the Old Testament struggles
after, He realizes, and realizes in a purely spiritual
1 This is a hyperbolical statement of the permanent value of the Law.
For an attempt to refer it to the Law as completed by Jesus, see Wendt,
Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 342.
106 THE REVELATION . OF JESUS
way. Thus He abolished, in principle, all the cere-
monial of the Law, though he left the actual abolition
of it to be accomplished easily and gradually in the
process of Christian growth.
As we pass from the Synoptists to John, the terms
righteous and righteousness almost entirely disappear,
d% The and a new conception claims our attention.
!hecSh°f When the old terms are found' they have
Gospel. the same content as in the Synoptists (Jn.
xvi. 8 ; xv ii. 25). The new terms are truth (akrjOeia)
and true or genuine (aXrjOivos). The term truth
is plainly akin to the term righteousness, but it
cannot be regarded as strictly identical with it. It
appears that true and truth in the fourth Gospel are
not less than righteous and righteousness. The man
who docs the truth or is of the truth, in the language
of John, is a righteous man, as the Synoptists account
righteousness. For to be of the truth is an expression
that takes one not into the sphere of the intellect
merely, but also into the sphere of the will (Jn. vii.
17; xviii. 37). It is to have a right inclination as
well as a right sight for good and evil. Again, he
who seeks the glory of Him who sent Jesus is true,
and no unrighteousness is in him (Jn. vii. 18). That
is to say, in regard to the purpose of his life, he is
wholly righteous. So when Jesus says that he who
does the truth comes to the light, it is manifest that
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN io/
doing the truth is not less than righteousness (Jn.
iii. 21). The truth which he does is, of course, the
truth which he has. It is not the full truth as revealed
by Jesus, for in that case the Lord would not have
spoken of such an one as coming to the light and
hearing the voice of the Messiah (John iii. 21 ; xviii. 37).
That would no longer be necessary. But what he does
is truth, or it is righteousness : that is its quality.
But while true and truth comprehend all that is
contained in righteous and righteousness, they present
the thought from a different angle, and they have
distinct associations of their own. Thus, in the first
place, while the word righteousness turns our thought
to a moral state, the word truth, as used in John,
brings before us the divine standard. Thus, Jesus
says that the aim of His mission is to bear witness
to the truth (Jn. xviii. 37), and again declares that
He Himself is the truth (Jn. xiv. 6). This truth
makes a man free from sin (Jn. viii. 32), and that
freedom is practical righteousness. Thus truth goes
before, and righteousness follows. Truth is the deliv-
erer, and righteousness the state of deliverance. This
is one point wherein the two terms are not commen-
surate. Again, the word truth differs from the word
righteousness in that it has a more distinct suggestion
of the ideal. It is true that righteousness, completed,
is the ideal of character, but the word does not so
108 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
directly suggest the ideal as is done by the terms
truth and genuine, as used in John. Thus, the evan-
gelist says that the Law was given by Moses, but
truth came by Jesus Christ (Jn. i. 17). He did not
mean that the Law was false. It witnessed concerning
Jesus, and in so far at least was true (Jn. v. 39). But
the truth of Jesus was a larger truth than that of the
Law. The ideal of truth, as the ideal of grace, was
realized in Jesus. Again, this significance of the word
truth appears in Jn. xiv. 6, where Jesus says, "I am
the truth." This is not equivalent to saying that Jesus
was honesty itself. It is not the denial of all falsehood
in His nature and character, but it is the affirmation of
the presence in Him of the full revelation of God's
thought of salvation.
The word genuine has the same suggestion. Jesus
tells the Jews that His Father gives them the true
bread out of heaven (Jn. vi. 32). He does not
thereby affirm that the manna of Moses was not as
truly food as was this which the Father was offering
to them. It was real and satisfying food, in contrast
to the unreal and unsatisfying; but it was for the
body merely. Hence Jesus said that it was not the
true, that is, ideal, bread. It was not such bread as
most fully accords with the idea of the word. The
ideal bread, the highest nourishment that a human
spirit can receive, is Jesus Himself. In like manner,
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
109
Jesus says that He is the true vine (Jn. xv. 1), that
is, the idea of the vine is perfectly illustrated in Him.
Thus He calls God the only true God (Jn. xvii. 3),
which surely means more than saying that God is the
only real God. There was no occasion for Jesus to
affirm that His Father was the only real God, and
that all the other so-called gods were only shadows,
The Jews were not polytheists, and did not need to
be told that their God was the only God in existence,
But the thought of Jesus was far more significant.
The world had not known God, but Jesus had known
Him (Jn. xvii. 25); and now, in the conscious pos-
session of that unique knowledge, He affirms that the
heavenly Father whom He had known is the only being
who fulfils the idea of the word God. He is the
genuine, the ideal, one. Hence it is true in regard to
Him alone, that knowledge of His will is vital to men.
We are to consider, in the next place, how, in the
thought of Jesus, the righteousness of the kingdom will
express itself in the various relationships of in. The
life, and first in relation to God. mtnhThis
The religious life of the kingdom of ^dtion to
heaven is controlled by the fundamental a- The
spirit of the
conception of the personal, ethical fatherhood religious life,
of God. The righteous man is a son of God, and his
relation to God is to be that of an ideal son. His life
is to be directed by regard for a heavenly Father, and
HO THE REVELATION OF JESUS
not according to the letter of a written law. This fact
makes a wide difference between the religious life of
Christ's kingdom and the religious life of the Jews
of Christ's day. It is a fact which continually fur-
nishes fresh inspiration to high moral endeavor, and
creates an atmosphere of freedom which is favorable
to the development of the best character. It greatly
simplifies the religious life of Christ's kingdom since
it substitutes the will of a Father, personally ascer-
tained, in the place of a complex legal system, inter-
preted by scribes and priests.
Jesus does not legislate on the religious life of His
kingdom after the manner of Moses. He pronounces
certain things blessed. He sets up an ideal, and in-
cites His followers to strive toward it. But He issues
no specific statutes for the outward life. His yoke is
not the constraint of Thou shall and Thou shalt not,
but the constraint of a voluntarily assumed submis-
sion to His will, the inward constraint of love and
reverence for a person.
The first of the broad principles laid down by
Jesus regarding the righteous man's relation to God
b. The prin- *s trust. God is worthy of perfect confi-
cipie of trust. dence because He is a perfect father. He
knows the needs of his children, even the least physi-
cal needs (Mt. vi. 32); He is lord of heaven and
earth, and His care extends to the minutest wants of
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN m
His children (Mt. xi. 25; vi. 26; x. 30). Jesus teaches
that God will certainly provide for those who put
their trust in Him. He feeds the birds and arrays
the lilies in beauty, and therefore it cannot be that
He will neglect His human children (Mt. vi. 26, 28).
He is in Himself a father, and hence those who will
receive His care, He cares for with a divine fatherli-
ness. Since, then, God is a father, the first duty of
the members of Christ's kingdom is to trust Him.
This is rather taken for granted by Jesus than made
the subject of formal and definite teaching. His rev-
elation of God as a father, is the final and supreme
ground of trust ; and having made the revelation, He
leaves men, in a large measure, to infer their duty of
trust and to fulfil it. Yet not wholly so ; He gives
some specific suggestions. The disciples are to exer-
cise trust in regard to their personal and daily needs.
They must not be anxious for food, or drink, or rai-
ment. They are of far more value than the birds,
and yet their Father feeds the birds ; and of much
more value than grass which flourishes for a day and
then is burned, and yet their Father clothes this
grass. If He knows what the birds need, and what
will make the grass beautiful, then surely He knows
what the disciples of His Son need. Therefore, they
should drop the anxious care which men of this
world have for these material things, and trusting in
112 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
God, seek His kingdom and His righteousness (Mt.
vi. 32-33). Not to do this, but to say, What shall I
eat? or, What shall I drink? or, Wherewithal shall I
be clothed ? is to be as a Gentile, and as though
one had no heavenly Father.
The disciple is to trust God also in all the needs
of his work. He must not be anxious before gov-
ernors and kings, for the Spirit of His Father will
speak in him (Mt. x. 19-20). He will be called
Beelzebub, and will be treated accordingly (Mt. x. 25),
but he is not to fear the hostility of a world which
can at most destroy his body (Mt. x. 28). It is in
this connection only that Jesus ever speaks of fearing
God (Mt. x. 28). But this fear of God of which He
speaks is consistent with trust in Him as the heavenly
Father, for He is to be feared in view of His power
and not in view of His character. It is because He
is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna, while
a hostile world can destroy the body only — it is be-
cause of His power that the disciples of Jesus, when
tempted to fear the face of man, are exhorted to fear
God. Hence, it appears that the fear of God, of
which Jesus speaks as possible to His disciples, does
not belong at all to the ideal Christian life. It should
spring up in the soul only when the soul is in danger of
going down before the threats and blows of the world.
It is plain from these passages which speak of trust
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 1 1 3
in God that Jesus did not contrast it with knowledge,
but with cowardice and doubt} The one subject on
which Jesus claimed to have unique knowledge was God
(Mt. xi. 27 ; Lk. ix. 22), and this was therefore the
only subject on which He claimed to impart a unique
knowledge to His disciples. From this point of view,
trust in God was surely not thought of by Jesus as be-
ing at all the antithesis of knowledge. The disciple
of Jesus should know God more accurately and com-
pletely than he knows any other being or subject in the
universe. Faith is not contrasted with sight, but with
cowardice (Mk. v. 36), and with doubt regarding the
goodness and faithfulness of God (Mt. vi. 30-34).
This filial trust in God which Jesus expected of His
disciples is in strong contrast with one of the most prom-
inent features of the religious life of the Jews, namely,
trust in meritorious works. The Pharisee of the parable
trusted in his more than perfect fulfilment of the Law
(Lk. xviii. 12). His only trust in God was that God
would keep an honest account of his holy life. The
scribes taught that righteousness was secured in two
ways, namely, by doing the Law and by good works.2
Every effort along these two lines was reckoned to a
man's credit, and was set over against his transgressions.
If a man believed that he was justified and should inherit
1 Comp. Wendt, Die I ehre Jesu, ii. 227.
2 See Weber, Die Lehren des Talmuds, pp. 269-277.
I
114 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
the Messianic kingdom, it was solely on the ground of
merit. When Mar Ukba was dying, he asked for his
account, that is, for the amount of alms he had given.
It was found to be seven thousand pieces. He did not
believe that this amount was sufficient for his justifi-
cation, that is, sufficient to outweigh his transgressions,
and therefore he gave in alms half his remaining fortune
in order that he might go hence in safety.1 This was
the spirit of the scribes in the time of Jesus ; but in the
Master's teaching the disciple must trust the heavenly
Father to give the kingdom. It is not earned, but re-
ceived as a gift.
It may also be noticed in this connection that, in
the teaching of Jesus, trust in God and fear of God
are never blended with trust in angels and fear of
Satan or the demons. His conception of God as a
father, in personal contact with His children, ren-
dered the mediation of angels unnecessary. In the
Jewish teaching, angels of various ranks formed a
connection between the distant God and the world.
It is a remarkable fact that Jesus thinks of God as
near and of the angels as being in heaven, rather
than God in heaven and the angels near. With the
exception of a single instance, and that in a story,
Jesus does not refer to angels as entering into any
relation to men on earth. This exception is only par-
1 See Weber, Die Lehren des Talmuds, pp. 276-277.
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN I 1 5
tial, for it was not until the death of Lazarus that the
angels came to him (Lk. xvi. 22). Angels are in-
habitants of heaven, according to the references of
Jesus, and their existence and activities do not for
the present concern men in any essential manner
(Lk. xv. 10; Mt. xiii. 39; xvi. 27; xxii. 30; xxiv. 36;
xviii. 10). Thus the thought of Jesus regarding
angels was extremely simple as compared with that
of the Jewish teachers. The same is true regarding
His conception of demons. He never suggests that
His disciples have anything to fear from them :
neither they nor the angels come between the dis-
ciple and his heavenly Father.
Another fundamental principle which characterizes
the righteous man in his relation to God, and one that
is closely related to the foregoing, is love.
c. The
This principle does not appear in the teach- principle of
ing of Jesus in a crystallized form, but
rather as a subtle atmosphere, or as Beyschlag says,
as a great unexpressed presupposition. The life and
teaching of Jesus as a whole called for a paramount
love of God, and indeed actually developed love for
Him far beyond what any other person or force in
history has ever produced ; but His teaching does
not call for love of God in a direct and formal way.
Jesus recognized the love of God as the greatest
commandment of the Old Testament, but He did
U6 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
not reenact this commandment (Mk. xii. 28-30; Mt.
xxii. 36-40). This surely was not because He rated
the love of God any lower than did the Old Testa-
ment. On the contrary, since He came to fulfil or
perfect the Law, we must infer that He sought to
give this fundamental principle of the Old Testa-
ment even fuller sway, and to make it dominant in
each member of His kingdom. But He did not seek
to do this by reenacting the formal commandment to
love God. He evidently thought that there was a
better way, and that this better way was to reveal
God to men. Instead of commanding love, He
taught His disciples that God was their Father; and
He trusted that this divine revelation of fatherhood
would win a love which could not be legislated into
existence. Every deed of love that Jesus wrought,
and every word that He spoke about the love of the
Father, was an appeal to the hearts of men to love
God. Moreover, the fact that His life, whose pur-
pose was to make the Father known to men, was one
consistent service of love, implies that He regarded
the love of God as the dominant principle in the
religious life of His disciples. Yet He passes over
it in almost unbroken silence. In His kingdom, then,
the love of God was not to be the fruit of outward
statute, but rather the echo of the heavenly Lover's
voice, the spontaneous homage of the heart when it
comes to know that it is beloved of God.
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 117
Again, the righteous man in his relation to God is
both humble and sincere. How highly Jesus esteemed
these virtues may be seen from His stern d Humi]in,
invective against the religious pride and in- and sincerity.
sincerity of scribes and Pharisees. They paraded their
religion, as was natural, on the ground of their theory
of merit. In their own thought, their good works and
their perfect fulfilment of all the commandments of
the Law justified them in an outward display of their
righteousness. They sounded a trumpet before them
to call attention to their benevolent acts (Mt. vi. 2).
They prayed where the most men could see them
(Mt. vi. 5). They made their fasts as noticeable as
possible by disfiguring their faces (Mt. vi. 16). They
claimed the first seats in the synagogues and at feasts
because of their superior holiness (Mk. xii. 39). They
wished to be called rabbi and father (Mt. xxiii. 8-9).
They showed their remarkable piety by tithing mint,
anise, and cummin (Mt. xxiii. 23); also by scrupulous
washings of their hands, their cups and platters (Mk.
vii. 1-23; Mt. xxiii. 25). They thanked God that
they were so much better than other men, and publicly
praised their own superabounding righteousness (Lk.
xviii. 9-14). All this was an abomination in the sight
of Jesus, and He believed that it was an abomina-
tion also in the sight of God (Lk. xvi. 15). In the
religious life of His disciples there must be a different
Il8 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
spirit. When they give alms and pray and fast, it must
be in secret (Mt. vi. 3, 6, 17-18). They are to do
good works with the desire that their heavenly Father
may be glorified, rather than they themselves (Mt.
v. 16). They are to find their rest in subjection to one
who is lowly (Mt. xi. 29). Instead of boasting as the
scribes and Pharisees did, the disciples of Jesus are to
be of such a spirit that they will say, when they have
done all things that are commanded them, " We are
unprofitable servants : we have done that which it
was our duty to do" (Lk. xvii. 10). Thus Jesus taught
that the members of His kingdom, in their attitude
toward God, were to be radically different from the
Pharisees. Genuine humility must take the place of
pride.
With equal emphasis does Jesus teach that the right-
eous man in his relation to God will be a sincere man.
Thus He has a beatitude for the pure in heart, and
purity of heart involves sincerity (Mt. v. 8). Again,
it is the man whose eye is single into whom the light
enters, and the single eye is the symbol of the pure
purpose (Mt. vi. 22-23). The man whose eye is
single does not attempt to serve both God and mammon
(Mt. vi. 24), as some of the Pharisees who were lovers
of money tried to do (Lk. xvi. 14). He is not as the
soil that receives the good seed, and at the same time
contains seeds of thorns, which sprout and grow and
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 119
choke the good seed (Mk. iv. 7). The single-eyed man
is rather the good soil which bears fruit.
Jesus characterized the religious teachers of His day
as having a sheep's clothing and a wolf's heart (Mt.
vii. 15), that is to say, they were insincere. All their
religious rites were performed that they might be seen
of men (Mt. xxiii. 5), and therefore were of no value
(Mt. vii. 22). The estimate which Jesus put on
sincerity may be inferred from the answer which He
returned to those Jews who charged Him with insin-
cerity (Mk. iii. 20-22, 28-30). They said that He did
His signs by Beelzebub, while professing to do them by
the power of God. It is plain that they were insincere
in this, for they knew that the works of Jesus were
beneficent, and most unlike Satan's works. Jesus
replied to this charge with words of solemn warning.
He said, in substance, that this insincerity, this attribut-
ing to the prince of evil what they knew to be good,
was near to the sin against the Holy Spirit, which hath
never forgiveness. Thus it is plain that Jesus thought
of sincerity and humility as fundamental to the right
attitude of men toward God.
Since the disciple of Jesus, or the righteous man, is
a son of the heavenly Father, it is assumed
J e. Commun-
that he will commune with Him in prayer, ion with the
Father.
This feature of the life of Christ's disciples is
relatively prominent in His teaching, as prayer was
T20 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
prominent in His own experience. The character and
form of the disciple's prayer are determined by the
fact that God is his father. The disciple comes directly
into His presence. He shuts out everything that might
disturb his personal converse with God. Jesus was in
the habit of retiring into solitude for prayer, and He
taught His disciples to go into the inner chamber (Mt.
vi. 6). This specific direction was doubtless occasioned
by the fact that the religious teachers of the time loved
to pray in synagogues and at the corners of streets (Mt.
vi. 5 ). What they desired was the recognition of men,
not communion with God. It was not their position in
itself, but their spirit, of which Jesus disapproved. But
since the spirit was manifested in the choice of conspic-
uous places, Jesus could suggest the true spirit by tell-
ing His disciples to enter into the inner chamber. The
end in view is communion with the Father. Again,
vain repetitions, such as the Gentiles use, cannot be
used by the disciple who prays to God as his father (Mt.
vi. 7). For since the disciple knows that God is his
father, he knows that prayers are not needed to move
God to be gracious. The disciple is not heard because
of his "much speaking," but because God is his father.
His prayer is not to inform God of his needs, for God,
his heavenly father, knows them before he asks (Mt.
vi. 8). So the fatherhood of God requires simplicity in
prayer.
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 121
Again, the encouragement to prayer lies in the father-
hood of God. It is this fact which makes it more cer-
tain that He will give good things to those who ask,
than that earthly fathers will give good gifts to their
children (Mt. vii. 7— 11). Jesus confirms this statement
by an appeal to the general experience of the people of
God. Every one who asks receives, every one who seeks
finds, and every one who knocks has the door opened.
That is proof that the Father delights to give. So
great is the confidence of Jesus in the Father's readi-
ness to give good gifts to His children, that He makes
the agreement of even two disciples sufficient ground
for the granting of any request (Mt. xviii. 19-20). It
does not seem to be His object here, to commend the
duty of two persons to unite in prayer for a common
end, but rather to set forth the Father's willingness to
hear and help His children. In line with this general
thought are the parables of the Unrighteous Judge and
the Three Loaves (Lk. xviii. 1-8 ; xi. 5-8). For these
parables do not inculcate the duty of insistence in
prayer, but rather magnify the generous grace of God.
If a man, awakened at midnight by a friend who desires
bread for an emergency, at first excuses himself, and
afterward, because of the friend's urgency, rises and
gives him bread, how much more certainly will God give
to those who ask Him ! He does not need to be awak-
ened, and He cannot be irritated by continual asking.
122 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
In like manner, if a judge who fears neither man nor
God is moved by a poor widow's repeated petition for
justice, how much more certainly will God avenge His
elect who cry to Him day and night ! It is true that
the evangelist says this parable was spoken to teach
that men should always pray and not faint. But why
should they offer ceaseless prayer ? Because God, like
the unrighteous judge, cannot be moved save by strenu-
ous and urgent supplications? No, for that would con-
tradict Jesus' fundamental teaching on the fatherhood
of God. They are to continue in prayer unto God be-
cause, as their father, He is sure to hear and answer.
The certainty that His love will grant the desired bless-
ing, at the right time, is the reason why they should not
faint but keep their eyes lifted up unto the hills.
Finally, it is in keeping with the central fact of the
fatherhood of God that Jesus prescribes no form of
prayer, but leaves that to be determined by the varying
circumstances. Fatherhood invites to familiar converse,
to free outpourings of heart. When the disciples asked
Jesus to teach them to pray as John had taught his dis-
ciples, He gave them a model but not a ritual (Lk. xi. i ).
He said, " After this manner pray ye " (Mt. vi. 9). He
did not give them a set form of words from which they
were not to depart, or to which they were to attribute
any peculiar value. Had He done this, it is not proba-
ble that the prayer would have been preserved in two so
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 1 23
widely divergent forms as those of Matthew and Luke.
Matthew has seven petitions, Luke only five. The
Greek text of Matthew has fifty-seven words, and that
of Luke only thirty-eight. This wide difference be-
tween Matthew and Luke seems to indicate that the
Lord's Prayer was not regarded by the first generation
of Christians as a ritual, but as a model to be used with
Christian freedom.
As a model for prayer, the words of Jesus suggest,
first, what we have already seen elsewhere, that the
prayers of the disciples should be framed and offered in
the consciousness of the fatherhood of God. They are
to begin with " Our Father " or " My Father." Then
it suggests that prayers should be brief ) a suggestion
that is seconded by the example of Jesus. All of His
recorded prayers are short, even that of the awful hour
in Gethsemane. True, it is once said that Jesus spent
an entire night in prayer (Lk. vi. 12), and He seems, on
other occasions, to have spent several hours in prayer
{e.g. Mk. i. 35); but we are probably to think of these
periods as periods of devout meditation and communion
with God, rather than of supplication.
Again, the model for prayer begins with the divine
interests, the name, the kingdom, and the will of God,
and thus it turns the thought and desire to the great
things of life and immortality. These are to be put first
in the prayers of the disciples. The child is not to con-
124 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
sider its own personal affairs chiefly, but the affairs of
the Father, the things which will glorify Him. And
yet these things of the Father, when rightly considered,
are the highest and truest interests of the child. And
finally, the model for prayer suggests that the disciple
in his praying should believe that the affairs of his in-
dividual life, material as well as spiritual, are of interest
to God. Hence he is to ask for daily bread, for since
the great God is his father, He must be mindful of even
this need and must take pleasure in supplying it. The
disciple is to ask that he may be led in ways where
he will not be temptc i, which of course implies that his
little life is wholly known to the Father, and that the
Father desires to direct and control it. He is also to
ask for the pardon of his sins, and it is implied that God
will grant even this, when asked in a filial spirit.
Thus we see that in the teaching of Jesus the right-
eous man's relation to God in prayer is determined
throughout by the thought of the fatherly character of
God. This fact invites to frequent communion, to sim-
ple, large, and confiding petitions.
The position of Jesus in regard to religious cere-
monies for His kingdom is in strongest con-
righteous trast to the Jewish views of His time. The
man and
religious religious teachers around Him taught an
elaborate system of outward rites as neces-
sary to salvation. They not only laid great stress upon
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 125
all the requirements of the Law of Moses, as had been
done with increasing ardor since the days of Ezra, the
scribe, but the enactments of tradition were far more
numerous tha^ the statutes of the old Law, and they
were regarded as no less sacred and binding upon the
conscience. Thus the entire life of the devout Jew
was covered with a mesh of religious rites. The
scribes had laid heavy burdens on the shoulders of
men, and grievous to be borne (Mt. xxiii. 4). From
this burden Jesus from the first kept His shoulders
free ; He ignored all the legislation of the scribes.
We have already considered His own relation to the
Law, and have seen that while He observed its ordi-
nances He claimed to fulfil it, or to make it perfect.
It was, of course, this perfected law which He designed
for His kingdom, and since this law was inward and
spiritual, its acceptance and observance involved a
release from all the outward requirements of the old
Law. It raised the disciples to a plane of freedom,
to a life ruled from within and not from without.1
Thus in this point the teaching of Jesus transcended
His own practice. He Himself observed outward
rites which His teaching was destined to destroy.
He stood on the line between the old and the new,
but in vital connection with both. He could not lead
out of the old into the new without having in Him-
l-Comp. Bruce, The Kingdom of God, p. 79.
126 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
self the spirit of the new and at the same time having
upon Him the forms of the old. But when the transi-
tion was once accomplished, the forms of the old could
be dropped, and must inevitably be dropped as the
perfected law in Jesus came in between the disciples
and the old rudimentary Law. In accordance with
this attitude of Jesus toward the Law, we find that He
has no teaching for His disciples in regard to outward
religious rites. He refers to fasting, ceremonial clean-
ness, and the observance of the Sabbath, but with a
single exception He never does this spontaneously. He
speaks of them only when the correctness of his atti-
tude toward them is challenged. The exceptional pas-
sage is Mt. vi. 1 6- 1 8. Here Jesus refers to fasting,
and does it of His own motive. He tells His disciples
that when they fast, it must be in secret, unto God and
not unto men. Their outward appearance is not to be
that of fasting ; and thus He intimates that the rite
itself, as far as men can take cognizance of it, is of no
value.
The defence which Jesus gave of His attitude toward
fasting, ceremonial cleanness, and the Sabbath, has al-
ready been considered. In each case He justified
His conduct and that of His disciples. They might
fast if they had sorrow of heart, but as members of
His kingdom they should not be sorrowful. In the
matter of purity, they ought to think of the heart
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
127
rather than the hands, or what is put into the mouth.
As for the Sabbath, it was ordained to minister to
them and not to have lordship over them. Thus the
words of Jesus in connection with these specific
charges are in harmony with the principle which He
lays down in the Sermon on the Mount.
Such being the attitude of Jesus toward the Law,
we should not expect that He would institute new
rites for His kingdom, and as far as our records go
we find that He did not. It is true that, according
to the fourth Gospel, He indorsed the rite of water-
baptism, but even this was not imposed upon His
disciples as a law. In the early Judean ministry,
before Jesus fully began His Messianic work, He
allowed His disciples to baptize, as John had done
and was still doing. But it is significant that as soon
as Jesus took up His work in Galilee, with which
the first three Gospels begin, this rite of water-baptism
disappears and leaves no trace behind. It is never
once alluded to by Jesus in connection with a man's
entrance into the kingdom of heaven. In the whole
course of the Synoptic narrative, with the exception
of Mt. xxviii. 19, it is never mentioned; nor is it alluded
to in the "fourth Gospel after the close of the early
Judean ministry. It is therefore certain that the
rite of baptism had no place in the Messianic activity
of Jesus. If men could not be received into His
128 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
kingdom without baptism, then it is altogether proba-
ble that we should have references in the Gospel to
the administration of the rite ; and it is further proba-
ble, we may say certain, that the teaching of Jesus
would have had something to say about this indis-
pensable condition of discipleship. Therefore the in-
junction of Mt. xxviii." 19, that the followers of Jesus
should disciple all nations, baptizing them into the
name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit, comes wholly unexpected. The prominence
which it gives to an outward rite is not in accord
with the spirit of the teaching of Jesus. It is im-
probable that Jesus passed through His ministry up
to the last hour without reference to baptism and
without enacting a single law for the outward life of
His disciples, and then in that last hour suddenly
departed from His previous position and method,
and gave His disciples a positive statute for the out-
ward life. Moreover, there is strong evidence of an-
other sort that this verse in Matthew cannot be
attributed to Jesus. Throughout the apostolic age
there is no trace of the Trinitarian formula of baptism.
The apostles baptized into the name of Jesus, and
into no other name, as far as the New Testament
writings inform us. Now, had it been known that
Jesus left a command to baptize into the name of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, this- prac^
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 129
tice of the apostolic age would be totally unintelligible.
Would Peter have ignored a farewell command of
his Lord, and have baptized, as he did, simply into
the name of Jesus (Acts ii. 38 ; x. 48) ? Would Paul
have baptized into the name of Jesus, as he did, had
there been extant in the Church a command of Jesus
to baptize into the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit (Rom. vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27)? This is
incredible.1
It is true, however, that the very existence of baptism
in the apostolic church from the first, and the absence
of any suggestion that it was unauthorized, is proof
that the apostles believed the rite to be in accord with
the mind of Jesus. We cannot go so far as Beyschlag2
and say that the practice of the apostles cannot be
explained unless there was an ordinance of Jesus be-
hind it. For the early church appointed deacons, and
later elders, but there was certainly no command of
Jesus back of these institutions. The apostles, of
course, believed that they had the approval of Christ
in the appointment of church officers, as no doubt they
had ; and in like manner they must have believed that
the rite of baptism which they performed in His name
was acceptable to Him. But the existence of the rite
1 Comp. Teichmann, " Die Taufe bei Paulus," Zeitschrift filr Theologie
und Kirche, 1896; \Vendt, Die l.ehre Jesu, ii. 610.
2 See Neutestamentliche Theologie, i. 181-1S2.
K
130 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
in the apostolic age no more presupposes an explicit
command of Christ than does the existence of the office
of deacon and elder.
We must, therefore, in view of all these facts, regard
the formula of Mt. xxviii. 19 as an expression of
ecclesiastical belief subsequent to the time of Paul,
perhaps at the close of the first century.
The case of the Lord's Supper is different (Mk. xiv.
22-25). It is unquestionable that Jesus instituted this,
and it seems most probable that He expected its con-
tinual observance among His disciples. Nor does its
institution come unexpected. It was natural that Jesus
should leave a memorial of Himself, when He departed
from His disciples ; and natural that He should put in
parabolic form the great central lesson of the disciples'
dependence upon Him. Moreover, the observance of
the Supper is not commanded, but is rather invited.
Mark has no command to observe the Supper. Luke
has an exhortation in connection with the bread, but not
with the wine. Matthew has an exhortation with both
bread and wine. Now if Jesus had given an explicit
command to observe the Supper, it would be strange
that the oldest Gospel should have no trace of it. And,
further, if Jesus had strictly commanded the observance
of the Supper, it is probable that He would have fixed
a time for it. Finally, the view that the observance of
the Supper is not commanded but invited best accords
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 131
with its character as a memorial of love, since love is
not treated by Jesus as subject to an outward command.
Therefore we conclude that Jesus did not institute for
His disciples any rite of a legal nature. The only out-
ward observance which He certainly instituted was a
memorial of love, an observance which loses its mean-
ing and force when legally interpreted.
It remains now to consider the thought of Jesus on
the relation of a righteous man to his fellow- iv. The
men. The moral teaching of Jesus, like His man Inhis
religious teaching, is dominated by one and relatlonto
& °' J men.
the same great conception, namely, that of a- The sPirit
r J of the ethics
the fatherly character of God. The morality of jesus.
of Jesus is purely religious and controlled by the
thought of God's relation to the individual soul.1 The
righteous man's duty to his fellow-believers and to his
fellow-men springs out of the relation which subsists
between him and God. He is a son of God, and this
fact controls his ethical life. There is no place in the
teaching of Jesus for a morality which is not based
upon religion.
Jesus' conception of the fatherhood of God gave to
His moral teaching a characteristic intensive and ex-
tensive element. It involves unselfish love, and it
involves the exercise of this toward all men. Hence, it
is the dominant fact in His teaching on the righteous
1 Comp. Ehrhardt, Der Grundchai-akter der Ethik Jesu, p. no.
132 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
man's relation to men. It involves the thought, as has
already been intimated, that brotherhood is a broader
term than discipleship.
There are certain passages in the teaching of Jesus
in which the brother is the fellow-disciple and no other.
Such, for example, is Mk. iii. 35, where Jesus
b. The mean-
ings of calls those His brothers who do the will of
His Father in heaven. It is plain that this
brotherhood is conditioned upon a spiritual fact, and
hence is limited (Mt. xii. 50). We find the same usage
in the judgment scene in Mt. xxv. 31-46. Those to
whom Jesus refers as "these my brothers, these least,"
are those on His right hand, who are also called
"righteous " and "blessed of my Father." Once more,
when Jesus tells Simon that He has prayed for him,
that his faith may not fail, and adds the injunction that
when he has been turned again, he should stablisJi his
brothers (Lk. xxii. 32), the "brothers " are of necessity
fellow-disciples. Only such could be stablisJied in faith,
for others would need to be brought into the faith, first
of all, before they could be established ; and to such
only would Peter's experience be applicable who had
come perilously near falling away from Christ. Here,
therefore, the word brother is necessarily limited to the
fellow-disciple.
In other passages the word brother is as plainly used
in a comprehensive sense, meaning the brother-man,
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 133
irrespective of his religious faith. Such is the case, for
example, in Mt. v. 22, " Every one who is angry with
his brother shall be in danger of the judgment." The
word brother cannot be limited here to the fellow-
believer. For the very point of the passage is that
Jesus goes back from the act of murder to the passion
of anger in the heart, and declares that this is worthy of
judgment. It is anger itself, rather than the ripe fruit of
anger, that is condemned. But anger is anger, whether
the brother believes as we do or not, and it is impossible
to limit the scope of Jesus' word to any class of people.
Further than this, the old law of murder was as broad
as humanity. It read, " Whoso sheddeth man's blood,
by man also shall his blood be shed " (Gen. ix. 6).
This fact also requires that the brother of whom Jesus
speaks in the passage under discussion be understood as
the brother-man, and not limited to the fellow-disciple.
Again, when Jesus speaks of seeing a mote in the
brother s eye (Mt. vii. 3), it is impossible to suppose that
He is thinking of the fellow-believer merely. The
entire context is against such a limitation. Jesus is
dealing with purposes of the heart, and purposes of
the heart are right or wrong in themselves. Finally,
in Mt. xxiii. 8-9, when Jesus was speaking to the mul-
titudes as well as to His disciples, He said, " Be ye
not called rabbi ; for one is your teacher, and all ye
are brothers." And the next verse suggests why they
134 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
all are brothers ; it is because God is their common
father.
In view of these passages, then, we must say that
Jesus did not limit the word brother to the fellow-
believer, but used it also in a broad sense, as describ-
ing the fellow-man.1
The word neighbor which Jesus uses in His summa-
tion of Law and prophets, and which He defines in
the parable of the Merciful Samaritan, corresponds
to brother in its comprehensive sense (Mk. xii. 31 ;
Lk. x. 29-37). The first commandment is to love God,
the second to love the neighbor. Now it is plain that
Jesus did not mean by neighbor, in this passage, the
one who is our friend, a sense which the word some-
times has in the Old Testament, and which it had
among the Jews of Jesus' time (Mt. v. 43). For in
the Sermon on the Mount, He teaches that His dis-
ciples should love their enemies as well as their
friends, that is, they should love all men (Mt. v. 44).
When, therefore, He says that one of the two com-
mandments on which the Law and the prophets hinge
is equal love of the neighbor, that word must be taken
in the sense of one who is near us, whether friend
or bitterest enemy. The Samaritan illustrated this
second commandment. He loved his neighbor as
himself ; and his neighbor was not a Samaritan, but
1 Comp. Wenclt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 269-271.
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 135
a Jew, and so presumably an enemy, for Jews and
Samaritans were mutually hostile toward each other
(Jn. iv. 9). The priest and Levite violated this same
commandment. Their conception of neighbor was so
narrow that it did not include the man whom the
robbers had left half dead, though he was their coun-
tryman, and near to them in place, and in desperate
need of their help.
The specific thoughts in Jesus' teaching on the right-
eous man's relation to men are the natural correlates
of brotherhood, and flow like that from the
c. The
fatherhood of God. Thus the disciple is correlates of
7 . . .11 r 1 • i ,, brotherhood.
to love his neighbor, for hate is unbrotherly
and not in accord with his sonship to a heavenly Father.
He is to love his neighbor as Jiimself, for his neighbor
is his brother (Mt. vii. 12). He is to love his brother,
though this brother be in turn unbrotherly. To love
only those who love us is to rise no higher than the
plane on which the publicans and Gentiles stand,
and on which the Jewish teachers also stood (Mt. v.
46-47; Lk. xiv. 12-14; xyi- l9S1)- To love those
who do not love us is to be perfect as the heavenly
Father is perfect (Mt. v. 48).
But while the disciples are enjoined to love their
enemies, there is a limit to the expression of this love.
Jesus tells His disciples not to give that which is holy
to dogs, nor cast their pearls before swine (Mt. vii. 6).
136 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
The twelve disciples were to shake off the dust of their
feet against any place which would not receive their
testimony (Mt. x. 14). The brother who has sinned
and who refuses to be reconciled to the one whom he
has wronged, is to be counted unworthy of further
fellowship. But this does not mean that love is ever
to give place to hate. This is plainly inconsistent
with a brotherhood which rests on the fatherhood of
God. In all these cases of broken fellowship, love
is still to remain the controlling principle ; only for
the present it has reached the limit of its manifes-
tation.
Again, brotherhood implies service. The divine
fatherhood which gives rise to this brotherhood is a
fatherhood of service. Hence the sons of God, the
members of Christ's kingdom, seek to do to others what
they wish others to do for them, that is, seek to do
them good (Mt. vii. 12). He who loves his neighbor
as himself serves him as he would be served by him.
He does not do this in order that he may himself be
served in return. This motive would give us an earthly
society of publicans and Gentiles, and not a kingdom
of God (Mt. v. 46-48). In this kingdom, where all are
brothers, one cannot strive to have the preeminence
over another, and to rule his brother (Mt. xxiii. 8-10).
The ambition which Jesus recognized as lawful among
His disciples was the ambition to be the most helpful
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
137
(Mk. x. 35). According as the disciples have this spirit
of service, they will be at peace among themselves, and
not be asking which of them is greatest (Mk. ix. 50).
Furthermore, the principle of brotherhood implies prac-
tical tolerance. The unknown man who cast out demons
in the name of Jesus (Mk. ix. 38-41), and whom the
disciples sought to restrain from work because he did not
follow them, must not be disturbed. If he had faith
enough to do good in the name of Jesus, the disciples
should let him alone. They should account the work
that he is doing as a service to them ; and though
it were no more than giving a cup of water, they may
be assured that even this service will not fail of a
reward.
This brotherly tolerance must be maintained at any
cost. Intolerance might cause a disciple to fall away,
a "little one" like the unnamed man who was casting
out demons in the name of Jesus (Mk. ix. 42). And
it were better for a man to have a great millstone
hanged about his neck and to be cast into the sea, than
to alienate from Jesus any trusting soul. This statement
reflects at once the lofty estimate which Jesus put
upon the value of the soul (comp. Mk. viii. 36) and also
His conviction that a soul's highest good consists in
a right attitude toward Him.
Once more, the duty of forgiveness, which Jesus
refers to several times, as though to suggest that the
138 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
disciples would have abundant opportunity to exercise
it, is involved in the second great commandment of
love for the neighbor, and is a necessary correlate of
brotherhood. If the Father in heaven has forgiven the
disciple " ten thousand talents," that disciple must be
ready to forgive a fellow-disciple the paltry sum of a
" hundred shillings" (Mt. xviii. 23-35). The fatherli-
ness of God toward the disciple is an ample ground
why the disciple should exercise unlimited forgiveness
toward his brother.
Thus, in the Synoptic teaching of Jesus, the relation
of His disciples to each other and to men in general
is controlled by the facts of fatherhood and brother-
hood. They are sons of the Father in heaven,
therefore brothers to all of whom He is father.
Fatherhood draws them to God, and is the life-princi-
ple in their religion ; brotherhood draws them to each
other, and is the life-principle in their morality. Re-
ligion is perfected when man is an ideal son of the
heavenly Father; morality is perfected when man is an
ideal brother to his fellow-men. And these two ideals
are inseparable.
It is with the inner fact of brotherliness, the realiza-
tion of the spirit of brotherhood, that Jesus is concerned.
He did not discuss the changes which this principle
would bring to the Family or to the State. His teach-
ins: did not include these institutions except as it did so
THE LIFE CF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 139
by implication.1 His direct teaching on these subjects
— a single brief passage on each — was called out by
questions, and was not spontaneous, not a part of the
message which He felt Himself divinely sent to pro-
claim to the world. It is safe then to assume that He
had no ideal for the Family and no ideal for the State
which would not be essentially realized with the realiza-
tion of the filial spirit toward God and the brotherly
spirit toward men.
This spirit of filial and brotherly love would mani-
festly sweep away the marriage legislation which made
concessions to the hardness of men's hearts, and that is
exactly what Jesus did when the question of divorce
was put to Him by the Pharisees (Mk. x. 5 ; Mt. xix.
8). He went back to the primal ideal of marriage,
the indissoluble union of one man and one woman.
This is of God, a divine order which man cannot an-
nul (Mk. x. 9). If either husband or wife divorce the
other and marry again, the one thus acting commits
the sin of adultery against the other (Mk. x. n), be-
cause God has not released them from their mutual
vows. He never does release them, according to
Jesus, unless one party to the union is unfaithful (Mt.
xix. 9). In that case the union is destroyed, and the
1 For an admirable discussion of what is implied in the incidental
utterances of Jesus on these subjects, see Shailer Mathews, The Social
Teaching of Jesus.
140 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
innocent party is as free as though the union had never
existed.
Thus Jesus abolished, as imperfect, the legislation
regarding divorce which was warped by the hardness
of man's heart. The ideal which He sets up in its
place is an ideal which is in harmony with His funda-
mental conception of a man's true relation to God
and to his fellow-men. It is the ideal of the spirit of
religious love applied to the foundation of the family.
The presumption is that Jesus would have left men
to reach this ideal as they realized His spirit, if He
had not been challenged by the specific question on
divorce ; and the history of divorce legislation in nom-
inally Christian nations shows that it is wholly un-
availing to have this ideal of Jesus when His spirit is
not realized.
Again, the spirit of filial and brotherly love which
Jesus taught and which He manifested in His life
involves the equality of woman with man, as does
His conception of marriage which has just been con-
sidered ; but Jesus left this equality to be evolved
with the development of the Christian spirit. He did
not make it a subject of teaching, though His own
personal treatment of women must have left an in-
effaceable impression upon His disciples. His regard
for them was in fundamental contrast with that of
the Jewish teachers (Jn. iv. 27), for it was pervaded
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 141
by the same high respect which He showed for
men.
Finally, Jesus did not discuss the relation of His
disciples to the State, or what sort of political govern-
ment they should aim to secure. His only direct utter-
ance on the subject was called out by the plot of
the Pharisees and Herodians to entrap Him in speech
(Mk. xii. 13-17; Mt. xxii. 15-22; Lk. xx. 20-26), and
went no further than the general principle that the
government of God and the government of Caesar
may coexist. His own life affirmed the same truth,
for He was subject to earthly rulers and also to God.
Surely Jesus " stands committed to no political teach-
ing," as He stands committed to no ecclesiastical or
social theory. It is life, not the countless manifesta-
tions of life, with which He is concerned. He gives
new wine, and therewith the caution that it be put
into new wine-skins ; but He leaves it to His disciples
to fashion these new wine-skins as shall seem best
to them.
The fourth Gospel is almost silent on the subject
under discussion, — the righteous man's relation to his
fellow-men ; yet it contains one important
word of Jesus, and that is the new command- Johannean
teaching.
ment which He gave to His disciples on the
evening before His death. The essential thought of
this is presented, first, in the symbolic washing of the
142 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
disciples' feet. The evangelist regarded this as the
uttermost proof of the love of Jesus for His disciples
(Jn. xiii. i). Jesus plainly intended that the act
should teach the disciples the duty of loving one
another, for He said, "I have given you an example
that ye also should do as I have done to you "
(Jn. xiii. 15). "If I, the Lord and the Master, have
washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's
feet" (Jn. xiii. 14). This is closely related to the
Synoptic saying of Jesus, "The Son of man came
not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to
give His life a ransom for many " (Mk. x. 45), but it is
not identical with that statement. Both have to do
with service as the fundamental principle of the new
life, and in both the law for the disciples is the example
of Jesus. But the symbolic washing of the disciples'
feet is a more intense statement of the law of service
than that of the Synoptists. It was an actual service,
and not the statement of a principle ; and then it was
a menial service. It is just at this point that the "new
commandment" in John has its peculiar significance.
It was a commandment of mutual love and mutual
love of a particular sort. Its standard was to be " even
as I have loved you" (Jn. xiii. 34; xv. 12). The
commandment to cultivate love was not new ; it was a
part of the Old Testament teaching. The newness of
Jesus' commandment to His disciples must be found
THE LIFE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 143
therefore in the standard of love. This was indeed
new. There had been no Jesus before ; no such mani-
festation of love as His. There had been no life which
commended unselfish love and made it the very heart
of righteousness. Jesus' love of men was based on His
sense of the fatherhood of God, and as this was new,
the love also was new. Therefore the commandment
to love as He had loved might be called a new com-
mandment.
We can hardly say that the peculiarity of Jesus' love
was this, that He loved others better than Himself ;
while the Law required that one should love the neigh-
bor as one's self. There had been persons before
Jesus who loved others better than themselves; many
a mother who had thus loved her child ; and many a
patriot who had thus loved his people and land. The
standard of Jesus is broader than this, and also more
practical. The love of Jesus was a purely religious
love. Its impulse was from God. He loved others
as He did because conscious of the love of God for
Himself and for them. This love, then, was a deep
principle in His soul, and was unselfish. Therefore
when He urged His disciples to love even as He had
loved them, He urged them to have a love which
springs from a sense of God's love, and which should
control the entire life from within. This was what He
had. And the commandment to love in this way is
144 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
practical, for it calls for a love which wells up naturally
in the soul, when the soul knows God and in propor-
tion as it knows Him. And as every soul can have
this knowledge, so every soul can have this love.
It is peculiar to the fourth Gospel that this love is
made the badge of discipleship. This living vital
principle, this practical manifestation of the spirit of
Jesus, and nothing else, shows that they belong to
Him. It is significant, as has been pointed out,1 that
while Jesus, in the fourth Gospel, lays great stress
upon the knozvledge of God, He yet did not make a
distinct doctrine of God, or a definite cidtus, the char-
acteristic mark of His disciples, but rather their
mutual love for each other. And yet the evangelist
is not inconsistent in first making eternal life depend
upon a certain knowledge of God and Christ, and then
making love the sole mark of discipleship, for this
knowledge is gained through love, and this love is
rooted in knowledge.
1 See Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 290-291.
CHAPTER IV
The Outward Development of the Kingdom of
Heaven
Nothing is so noticeable in the teaching of Jesus in
regard to the future of His cause as the vast breadth of
His thought combined with the absolute sim- L 0rganiza-
plicity of the means for the attainment of His tlon-
end. When he had but a handful of disciples, and they
very imperfect, He declared that they were the salt and
the light, not of Galilee or Palestine, but of the world
(Mt. v. 13-14); and at the end of His brief ministry
He sent His " little flock " forth to disciple all nations
(Mt. xxviii. 19). What had been dimly anticipated by
prophets of the Old Testament regarding the sweep
of the Messiah's influence, is the clear and constant
thought of Jesus. While He gives Himself chiefly to
a little band of disciples, and thinks of His own per-
sonal mission as being in an eminent sense to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel, it is yet plain that from
the beginning of His public career He believed that
He was instituting a work which was to be as wide
as humanity. And yet He sent forth His disciples
L H5
146 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
with no outward organization whatever. In the first
part of the Galilean ministry Jesus appointed twelve
men to preach and to heal, and they were associated
with Him later; but He neither organized them among
themselves, nor gave them any official standing with
reference to other believers. The only fact that seems
for a moment to suggest an inner organization is the
word to Peter at Caesarea Philippi : 1 " Thou art Pctros
and upon this petra I will build my church, and the
gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will
give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven " (Mt. xvi. 18). But no greater
misinterpretation of the thought of Jesus has ever been
committed than the view that Peter was made primate
of the apostles by these words, and that this primacy
was to be perpetuated by means of apostolic succes-
sion. This view did not originate in light and cannot
bear the light. One fatal argument against it is the fact
that Peter's confession was not the confession of a new
faith in the Messiahship of Jesus, and that new faith
peculiar to Peter ; 2 but it was rather the confession
of allegiance to an old faith, which was shared by the
1 The fact that Jirlas seems to have been the treasurer of the apostolic
circle (Jn. xii. 6) belongs simply to the domestic economy of the band.
2 Comp. Gilbert, The Student's Life of Jesus, pp. 266-269.
OUTWARD DEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGDOM 147
other apostles as well as Peter. Therefore there was
no ground for putting such high and permanent honor
upon Peter as is implied in his so-called primacy. The
purport of Peter's words was not, I now at last believe
that Thou art the Messiah; but, I still believe that Thou
art the Messiah. The crisis in Capernaum had just
passed, and enthusiasm for Jesus had turned into bitter
disappointment. Many of His former disciples went
back and henceforth walked no more with Him (Jn.
vi. 66). In this situation Jesus wished to find out how
His twelve chosen ones stood, and hence He put the
test-question at Caesarea Philippi. They had long
cherished the belief, more or less clear and positive,
that He was the Messiah. They had accepted a com-
mission from Him to preach the kingdom of heaven
and to heal disease, and they had been successful in
their work. They had heard Jesus claim to have
authority to forgive sin, and had seen that claim sup-
ported by miracles. Of course their belief in His
Messiahship had been very inadequate, but there had
been in it a saving element of increasing personal
attachment to Jesus, and the great fact brought out
at Caesarea Philippi was that, in face of the general
desertion from Jesus, the apostles still clung to Him.
Now Peter was not alone in this loyalty. All had
believed in Jesus ; all still believed with the exception
of Judas, whose inward alienation dates as far back
148 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
as the critical day in the synagogue at Capernaum (Jn.
vi. 70). Peter expressed the thought of the others as
well as his own ; and so Jesus charged all the disciples,
not simply Peter, that they should tell no man that
He was the Messiah (Mt. xvi. 20). It is impossible,
then, in view of the fact that all the disciples had stood
the strain of the past few days, and still clung to the
person of Jesus, to suppose that He rewarded Peter's
confession with a permanent primacy in the apostolic
circle. The confession of Peter was due rather to his
impulsiveness than to superior spiritual insight or supe-
rior courage.
It is necessary only to allude to the other facts which
preclude the view that Jesus at this time established
any organization among His disciples. When the ques-
tion arose among the apostles, shortly after the experi-
ence at Csesarea Philippi, which of them was the
greatest, Jesus recognized no priority of rank what-
ever, save that which was based on eminence in
serving others (Mk. ix. 35). Nor did Jesus in the
subsequent days show any special consideration for
Peter, or otherwise intimate that he was the head of
the apostles. He chose Peter to go with Him to the
mount of transfiguration, and also into the garden of
Gethsemane, but He took James and John as well
(Mk. ix. 2; xiv. 33). The disciple who leaned on the
bosom of Jesus at the last supper was not Peter, but
OUTWARD DEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGDOM 149
John. The commission which the risen Lord gave
to Peter, to feed His sheep, was evidently occasioned
by Peter's threefold denial, and was his restoration
to a common plane rather than an elevation above that
plane (Jn. xxi. 15-18). And, finally, in the apostolic
age, no primacy was accorded to Peter. He was
prominent in the mother-church at Jerusalem, but he
was only one of the three " pillars," and he is not men-
tioned first even of these. James was first (Gal. ii. 9).
The rock upon which Jesus declared that He would
build His church was the rock of personal loyalty to
Him, of which loyalty Peter was the first outspoken
representative. The praise of this loyalty is not only
that it furnishes an indestructible foundation for the
Church, but also that the men who embody it hold
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and "bind" or
"loose" with authority.1 They and their teaching
are the standard of moral and religious truth, as Jesus
was in His earthly life. They are authoritative teachers
as they are loyal to the Messiahship of Jesus ; and
therefore they are said to hold the keys2 of the king-
dom of heaven. Men enter or are refused entrance
into that kingdom according as they accept or reject
this one essential truth of loyalty to Jesus.
1 See August Wiinsche, Neue Beitr'dge zw Erlauterung der Evangelien
aus Talmud und Midrasch, pp. 195-197.
2 The same fundamental thought otherwise expressed in Jn. xx. 23.
150 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
But again, as there was no organization among the
apostles, so Jesus gave them no official position with
reference to other believers. As He sent them out
to preach and heal, so later He sent out seventy on
the same errand (Lk. x. i). After He rose from the
dead He neither appeared in a special manner to the
apostles, nor gave them any special and exclusive
commission. The commission to disciple all nations
was probably given not to the apostles alone, but to
more than five hundred disciples, that is, to the en-
tire church.1 The commission given in Jerusalem, of
which Luke speaks, was not simply to the eleven, but
to the eleven and those with them (Lk. xxiv. 33). All
the disciples alike were to be His witnesses, and upon
all alike was the promise of the Father to be sent
(Lk. xxiv. 48-49).
Thus the eleven apostles had no ecclesiastical posi-
tion from the hands of Jesus. They had enjoyed
special privileges with Him, and had been specially
fitted to form the nucleus of the brotherhood of dis-
ciples ; but they had no ecclesiastical preeminence.
The authority which they had was such as naturally
belonged to their better acquaintance with the life of
Jesus. It was moral rather than official.
This position is confirmed by the fact that the
apostles themselves did not regard their office as per-
1 See Gilbert, The Student's Life of Jesus, pp. 398-399.
OUTWARD DEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGDOM 15 1
manent. When they appointed a man to take the
place of Judas, the one necessary condition was that
he should have personal knowledge of the entire
ministry of Jesus, and should be a witness of His
resurrection (Acts i. 21-22). It is plain, therefore,
that they did not think of the apostolate as continu-
ing longer than the generation which had witnessed
the resurrection.
We conclude, then, that Jesus left the matter of
the outward organization of His followers absolutely
untouched, and hence He cannot have regarded it as
a matter of essential importance. Jesus was the
founder of the Church as a spiritual agency in the
world, but no ecclesiastical organization or form of
government can ever appeal to a word of His for
support. He may have anticipated that His disciples,
in time to come, would have some sort of organiza-
tion ; but if so, He was content to leave this to be
developed according to the needs that might arise.
Jesus expected that His kingdom would be extended
by personal witnessing. He devised no machinery.
He wrote no book or tract to be put into n The
the hands of His disciples. He gave them m<f h°d °[h
r ° extending the
no miraculous power. He promised them kingdom.
the aid of the Holy Spirit in their witnessing, when
they should be brought before governors and kings
(Mk. xiii. 11); but in His final commission He said
152 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
nothing of power to heal and cast out demons. This
had been part of their equipment on their early tour
in Galilee, even as Jesus Himself wrought miracles
to confirm His claim ; but as the working of miracles
was incidental in the ministry of Jesus, so it was a
temporary phenomenon in the work of the disciples.
When His claim had been eternally established by
the resurrection from the dead and by the coming of
the kingdom of heaven at Pentecost, miracles were
no longer needed, and soon ceased altogether.
The disciples were to rely upon purely spiritual
and rational means for the accomplishment of their
work. They were to bear witness of what they had
seen and heard. It was thus that Jesus had won
them, and thus they were to win others. Jesus had
come to them personally, and had testified what He
knew of the Father. By His life and words He had
convinced them that He was their divinely appointed
helper, the Messiah of God. And as He had been
sent to them, so He sent them to others (Jn. xvii. 18).
This is the one great law for the development of
Christ's kingdom which is found in the record of
His teaching. He depended upon personal witness
and personal contact. He did not say that the
Gospel, either spoken or written, was the salt of the
earth ; nor did He say that of any organization. He
said it of the men who had accepted Him. It was
OUTWARD DEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGDOM 153
they who were to preserve the earth from corruption
and make it acceptable to God.
Their verbal witnessing is summed up by Jesus as
confessing Him before men (Mt. x. 32). That is to
be the text of all their preaching. It is only as they
are loyal to this truth that He gives them authority
to "bind" and " loose " (Mt. xvi. 19). They will
call men to repentance, but they will do it for the
sole purpose that men may thereby enter into the
kingdom and fellowship of Jesus (Mk. i. 15). They
are to invite men to the feast of the Gospel, as Jesus
had done (Mt. xxii. 1-14), and are to do it as moved
by their own experience of the power and grace of
that Gospel. Jesus in His preaching made known
what He had experienced of the Father (Mt. xi. 27):
His disciples were to make known what they had
experienced of the Father through Jesus. He spoke
to them in secret of the Father and His kingdom :
this word they were to proclaim from the housetops,
but only as it came from their own hearts (Mt. x. 27).
He had no abstract message for humanity, and can-
not have expected that His followers would have any.
They were to "fish" for men, as He had done, with
the bait of what they had seen and heard and expe-
rienced. And because their message, which was to
transform men, was to come out of their own heart's
experience, it is natural that Jesus laid stress upon
154 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
the witness in life as well as in words. The ''light"
that shines to the glory of the heavenly Father is the
new personality itself : ye are the light of the world
(Mt. v. 14). It must and will express itself in "good
works," in ministering and sacrificing itself even as
the Son of man ministered and gave His life (Mk. x.
43-45; Mt. xxv. 40).
There is nothing to indicate that Jesus regarded
the life-witness of His disciples as less important in
their work of extending the kingdom of heaven than
the witness of His own life had been in His work.
In harmony with all that Jesus said about the bear-
ing of witness in word and life is the fact that He
expected every follower to take part in extending His
kingdom. He did not institute a special order of
men to do this work. Bearing witness in word and
in life that Jesus is the Messiah has a basis in each
disciple's experience, and is part of each disciple's
obligation. Jesus ordained all His disciples to the
same service, and equipped them all with the same
power. He included all in His farewell commission.
The spirit in which the disciples are to bear wit-
ness for the extension of the kingdom of Jesus is
the spirit of gentleness and peace. The disciples are
not to resist him that is evil, and smite when they
are smitten (Mt. v. 39). Meekness turns the left
cheek when the right is smitten; gives the cloke
OUTWARD DEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGDOM 155
when the coat has been taken, and goes two miles
when forced to go one. The disciples are to be
harmless as doves (Mt x. 16). This language is
plainly hyperbolical, and must not be taken in a
coldly literal sense. It sets forth vividly the duty
of gentleness. At the same time Jesus expected
His disciples to have proper self-respect and to be
courageous. When He was smitten before Annas, He
did not turn the other cheek in a literal sense, but
rebuked the officer who had struck Him (Jn. xviii.
22-23). The disciples are to be gentle, but they are
also to be courageous and fear no man (Mt. x.
26, 28 ; Lk. x. 19). They are on their Father's busi-
ness, and He will care for them.
This extension of the kingdom of heaven by gentle
witness-bearing, like that of Jesus, is in strongest
contrast with the popular view of that day in regard
to the establishment of the Messianic kingdom.1 Ac-
cording to this view, the Messiah Himself was to set up
the kingdom, destroying the enemies by the word of
His mouth. It was to be done suddenly and miracu-
lously, and the Jewish people would have nothing to
do but to stand still and see their great deliver-
ance accomplished. This outward miraculous method
perhaps suited the conception of an earthly, political
kingdom, as well as the method of Jesus suited the
conception of a spiritual and heavenly kingdom.
1 See pp. 5O— 01 .
156 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
jesus did not expect that His kingdom would be
extended without many and serious hinderances. He
in. The nad met with an increasing opposition from
^TnThe011' tne very beginning of His ministry, and He
Synoptists. anticipated the same sort of opposition for
His disciples. If men had called the master of the
house Beelzebub, much more would they apply this
epithet to the members of his household (Mt. x. 25).
This opposition was felt to be inevitable from the
very nature of Christ's work. He had come to send a
sword on earth, not peace (Mt. x. 34). He had come
to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law (Mt. x. 35-36). His claim
to Messiahship was fundamental, and men. must
accept it or reject it, and so be sharply divided on a
supreme issue. Jesus taught His disciples to expect
hostility, and said it would be an evil day when all
men should speak well of them (Lk. vi. 26). That
was the way the false prophets were treated in the
olden time, but the true prophets met with persecu-
tion. Jesus regarded a like fate for His followers as
so certain, and as such a constant part of their experi-
ence, that He spoke a beatitude for those who should
endure this opposition for His sake (Mt. v. 10-12).
Jesus drew a dark picture of the opposition which
His disciples must meet. They would be scourged
OUTWARD DEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGDOM 157
in synagogues ; they would be brought as criminals
before governors and kings ; brother would deliver
brother to death, and a father his child. The dis-
ciples would be hated of all men for the sake of
Christ ; and as the bitterest drop in the cup of suffer-
ing, they who persecuted them unto the death would
think that they were rendering service to God (Mt. x.
17-23; Mk. xiii. 9-13). This language was meant to
prepare the disciples for the worst, but Jesus did not
expect them to take it all literally. They would not
be hated of all men ; some were to receive them with
joy. They would find sons of peace in some houses
(Lk. x. 6), and their word would fall into some good
soil (Mt. xiii. 8). But Jesus would not have the dis-
ciples underestimate the strength or the bitterness
of the hostility to which they were to be exposed.
They must be ready to be as their Master even -in the
outward fate which befell Him.
The opposition which Jesus foresaw was not to come
wholly from His open enemies. The disciples would
have to meet false prophets, who, under sheep's cloth-
ing, have a wolf's heart (Mt. vii. 15). These will do
signs and wonders, and unless the disciples take heed,
they will be led astray by them (Mk. xiii. 22-23). This
inner opposition is still broader than that of false proph-
ets. There are tares mingled with the wheat, false dis-
ciples among the genuine (Mt. xiii. 24-30), and this
158 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
fact inevitably adds to the temptations of the disciples
and hampers their work. Jesus did not anticipate that
these forms of opposition would cease until the con-
summation of His kingdom (Mt. xiii. 37-43, 47S0)-
It is plain from the words of Jesus, which have al-
ready been cited in this Chapter, that He thought of
the opposition to the development of His kingdom
in the world as proceeding wholly from men. What-
ever He believed in regard to Satan and other evil
spirits, He thought of men as the only immediate agents
in the opposition, and as being always responsible for
their deeds. He refers now and again to an invisible
power which is opposed to God, but He gave His dis-
ciples nothing like a definite doctrine in regard to this
power (Mt. vi. 13; Lk. x. 18; xxii. 31). His allusions
to Satan are rare, as are also His references to good
angels — a fact which is in striking contrast to the elab-
orate Jewish doctrine of good and bad spirits which
come between men and God. Again, Jesus' allusions
to Satan are almost entirely in passages which are
highly figurative and poetical, and thus His usage is
in line with the noteworthy circumstance that the two
books of the Bible which have most to say about Satan
are poetical books, — Job and Revelation. The only
striking exception to this usage is the petition in the
model for prayer, "Deliver us from the evil one;"
but these words are not found in the shorter version
OUTWARD DEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGDOM 1 59
of the prayer in Luke;1 and it is possible that "the
evil one" is hardly more than a concrete equivalent
of the word temptation.
Jesus usually speaks as though believing in the ex-
istence of a personal Satan, even as the Gospels rep-
resent Him as believing in the existence of personal
demons; but, on the other hand, there are passages
in which Satan seems to be the name of impersonal
evil tendencies or ideas. Thus in the story of the
temptation, the proposal of Satan to give to Jesus
all the kingdoms of the world may be simply a dra-
matic expression of the popular belief that the Jewish
Messiah was indeed to rule all the kingdoms of the
world. Again, it is plainly impossible to take liter-
ally the statements that the devil set Jesus on a pin-
nacle of the temple, and the devil brought Him to
the top of an exceeding high mountain and showed
Him all the kingdoms of the world in an instant. It
was only in thought that Jesus stood on the pinnacle
of the temple, and beheld all the kingdoms of the
world from the top of a mountain.2 He was in
the wilderness all the forty days. But since thus the
movements of Satan are part of the drapery of the
thought and not real historical actions, it lies near to
suppose that the name itself is here only a vivid con-
1 Comp. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 238-239.
- See Gilbert, The Student's Life of Jesus, pp. 132-134.
l6o THE REVELATION OF JESUS
crete designation of all methods of Messianic work,
which Jesus recognized as false. In like manner,
when Jesus addresses Peter as Satan, this usage sug-
gests that, in His thought, whatever was opposed to
God was properly designated Satan (Mt. xvi. 23).
But this point of the personality or impersonality
of Satan is relatively unimportant in the teaching of
Jesus. The existence of tendencies and forces which
are hostile to God is perfectly manifest ; and Jesus,
in His outlook over the work of His disciples in the
extension of the kingdom of heaven, contemplates
these forces and tendencies only as embodied in men.
It is true also of the fourth Gospel, as of the
Synoptists, that the opposition which Jesus anticipated
was to come from men. Its references to
b. In John.
Satan differ somewhat from those of the
earlier Gospels, yet this difference appears to be
formal. He is spoken of as a murderer and liar
from the beginning of history (Jn. viii. 44),1 but this
statement probably does not imply an independent
activity of Satan. He is called a murderer and a
liar in view of such facts as Cain's murder of Abel
and his subsequent lie about it (comp. 1 Jn. hi. 12).
But God held Cain responsible for those deeds (Gen.
1 The statement that the devil has not " stood " in the truth seems to
mean that he has not cherished it, and hence does not suggest a fall from
a state of holiness.
OUTWARD DEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGDOM i6l
iv. 1 1- 1 2). This conception of Satan as embodied
in' bad men is perfectly evident from the reference
to Judas (Jn. xiv. 30). When Jesus anticipated the
coming of Judas and the Jews to seize Him, He said,
" The Prince of the world cometh ; " that is to say,
Jesus regarded Judas and the Jews as a visible embodi-
ment of the prince of the world, so that when they
come, the prince comes. All the other references to
Satan as "the prince of the world" are in connection
with the crucifixion (Jn. xii. 31; xiv. 30; xvi. 11), and
are to be understood in the same manner as that which
has just been explained. Thus we see that, in John,
Satan is referred to only where we have the most ex-
treme manifestations of human sin, and then he is
represented as embodied in men, much as though he
were regarded merely as a personification of the
principle of sin. The thought that his dominion ex-
tends over the whole world is the same that we have
in the account of the temptation, where the devil offers
Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth and their glory.
But while Satan is represented both in the Synop-
tists and John as the ruler of this world, his status
is not now what it once was. Jesus overcame him
(Mt. iv. 1 — 1 1 ), and henceforth for Jesus and His
disciples he is virtually a bound Satan (Mk. iii. 27).
His power is limited, as Jesus intimated in the
symbolic word about beholding Satan as lightning
1 6? THE REVELATION OF JESUS
fallen from heaven (Lk. x. 18; comp. Jn. xii. 31).
Whether Satan be thought of as personal or imper-
sonal, his power has been broken by Jesus, and his
opposition to the kingdom of heaven can never again
be what it formerly was. The disciples may still be
persecuted and put to death, but they can now more
easily and perfectly maintain their own integrity of
spirit, which after all is the chief thing (Mk. xiii.
13; Jn. xvi. 33).
In the words of Jesus regarding the ultimate ex-
tent of His kingdom on earth we hear at one time a
iv. The note of triumph and largest hope ; and at
extent of the anotner time an accent, not indeed of de-
kingdom of Spair or discouragement, but an accent of
heaven on
earth. measured expectation. The experience of
Jesus Himself, judged by outward results, was fitted
to depress the most hopeful worker. He found many
kinds of soil that brought no fruit. The people of
His own town sought to kill Him ; the people of His
province rejected Him ; and the leaders of the reli-
gion of Israel put Him to death in the sacred name
of religion. He saw many entering the broad way
which leads to destruction, and but few finding the
narrow gate. Many were called, but few were
chosen (Mt. xxii. 14).
Sometimes the work of the disciples seems to be
covered largely by the shadow of this experience of
OUTWARD DEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGDOM 1 63
Jesus. Thus He tells them that they shall be hated
of all men (Mt. x. 22). He likens the kingdom itself
to a field in which there will be tares among the
wheat until the harvest, and to a net which gathers
both bad fish and good; and if such be the condi-
tion within the kingdom, the condition outside must
be abundantly discouraging. On a certain occasion
one asked Jesus whether many would be saved
(Lk. xiii. 23-24). Jesus in His reply did not say
whether many or few would be saved, but said that
many would strive to enter and would not be able.
Again, in concluding a parable on the duty of prayer,
He asks whether the Son of man, when He comes,
shall find faith on earth, that is, whether the dis-
ciples will still believe in the coming of the Messiah
(Lk. xviii. 8).1 In His discourse on the last things
He speaks of a future multiplication of iniquity, and
says that the love of the many shall wax cold
(Mt. xxiv. 12). At the end of the age, when the
Son of man is seen coming on the clouds of heaven,
with power and great glory, all the tribes of the
earth shall mourn (Mt. xxiv. 30); and this mourning
shows that the tribes of the earth are not thought
of as His disciples, for in that case they would re-
joice at the coming of Jesus.
These sayings all involve the thought that the
1 Comp. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 607.
1 64 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
success of the Gospel will be far from complete.
The kingdom on earth will not be ideal either in
extent or in quality, unless indeed Jesus thought of
earthly history as extending beyond His paronsia}
But the sombre outlook of these passages must be
compared with the outlook of a larger number of
passages whose spirit is one of victory. It has been
remarked that Jesus' conception of God as the divine
Father made a fundamental optimism necessary ;
and certainly the dominant note in His words re-
garding the future of His kingdom on earth is opti-
mistic. Thus when Jesus calls His disciples the salt
of the earth and the light of the world, the language
implies that it is their destiny to salt the earth and
to light the world (Mt. v. 13-16). He spoke two
parables, whose central thought is the greatness of the
final outcome of His cause. The kingdom of heaven
is likened to mustard seed, which of all seeds shows
the largest capacity for development (Mk. iv. 30-32),
and it is likened to leaven which does not cease
working until the entire mass in which it is placed
has been leavened (Mt. xiii. 33). These parables re-
flect a positive conviction that the- outcome of His
work will be large relatively to its beginning, and
large also relatively to the extent of humanity.
1 See H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie,
i. 179.
OUTWARD DEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGDOM 165
Again, when speaking of the failure of His cause
among the Jews of that generation, Jesus looked for-
ward to a successful work among the Gentiles. The
kingdom of heaven was to be taken from the Jews
and given to a nation that would bring forth its
fruits (Mt. xxi. 43). A large outlook is found also
in a saying of Jesus relative to his own personal
sacrifice, that the Son of man came to give His life
a ransom for many (Mk. x. 45); and Mt. xxviii. 19,
though in its present form probably not from Jesus,
doubtless rests upon some farewell word of the
Saviour which pointed to a hopeful work of His dis-
ciples among all nations. These passages justify the
statement that the dominant thought in the words of
Jesus regarding the future of His kingdom on earth
is that of development and victory.
So also in the fourth Gospel the brighter view of
the future of the kingdom of heaven is the more
conspicuous. There are broad and dark shadows on
that future. Men would not come to Jesus (Jn. v.
40), they loved darkness rather than light (Jn. hi.
19); and as it had been in His experience, so it was
to be in the experience of His disciples. They would
be hated and persecuted and put to death (Jn. xv.
19, 20; xvi. 1-2), for the prince of this world is the
deadly enemy of Jesus (Jn. xii. 31; xiv. 30; xvi.
11). Yet in spite of these facts there is more light
1 66 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
than shadow in the Johannean outlook for the future.
The kernel of grain that dies bears much fruit (Jn.
xii. 24), and Jesus, when lifted up, will draw all men
unto himself (Jn. xii. 32). He speaks of the Spirit
as the one who will convince the world in respect of
sin and of righteousness and of judgment (Jn. xvi.
8). He prays for the unity of His disciples that the
world may believe that He is sent from God, and
that the world may know that the Father loves the
disciples as He loved Jesus (Jn. xvii. 21, 23). This lan-
guage is, of course, modified by the other class of pas-
sages which speak of the sweep and the persistence
of the opposition to Jesus; but still it unquestionably
shows that Jesus anticipated immense, world-wide re-
sults from His seed-sowing.
And here the matter must be left by the historical
student. Jesus saw no cessation of the conflict within
the horizon of earthly history. He saw increasing
victory in the coming years, a preaching of the
Gospel throughout the entire earth, a leavening of
the whole mass of humanity, a world-wide influence
of attraction proceeding from Him as the revealer of
God ; but no era when conflict should cease, no era
when His disciples could drop the petition for de-
liverance from the evil one, or when they would no
longer have opportunity to bear witness for Him
and labor for the extension of His kingdom.
CHAPTER V
The Person of Jesus the Messiah
The first fact which meets us in the Synoptic
testimony of Jesus in regard to His own person is
that He claims and manifests a truly human L -phe
consciousness. It is important to notice g^ugnesTof
the character and extent of this evidence, Jesus-
both on its own account and because of its bearing
on the question of the Messianic consciousness of
Jesus.
In the examination of this point we may begin
with the account of the temptation in the wilderness,
which must be traced at last to Jesus' own report
to His disciples. Here Jesus applies to Himself
words which were spoken of old to the individual
Israelite. He throws up, as a bulwark against the
tempter, various moral teachings of the Old Testa-
ment, thus manifestly feeling that He is on the same
plane with those to whom the words first came. He
quotes, as applicable to Himself: "Man shall not live
by bread alone;" " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord
thy God;" " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God"
167
1 68 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
(Mt. iv. 4, 7-10). This language seems to be an
unmistakable expression of a human consciousness.
Jesus feels Himself a man, and looks up to Jehovah
as His God, whom He should worship.
A little later than the experience in the wilderness,
we see Jesus praying near Capernaum (Mk. i. 35).
This act is one of a series stretching through the
entire ministry of Jesus. Thus it is recorded that
Jesus spent an entire night in prayer before the
appointment of the twelve apostles (Lk. vi. 12), and
Luke preserves a tradition that it was the praying of
Jesus which led His disciples to ask Him to teach
them how to pray, as John taught his disciples
(Lk. xi. 1). Jesus thanked the Father for revealing
the mystery of the Gospel to babes (Mt. xi. 25). He
asked God's blessing on the bread and fish with
which at two different times he fed the multitudes
(Mk. vi. 41 ; viii. 6). According to Luke, Jesus was
engaged in prayer when the vision of His transfig-
uration was granted to the three disciples (Lk. ix. 28).
At the Last Supper He gave thanks for the bread
and wine, and asked God's blessing upon them
(Mk. xiv. 22-23). He prayed repeatedly in Geth-
semane that the hour might pass (Mk. xiv. 35, 36, 39).
He prayed on the cross both for Himself and for
those who had crucified Him (Mk. xv. 34; Lk. xxiii.
34, 46).
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH i69
Since Jesus prayed, we must believe that He felt
a need of prayer. He offered sincere thanks and sin-
cere supplications for the Father's help. He looked
away from Himself as one consciously dependent.
He subordinated His will to a higher will (Mk. xiv.
36). He secured inward quietness and strength by
casting Himself upon the will of God. Now in all
these situations Jesus comes before us as a true man.
There is the same sense of creaturely dependence
that we find in ourselves. Jesus did not have one
kind of prayer for Himself and another kind for His
disciples. . As He approached God with the name
Father, so He taught His disciples to do. The
prayers of Jesus can all be prayed by His followers,
as far as their circumstances correspond with His.
There is nothing in them that suggests a conscious-
ness other than that of an ideal man. This line of
evidence is of peculiar value, for through the prayers
of any soul we see into its inmost depths, its most
sacred feelings and beliefs.
The human consciousness of Jesus is further seen
in His sense of limited knowledge. This is, of course,
implied in the fact of prayer, but there is other evi-
dence of an absolute character. Thus Jesus declares
that the hour of His parousia is unknown to Him,
and known only to the Father (Mk. xiii. 32; Mt. xxiv.
36). This statement is clear and positive. It is equal
I/O THE REVELATION OF JESUS
to a declaration that He is not omniscient; or, taking
this fact together with the preceding evidence of a
human consciousness, it seems necessary to say that
these words imply a consciousness of the ordinary
human limitations of knowledge. Moreover, there
are particular circumstances in the life of Jesus which
confirm this statement. Thus He came to a fig
tree on a certain occasion to see if it had fruit
(Mk. xi. 13-14). He plainly thought it possible that
He might find some, and He was mistaken. Again,
He asked His disciples how many loaves they had
(Mk. vi. 38), and on another occasion, when people
were thronging Him, He asked who had touched
Him (Mk. v. 30). He asked a blind man, whose
eyes He had touched, whether he saw anything
(Mk. viii. 23); and other blind men, who sought heal-
ing, He asked whether they believed Him able to
heal them (Mt. ix. 28). He asked the father of the
epileptic boy how long his child had been thus af-
flicted (Mk. ix. 21). Now in all these, and other
similar cases in the Synoptic record, if we interpret
naturally, we must suppose that Jesus was sincere in
His questions, and asked for information. There is
no intimation that He knew beforehand and only
asked the questions for effect. On the contrary, in
view of the evidence already considered, that Jesus
had a human consciousness, it must be held to be
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 171
entirely unfounded when one says that Jesus did not
need to ask questions. The few exceptional occasions
when His knowledge surpassed human limitations be-
long with His miraculous deeds, and have the same
explanation.
As Jesus was conscious of limited knowledge, so
also of limited power. The fact that He prayed is
sufficient basis for this statement, but there is further
evidence which must be noticed. Thus Jesus says
that it is by the Spirit of God, or, in Luke's version,
by the finger of God, that He casts out demons (Mt. xii.
28 ; Lk. xi. 20). He does not do it in His own un-
aided strength, but in dependence upon the power
of God. In the absence of any evidence to the con-
trary, we are required to apply to all His miracles
what Jesus here said in regard to a particular class
of them, and hold that He wrought them all in con-
scious dependence on God. Again, Jesus tells the
ambitious brothers, James and John, that it is not in
His power to bestow upon them the first places even
in His own kingdom (Mk. x. 40). To do that would
transcend the limits of His authority. Once more,
in the hour of His arrest, Jesus rebuked the well-
meant attempt of Peter to defend Him with sword,
and said that if He needed deliverance He could pray
His Father, and He would send Him more than twelve
legions of angels (Mt. xxvi. 53). Thus He was con-
172 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
scious that, in Himself, He was helpless. His rescue
from Judas and the soldiers must come from God, if
it come at all. His own power and that of His dis-
ciples is limited ; but God's power is unlimited.
Thus we have clear and unambiguous proof that
Jesus was conscious of limitation in power as of limita-
tion in knowledge. The superhuman power which
He exercised at times was, according to His own
testimony, given to Him. It was not native and in-
herent. And we must judge in the same manner of
the supernatural knowledge which Jesus manifested
at times. By supernatural knowledge is not meant
omniscience. As we have already seen, the theory
that Jesus was omniscient is wrecked on His plain
word, and ought never to have been held. But He
certainly had supernatural knowledge in regard to
particular events, as, for example, in regard to His
own death and resurrection. It is true, the evidences
of such knowledge are comparatively rare. The Gos-
pel narrative, in the main, not only does not require
us to think that Jesus had superhuman knowledge,
but very often assumes that He had not. The evi-
dence for this has already been cited. In view, then,
of these facts, we must say that supernatural know-
ledge was no more inherent in Jesus than supernatural
power. When He had such knowledge, it was a
gift of God for the purposes of the Messianic work.
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 1 73
There is another and different evidence of human
consciousness to which we may properly refer before
leaving this subject; and that is the fact that Jesus
refused to be called good, saying that only God is
good (Mk. x. 18). Now it is certain, as we shall show
later, that Jesus was conscious of perfect integrity, of
absolute sinlessness before God. Therefore, when He
declines the epithet good, and says it belongs to God
alone, He must do so in the consciousness that He is
a man, exposed to temptation, subject to change, and
not in the absolute and unchangeable possession of
goodness or righteousness (comp. Heb. ii. 10). He
knows in Himself* that He has not fallen below the
standard of righteousness, but that standard is the
will of God, not His own will (Mk. xiv. 36), and
He conforms to it by conscious and strenuous moral
effort, as appears, for example, in the record of the
temptation. Had He been righteous or good as God
is good, He could not have been tempted of evil,
even as God cannot be (James i. 13). The standard
of righteousness for God is not outside Himself, neither
can we conceive it necessary or possible for Him to
put forth effort in order to be perfectly righteous. We
can understand, then, how Jesus could point to God
as the only good one, and at the same time be con-
scious that He Himself had never sinned. He does
so because His consciousness is that of a man, and
174 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
He feels that the quality of His inner life is dependent
upon the Spirit of God.
A second fact which meets us in the Synoptic record
of the testimony of Jesus concerning His own person
is the consciousness of perfect moral union
II. The con- r J
sciousness of with the Father. This is foreshadowed in
perfect moral
union with the story of the boy Jesus in the temple
(Lk. ii. 49). The unclouded consciousness
that God is His Father, and the consequent sense
of obligation to Him, while they do not necessarily
argue a consciousness of sinlessness, at least suggest
that His consciousness of God was unique. Yet
an undue importance may easily be attached to this
saying. It is the saying of a boy, and not of a
philosopher or a theologian. It is a saying which does
not take us beyond the ideal piety of the Old Testa-
ment. As we have already seen, the Old Testament
sometimes rises to the conception that God is the father,
even of individual souls, and of course teaches that the
things of God should be put first. Practically, how-
ever, the sense of sonship which appears in these words
of Jesus does not seem to have been often experienced
under the Old Covenant, and probably was never ex-
perienced in so high and pure a degree as by Jesus
at twelve years of age. This sonship to which the
passage in Luke bears witness is certainly ethical and
only ethical. To suppose that the boy Jesus hinted at
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 175
a peculiar metaphysical relation to God when he said
"my Father," is a view which is condemned by the
explicit and abounding evidence that Jesus had a truly
human consciousness. To suppose that He used the
words in a Messianic sense is simply to ignore one
of the plainest historical teachings of the Synoptic
Gospels, for they date the Messianic consciousness of
Jesus from the hour of His baptism. It remains, then,
to see in the words of the boy Jesus the evidence
of an ideal filial spirit. They harmonize perfectly
with the evangelist's sketch of the truly human devel-
opment of Jesus, when he says that He " advanced
in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and
men " (Lk. ii. 52).
When we come to the public ministry of Jesus we
find abundant evidence that He was conscious of a
peculiar moral relation to God. We notice this first in
His attitude toward the Law. In the Sermon on the
Mount He says that He came to fulfil the Law and the
prophets (Mt. v. 17), and it is plain from the following
verse that He is not thinking of the Messianic prophe-
cies in particular, but of the comprehensive moral
purpose of God. It follows from this claim of Jesus
that He was conscious of being in perfect harmony with
the divine ideal. Had His vision of God been obscured
by any slightest consciousness of sin and ill desert, He
must, if honest, have recognized that He could not fulfil
iy6 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
the Law and the prophets. He must have known
within Himself that He was not qualified to see or to
say what the perfect will of God is. He might have
felt Himself in line with the lawgiver and the prophets,
as called of God to communicate His revelation, but He
could not have had the serene consciousness of mani-
festing the final message of God to men. In order to
fulfil this end He must have been conscious of standing
in perfect accord with the will of His heavenly Father.
Again, a consciousness of perfect moral union with
God is involved in Jesus' claim to be the judge of men.
He is the judge by virtue of the fact that He is also the
standard. He makes it plain that He will judge men
according to their attitude toward Him (Mt. x. 32-33 ;
Mk. viii. 35, 38 ; Mt. xviii. 6, etc.). Whosoever con-
fesses Him, He will confess before His Father; who-
soever denies Him, He will deny before His Father.
Whosoever causes a little one who believes in Him to
stumble, it were better for him that a millstone were
hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the
sea. Unless the Jews repent of their unbelief toward
Him, they shall perish (Lk. xiii. 3, 5). Those on the
right hand of the Judge are approved because they
have manifested the spirit of Jesus (Mt. xxv. 37).
According to this scene, the spirit of Jesus is the
test of judgment. But since Jesus claimed to be the
standard according to which all mankind are to be
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH \JJ
assigned to their everlasting conditions, He must
have believed that the standard was perfect. And
the other passages which have just been cited are
in harmony with this scene. Confessing Jesus or
denying Him means accepting or rejecting Him as
the anointed of God, who by His life and teaching
makes known the perfect way of salvation. So the
consciousness of being the judge of men involves the
consciousness of being in perfect accord with the will
of God.
Again, there is proof that Jesus was conscious of
perfect moral union with God in the fact that He never
betrays the slightest sense of guilt. This fact cannot
be taken alone ; it owes its chief significance to another
fact, namely, that Jesus showed the most perfect appre-
hension of sin and virtue. Thus in all His teaching
He goes beneath the outward act and profession, and
declares that everything depends upon the purpose of
the heart. It is by this that a man is judged sinful
or virtuous. The ethical teaching of the Old Testa-
ment is estimated by Jesus with unerring insight, and
the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of His own day
is uncovered and analyzed in a way that argues perfect
moral perception. Now that a man with such an
apprehension of sin and virtue never betrays any sense
of ill desert is an evidence of the greatest importance.
Jesus taught his disciples to pray for the forgiveness
178 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
of their debts (Mt. vi. 12), but He never prays thus.
He adopts the lament of the Psalmist, " My God, why
hast Thou forsaken me ? " but it is plain that these
words do not imply a sense of ill desert (Mk. xv. 34).
Had He been conscious of ill desert, then the feeling
that God was afar off would have been no mystery
to Him. In the various prayers of Jesus there is never
a word nor an accent of confession; but had He been
conscious of any sin, He was the one of all men who
would have been most deeply humbled by it. The
saintlier a man is, the keener is his shame and pain
when he does wrong.
In connection with this absence of any trace of guilt,
and confirming what has been said, we may notice the
absolute serenity of Jesus in the moments of extreme
peril, and when confronting death on the cross. He was
calm when the boat was beginning to sink on the lake
of Galilee (Mk. iv. 38-40). He was agitated, it is true,
in Gethsemane, but not through fear of what comes
after death (Mk. xiv. 33-34). He prayed that a certain
cup might pass, but there was no obstruction between
Him and the Father. His fellowship with God was
untroubled. His highest desire was that the divine
will might be done (Mk. xiv. 36). When about to ex-
pire on the cross, He assured the dying robber that he
should be with Him that day in Paradise (Lk. xxiii. 43).
There is not only no fear of what is after death, but
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH I 79
there is a perfect certainty of entering Paradise ; and
what is more, there is a calm assurance that He can
promise Paradise to the dying man at His side.
We have seen that Jesus had a truly human con-
sciousness, and that He had also a consciousness of
perfect moral union with God. Still more m. The
, tj Messianic
varied and extensive is the evidence that He consciOUs-
was conscious of being the Messiah of the *esT°/e{^'
Old Testament Scriptures. We find this son of God.
evidence, first, in the titles which Jesus applied to
Himself, or which were given to Him by others
and which He tacitly accepted. We come upon the
first of these significant titles in the hour of Jesus'
baptism, when He heard a voice out of heaven saying,
" Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased "
(Mk. ii. io-ii; Mt. iii. 16-17; Lk. hi. 21-22). This
communication was a divine revelation to Jesus, a clear
disclosure to His spirit of a new and momentous re-
lationship to God. Under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, given to Jesus now in the fullest measure, the
consciousness of being the well beloved Son of God
was awakened.1 We are here concerned not with the
method, but with the meaning of this communication.
When the consciousness of Jesus expressed itself in the
words, I am the beloved Son of God, what did those
words signify to Him ? The Synoptic Gospels leave us
1 Comp. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein fesu, p. 163.
180 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
in no doubt as to the reply which must be given to that
question. On the lips of Jesus and the evangelists,
the title Son of God, as applied to Jesus, had a preemi-
nently Messianic significance, but also an ethical ele-
ment.1 It seems plain that Jesus so understood the
term, for, in the first place, from the hour of His bap-
tism, when He was addressed as the Son of God, His
career is distinctively Messianic. His temptation is in-
telligible only on the view that Jesus believed Himself
to be the Messiah, and in the wilderness was contem-
plating the Messianic work. In other words, the
Messianic temptation implies that the heavenly an-
nouncement, "Thou art my beloved Son," was for
Jesus a virtual announcement of Messiahship. Its
burden, therefore, was not ethical. If the term Son of
God had for Jesus, primarily, the thought of a unique
relationship of love with the Father, then it is not ap-
parent why Jesus was impelled to go from the place of
baptism into the wilderness, to a temptation which con-
cerned the exercise of His Messianic prerogatives. A
sense of the Father's love, even the sense of an alto-
gether special love of the Father, does not lead to the
wilderness and to temptation. Such a sense of God's
1 Comp. Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, p. 193; Bruce, The
Kingdom cf God, p. 166; Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 76-77;
Beyschlag, N eutestamentliche '1 heologie, i. 66-67; Baldensperger, Das
Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, pp. 78, 160; Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 433.
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH i8l
love might call a noble soul to self-sacrifice, but it is
not apparent why its possessor should at once feel him-
self clothed with Messianic authority. Not only does
the temptation imply that Jesus regarded the baptismal
announcement as a revelation of Messiahship, but it
is also implied in the fact that, immediately after the
temptation, Jesus entered upon Messianic work. As
far, then, as the Synoptic record goes, the Messianic
temptation and the Messianic career have their origin
in the heavenly announcement by the Jordan, " Thou
art my beloved Son."
There is another passage in which Jesus virtually ap-
plies to Himself the title Son of God, though not of His
own impulse ; and the teaching of this is no less explicit
than that of the foregoing facts. The high priest
demands of Jesus that He shall say, under oath,
whether He is Christ, the Son of the Blessed, or as
Matthew says, the Son of God (Mk. xiv. 61-62; Lk.
xxii. 66-70 ; Mt. xxvi. 63-64). Jesus replies, " I am,"
that is, I am the Christ, I am the Son of God. There
is no suggestion here that the term Son of God means
anything different from Christ. It appears to be an
explanatory synonym.
The passages in which Jesus speaks of God as His
Father do not belong in this connection, though of
course, every time that He thus speaks, He claims
to be in some sense a Son of God. But still these
1 82 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
passages are not to be classed with the Messianic
titles, because Jesus refers to God as the Father
of His disciples and of other men, no less than as
His own Father. There is no suggestion that He
puts something essential into the fatherhood in one
case which it does not have in the other.
Again, it is plain that the evangelists, as well as
Jesus, made no essential distinction between the titles
Messiah and Son of God. Sometimes they represent
the demoniacs as knowing that Jesus was the Messiah
(Mk. i. 34; Lk. iv. 41), or, what is equivalent, the
Consecrated One of God (Mk. i. 24) ; and again as call-
ing Him the Son of God (Mk. iii. 11). This inter-
change of terms we find in one and the same writer,
and even within the compass of a single verse. Thus,
in Lk. iv. 41, we read that demons came out of many
persons, saying (to Jesus), "Thou art the Son of
God ; " and also that He did not allow them to speak
because they knew that He was the Christ. It is
obvious that this evangelist regarded the two terms
as synonyms, and it is sufficiently plain that they were
so regarded by Mark.
In the account of the confession of Peter, Mark
has the words, " Thou art the Christ," while Matthew
has, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"
(Mk. viii. 29; Mt. xvi. 16). It can hardly be held
that Matthew's second clause introduces any new idea.
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 183
It simply strengthens the statement that Jesus is the
Messiah. Peter does not confess two things, namely,
that Jesus is the Messiah, and also that he stands in
a unique relation of love to the Father. Again, in
Luke's account of the trial of Jesus by the sanhedrin,
the members of the court ask Jesus if He is the
Christ, and then after a moment ask if He is the Son
of God (Lk. xxii. 67, 70). The situation is unchanged,
and the purport of the second question is exactly that of
the first. When they ask if He is the Son of God, they
do not seek to know whether He claims to stand in a
peculiar relation of love to the Father. It was wholly
immaterial to them whether He claimed such a rela-
tionship of love or not. The sole point of interest to
them was whether He claimed to be the Jewish Mes-
siah. When they found that He did, they charged
Him with blasphemy (Mt. xxvi. 6). Holding such
views as they did of the glory and power of the Mes-
siah, they could use no milder term than blasphemy
for the claim of this helpless prisoner, this untaught
man, who had never even been recognized by the re-
ligious authorities in Israel, this would-be reformer
from Nazareth, who had been betrayed by one of His
own disciples for the paltry sum of fifteen dollars.1
Therefore, we must say, that in the thought of Jesus
and of the Jews of His day, the title Son of God was
1 Comp. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, i. 265.
1 84 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
practically equivalent to Messiah. So it belongs with
the titles : The Coming One (Mt. xi.3), The Holy One of
God (Mk. i. 24), The Sou of David (Mt. xii. 23), and
The King of Israel (^Mk. xv. 32), ail of which were
used in addressing Jesus but never employed by Him.
This title Son of God is based directly upon the Old
Testament, and particularly upon Ps. ii. 7 (comp. Ps.
lxxxix. 27; 2 Sam. vii. 14), which is applied to Jesus
by New Testament writers (Acts xiii. 33 ; Heb. i. 5).
The Messianic king, who was a type of the Messiah,
is here called the Son of God. Jehovah says to Him,
"Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee."
This was a term of dignity and honor, but plainly
not of essential relationship. The Messianic king of
Ps. ii. 7, whether David or another man, was not
thought of as having a nature different from that of
other men. He stood hisrh in the favor of God, but his
sonship was evidently not metaphysical. The act of
begetting is nothing else than the enthronement of the
Messianic king, his introduction into the royal sphere.
So Peter understood it, who saw its fulfilment in the
resurrection of Jesus, which was the beginning of His
exaltation to the Messianic throne. But if the Mes-
sianic king is called the Son of God because He is
enthroned by God, then plainly the sonship is official.
The fact that God has enthroned Him may show that
God loves Him, but this love is implied rather than
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 185
expressed. Therefore this Old Testament passage,
both in itself and as understood by Peter, prepares the
way for the distinctly Messianic use of the title Son of
God, which we find in the Synoptic Gospels. In con-
clusion, it may be remarked that since Jesus and the
evangelists used this title as synonymous with Messiah,
the theological use of it, which refers it primarily to
the nature of Jesus, has no basis in the Gospels.1
The Messianic consciousness of Jesus is further seen
in the title, The Son of man. This first appears in the
account of what happened in the house of b Thetith,
Peter at Capernaum, when the paralytic was Son of man.
lowered through the roof (Mk. ii. 10). Jesus forgave
the man's sins, and when accused of blasphemy
for thus exercising a function which belongs to God,
He declared that the Son of man had authority to
forgive sins. This title, unlike the title Son of God, is
used in the Gospels by Jesus only, and is used by Him
frequently. It is found once on the lips of the angels
in the empty tomb, but they use it in a quotation from
the words of Jesus (Lk. xxiv. 7). It is, therefore,
Jesus' own peculiar self-designation ; and in the usage
of Jesus Himself we have conclusive evidence of the
significance which He attached to it. We are not
dependent upon the apocalyptic literature ; we are not
obliged to give any particular weight to Dan. vii. 13 ;
1 Comp. Bruce, The Kingdom of God, p. 184.
1 86 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
and we need not lay any especial stress on the definite
article, the Son of man. The usage of Jesus is plain
and decisive. On two occasions Jesus speaks of the
Son of man as one concerning whom the Scriptures
bear witness. Thus in the conversation caused by the
transfiguration, when the disciples asked Him, saying,
" The scribes say that Elijah must first come and
restore all things," Jesus replied, " Elijah indeed cometh
first and restoreth all things : and how then is it written
of the Son of man, that He should suffer many things
and be set at naught" (Mk. ix. 11-12 ; Mt. xvii. 10-13)?
Now the disciples and scribes thought that Elijah
would come to prepare for the Messiah. When, there-
fore, Jesus indorses their general thought, and says
that Elijah cometh first and restoreth all things, and
then asks the question, " How is it written of the Son
of man, that He should suffer many things ? " it is
manifest that He means by the "Son of man " no other
than the prophesied Messiah.
Again, in the solemn dialogue between Jesus and the
high priest, we have unmistakable evidence that the
title Son of man expressed a Messianic consciousness.
The high priest asked Him, " Art Thou the Christ, the
son of the Blessed?" and Jesus replied, "I am, and
ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand
of power and coming with the clouds of heaven " (Mk.
xiv. 61, 62). The equivalence of the titles is here
beyond question,
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 187
On the evening before the crucifixion, Jesus said to
His disciples, " The Son of man goeth, even as it is
written of Him" (Mk. xiv. 21). But there is nothing
written in the Old Testament regarding the suffering
and death of one who is there called the Son of man.
There is, however, something written regarding the
Messiah ; and since Jesus claimed to be the Messiah,
there can be no doubt that when He speaks of the
Scripture regarding the Son of man, He uses this title
as equivalent to Messiah.
Again, the functions which Jesus claims for the Son
of man are prevailingly Messianic. Thus, the Son of
man has authority to forgive sin (Mk. ii. 10); the Son
of man sows the good seed, and the good seed are the
sons of the kingdom, and so it is the Son of man who
establishes the kingdom of God (Mt. xiii. 37); the Son
of man must suffer many things (Mk. viii. 31), or, in
the language of Jesus after the resurrection, " Behoved
it not the Christ to suffer these things " (Lk. xxiv. 26)?
The Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of
power and shall judge all nations (Mk. xiv. 62 ; Mt.
xxv. 31). In all these passages there appears an au-
thority such as no Scripture attributes to a prophet, and
which can be no less than Messianic.
We conclude, then, that whatever the source of the
title may have been, and whatever may have been its
use in apocalyptic literature, its meaning on the lips of
1 88 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Jesus is undeniable. He does not use it to express the
consciousness that He is a man, nor does He use it for
the purpose of claiming for His humanity something
unique, as though it were equivalent to the ideal man.
He uses it simply to express the consciousness that He
is the Messiah. It is an official title, and does not
directly concern His nature. He could not have ap-
plied it to Himself prior to the hour of His baptism by
John, for it was in that hour and not before that He
became conscious of Messiahship.
The result of this study of Jesus' own usage Y may be
strengthened, in the judgment of some minds, by the
famous passage in Daniel, which the New Testament
treats as Messianic (Rev. i. 13 ; xiv. 14), and also by the
apocalyptic literature, especially the Book of Enoch,2
where the Son of man is plainly a Messianic title.3
In conclusion on these two titles, The Son of God and
The Son of man, it may be said that the latter, since it
is purely official, is somewhat narrower than the former.
The title Son of God was Messianic, but it was first
ethical. It could be applied to Jesus in a Messianic
sense because it was perfectly applicable to Him in an
1 The view of Lietzmann, that the title Son of man is a Christian inter-
polation, is not well supported. See Der Menschensohn, Hans Lietzmann.
2 See chapter xlvi. 2-4; xlviii. 2; lxii. 7, 9, 14; lxiii. 11 ; lxix. 26, 27,
29; lxx. I; lxxi. 17.
3Comp. Deane, Pseudepigrapha, p. 89; Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der
neutestamevMichen Theologie, i. 261,
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 189
ethical sense.1 It was of course needful that He should
be in perfect harmony with God in order that He might
execute God's highest commission. If the above posi-
tions are correct, it is obvious that the traditional view of
these titles, which regarded one as a designation of the
divine nature of Jesus and the other as a designation of
His human nature^ is fundamentally and entirely wrong.
Neither of them refers to His nature ; both are pri-
marily Messianic.
Before leaving the subject of Messianic titles, there
are two points demanding brief notice. Jesus
v & J c. Other
declared that He was greater than the temple Messianic
data.
(Mt. xii. 6), greater than Jonah (Mt. xii. 41),
and greater than Solomon (Mt. xii. 42). It is difficult to
understand this language except as uttered in the con-
sciousness of Messiahship. A Jew could not compare
himself with the temple, the holy centre of the religion
of Israel, and declare that he was greater than it, unless
he was conscious of being the consummator of Israel's
hope and redemption.
Another point is the use of the word Lord. This was
frequently applied to Jesus by others and sometimes by
Himself. Lord is a word of relation, whose correlative
is servant. It simply means the master, the superior,
and so is applicable alike to man and God. Thus Jesus
says that no man can serve two lords, and again,
1 See Bruce, The Kingdom of God, p. 180.
I90 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God" (Mt. vi. 24;
iv. 10). The term has then no reference to nature.
What sort of mastership it denotes, depends in each case
upon the context. The term is often applied to Jesus
by His disciples and by others, and is always used as
a term of respect. Thus it is interchangeable with rabbi
(Mk. ix. 5 ; Mt. xvii. 4), rabboni (Mk. x. 51 ; Lk. xviii.
41), teacher and master (Mk. iv. 38). Manifestly, then,
it has no implication of Messiahship, still less of any-
thing peculiar in the nature of Jesus.
The Messianic consciousness of Jesus gives other ex-
pression of itself in the Synoptists than that of the Mes-
sianic titles. He claims Messianic functions, which
have already been enumerated. In like manner, the
importance which Jesus claimed for His person (e.g.
Mt. x. 32-33 ; Mk. xiv. 9), the promise to give spiritual
rest to all who come to Him (Mt. xi. 28-29), the convic-
tion that the Church built on loyalty to Him would be
indestructible (Mt. xvi. 18), the assurance that He should
speedily rise from the dead (Mk. viii. 31), that He
should be present with His disciples till the end of the
age (Mt. xxviii. 20), and that He should be manifested
in glory at last (Mt. xxv. 31), — all these great utter-
ances of Jesus presuppose a consciousness of Messiah-
ship. It is because He knows Himself to be the Mes-
siah, that He is sure of being able to bestow God's
peace upon men, and is confident that whatever may
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 191
come to Him of outward shame and suffering, His
Church shall be imperishable and His service world-
wide.1
We have seen that the Messianic consciousness of
Jesus rested, according to the Synoptists, upon a divine
revelation which came to Him in the hour d. Messianic
of His baptism. It was not an attainment consclous-
1 ness not
either sudden or gradual. The revelation develoPed-
was doubtless ethically conditioned, as is all revela-
tion, and this ethical preparation extended through
the entire previous life of Jesus ; but the Messianic
consciousness was originated by God in the hour of
baptism. And there is no evidence that this conscious-
ness developed as the months of the ministry passed.
It does not appear at first wavering and afterward
firm. Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, but the
temptation touched the manifestations of His Messiah-
ship rather than its existence. Jesus did not make a
public verbal claim to Messiahship at the beginning
of His ministry, according to the first three Gospels.
There is a noticeable reticence on His part. He
checks the demonized who address Him as Messiah
{e.g. Mk. i. 34; iii. 12). He avoids publicity in the
working of some of His most impressive miracles
1 Mt. xiv. 33 is not discussed among the data for Messianic con-
sciousness, because of the manifest bearing which the parallel in Mk. vi.
£1-52 has upon it.
192 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
{e.g. Mk. v. 40). He does not call Himself by the
popular titles of the Messiah, as, for example, Son of
David. He does not do the things which people ex-
pected of the Messiah. The first explicit verbal claim
to Messiahship, made in public, was at the trial by the
sanhedrin (Mk. xiv. 62). But these facts are not proof
that the consciousness of Messiahship developed from
weakness to strength. There are facts, moreover,
which preclude such a development. Thus the ac-
count of the baptism of Jesus is not the picture of a
human spirit catching a glimpse of a new and divine
mission that opens suddenly before it, but rather of a
human spirit at whose very centre God creatively
awakens a new consciousness. This consciousness at
once expresses itself in unmistakable, though not un-
expected, ways. It gives to the teaching of Jesus a
tone of authority which astonishes the worshippers in
the synagogue (Mk. i. 22). It finds utterance in the
forgiveness of sin (Mk. ii. 10), in the claim to fulfil
the Law, and in the quiet unchanging assumption of
Jesus that a man's attitude toward Him is of endless
importance. These facts are of paramount signifi-
cance, and reveal even at the beginning of the minis-
try a deep, clear consciousness of Messiahship. The
solemn affirmation of Messiahship before the sanhe-
drin at the close of the ministry presupposes no
clearer consciousness of this fact on the part of Jesus
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 1 93
than the early word in Peter's house. " Son, thy sins
are forgiven."
The thought of Jesus regarding His own person
occupies a much larger space in the fourth Gospel
than in the Synoptists. This is in keeping iv. The
with the confessed purpose of the author, the fourth
which is to prove that Jesus is the Messiah a°^e
(Jn. xx. 31). The kingdom of heaven, human con-
w ' sciousness of
which is prominent in the Synoptists, gives Jesus.
place now to the King. In the teaching of Jesus re-
garding His person, which we find in John, there are
marked peculiarities, and the emphasis upon some
points differs notably from the Synoptic presenta-
tion ; and yet I believe that no injustice is done to
this teaching by the statement that it follows the
same fundamental lines that we have found in the
Synoptists.
And, first, there is the truly human consciousness.
This is less prominent, as compared with the con-
sciousness of Messiahship, than it is in the earlier
Gospels, and this fact has sometimes led to the un-
just conclusion that the humanity of Jesus is sup-
pressed in the fourth Gospel.1 In reality, however,
the fourth Gospel, though especially concerned with
the Messiahship of Jesus, contains an even more for-
cible affirmation of His humanity than do the Synop-
1 Comp. Holtzmann, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 455.
o
194 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
tists. I am thinking now of the words of Jesus
Himself, and not of the observations made by the
author, though these, in which Jesus is represented,
for example, as being wearied at Jacob's well (Jn. iv. 6),
and as weeping at the tomb of Lazarus (Jn. xi. 35),
do not betray a desire to deny the genuineness of
Jesus' humanity. But let us consider simply the lan-
guage which is attributed to Jesus. As in the Synop-
tists, so here, He ranks Himself with men. He says
to the Jews, "Ye seek to kill me, a man that hath
told you the truth " (Jn. viii. 40). He declares that the
very reason why Messianic judgment has been given
to Him is His humanity (Jn. v. 27). He is a son of
man, that is, a human being. He speaks of His will
as distinct from God's will (Jn. v. 30 ; vi. 38), though
it is never opposed to that (Jn. v. 30; viii. 29). He
includes Himself with the Jews as one of those who
know what they worship (Jn. iv. 22), thus taking a
human position over against God. In line with this,
He speaks of God as His God (Jn. xx. 17), and as
the only true God (Jn. xvii. 3). He prays to Him, as
in the Synoptists. It is true that we see Jesus in
prayer fewer times in the fourth Gospel than in the
three earlier ones, and on two occasions He says that
the words of prayer which He has spoken are on
account of those who stand by (Jn. xi. 42; xvii. 13).
Once when an audible response was made to His
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 195
prayer, He said it came not for His sake but for the
sake of others (Jn. xii. 30). But these features of the
fourth Gospel are not important. One prayer is as
significant in regard to the consciousness of Jesus as
ten or twenty would be. The repeated statement that
His audible prayer was for the sake of those around
Him, by no means shows that it was not genuine
prayer. When He says that the audible answer to a
particular prayer was not for His sake, but on ac-
count of others, He does not intimate that He could
do without any answer whatsoever. He only says
that He did not need this particular answer. He
spoke a word at the tomb of Lazarus, which implies
the same life of prayer that we find in the Synoptists,
namely this, "I knew that thou hearest me always"
(Jn. xi. 42). This word always surely implies that
He was in the habit of praying.
While dependence is clearly implied in the simple
fact of prayer, it is also repeatedly affirmed by Jesus
in the most explicit terms. Twice the Jews accused
Him of claiming to be God (Jn. v. 18; x. 33). In the
first case, Jesus in His reply declared His complete
dependence upon God. He says and does only
what the Father shows and teaches Him (Jn. v.
19~3°)- And the reason why the Father shows Him
what to do is that the Father loves Him — an ethical,
not a metaphysical, ground (Jn. v. 20).
196 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
In the second instance where He was accused of
making Himself God, His reply was different but
equally clear and important. He said that the Scrip-
tures justified His language, for they call certain men
gods, to whom the word of God came. The reference
is to Ps. lxxxii. 6, where we read: —
" I said. Ye are gods,
And all of you sons of the Most High.1'
The word of God, which Jesus says " came " to these
persons, is the word which appointed them rulers over
God's people,1 and hence made them in a degree His
representatives. If now the Scripture, which cannot
be broken, calls these earthly rulers gods, it was cer-
tainly lawful for Jesus, whom the Father had conse-
crated to the Messianic office, to call Himself God's
Son. Thus He rests His right to the term on His
divine appointment, and not on His nature. So in
both these most significant controversies, where Jesus
is accused of making Himself God, we have from
Him only expressions of a human and Messianic con-
sciousness (comp. Jn. x. 29 ; xiv. 28). He affirms His
absolute dependence upon God, and rests His claim to
the title Son of God on His appointment to the Mes-
sianic office. Therefore we conclude that, while in
the fourth Gospel there is relatively less said of the
1 Comp. Meyer's Commentary on John.
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 197
humanity of Jesus than in the Synoptists, the gen-
uineness of that humanity is even more forcibly
affirmed.
The consciousness of perfect moral union with God
is far more prominent in the fourth Gospel than in
the Synoptists. It is here directly and re- .
peatedly affirmed, while in the Synoptists it conscious-
ness of union
is only implied. There are two general with the
i-ii • r • Father.
forms in which the consciousness of a unique
moral union with God expresses itself in the fourth
Gospel. First, there are the declarations which Jesus
makes regarding His own will and regarding the
character of His life. Thus He says that He finds
His inward satisfaction in doing the will of God (Jn.
iv. 34), and that it is impossible for Him to do any-
thing of Himself (Jn. v. 19, 30). This inability to do
anything of Himself is moral, for Jesus has a will of
His own (Jn. v. 30; vi. 38); but it is completely de-
voted to the Father. He does always the things
which are pleasing to God (Jn. viii. 29, 55). He is
sure that God always hears and grants His petitions,
and this assurance implies that He is conscious of
unbroken obedience to God (Jn. xi. 42). On one
occasion He was troubled and seemed in doubt what
to ask of the Father, but His holy purpose did not
waver (Jn. xii. 27). The question arose within Him
whether He should ask the Father to save Him from
I98 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
the approaching suffering, but when He recognized
that the Father had plainly led Him to this suffering,
He said, "Glorify thy name." This passage, like the
Synoptic scene in Gethsemane, shows the working of
a truly human mind, but a mind which was at the
same time ideal in its loyalty to the will of God.
A consciousness of perfect moral union with the
Father is further expressed in Jesus' statement that He
had kept the Father's commandment (Jn. xv. 10), and
had accomplished the work which the Father had given
him to do (Jn. xvii. 4); for a perfect keeping of the
Father's commandment, and a perfect accomplishment
of the Father's work, cannot have rested upon an imper-
fect moral union with the Father. Here belongs also
the great word which Jesus spoke concerning the func-
tion of the Spirit, that He, when He should come,
would convince the world in regard to righteousness, for
the context shows that Jesus has in mind His own right-
eousness (Jn. xvi. 8-10). The sin of which He will con-
vince men, is the sin of not believing in Jesus ; the
judgment of which He will convince them, is the judg-
ment which they are to share with the prince of the
world because like him they are opposed to Jesus. In
like manner, He will convince the world, not in regard
to righteousness in the abstract, but in regard to the
righteousness of Jesus, His perfect righteousness and
consequently the truth of His claim.
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 199
Secondly, there is a large class of passages in which
Jesus directly affirms a unique union with the Father.
These passages constitute a marked feature of the
fourth Gospel. They are such a lofty expression of the
claim of Jesus that on two occasions they caused His
enemies to bring against Him the charge of blasphemy
(Jn. v. 18; x. 33). The fundamental claim is contained
in the words, " I and the Father are one " (Jn. x. 30).
This appears in various forms, as, " The Father in me
and I in the Father" (Jn. x. 38), " He that beholdeth
me beholdeth Him that sent me "(Jn- xn- 45)> and, " He
that hath seen me hath seen the Father " (Jn. xiv. 9).
It is made abundantly plain in the words of Jesus Him-
self that this union with the Father is a union of charac-
ter, that it is ethical and not metaphysical. This is the
only inference to be drawn from the saying, " He that
hath seen me hath seen the Father " (Jn. xii. 45 ; xiv. 9).
For plainly the seeing which is here meant is not physi-
cal, for the Father is spirit (Jn. iv. 24), and as such
is invisible to eyes of flesh. This seeing is denned in
part in Jn. vi. 40, where Jesus says, " Every one who
beholdeth the Son and believeth on Him hath eternal
life." " Beholding Him " evidently means looking
through that which is outward and material to that
which is within : it is spiritual apprehension. The Jews
beheld Jesus and His works, and yet they did not be-
hold the real Jesus, the spirit and character of the man.
200 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Therefore in the passage in question, Jesus says in sub-
stance, He that hath seen my diameter hath seen the
Father.
Again, after mentioning His words and works which
the Jews had seen, Jesus said that they had seen and
hated both Him and His Father (Jn. xv. 22, 24). This
can mean only that the words and works of Jesus mani-
fested the character of the Father, as they also mani-
fested the character of Jesus; and consequently to hate
these words and works was to hate God. Once more,
Jesus indicates that His union with the Father is a pure
union of character when He prays that His apostles
may be one as He and the Father are one (Jn. xvii. 1 1),
and again that all believers may be one " even as Thou,
Father, art in me and I in Thee ; that they also may be
in us" (Jn. xvii. 21). And then, according to another
verse, this unity of the disciples implies that Jesus is in
them and the Father in Him (Jn. xvii. 23). Now it is
obvious that the union of the disciples which Jesus
brought about was purely ethical and religious. They
became one through their common love and loyalty
to Him, one in the purpose and the spirit of their
lives. This is the only sense in which they became
one ; and the language of Jesus makes this unity the
exact counterpart of His union with the Father. It
is impossible, therefore, from the standpoint of Jesus,
to predicate of His union with the Father anything
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 201
which cannot be predicated of the ideal union of His
disciples.
Finally, Jesus indicates that His union with the
Father is purely ethical when He represents it as
ethically conditioned. Thus Jesus gives, as the reason
why the Father is with Him, the fact that He always
does the things which are pleasing to the Father (Jn.
viii. 29). The same truth is expressed in other words
when He says, " If ye keep my commandments, ye
shall abide in my love, as I have kept my Father's
commandments, and abide in His love" (Jn. x. 17; xv.
10). There is nowhere a suggestion that the Father is
with Him, or that He abides in the Father, because He
is of the same nature or substance as the Father.
We conclude, therefore, that the oneness of Jesus
with the Father, as far as we can learn from His
words in the fourth Gospel, is a oneness, of charac-
ter. He was perfectly obedient to the Father, and
so His will was the Father's will manifested in the
flesh. They who heard His words heard the thought
of the Father perfectly transmitted. They who felt
His love, felt the love of the Father in its most ap-
preciable, because human, form. They who submitted to
His will thereby became submissive to the will of the
Father. They who felt themselves quickened under
His gracious influence, were quickened by the power of
the Father in the form of its highest potency.
202 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
In Jesus' teaching in regard to His own person,
according to the fourth Gospel, the most prominent
AT . fact is the consciousness of McssiaJisJiip.
c. Messianic J r
conscious- This consciousness expresses itself in the
ness in the
fourth forms which are found in the Synoptists,
Gospel. mi 1
i. Messianic and in still others.
We meet the two chief Messianic titles of
the earlier Gospels, the Son of man and the Son of God,
but with certain noteworthy, though not essential, differ-
ences. The fourth Gospel uses the second of these titles,
either in the full form, the Son of God, or in the form, the
only begotten Son, or most frequently, in the abbreviated
form, the Son, much oftener than do the Synoptists.
It is still used in a Messianic sense both by Jesus and
by others ; but in some passages, where Jesus em-
ploys it, the personal relationship of love between
Him and the Father becomes the prominent thought.1
Jesus plainly uses it as a Messianic title in Jn. x. 33-
36, for He there declares that it is applicable to Him
because of the high commission which He has from
the Father ; and again in xi. 4 He uses it in the
same sense. He said that the sickness of Lazarus
was in order that the Son of God might be glorified,
and then, at the tomb of Lazarus, He said that the
1 Comp. Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie, i. 238; Weiss. Pib-
lische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, p. 612; Stevens, The Johannivu
Theology, p. 124.
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 203
object of His audible utterance was that the people
might believe that God had sent Him, or, in other
words, might believe that He was the Messiah (Jn.
xvii. 8). Thus the Son of God is glorified when men
believe that He is the Messiah ; and hence this term
Messiah might be substituted for the Son of God in
xi. 4; in other words, Jesus plainly uses the term
Son of God as a Messianic title.
In the other passages where Jesus speaks of Him-
self as the Son or as the only begotten x Son, the ethi-
cal element comes to the front ; but this unique ethical
union with God is the basis of Messiahship, and Mes-
siahship is inseparable from it. But there is nowhere
an intimation in the fourth Gospel, as there is not in
the Synoptists, that the term is used in any other than
a religious or a Messianic sense.
What I have said thus far concerns the usage of
Jesus. On the lips of others, the title Son of God,
in the fourth Gospel, has an exclusively Messianic sig-
nificance, as in the earlier Gospels. Thus it is used
by the Baptist (Jn. i. 34), by Nathanael (Jn. i. 49),
by Martha (Jn. xi. 27), and by the evangelist (Jn.
xx. 31). Nathanael employs it as a synonym of the
Messianic title, King of Israel, and Martha and the
evangelist use it as a synonym of Christ.
The title Son of man, though not as common in
1 It seems probable that this epithet belongs to the author of the Gospel.
204 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
the fourth Gospel as in the Synoptists, is used in the
same sense. It is Jesus' own self-designation, and is
found only where the most obviously Messianic func-
tions are affirmed. Thus the Son of than is the one
who has unique knowledge of the Father {e.g. Jn.
xvii. 25), the one who is to be lifted up (Jn. iii. 14;
viii. 28 ; xii. 32), the one who has been consecrated
by the Father (Jn. x. 36), the one who must be person-
ally appropriated in order that the soul may have life
(e.g. Jn. vi. 53), and the one who glorifies God, and is
Himself glorified, by the crucifixion (Jn. xii. 23, 28).
One passage makes the meaning of the title espe-
cially plain, and that is Jn. ix. 35-38. Here Jesus
asks the man whom He had healed whether he be-
lieved on the Son of man, and then tells him that He
is the Son of man, just as He tells the Samaritan
woman that He is the Messiah (Jn. iv. 26). It is
manifest that this title is here a pure synonym of
Messiah, for the faith which Jesus ever sought to
win was faith in His Messiahship, and nothing else.
When, therefore, Jesus tells one receptive soul that
He is the Messiah, and another that He is the Son
of man, He puts it absolutely beyond question that
the terms are equivalent.
2 The can The Messianic consciousness of Jesus has
ior faith. an emphatic expression in the fourth Gos-
pel in the call for faith in Him. In the Synoptists
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 205
this call is implied rather than expressed. Jesus
there asks for faith in connection with His miracles
of healing ; but that is faith that He is able to
work the miracle, and never faith that He is the
Messiah (e.g. Mt. ix. 28). A call to accept Jesus as
the Messiah is doubtless involved in His whole work,
as reported by the Synoptists ; and we see a company
of disciples gather around Him, who come gradually to
the settled conviction that He is the Messiah ; but the
case is quite different in the fourth Gospel. Here
believing in Him as the Messiah is a conspicuous
feature. The belief which is called for is always
belief in the Messiahship of Jesus. Thus, when
Nathanael confesses, " Thou art the Son of God,
Thou art King of Israel," Jesus replied, " Because
I said unto thee, I saw thee underneath the fig tree,
believest thou ? " It is plain that the unexpressed
object of this verb is the Messiahship of Jesus,
which Nathanael had just confessed. Again, in viii.
24, Jesus makes it plain what He wants men to be-
lieve. " I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die
in your sins ; for except ye believe that I am he, ye
shall die in your sins." This / am is equivalent to
/ am the Messiah, as may be seen from the conver-
sation with the Samaritan woman (Jn. iv. 25-26). This
is the one great truth which they are to accept. Jesus
occasionally speaks of believing in God, but only in
206 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
connection with belief in Him whom God hath sent
(Jn. v. 24; xiv. 1). This faith in the Messiah is the
work which is acceptable to God (Jn. vi. 29), an act
on which Jesus pronounces a beatitude (Jn. xx. 29).
This is the belief which He puts in parallelism with
belief in God (Jn. xiv. 1). It is so vital that a re-
fusal to cherish it constitutes the preeminent, and, as
it were, the only, sin (Jn. xvi. 9). This lofty claim
that men should believe in His Messiahship is surely
the utterance of a lofty consciousness.
Another form in which we find the Messianic con-
sciousness expressed in the fourth Gospel is the claim
0 of Tesus that He came not of Himself, but
3. Sent by J J J
the Father. was senf by the Father. He affirms this
directly some sixteen times, and implies it in yet
other passages {e.g. Jn. vii. 28 ; viii. 42 ; v. 36,
38). In order to understand what Jesus means by
the word sent, we must understand His meaning in
the accompanying clause into the world. This mean-
ing is clear from a passage in His last prayer, where
He says, " As Thou didst send me into the world, I
also sent them into the world" (Jn. xvii. 18). With
this we may take His word to the disciples after the
resurrection, " As the Father hath sent me, so send
I you" (Jn. xx. 21). Now it is plain that when
Jesus speaks of sending His disciples into the world,
He does not refer to -their coming from some other
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 207
world into this world. The sending is from His pres-
ence, and the world is the field of their labors. There-
fore, when Jesus speaks of being sent from the Father,
we are not to suppose that He has in mind a change
of worlds, or a change in the form of His existence ;
but simply the change from the quiet life of a private
citizen in Nazareth to the public Messianic career of
preaching and establishing the kingdom of heaven.
This view is confirmed by the reference which Jesus
makes to a sealing and a consecration which preceded
His coming into the world (Jn. vi. 27; x. 36). This
consecration by the Father can be found nowhere
else than in the great event, recorded by all the
evangelists, namely, the descent of the Holy Spirit
upon Jesus in the hour of His baptism, and the divine
announcement which separated Him unto the Messi-
anic office, " Thou art my beloved Son ; in thee I
am well pleased " (Mk. i. 10-11). This was the hour,
according to the Synoptists, when Jesus became con-
scious of His Messianic mission. If, then, the con-
secration by the Father was in the hour of the baptism
of Jesus, and if this consecration was prior to the send-
ing (Jn. vi. 27 ; x. 36), it is plain that Jesus could not
have meant by the expression coming into the world,
or being sent from the Father, a local coming from
heaven to earth. When He says that He was sent
from the Father, His memory goes back to the great
208 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
hour by the Jordan when the voice of God resounded
in His soul, saying, " Thou art my beloved Son ; in
thee I am well pleased." Nazareth was then left,
and Jesus came into the world to accomplish the work
of the Messiah.
Parallel to being sent from the Father is the state-
ment of Jesus, repeated on several occasions, that
4. Come He came forth from God (Jn. viii. 42 ; xvi.
forth from 2g ^ gx jn xyi> 2 g WQ h^yQ
God, come ' ' ' '
from heaven. an authoritative suggestion as to the mean-
ing of Jesus when He says that He came forth
from God. In this passage He declares that the
Father loves the disciples because they have loved
Him and have believed that He came forth from
God. Now we know very well what Jesus required
men to believe in regard to Himself. They must
believe that He is the Messiah {e.g. Jn. viii. 24).
He did not demand belief in His preexistence, or in
any other relationship to the Father than an ethical
one. In view, then, of the explicit demand of Jesus
for faith in His Messiahship, and in view of the patent
meaning of the expression sent from God, which is
similar to the expression in question, we must hold
that His statement of having come forth from God
is not an assertion regarding His nature, but regard-
ing His Messianic commission. This interpretation is
illustrated and confirmed by the words of Nicodemus,
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 209
who says for himself and for others like minded,
"We know that thou art a teacher come from God"
(Jn. hi. 2); and yet when he used this language,
he believed that Jesus was a man, and had no more
thought that He had come down out of heaven than
that°John the Baptist had descended from the sky.
It is obvious that, on his lips, the words come from
God, as applied to Jesus, meant simply that Jesus
was appointed of God, as Moses and the prophets
had been. There is no' ground for a different under-
standing of the words when they are used by Jesus.
There is another expression of the fourth Gospel
which is to be mentioned in this connection. Jesus
speaks of having come dozen out of heaven (Jn. iii.
13; vi. 33, 38, 50, 51, 58), and also of being from
above, and not of this world (Jn. viii. 23; xvii. 14,
16). The meaning of all this language is made plain
by Jesus Himself, when He says that His disciples
also are not of this world even as He is not of tins
world (Jn. xvii. 14, i6> and when He says to the
Jews, "Ye are from beneath; I am from above"
(Jn. 'viii. 23 ; comp. xviii. 36). When he says that
the Jews are from beneath, He evidently does not
mean that they have come up to the surface of
the earth from some subterranean abode: He simply
characterizes them ethically. In like manner, the
language must be taken ethically when He says that
2IO THE REVELATION OF JESUS
He is from above. And if, when He says that His
disciples are not of this world, He refers to charac-
ter, so must He also when He says that He is not
of this world. The language has no reference, then,
to His origin. He is from above, and His disciples
are from above, because they are not actuated by
the spirit of the world, but by the Spirit of God.
In the light of this sure result, we cannot be in doubt
as to the meaning of Jesus when He speaks of coming
dozvn out of heaven. This is plainly parallel to being
from above.
It is easy to bring the claim of having come down
out of heaven into connection with the evangelist's
doctrine of the Logos (Jn. i. 1-5), and to suppose that
it means a personal descent out of heaven ; but this
interpretation is possible only when we take a super-
ficial glance at the words in question. In Jn. hi. 13
Jesus says to Nicodemus, " No one has ascended into
heaven except He who came down out of heaven, the
Son of man." Plainly we must understand this descent
out of heaven as we understand the ascent into heaven ;
but when Jesus uttered these words, He certainly had
not ascended into heaven except in a spiritual sense —
the sense that He had lived in personal fellowship with
the heavenly Father. Hence the descent out of heaven
must be figurative. The thought seems to be that of
perfect communion with God, as when Paul says that
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 211
the Lord has made us to sit in heavenly places (Eph.
ii. 6). The Scriptures make heaven, in a peculiar
sense, the abode of God, and hence it was natural to
express the thought of immediate fellowship with God
by the figure of an ascent into heaven. Now this
thought is all that the context requires ; and, moreover,
it is just what it requires. Jesus can declare " heavenly
things," that is, Messianic truths,1 because He stands
in perfect fellowship with God. If He had said that
He could make known the Messianic truths because
He, personally, had been in heaven, His conclusion
would have been too great for His premise. An angel
might have come down out of heaven, but that would
not have fitted him to declare the things of the Messi-
anic kingdom. Jesus gives a real and sufficient ground
for His authority to declare Messianic truths, and that
is His perfect communion with the Father. This state-
ment, then, that He came down out of heaven, like the
statement that He was from above, is ethical.
It is in connection with the Messianic consciousness
of Jesus that we must understand His allusions to pre-
existence. These allusions constitute a fea-
5. Jesus'
ture of that consciousness which is peculiar thought of
._, ,_. „ . preexistence.
to the fourth Gospel. The Synoptists do not
1 See Meyer's Handbuch iiber das Evangel? um Jo/iamzes, fiinfte Auflage,
p. 163. The argument is equally strong if we take Holtzmann's view of
the "heavenly things." See Hand-Conwientar, vierter Band, erste
Abtheilung, p. 54.
212 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
touch this point. As already suggested, it is with
allusions, not with a clear and fixed doctrine, that we
have to do, with a point that, even in John, clearly
belongs to the incidental rather than the essential.
Therefore differences of opinion as to the meaning
of these allusions — and there are wide differences
among Christian scholars — are less significant than
they would be on many another subject.
The first passage on preexistence is Jn. vi. 62,
"What then if ye should behold the Son of man as-
cending where He was before?"1 In the preceding
discourse of Jesus two words had given offence. He
had said that He was the bread which had come down
out of heaven, and also that it was needful to eat the
flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man in order
to have life. He solves the difficulty of this last word
when He says, in verse 63 : " It is the Spirit that quick-
eneth : the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that
I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life."
It is the difficulty of the other saying, more particu-
larly, which is referred to in verse 62. The statement
that He had come down out of heaven, or, dropping
the figure, that He had authority from God to give life
to men, would be justified, Jesus suggests, by his ap-
proaching ascension into heaven (comp. Jn. xvi. 10).
1 Wendt (i. 244-248) regards this saying as unhistorical on the ground
that it does not suit the context.
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 213
The argument is not perceptibly changed by the clause
"where He was before," and hence the allusion to pre-
existence is subordinate. The prominent thought is
the ascension.
This allusion seems to be most naturally explained
with the aid of Dan. vii. 13, which probably fur-
nished the starting-point for Jesus' use of the title
Son of num. In a night vision Daniel saw one like
unto a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven.
But this coming from heaven does not assume a real
preexistence there, any more than the fact that the
four beasts of this same vision came up out of the
sea assumes that they had really preexisted in the sea
(Dan. vii. 3), which is an impossible view, for Daniel
says that the four beasts are four kings who are yet
to arise upon the earth (Dan. vii. 17). The only
preexistence, therefore, which is assumed for the one
like a son of man who comes on the clouds of heaven,
is purely ideal. If now the word of Jesus in Jn.
vi. 62 was spoken in view of the passage in Daniel,
we should be justified in thinking that it contem-
plates the same sort of preexistence which we have
there. Moreover, this result is confirmed by the fact
that Jesus speaks of the Son of man as ascending
where He, that is this same Son of man, was before ;
but Jesus was the son of Mary, and His humanity is
thought of as derived, not as preexistent. So it is
214 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
obvious that this language cannot be taken literally.
Therefore, in view of these considerations, I conclude
that the preexistence alluded to in this passage is ideal,
and this conclusion will be greatly reenforced by the
other passages which bear upon this difficult point.
The second allusion to preexistence is the word of
Jesus in the temple, " Before Abraham was born I
am" (Jn. viii. 58). The reference to Abraham had
been made natural by the foregoing controversy.
When Jesus had promised freedom through the truth,
the Jews proudly replied that they were children of
Abraham, and had never been in bondage. Jesus
allowed their claim in a physical sense, but denied it
in the spiritual sense (verses 37, 39-40). They were
seeking to kill Him, He said, while Abraham, on the
contrary, had rejoiced to see His day. These words
seemed to the Jews to involve a preposterous claim.
They inferred that if Abraham had seen the day of
Jesus, then Jesus must claim to have lived at least as
long as from the time of Abraham. Hence their
contemptuous question, "Thou art not yet fifty years
old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? " To this Jesus
replied in words which involved a higher claim
than that which they had just attributed to Him, and
declared, " Before Abraham was born I am."
Now it must not be forgotten that it is Jesus who
is speaking, and that, in the preceding verses, He has
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 21 5
been emphasizing His Messianic claim. He does not
say that before Abraham was born the Logos existed ;
He says " I am." It is Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the
man whom the Father had consecrated to the Mes-
sianic work, who speaks. Just before this He had
spoken of " my day," which Abraham saw (Jn. viii.
56), by which we must understand the historical ap-
pearance of Jesus as the Messiah. Abraham had
seen this, virtually seen it in God's promise of a
seed (Gen. xii. 3; xv. 4-5), and had greeted it from
afar (Heb. xi. 13). And now it is this one who con-
sciously realizes the distant vision of Abraham, who
says, " Before Abraham was born I am." Jesus,
therefore, seems to affirm that His Jiistoric Messianic
personality existed before Abraham was born. If
that be the case, then its existence before Abraham
must of course be thought of as ideal.
This view satisfies the context, for it involves the
claim of a dignity and an importance which immeas-
urably transcends that of Abraham. The Jews had
asked scornfully, " Art thou greater than our father
Abraham ? " and the words of the reply of Jesus
are equal to a lofty affirmative. They imply that
His work, His deliverance, which is the meaning of
His day, had been the heart of God's plan from the
beginning — a plan which embraced Abraham not only,
but also all mankind. The Messiah who reveals God
2l6 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
and redeems the world cannot properly be compared
even with an Abraham, and it is noticeable that
Jesus does not make a comparison. He does not say,
" Before Abraham was born, I was," thus simply
affirming priority ; but He says, " I am," an expres-
sion which suggests that He belongs to the entire
course of history, if it does not certainly reach be-
yond the bounds of time. The projection of this
present I am into the remote past seems to imply a
conviction on the part of Jesus that His Messianic
personality is above time, and that His Messianic
day is part of the eternal order of things.
Strong as the argument seems to be for this interpre-
tation of Jn. viii. 58, it may be well to suspend final
judgment upon it until the remaining allusion to preex-
istence has been analyzed. It is a sound principle of
exegesis that of several kindred passages the more ob-
scure should be interpreted by the less obscure ; and of
the three allusions to preexistence made by Jesus the
last is the clearest. This last passage is found in the
farewell prayer, and reads as follows, — " Now, O
Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the
glory which I had with thee before the world was "
(Jn. xvii. 5). This glory seems to be regarded as
a reward for the work which Jesus had now accom-
plished. He says in the preceding verse that He has
glorified God on the earth, having accomplished the
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 21 7
work which had been given Him to do ; and now He
prays that the Father will glorify Him. This order of
thought certainly suggests that He looks at the antici-
pated glory as His proper reward. Moreover, the char-
acter of this glory establishes the view that it is indeed
the reward for the Messianic work. We have the fol-
lowing data for the determination of the character of
this glory. Jesus speaks of a glory which He has al-
ready received (Jn. xvii. 10, 22), and also of a glory
which He hopes to receive in the future (xvii. 1, 5, 24).
Again, with regard to the Father, Jesus speaks of hav-
ing already glorified Him (xvii. 4), and also of glorifying
Him in the future (xvii. 1). Now in all these passages
the glory is apparently one in kind, though not neces-
sarily the same in degree. There is no suggestion that
the words glory and glorify have a peculiar content
when Jesus is speaking of the future — a content essen-
tially different from that which they have when He
speaks of the past. Moreover, there is no need of mak-
ing such an assumption in order to a clear and harmo-
nious interpretation of the chapter. Therefore we must
hold that the words glory and glorify, as used in this
passage, now of the past work of Jesus and again of
His future state and activity, have the same essential
meaning. But this meaning, when Jesus refers to the
past, is put beyond question by the language of Jesus
Himself : it is the glory of redemption. He has glori-
2l8 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
fiefl the Father on the earth by accomplishing His work
(xvii. 4), that is, the Messianic work. He has mani-
fested the Father's name to His disciples (xvii. 6), or
has given them the Father's word (xvii. 14). And this
is also the way in which He will glorify the Father in
the future, for He says that He will still make the
Father's name known (xvii. 26), and give eternal life to
all whom the Father shall give to Him (xvii. 2). Thus
the glorification of the Father of which Jesus speaks
in this chapter is surely accomplished by the Messianic
work of Jesus, as He makes the Father known, and
through their faith in Him brings men into the love of
the Father and gives to them eternal life. This is the
past glorification of the Father and it is also His future
glorification.
Now in regard to the past glorification of Jesus, of
which the chapter speaks, we are not left in doubt.
Jesus says that He is already glorified in His disciples
(xvii. 10), and He indicates in what this glorification
consists. He is glorified in them because they have
recognized Him as the Messiah, and have given their
allegiance to Him (xvii. 8). This glory which Jesus
has received from His disciples may be said to have
been given to Him by the Father (xvii. 22), because
the Father gave to Jesus that revelation through which
Jesus had brought men to accept Him as the Messiah,
sent from God (xvii. 7).
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 219
Now from that which is clearly defined we proceed,
and proceed safely, to that which is less clearly defined.
The glory which Jesus has already received is, as the
chapter plainly teaches, the glory of having been
recognized as the Messiah. It is the glory of having
established the Messianic kingdom. Therefore we
must say that the glory for which He prays (xvii. 5),
and which He anticipates receiving in heaven (xvii. 24),
is of the same sort, that is to say, it is the glory of
doing Messianic work and of being recognized as the
Messiah. It may differ vastly in degree from that
glory which He has already received, but not in kind.
One glory is the glory of beginning the kingdom ; the
other is the glory of completing the kingdom.
This important conclusion touching the glory for
which Jesus prays is variously confirmed. The fact
that the future glorification of the Father in this
chapter is of the same sort as His past glorification,
which we have seen to be the case, makes it natural
to hold that the future glorification of the Son is
thought of as being of the same sort as His past glorifi-
cation. Not only so ; but the future glorification of the
Father depends upon the future glorification of the
Son (xvii. 1 ). Now since this future glorification of
the Father depends upon the future glorification of
the Son ; and since the past glorification of the Father
depended upon the Messianic work of Jesus, we are
220 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
fully justified in the position that the future glorification
of the Son, which is to promote the glory of the
Father, will consist in the continuation and completion
of His Messianic work. It is for this, then, that Jesus
prays.
This conclusion is made still more certain, if possible,
by words which Jesus spoke earlier in the last week.
He referred to the hour of His crucifixion as the hour
of His glorification (Jn. xii. 23), and also as the hour
when the name of His Father would be glorified (Jn.
xii. 28). Now the hour of the crucifixion of Jesus was
the hour of His glorification, according to the fourth
Gospel, because by the events of this hour Jesus was
most manifestly revealed as the Messiah. He regarded
His crucifixion as the supreme act of self-revelation
(Jn. viii. 28). For this reason, He could say that His
lif ting-up was to be the great motive to draw men unto
Him (Jn. xii. 32). Thus Jesus, on this occasion,
thought of the culminating act of His Messianic work
upon earth as a future glorification, and He prayed to
the Father in regard to this glory (Jn. xii. 28). There-
fore, when, a few days later, we hear Him praying
again for a future glorification of Himself, which future
glorification is not directly described, we are compelled
to believe that His thought is upon the consummation
of His work.
Therefore we hold as a fixed and unshakable con-
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 221
elusion, that the glory for which Jesus prays in the
seventeenth chapter of John is of the same sort as
that glory which He had already received (xvii. 10, 22).
It is the glory of being recognized and loved as the
Messiah. He prays for the divine consummation of
the great work which He has begun. He has re-
ceived a foretaste of that glory, and He prays for its
fulness.
Having now shown that the glory for which Jesus
prays is the fruition of His Messianic work, or the
reward for that work, it follows that He cannot
have possessed this with the Father before the foun-
dation of the world, except as it was His in the pur-
pose and decree of God (comp. Mt. xxv. 34). Rewards
are bestowed after the work is done, and then only
can be appreciated as rewards. Jesus possessed this
glory before the foundation of the world in the sense
that it was divinely purposed for Him. He knew that
His Messianic work had been planned of God from
eternity, and that the glorious outcome of it had been
fixed, and was kept in store for Him.
Thus in the very shadow of the cross, when to
human view the work of Jesus seemed to be a com-
plete and' shameful failure, He calmly and confidently
asks for the glory which He had with the Father
before the world was. This is surely the utterance
of one who was conscious of being the Messiah sent
222 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
from God ; but the preexistence which is involved is
simply and only ideal. The glory of completed re-
demption cannot be literally possessed until redemp-
tion is complete. If now the preexistence of Jesus,
according to the seventeenth chapter of John, is
clearly ideal, this fact confirms the interpretation
which has been given of the other passages which
are less clear. We conclude, then, that these three
passages in John, in which Jesus alludes to His pre-
existence, do not involve the claim that this preexist-
ence was personal and real. They are to be classed
with the other phenomena of the Messianic conscious-
ness of Jesus, none of which, either in the Synoptists
or in the fourth Gospel, have to do with metaphysi-
cal relationships.
This conclusion in regard to the meaning of Jesus'
allusions to preexistence is in line with the fact that
neither the Old Testament nor other Jewish writ-
ings, prior to the time of Jesus, know anything of a
personal preexistence of the Messiah. When the
conception of the Messiah was individualized by the
people of the Old Covenant, He was usually thought
of as a descendant of David (see Hos. hi. 5 ; Amos
ix. 11; Is. ix. 7 ; xi. 1 ; Jer. xxiii. 5 ; Zech. xiii. 1 ; Mic.
v. 2; Ps. lxxix. 20-21; cxxxii. io-u), though this de-
scent may not always have been understood literally ; 1
1 See Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, p. 47.
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 223
and whether as a literal descendant of David or
not, He was invariably thought of as a divinely ap-
pointed earthly ruler and deliverer. The glowing
language of Isaiah (vii. 14 , ix. 6) cannot be regarded
as presenting a conception of the Messiah funda-
mentally different from that of other Old Testament
writers both earlier and later, which is the case when
it is understood metaphysically ; but it must be
regarded as in line with Jesus' use of Ps. lxxxii. 6,
that is, as an exalted description of one who was
to be the supreme and final representative of Jeho-
vah for the deliverance and perfecting of His people.1
When Micah speaks of Him who is to be ruler in
Israel as one whose " goings forth " are from " ancient
days" (v. 2), he marks Him as one who comes
from an old and illustrious lineage. It is manifest
that his thought does not go beyond an earthly
ruler clothed with divine authority, for he speaks
of the coming deliverer as one who will stand and
feed his flock in the name of the Lord his God
(v. 4).
Likewise in later pre-Christian Jewish writings,
though the idea of preexistence begins to appear, it
is only an ideal preexistence. The Sibylline Oracles
1 Comp. Schultz, Altlestamentliche Theologie, pp. 772-773; Cheyne,
The Prophecies of Isaiah, 3d ed., i. 61-62; Briggs, Messianic Prophecy,
pp. 195-201.
224 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
and the earlier part of Enoch know only of a divinely
sent king, sprung from the purified people of God.1
In the Psalms of Solomon the Messiah is a righteous
king, the son of David, but without a trace of pre-
existence.2 In the Parables of Enoch, which probably
antedate the life of Jesus,3 it is said that the name
of the Son of man was called before the Lord of the
spirits, before the stars were made, and that this Son
of man was chosen and hidden before the Lord,
before the creation of the world. Here is, indeed,
the idea of preexistence, but it is doubtful whether the
author thought of this as real and personal. In
the Assumption of Moses, which belongs to the same
period with the Parables of Enoch, even Moses is
represented as saying, "The Lord prepared me
before the foundation of the world, to be the medi-
ator of His covenant" (i. 14); but it is not probable
that the author thought of a personal preexistence of
Moses. The origin of a belief in personal preexistence
is later than the time of Christ.4 But if preexistence
in the Assumption of Moses is ideal, that is a reason
why we should understand it in an ideal sense in the
Parables of Enoch.
1 See Or. Sib. iii. 652 f.; Enoch xc. 37; Hilgenfeld, Die jiidische
Apokalyptik, p. 143. 2 See Ps. xvii.
8 See Charles, 7'he Book of Enoch, pp. 11 3-1 15.
4 See Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah, p. 131; Weber,
Die Lehren des Talmuds, pp. 340-341.
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 225
Since then the Old Testament conception of the
Messiah is opposed to the thought of personal pre-
existence, and since other Jewish writings of pre-
Christian date have no clear reference to personal
preexistence, we conclude that there is no historical
reason for doubting the position taken in regard to
the teaching of the fourth Gospel.
The last expression of a Messianic consciousness
which we have to consider in the fourth Gospel is the
fact that Jesus accepted worship from the
^ y 6. Jesus
man whose eyes He had opened (Jn. ix. 38), accepts
worship.
and allowed Thomas to address Him as Lord
and God (Jn. xx. 28). In the case of the man in the
temple the homage is plainly paid to Jesus as Mes-
siah. Jesus asked the unnamed person if he believed
in the Son of man, that is, as we have seen, the Mes-
siah ; and when the man replied, " Who is he, Lord,
that I may believe on him," Jesus said, " Thou hast
both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee."
Then the man, believing that Jesus was the Messiah,
did Him reverence. It does not follow from this that
he regarded Jesus as of the same nature with God.
The term which is translated worship is used of the
homage which subjects pay to their sovereign, and
simply implies that the one who receives it is of a
dignity superior to that of the one who renders it
(comp. Rev. xxii. 8). The word implies nothing in
Q
226 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
regard to the nature of the one who receives the hom-
age. The man worshipped Jesus because he believed
Him to be the Messiah of his people ; and Jesus
accepted the homage because He was conscious of
being the Messiah.
In the other passage, we are told that Thomas ad-
dressed the risen Jesus as Lord and God, and it is
implied that Jesus accepted this homage. Then He
said to Thomas, " Because thou hast seen me, thou
hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen,
and yet have believed " (Jn. xx. 29). Now we know
what belief Jesus sought from men, according to the
fourth Gospel. It was belief in Him as the Messiah.
When, therefore, He said to Thomas, " Because thou
hast seen me, thou hast believed," that meant simply
and only, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast be-
lieved that / am the Messiah. It appears, then, that
Jesus accepted the homage of Thomas as homage
rendered to His Messiahship. His language seems to
imply that any one who believed in Him as the Mes-
siah might be expected to adore Him. There is no
suggestion that He regarded the homage as implying
that He was of the same substance with the Father.
Now we shall go safely if we argue from Jesus:
acceptance of the homage to the thought of Thomas
when he said, " My Lord and my God." If we do
so argue, we shall conclude that Thomas was in the
THE PERSON OF JESUS THE MESSIAH 227
same spiritual condition as the man who worshipped
Jesus in the temple (Jn. ix. 38), and like him recog-
nized Jesus as the Messiah. But if his adoration was
for Jesus as the Messiah, then it is wrong to treat his
language as a theological statement regarding the
nature of Jesus. It is impossible to say that when
this Jew addressed Jesus as my God, his thought was
that of the theologians of the fourth century, who
said of Jesus, " Deus ex substantia Patris." i Since
Jesus Himself justified that Scripture which calls men
gods on the ground that they represent God (Jn. x.
35), and since He once bases His claim to the title
Son of God upon the fact that He has been conse-
crated by the Father to the Messianic work (Jn. x. 36),
it is plainly wrong to regard the language of Thomas
as an affirmation regarding the essential being of
Jesus. Thomas is ocularly convinced that Jesus is
risen from the dead, and so is convinced that He is
the Messiah, and as the Messiah he worships Him.
Jesus accepts the worship because He is conscious of
Messiahship. But the fact that Thomas calls Him
God, judged by the standard which is set for us in
the usage of Jesus Himself, cannot be held to in-
volve anything more than a recognition of the office,
the commission, the divine authority, and function of
Jesus.
1 See Symbolum Quicunque, 31.
228 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
It may be remarked, in conclusion, that this interpre-
tation is in harmony with the expressed purpose of
the evangelist, which was to prove that Jesus was
the Christ (Jn. xx. 31). He does not set out to prove
that Jesus is of the same nature as the Father, but
to prove that He is the one anointed of the Father to
give eternal life to men. Therefore, he appropriately
closes his Gospel with the scene in which Thomas
adores the Messiah.
This interpretation is also in harmony with the fact
of the human consciousness of Jesus, which is evi-
denced throughout the entire Gospel; in harmony
with the fact of Jesus' consciousness of absolute
moral union with the Father, which is manifest
throughout the entire Gospel — a consciousness that
uttered itself in such a word as " I and the Father
are one ; " and it is in harmony, finally, with the fact
of His Messianic consciousness.
Jesus as the Messiah is the* perfect revealer of the
Father, the perfect representative of the Father, the
perfect redeemer of those who accept Him, and He
is, therefore, infinitely worthy of the adoration and
worship of all mankind.
CHAPTER VI
The Messiah's Earthly Work
As the purpose of any man may be inferred from
his work, so we may infer the purpose of Jesus from
His work ; but we are not now concerned T _
I. The pur-
with possible inferences. We are asking pose of the
Messiah.
rather after the direct and positive teaching a. in the
r t i tttx- tr • i r tt- Synoptists.
of Jesus: what He Himself said of His pur-
pose, and how He sought to achieve it. According
to the Synoptic Gospels the Messianic consciousness
of Jesus dated from the hour of His baptism, and by
the meditation and temptation in the wilderness He
adjusted His thought to the new consciousness. He
came forth from the wilderness, and for a little more
than two years engaged in public work, which clearly
had as its sole aim the establishment of the kingdom
of heaven. We cannot go back of the baptism of
Jesus and speak of the purpose which actuated Him
in the earlier years of His private life, except to say
that the purpose of the boy Jesus, to be about the
things of His Father (Lk. ii. 49), was doubtless
the purpose of the youth and the man. We are
229
230 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
sure as we look at the public life of Jesus, that in
His earlier private life His deepest concern had been
to please God, and day by day to follow perfectly
the guidance of His Spirit. But we know of no
other plan or life-purpose which He had at that time.
When, however, the consciousness of Messiahship had
been divinely awakened within him, immediately His
life came entirely under the sway of the great pur-
pose which that Messianic consciousness called forth,
namely, the purpose to do the work of the Messiah
as God should make it known to Him. All His time
and all His energies were henceforth consecrated to
this single end.
And the work of the Messiah, the work of His
earthly life, as Jesus regarded it, was the establish-
ment of the kingdom of heaven, the realization
among men of that ideal relationship to God of
which He was conscious in His own soul. It was
this which He constantly preached, and for the
coming of this He taught His disciples to pray.
Sometimes Jesus speaks of the aim of His mission
in more specific, or in narrower, terms than the es-
tablishment of the kingdom of heaven. Thus it is
to call sinners to repentance (Mk. ii. 17; Lk. v.
32), or to fulfil the Law and the prophets (Mt. v. 17).
Again, it is to sow the good seed (Mt. xiii. 37), to
preach the acceptable year of the Lord (Lk. lv.
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 23 1
19), to induce men to choose the one thing needful
(Lk. x. 42), to give rest to those who labor and are
heavy laden (Mt. xi. 28), and to give His life a
ransom for many (Mk. x. 45). But all these ends
are subordinate to the establishment of the reign of
God in the heart of man.
The Messianic purpose is differently stated in the
fourth Gospel, but the difference is formal rather
than essential. We find it, for example, in , , ,
1 b. In the
the word of Jesus in the allegory of the fourth
Gospel.
Good Shepherd, " I came that they may
have life and may have it abundantly" (Jn. x. 10).
Other closely related terms are incidentally employed.
Thus, Jesus came to save the world (Jn. v. 34; xii.
47). He came to give men the truth (Jn. viii.
31-32; xviii. 37); to give them the glory which the
Father had given to Him, that is, the name of the
Father (Jn. xvii. 5-6). But the characteristic desig-
nation of the aim of His mission is to give life {e.g.
Jn. hi. 15; v. 40; vi. 33; viii. 12; xi. 25; xvii. 3).
The conception of eternal life which we find in
the fourth Gospel is narrower than the conception
of the kingdom of God, as I have indicated in an-
other connection. It has a close correspondence to
the first meaning of that term in the Synoptists,
namely, the reign of God in the heart. That is life,
eternal life. But, as we have seen, the term king-
232 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
dom of heaven has other meanings than that of a
divine reign in the heart, and to these other mean-
ings the conception of eternal life in the fourth
Gospel is not akin.
This life which it is the purpose of Christ to give
is prevailingly thought of in the fourth Gospel as a
present possession,1 while eternal life in the Synoptists
is always regarded as belonging to the future age
(e.g. Mk. x. 30; Mt. vii. 14; xxv. 46). The idea
that the believer has eternal life even now is neces-
sarily involved in Jesus' conception of that life, ac-
cording to the fourth Gospel. He always associates
it with His own person, and regards it as resulting
from the appropriation of Himself by faith. Thus
He says: " I am the bread of life" (Jn. vi. 48); "I
am the living bread" (Jn. vi. 51); " He that eateth
my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life "
(Jn. vi. 54); " He that eateth me, he also shall live
because of me" (Jn. vi. 57); "I am the life" (Jn. xi.
25). The Father has given Him authority to have
life in Himself (Jn. v. 26), and this life is com-
municated through a personal relation in which Jesus
and His disciples become one (Jn. vi. 56; xv. 4;
xvii. 23). Such a relation is implied in eating Him,
or abiding in Him as the branch abides in the vine.
It is manifest, then, that eternal life becomes the
1 It is referred to the future in Jn. iv. 14; vi. 27; xii. 25.
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 233
possession of a soul when Jesus is accepted, and
therefore it is spoken of as something which the be-
liever has here and now. Were this not the case,
then the Messianic purpose, according to the fourth
Gospel, would be a purpose whose realization be-
longs to the future age. But since the Messianic
purpose is stated by John as the purpose to give a
present life, it is manifestly the same purpose that
is involved in the Synoptic expression of a present
heavenly kingdom. The Synoptic expression of the
Messianic purpose, however, gives a certain promi-
nence to God, and the Johannean expression gives
an equal prominence to the Messiah.
Jesus began to realize the Messianic ideal by teach-
ing. He came not as the Jews had expected, with
outward pomp and military power, but as n The
a herald and teacher. He appeared in Messianic
purpose
Galilee calling men to repentance and faith realized by
t63.cliin£.
in the Gospel (Mk. i. 15). He taught in a. in the
the synagogues (Mk. i. 21). When He left syn°Ptists-
Capernaum, after His first activity there, He told
His disciples that He must go to the other villages,
to preach there also (Mk. i. 38). According to Mark,
He had come forth from Capernaum in order to
preach elsewhere; while, in Luke, this was the pur-
pose for which He had been sent, that is, the
purpose of His life as a whole. Of these two ver-
234 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
sion? of the word of Jesus, Mark's is probably the
historical one; but the broader idea of Luke is surely
in accord with the manifest aim of the life of Jesus.
Again, the Synoptic report repeatedly summarizes the
tours of Jesus in Galilee as tours of preaching, or of
preaching and healing (Mk. i. 21; vi. 6; Mt. iv. 23).
When He went from Galilee into Perea, Mark says that,
as his custom was, He taught the people (Mk. x. 1).
When He came to Jerusalem, He taught in the temple,
and at the time of His arrest, He rebuked those who
came against Him as against a robber, with the words,
" I sat daily in the temple teaching, and ye took me
not" (Mt. xxvi. 55). Jesus represents the unfaithful as
saying, at the last day, " We did eat and drink in thy
presence, and thou didst teach in our streets " (Lk. xiii.
26). Thus He seems to have regarded teaching as His
primary and fundamental work. In harmony with this
fact, we find that His disciples and people in general
most commonly addressed Him as teacher or rabbi
{e.g. Mt. viii. 19; xii. 38; Jn. i. 38, 49; iv. 31).
Jesus never put His miracles by the side of His
teaching, as though they were coordinate with it. As
we have shown elsewhere, Jesus subordinated miracles
to teaching. They were a proof of His Messianic
claim, but in themselves they involved no teaching
in regard to God which was not contained in the
miracles of the prophets. The distinctive religious
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 235
message of Jesus to the world was not expressed
through His miraculous works. These works, how-
ever, since they confirmed the Messianic claim of
Jesus, were of course of great value, and Jesus could
say to the lake-cities, that because His mighty works
had not led them to repentance, their fate should be
less tolerable than that of Sodom and Gomorrah
(Mt. xi. 20-24). They had seen these works, and
could not, without wilful hostility to the truth, deny
that they were proofs of power and of a beneficent
purpose. They ought, then, to have perceived that
these mighty works were God's visible seal upon the
claim of Jesus. This is their significance both in
the Synoptists and John ; but this function does not
raise them to a place beside the teaching of Jesus.
The importance of the revelation of Jesus, as a
means of realizing the Messianic purpose, lay in the
fact that He thereby communicated a unique and ab-
solute knowledge of God. It is plain, even in the
Synoptists, that He claimed to have such knowledge.
He claimed it when He said that He came to fulfil
the Law and the prophets (Mt. v. 17). For the Law
and the prophets had as their great aim the effectual
revelation of God's will to men ; and they did, indeed,
reveal it by " divers portions and in divers manners,"
and they had a " shadow of the good things to come"
(Heb. i. 1 ; x. 1). But one who should fulfil the Law
236 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
and the prophets, who should perfectly realize the
ideal after which they struggled, must of necessity
have a perfect knowledge of the divine will.
Again, the Synoptists have the claim of unique
knowledge in the word of Jesus which was spoken
when He realized that the mystery of the Gospel had
been effectually made known to His disciples through
Him. First, He thanks God that He has revealed
"these things" of the kingdom to "babes"; and
then says that no one knows the Son but the Father,
nor who the Father is but the Son and he to whom-
soever the Son willeth to reveal Him (Mt. xi. 25-27;
Lk. x. 22). Here is the claim to an absolute knowledge
of the Father, also the teaching that this knowledge
can be communicated, and that Jesus regards the
acceptance of it by men as the accomplishment of
His mission. He speaks of this knowledge as given
by the Father, and then declares that it is given
through the Son, which obviously shows that, in His
thought, what He reveals, God reveals.
It is significant that the invitation of Jesus to men
to come unto Him for rest follows immediately upon
this statement, that He alone can reveal the Father
(Mt. xi. 28-30). The evident implication is that men
find rest for their souls as they receive from Jesus
His revelation of the Father, or, to put it in another
form, as they find the Father in Him. Thus the Mes-
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 237
sianic purpose of Jesus was fulfilled by the way of
teaching; but it is of vital importance to bear in mind
the personal element in this teaching. Since it is
Jesus, and no other, who communicates the saving
revelation of the Father (Mt. xi. 27), the acceptance
of the teaching involves the acceptance of the Teacher
as the Messiah sent from God to bring this teaching
to men. The work of Jesus as a teacher cannot be
separated from His work of winning disciples. He
taught men in order that they might desire to follow
Him ; and He called men to follow Him in order
that He might teach them (Mk. hi. 14). Discipleship
was the fruit which He always sought. " Follow
me," now used in a literal sense (Mk. ii. 14; x. 28;
Mt. viii. 21-22), and now in a figurative sense (Mk.
viii. 34-35; Mt. xvi. 24-25), are the words which
perfectly express the sole end of His teaching. They
who really accepted His teaching, accepted Him ; and
they who accepted Him accepted Him as reveal-
ing the Father, and also accepted the Father as
revealed by Him. Thus the teaching of Jesus is
not abstract, but personal. A man cannot accept it
without becoming a disciple of Jesus, for the very
heart of it is that Jesus Himself is the revealer of the
Father. In so far as men do accept it, the Messianic
purpose of Jesus is accomplished, and the purpose of
the Father is accomplished, who sent Jesus to do the
238 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Messianic work. Thus the life-work of Jesus, accord-
ing to the Synoptists, was the work of a teacher, a
revealer of God ; but this work was accomplished
through the offer and acceptance of a perfect embodi-
ment of the revelation in the person of the Revealer,
and not alone by the offer and acceptance of a new
conception of God.
In the discourses of Jesus in the fourth Gospel, the
realization of the Messianic purpose, as far as it is
accomplished by the life of Jesus, is accom-
b. In the
fourth plished solely by His work as a teacher ;
and thus we have the same thought as in
the Synoptists, but it is expressed with greater clearness
and urgency.
The value of the revelation of Jesus rests upon the
fact that it springs out of an immediate knowledge of
God. The claim of Jesus to an absolute knowledge of
the Father is presented much more fully by John than
by the earlier evangelists. We meet it near the begin-
ning of the Gospel, in the dialogue with Nicodemus (Jn.
iii. 13), and all the way through the narrative till the
final conversation with the Roman governor (Jn. xviii.
37). Thus He said that no one but the Son of man
had ascended into heaven, and hence no one but He
could declare " heavenly things," that is, Messianic
truths (Jn. iii. 13). Likewise He says that the Father
shows the Son all things which He Himself doeth (Jn.
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 239
v. 20), which implies that He shows them to no one
else. Again, Jesus claims full and unique knowledge
when He says that no one has seen the Father save He
who is from God (Jn. vi. 46), and when in His last
prayer He speaks twice of giving to His disciples the
name which the Father had given to Him (Jn. xvii. 11,
12). In like manner He says that the world knew not
the Father, but He, in solitary contrast with the world,
knew Him (Jn. xvii. 25). This knowing the will of the
Father is expressed by Jesus in a variety of figures.
Thus He hears the Father speak and teach (Jn. v. 30;
viii. 28); He sees in the presence of the Father the
things which He speaks (Jn. viii. 38); the Father shows
Him all that He doeth (Jn. v. 26), or, in general terms,
the words that He speaks and the revelation that He
imparts have been given to Him by the Father (Jn. xvii.
8, 11). This language of Jesus implies that He felt
perfectly certain of His teaching. What He had heard
from the Father, or seen in His presence, He could and
must utter without hesitation. And His teaching does
indeed bear the stamp of perfect assurance. There is
never a tone of doubt in it. Jesus is never confused or
unprepared.
The claim of Jesus to teach what He has seen with
the Father does not imply that He ignored the Old
Testament, and claimed direct and immediate revelation
as the source of all His teaching. He regarded the
24O THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Scriptures as witnessing concerning Him, and intimated
that the sum of their teaching was that men should
come to Him for life (Jn. v. 39-40). But this thought,
that men have eternal life in Hint, is surely a part
of the doctrine which He said was not His but the
Father's (Jn. vii. 16). This is one of the Messianic
truths which He has learned in communion with the
Father (Jn. iii. 12-13).
Again, His conviction that the Son of man must be
lifted up may have come to Him, in part at least, by
reading the experience of Israel in the wilderness (Num.
xxi. 9; Jn. iii. 14). Occasionally Jesus uses the Scrip-
tures in His controversies with the Jews, and in conver-
sation with His disciples, and yet at the same time He
says that He speaks the things which He has seen with
the Father (Jn. x. 34-35; vi. 45; xiii. 18; xv. 25).
Therefore it seems plain that with reference to some of
His teaching, at least, He heard the Father's voice and
saw the Father in the Scriptures of the Old Testament,
— a conception which is in fundamental accord with
that idea of the Old Testament which we find in the
Synoptists (e.g. Mt. v. 17-19; Mk. xii. 30-31 ; Mt. xxii.
37-40).
This leads to another point, namely, that Jesus ac-
quired His knowledge of the Father in His earthly life.
Some of the passages in which He speaks of this
knowledge harmonize with the view that He gained it in
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 24 1
a preexistent state,1 though not one can reasonably be
said to require that view. Jesus speaks of the Father's
commandments to Him in the aorist tense, which
points to past time and so might refer to a preexistent
state. Thus He says, " As the Father taught me, I
speak these things;" and "The words which Thou
gavest me I have given to them " (Jn. viii. 28 ; xvii. 8).
Oftener He uses the perfect tense in speaking of what
He has seen with the Father, which also allows, but
does not require, a reference to preexistence. Thus He
says, " I speak the things which I have seen with the
Father;" and, "The Father who hath sent me, He
hath given me a commandment, what I should say "
(Jn. viii. 38 ; xii. 49-50). But still more frequently
Jesus uses the present tense when speaking of the
Father's communications to Him, and once the future.
Thus He says that the Father shows Him what He
does (Jn. v. 20), shows Him day by day, as need arises.
Again, He judges as He hears from the Father (Jn. v.
30), and the Father abiding in Him works (Jn. xiv. 10).
He knows that His Messianic witness is true, because
He is conscious that He is not alone. He knows that
the Father is with Him, and that the witness which He
bears is also the Father's witness (Jn. viii. 16-18).
These passages, as those in which He draws His teach-
ing from Scripture, and that one in which He refers to
1 Comp. Weiss, Neutestamentliche Theologie, p. 616.
242 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
a future teaching by the Father (Jn. v. 20), show that
when Jesus speaks of seeing things in the Father's
presence and hearing words from Him, we are not war-
ranted in supposing that He refers in any single in-
stance to a preexistent state. He refers rather to the
teaching of the Father which He was constantly receiv-
ing in His earthly life. None of the passages require
that this statement should be modified. When Jesus
says that the Father taught, using the aorist tense, the
word is spoken in both cases from the standpoint of the
end of His life ; and as summarizing what had been
experienced in His earthly life, the aorist is appropri-
ately used. And when Jesus says that He speaks the
things which He has seen with the Father, using
the perfect tense, nothing suggests that this form of the
verb implies preexistence. One must bring that thought
to the text before it can be found there. The signifi-
cance of the perfect is simply this, that what Jesus has
seen with the Father abides in full force with Him to
the present hour.
Moreover, this view that Jesus acquired His know-
ledge of the Father in His earthly life 1 is the only one
which accords with the fact that Jesus in the fourth
Gospel lays great stress upon His moral union with the
Father, but nowhere distinctly alludes to a metaphysical
relationship.
1 Comp. Lk. ii 40, 52.
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 243
Now the communication of this unique knowledge of
the Father, on which the fourth Gospel puts so much
emphasis, is the Messianic work. This thought appears
in various forms on the lips of Jesus. In the conscious-
ness that He has this life-giving knowledge He calls him-
self the light of the world (Jn. viii. 12 ; ix. 5 ; xii. 35).
He sums up His activity in behalf of mankind as a bear-
ing witness unto the truth (Jn. xviii. 37), and the centre of
His claim to Thomas is that He Himself is the truth
(Jn. xiv. 6). He is the way to the Father because He
is the truth, and He is the life of men because He is the
truth. His truth is the spring of His life and the light
of His way. Again, Jesus says that it is His mission to
speak what He has seen with the Father (Jn. viii. 38),
and to make known all things which He has heard from
the Father (Jn. viii. 26; xv. 15). In His closing prayer
He refers to His life-work as a manifestation of the
name of the Father, or a giving to men of the word of
the Father, which is truth, or a giving to them of the
glory which the Father had given to Him, which is
nothing else than the Father's revelation of Himself
(Jn. xvii. 6, 8, 17, 22). They who hear His word from
the Father live, because His word is spirit and life (Jn.
v. 25; vi. 63; comp. Mk. iv. 4, 14). They are quick-
ened by it, and pass out of death into life (Jn. v. 21, 24).
Such is the prominence which is given in the fourth
Gospel to the teaching function of Jesus as the means
244 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
of realizing His Messianic purpose. This is virtually
the exclusive means, for the signs of the fourth Gospel
(eight described) are subordinated to the teaching, as in
the Synoptists. Jesus reproached the nobleman of
Capernaum, and with him the Jews of that day in gen-
eral, when He said, " Except ye see signs and wonders
ye will in no wise believe " (Jn. iv. 48). This implies
that He thought there was a better ground of belief in
Him as Messiah than mere signs and wonders. Of
course it does not follow that He regarded the signs
as unimportant. The next day after feeding the multi-
tudes near Bethsaida He said to the Jews, " Ye seek
me not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the
loaves and were filled" (Jn. vi. 26). Here it is implied
that, in His judgment, the signs which they had seen
might well have led them to seek Him. In like manner
He spoke of the resurrection of Lazarus as an event
which manifested the glory of God, and which glorified
the Son of God (Jn. xi. 4, 40). It glorified the Son of
God because, in connection with His claim, it showed
Him to be the Messiah, which is the function of all the
signs of Jesus in the fourth Gospel.
But while Jesus thus spoke of His signs, He did not
coordinate them with His teaching. In His final prayer,
wherein He reviews His life-work and speaks of what
He has done for the disciples, He does not mention the
miraculous works, but speaks of the Father's words and
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 245
the Father's name, which He has given to them. This
is His great work, and it is this which is to be continued
by His successor. The Holy Spirit will teach them, and
bring to their remembrance all that Jesus said to them
(Jn. xiv. 26). He is to bear witness of Jesus (Jn. xv.
26). Thus the revelation of Jesus remains the essential
means of accomplishing the Messianic work, while His
signs had only a passing and incidental importance.
As the fourth Gospel gives prominence to teaching in
the realization of the Messianic purpose, so it gives a
corresponding prominence to the personal relationship
which is involved in the acceptance of the teaching.
Jesus manifests the name of the Father (Jn. xvii. 6, 26),
that is, the Father's character, and He manifests this in
His own character. " / am the light of the world "
(Jn. viii. 12); "/am the resurrection and the life" (Jn.
xi. 25); "/ am the way and the truth and the life " (Jn.
xiv. 6); "This is life eternal that they should know
thee, the only true God, and him whom thou didst
send, Jesus Christ "(Jn. xvii. 3). The thought of ac-
cepting the words which He has received from the
Father alternates with the thought of appropriating
Him (Jn. xvii. 8 ; vi. 57). In John, then, as little as in
the Synoptists does Jesus ever separate between the
verbal and the personal revelation of the Father, or
think of the acceptance of His doctrine apart from the
acceptance of Himself.
246 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
From the realization of the Messianic purpose in
the life of Jesus we pass now to consider the bearing
of His death upon the realization of that purpose, and
first we must notice the progressive unfolding of the
thought of death.
in. The The evangelist Mark, when he gives Jesus'
Messianic ^rst forrr,al announcement of His death, in-
purpose
realized timates that the Lord had referred to the
through
death. same subject before, but in a veiled manner,
sive unfold- f°r after recording what Jesus said of His
Jhourfrtof death when He was at Csesarea Philippi, he
death. adds that He spake the word openly (Mk. viii.
31-32). We find in Mark's Gospel one obscure refer-
ence by Jesus to His death made prior to the sojourn at
Caesarea Philippi. This reference was made on the occa-
sion when Jesus was called to account for allowing His
disciples to drop the fasts which the Pharisees and the
disciples of John observed. He then said that the
present was a time of joy for His disciples, and there-
fore fasting, which should express sorrow of heart,
would be quite out of place. His disciples were sons
of the bridechamber, and had the bridegroom with
them. The time would come, however, when the
bridegroom would be taken away from them, and then
fasting would be appropriate (Mk. ii. 20). Jesus does
not intimate how the bridegroom would be taken away,
whether by a violent or a natural death, or by a trans-
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 247
lation such as Enoch and Elijah experienced. The
fact that His removal would cause them sorrow may-
best accord with the thought of a violent death, but
plainly does not require it.
In Matthew and Luke we find another allusion by
Jesus to His death, which antedates the word at Cassarea
Philippi; but it is hardly more definite in its implication
in regard to the method or significance of Jesus' death
than is Mark's saying about the removal of the bride-
groom (Mt. xii. 38-41 ; Lk. xi. 29-32). The occasion
of the remark was the desire of scribes and Pharisees to
see some sign from Jesus, some sign according to their
own fancy of what a sign should be, in order that it
might give convincing proof of the Messiahship of
Jesus. Their unbelief and hostility were so bitter
that they had just before this declared that Jesus was
possessed by an unclean spirit (Mk. hi. 30). In re-
ply to this request of the Jews for a sign, Jesus uttered
the severest words regarding that generation which
He had thus far spoken. He declared that it was
evil and adulterous, and that no sign should be given
it but the sign of Jonah.
In Luke's version Jesus says that the Son of man
shall be a sign to that generation as Jonah was a sign
to the Ninevites (Lk. xi. 29-30). This statement is
quite genera], and does not suggest hoiv Jonah was a
sign. He came to Nineveh as a prophet of Jehovah.
248 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
and so Jesus had come to His generation. The Old
Testament does not say that Jonah told the Ninevites
of his strange experiences as he sought to flee from
the face of the Lord. That which is said to have
moved Nineveh to repent was the announcement that
judgment would soon fall upon it for its wickedness,
unless it turned to the Lord. But in Matthew's ver-
sion Jesus makes the sign of Jonah to consist in the
fact that he was three days and three nights in the
belly of the great fish (Mt. xii. 39-40). He said that
the Son of man, in like manner, should be three
days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of this
saying which Matthew records;1 and it justifies, as
Luke's version does not, the use of the expression the
sign of Jonah. It does not imply that Jesus regarded
Jonah's experience as prophetical of His own, or even
that He regarded it as historical ; but He saw in it
a convenient illustration of His own thought. It was
suggestive, but also obscure. The hearers would not
regard it as necessarily foreshadowing the death of
the Son of man, for as Jonah had been three days
and three nights in the heart of the sea without tast-
ing death, so might the Son of man be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth without
1 Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, i. 279, thinks
Matthew's narrative shows the ingenuity of a Jewish-Christian rabbinism.
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 249
dying. Then the plain intimation that He would be
in the heart of the earth only three days and three
nights would sooner turn the hearer's thought away
from death than toward it. But the language of Jesus
would at least suggest something dreadful as about
to be experienced by Him, and it taught that this
dreadful experience, when it should come, would be a
sign to that generation. We cannot doubt, however,
that for Jesus Himself, the sign of Jonah involved
the thought of death and resurrection.
These two obscure sayings are the only words of
Jesus, spoken before the crisis at Caesarea Philippi,
which allude to His death, and one of these has no
hint whatever as to the meaning of that event.1 This
period which, in the Synoptic narrative, furnishes
but two allusions by Jesus to His death, included
about three-fourths of His public ministry.2 But from
the day of the first formal announcement of death
onward to the close of Jesus' life, we find references
to His death comparatively frequent and perfectly
explicit. All the Synoptists record three announce-
ments by Jesus in very similar language, two of them
near together and at the beginning of the last six or
seven months, and the other near the close of this
1The word about bearing the cross (Mt.x. 38) is regarded as subsequent
to the confession of Peter (comp. Mk. viii. 34).
2 See The Students Life of Jesus, p. 242.
250 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
period (Mk. viii. 31; ix. 31; x. 33-34; Mt. xvi. 21;
xvii. 22-23; xx- 18-19; Lk. ix. 22, 43-44; xviii.
31-33). While these announcements are similar, it
is to be noticed that the last one is made more dreadful
than the first two by the addition of some details of
suffering. Thus it is in this announcement that Jesus
speaks for the first time of mocking, spitting, scourging,
and according to Matthew, of crucifixion, as part of the
cup of His approaching trial. Besides these formal
announcements which are given by all the Synoptists
there are no less than fourteen other references, more
or less explicit. Of these, ten seem to belong to the
last week ; three are associated with the transfigura-
tion and thus follow closely upon the formal announce-
ment at Caesarea Philippi, and one belongs in the
Perean ministry. Hence we conclude that, as far as
the Synoptic report informs us, Jesus only alluded to
His death during the first three-quarters of His minis-
try ; that He spoke of it several times in the days
spent near Caesarea Philippi, after the close of His
public work in Galilee ; and that in the last week He
referred to His death still more frequently and fully.
But we cannot at once infer that, because Jesus
gradually unfolded the thought of His death, therefore
this thought was only gradually formed within His
own mind. Gradualness of unfolding might, obviously,
be due to other causes. And, moreover, it seems
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 25 1
decidedly probable that Jesus, who everywhere reveals
a profound spiritual acquaintance with the Old Testa-
ment and an unparalleled insight into the character of
men, had from the beginning of His ministry seen
that His way would be one of suffering. The refer-
ence to the removal of the bridegroom came very
early in the Galilean ministry, and its accent is not
uncertain. "The days will come when the bride-
groom shall be taken away." From the beginning of
the ministry, too, Jesus could not fail to hear a note
of defiance and of inextinguishable hatred in the cries
of the demoniacs and in the sullen murmurings of the
scribes {e.g. Mk. i. 26; ii. 7). And, finally, there
is no proof that, in the early part of His ministry,
the eyes of Jesus were holden so that He could
not read in the Old Testament what He plainly saw
there in the later months of His life. But at the same
time it is not necessary to suppose, and it is not prob-
able, that Jesus from the beginning of His ministry
foresaw the details of His suffering and death. These
were not suggested by the Old Testament.
Hence we conclude that the lateness of Jesus' first
explicit reference to His death is most probably to
be attributed to the condition of His disciples. Mark
says that Jesus spoke the word of the kingdom as
the disciples were able to hear it (Mk. iv. 33); and
it seems quite certain that they had not been able to
252 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
hear the announcement of suffering and death earlier
than the days at Caesarea Philippi. Even then they
were in danger of stumbling at it, and till the last
day of the life of Jesus they failed to comprehend
it. But while the disciples could not understand the
saying about the death of their Messiah, they were
at this time inwardly prepared to hear it, because
they had come to have a personal attachment to
Jesus which was stronger than their attachment to
their own peculiar ideal of the Messianic kingdom.
They had stood the strain of the last days of the
public ministry in Galilee, when the multitudes and
many of the disciples of Jesus had turned away from
Him.1 They had acquired a strength of conviction
which made it safe for Jesus to begin to teach them
in regard to His death.
Jesus was clearly led to the thought of His death
by His study of the Scriptures. The first suggestion
b. The source °f this ^act *s found in the account of the
thou^htof transfiguration scene. According to Luke,
death. the three disciples on the mountain saw
Moses and Elijah, and heard them talking with Jesus
about His decease in Jerusalem (Lk. ix. 30-31).
One object of this vision which was granted to the
disciples was to reconcile their minds to the thought
of the death of Jesus, which had now for the first
1 Comp. I'he Student's Life of Jesus, pp. 264-267.
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 253
time been formally announced to them.1 It was to
suggest to them that, both in the Law and the
prophets, the death of the Messiah was foreshadowed,
and consequently that their view, which was also the
view of the Jews in general, that the Messiah should
come in glory and abide forever, was incorrect. But
if this thought was communicated to the disciples as
the teaching of the Old Testament, whether by a
vision or otherwise, we cannot suppose that Jesus
had failed to find it there.
Again, as they went down from the mountain, and
talked about the appearance and mission of Elijah,
Jesus suggested that Elijah's restoration of all tilings,
which the scribes taught, was in conflict with the
Scriptures concerning the Son of man, which said
that He must suffer many things and be set at
naught. Manifestly, if Elijah had restored all things
and had made them ready for the Messiah, there
would have been no opposition to Him, and He
would not have been put to death by the Jews. Con-
sequently that passage of Scripture which Jesus had
in mind about the suffering of the Messiah, whatever
it may have been, would have failed of fulfilment.
It is plain that Jesus, at this time, read His death in
the Old Testament, or, if not his death, as in Mt. xvii.
12, at least His suffering of many things and being
1 See The Student's Life of Jesus, pp. 275-276,
254 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
set at naught (Mk. ix. 12). In other words, He was
convinced that He must experience an outward and
ignominious defeat.
Once more, it is plain from the words of Jesus that
the fate of the prophets had suggested that His own
fate would be a violent death. In the parable of the
Wicked Husbandmen, He represents God's messengers,
the prophets, as being beaten and killed, and says
that the householder's son — meaning Himself — is to
share the same fate (Mk. xii. 6-8). At an earlier
day He said that a prophet could not perish out of
Jerusalem, and as this word was occasioned by Her-
od's threat to kill Him while in Perea, He evidently
thought of Himself as being in the prophetic line.
Their fate suggested His.
Again, on the last evening before the crucifixion,
Jesus spoke frequently of His death as being foretold
in Scripture. Thus, the Son of man goes "as it is
written of Him" (Mk. xiv. 21); and, again, "I will
smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered"
(Mk. xiv. 27); and, again, "This that is written must
be fulfilled in me, ' He was numbered with transgress-
ors' " (Lk. xxii. 37), and, finally, "Thinkest thou that
I am not able to pray my Father, and He shall give
me presently more than twelve legions of angels ?
How then shall the Scripture be fulfilled, that thus it
must be" (Mt. xxvi. 53-54)? It seems plain in view
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 255
of these passages that the thought of suffering, and
even the certainty of death itself, was derived by
Jesus from the Old Testament, though contemporary
Jewish teachers saw there no such doctrine concern-
ing the Messiah.1 But His own experience from a
very early day echoed the voice that came to Him
out of the Scripture, and confirmed it. He could not
fail to see the deep-seated hate of scribe and Pharisee,
and He knew that they would gladly kill Him (Mk. ii.
7; iii. 6). He must have seen that His conceptions
of the kingdom of God and of the religious life were
fundamentally opposed to those of the teachers of
His day, and that sooner or later there must be a
determined effort to crush Him. And thus the ex-
perience of Jesus was a commentary on the Old Tes-
tament text of a suffering Messiah, and as the
opposition to Him deepened, it may have served to
make the word of Scripture plainer and more sure.
It is significant that, as regards the idea of a suffer-
ing Messiah, Jesus saw in the Old Testament what
neither the Jews of His own day nor of previous gener-
ations had seen. To His disciples, who represent the
popular belief of His day, the thought of the Messiah's
death was intolerable. Jesus did not tell them of His
tragic fate until He had bound them to Him with strong
1 Comp. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmuds, pp. 333~348; Holtzmann,
Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, i. 288,
256 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
bonds, and even then there was imminent peril lest
their allegiance to Him should be shattered against this
rock. The words which the fourth evangelist puts
upon the lips of the Baptist, " Behold, the lamb of God,
who taketh away the sin of the world " (Jn. i. 29), can
by no means be regarded as proving that the Jews
were familiar with the thought of a suffering Messiah.
The character of the fourth Gospel rather requires that
we should regard these words as the evangelist's ideali-
zation of the Baptist's testimony ; and this is required
also by the fact that the disciples of the Baptist were
the very men who could not bear the thought of the
Messiah's suffering and death. It is obvious that Peter
and the other apostles who had been pupils of the
Baptist had heard nothing of this doctrine while in his
school.
We come now to the great question, What signifi-
cance did Jesus attach to His own sufferings and death?
It is plain, as we have seen, that Jesus was
c. The r ' J
meaning led by the Scriptures to regard His death as
which Jesus
attached to a necessary part of the Messiah's career; but
with the exception of five, or possibly six,
passages, He gives no suggestion in regard to the
ground of this necessity, or the spiritual significance
of His death. In other words, out of something more
than twenty Synoptic references by Jesus to His death,
about seventeen treat it simply and only as a fact in the
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 257
Messianic career. But before proceeding to an analy-
sis of the exceptional words in which Jesus refers to the
meaning of His death, it will be of advantage to take a
rapid survey of the other words which show the char-
acter of His habitual allusions to this event. It first
appears as a fact which will cause sorrow to His dis-
ciples. " Days will come when the bridegroom shall be
taken away from them, and then shall they fast in that
day " (Mk. ii. 20). The three solemn and formal an-
nouncements which are given by all the Synoptists are
simply announcements of the fact of death with more
or fewer details of suffering and shame (Mk. viii. 31 ;
ix. 31 ; x. 33-34). In the first, the necessity of Jesus'
death and resurrection is explicitly stated, but in no one
of the passages is there any allusion to the meaning of
the event. On the mount of transfiguration Moses and
Elijah were seen talking with Jesus about His decease
(Lk. ix. 30-31), and as they came down from the mount
Jesus charged the disciples not to tell what they had
seen until the Son of man should rise from the dead
(Mk. ix. 9). But in neither case is there a word of ex-
planation. Nor is there when, in the same hour, He
said that it was according to Scripture that the Son of
man should suffer and be set at naught (Mk. ix. 12).
On one occasion certain Pharisees told Jesus that
Herod desired to kill Him (Lk. xiii. 31). Jesus said, in
His reply, that He must go on His way that day and
258 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
the next because a prophet could not perish out of
Jerusalem (Lk. xiii. 33). In the parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen Jesus alluded to His own death at the
hands of the Jews, when He said that the husbandmen
killed the son of the owner of the vineyard (Mk. xii. 6-
8); and when He was anointed in the house of Simon
He said that the act was an anticipation of the final
anointing of His body for burial (Mk. xiv. 8). Then,
on the last evening, He said that He had greatly de-
sired to eat the Passover before He should suffer (Lk.
xxii. 15), and, again, when speaking of the traitor, He
said, "The Son of man goes as it is written concerning
Him" (Mk. xiv. 21). Here, also, belongs the word that
the Scripture must be fulfilled in Him which says,
" He was numbered with transgressors " (Lk. xxii. 37).
And finally, after the resurrection, Jesus told His dis-
ciples that the death and resurrection of the Messiah
were written, that is, of course, in the Old Testament
(Lk. xxiv. 46). But in all these passages it is simply
the fact of death which comes into view ; nothing is
said of the meaning of the fact. It is sometimes re-
ferred to as necessary and as foretold in the Scriptures,
but nothing is said of its place in the Messianic work
of Jesus.
Such, then, is the character of the habitual references
which Jesus made to His sufferings and death. He spoke
of them as approaching facts, but without explanation.
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 259
We pass now to the consideration of those excep-
tional words of Jesus in the first three Gospels, which
involve more or less of explanation and comment on
the fact of His death. And first, we notice that some
of these words make the significance of the death of
Jesus personal to Himself. This is the suggestion of
the message which Jesus bade the Pharisees take to
Herod, " Go, say to this fox, Lo, I cast out demons
and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and on the
third day I am perfected" (Lk. xiii. 32). This saying is
obscure. If with Meyer1 and others we understand
Jesus to say that on the third day He will finish
the zvork of casting out demons and performing cures, then
of course there is here no direct allusion to death ; and
if with Godet2 we understand Him to say that on the
third day He will finish His life, then plainly there is
no allusion in the verse to the significance of His death.
But we cannot regard either of these interpretations
as well supported. For we find that in every case
where this verb is used in the New Testament, with
a personal subject and without an object, as here, it
is used of a moral and spiritual process. So Jesus used
it once, when He prayed that His disciples might be
perfected into one (Jn. xvii. 23), and Paul says that he
1 See Handbuch iiber die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas, funfte
Auflage, p. 453.
2 See Commentaire sur V&vangile de Si. Luc, Tome second, pp.
154-155-
260 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
does not count himself made perfect (Phil. iii. 12).
The author of Hebrews uses this same word three
times when speaking of Jesus (Heb. ii. 10; v. 8-9;
vii. 28), and five times when speaking of other persons
{e.g. Heb. ix. 9), and in every case he thinks of a moral
or spiritual perfecting.1 Moreover, this meaning which
seems to be required by New Testament usage suits the
present context as well as the other. Jesus says, " I
cast out demons and perform cures to-day and to-
morrow, and on the third day I am perfected" That
means that Herod cannot interrupt His Messianic work.
It will go forward to its consummation at the appointed
time. And that consummation will be in some sense
His own personal consummation. The character of
this reference to His death is similar to that of the
well-known reference in John, where He speaks of the
hour of His death as the hour of His glorification (Jn.
xii. 23). Doubtless the Pharisees did not understand
this word of Jesus ; and if it was reported to Herod,
it must have been fully unintelligible to him ; but this
is not against the correctness of our interpretation.
For the main purport of the reply of Jesus was per-
fectly clear. He told Herod, in effect, that He should
keep right on in His Messianic work until the appointed
time was fulfilled. And the one obscure term which
He used had a subtle fitness in view of Herod's desire.
1 Comp. Plummer, Commentary on Luke.
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 26 1
He wanted to kill Jesus, and so destroy His influence.
The death of Jesus would be, in his thought as in
that of the Pharisees, the end of Him and of His
work. Jesus in His reply intimates that His death
is His perfecting ; it will make Him the finished and
absolute Messiah. Thus, in this passage, Jesus thinks of
His death not in relation to others, but only as a nec-
essary part of His Messianic experience and discipline.
Another word of Jesus which suggests a similar
thought in regard to the significance of His death is
that in which He speaks of His approaching baptism
(Lk. xii. 49-50). "I have a baptism to be baptized
with, and how am I straightened till it be accom-
plished " (comp. Mk. x. 38 ; Mt. xx. 22)! If He thinks
of His sufferings and death as His baptism, then He
must necessarily regard them as having a significance
personal to Himself. The very figure seems to require
this, for a man's baptism is for himself. It may have
most important consequences for others, but only by
way of the man who experiences it.
The remaining word of Jesus which belongs in this
class is also found in Luke's Gospel and nowhere
else. It is the word spoken to the two disciples on
the way to Emmaus. " Behoved it not the Christ
to suffer these things and to enter into His glory "
(Lk. xxiv. 26, 46) ? Here the suffering of death
appears to be regarded as a necessary stage in the
262 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Messiah's progress to glory. This is the only aspect
of it to which reference is here made, and this, there-
fore, seems to have been the aspect which Jesus
regarded as of chief importance to His disciples at
that time. They were to see that the death of their
Messiah was not an accident, and not a fact unfavor-
able to the Messiahship of Jesus ; but that it was
rather a clear part of the divine plan and a neces-
sary preparation for Messianic glory.
It remains to consider the Synoptic words of Jesus
which refer to His death as having significance for
others than Himself. There are but two of these
sayings, for the word about the sign of Jonah has,
as we have seen, nothing to teach on this subject.
The first of the two passages is the word which
Jesus spoke to His disciples as they journeyed for
the last time toward Jerusalem. He declares that
the Son of man came to give His life a ransom for
many (Mk. x. 45 ; Mt. xx. 28). He had just laid
upon His disciples the necessity of serving one another.
Their spirit must be the opposite of that which exists
in the world, where great ones exercise authority and
lord it over the masses. The ground which Jesus gives
for this law of service is His own example. He came
to serve ; therefore His disciples should serve. Now
the example of the Son of man apparently covers both
the infinitive clauses in this weighty sentence. He
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 263
came to minister and to give His life a ransom for
many. The giving of His life is the final and culminat-
ing act of ministering. It is the highest evidence that
He has a true spirit of service. Thus Jesus refers to
His own life as furnishing a law to His disciples, and it
seems impossible to interpret the passage as meaning
that the disciples can imitate Jesus in serving, but not
in laying down their lives. This interpretation would run
directly against more than one explicit word of Jesus.
He repeatedly told His disciples that they must be will-
ing to lay down life for His sake and the Gospel's {e.g.
Mt. x. 21-22). He said that if any one would come
after Him, he must take up the cross (Mk. viii. 34),
and that in order to save one's life, one must lose it
(Mk. viii. 35). Thus, the teaching of Jesus elsewhere
confirms the natural, grammatical understanding of Mk.
x. 45, which makes the example of Jesus that is to be imi-
tated by His disciples an example which consists in serving
and in laying down life as a ransom. Thus the logical con-
nection of the verse with the preceding seems to mark off,
at the outset, the general meaning of the'word ransom.
It is to be noticed, in the next place, that the thought
of the word ransom, since neither this term nor any
word from the same root is elsewhere used by Jesus,
must be understood in the light of His teaching in
regard to the conditions of His salvation. Now the
word ransom implies that those for whom it is given
264 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
are in a state of bondage.1 This bondage in which
the many are held can be understood, in the teaching
of Jesus, in one way only : it is the bondage of sin.2
Jesus gives His life to deliver them from this bondage.
It is not said that He gives His life in place of the lives
of many, though the Greek preposition here used often
has this meaning. That cannot be the sense of the
word here, for the many have no longer lives to give,
if they would. They are in bondage ; their lives are
already given away to sin. In the language of Jesus
used elsewhere, they are dead. It is impossible, then,
to introduce here the thought that the life of Jesus
is given instead of the lives of many. Moreover, in
cases of exchange, as when Esau sold his birthright
for one mess of meat(Heb. xii. 16), and Jesus endured
the cross for the joy that was set before Him (Heb. xii.
2), the preposition employed is the same that we have
in the verse under consideration, where it is said that
Jesus came to give His life a ransom for many. This
usage, therefore, suggests that Jesus gives up His
life and gets the many in return. They become His
possession, won by His sacrifice in their behalf, or,
as the fourth Gospel says, drawn by the power of
Jesus when He is lifted up (Jn. xii. 32). So the
1 Comp. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 51 1-5 13; Beyschlag, Nentestament-
liche 'J'heologie, i. 154.
2 Comp. Holtzmann, I.ehrbuch der neiitestamentlichen 7/ieo/ogie, i. 292.
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 265
thought of the passage under consideration is that of
delivering men from the bondage of sin, winning them
to discipleship, by the laying down of Jesus' life.
Now Jesus had already been accomplishing this very
end by means of His Messianic ministry. He had
made the Father known, and through the influence
of His teaching and His presence men had come into
possession of a new life. They had been ransomed,
and had found rest unto their souls (Mk. ii. 5 ; Mt. x.
40; xi. 25, etc.). A personal allegiance to Jesus had
been developed in them which was sufficiently strong
to control their thought and life. If, then, by His
revelation of the Father He had led men into the
kingdom of heaven during His ministry, He could
do no higher thing by His death. He might con-
ceivably ransom more by His death than He had
ransomed by His ministry ; but the deliverance would
be the same kind of deliverance that He had already
accomplished in His life.
We cannot say, therefore, that when Jesus speaks
of giving His life a ransom for 'many, He represents
His death, apart j to >m His life, as absolutely necessary
to the salvation of men. He had taught that God
freely forgives the penitent, and He had Himself wel-
comed many penitent souls into the kingdom of God
without any allusion to His own death. We are, there-
fore, plainly constrained to say that, so far as Mk. x. 45
266 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
is concerned, Jesus regarded His death as a service of
the same sort as the service of His life. It naturally
had an intenser meaning than belonged to any other
single act of His divine ministry, for the highest that a
man has to give in proof of his love is his life ; but
the meaning, though more intense, is not essentially
different. If the death of Jesus was necessary, so in
like manner was His life necessary. If His death
ransomed, so, also, had His life.
The other passage concerning the significance which,
in the thought of Jesus, His death had for others than
Himself, is the account of the Lord's Supper, "the
weightiest, most precise, and defining expression which
He has yet used." *
Of the bread which He took before the wine He
said: "This is my body" (Mk. xiv. 22; Mt. xxvi. 26),
or, "This is my body given for you" (Lk. xxii. 19),
and "Do this in remembrance of me" (Lk. xxii. 19),
that is, Eat this in remembrance of me.
The bread represents His body which is given for
the disciples, that is, naturally, given to suffering and
death. This thought is required by the context. The
body must needs be broken, or given to suffering and
death, in order that the blood may be shed, and the
shedding of His blood is necessarily presupposed by
the symbolic use which is made of it in the subse-
1 See Fairbairn, Expositor, 1897, v°l- v- P* 25-
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 267
quent verses. In Mark and Matthew this thought is
not expressed. The bread is simply given to the
disciples, and they eat it. But the very fact that
Jesus gives the bread to them implies that it is for
their good, the thought that is expressed in Luke and
Paul (Lk. xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 24); and the fact that
the bread, which symbolizes the body of Jesus, must
of necessity be broken into pieces in order that each
disciple may partake, implies the thought, which is
expressed in Luke, that it is given to suffering and
death. And since the bread symbolizes the body of
Jesus, to partake of it inevitably turns the thought to
Him, and so the act has a memorial character, as
Luke and Paul explicitly teach.
We have, then, in all the Synoptic narratives, ex-
pressed or implied, these thoughts regarding the body
of Jesus which is symbolized by the bread : first,
that the giving of the body of Jesus to death is for
the good of the disciples ; second, that they experience
the benefit of this act of His as they do the thing
that is symbolized by the eating of the bread. Now
since the bread represents His body given to death
for them, to eat the bread symbolizes the spiritual
appropriation of Jesus as one who had given His
life for them. And, third, we have the thought that
eating this bread is a memorial service which brings
Him to their minds.
268 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Now, as far as the meaning of the death of Jesus
is concerned, this first part of the Lord's Supper con-
tains only the general thought that it is for the good of
the disciples. There is great emphasis given to this
thought by the fact that Jesus, formally and in a most
sacred hour, instituted the observance. This emphasis
is further heightened by the circumstance that the
Lord's Supper is the only outward observance which
Jesus did enjoin upon His disciples.
But this thought that the death of Jesus is for the
good of the disciples *is not here more nearly defined.
Hozv it is for their good is not said. There is, indeed,
a suggestion in the fact that the bread must be broken
in order that the disciples may partake of it ; and the
suggestion is this, that the death of Jesus is necessary
in order that His disciples may appropriate Him. But
this suggestion, thus stated, is not true, for the disci-
ples had already appropriated Jesus. They had given
their allegiance to Him, and He was their hope and
joy. They had appreciated His love, and fed upon it.
But they had not appreciated it as it would be possible
for them to do in case He should die for them. We
may then hold, as a suggestion of the text, that the
death of Jesus was to be for the good of the disciples,
because it would promote their appropriation of Him,
their use of Him as spiritual nourishment. This sug-
gestion appears to be confirmed by the service of Jesus
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 269
as a whole. For the very aim of His work was that
men should accept Him as Messiah, and then live in
obedience to Him. To this end He gave Himself to
them in a continuous service of love. The culminating
act in this life of love was the laying down of life itself.
All His ministries had been for the good of the disci-
ples, just as this was. All had been for the purpose
of binding them to Him and reproducing His spirit in
them. But the laying down of life for them, as the
last and supreme manifestation of His love, was for
that reason peculiarly adapted to strengthen their
personal attachment to Him, and therefore peculiarly
adapted to enable them to appropriate His spirit.
This suggestion, then, which the text itself fur-
nishes in regard to the meaning of the death of
Jesus, as far as the first act in the Lord's Supper
involves the thought of death, commends itself be-
cause it views the death of Jesus as in harmony with
His life. And the very fact that Jesus did not explain
how His death was for the good of the disciples is a
strong argument for the view that this Jiozv must be
understood in the light of the life of Jesus as a whole.
Had its meaning, in His mind, been foreign to the
general teaching of His ministry, then He could not
have left it to be inferred.
We pass now to the second part of the Lord's
Supper in its bearing upon the thought which Jesus
270 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
had in regard to the significance of His death for
others. All the Synoptists agree that Jesus referred
to His blood as covenant blood (Mk. xiv. 24 ; Mt. xxvi.
28 ; Lk. xxii. 20). Mark and Matthew say, " This is
my blood of the covenant," and Luke says, " This
cup is the new covenant in my blood." In speaking
of His blood as blood of the new covenant, Jesus
recognizes a parallelism between it and the blood of
some well-known old covenant.1 Now the great cove-
nant of the olden time was the covenant between
Jehovah and Israel by the hand of Moses at Mt.
Sinai (Ex. xix. xxiv.). Jehovah said to the people
through Moses, " If ye will obey my voice indeed,
and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar
treasure unto me from among all peoples (Ex. xix. 5);
and all the people answered and said, All that Je-
hovah hath spoken will we do " (Ex. xix. 8). Then
again, after some days, in which Jehovah gave to
Moses the ten words and other commandments, Moses
came to the people and told them what Jehovah had
said ; and they all answered with one voice and said,
" All the words which Jehovah hath spoken will we
do " (Ex. xxiv. 3). Then Moses built an altar under
Mt. Sinai, and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offer-
ings unto Jehovah (Ex. xxiv. 4, 5). He took the blood,
1 Comp. Wendt, Die I.ehre Jesu, ii. 518; Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der
neutesiamentlichen Theologie, i. 297.
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 271
sprinkled half of it on the altar, and after reading
again the words of Jehovah, to which the people re-
sponded as before, he sprinkled the other half of the
blood upon the people, saying, " Behold, the blood of
the covenant which Jehovah hath made with you
concerning all these words " (Ex. xxiv. 8).
The blood which Moses sprinkled upon the people
was a visible token that they pledged themselves to
be obedient unto the Lord. It was the solemn seal of
their covenant.1 The covenant was made when the
people accepted all the words of the Lord and thrice
promised to be obedient to them. Consequently the
blood which was afterward sprinkled upon them was
not the ground or basis of the covenant.2 It was a
solemn ratification of the compact. It sacredly bound
the two parties, Jehovah and Israel, to keep their
promises to each other. There is no intimation what-
ever in the story that this blood was designed to have
any purifying influence upon the people.
Accordingly, when Jesus spoke of His blood as
blood of the new covenant, the presumption is that
He thought of it as a solemn seal of an already exist-
ing covenant. His death, therefore, is not here pre-
sented as an act by virtue of which men are admitted
into the favor of God, but as an act which solemnly
1 Comp. Dillmann, Commentar ilber die B ticker Exodus nnd Leviticus.
2 Comp. Delitzsch, Briefe an die Hebr'der, p. 414.
272 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
assures them that they are now the objects of His
favor, their covenant with God being sealed with the
blood of Jesus.1 This thought is not only made
probable by the Old Testament scene which the
language of Jesus calls up, but it is also required by
the fact that Jesus addressed these words to men who
were already members of His kingdom. The signifi-
cance of this fact is very great. By their acceptance
of Jesus and His revelation of the Father, the disciples
had become as houses built upon a rock (Mt. vii. 24),
their names had been written in heaven (Lk. x. 20),
and they had chosen the good part which should not
be taken away from them (Lk. x. 42). When the
Israelites accepted the book of the covenant and said,
" All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be
obedient," they entered into covenant with Jehovah.
So when men accepted Jesus as the Messiah sent by
the Father, they entered into covenant with God and
God with them ; and they received the blessings of
forgiveness and life, which the Father sent Jesus to
communicate. The wine which symbolized the blood
of Jesus was a visible pledge of the covenant which
Jesus had established between His Father and His
disciples. It was a solemn seal and ratification. The
authority of the pledge was the authority of the
Messiah put in the most intense form possible, for
1 See Fairbairn, Expositor, 1897, vo1- v- P- 2§-
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 273
the pledge was His own life-blood freely shed. As
they accepted the wine which symbolized that blood,
they thereby pledged themselves to God in the most
solemn and sacred manner conceivable. The blood
was the blood of their Messiah, their redeemer, their
personal and divine friend. A covenant sealed with
His blood bound them as nothing else could. The
motive of gratitude to Jesus and love for Him — a
motive which would be renewed with every observance
of the Supper — must hold them to their allegiance with
unwasting force. This covenant was a covenant of
love, a covenant which involved a spiritual apprehen-
sion of Jesus as the Messiah, a covenant to be true
to God as revealed in Christ ; and so it was indeed a
new covenant, as Luke calls it (comp. Jer. xxxi. 31).
But this statement does not exhaust the significance
of the wine, or the blood which it symbolizes. It is,
indeed, a divine seal on a covenant of infinite love ;
but this is not all. The blood of the old covenant
was sprinkled upon the people, or rather upon a few
who represented the entire host ; the blood of the
new covenant, under the symbol of wine, is drunk
by each disciple. This act is obviously parallel to
that of eating the bread, which symbolizes the body
of Jesus. The blood which seals the covenant has
also the profounder significance of suggesting how
the disciple can remain loyal to the covenant, namely,
274 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
by appropriating the very life of Jesus. Partaking
of the wine is not different from partaking of the
bread, unless we regard it as a more intense symbol.1
Each act is symbolic of a spiritual appropriation of
Jesus. But the appropriation of Him is emphasized
by the two symbols of food and drink, for the thought
is thus expressed that the entire spiritual nourishment
of the disciple is found in Jesus the Messiah. There-
fore the significance of the death of Jesus, as seen
through the second part of the Lord's Supper, is the
significance of the first part, namely, that His death
promotes the appropriation of Him ; and it is also
the significance of a seal upon the covenant which
Jesus has established between God and His disciples.
It remains to consider a statement which Matthew
has in regard to the significance of the blood of Jesus
as symbolized by the wine (Mt. xxvi. 28). He says
this blood is shed unto remission of sins. It seems
probable that these words are an addition by the
evangelist, or, at any rate, are not words of Jesus.
They are not only wanting in Mark and Luke, but
also in Paul, whose teaching concerning the blood
of Jesus would hardly have allowed him to omit
these words from his account of the institution of the
Supper, if he had known them and had regarded
them as spoken by Jesus. Moreover, these words
1 Comp. Hoffmann, Die Abendmahlsgedanken Jesu Christi, p. 96.
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 275
seem to obscure the reference to the blood as blood
of the covenant, which are common to all the four
versions of the institution of the Lord's Supper ; for
the blood of the covenant, historically understood, was
not "unto remission of sins." Further, these words of
Matthew seem not to be in harmony with Luke's
version, for he says, " shed for yon" that is, for the
disciples, whose sins had been forgiven already.1
But while the genuineness of these words of Mat-
thew may be called in question, the thought which
they contain is not foreign to the teaching of Jesus.
They do not suggest that forgiveness necessarily rests
upon the death of Jesus, and on this alone. Mat-
thew says that the blood is shed unto forgiveness of
sins. He does not say that the blood must be shed
in order that sin may be forgiven. Jesus was speak-
ing to those whose sins had been pardoned, and not
on the ground of His death. Some of them became
His disciples before He had even alluded to His
death. To interpret the statement of Matthew to
mean that the blood of Jesus must be shed in order
that sin may be forgiven, would be to make Jesus
overthrow His own Gospel of the fatherhood of God,
and would set His word and His practice in sharp
conflict with each other.
1 Hoffmann, Die Abendmahlsgcdanken Jesu Christi, pp. 68-69, rejects
the words for you, saying that Jesus did not lay down His life for His
disciples, but for unbelievers.
276 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
We say that Matthew's words "unto remission of
sins" do not contain a thought which is foreign to
the teaching of Jesus. Since the death of Jesus was
a part of His Messianic work, it could be said of
this, as of His entire ministry, that it was unto re-
mission of sins. Forgiveness of sins was the first
great end which the Messiah sought to realize, for
this must precede the reign of God in the heart. The
entire revelation of the Father which Jesus gave was
unto remission of sins. His deeds of love and mercy
were, in an important sense, unto forgiveness of sins.
He came to call sinners to repentance, to seek and
to save that which was lost ; and so we might write over
His entire ministry, as expressing the first stage in the
establishment of the kingdom of God, these words, " Unto
remission of sins." In this sense, and in this sense
only, can the retention of Matthew's words be justified.
In passing from the Synoptists to the fourth Gos-
pel we are soon impressed by two facts in regard to
the present topic of study : first, by the
teaching of greater frequency of the references of Jesus
regardtoHis to His deatn 5 and, second, by the simplicity
death an(j uniformity of their content. Jesus
according to J
the fourth speaks of His death in one way only : it is
Gospel.
an act of self-revelation. And hence the
purpose of His death is not different from the pur-
pose of His life.
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 277
The first allusion that Jesus makes to His death in
the fourth Gospel is obscure. It was on the occa-
sion of the first Passover in His ministry, and He
was in the temple. The Jews asked for a sign of
His authority after He had cleansed the temple, and
the reply of Jesus was, " Destroy this temple, and
in three days I will build it up" (Jn. ii. 19). If the
temple was a figure for the body of Jesus, as the
evangelist thought (Jn. ii. 21), then Jesus said, in
substance, that His resurrection would be a proof of
His Messianic authority. His death is, of course, in-
volved, but nothing is directly suggested in regard
to its meaning. This saying, therefore, is similar in
its main purport to the Synoptic word regarding the
sign of Jonah.
Again, Jesus says that the Son of man must be
lifted up, as Moses lifted up the brazen serpent in
the wilderness (Jn. iii. 14). Now the serpent was
lifted up on a pole in order that it might be seen,
because the sight of it was a divinely appointed
remedy for the bite of the fiery serpents (Num. xxi. 8).
Accordingly, the lifting up of the Son of man, which
Jesus puts in parallelism with the lifting up of the
brazen serpent, is naturally thought of as an event
that is necessary in order that He may be made
manifest, that His character may be known. This
view is definitely established by another passage which
278 THE .REVELATION OF JESUS
speaks of the lifting up of the Son of man. At the
feast of Tabernacles, in the last year of the minis-
try of Jesus, He said to the Jews, "When ye have lifted
up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he "
(Jn. viii. 28). Their knowledge of His Messiahship is
thus thought of as a consequence of His being lifted
up ; and we may hold that this consequence shows the
purpose of His being lifted up, or at least one purpose
of it. Thus the meaning of the death of Jesus, accord-
ing to this passage, is that it makes His Messianic
character known. It reveals Him to men.
Now it is true that the crucifixion, considered by itself,
did not have any such effect as this upon the Jews.
His crucifixion, regarded from the human point of
view, marked the lowest ebb of His cause. But the
crucifixion is not to be separated from its great and
necessary concomitants, — the resurrection, the ascen-
sion, and the sending of the Spirit. It was all these
events together which constituted the final proof of
the Messiahship of Jesus. Yet inasmuch as His
death was the fact which revealed His inmost spirit,
not His resurrection, or ascension, this might surely
be put forward as the vital and determining element
in the proof of Messiahship which Jesus said that
the Jews should have.
Again, we have the thought of self-revelation by
death when Jesus says that He lays down His life
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 279
for the sheep (Jn. x. 11-18; comp. xv. 13). The
statement that He lays down His life is made in
proof of the declaration that He is the good shepherd.
The hireling is proven to be a hireling, when the
wolf comes, for he leaves the sheep and flees. But
the good shepherd is manifested as such by the sac-
rifice of himself in behalf of the sheep. Thus the
fact of death is adduced in showing the character of
the shepherd, and not because of its significance with
regard to the deliverance of the sheep.
Once more we have the same general view of His
death when Jesus speaks of the hour of His glorifi-
cation (Jn. xii. 23). It is plain from the context that
He is thinking of the hour of His death. This will
glorify Him, He says, and will also glorify the name
of His Father (Jn. xii. 27-28). How the suffering of
death will glorify Him is not said, but it may be
safely inferred from the seventeenth chapter, where
the glorification of Jesus and the Father, both past
and future, is accomplished through the manifestation
of their character and the acceptance of their revela-
tion by men. The cross glorifies Jesus because it
reveals His love, and as it reveals Him it reveals the
Father. Now since the lifting up of Jesus is His glori-
fication, He can say that, when lifted up, He will draw
all men unto Himself (Jn. xii. 32). For when men
see Him as He is, when they know His heart, they
280 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
are drawn to Him. According to this passage, there-
fore, the death of Jesus is regarded as the culminating
manifestation of His character. It differs from His
acts of mercy and words of love only in degree. It
is the same essential thought, but written in His own
life-blood.
And it is to be especially noticed in this connection
that, according to the words of Jesus in the fourth
Gospel, the sole significance of His death in relation
to God is, that God is " glorified " thereby. There is
no suggestion of any other meaning which it has.
It glorifies Jesus, it glorifies the Father, even as the
Father had already been glorified by the life of Jesus.
There is here no intimation that the death of Jesus
changes the attitude of God toward men. It glorifies
Him in that it reveals Him. As the death of Jesus
did not change His attitude toward men while glori-
fying Him, no more, according to this Gospel, did it
change the attitude of God toward men. It is not
an event that secures His love, but an event that
reveals and seals His love. No other aspect of His
death in its relation to God is touched by Jesus.
And it is to be remembered here for what purpose
John wrote. It was that his readers might believe that
Jesus was the Christ, and believing might have life in
His name (Jn. xx. 31). Therefore we must hold that,
in his presentation of the work of Jesus, he mentioned
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 28 1
every element which, in his judgment, was essential to
the securing of life in Jesus' name. Hence, in his
view, the vital aspect of the death of Jesus, both in
regard to Jesus and in regard to God, was that it re-
vealed the character both of Jesus and of God.
In the saying about the grain of wheat (Jn. xii. 24-
25), the suggestion is, that as the death of the individ-
ual kernel is followed by much fruit, so the death of
Jesus will have much fruitage. But the simile does not
suggest how it comes about that the death of Jesus pro-
duces a rich harvest. This question must be answered,
therefore, in the light of the other passages in the fourth
Gospel relating to the death of Jesus ; and the answer
from this source is that the death of Jesus brings rich
fruitage of disciples because it makes His inmost spirit
and character known.
There remains yet one word of Jesus in the fourth
Gospel which involves a reference to His death, and
that is the word which was spoken in the synagogue in
Capernaum about eating His flesh and drinking His
blood (Jn. vi. 51-63'). This passage may be said to
imply the necessity of His death ; for though the figure
of eating His flesh and drinking His blood contains no
essential thought which is not involved in believing, He
could nevertheless hardly have used the figure except
in the certain anticipation of His own death. But if
the passage suggests the necessity of His death, it also
282 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
suggests that it is necessary in order that He may be
appropriated. It has no other suggestion in regard to
the ground of the necessity. The prominent thought
of the entire discourse is not the death of Jesus, but the
appropriation of Him. His death is subordinate to this
thought, and is mentioned only to give to it an intensely
vivid expression. But the appropriation of Jesus is pro-
moted by His death because that death, being the su-
preme manifestation of His love, helps men to under-
stand Him and draws them to Him.
It is obvious that this thought of the death of Jesus
is essentially the same as the thought of His words
regarding the bread and the wine of the Last Supper,
if we except the reference to the blood as blood of the
covenant. Eating the bread and drinking the wine, as
emblems of the body and the blood of Jesus, are expres-
sive of the same fundamental thought that we have
in the sixth chapter of John, namely, a personal, vital
appropriation of Jesus.
Such, then, is the view of His death which Jesus
presents in the fourth Gospel. It is the glorious con-
summation of the revelation of Jesus, and so of the char-
acter of the Father. It belongs in the same class with
the words and works of Jesus. It is not presented as
being absolutely necessary to the deliverance of men
from sin, for Jesus said to His disciples on the last
evening, " Ye are clean " (Jn. xiii. 10 ; xv. 3). They had
THE MESSIAH'S EARTHLY WORK 283
already been bathed by the hearty acceptance of Jesus
as their Saviour and Lord. Jesus was already glorified
in them (Jn. xvii. 10), because they had received the
words which the Father had given to Him, and had
believed that He was sent from God (Jn. xvii. 8). Their
sins had been forgiven, and as in the Synoptists, so here,
this forgiveness is not brought by Jesus into connection
with His death. Therefore we say that the death of
Jesus is not presented in the fourth Gospel as necessary
to salvation except as His self-revelation in general was
necessary to salvation. It was a part of His Messianic
work and His Messianic revelation of the Father, the
most intense part, and that which best represents the
spirit of it all ; but the fourth Gospel does not attribute
to it a necessity which does not belong equally to the
ministry of Jesus in His holy life and divine teaching.
CHAPTER VII
The Consummation of the Messiah's Kingdom
The teaching of Jesus in regard to the Last Things
is almost wholly personal and Messianic in character.
introduction. He is the central figure in the future devel-
dementTnna opment and consummation of the kingdom
Jesus' 0f q0a as j-[e |s central in the kingdom of
thought of ' °
the future. the present. What He says of the fate of
men after death is not only subordinate to what He
says of His own personal future, but it is part and
parcel of that future. Therefore in studying the
thought of Jesus in regard to death and what comes
after death, for His disciphs and for men in general,
we must study it in closest connection with what He
taught about His own future. In His references to
that future, the central thought is the full realization by
Him of the Messianic purpose. This purpose had be-
gun to be realized by the work of Jesus as a teacher, and
had been realized still further by His death, which com-
pleted His revelation of the Father, and which was at
the same time the last and highest act in His own self-
revelation; but the realization of this Messianic purpose
284
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 285
was to be promoted and consummated by the activity
of the Messiah after His death. Now as the thought
of Jesus in regard to the present life of men laid su-
preme stress upon their attitude toward Him and His
kingdom, so in His thought regarding their future
destiny He proceeds along the same line. He does
not speak of that destiny in an abstract manner, but
He speaks of it in a personal and concrete way, as
being a matter of relationship to Him, and bound up
with His own Messianic destiny.
In Jesus' thought of the future we begin with res?ir-
rection, for though this, of course, presupposes death,
death is not a subject on which Jesus has 1. Resurrec-
left any teaching. He said of the daughter fl> The
of Jairus, when she was dead, " She sleeps" f°^°*
(Mk. v. 39), and later said the same in regard regard to His
to Lazarus (Jn. xi. 11); but He did not resurrection,
thereby intimate that death, in general, is a sleep. He
did not say it of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or, indeed,
of any departed ones save these two whom He was about
to raise again to life. It was in view of His miracu-
lous awakening of these persons that He spoke of
their condition as a sleep. But on the general fact of
physical death Jesus seems to have had nothing to
say. He greatly changed the thought of death for
His disciples, but He did it by glorifying what lies
beyond and by making them sure of possessing it.
286 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
We cannot infer from His reticence regarding death
that He thought His parousia near, and that the
dominion of death was accordingly soon to cease ; 1 but
it is to be regarded rather as indicating that, in His
thought, the death of the body is a relatively unimpor-
tant incident in the career of the spirit.
The thought of resurrection in the teaching of Jesus,
unlike the thought of death, calls for special considera-
tion. We cannot doubt that Jesus, in common with the
great majority of the Jews of His time, had believed
in His own personal immortality long before He be-
came conscious of Messiahship. In His case there was
one peculiar and irresistible argument for immortality,
and that was His consciousness of perfect moral union
with God. The consciousness of pleasing God per-
fectly, and the consequent sense of God's love for Him,
must have raised the fond hope of the Old Testament
saints to an absolute certainty in His case, and must
have made the thought of eternal life in God as familiar
and clear as the thought of His own existence.
But however this may have been, the references
which Jesus makes to His resurrection are plainly
associated with the thought of His Messiahship. This
appears, for example, in the first obscure allusion to
His resurrection which is involved in the sign of Jonah
(Mt. xii. 38-40; Lk. xi. 29-30). It was in the light of
1 Comp. Weudt, Die Lehre /esu, ii. 606,
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 287
His Messianic consciousness that the story of Jonah ac-
quired the significance which He saw in it. To Him
it foreshadowed His death and resurrection ; but there
is no indication that any one else had attached such
a significance to it. Then, as His three formal an-
nouncements of death were based on His Messianic
reading of the Old Testament, so the thought of resur-
rection, which is associated with each of these an-
nouncements, is to be regarded as a conviction which
was inseparable from His consciousness of Messiah-
ship. According to Luke, Jesus found His resurrection
written in the Old Testament (Lk. xxiv. 46); and if
so, we must either suppose that He found it in such
obscure forms as the experience of Jonah, or that He
saw it implied in the prophetic pictures of the everlast-
ing glory of the Messiah's kingdom, for it is nowhere
explicitly taught. But the hints of His resurrection
which He found in the Old Testament became a cer-
tainty for Jesus in the consciousness of His own Mes-
siahship. He knew that His defeat by the power of
evil could not be permanent because He knew that He
was the Messiah. He was perfectly sure that He
should speedily rise from the dead, and thereby estab-
lish His Messianic work among men, because He was
sure that He had been anointed by God to be the
Saviour of the world.
According to Mark the resurrection of Jesus was
288 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
to be after three days (Mk. viii. 31; ix. 31; x. 34);
according to Matthew and Luke, it was to be on the
third day, though Matthew in the passage regarding
Jonah represents Jesus as saying that the Son of man
must be in the heart of the earth three days and three
nights (Mt. xvi. 21 ; Lk. ix. 22 ; Mt. xii. 40). It is most
probable that the expression three days was used to
designate a short time (comp. Hos. vi. 2), and that the
language of Matthew and Luke is a modification of
the popular expression made natural by the historical
fact that Jesus actually rose on the third day, after
He had been in the tomb two nights and a little more
than one day. But however this may be, it is plain
that Jesus was confident of a speedy resurrection.
Further, it appears that Jesus thought of His resur-
rection as a visible phenomenon, a bodily return from
the grave. The analogy of Jonah's experience sug-
gests this thought, whether the book of Jonah be
regarded as historical or not, for Jonah returned in
the body from his burial in the sea. Moreover, a
visible, bodily resurrection of Jesus seems to be im-
plied in the promise of the last evening, that Jesus,
after He had risen from the dead, would go before
His disciples into Galilee (Mk. xiv. 28; Mt. xxvi. 32),
for this language seems to involve the thought that
He would meet the disciples there, and that they
should see Him (Mk. xvi. 7; Mt. xxviii. 16).
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 289
The Messianic significance of the resurrection of
Jesus is clearly indicated by Him. It was to be a
sign to that generation, that is, a sign of His Messiah-
ship (Mt. xii. 39-40 ; Mk. xiv. 27-28 ; Lk. xxiv. 46).
That was what the scribes and Pharisees were seek-
ing on the occasion when Jesus spoke of the sign of
Jonah. That was what they sought from Him, but
did not believe that He could give, and what they
certainly would not have appreciated had it been
given. Jesus replied to their sceptical demand with
an intimation that His resurrection would be the
sign which they sought. And thus, as far as its
significance was concerned, He put it in the same
class with His words and works. It is well known
that from the day of the resurrection onward the
event actually had this significance both for the few
who had already believed in Jesus, and for many
who had not yet believed. It was the crowning
proof of His Messiahship, or at least the proof which
was most easily taken hold of by men in the apostolic
age.
Again, Jesus gave substantially the same intimation
regarding the meaning of His resurrection when, on
the night of His betrayal, He told His disciples that
they all would be offended in Him, that is, would
deny and forsake Him ; and then added that after
He was risen He would go before them into Galilee
290 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
(Mk. xiv. 27-28). Here it is His resurrection that
is to rally them and bring them back to Him ; and
this prophetic word of Jesus had a perfect fulfilment
within a short time after the resurrection. Thus,
according to the Synoptists, Jesus saw in His resur-
rection a visible demonstration of His Messiahship.
It may be said that the resurrection of Jesus gave
an ocular proof of the personal immortality of. a
good man, for the disciples were convinced
bearing of that the Jesus whom they had seen expire
Jesus'
resurrection on the cross was with them again on the
resurrection third day, not in a wholly intelligible man-
of other men. ne^ but really wfth them, person with per-
son. This, however, is not the significance of the
event in relation to the general subject of resurrec-
tion. On this subject, the significance of the resur-
rection of Jesus is wholly negative. It was bodily,
but this fact does not prophesy a bodily resurrection
for the disciples of Jesus, or for any one ; it rather
precludes such a resurrection, because the bodily
resurrection of Jesus, like His visible manifestation
to His disciples after the resurrection, was Messianic,
and so peculiar to Him. The miraculous occurrence
which was necessary in His case, as a final proof of
His Messiahship, can never be necessary in the case
of another man, for there cannot be another Messiah.
It is as impossible to argue from the bodily character
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 29 1
of the resurrection of Jesus to a bodily resurrection
for His disciples as it would be to say that because
Jesus could raise the dead, therefore His disciples
also can raise the dead.
Since, then, Jesus regarded the material and bodily
character of His resurrection as designed to accomplish
a Messianic purpose, we may safely say that He did
not think of the resurrection of others as having this
character.
This inference is confirmed by the sole passage in
which Jesus gives anything like formal teaching in
regard to resurrection, namely, the passage which re-
ports His reply to the question of the Sadducees (Mk.
xii. 18-27; Mt. xxii. 23-33; Lk. xx. 27-38).1 For
here He proves the fact of resurrection by citing a
passage which implies that certain persons were already
risen. The language of God to Moses involves the
thought that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had
died long before, were living, and therefore were risen
from the dead. But there is no evidence that Jesus
thought of their graves as empty, or supposed that
their mortal dust had been in anywise affected by
their resurrection. And the Jewish teachers had no
such thought as this. They had long believed, indeed,
in a bodily resurrection,2 but they thought that this
1 Lk. xiv. 14 is merely incidental.
2 See Enoch, li. I; xcii. 3; lxii. 15; ciii. 4; civ. 2; c. 5; 2 Mace. vii. 9,
292 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
resurrection was still in the future, and was to take
place at the beginning of the Messianic age, or dur-
ing its progress.1 This resurrection for which the
Jews were looking was to be a resurrection into an
earthly life, and of this doctrine there is no trace in
the teaching of Jesus. He thought of the patriarchs
as being in heaven, and their resurrection was ac-
cordingly past (Lk. xvi. 22; Mk. xii. 27). Therefore
we say that this passage supports the inference from
the resurrection of Jesus, namely, that He did not
think of the resurrection of men as being material
and bodily in character. If this be true, then we
should expect to find that Jesus refers to resurrection
as belonging to the moment of death ; and this is
indeed the case. In His reply to the Sadducees He
speaks of the patriarchs as though they were living
with God in the days of Moses ; and if that was the
case, there is no reason to think that this had not
been true of them every hour since their death. In
the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus rep-
resents the spirit of Lazarus as passing into heaven
in the moment of death, for the bosom of Abraham
is a synonym of heaven (Lk. xvi. 22, 25-26). And
finally, He assured the penitent robber, who was ex-
14, 23, 36; xii. 43-44; Ps. of Solomon iii. 16; xiv. 2; 2 Esdras vii. 32;
Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, p. 244.
1 See Weber, Die Lehren des Talmuds, pp. 347-354.
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 293
piring on a cross by the side of His own, that he
should be in Paradise with Him that day ; and Para-
dise is heaven, and to be in heaven is certainly to be
risen from the dead (Lk. xxiii. 42-43). '
The reply which Jesus made to the Sadducees bears
also upon the point whether He believed in a general
resurrection. His language certainly is not limited.
He says when men rise from the dead (Mk. xii. 25),
concerning the dead, that they are raised (Mk. xii.
26), concerning the resurrection of the dead (Mt. xxii.
31). This is general, just as we might expect, for
what the Sadducees denied was not the resurrection
of a particular class of men, as the unrighteous, but the
resurrection of any one. And inasmuch as the Sad-
ducees were silenced by the argument of Jesus (Mt.
xxii. 34), we may infer that they regarded it as an
argument for the resurrection of man as such.
It is true of the fourth Gospel, as it is of the
Synoptists, that the thought of Jesus regarding the
future after His death is preeminently Mes-
sianic. It all has a direct connection with thought of
resurrection
the realization of the purpose of the Messiah, in the fourth
The teaching is personal, and He is its centre.
There is no word by Jesus in the fourth Gospel
in regard to His own bodily resurrection, such as we
have seen in the Synoptists ; but He refers to the
resurrection of others, and claims a vital relation to it.
294 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
The central saying is that which was spoken just
before the raising of Lazarus. Martha had expressed
the common belief of the Jews, that her brother
would rise in* the resurrection at the last day (Jn. xi.
24). Jesus replied in substance that the present
spiritual resurrection is the all-important fact; that
He gives this resurrection to all who receive Him ;
and that this spiritual resurrection is unto a life
which is not affected by physical death (Jn. xi.
25-26). He makes no reference to a resurrection of
the body, or to a future resurrection. He speaks as
though the spiritual resurrection in the present were
the only thing about which one need be concerned.
Life once begun, true life, continues without cessa-
tion. Physical death does not touch it. The body
collapses and falls, but the life goes on. Now this
continuance of the spiritual life, when considered by
the side of the physical collapse, is equivalent to res-
urrection, for it of course implies that the spirit es-
capes from the crumbling body.
There are several references in John to the last
day, but they contain no specific thought in regard
to resurrection (Jn. vi. 39, 40, 44, 54; xii. 48). In
each of the four cases where Jesus declares that He
will raise up His disciples in the last day, the promi-
nent thought is not one of time, but of spiritual
relationship. Jesus will perfectly keep him who be-
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 295
lieves ; He will lose nothing. No one shall pluck
the disciple out of the hand of Jesus, now or in the
hour of death and judgment. Jesus will see His dis-
ciple safely through to the end. It is this thought
of perfect keeping which is central in the use which
Jesus makes of the Jewish expression, " Raising up
at the last day." This view is in harmony with the
spiritual character of the fourth Gospel, and in har-
mony also with the Synoptic teaching of Jesus regard-
ing resurrection. In the other passage where the
last day is referred to (Jn. xii. 48), the prominent
thought is that of judgment by the word of Christ,
and the meaning is wholly unaffected by the location
of this last day, whether it be referred to the end of
life or the end of the present dispensation.
There is one word of Jesus in the fourth Gospel
that might at first be thought to indorse the Jewish
teaching of a resurrection at the end of the present
age. It occurs in a passage which deals with the
Messianic prerogatives of Jesus, His authority to
quicken those who are spiritually dead (Jn. v. 21,
25-26), and to judge men (Jn. v. 22, 23, 27). It is in
subordination to this thought of Messianic authority
that Jesus refers to a future resurrection of the bad
and the good (Jn. v. 28-29). Hence the resurrection
is not treated here for its own sake, but incidentally.
Therefore this passage cannot be regarded as direct
296 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
teaching on the subject of the resurrection ; and in
view of what Jesus said to Martha and His teaching
in the earlier Gospels, it cannot be regarded as even
implying a belief of Jesus that resurrection is long
subsequent to death.
As Jesus looked out upon the future and con-
templated the realization of His Messianic purpose
ii. The after His death, one fact on which His
mission and n , ....
work of the thought rested was the activity of the
0Pinthe Spirit, and this subject properly claims at-
Synoptists. tention immediately after the topic of the
resurrection of Jesus.
In the Synoptic teaching of Jesus there is little
reference of any sort to the Holy Spirit. We can
hardly say that we have even the elements of a
doctrine. The Spirit is referred to on but two or
three occasions, and then very briefly. These pas-
sages, however, are perhaps of more importance than
might appear on first thought, for they do suggest
a vital service of the Spirit, and they help to explain
two statements made by the evangelists in regard to
Jesus, which seem to involve a contradiction. The
only Synoptic word in regard to the sending of the
Spirit is found in Luke, and was spoken by Jesus
after His resurrection (Lk. xxiv. 49). The disciples
were gathered in Jerusalem, and Jesus said to them,
"I send forth the promise of my Father upon you,
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 297
but tarry ye in the city until ye be endued with
power from on high." These words are spoken by
Jesus from the standpoint of His heavenly glory.
He will send the promise upon the disciples. This,
of course, implies that He is separated from them at
the time when He sends the Spirit, and as the
promise is to be sent from on high, it is further im-
plied that He will be on high when the Spirit is
sent. There is no suggestion here of a personal
return of Jesus from on high, that He may be with
the disciples to the end of the age, as is said in
Matthew (xxviii. 20). Jesus speaks of sending upon
the disciples only the promise of the Father. He
does not say Spirit. Yet this promise, in the light
of its fulfilment at Pentecost, must be. referred to the
Old Testament promises of the Spirit of Jehovah
(e.g. Joel ii. 28; Ez. xxxvi. 27; xxxix. 29). Jesus
does not here speak of the sending of the Spirit as
something original with Himself, but only as the ful-
filment through Him of the promise of the Father.
Jesus had already spoken of the Spirit when fore-
telling the fate of His disciples, apparently on two
occasions (Mt. x. 20; Lk. xii. 12; Mk. xiii. 11; Lk.
xxi. 15). It is noticeable that on the second occasion,
when Mark says that the Holy Spirit will speak in
the disciples in their hour of peril, Luke represents
Jesus as saying, "/will give you a mouth and wisdom."
298 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
In view of Lk. xxiv. 49, it is natural to suppose that
he thought of this promise as accomplished through
the Spirit.
The function of the Spirit, according to these two
earlier passages, is to help the disciples bear witness
for Jesus. He will speak in them, or will teach them,
in the time of their need ; and therefore they are not
to be anxious. It is not to be inferred from these pas-
sages that Jesus thought of the Spirit as aiding His
disciples only when they should be brought before
governors and kings. The Spirit is represented as
speaking in them or through them, not, of course, in
an outward and mechanical way, apart from their will
and reason, but as an inspiring force at the centre of
their being. Luke plainly thinks of a permanent gift
when he represents Jesus as saying, " I will give you a
mouth and zvisdom, which no one shall be able to with-
stand." A man who has heavenly wisdom has it every
day and for all days. It is a quality of the man himself.
In view now of this explicit teaching in regard to the
sending of the Spirit by the exalted Lord, the word
of Mt. xxviii. 20, " Lo, I am with you alway, even
unto the end of the age," can hardly be taken as a
promise of the strictly personal presence of Jesus.
It must rather be referred to the presence of the Holy
Spirit. But since the Spirit is sent by Jesus (Lk. xxiv.
49), He certainly does the will of Jesus, and therefore
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 299
Jesus can say to His disciples, "/ am with you."1
This is precisely parallel to the conception of the
fourth Gospel, that because Jesus perfectly represents
the Father, they who see and hear Jesus see and hear
the Father; and it is also parallel to the Synoptic
conception that they who receive Jesus receive the
Father {e.g. Mk. ix. 37).
There is another passage which must be considered
in this connection. In Mt. xviii. 20 Jesus says, " If
two of you shall agree upon earth regarding anything
which they may ask, it shall be done for them of my
Father who is in heaven ; for where two or three are
gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of
them." Now the presence of Jesus is here given as
the reason why the Father grants the petitions of the
disciples, and, accordingly, it cannot be understood as
a real presence of Jesus, inasmuch as the teaching of
Jesus elsewhere represents God as hearing and answer-
ing all who come to Him as children, in faith and love.
Wendt2 understands this word of Mt. xviii. 20 in anal-
ogy with those passages where Jesus declares that He
counts certain acts done to others in His name as done
to Him. Thus, " He who receives one of such little
children in my name receives me " (Mk. ix. 37); and,
" Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these, my brethren,
1 Comp. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 546-548.
2 Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 548.
300 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
even these least, ye did it unto me " (Mt. xxv. 40). Now
Jesus is not thought of as being really present in the
man who receives Christian service from His disciples ;
but He reckons the service of the same value as though
it had been done to Him in person. So in the passage
under consideration, where Jesus says that the Father
will surely hear the smallest circle gathered in His
name, because He, Jesus, is with them, He affirms
only that the Father will regard the prayer of these
two or three disciples as though it were the prayer
of Jesus.
Now this thought of Wendt is doubtless in harmony
with the teaching of Jesus, but it seems questionable
whether it is just the thought of the present verse.
This seems to go further, and to suggest that the
Father's answer is certain because of some relation-
ship between the disciples and Jesus. Now to be
gathered in the name of Jesus implies faith in Him,
and something of His spirit. It implies a certain
christlikeness of character ; for, in Scripture language,
name expresses character {e.g. Jn. xvii. 26; Mt. i. 21 ;
vi. 9).1 But where there is likeness to Christ, there
Christ is, not personally of course, but virtually. As
Jesus said, " Pie that hath seen me hath seen the
Father," so of a perfect Christian it might be said,
1 See Cremer, Biblisch-Theologisches VVorterbuch, dritte Auflage, pp.
590-593.
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 301
"He that hath seen his character hath seen the char-
acter of Christ." Therefore we may think that it is
this fact of christ likeness which justifies the assurance
that God will grant the request of the disciples.
In conclusion regarding the Synoptic teaching on
the Spirit, it may be said that Luke and Matthew
agree in the suggestion that the realization of the
Messianic purpose by Jesus from His heavenly glory
will be powerful and victorious (Lk. xxiv. 49; Mt.
xxviii. 18). He has all the authority that is requisite
for the accomplishment of His desire, and a perfect
agent in the Spirit, through whom that authority can
be exercised.
On passing from the Synoptists to the fourth Gospel
and to its account of the last days of Jesus' life, we
find a relatively elaborate and fixed doctrine regarding
the Holy Spirit.
The only early reference in John to the Spirit,
namely, in the conversation with Nicodemus (Jn. iii.
5-8), is such as might be made on the b% In john
basis of the Old Testament revelation. It I- The r
coming of
implies nothing with regard to the Spirit's the Spirit,
relation to Jesus. But the character and function
of the Spirit, according to the later words of Jesus,
are exclusively Messianic. He is regarded as the
successor of Jesus in the work of realizing the Mes-
sianic purpose.
302 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
The coming of the Spirit is conditioned in a two-
fold manner. As regards the disciples, it is necessary
that they should be united to Christ in order that the
Spirit may come to them. " If ye love me," Jesus
says, "ye will keep my commandments, and I will
pray the Father, and he will give you another Helper "
(Jn. xiv. 15, 16). His asking the Father is here con-
ditioned upon the keeping of His commandments by
the disciples, but this is in turn only an evidence that
they truly love Him, or are truly united to Him. This
condition is elsewhere implied, as when Jesus says
that His disciples know the Spirit because He abides
with them, and is in them (Jn. xiv. 17). That is to
say, they already know the Spirit because they know
Jesus. The world, on the other hand, beholds not the
Spirit, that is, beholds Him not in Jesus, or, in other
words, sees not the real character of Jesus. For this
reason it cannot receive the Spirit. There has been
no preparation made for Him. He has no point of
contact with the world, but He has a point of contact
with the disciples, because they are united to Jesus.
Thus the entire ministry of the Spirit which is con-
templated in these words of Jesus, presupposes the
acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah.
The coming of the Spirit is also conditioned upon
the prayer of Jesus, and upon His departure to the
Father. First, the necessity of His prayer is implied
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 303
when He says, " I will pray the Father, and he shall
give you another Helper" (Jn. xiv. 16). This thought
of the necessity of Christ's prayer is in keeping with
the general teaching, that He is the sole channel through
which the Father's love and truth come to the disci-
ples. When Jesus says that He will send the Helper,
He does not represent Himself as the ultimate source
of the Spirit, but rather as the channel through which
the Father bestows this gift upon the disciples (Jn.
xv. 26 ; xvi. 7). Whenever the Spirit goes forth, He
proceeds from the Father (Jn. xv. 26); but just as the
name, or character, of the Father is manifested through
Jesus the Messiah, so the Spirit comes through His
agency.
Then, further, the Spirit's coming is conditioned
upon the departure of Jesus to the Father. " It is
expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away
the Helper will not come unto you ; but if I go away,
I will send him unto you " (Jn. xvi. 7). The hearers
were left to explain for themselves why the presence of
the Helper required the absence of Jesus. The Lord
simply states the fact. The explanation, however, is
not far to seek. In another connection, when mani-
festly referring to the Spirit's coming to the disciples,
Jesus says that He will come to them and will mani-
fest Himself to them (Jn. xiv. 18, 21). Now it is
obvious that before He could come to them in the
304 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Spirit, He must depart from them in His own
person.
Jesus says, moreover, that this departure will be
profitable for the disciples. The Spirit will be to them
more than He could be. He does not explain this
statement, but we doubtless have its explanation in
the fact that the Helper is spirit (Jn. xiv. 17), and so
is free from the limitations which rested on Jesus.
The Successor of Jesus could be with each disciple
of the widely scattered band; and their fellowship
with Him, being wholly spiritual, would be higher
and more complete than any fellowship through the
senses could be.
The character of the Successor of Jesus is com-
prehensively defined when Jesus calls Him another
Helper (Jn. xiv. 16). This shows that the
character of mission of the Spirit is essentially the same
the Spirit.
as that of Jesus ; and this fact seems to
justify the inference that His character is essentially
the same. If He is a helper like Jesus, one who can
take the place of Jesus, then He has the same tender
love for the disciples that Jesus had, the same purpose,
the same understanding of their needs, and the same
divine ability to help them.
Jesus twice calls the Helper the Spirit of truth,
which means that it is the function of the Spirit to
lead the disciples into all truth (Jn. xvi. 13). He is
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 305
the Spirit of truth because He reveals the truth. And
here is suggested the intimate relationship between
the Spirit and Christ. Jesus said of Himself that He
was the truth (Jn. xiv. 6), and now He says that the
Spirit reveals the truth. This really implies that He
is of the same character as Jesus, just as Jesus reveals
the Father, because He is of the same character as
the Father.1
In regard to the. personality of the Spirit, it is plain
that this is everywhere assumed in the statements of
Jesus. Thus He says that the Spirit teaches (Jn.
xiv. 26); that He witnesses of Jesus (Jn. xv. 26); that
He convicts of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment
(Jn. xvi. 8); that He speaks what He hears (Jn.
xvi. 13), and that He takes of the things of Jesus and
declares them to the disciples (Jn. xvi. 14-15). Now
all these expressions are such as would be used of a
person ; and, indeed, most of them are actually used
in regard to Jesus. Not only do these expressions
imply personality, but so in like manner does the
relation of the Spirit to Jesus. He is represented as
taking the place of Jesus ; and it seems obvious that
an impersonal principle could not take the place of
the personal Jesus.
1 The adjective holy is associated with the word Spirit but once in the
words of Jesus (Jn. xiv. 26), and then helps to explain the word Helper.
The term Holy Spirit is used as well known, and no stress is laid on the
idea of the adjective.
X
3<d6 the revelation OF JESUS
The work of the Spirit in the disciples is represented
as simply a continuation of the work of Jesus. The
The work Spirit is, as it were, the other self, the alter
of the Spirit. eg0^ 0f jesus, and He carries forward what
Jesus began. He teaches the disciples, and this
teaching consists in an unfolding of the meaning of
all that Jesus had said to them (Jn. xiv. 26). He
takes of Christ's things and shows them to the disci-
ples, thus glorifying Christ (Jn. xvi. 14), even as
Christ in the same way glorifies the Father (Jn.
xvii. 4). Like Jesus, the Spirit does not speak of
Himself, but speaks what He hears, that is, what
He hears from Jesus (Jn. xvi. 13). It is sug-
gested that He supplements the teaching of Jesus
(Jn. xvi. 12-13), but this is not by communicating
doctrines not found in the Master's words. The name
of the Father, the entire name, Jesus had Himself
made known (Jn. xvii. 6). All the things which
He had heard from His Father, He had made known
to His disciples (Jn. xv. 15). The name which the
Father had given to Him, and He to the disciples,
is thought of as a complete revelation, for Jesus prays
that the disciples may be " kept " in it unto a spiritual
unity, and may be " sanctified " by it (Jn. xvii.
11, 17). Moreover, this word which He has given
to His disciples is one through which others are led
to believe in Jesus (Jn. xvii. 20).
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 307
The same great thought, that the revelation of Jesus
was not to be supplemented by the addition of any
essential truth, is also found in the last references
which He made to His life-work. He said that He
had accomplished what the Father gave Him to do,
that is, the Messianic work, and that He was glorified
in His disciples (Jn. xvii. 4, 10). He was glorified
in them because they accepted Him as the Messiah
(Jn. xvii. 7-8). They are united to Him as the
branch to the vine (Jn. xv. 4-5); they are in His
love as He is in the Father's love (Jn. xv. 9) ; and
He has commissioned them as the Father commis-
sioned Him (Jn. xvii. 18). This language plainly
implies that, in the thought of Jesus, He had given
to His disciples, and they had received, all the essen-
tials of His Gospel. They need the Father's gracious
help through the Spirit, that they may live this Gospel
(Jn. xvii. 11, 15; xiv. 26, etc.); but there is no further
Gospel, no other essential truth of salvation, for them to
receive. Thus, according to John, Jesus plainly teaches
that His Gospel needs no supplement ; and, as for the
Synoptists, they contain no slightest suggestion that
Christ's revelation of the Father and of the conditions
of salvation is incomplete and needs to be supplemented.
But the disciples did not understand all that Jesus
had said, and did not know the practical inferences
which were to be drawn from the principles of His
3<d8 the revelation OF JESUS
teaching. Here, then, was the large sphere of the
Spirit's activity. He was to unfold the teaching of
Jesus, and help the disciples to secure a spiritual
apprehension of it. He was to help them in the
application of Christ's revelation to the manifold needs
of life. Along these lines He could say many things
which Jesus had not said (Jn. xvi. 12); and in par-
ticular He would unfold the thought of Jesus in regard
to future things (Jn. xvi. 13).
Jesus does not refer to any action of the Spirit upon
the world except through the disciples, or, perhaps we
should say, any action of the Spirit as His Spirit and
Successor. A certain activity of the Spirit of God is
involved in the case of all souls who are disposed to
receive Christ when they meet Him. These are they
of whom Jesus says that they are of the truth, or of
God (Jn. xviii. 37; viii. 47; hi. 21). A spiritual
disposition is here assumed to exist before there has
been any contact with Christ or His disciples. But
these passages lie apart from the direct teaching of
Jesus regarding the Spirit as His Successor. This
contemplates the activity of the Spirit in the world
only as He acts through the disciples in whom He
dwells. Jesus says, " I will send Him unto you, and
He shall convince the world" (Jn. xvi. 7-8). This
language suggests that the Spirit will convince the
world through the disciples.
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 309
The work of the Spirit is broadly characterized by
Jesus as a convincing or persuading in regard to sin
and righteousness and judgment (Jn. xvi. 8-1 1). This
passage does not contemplate a fruitless activity of the
Spirit through the disciples, but a successful activity.
The words are spoken for the encouragement of the
disciples in view of the departure of Jesus.
This characterization of the Spirit, as convincing men
in regard to sin, righteousness, and judgment, shows
Him engaged in an activity which aims at -the reali-
zation of the purpose of the Messiah. For each of these
facts is considered in its relation to Jesus as Messiah.
Thus men are convinced of sin, that is, of their own sin,
because they believe not in Jesus. The Holy Spirit is
not needed to convince men that there is such a thing as
sin in their lives : conscience does that. Jesus, while on
earth, did not teach men that they were sinners : He
simply took it for granted. What He sought to bring
home to men was the necessity of accepting Him and
His revelation {e.g. Jn. iii. 18). Not to do this was the
fatal sin. Now the Spirit continues this work of Jesus,
and seeks through the disciples to convince men that
the sin of sins is not believing in Jesus.
The Spirit also convinces men of righteousness, but
this, too, with reference to the Messiah. He shall con-
vince the world in respect of righteousness, Jesus says,
because He goes to the Father. The ascension of Jesus
310 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
to the Father, which began with the resurrection, was
indeed the seal of God's approval, and confirmed the
claim of Jesus, that He was the Messiah (comp. Jn. viii.
28). Under the influence of the Spirit, according to
the present passage, men will be convinced by the resur-
rection and ascension of Jesus that He was righteous,
absolutely so, and therefore that His claim to be the
Messiah sent by God was justified.
Finally, the Spirit of Jesus will convince the world in
regard to judgment, " because the prince of this world
has been judged " (Jn. xvi. 11). To be convinced that
the prince of the world has been judged is to be con-
vinced that the world itself has been judged — the
world that is subject to him and pervaded by his spirit.
This passage does not say how the prince of the world
has been judged, but we learn the thought of Jesus on
this point from an earlier word. When contemplating
His cross, He said, " Now is the judgment of this world,
now shall the prince of this world be cast out " (Jn. xii.
31). This passage connects the judgment of Satan
with the cross, as it also connects the glorification of
Jesus with the cross. It judges Satan in that it reveals
his character. To have him fully unmasked is to secure
his condemnation by all right-thinking intelligences.
This, however, is not all. Satan is not only judged;
he is also cast out, that is, out of the world, out of his
throne in the hearts of men (Jn. xii. 31). Jesus, when
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 31 I
lifted up, draws men with a power that is stronger than
the bondage of Satan. Thus the cross judges Satan
and also defeats him. But the judgment of the prince
of the world is virtually a judgment of the world itself
and of each member of it in particular. As long as one
is a part of Satan's world, one's spirit is revealed by the
cross as a spirit of enmity toward God, and it is that
which is judged. Thus the Holy Spirit of the Messiah,
working through the disciples, convinces the world that
Jesus is its judge, because He has already judged Satan,
the prince of the world. To sum up the thought of
this passage, we may say that the Spirit's mission to the
world through the disciples is to present, and urge upon
men, the supreme claims of Jesus as the Messiah. It is
thus purely religious, being entirely limited to the sphere
of Christ's teaching, and it is accomplished only through
living men.
As the thought of Jesus went out over the future,
it touched upon His resurrection, His presence with
the disciples by His Spirit, and then upon m ,
the great, and for us complex, subject of His thought of
Jesus in
parousia, or "the active appearance of the regard to His
1 parousia.
glorified Messiah. l a. survey of
The Synoptic Gospels are unequal in * e ala'
their respective amounts of matter regarding the par-
1 See Haupt, Eschatologische Aussagen Jesu in den Synoplischen
Eva ngeJie n, p . 115.
312 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
ousia, as they also differ somewhat in their concep-
tion of what that is. The narratives of Mark and
Luke have each four direct references to the parousia,
while Matthew has nine (Mk. viii. 38 ; xiii. 24, 33 ; xiv.
62 ; Lk. xxi. 25 ; xvii. 26 ; xviii. 8 ; xii. 40; Mt. x. 23 ;
xvi. 27; xxiv. 3 ; xxvi. 29, 64 ; xxiv. 37, 42, 44; xxv. 31-
46). The first reference by Jesus to His parousia was
probably made at Caesarea Philippi in connection with
the first formal announcement of His death and resur-
rection. In the parable of the Tares, and again in that
of the Drag-net, Jesus had spoken of the end of the age,
with the gathering together of the elect by the angels
whom the Son of man should send forth ; but He made
no direct reference to the parousia.
Matthew represents Jesus as speaking on the subject
in His address to the twelve at the time of their first
mission, which was long before the days spent at
Caesarea Philippi (Mt. x. 23) ; but it is well known
that the first evangelist arranged many sayings of
Jesus topically, without regard to the time when they
were uttered. So he has brought together, in this
address, sayings of the Master which must have been
spoken much later than the first mission of the twelve,
and to these belongs the word in question, " When
they persecute you in this city, flee into the next ;
for, verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone
through the cities of Israel till the Son of man be
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 313
come." But there is no likelihood that the apostles,
when they went through Galilee healing and pro-
claiming the nearness of the kingdom of God, were
persecuted. On the contrary, it is decidedly probable
that they were welcomed ; and, furthermore, when they
made their report to Jesus, they said nothing of per-
secution (Mk. vi. 30). And then, it is unlikely that
Jesus spoke to His disciples about His coming before
He had told them that He was going away from
them. Therefore we are justified in regarding this
word of Mt. x. 23 as a word which was spoken late
in the ministry ; and hence the first reference to the
parousia was that which Jesus made at Caesarea
Philippi. From this time forward we do not find
references to the parousia which are chronologically
fixed until we come to the last week. Here there
are at least two clearly marked occasions on which
Jesus spoke of His parousia : one the occasion of the
discourse on the Mount of Olives, when Jesus spoke
at length of future things ; and the other the trial
of Jesus by the sanhedrin. According to Luke, Jesus
spoke the parable of the Pounds as He drew near to
Jerusalem at the beginning of the last week (Lk. xix.
11-27). This parable does not mention the parousia
by name, but certainly refers to it. Again, it seems
probable that the various exhortations to watchfulness
in view of the coming of the Lord, which Matthew
314 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
associates with the discourse on Olivet, may have
been spoken at that time. In any case, we are safe
in saying that most of the references to the parousia
belong to the last week of the ministry of Jesus.
Only one can be definitely located before this time,
and there is no allusion to the parousia after the
resurrection.
As we examine the data regarding the parousia, it
appears that the evangelists spoke of two separate
events under the name of a coming of the
b. The par-
ousia not a Son of man, or a parousia. If this be a
sinsrle event.
fact, it is plainly of fundamental importance,
and therefore the evidence must be somewhat fully
given.
In Mt. x. 23 Jesus says to His disciples, " Ye shall
not complete the cities of Israel till the Son of man be
come." In Mt. xxv. 31-46 He speaks of a coming of
the Son of man which is accompanied by a universal
and final judgment, and which is therefore thought of
as being at the end of the present age. Now it is
plainly impossible to identify this coming of the Son of
man, which is subsequent to the preaching of the Gospel
to all nations, with that other coming which is to pre-
cede the evangelization of the cities of Israel. In
these two statements Jesus cannot have referred to
one and the same event, for we cannot believe that
He thought it would take as long to evangelize the
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 315
cities of Israel as it would to evangelize all the rest of
the world.
But again, there are a number of passages which
speak of a coming of the Son of man which will be sud-
den and wholly imexpected. Thus, as the lightning
cometh from the east and is seen even unto the west,
so shall be the coming of the Son of man (Mt. xxiv. 27).
Both Matthew and Luke compare the coming of the
Son of man with the coming of the flood in the days of
Noah, which took the generation by surprise (Mt. xxiv.
37-39; Lk. xvii. 26-27), and Luke compares it with the
rain of fire and brimstone which destroyed Sodom (Lk.
xvii. 28-30). It will be as sudden as were those events.
To this class of passages belong the exhortations to
watchfulness in view of the fact that the time of the
coming of the Son of man is unknown. Thus Matthew
says, " Watch, for ye know not on what day your Lord
cometh" (Mt. xxiv. 42); and, again, " Be ye also ready,
for in an hour when ye think not the Son of man com-
eth " (Mt. xxiv. 44). Mark and Luke have similar
exhortations (Mk. xiii. 33 ; Lk. xii. 40), and the parable
of the Virgins emphasizes the same point (Mt. xxv.
1-13).
Now over against this class of passages in which the
coming of the Son of man is represented as sudden and
unexpected, we have passages that speak of a coming
which is to be heralded by well-known signs, and which
316 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
therefore is not unexpected and sudden (Mk. xiii.
24-26 ; Mt. xxiv. 3, 29-30). Not only will it be ushered
in by these signs, but it is thought of as a " birth,"
which will be preceded by travail-pains (Mk. xiii. 8 ;
Mt. xxiv. 8). Thus it is clearly not an unexpected
event. This difference between the two classes of
passages goes to show that when Jesus spoke of the
coming of the Son of man, He did not always have the
same event in mind.
Once more, Jesus says of a certain coming of the Son
of man that no one knows the day or the hour. The
angels do not know it, neither the Son : it is known to
the Father only (Mk. xiii. 32). But there is also a com-
ing of which Jesus sets the date within narrow limits.
Thus, it will be before the cities of Israel are evangel-
ized (Mt. x. 23); it will be in the lifetime of some of
those who heard Jesus speak of His death and resurrec-
tion at Caesarea Philippi (Mk. ix. 1); it will be within
the lifetime of Caiaphas and the members of the san-
hedrin (Mk. xiv. 62). These specifications can hardly
belong to one and the same event. In one case, Jesus
has positive chronological knowledge, which is quite
definite ; in the other, He declares explicitly that He
knows not the time of the event. Moreover, this argu-
ment is strengthened by the fact that Jesus speaks of
certain things as preceding His parousia which are of
such a character that He can hardly have thought
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 317
of them as lying within the horizon of His own genera-
tion. Thus there are to be wars and rumors of wars.
Nation is to rise against nation, and kingdom against
kingdom. There are to be earthquakes and famines,
and all these calamities are only the beginning of
travail (Mk. xiii. 7-8).
Again, the Gospel is to be preached to all the na-
tions before the parousia, and it seems extremely
doubtful whether Jesus thought that this was possible
within a single generation. For He thought not
simply of a proclamation of the Gospel to all crea-
tures, but also of a process of genuine leavening
which was to go on until the whole lump was
leavened (Mt. xiii. 33).1 His own experience with
the Gospel was that men were slow to accept it. He
foresaw that His disciples were to meet bitter opposi-
tion, and that they would have to struggle in order to
achieve any spiritual results. Such being the case,
it does not seem probable that Jesus expected the
world to be leavened before that generation should
pass ; and if not, then the parousia of which He
spoke was not to be in that generation. These state-
ments, therefore, imply that two different events are
meant, in different connections, by the term " parousia."
There remains yet another consideration which af-
1 Comp. on the thought of the remoteness of the parousia, Bruce, The
Kingdom of God, p. 274 f.
318 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
fords strong proof of the proposition that the coming
of the Son of man did not always have reference to
a particular historical event. It is this : one coming
of the Son of man is with clouds (Mk. xiv. 62), and
is associated with individual judgment (Mt. xxiv.
37-41; Lk. xvii. 26-37); the other coming is with
angels, and is associated with general judgment (Mk.
viii. 38; Mt. xxv. 31). In no case is the coming
with clouds alone associated with a general judgment,
and in no case is the coming with angels, whether
with or without the accompaniment of clouds, disas-
sociated from a general judgment. The coming with
clouds is spoken of as falling within that generation
(Mk. xiv. 62); the coming with angels is never said
to lie within the lifetime of those who heard Jesus.
There are two apparent exceptions to these state-
ments. In Mt. xvi. 28 the coming of the Son of man
in His kingdom follows immediately upon a refer-
ence to His coming with the angels, and so seems
at first to be identified with it ; and this coming in
His kingdom is to be within the lifetime of some of
His hearers. But Mark and Luke report the thought
of Jesus in such a way that the event which some of
the hearers will witness is clearly discriminated from
the coming of the Son of man with angels, which is
mentioned in the preceding verse (Mk. ix. 1 ; Lk. ix.
27). In view of these parallels, therefore, and in
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 319
view of the evidence that Matthew himself elsewhere
designates two different events by the term parousia,
and that he puts the coming to general judgment at
the end of the age (Mt. xxv. 31), we must conclude
that the event of Mt. xvi. 28, even though it may have
been regarded by the evangelist as identical with that
of Mt. xvi. 27, was different from it in the thought of
Jesus.
The other apparent exception is in Lk. xxi. 28,
where, immediately after that reference to the coming
of the Son of man which Mark and Matthew put at
the end of the age, Jesus says to His disciples, " When
these things begin to come to pass, look up and lift up
your heads, for your deliverance draweth nigh." This
gives the impression that some of His disciples would
see the foregoing parousia, which both Mark and Mat-
thew speak of as the parousia with angels. But the
phrase " these things" may go back to the beginning
of the apocalyptic section, verse 8, and consequently
may not refer to the parousia itself. Therefore, the
evidence, if not perfectly conclusive, is very strong
that the parousia with angels, and associated with a
general judgment, is never referred to as coming
within the lifetime of the first Christian generation ;
while the parousia with clouds, but not with angels,
is brought within that generation.
These, then, are the arguments in support of the
320 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
proposition that the evangelists spoke of two separate
events under the name of a coming of the Son of
man. One precedes the evangelization of the cities
of Israel ; the other is at the end of the age. One
is sudden and unexpected ; the other is preceded by
well-known signs. One is chronologically fixed by
Jesus within relatively narrow limits ; the time of the
other is known to the Father alone. One is associ-
ated with clouds and individual judgment; the other
with angels and a general judgment. And, lastly,
there is the improbability that Jesus expected the
world to be leavened within a generation. Taken
together, these arguments seem to establish, on a
firm foundation, the proposition that the term parou-
sia in the Synoptic Gospels designates two different
events.
We have now to consider those references to the
coming of the Son of man which treat it as falling
c The within the lifetime of the generation to
coming of which Jesus spoke; and we might appropri-
man within ately bring all these passages under the
the first
Christian head of the parotisia with clouds, since this
parousia, in each of the Gospels, is spoken of
as lying within the horizon of people then living.
It was before the sanhedrin that Jesus spoke of a
coming with clouds which should fall within the life-
time of His judges. The high priest had demanded
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 32 1
that Jesus should declare, on oath, whether He was
the Messiah. Jesus replied, "I am, and ye shall see
the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power,
and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mk. xiv. 62;
Mt. xxvi. 64). Jesus stood before the sanhedrin a
prisoner. His appearance was wholly un-Messianic,
as judged by the popular standard. Yet He declares
that He is the Messiah, and the following words
seem to be a reference to the future for proof of His
claim. The judges shall yet see Him, the prisoner
of the present, seated on the right hand of power,
that is, at the right hand of God. This language
plainly suggests some sort of future exaltation which
shall justify His claim to be the Messiah. It is
probable, therefore, at the outset, that the words
"coming with clouds" express a kindred thought.
This probability is strengthened, if not raised to a
certainty, by the fact that Luke drops the coming
with clouds, and simply says, " From henceforth shall
the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the
power of God" (Lk. xxii. 69). This fact may indicate,
in the last analysis, that in the circle of Christians
from which Luke drew his material, the coming with
the clouds of heaven was not regarded as expressing
any thought that was not involved in the being seated
at the right hand of the power of God. If, however,
Luke found the clause in his source, and purposely
322 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
dropped it, he probably did so because he did not
regard it as adding anything to the thought. There-
fore, we conclude that the omission of the clause
from Luke's Gospel is an argument for the view,
that the essential thought of the verse is that of
being seated at the right hand of God. And this
language describes an event which Caiaphas and the
sanhedrin were yet to see.
We find further light on the meaning of this
parousia with clouds in a word which Jesus spoke at
Caesarea Philippi. He warned His disciples against
being ashamed of Him and His words (Mk. viii. 38 ;
Lk. ix. 26). There was special need of such a warn-
ing just at that time, for the people of Galilee, as a
whole, had turned against Jesus, and many of His
former followers had left Him. He enforced His
warning by a reference to the final judgment, when
the Son of man will be ashamed of those who are
now ashamed of Him. Then Jesus goes on to tell
His disciples that a change of tide is coming in the
near future, and that some of them will live to see
the kingdom of God established with power. That
kingdom of which they are now in danger of being
ashamed, it is so insignificant and so unlike the king-
dom of their national hope — that kingdom will be
manifested in power within their lifetime. This is
the great hope which He holds up before them.
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 323
The language of this prophetic saying of Jesus
varies in the different records, and the variations are
significant, whether we think of the narratives as
independent or not. Mark says, " Until they see the
kingdom of God having come with power." Luke
has essentially the same thought, for he says, " Until
they see the kingdom of God." He has not the
words " come with power," but his context implies
the thought of these words. For Jesus is promising
His disciples a vision to gladden their heart; and
when He says, " There are some of those standing
here who shall by no means taste of death until they
see the kingdom of God," that obviously means a
manifestation of the kingdom of God unlike what
they see at present, or, in other words, a triumphant
manifestation, a coming of the kingdom with power.
Now Matthew, while having the same situation, uses
different language and says, " Until they see the Son of
man coming in His kingdom " (Mt. xvi. 28). We have
shown in the last paragraph that Matthew can hardly
have identified this coming of the Son of man with His
coming at the end of the age ; and therefore the pre-
sumption is strong that his language, " the Son of man
coming in His kingdom," contains the same thought
that is expressed in the plainer terms of Mark and
Luke. These writers express the thought in a form
intelligible to the Gentiles, while Matthew uses a figure
324 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
borrowed from the Jewish literature, which would not
be plain to Gentiles.
I hold, then, that Matthew's expression, "the Son of
man coming in His kingdom," is the exact equivalent
of Mark's language, " the kingdom of God come with
power." Now as to the meaning of this last expres-
sion, there can hardly be any serious question. The
coming of the kingdom of God with power is a power-
ful triumph of the Gospel, a striking realization of the
principles of the kingdom of heaven.1 This, then, is
what Jesus promises that some of His disciples shall
see.
Now, in the light of this passage, we turn again to the
word which Jesus spoke to the sanhedrin, " Ye shall
see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power,
and coming with the clouds of heaven." Here, as in the
other passage, is an event which the present genera-
tion shall witness. Here, as there, we have a coming
of the Son of man. Here, as there, the context requires
the thought of an exaltation of Jesus. I conclude, there-
fore, that this language of Jesus before the sanhedrin,
interpreted by its own context, and in the light of the
parallel passage, looked toward a great triumph of the
Gospel which His judges should live to see.2
1 Comp. Haupt, Eschatologische Anssagen Jesu in den Synoptischen
Evangelien, p. 121.
2 For the origin of the phrase " coming with the clouds," see Dan. vii. 13.
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 325
Hence the event which the judges of Jesus are to
see is the same which He held up before His disciples
in the days which He spent at Caesarea Philippi. And
the fulfilment of the promise is recorded in Acts. The
coming of the kingdom of God with power, or the com-
ing of the Son of man on the clouds of heaven, was
realized in the signal triumph of the Gospel through the
two decades subsequent to the crucifixion, beginning
with Pentecost, and resulting, in this short period, in the
establishment of Christian churches throughout Pales-
tine, Asia Minor, and Greece, and as far away as Rome
in the West, and probably as far as Babylon in the
East. These events showed, indeed, that Jesus was
seated at the right hand of power.
Further, we must hold that it was this event which
Jesus had in view when He exhorted His disciples to
be watchful because they knew not the hour when their
Lord would come. He uttered such words of exhorta-
tion on the Mount of Olives, and perhaps on other occa-
sions during the last days. The briefest statement of
the thought is in Mark ; the most elaborate in Matthew.
In Mark, Jesus likens His disciples to doorkeepers,
whose business it is to watch for the return of their
Lord. He may come at evening, or at midnight, or at
cock-crowing, or in the morning ; they know not when.
They must watch lest he come and find them sleeping
(Mk. xiii. 33-37). In Matthew and Luke this thought
326 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
appears in various forms. Thus, the parousia of the
Son of man shall be as lightning, that is, sudden (Mt.
xxiv. 27; Lk. xvii. 24). It shall come as the flood
came upon the generation of Noah, and as the rain of
fire came upon Sodom (Mt. xxiv. 37-41 ; Lk. xvii. 26-
37). Therefore, the disciples are to be as wise ser-
vants who watch (Mt. xxiv. 42-44; xxv. 1-13 ; Lk. xii.
39-40; xxi. 34-36). Their readiness for the coming
of the Son of man will consist in the faithful doing of
the duties which He has appointed them (Mt. xxiv. 45-
47; Lk. xii. 41-46; Mt. xxv. 14-30; Lk. xix. u-27).
Another word of Luke's Gospel belongs here,
namely, that of xvii. 22. According to this, Jesus
said to His disciples on a certain occasion that a time
would come when they would desire to see one of the
days of the Son of man, and would not see it. This is
to be taken in connection with the prospect of the suf-
fering and trial to which the disciples will be exposed.
When severe trials come upon them, they will long to
see the days of the Son of man, that is, days of His
triumph. This passage plainly contemplates a period
in which the Son of man will give deliverance and
prosperity to His disciples — a conception which is
obviously in line with the interpretation which makes
the near coming of the Son of man, or His com-
ing with clouds, equivalent to the triumph of the
Gospel.
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 327
We pass on now to consider that coming of the Son
of man which is at the end of the age. There are
three passages which speak of a parousia
with angels (Mk. viii. 38; Lk. ix. 26; Mt. coming of
xvi. 27-28). The first is found in all the ^^
Synoptists, though Matthew's version is end of the
somewhat different from that of Mark and
Luke. It is the word which was spoken at Csesarea
Philippi. Jesus had announced that the way of His
disciples, like His own, would be a way of self-denial
and death. Hence, they would be tempted to deny
Him. He warns them against this by stating the im-
measurable evil which results from such a denial. It
will involve a rejection by the Son of man when He
comes in the glory of the Father with the holy angels
(Mk. Lk.). Matthew's report is more general. He
says that the Son of man will render to each accord-
ing to his deed, that is, to the good and the bad alike.
He has not the saying about being ashamed of Jesus
and of His words ; but he connects the announcement of
judgment with the general law, that he who will save
his life shall lose it, and he who will lose it shall find
it (Mt. xvi. 25-26). The argument is that one who
loses life for Christ's sake makes an infinite gain ; for
when Jesus comes in His great glory at last, He will
render to each man according to his work.
The second passage is in the Eschatological Discourse.
328 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Mark and Matthew give it in essential agreement, while
Luke omits the gathering of the elect (Mk. xiii. 26-27;
Mt. xxiv. 30-31 ; Lk. xxi. 27). The coming of the Son
of man is here preceded by great signs, and is wit-
nessed by all men. The signs are those which in the
Old Testament are associated with the day of Jehovah
(Joel ii. 30-31; Amos viii. 9; Is. xiii. 10; xxxiv. 4).
Sun and moon are darkened, the stars fall, and the
powers of the heavens are shaken. Matthew seems
to think also of a particular phenomenon which he
calls the sign of the Son of man (Mt. xxiv. 3, 30), but
he leaves it undefined. Both Mark and Matthew say
that when the Son of man comes, thus heralded, He
will send forth His angels, and they will gather His
elect together from the whole earth.
The third passage is the great judgment scene in
Mt. xxv. 31-46, where the Son of man comes in
glory with His angels and holds an assize upon all
nations. No function of the angels is here directly
mentioned. Not only the good, but the bad also, are
gathered. The passage deals particularly with the
test of judgment.
These are the only passages that speak of a parousia
with angels, but they are not the only data which we
have to consider. Before the time of Cacsarea Philippi,
Jesus had spoken of the end of the age, when the
angels would be sent forth by the Son of man to
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 329
gather His elect, and to remove out of His kingdom all
stumbling-blocks, and consign them to the furnace of
fire (Mt. xiii. 30, 50). These two scenes in the para-
bles of the Tares and the Drag-net are obviously
parallel to the three passages which have just been
noticed. Their time is the end of the age, and that
is manifestly the time of the coming of the Son of man
which is heralded by the great signs. The signs
themselves, in view of the Old Testament use, point
to the consummation of the present order of things,
and moreover, Matthew explicitly couples this parousia
with the end of the age (Mt. xxiv. 3, 30). Therefore,
also, the judgment scene of Mt. xxv., which closes with
the irreversible awards, must be regarded as belonging,
in the thought of the evangelist, to the end of the age.
The two parable scenes of Matthew agree with the
three distinctive parousia passages not merely in time.
In those as well as in these, the Son of man takes the
initiative in the act of judgment; He sends forth the
angels who gather the elect; there is a final separa-
tion of bad and good ; and the two classes receive
their awards from the Son of man.
We are now ready to ask after the meaning of this
parousia with angels, or the coming of the Son of man
at the end of the age. It is to be noticed that there
are two constant elements in the various passages, and
these are a general Messianic judgment and the end
330 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
of the age. The angels contribute nothing essential.
In the great scene in Mt. xxv. 31-46, they have no
part, and seem to be mentioned only to heighten
the glory and majesty of the event, as in the Book of
Enoch;1 and the same is true of the judgment scene
to which Jesus referred at Caesarea Philippi. Then,
what is still more striking and important, the coming
itself seems not to be treated as essential to the
thought of these judgment passages. For in two of
the five scenes the Son of man is represented as
remaining in heaven, and as sending forth His angels
from thence, to gather His elect unto Him. Again,
in the Olivet discourse, the coming itself seems to
have no other significance than to mark the end of
the age. It is followed by the sending forth of the
angels, who gather the elect, just as was done in the
two preceding scenes without a coming of the Son of
man. Therefore, I incline to hold that, in the thought
of Jesus in these passages, the coming of the Son of
man was not a feature of fundamental significance, but
was rather a figurative announcement of the consum-
mation of the age. It is a grand, luminous Finis at
the bottom of the last page of earthly history.
The two ideas common to all the five judgment
passages are the end of the age and Messianic judg-
1 Chapter i. 4, 9; comp. Haupt, Kschatologische Aussagen Jesu in den
Synoptischen Evangelien, p. 116.
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 331
ment To sum up, now, the discussion of this most
difficult point, we may say that the teaching of the
Synoptic Gospels in regard to the parousia of the Son
of man, in either sense of that term, does not involve any
personal return of the Lord Jesus to this earth. The
earlier coming consisted primarily in the triumph of
the Gospel within the first Christian generation,
though not to be limited to that generation ; and the
coming at the end of the age, according to the inti-
mation of the words of Jesus, is simply a mark of the
consummation. It is a figurative expression, just as
the coming with clouds is figurative. One is a symbol
of power; the other a symbol of the arrival of the
time of judgment.1
The most difficult topic in the eschatology of Jesus is
that which has just been discussed, namely, the parousia.
The silence of the fourth Gospel in regard to TTT m
r ° IV. The
this subject accords well with the interpreta- thought of
Jesus in
tion which has been given. When this Gos- regard to
i .1 • r t 1 judgment.
pel was written, the coming of Jesus on the a. The time
clouds had long been a reality in the history ° Judsment-
of the Church, and might easily be dropped; and the com-
ing with angels at the end of the age does not appear,
for the author lays all stress upon a present judgment.
Closely associated with the parousia in the teaching
of Jesus is the subject of judgment, and the first
1 Comp. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. 556.
332 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
point to be considered in discussing this subject is
the time when men are judged. Since judgment is
associated with the parousia, both the nearer and
the more remote, the time of judgment is determined
by the time of the parousia. In connection with the
earlier coming of the Son of man, it is said, in Mat-
thew, "There shall be two men in the field: one is
taken and the other left" (Mt. xxiv. 40). Both Mat-
thew and Luke report the saying, "Two women are
grinding at the mill : one is taken and one is left "
(Mt. xxiv. 41 ; Lk. xvii. 35). Luke has another
similar saying, "In this night there shall be two
men in one bed : one shall be taken and the other
shall be left" (Lk. xvii. 34). Again, we have the
thought of judgment in the various sayings about
faithful and unfaithful servants {e.g. Lk. xii. 37 ; xxi.
34-36; Mk. xiii. 33-37; Mt- xxiv- 45, 4^-5 l J Lk.
xii. 43, 45-46). The virgins whose lamps are trimmed
go in to the feast ; but those whose lamps have no oil are
not admitted (Mt. xxv. 1— 13). The servants with talents
and pounds are rewarded according to the use they have
made of their money, when their master comes back
from his journey (Mt. xxv. 14), or when their lord re-
turns, who had gone to seek a kingdom (Lk. xix. 15).1
1 These parables might have been spoken in view of the parousia at the
end of the age, but seem not to have been so regarded by the evangelists.
Comp. Lk. xix. 11 with be. 27; Mt. xxv. 13.
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 333
Thus we have judgment associated by Jesus with
that coming of the Son of man which His own
generation was destined to experience. Now this
coming, as we have already seen, is not a single
fact but a process. The coming of the kingdom of
God with power, or the coming of the Son of man
on the clouds of heaven, was not limited to Pentecost,
or to any single victory of the Gospel. That king-
dom had a powerful manifestation in the first Chris-
tian generation ; but the word of Jesus was not
exhausted when that generation passed. The events
of the apostolic age have been repeated in kind, if
not in degree, in all the ages that have followed.
The Son of man has been coming, and is still com-
ing, in His kingdom. Jesus foretold a fact that would
fall within His own generation, but He did not set
bounds to it, and say that this coming on the clouds
would not reach into the next generation and the
next. Now since Jesus associated judgment with the
coming of the kingdom of God, and since that com-
ing was not thought of as a single fact but as a pro-
cess, it is plain that we have a process of judgment
coextensive with the process which is called the
coming of the kingdom of God.
But in speaking of the parousia at the end of the
age, we have seen that judgment is associated with
this also, and the judgment which is described in
334 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
these passages is general in character. Have we,
then, in the Synoptic Gospels, a process of judgment
and also a final act of judgment? Or we may put
the question in another form, and ask whether these
Gospels, in putting a great judgment scene at the
end of the age, think of the essential truth of that
scene as limited to the end of the age ? To this ques-
tion, I think a negative answer must be given. And
this negative reply is justified by the following con-
siderations. First, in no passage regarding the so-
called final judgment is there the slightest intimation
that it concerns more than a single generation, that
is, the generation which is then on the earth. Sec-
ond, the word of Jesus to the dying robber implies
that the final judgment is accomplished during the
Messianic age as well as its end. Jesus says, " To-
day shalt thou be with me in Paradise " (Lk. xxiii.
43). To be in Paradise with Christ cannot be re-
garded as different from the reward which is be-
stowed upon the righteous at the final judgment.
Paradise means heaven both in the Jewish and the
Christian writings.1 The Jewish view, that it is an
apartment in the under-world, is of late origin.2 But
1 Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 4; Rev. ii. 7. Also Psalms of Solomon xiv. 2;
2 Esdras viii. 52; Wiinsche, Ncne Beitrlige zar Erlauterung der Evange-
lien aus Talmud 71ml Midrasch, p. 491. The Book of Enoch xxxii. 2
seems to think of a Paradise on earth.
2 Comp. Weber, Die Lehren da Talmnds, p. 326.
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 335
to be in heaven with Christ presupposes the Messi-
anic judgment. Therefore we have in this word to
the robber a plain expression of the real thought of
Jesus. For we cannot hold that what He promised
to the dying robber was exceptional. Had John or
Peter or any other disciple died in that hour, trust-
ing in Jesus as did the robber, we must suppose that
he would have been in Paradise with Christ imme-
diately after death, and consequently must suppose
that for him the final judgment would have been
accomplished in that same hour. Therefore we are
justified in saying that in the thought of Jesus, ac-
cording to the Synoptists, the final judgment of the
individual is at the close of the earthly life. It is
not far hence in the future, at the end of the present
dispensation. There is no interval between death and
judgment, and therefore there is no intermediate state
in the teaching of Jesus.
In conclusion on this point, we may say that, ac-
cording to the teaching of Jesus in the first three
Gospels, the earthly life is the time of judgment.
There is no reference to a judgment for any man
later than the hour of his passing from the visible
to the invisible world. We shall see in another para-
graph that Jesus makes no essential difference be-
tween the judgment which He associates with His
nearer coming and the judgment which He puts at
336 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
the end of the age. The only difference lies in the
location of the judgment. And looking at an in-
dividual soul, the only difference between the judg-
ment which is passed upon it in the course of its
earthly history and the judgment at the close of that
history is that the latter is conceived of as final,
while the other is not. A man who rejects Christ
to-day may at some future time before the hour of
death turn to Him, and thus reverse the judgment
which had been passed upon him ; but the judg-
ment at the end of life is the end of judgment.
Jesus teaches that this is irreversible. Thus life is
the time of judgment, and in the hour when the
soul passes from the material to the immaterial
sphere, it passes a line beyond which there is no
more judgment.
The standard of righteousness which Jesus set up
for His kingdom is ideal, and therefore must be the
standard for all times. Character that meets
b. The
standard of the approval of God from day to day will
meet His approval in the last day. From the
teaching of Jesus in regard to membership in His king-
dom here and now, we should feel perfectly certain
what must be His final test ; and when we examine His
words of judgment, we find the same standard, ex-
pressed or implied, which is everywhere involved in
the religious and ethical teaching of Jesus. In all
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 337
those passages which concern the nearer coming of
the Son of man, that event is a blessing or a curse
according as a man is prepared for it or unprepared.
He is prepared who is keeping the word of the Master ;
he is unprepared who is not keeping it. The door-
keeper who watches for the lord of the house (Mk. xiii.
33-37), the servant who is wisely administering the
household intrusted to him (Mt. xxiv. 44-51), the vir-
gins who are ready for the bridegroom (Mt. xxv. 1— 13),
the servant who is faithful in the use of the talent or
pound committed to him (Mt. xxv. 14-30; Lk. xix.
11-27) — t0 these the coming of the kingdom, or the
coming of the Son of man, brings a blessing.
If now we look at the more formal references to
judgment, we shall find the standard defined in both
general and specific terms. The parables of the Tares
and the Drag-net speak of those whom the angels
gather into the kingdom as righteous (Mt. xiii. 43, 49).
The first parable suggests that this righteousness is
connected in some way with the Son of man, for the
wheat, which symbolizes the righteous, is the harvest
from the good seed which the Son of man sowed
(Mt. xiii. 38). This suggests, in general, that the ac-
ceptance of the teaching of Jesus leads to a right-
eousness which inherits heaven ; but it does not give
details.
. Again, we have a general statement of the standard
338 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
in Matthew's version of the words which Jesus spoke
at Caesarea Philippi. He says that the Son of man
will render to each one according to his works (Mt.
xvi. 27), and the foregoing context divides works into
two fundamental sorts, — one of which is termed saving
ones own life, and the other losing one's life for
Christ's sake (Mt. xvi. 24-26). This limitation from
the context makes the standard somewhat specific, for
it indicates that the acceptable life is the one in which
Jesus has been the central motive. But the standard
is stated in a more specific form in the parallels of
Mark and Luke (Mk. viii. 38 ; Lk. ix. 26). Jesus here
says, " 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
comes in the glory of his Father with the holy an-
gels." Here the test question is the question of the
personal relation of the soul to Jesus. Has it con-
fessed Him as the Messiah (Mt. x. 32, 33), or has
it been ashamed of Him, and so denied Him ? The
future depends upon the answer to this question.
The standard of judgment is described still more
simply and practically in the dramatic scene of judg-
ment which Matthew alone has preserved (Mt. xxv.
31-46). Here they are called righteous and blessed
of the Father, who, in the test of life, manifested the
spirit of Jesus. They have ministered to the brothers
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 339
of Jesus, even the least. When hungry, they have
given them meat ; when thirsty, they have given
them drink ; when strangers, they have taken them
in ; when naked, they have clothed them ; when in
prison, they have come to them. These common
needs are taken as representing all needs. The
blessed ones who inherit the everlasting kingdom
have felt these needs of the needy as their own, and
have responded to them. This lowly service receives
so high honor from the King because it is counted
as done to Him. Now it is perfectly manifest that
He could not count a service as done to Him, and
reward it accordingly, unless it was done out of regard
for Him. A self-righteous Pharisee might do all
the services which are here enumerated by Jesus.
He might do them with admirable patience and zeal
and self-sacrifice, as many a Pharisee who expected
to earn heaven by his good works actually did. But
would Jesus say to such an one, " Come, thou blessed
of my Father " ? That is impossible, for He was
radically opposed to this conception of righteousness,
and smote it with sternest denunciation. He located
righteousness in the purpose of the heart, in trust
and love and purity ; and taught that the kingdom
of God, instead of being earned by meritorious works,
which are of value to God, must be received as a gift.
It is, therefore, inconceivable that He thought of
340 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
these little services, which He mentioned to the credit
of the righteous, as being so valuable in themselves
that the doer merited heaven. This would have been
in direct antagonism to His own fundamental teach-
ing. They are valuable rather because of the spirit
that is in them, or, in other words, because they are
done unto Him. The thought of the passage is just
that of the other words of Jesus, " Whosoever shall
give you a cup of water to drink because ye are Christ's,
verily I say unto you he shall in no wise lose his re-
ward." The virtue is in the motive, and the motive
is the name of Jesus. The surprise of the righteous
at the words spoken by the Judge is simply surprise
at the exceeding grace of His judgment, that He
counts each of the little forgotten services of their
earthly lives as a personal service to Him. To be
sure, they had done these services to the lowly in His
name, inspired by His love ; but the heavenly Lord
rates each service as though it had been rendered to
Him in person. / was hungry, I was thirsty, / was
naked, and ye did it unto me, to me. This is the occa-
sion of their surprise.
We conclude, then, on this point, that while the
standard of judgment is here stated in concrete terms
of life, it is essentially the same standard which we
have found elsewhere. The standard is righteousness,
or, more specifically, it is confessing Jesus, or, most
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 341
specifically, it is living as Jesus lived. But these
answers are essentially one. To be righteous is to be
like Jesus. To confess Jesus truly is, again, to be like
Him. Confessing Him is not so much intellectual
as vital. And to be like Jesus is to serve men in the
love of God. Hence the lowliest service which reveals
the spirit of Jesus may be taken as the criterion in the
final judgment for eternity.
Thus it appears that the standard in the Messianic
judgment is a standard of character and life, wholly
simple and reasonable.1 There is not only no mention
of any religious form or any creed, but there is no
place for them. For Christ's standard is righteous-
ness, and righteousness He places in the purpose of
the heart. Therefore, while outward religious rites
may be profitable, and are, even from the point of
view of the Gospel, they cannot be essential ; and
while adherence to creeds may be profitable, it is not
essential, save adherence to the simple belief in Jesus
as Messiah, and the practical acceptance of what that
involves in regard to God and our neighbor.
There is no formal parousia of the Son of man in
the Gospel of John. The term is not found there.
In the Appendix to the Gospel there is a reference
1 In the Parables of Enoch the Messiah is thought of as judge, contrary
to the common Jewish view; but there is no suggestion of the profound
truth that the Messiah is judge because He is the standard of life.
342 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
to some coming of Jesus, in His words to Peter with
regard to the beloved disciple, " If I will that he tarry
c. Messianic till / come, what is that to thee" (Jn. xxi.
Ihe tohin 22) ? The disciples misunderstood this word
Gospel. 0f jesuS) for the narrative says, "This say-
ing went forth among the brethren, that that dis-
ciple should not die " (Jn. xxi. 23). When the
Appendix was written, John was apparently dead, and
then the Christian brethren noted the fact that Jesus
had not made a positive statement regarding John,
but only a conditional one. "Jesus said not unto
him, that he should not die ; but if I will that he
tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? " The com-
ing is not uncertain, but it is uncertain whether
John is to tarry on earth to witness it. Now we have
seen that the Synoptic narrative speaks of two events
as a coming of the Son of man : one in the immediate
future, and the other at the end of the age. It seems
impossible to associate the word in Jn. xxi. 22 with
the first of these events. For Jesus had looked for-
ward to the old age of Peter (Jn. xxi. 18), and then
intimated that John might tarry yet longer than Peter.
But that coming of Jesus which He anticipated in the
near future, and which we find realized in Pentecost
and in the great triumphs of the Gospel in the subse-
quent quarter of a century, was certainly nearer than
Peter's death, and therefore cannot have been the
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 343
event in the mind of Jesus when He spoke of John's
tarrying till He should come. If, then, the coming
of Jn. xxi. 22 be identified with cither of the events
so designated in the Synoptists, it must be identified
with the final parousia. In that case Jesus must have
thought \t possible that the consummation might come
within perhaps a hundred years. It must be remem-
bered, however, that this is only a hypothetical saying,
and that it does not belong to the fourth Gospel
proper, but only to the Appendix which was made
to that Gospel by unknown hands.
The only other passage in John which comes into
consideration here is xiv. 3, " If I go and prepare a
place for you, / come again and will receive you unto
myself." It is plain from the context that this was
intended to be a word of comfort for the disciples.
But if the coming which Jesus had in mind was at the
end of the age, the comfort of the saying would have
been quite vague at the best. According to the plain
teaching of the Synoptists the end was at an indefinite
remove from the present. It seems impossible also
to suppose that, in Jn. xiv. 3, Jesus referred to His
coming in the Spirit. For when Jesus came in the
Spirit at Pentecost, He did not receive the disciples
into the many mansions of the Father's house.
Since, then, the reception of the disciples is into
heaven, it seems necessary to regard the coming of
344 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Jesus as a fact coincident with their departure from
this earthly life. Hence we must apparently consider
this saying of Jesus as somewhat in line with His
word on the cross to the dying robber, " To-day shalt
thou be with me in Paradise " (Lk. xxiii. 43). At
the close of this man's life he was received by Jesus
into the Father's house. There was a meeting between
Jesus and the spirit of the robber, and the Lord wel-
comed him into Paradise. So, when Jesus, about to
depart from His disciples, promised to come again
and to receive them into the house of His Father,
where He was to prepare a place for them, we may
hold that the essential thought of this language is
that He would meet them in the hour of death and
welcome them into the heavenly mansions.
As the fourth Gospel thus practically omits the
Synoptic teaching of the parousia, so it omits the
Synoptic teaching of a final future judgment ; and as
the fourth Gospel lays stress on the thought of the
presence of the Spirit, who takes the place of Jesus,
so it lays stress on the thought of a present judgment.
There are but two allusions to a future judgment, and
the incidental character of these has already been
shown. Aside from these, the Messianic judgment
of the fourth Gospel is a present judgment— a judg-
ment in life rather than at death. This judgment
does not consist in a formal word or sentence by the
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 345
Messiah. In this sense of the word judgment, Jesus
judged no man (Jn. viii. 15). He came not to judge
the world but to save (Jn. iii. 17; xii. 47). His judg-
ment is simply the inevitable consequence of His
revelation. He stands in the midst of men as the
Messiah, and men accept or reject Him. To accept
Him is life, to reject Him is judgment (Jn. iii. 18).
"This is the judgment, that the light is come into
the world, and men loved the darkness rather than
the light" (Jn. iii. 19). Therefore men judge them-
selves as they refuse the light of the Messiah. The
Messiah does not bring this light to them to the end
that they may be judged, but with a great desire that
they would accept it and be saved (Jn. iii. 17; xii.
47). He comes to them not as a judge, but as a
saviour. Yet He comes with the final word of God,
the perfect revelation of the Father, and therefore
His coming involves judgment; but men pronounce
their own sentence. This judgment is final in char-
acter because Jesus as the Messiah is the final mes-
sage of God. As long as one rejects this message,
one is judged (Jn. iii. 18), and the judgment can be
reversed only by accepting the message. It is not
final in the sense that one who is judged, because of
rejecting Jesus, cannot possibly turn and come to a
better mind.
Since Jesus, the Messiah, brings this revelation and
346 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
is the revelation, He says that all judgment is given
to Him (Jn. v. 22). This judgment and the Messiah-
ship are inseparable. He is judge because He is
Messiah, and He executes judgment through His
revelation of the Father, which is the last touchstone
of hearts. It is, therefore, plain here as in the
Synoptists, that Messianic judgment presupposes a
knowledge of the Messiah, and an opportunity to
accept Him.
In conclusion, we may say that this present judg-
ment of the fourth Gospel is vital and final. He who
accepts Jesus has passed out of death into life (Jn. v.
24), and at death is received by the Lord into the
Father's house (Jn. xiv. 3). This present acceptance
or rejection of Jesus is the great crisis of the soul;
and if Jesus thought of a judgment at death, He
must have thought of it, according to this teaching,
merely as a recognition of the soul's estate in Christ.
In like manner, this present crisis involves the essen-
tial judgment for the unrighteous, and any judgment
at death can be no more than a recognition and in-
dorsement of the judgment which they have already
passed upon themselves.
In four of the five passages which directly concern
the judgment at the end of the age, we find mention of
the awards to righteous and unrighteous. These awards
are suggested rather than described. They are strongly
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 347
outlined by two or three weighty words, and then are
dropped. The same is true of the other references
which we find scattered through the Gospels.
d. The
There is no uncertainty in the tone of Christ's issues of
1 , . iii judgment.
utterances, but there is a remarkable reserve ; 1. introduc-
and this appears the more remarkable when
we remember at what length the rabbinical teachers
dwelt upon the externals of the world beyond and
the state of the departed.1 There is no passage in
which Jesus treats the Messianic rewards and punish-
ments for their own sake. They are subordinated to
some thought of immediately practical importance.
Jesus refers to the future, not to satisfy any speculative
interest, but solely to promote righteousness.
It is in line with this fact that the words of Jesus
regarding the future refer only to those who have
known the Messiah. The allusions to Tyre and Sidon,
to the Ninevites and the queen of the South, to Sodom
and Gomorrah, serve to describe the fate of the Jews
who have rejected Jesus. The lake cities — Capernaum,
Chorazin, and Bethsaida — are declared to be worse than
the proverbially wicked cities of ancient times, and
accordingly a darker future is before them. The Nin-
evites repented at the preaching of Jonah, and the
queen of the South sought the wisdom of Solomon,
1 Comp. Langen, Das Judenthwn in Palcesti?ta, pp. 461-519; Weber,
Die Lehren dej Talmuds, pp. 300-386, .'......
348 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
and the example of both condemns the contemporaries
of Jesus. The one point with which Jesus is concerned
is the exceeding guilt of the Jews in rejecting Him.
To state this point strongly He compares His contem-
poraries with the notoriously bad men of former times.
The allusions, therefore, are rhetorical rather than
doctrinal, and it remains true that in the thought of
Jesus regarding the judgment and the hereafter, only
those persons are contemplated who, on earth, have
known about Jesus, and who have made "the great
refusal " or the great acceptance. This leads to
another remark, namely, that Jesus always thinks of
the judgment of men as accomplished by Himself {e.g.
Mt. xiii. 41-42; xxv. 31). He establishes the king-
dom of God ; He also consummates it by judgment
and by eternal awards. The completion of the work
is His as truly as its beginning. The beginning is on
earth, the completion in heaven, but in both there is
one law. The Messiah is central throughout the entire
process.
In the references which Jesus makes to the future of
the unrighteous we have three elements, namely, the
material symbolism, the spiritual symbolism,
2. The
award of the and the matter of time. The chief material
unrighteous. , , . _ , . . , .
symbol is fire ; the incidental ones are worms,
darkness, and the being ground to powder. The fire is
either in a furnace (Mt. xiii. 42, 50) — a figure which
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 349
may have been suggested by the story in Daniel (Dan.
hi. 6); or it is the fire of Gehenna, a term which Jesus
used on three or four occasions (Mt. v. 22, 29-30;
xxiii. 15; Mk. ix. 43-48; Lk. xii. 5). The word is
borrowed from the rabbinical theology, but is based
on the Old Testament. The valley of Hinnom, on the
southwest of Jerusalem, is supposed to have originated
the name, and the historical use of that valley is
supposed to have originated the fundamental concep-
tion of Gehenna.1 It was a place for the destruction
of that which was unclean. If, however, Isaiah refers to
the valley of Hinnom in lxvi. 24, which seems to be
taken for granted by Mark (Mk. ix. 47-48), since the
symbolism of Isaiah is here used in describing Gehenna,
then the prophet thought of Gehenna as the place
where the wrath of God was manifested against His
enemies — a place of judgment and punishment. In any
case this is the idea which is associated with the word
in the teaching of Jesus. For He uses Gehenna as the
antithesis of life, that life which the righteous attain;
or as the antithesis of the kingdom of God into which
the righteous enter at last (Mk. ix. 43, 47). Thus it
stands for the place of condemnation and also for the
award of unrighteousness.
To the fire, which is the characteristic feature of Ge-
henna, is once added the detail of worms — an emblem
1 Comp. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmuds, p. 327.
350 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
of physical putrefaction taken from Isaiah's description
of God's judgment (Mk. ix. 48). Outer darkness is once
used as a symbol of the fate of the unrighteous, where
it is the antithesis of the kingdom of heaven, in which
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are blessed (Mt. viii.
11-12). In two other passages it symbolizes judgment,
but not specifically the final judgment (Mt. xxii. 13;
xxv. 30). This figure is indefinite and negative, and
owes its significance to the inner light from which the
darkness is separated. It is, therefore, a relative term,
and applicable alike to temporal and eternal judgment.
The remaining material symbol is that of being ground
to powder, as a small stone may be crushed by a large
one (Lk. xx. 18). Jesus likened Himself to "the stone
that was rejected by the builders," and said that who-
soever should fall upon this would be broken into
pieces ; but on whomsoever it should fall, it would grind
him to powder. The stone would thus become useless
for any building purposes. The obvious suggestion
is that any man on whom the condemnation of the
Messiah rests, is henceforth of no value for any build-
ing of God.
The essential thought of this material symbolism
of judgment which Jesus used, with the exception of
the last symbol, is pain. Thus the fire and the outer
darkness produce weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mt.
xiii. 42, 50), or the flame torments (Lk. xvi. 23). It
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 351
seems probable also that the worm was thought of as
causing pain by reason of the supposed association
of the departed spirit with its earthly body; but this
symbol is wholly subordinate, and the plain thought
of the passage as a whole is that of pain.
The spiritual symbolism of these passages of judg-
ment is more suggestive than the material. Under
this head we may mention, first, the word of Jesus at
Caesarea Philippi, " Whosoever shall be ashamed of me
and of my words in this adulterous and sinful genera-
tion, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him,
when he cometh in the glory of His Father with the
holy angels" (Mk. viii. 38). With this belongs the
word of kindred warning, "Whosoever shall deny me
before men, him will I also deny before my Father who
is in heaven " (Mt. x. 33). The inner feeling contained
in these passages expresses itself in the awful words,
" I never knew you : depart from me, ye workers of
iniquity " (Mt. vii. 23), and " Depart from me, ye
cursed" (Mt. xxv. 41).
There is yet another term which Jesus used concern-
ing the fate of the unrighteous which should be men-
tioned in this connection. It is the term destroy or
destruction. "Wide is the road which leads unto
destruction, and many are they who are entering it "
(Mt. vii. 13), and, "Fear Him who is able to destroy
both soul and body in Gehenna" (Mt. x. 28; comp. Mk,
352 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
xii. 9). Destruction is defined by being set over against
life. " Narrow is the road which leads unto life, and
few are they who are finding it." Thus destruction is
the antithesis of life ; and as life here is not mere exist-
ence, so destruction is not mere non-existence or anni-
hilation. Life is something far richer and better than
existence, and therefore destruction is something far
poorer and worse than bare existence.
The essential thought of this spiritual symbolism is
separation from God and from Christ, from the holy
angels and the redeemed. This separation by judg-
ment involves separation by choice, and the choice to
be apart from God and Christ involves a love of evil
which even the grace of Jesus could not overcome.
Herein appears the agreement between the material
and the spiritual symbolism. The material symbolism
expresses the thought of pain, the spiritual symbolism
that of separation from God which is made necessary
by the love of sin. But a person with an ineradicable
love of sin, who is given over to himself by God, is
inevitably in a condition of pain. One might say that
the fire of Gehenna, the undying worm, and the dark-
ness of judgment are within him. They are potentially
within him during his earthly life; but when he is
separated from all holy influences, and given over to
himself, they are fully actualized. His state is hence-
forth something poorer and worse than existence. Like
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 353
a stone that is ground to powder, he cannot be used
in building the kingdom of God.
The element of time in these passages of judgment,
whether we have reference to punishment or reward,
seems to be explicit. The thought of Jesus on this
point does not depend upon the etymology of any
word, as ceonian ; nor is it to be found in the possible
inference from the statement which He makes re-
garding a particular sin, that it will not be forgiven
either in this age or in that which is to come, for two
of the Gospels (one of these the oldest of all) report
Him to have said, with slight variations, that the sin
in question should never be forgiven ; but His thought
is involved in the very conception of the Messianic
judgment, and it is given also in the antithesis of the
fate of the unrighteous to that of the righteous. It is
involved in the conception of the Messianic judgment,
for that occurs once for all in the history of the soul,
and comes at the transition from the material to the
immaterial sphere. There is no suggestion of two
Messianic judgments for the same individual. Further,
the element of time is determined by the antithesis
between the fate of the unrighteous and that of the
righteous. Both destinies are qualified by the same
adjectives of time. Everlasting fire is set over against
everlasting life (Mt. xxv. 41-46). If either is endless,
both must be. But it is not questioned that Jesus
354 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
thought of the children of the everlasting Father as liv-
ing an everlasting life. This seems to be involved in the
very conception of personal, loving fellowship with God.
Before leaving this point, reference should be made
to Abraham's words in the parable of the Rich Man
and Lazarus, " Between us and you a great gulf has been
fixed, so that they who wish to cross hence to you cannot,
neither do any cross thence to us " (Lk. xvi. 26). This
parable was spoken to warn against selfish living, and
it does so by picturing the consequences which such a
life has beyond the grave. One element in this con-
sequence is its unchangeableness. The " gulf " has
been established, and it is impassable to those on either
side. In order to get the full significance of this state-
ment, we need to remember that the rich man and Laza-
rus are separated by this gulf at death. Consequently
the story involves the thought that the issues of judg-
ment are irrevocable,1 and that these issues are experi-
enced from the hour of death.
It is worthy of remark that the destiny of the
righteous is much more variously suggested by Jesus
than is that of the unrighteous, as though
3. The . .
award of the He dwelt upon this thought with satisfac-
righteous. .
tion, while He expressed the other only
when necessity was laid upon Him.
1 For earlier Jewish thought on this subject, see Psalms of Solomon iii.
13; xiii. 9; Wisdom v. 15; Enoch xxvii. 2; Ixi. 5.
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 355
In the symbolism which Jesus uses in regard to
the future of the righteous, the deepest idea is that
of the exaltation and enrichment of the personal life.
The consummation of the kingdom involves the con-
summation of the individual life. This consummation
is expressed most frequently in the thought of divine
fellowship. The King says Come, to those who
have manifested His spirit (Mt. xxv. 34). The re-
deemed are to sit with Christ at His table (Lk. xxii.
30), and drink new wine with Him in the kingdom
of God (Mk. xiv. 25), that is, they are to have free
and glad fellowship with Him. And this fellowship
extends to a participation in the authority of the
Messiah. When He sits upon the throne of His
glory, the twelve apostles also shall sit upon thrones
(Mt. xix. 28 ; Lk. xxii. 30), judging the tribes of
Israel. This was not meant literally, for the one
condition of sitting upon thrones with Jesus was
folloiving Him, and there were more than twelve who
followed Him. The disciples, moreover, did not under-
stand it literally, for John thinks of every one who
overcomes in the conflict of life as sitting with Christ
on His throne (Rev. hi. 21). The figure meant simply
that those who had shared the toil of Jesus should
also share his triumph. As God exalted Jesus to a
glorious throne, so Jesus promises to exalt His follow-
ers to a seat beside Himself.
356 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
Again, it was divine fellowship that Jesus promised
to the dying robber, as well as Paradise (Lk. xxiii. 43).
It was fellowship with God which Jesus promised to
the pure in heart (Mt. v. 8). This word has doubt-
less a partial fulfilment on earth, as have various
promises of reward in the words of Jesus {e.g. Mt. v.
3> 5, 6, 7, 9; x. 39-42), but its complete realization
belongs to heaven.
Now the significance which Jesus attached to divine
fellowship in the hereafter was probably of a like sort
with that which He attached to it for this present life.
If it means development toward the ideal of God here,
it will mean further development toward the ideal
there. If it brings peace and joy here, so will it
there.
The exaltation and enrichment of personal life is
expressed also in the thought of the glory and honor
which are bestowed upon the redeemed spirit. The
righteous shall shine as the sun (Mt. xiii. 43), the
strongest figure of unwasting glory which is fur-
nished by the natural world. Their names are writ-
ten in heaven (Lk. x. 20), and Christ will confess
them as the names of His faithful followers before
God and the angels (Lk. xii. 8 ; Mt. x. 32). This
recognition must be an everlasting stimulus to the
divine life. In like manner must we judge of the
fellowship with saints and angels. The society of
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 357
patriarchs and prophets and of all those to whom
the King shall say, " Come, ye blessed of my Father,"
must have the noblest meaning which the society of
the good has upon the earth, namely, to stimulate the
best development of the soul (Mt. viii. 11-12; Lk.
xiii. 28 ; Mt. xxv. 34).
Finally, the exaltation and enrichment of the per-
sonal life seems to be the chief thought in the prom-
ise of life eternal. In the Synoptic Gospels eternal
life is always regarded as belonging to the future
world (Mt. xxv. 46; xix. 29; Mk. x. 30; Lk. xvi. 9;
xviii. 30; Mk. ix. 43-48), and yet the disciples of
Jesus are thought of as having true life here and
now, life that is divine and indestructible, because they
have true righteousness. Therefore, from the stand-
point of these Gospels, the life eternal which is be-
stowed upon the righteous at the beginning of the
coming age and which is the reward for faithfulness
in the earthly life, must be thought of as a higher
and more perfect state of the personal life. The
term, of course, involves endless existence, but endless
existence is certainly not the crown of the promise.
As a great reward (Mt. v. 12) and a treasure in
heaven (Mt. vi. 20; Mk. x. 21), as the antithesis
of Gehenna (Mk. ix. 43-48) and of everlasting pun-
ishment (Mt. xxv. 46), eternal life is something
infinitely richer than eternal existence. It is better
358 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
even than the redeemed earthly life, however rich that
may become through the influence of the Gospel ; for
it is presented as a divine rezvard, and as something
greater than the hundred-fold reward which is prom-
ised to the faithful in this earthly life (Mk. x. 30).
Thus the life eternal into which the righteous go
away after the Messianic judgment (Mt. xxv. 46),
which stands as a synonym of the kingdom prepared
from the foundation of the world (Mt. xxv. 34 ; Lk.
xxii. 29), must be a divine enlargement and enrich-
ment of the personal life, such as is involved in the
intimate fellowship of the redeemed with Christ and
the Father, and in their fellowship with the good of
all ages.
It is the aim of the fourth Gospel to show the Mes-
siahship of Jesus (Jn. xx. 31), in order that men may ac-
cept Him ; and it keeps so closely to this aim
4. The
johannean that it has little to say of the life of the re-
deemed beyond the grave. Its conception of
Christ and of the life which He gives is so exalted that
it seems to bring into the present much of the glory and
felicity of heaven. Thus, the disciples, because united
to Christ, are, equally with Him, the object of the
Father's love (Jn. xvii. 23, etc.); they are in a certain
degree one, as Jesus and the Father are one (e.g. Jn.
xvii. 11, 20); they can pray in the name of Christ,
and be as sure of the Father's response as Christ
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 359
Himself was (Jn. xiv. 13-14; xv. 16; xvi. 23, 24, 26);
they have a joy like that of Jesus, or may have (Jn.
xv. n; xvii. 13); and they are made glorious in
character. For Jesus says that He is glorified in the
disciples, because they have accepted Him as the
Messiah, and are manifesting His spirit (Jn. xvii. 10);
and that the Father also is glorified by their fruitful-
ness, and by their becoming more and more perfect
disciples of Jesus (Jn. xv. 8). But if Jesus and the
Father are glorified in the disciples, then surely the
character of the disciples is glorious. If the disciples,
here and now, glorify Jesus and the Father, then we
may surely say that they share in the glory of the
Father and of Jesus. Thus in the fourth Gospel
more decidedly than in the Synoptists, the believer,
because of his relation to the Messiah, is thought of
as possessing at present much of the blessedness and
glory of heaven. The stress falls upon the present
enrichment of life rather than upon its enrichment
in the future.
There are, however, in the fourth Gospel, some
glimpses of the future life, and they present its
glory as the culmination of the glory of the present
Christian state. At His departure from His dis-
ciples Jesus assured them that He was going away
to prepare a place for them, and that after He had
come and received them to Himself, they would
360 THE REVELATION OF JESUS
be together, the Master and His disciples (Jn. xiv.
2-3). And since they were to be with Jesus, they
would be with the Father, for He said that He was
going to the Father (Jn. xiv. 12, 28). What He
meant by the preparation of a place for them is left
undefined. It may be that the only thought intended
was that He should continue to be active in their
behalf, and that this activity would be especially
directed toward the end of making their reunion
with Him a joyous one. He wishes to assure His
disciples that He will not forget them, when absent,
but will still bear them in His heart and still work
for their interest. But in any case, the vital thought
of the passage is that the disciples will be with the
Master. Home consists in the personal presence and
love of friends, not in any circumstances of place
and adornment. In like manner, in the parting
prayer of Jesus, His request is that His disciples
may be with Him and behold His glory (Jn. xvii.
24). He is perfectly confident that this will be the
case, as is indicated in the very form of the ex-
pression, " I will that, where I am, they also may
be with me." They have been united to Him in the
past in the union of an eternal life, and He is sure
that they will be with Him in the unseen world.
This glory of His which the disciples are to behold
is, as we have seen elsewhere, the glory of the com-
CONSUMMATION OF THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM 36 1
pleted Messianic work. It is doubtless a glory com-
mensurate with the death of Christ and the toils of
all His saints.
This thought of glorious fellowship with Christ
necessarily involves a glorious exaltation and enrich-
ment of the individual life, which we have seen to
be the central thought of Jesus regarding the future
state, as reported by the earlier evangelists.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Angels in Jewish doctrine, 10.
Angels, trust in, 114-115.
Apostles, their position and authority,
149-151.
Baptism, 127-130.
Believing in Jesus in the fourth Gospel,
82-88, 204-206.
Birth from above, 84-87.
Brotherhood, 132 135.
Ceremonial cleansing, 100-102, 126-
127.
Ceremonies, 124-131.
Church, use of the word in Matthew,
51-52.
Church, the foundation of, 149.
Commandment, the new, 141-144.
Communion with God, 1 19-124.
Consciousness of Jesus, 167-228.
Covenant, the new, 269-276.
Death, 285-286.
Death of Jesus, 246-283.
the thought gradually unfolded, 246-
252.*
the source of Jesus' thought, 252-
256.
its meaning, 256-283.
Demons. See Satan.
Divorce. See Marriage.
Ethics of Jesus wholly religious, 131.
Faith and physical healing, 48.
Faith, the practical character of, 73.
Family, 138-141.
Fasting, 97-98, 126.
Father — use of the name by Jesus,
15-16, 25-27.
Fatherhood of God in the Old Testa-
ment, 3-6.
in the experience of Jesus, 14-15.
essential, 17-22.
taught in the life of Jesus, 20-22.
in the fourth Gospel, 25-29.
Fear of God, 112.
Forgiveness of sin, 69-72.
Forgiveness, duty of, 137-138.
Gehenna, 42, 349-351.
God, the fundamental conception in the
teaching of Jesus, 1-3.
God, His fatherhood in the Old Testa-
ment, 3-6.
Jewish conception of, 6-13.
basis of Jesus' conception of, 13-15.
attributes of, 24.
Good, the supreme, 77-78.
Greek thought and the conception of
God, 6-8.
Heaven, 292-293, 334, 359~36l«
Humanity of Jesus, 167-174, 193-197.
Humility, 117-118.
Humility, the kingdom received in
74-77-
Judge of men, 176-177.
Judgment in the fourth Gospel, 342-
346.
Judgment, the time of, 331-336.
the standard of, 336-441.
the issues of, 346-361.
363
;64
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Kingdom of heaven or kingdom of
God, 32-33.
Kingdom of heaven, in the preaching
of Jesus, 1, 31-32.
a many-sided term, 32-34.
as a divine rule, 35-37, 44-45.
as a company of people, 37-39.
in the sense of special privileges,
39-41-
as a place, 41-43.
realized from within, 45-50.
in the fourth Gospel, 55-56.
in the teaching of the scribes, 55-61.
consummated, 284-361.
reception of, 72-82.
means of extending, 151-155.
its ultimate extent, 162-166.
organization of, 145-151.
Knowledge in the fourth Gospel, 88-90.
of God acquired by Jesus, 240-242.
Law, its place in Old Testament litera-
ture and life, 5-6.
life of Jesus in relation to, 97-102.
moral and ceremonial, distin-
guished, 102-103.
fulfilled by Jesus, 104-106, 175-
176.
Life, entrance into, 62-92.
eternal, 56, 357-358.
consummation of, 355-361.
spirit of, 109-110.
Limitations of Jesus, 169-174.
Lord's prayer, 122.
supper, 42-43, 130-131, 266-276.
Love of God, 115-116.
of man, 135-136.
Man apart from God, 76-77.
Marriage, 139-141.
Merit, 113-114.
Messiahship, consciousness of, 179-
193, 202-228.
Messianic consciousness not de-
veloped, 191-193.
purpose, 229-233.
Ministry of Jesus to the physical man,
48.
Miracles and the kingdom of heaven,
46-49.
the spiritual effect of, 47-48.
National restoration of the Jews, 50-55.
Neighbor, 134-135.
Opposition to Christ, 156-162.
Organization of the kingdom of heaven,
M5-i5i-
Paradise. See Heaven.
Parousia, 311-331.
the data of, 311-314.
use of the term, 314-320.
in the first Christian generation,
320-326.
at the end of the age, 327-331.
Rabbinism and the conception of God,
8-13.
Repentance a fundamental necessity,
62-64.
the motive to, 64-66.
the nature of, 66-67.
the possibility of, 67-69.
and pardon, 69-72.
Resurrection, 285-296.
of Jesus, 285-290.
of good and bad, 290-293.
according to the fourth Gospel,
293-296.
Righteous man in relation to God,
109-131.
man in relation to man, 131-144.
Righteousness, 92-109.
a comprehensive term, 92-94.
the spirituality of, 94-97.
Rites. See Ceremonies.
Sabbath observance, 98-100, 126-127.
Satan and demons, 114-115, 158-162.
Second coming of Jesus. See Par-
ousia.
Service, 136-137.
Sin that hath not forgiveness, 11 9.
Sincerity, 118-119.
Son of God. See Messiahship.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
365
Son of man. See Messiahship.
Sonship to God ethical, 22-23, 28-29.
Spirit, the Holy, 296-311.
in the Synoptists, 296-301.
in John, 301-311.
State, the, in the teaching of Jesus, 45, 1
49-50, 52-54, 138-141.
Trust in God, 110-115.
Truth in the fourth Gospel, 106-109.
Union of Jesus with God,
197-201.
174-179.
Teaching as a part of the work
Jesus, 233-245.
and miracles, 233-235, 241.-245.
Tolerance, 137.
of
Wealth, 78-81.
Witnessing for Jesus, 151-155.
Woman, her equality with man, 140-
141.
Worship of Jesus, 225-228.
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE
GOSPELS
MATTHEW
CHAPTER
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
V.
45
25
I. 21
3OO 1
46-47. 48
135. 136
III. 5
32
48
23
ii
86
VI.
1. 4. 6. 18
94
12
65
i-33
93
16-17
179
2. 5. 16
117
IV. i-ii
161
3. 6. 17. 18. 22.
23.24
118
4. 7-IO
168
3. 4. 6. 16. 17
96
IO
190
5- 6. 7- 8
120
17
3i. 35. 64
8.32
24
23
234
9
16, 24,
122, 300
V. 3
74
10
34. 35
3- 5- 6. 7- 9
356
11
17.25
3-8
17
12
178
3- 10
39
13
158
4
65
16-18
126
8
24, 118,356
19-21
80
10-12
156
20
357
12
357
24
190
13- 14
145
25-34
77
13-16
164
26. 30
25
14
154
26. 28
in
16
118
3o-34
113
17 33.
35.
104,
175. 230, 235
32
no
17-19
240
32-33
112
18. 33-37
105
33
35
19
38
VII
3
133
20
34.
64. 76- 93. 94
6-12
135
21-22. 27. 28
96, 104
7-1 1
121
22
133
11
17
22. 29-30
349
12
136
35
16
13-14
33.82
38.43
104
13-23
35i
39
154
14
232
43-44
134
15
157
44-45
22
3<
>7
15.22
119
368
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS
CHAPTER
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
VII. 21
41
XII.
38
234
21. 21-
23.
24
73
38-40
286
24
72
272
38-41
247
VIII. 8
74
39-40
248, 289
II
42
40
288
11-12
350. 35
41-42
63
13
21
43
92
19
234
50
132
20
82
XIII.
8. 24-30
157
21-22
237
24-30.
47-50
34.37
IX. 22. 28
48
33
I64. 317
28
170
205
37
187, 23O
38
16
37-43-
47-50
158
X. 5
20
39
115
14
136
41-42. 50
3^8
16. 26.
23
155
42.50
350
17-23
157
43
42, 356
19-20.
25-
28
112
44-46
77
20
297
XIV.
33
191
21-22
263
XV.
13
IOI
22
163
XVI.
16
182
23
312
313.
314
316
18
51, 146, 190
25- 34-
35-36
156
19
153
27.32
153
20
148
28.33
3Si
21
250, 288
29. 30
24
23
160
30
17
in
24-25
237
32-33
176, 190, 338
24-26
338
32. 39-42
356
25-26.
27-28
327
38
249
27
115
312, 319, 338
40
265
28
318, 319, 323
XL 3
184
XVII.
4
190
11
38,72
10-13
186
19
97
12
253
20-24
63
,66
235
22-23
250
25
25. 68, 74
in,
168
265
24. 24-
27
102
25-27
16
, 20
236
XVIII.
3
75
27
1, 25, 90
113.
153
237
6
176
28
6=
.71
231
10
115
28-29
190
17
5i
28-30
236
19-20
121
29
118
20
299
XII. 6.41.42
189
22
71
20
65
23-35
138
23
184
XIX.
3-12
104
28
171
8.9
139
3^32
7i
23
36
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS
369
CHAPTER
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
XIX.
26
28
29
65
355
357
XXV.
14-30
30
31
326, 337
350
• 187,190,318,348
XX.
18-19
21
22
28
250
59
261
262
31.34
31-46
34
33
96, 132, 312, 314,
328, 329, 330, 338
25. 221, 255, 257, 358
XXI.
31
36, 64, 76, 95
37
92, I76
43
34
,4°
.165
40
154. 3°0
XXII.
1-14
7
13
153
66
35°
4i
41-46
46
351
353
232, 357- 358
14
162
XXVI
6
183
15-22
141
26
266
23-33
291
28
270, 274
30
"5
29
43
31-34
293
29-64 •
312
36-40
116
32
288
37-40
17
, 240
39.42
16
XXIII.
1-9
3
4
5
8-9
22
102
125
119
133
53
53-54
55
63-64
64
171
254
234
181
321
8-9. 23. 2f
117
XXVIII
16
288
8-IO
136
18
301
9
16
19
20, 25, 127, 128, 130,
12
75
145. 165
15
349
20
190, 297, 298
15. 23. 27.
29.37
95
23
25
103
11
MARK
XXIV.
3
3. 8. 29-3C
3-3°
3- 30- 3i
12.30
»
312
316
329
328
163
I
8
IO-II
!5
20
86
179. 207
31, 32, 35, 62, 63,
64. 153. 233
79
27- 37-39-
42.44
315
21
234
27- 37-41.
42-44. 45-47
326
2I.38
233
36
115
, 169
22
192
37-42. 44
312
24
184
37-41
3i8
24-34
182
40. 41. 45.
48-51
332
26
251
44-51
337
34
191
XXV.
1
43
35
123, 168
I-I3
315.
326,
332, 337
44
102
14
332
45
47
2 B
370
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS
CHAPTER
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
"■ 5
265
VIII.
31-32
246
7
253
. 255
34-35
237, 249, 263
IO
185, 189
, I92
35- 38
I76
10. 20
32
36
137
14
237
38
73, 312, 318, 322, 327,
17
24, 62, 6.4
, 230
338, 351
18
97
IX
1
316, 318
20
24^
.257
2-35
I48
23
98
5
I90
23-28. 27
99
9-12
257
III. 1-6
99
11-12
186
6
255
12
254
11
182
21
I7O
12
191
3i
25O, 257, 288
14
237
36-37
75
20-22. 28-30
119
37
299
27
•
161
38-41. 42
50 137
28-30
71
42
73
30
247
43-48
357
35
132
43-48. 47
349
, IV. 1-20
76
47
42
7
119
48
35°
11
36
X
1
234
11-12
68
2-12
104
14
243
5-9-n
139
18-19
81
J5
74
30-32
164
18
*7. 173
33
251
20
95
38
190
21
357
38-40
178
21. 17-31
78
V. 30
170
28
237
36
113
3°
232, 357. 358
39
285
33-34
250, 257
40
25
192
34
288
VI. 3
74
35
137
6
234
37
59
12
63
38
261
3°
313
40
171
38
170
43-45
154
4i
168
45 142
165, 231, 262, 263, 263
VII. 1-23
100
117
5i
190
26
21
XI.
10
57
27
20
13-14
170
VIII. 6
168
XII.
6-8
254. 258
23
170
9
352
29
182
13-17
53. 141
3i 187.
190, 250, 257,
288
18-27
291
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS
371
CHAPTER
PAGE
LUKE
XII. 25.26
293
CHAPTER
PAGE
27
292
II. 4O.52
242
28-30
Il6
49
14, I74, 229
28-34
94, 104
52
175
30
17
III. 16
86
30-31
240
21-22
179
31
134
IV. 19
230
34
36.77
4i
182
39
117
V. 32
62, 230
40
95
VI. 12
123, 168
XIII. 7-8
317
20-21.
24-25
80
8. 24-26
316
26
156
9-13. 22-23
157
VII. 34
65
11
151, 297
36-50
95
13
162
VIII. 2-3
47.79
24-33
312
IX. 22
20, 90, 113, 288
26-27
328
22. 43-
-44
25O
30.50
329
23
78
32
25
169, 316
26
322, 327, 338
33
315
27
318, 332
33-37
325
332, 337
28
168
38. 43- 49
337
30-3I
252, 257
XIV. 8. 21
258
48
75
9
190
60
76
12
102
X. 1
150
21
187, 254
6
157
22
266
6. 38-42
77
22-23. 35- 36. 39
168
18
158, 162
22-24
87
19
155
22-25
130
20
356
24
270
20-42
272
25
43- 355
21
68
27
254
22
236
27-28
289, 290
29-37
134
28
288
42
69, 231
33
148
XI. 1
122, 168
33-34- 36
178
5-8
121
36
25.
169, 173
13
17
61-62
181,
186, 187
20
171
62 192, 312
316, 318, 321
29-30
286
XV. 32
184
29-32
247
34
15.
168, 178
XII. 5
349
40-41
79
8
356
43
56
8-9
73
XVI. 7
288
10
7i
9-20
49
12
297
13-15-
16-21. ^
80
372
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS
CHAPTER
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
37- 43- 45-46
39. 40. 41-46
40
49-5°
3-5
7
10-17
23-24
24
26
26-27
28
29
3i
32
33
34
1-6
12-14
14
26
26.33
7
7. 10
10
11-32
17
18. 21
19
20
I-I3
9
14
14- 19-31
15
19-31
22
26
23
25
26
10
14
16
18
20
20-21
21
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
332
XVII
22. 24. 26-37
326
326
26
312
312,315
26-27. 28-30
315
26l
26-37
318
64, I76
34-35
332
66
XVIII.
1-8
121
99
8
163, 312
163
9-14
74- 117
82
11-13
16
234
12
96, 113
73
13
63
34- 357
14
75-95
42
30
357
257
31-33
250
259
4i
190
258
XIX.
8-9
79
65,69
10
76
99
11
57
135
11. 15
332
291
11-27
313. 326, 337
80
XX.
18
35o
78
20-26
141
64-95
27-38
291
63-65
XXI.
IS
297
115
25
312
17,70
27
328
66
28
319
67
34-36
326
75
XXII.
15-37
258
65
19
266, 267
79
20
270
357
29
358
118
29-30
42
80
30
355
117
3i
158
135
32
132
115. 292
37
254
42, 35°
66-70
181
292
67.70
• 183
354
69
321
118
XXIII.
34-46
16, 168
102
40-43
71
48
42-43
293
21
43 178
334. 344, 356
36, 57
XXIV.
7
185
44
10
47
34
26
187
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS
373
CHAPTER
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
XXIV. 26.46
26l
V. 5
46
33. 48-49
I50
5-20. ]
8. 19-30
195
46
258, 287, 289
17
26, 29
47
64
18
199
49
296, 298
301
19-20
88
19.30
197
JOHN
20
21. 24.
25
238,
241, 242
243
I. i-5
IO
21. 22.
23- 25-
26. 27. 28-29
295
17
IOS
22. 24
346
18
16
23. 40.
43
44
84
29
256
24. 36. 38
206
34-49
203
24- 43-44
83
38.49
234
26
232
II. 13
30
26. 30
239
16
26
27.30
194
19. 21
277
30
241
III. 2
3°
. 209
34
231
3-5
55
39
108
3- 5- 6.
7.8
84
39-4°
240
5-8
301
40
165, 231
6
86
VI. 15
59
12-13.
14
240
26
244
13
209
210
238
27
207
14
204
277
27. 32.
46
26
15
231
27. 48.
51.
54-
56-57
232
15-16
83
29
206
16
92
29. 44.
51-
-58
86
16.35
16,28
32
108
17
345
33
231
18
309
345
33- 38.
50-5I
58
209
19
165
345
35-37
84
21
89,91
107, 308
37- 44-
45
9i
22-IV.
3
3i
38
194
IV. 6.22
194
39. 40. 44.
54
294
9
135
39-44-
65
90
10-34
28
40
199
14
232
45
240
21-23
20
46
239
24
199
47
83
25.26
205
51-63
281
26
204
53
204
27
140
57
245
31
234
62
213
34
197
62.63
212
35
30
63
243
48
244
66
147
374
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS
CHAPTER
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
VI. 7°
I48
XI.
35-42
194
VII. 17. 18
I06
42
195. 197
17. 23
89
XII.
6
I46
28
206
20-24
28
37-38
84
23
260, 279
VIII. 12
245
23. 28.
32
28, 204, 220
12. 26.
38
243
24-25
28l
12. 31-
33
23I
24.32
166
15
345
25
232
16
240
27
197
16-18.
33
241
27. 28.
32
279
19. 32.
34-
47
89
30
195
23
209
3i
l6l, 162, 165, 3IO
24
205, 208
32
264
27
16
35
243
28
204,
220, 241, 278, 310
44
83
28.38
239
45
I99
28. 42
28
47
231. 345
29
201
48
294. 295
29.40
194
49-50
241
29-55
197
50
88
32
107
XIII.
1. 14. 15. 34
142
37. 39-40.
58
214
3
16
42
206, 208
10
282
44
160
18
240
47
308
XIV.
1
206
56
215
2-3. IS
.28
360
58
216
3
343- 346
IX. 5
243
6
107
108 , 243, 245. 305
35-38
83, 204
7. 10
88
38
225, 227
9
199
X. 10
231
10
241
11-18
279
13-14
359
17
201
15-16.
17
302
29
90, 196
16. 17
304
30- 33
38
199
16. 18.
21
303
33
195
23
28
33-36
202
26
245. 305. 3o6, 307
34-35
240
28
196
35-36
227
30
161, 165
36
204, 207
XV
. 1
108
XI. 4
202, 203
3
282
4.40
244
4
232
11
285
4-5-9
307
24. 25
26
294
8. 11.
16
359
25
231,232,245
10
198, 201
27
203
12
142
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS
375
;hapter
PAGIi
CHAPTER
PAGE
XV. 13
279
XVII.
4-7
-8.
10.
11
15.
13 307
15
88, 243, 306
5
216
19. 20
165
6. £
. 17. 22
243
22. 24
200
S
203, 208, 24I
26
245. 303- 305
8. 10
283
XVI. 1.2
165
8. 11.
[2.
25
239
3
88,89
10.
13
359
7
303
10.
22
221
7-8. 12-13
308
11.
20.
23
358
8
106, t66, 305
11.
21.
23
200
8-10
198
11.
23-
-5
29
8-11
309
14.
16
209
9
206
18
152, 206
10
212
21.
23
166
11
161, 165, 310
23
232, 259
12-13. 14
306
24
360
13
3°4. 305. 3°6
25
204
I4-I5
3°5
26
300
23. 24. 26
359
XVIII.
22-
23
155
27. 28
208
25
106
33
162
36
55.209
XVII. 1. 4. 5. 10. 22. 24
217
37
59.9-
106, 107, 231,
i-5 24
219
238, 243, 308
2. 4. 6. 7. 8. 10. 14.
22.26 218
XIX.
17
78
2. 6. 9. 24
90
XX.
17
26, 194
3-5-6
231
21
206
3. 6. 17. 26
89
23
149
3. 6. S. 26
345
28
225
3- 8. 25
88
29
83, 206, 226
3- 13
194
31
193.
203
, 228, 280, 358
3-25
108
XXI.
15-
18
149
4
198
18.
22.
23
342
4. 6. 11. 17. 20
306
22
343
The Student's Life of Jesus
BY
GEORGE H. GILBERT, Ph.D., D.D.
Iowa Professor of New Testament Literature and hiterprctation in
Chicago Theological Seminary
Cloth. $1.25 net
" Admirable in arrangement, concise in form, with abundant indexing,
this modest work speaks most eloquently to every one who would study
the history of Jesus seriously, by the truly critical and scientific method."
— The Christian Advocate.
" It will assuredly become the vade mecum for the class for whom it is
particularly written." — 'The Evangelist.
" Written by one who is a profound believer in the supernatural, and
whose belief does not in the least prevent his application of sound criticism
and practical common sense to the consideration of such questions as the
miraculous birth, and the interpretation of such events as the temptation."
— The Outlook.
"Acuteness, candor, and conspicuous fidelity to its purpose are the
notable characteristics of this volume. ... Its claim to be scientific in
method is fully justified. It is thoroughly modern in spirit and manner,
. . . with a clearness, completeness, and judicial calmness which all
scholars must admire. The work is admirably adapted to its end, the use
of students. . . . Any ordinarily intelligent layman will like it, and it will
be a useful book in the Sunday-school library, although it is not in the
ordinary narrative form." — Congregationalist.
" A work peculiarly suited to the needs of students."
— The Chautauquan.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK
The Student's Life of Paul
BY
GEORGE H. GILBERT, Ph.D., D.D.
Iowa Professor of New Testament Literature and Interpretation in
Chicago Theological Seminary
Cloth. 12mo. $1.25 net
" Clear, compact, and critical." — The Outlook.
" The aim of this book is threefold : First, to present the
Simple and biography of the great apostle, entirely apart from
scientific; a study of his theological teaching; second, to
accessible present the facts in as simple and scientific a
and usable manner as possible without comment and without
rhetorical elaboration; third, to present the material in an
accessible and usable form. There are full references to
Biblical sources, and abundant references to the modern litera-
ture of the subject." — The Examiner.
"A volume that will be of special service to all students.
. . . We unreservedly and heartily commend this volume."
— Zi oil's Herald.
" It is characterized by freshness of treatment, and intelligent
use of the latest literature ; ... its arrangement is admirable,
the style engaging." — From a review of Dr. Gilbert's " Stu-
dent's Life of Paul" in the Christian Intelligencer.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK
DATE DUE