CHAPTER IV.

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.*

§ 61. JESUS, THE SON OF MAN.

IN treating of the relation in which Jesus conceived himself
to stand to the messianic idea, we can distinguish his dicta

concerning his own person from tliosc concerning tlie work he
had undertaken.

Tlie appellation wliich Jesus commonly gives himself in tlie
gospels is, the Son, of man, 6 v'ux; TOV dvOpuirov. The exactly cor-
responding Hebrew expression o'w-'ja is in the Old Testament a
frequent designation of man in general, and thus we might be in-
duced to understand it in the mouth of Jesus.  This interpretation
would suit some passages; for example, Matt. xii. 8, where Jesus
says: The Son of man. is lord also of the Sabbath day, icvpioc; yap
eari TOV aapf3aTov 6 vlo(; rov dvOpumv,-words which will fitly
enough take a general meaning, such as Grotius affixes to tliem,
namely, that man is lord of the Sabbath, especially if we compare
Mark (ii. 27), who introduces them by the proposition, The Sabbath
was made for man, and not nun for the Sabbath, TO aa.l3f3a.Tov Sia
rbv avOpwov eyevero, ov% 6 avOpuTro? 610, TO ad.Pf3a.Tov.  But in tlie
majority of cases, the phrase in question is evidently used as a
special designation.  Thus, Matt. viii. 20, a scribe volunteers to
become a disciple of Jesus, and is admonished to count the cost in
the words. The Son of man hath not where to lay his head,
b vioc; TOV avQpwov OVK e^gt, -nov rfjv K.e^aXffv nXivg : here some
particular man must be intended, nay, the particular man into whose
companionship tlie scribe wislied to enter, that is, Jesus liimsclf.
As a reason for the self-application of this term by Jesus, it lias
been suggested tliat he used tlie third person after tlie oriental
manner, to avoid tlie -Z.f But for a speaker to use the third person

* All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying, and rising again, ia
here omitted, and reserved for the history of the Passion.   + Panli.ii o»n^ TI...-,!.. -i a

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

294

in reference to himself, is only admissible, if lie would be understood,
when tlie designation he employs is precise, and inapplicable to any
other person present, as when a father or a king uses his appropriate
title of himself; or when, if tlie designation be not precise, its rela-
tion is made clear by a demonstrative pronoun, which limitation is
eminently indispensable if an individual speak of himself under the
universal designation man. We grant tliat occasionally a gesture
might, supply tlie place of the demonstrative pronoun; but that Jesua
in every instance of his using this habitual expression had recourse
to some visible explanatory sign, or that tlie evangelists would not,
in tliat case, have supplied its necessary absence from a written
document by some demonstrative addition, is inconceivable. If
botli Jesus and tlie evangelists held such an elucidation superfluous,
they must have seen in the expression itself the key to its precise
application.  Some are of opinion tliat Jesus intended by it to point
himself out as the ideal man-man in the noblest sense of tlie
word ;* but this is a modern theory, not an historical inference, for
there is no trace of such an interpretation of the expression in the
time of Jesus,f and it would be more easy to show, as others have
attempted, tliat tlie appellation, Son of man, so frequently used by
Jesus, had reference to his lowly and despised condition.^ Apart
however from tlie objection tliat tills acceptation also would require
tlie addition of tlie demonstrative pronoun, though it might be
adapted to many passages, as Matt. viii. 20, John i. 51, there are
others, (such as Matt. xvii. 22, where Jesus, foretelling his violent
death, designates himself 6 vib(; -ov avOpurrov^ which demand tlie
contrast of liigli dignity with an ignominious fate.  So in Matt. x.
23. tlie assurance given to tlie commissioned disciples tliat before
they liad gone over tlie cities of Israel the Son of Man would come,
could liave no weight unless this expression denoted a person of
importance; and that such was its significance is proved by a com-
parison of Matt. xvi. 28, where there is also a mention of an ep^eo-
Oai, a coming of the Son of man, but with tlie addition ev rff ?a-
ot/lefo, avTov.   As this addition can only refer to the messianic

kingdom, the vib? TOV dvOpw-nov must be tlie Messiah.

How so apparently vague an appellation came to be appropriated
to the Messiah, we gather from Matt. xxvi. 64 paralL, where the
Son of Man is depicted as coming in the clouds of heaven.. Tins
is evidently an allusion to Dan. vii. 13 f. where after having treated
of tlie fall of tlie four beasts, tlie writer says: I saw in the, mght
visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man (aitt 'Tas, ti? vw<;

dv6pwTTov, LXX.) came with the clouds of heaven, and came to
the Ancient of days. And there was given him dominion, and
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations iznd languages
should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion. Tlie
four beasts (v. 17 ff.) were symbolical of the four great empires,

- -   --..i a ORS + Lucke, Oomm. zum Job.

299

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.

the last of which was the Macedonian, with its offshoot, Syria.
After tlieir fall, the kingdom was to be given in perpetuity to the
People of God, the saints of the Most High: hence, he who was
to come with clouds of heaven could only be, either a personification
of the holy people,* or a leader of heavenly origin under whom they
were to achieve their destined triumph,-in a word, the Messiah;

and this was the customary interpretation among tlie Jews.f Two
tilings are predicated of this personage,-that lie was like the Son
of Man, and tliat he came witli the clouds of heaven ; but reformer
particular is his distinctive characteristic, and imports either that
lie liad not a superhuman form, that of an angel for instance, though
descending from heaven, or else that the kingdom about to be es-
tablished presented in its humanity a contrast to the inhumanity of
its predecessors, of wliich ferocious beasts were the fitting emblems.:}:

At a later period, it is true, tlie Jews regarded the coming with tlie
clouds of heaven ^•a's "'.?wo? as tlie more essential attribute of
the Messiah, and hence gave him the name Anani, after the Jewish
taste of making a merely accessory circumstance the permanent
epithet of a person or thing.§ If, then, the expression 6 vw<; TOV
dvOpwov necessarily recalled the above passage in Daniel, generally
believed to relate to tlie Messiah, it is impossible that Jesus could
so often use it, and in connexion with declarations evidently refer-
ring to the Messiah, without intending it as the designation of that

personage.

That by the expression in question Jesus meant himself, without

relation to the messianic dignity, is less probable than tlie contrary
supposition, that lie might often mean the Messiah wlien he spoke
of tlie /Son of Man, without relation to his own person. When,
Matt. x. 23, on tlie first mission of the twelve apostles to announce
the kingdom of heaven, lie comforts them under tlie prospect of
their future persecutions by tlie assurance that they would not have
gone over all the cities of Israel before the coming of the Son
of Man, we should rather, taking this declaration alone, think of a
third person, whose speedy messianic appearance Jesus was promis-
ing, than of tlie speaker himself, seeing that lie was already come,
and it would not be antecedently clear how lie could represent his
own coming as one still in anticipation.  So also when Jesus (Matt.
xiii. 37 ff.) interprets the Sower of the parable to be the Son of
Man, who at the end of the world will have a harvest and a tribunal,
he might be supposed to refer to the Messiah as a third person
distinct from liimself. This is equally the case, xvi. 27 f., where,
to prove tlie proposition that the loss of the soul is not to be com-
pensated by tlie gain of the wliole world, he urges the speedy coming

* Abenesra, see Haveriiick, ut sup. Comm. znm Daniel, S. 244. f Schottgen, horas,
u. S. 63, 73; Havernick, ut sup. S. 243 f.   ^ See for the most important opinions, Ha-
vernick, ut sup. 242 f.  § Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David's elegy,
2 Sam. i. 17 ff. as HttSp and the denomination of the Messiah, as na5>. Had Schleier-
macher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he would not have called the reference
nf ti/'nr -roil I'l fn tlir nasgaL'c in Daniel, a strange idea. (Glaubenal. § OS). Anin.).

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

296

of the Son of Alan, to administer retribution. Lastly, in the con-
nected discourses, Matt. xxiv. xxv. parall., many particulars would
Toe more easily conceived, if the vibi; rov dv6puTrm whose -rapwaia
Jesus describes, were understood to mean another than himself.

But this explanation is far from being applicable to the majority
of instances in which Jesus uses tills expression. When lie repre-
sents the Son of Man, not as one still to be expected, but as one
already come and actually present, for example, in Matt. xviii, 11,
where he says: The Son of .Man is come to save that which was
lost; when lie justifies his own acts by the authority with wliicli
the Son of Man was invested, as in Matt. ix. 6; wlien, Mark viii.
31 ff. comp. Matt. xvi. 22, he speaks of tlie approaching sufferings
and death of the Son of Man, so as to elicit from Peter the exclama-
tion, w y.i\ t'ffTai (7oi TOV-O, tins shall not be unto thee; in these and
similar cases he can only, by the v'wc; TOV avOpw-rov, have intended
himself. And even those passages, which, taken singly, we might
have found capable of application to a messianic person, distinct
from Jesus, lose this capability when considered in their entire con-
nexion. It is possible, however, either that the writer may have
misplaced certain expressions, or that the ultimately prevalent con-
viction that Jesus was the Son of -Mem caused what was originally
said merely of the latter, to be viewed in immediate relation to the

former.

Thus besides the fact that Jesus on many occasions called him-
self the Son of Man, there remains the possibility that on many
others, he may have designed another person; and if so, the latter
•would in the order of time naturally precede tlie former. Whether
this possibility can be heightened to a reality, must depend on the
answer to the following question: Is there, in tlie period of the life
of Jexus, from which all his recorded declarations are taken, any
fragment whicli indicates tliat he had not yet conceived himself to

be the Messiah?

§ 62. HOW SOON DID JESUS CONCEIVE HIMSELF TO BE THE MESSIAH,
AND FIND RECOGNITION AS SUCH FROM OTHERS ?

JESUS held and expressed the conviction that he was the Mes-
siah; this is an indisputable fact.   Not only did he, according to
the evangelists, receive with satisfaction the confession of tlie dis-
ciples that he was the Xpitn-b? (Matt. xvi. 16 f.) and tlie salutation of
the people, IIosanna to the Son of David (xxi. 15 f.); not only did
he before a public tribunal (Matt. xxvi. 64, comp. Jolm xviii. 37,)
as well as to private individuals (John iv. 26, ix. 37, x. 25,) repeat-
edly declare himself to be the Messiah: but the fact that his disciples
after his deatli believed and proclaimed that he was the Messiah, is
not to be comprehended, unless, when living, he had implanted the

r-nnviction in their minds.

"r      '*- --- 4^ An_

297

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.

dare himself the Messiah and to be regarded as such by others, the
evangelists almost unanimously reply, that lie assumed that charac-
ter from the time of his baptism. All of them attach to his baptism
circumstances winch must have convinced himself, if yet uncertain,
and all others who witnessed or credited them, that he was no less
than tlie Messiali; Jolm makes Ins earliest disciples recognise his
right to tliat dignity on their first interview (i. 42 ft'.), and Matthew
attributes to him at the very beginning of his ministry, in the sermon
on the mount, a representation of himself as the Judge of the world
(vii. 21 ff,) and therefore tlie Messiah.

Nevertheless, on a closer examination, there appears a remarkable
divergency on this subject between the synoptical statement and
that of John. While, namely, in John, Jesus remains throughout
true to liis assertion, and tlie disciples and his followers among the
populace to their conviction, that lie is the Messiah; in the synopti-
cal gospels there is a vacillation discernible-the previously expressed
persuasion on tlie part of tlie disciples and people that Jesus was
the Messiah, sometimes vanishes and gives place to a much lower
view of him, and even Jesus himself becomes more reserved in his
declarations. This is particularly striking when the synoptical state-
ment is compared with tliat of Jolm; but even when they are sepa-
rately considered, tlie result is the same.

According to John (vi. 15), after the miracle of the loaves the
people were inclined to constitute Jesus their (messianic) King; on
the contrary, according to tlie other three evangelists, either about
the same time (Luke ix. 18 f.) or still later (Matt. xvi. 13 f. Mark
viii. 27 f.) the disciples could only report, on the opinions of tlie
people respecting tlieir master, that some said he was tlie resuscitated
Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremiah or one of the old prophets:

in reference to that passage of John, however, as also to the synopti-
cal one, Matt. xiv. 33, according to wliicli, some time before Jesus
elicited the above report of tlie popular opinion, the people who were
with him in the ship^ when he had allayed the storm, fell at his
feet and worshipped him as the Son of God, it may be observed
that when Jesus had spoken or acted with peculiar impressiveness,
individuals, in the exaltation of the moment, might be penetrated
with a conviction that he was tlie Messiali, while the general and
calm voice of tlie people yet pronounced him to be merely a prophet.

But there is a more troublesome divergency relative to tlie dis-
ciples. In John, Andrew, after his first interview with Jesus, says
to his brother, we have found the .Messiah, evprfKapsv -rov Vieaaiav
(i. 42); and Philip describes him to Nathanael as the person foretold
by Moses and the prophets (v. 46); Nathanael salutes him as the
Son of God and King of Israel (v. 50); and the subsequent confes-
sion of Peter appears merely a renewed avowal of what had been
long a familiar truth. In tlie synoptical evangelists it is only after

* That the expression ol kv ry irXoty includes more than the disciples, vid. Fritzsche,

298                 THE LIFE OF JESUS.

prolonged intercourse with Jesus, and shortly before his sufferings,
tliat the ardent Peter arrives at the conclusion tliat Jesus is the
Xpio-oc, 6 vlw TOV 6eov TOV {,£>v~o<; (Matt. xvi. 16, parall.).   It is
impossible that this confession should make so strong an impression
on Jesus tliat, in consequence of it, he should pronounce Peter
blessed, and his confession the fruit of immediate divine revelation,
as Matthew narrates; or that, as all the three evangelists inform us,
(xvi. 20, viii. 30, ix. 21,) he should, as if alarmed, forbid tlie dis-
ciples to promulgate their conviction, unless it represented not an
opinion long cherished in the circle of his disciples, but a new light,
which had just flashed on the mind of Peter, and through him was

communitated to his associates.

There is a third equally serious discrepancy, relative to the dec-
larations of Jesus concerning his Messiahship. According to John,
he sanctions the homage which Nathanael renders to him as the
Son of God and Kins: of Israel, in the very commencement of his
public career, and immediately proceeds to speak of himself under
the messianic title. Son of Man (i. 51 f.): to the Samaritans also
after his first visit to the passover (iv. 26, 39 ff.), and to the Jews
on the second (v. 46), he makes himself known as the Messiah pre-

-T-i.^,1 iw Moses. According to the synoptical writers, on the con-
- -i^ro cited and in many others,
"' • i -

6), he makes himselt Known <^ ..-- .
According to the synoptical writers, on the con-

•-- *i.^ instance above cited and in many others,

1 '- T^ni»nnrl tug

on the secoiiu ^v. ^/,
dieted by Moses. According to the synopncai ,,^.^-._,

trary, lie prohibits, in the instance above cited and in many others,
the dissemination of the doctrine of his Messiahship, beyond the
circle of his adherents. Farther, when he asks Ills disciples, Whom
do men say that I am? (Matt, xvi. 15) he seems to wish* that they
should derive their conviction of his Messiahship from his discourses
and actions, and when he ascribes the avowed faith of Peter to a
revelation from his heavenly Father, he excludes the possibility of
his having himself previously made this disclosure to Ins disciples,
either in the manner described by Jolm, or in the more indirect one
attributed to him by Matthew in tlie Sermon on the Mount; unless
•we suppose that tlie disciples had not hitherto believed his assurance,
and that hence Jesus referred the new-born faith of Peter to divine

influence.

Thus, on the point under discussion the synoptical statement is

* There is a difficulty involved in the form of the question, put by Jesus to his dis-
ciples : T'iva fi£ 'ki'/ovoii, 01 ur^p&CTOl rival TOT vibv TOV uv9puT:ov; i.e. what opinion have the
people of me, the Messiah? This, when compared wilh the sequel, seems a premature
disclosure; hence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its prima facie
meaning. Some (e. g. Beza) understand the subordinate clause, not as a declaration of
Jesus concerning his own person, but as a closer limitation of the question : for whom do
the people take me ? fur the Messiah ? But this would be a leading question, which, as
Fritzsche well observes, would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title, not elsewhere
discernible in Jesus. (Others, therefore, (as Paulas and Fritzsche,) give the expression
vlb{ r. a. a general signification, and interpret the question thus : Whom do men say that
I, the individual addressing you, am?  But this explanation has been already refuted in
the foregoing section. If, then, we rqect tlie opinion that the vlo{ r. (i. is an addition
which the exuberant faith of tlie writer was apt to suggest even in an infelicitous con-
-- -oBti-ipted to De Wette's view, (exeg. Handl). 1, 1, S. 8G t'.), namely, that
""n^t-nivi (^ ^g "Messiah, hut an indirect one,
--•i n,.>6t. already

299

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.

contradictory, not only to that of John, but to itself; it appears
therefore that it ought to be unconditionally surrendered before that
of John, which is consistent with itself, and one of our critics has
justly reproached it with deranging the messianic economy in the
life of Jesus.* But hero again we must not lose sight of our ap-
proved canon, that in glorifying narratives, such as our gospels,
where various statements are confronted, that is tlie least probable
which best subserves tlie object of glorification.  Now this is tlie
case with John's statement; according to which, from the commence-
ment to the close of the public life of Jesus, his Messiaship sliincs
forth in unchanging splendour, while, according to tlie synoptical
writers, it is liable to a variation in its light. But though this cri-
terion of probability is in favour of tlie first three evangelists, it is
impossible that the order in which they make ignorance and con-
cealment follow on plain declarations and recognitions of the Mes-
siahship of Jesus can be correct; and we must suppose tliat they
have mina;led and confounded two separate periods of the life of
Jesus, in the latter of which alone lie presented himself as the Mes-
siah.   We find, in fact, that the watchword of Jesus on his first
appearance differed not, even verbally, from tliat of John, wlio pro-
fessed merely to be a forerunner; it is the same Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt. iv. 17) with which John liad
roused tlie Jews (iii. 2); and indicates in neither the one nor tlie
other an assumption of the character of Messiali, with wliose coming
the kino-dora of heaven was actually to commence, but merely tliat
of a teacher who points to it as yet future.! Hence the latest critic
of the first gospel justly explains all those discourses and actions
therein narrated, by which Jesus explicitly claims to be tlie Mes-
siah, or, in consequence of which tills dignity is attributed to him
and accepted, if they occur before the manisfestation of himself re-
corded in John v., or before the account of the apostolic confession
(Matt. xvi.), as offences of the writer against chronology or literal
truth.f We have only to premise, tliat as chronological confusion
prevails throughout, the position of tills confession sliortly before
the history of the Passion, in nowise obliges us to suppose that it
was so late before Jesus was recognised as the Messiah among his
disciples, since Peter's avowal may have occurred in a much earlier
period of their intercourse. This, however, is incomprehensibis-•
that the same reproach should not attach even more strongly to the
fourth gospel than to the first, or to the synoptical writers in gen-
eral. For it is surely more pardonable that the first three evange-
lists should give us the pre-mcssianic memoirs in tlie wrong place,
than that the fourth should not give them at all; more endurable
in the former, to mingle the two periods, than in the latter, quite to

obliterate the earlier one.

* Schneclienburger, uber den Ursprong u. a. f. S. 28 f. f This distinction of two
periods in the public life of Jesus is also made by Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. S. 213,536,
»ud Schneckenburger ut sup. ^ Schneckenburger, ut sup. S. 29.

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

300

If then Jesus did. not lay claim to the Messiahship from the he-
ginning of Ills public career, was this omission the result of uncer-
tainty in liis own mind; or had lie from tlie first a conviction that
he was tlie Messiah, hut concealed it for certain reasons ? In order
to decide this question, a point already mentioned must he more
carefully weighed. In the first three evangelists, but not so exclu-
sively that tlie fourth has nothing similar, when Jesus effects a
miracle of healing he almost invariably forbids the person cured to
promulgate the event, in tliese or similar words, 3pa y.r]Sev'L ew^c;

e. g. the leper, Matt. viii. 4; parall. ; the blind men. Matt. ix. 30 ;

a multitude of the healed. Matt. xii. 16; tlie parents of the resusci-
tated damsel, Mark v. 43; above all lie enjoins silence on tlie de~
moniacs, Mark i. 34. iii. 12.; and John v. 13, it is said, after the
cure of the man at the pool of Betliesda, Jesus had conveyed him-
self away, a multitude being in that place. Thus also lie forbade
the three who were with him on the mount of the Transfiguration,
to publisli the scene they had witnessed, (Matt. xvii. 9); and after
the confession of Peter, lie charges tlie disciples to tell no man tlie
conviction it expressed (Luke ix. 21).  This prohibition of Jesus
could hardly, as most commentators suppose,* be determined by
various circumstantial motives, at one time having relation to tlie
disposition of tlie person healed, at another to tlie humour of the
people, at another to the situation of Jesus: rattier, as there is an
essential similarity in the conditions under which he lays this in-
junction on. the people, if we discern a probable motive for it on
any occasion, we are warranted in applying the same motive to the re-
maining cases. Tins motive is scarcely any other than the desire that
the belief tliat lie was the Messiah should not be too widely spread.
When (Mark i. 34) Jesus would not allow the ejected demons to
speak because they knew him, when lie charged the multitudes
that they should not make him known (Matt. xii. 16), he evidently
intended that the former should not proclaim him in the character
in which their more penetrative, demoniacal glance had viewed Inm,
nor the latter in that revealed by tlie miraculous cure he had
wrought on them-in short, they were not to betray their know-
ledge tliat lie •WSLS the Messiali. As a reason for tins wish on the
part of Jesus, it has been alleged, on tlie strength of John vi. 15.,
that he sought to avoid awakening the political idea of the Mes-
siah's kingdom in the popular mind, with the disturbance wind)
would be its inevitable result, f This would be a valid reason ; but
the synoptical writers represent tlie wisli, partly as the effect of hu-
mility;} Matthew, in connexion with a prohibition of the kind al-
luded to, applying to Jesus a passage in Isaiah (xlii. 1 f.) where
tlie servant of God is said to be distinguished by Ills stillness and
unobtrusiveness: partly, and in a greater degree, as the effect of an

* Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 309. comp. 352. Olshausen, S. 263.

^ Fritzache, p. 352.
who thinks the pro-

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.

301

apprehension that the Messiah, at least such an one as Jesus, would

be at once proscribed by the Jewish hierarchy.

From all tills it might appear tliat Jesus was restrained merely
by external motives, from the open declaration of his messiahship,
and that Ins own conviction of it existed from the first in equal
strength; but tills conclusion cannot be maintained in tlie face of
tlie consideration above mentioned, that Jesus began his career with
the same announcement as tlie Baptist, an announcement which can
scarcely have more than one import-an exhortation to prepare for
a coming Messiah. Tlie most natural supposition is that Jesus, first
the disciple of tlie Baptist, and afterwards his successor, in preacli-
ino' repentance and tlie approach of the kingdom of lieaven, took
originally tlie same position as his former master in relation to the
messianic kingdom, nothwithstanding tlie greater reach and liberality
of his mind, and only gradually attained the elevation of thinking
himself tlie Messiah. This supposition explains in the simplest
manner tlie prohibition we have been considering, especially that
annexed to the confession of Peter. For as often as tlie thought
that he might be tlie Messiah suggested itself to others, and was
presented to him from witliout, Jesus must have shrunk, as if ap-
palled, to hear confidently uttered that which lie scarcely ventured
to surmise, or which had but recently become clear to himself. As,
however, tlie evangelists often put such prohibitions into tlie mouth
of Jesus unseasonably, (witness the occasion mentioned, Matt. viii.
4, when after a cure effected before a crowd of spectators, it was of
little avail to enjoin secrecy on the cured,*) it is probable that evan-
gelical tradition, enamoured of tlie mysteriousness that lay in this

incognito of Jesus,f unhistorically multiplied the instances of its
adoption.

§ 63. JESUS, THE SON OF GOD.

IN Luke i. 35, we find the narrowest and most literal interpre-
tation of tlie expression, 6 v't'oc TOV 6eov; namely, as derived from
Ins conception by means of the Holy Ghost. On tlie contrary, the
widest moral and metaphorical sense is given to the expression in
Matt. v. 45, where tliose who imitate tlie love of God towards his
enemies are called tlie sons of tlie Father in heaven. There is an
intermediate sense which we may term the metaphysical, because
while it includes more than mere conformity of will, it is distinct
irom tlie notion of actual paternity, and implies a spiritual commu-
nity of being. In this sense it is profusely employed and referred
to in tlie fourth gospel; as when Jesus says tliat lie speaks and
docs nothing of himself, but only what as a son he has learned from
tlie Father (v. 19 ; xii. 49, and elsewhere), who, moreover, is in him
(xvn. 21), and nothwithstanding his exaltation over him (xiv. 28),
la yet one with him (x. 30). There is yet a fourth sense in which

THE LIFE OP JESU8.

302

the expression is presented. When (Matt. iv. 3) the devil challenges
Jesus to change the stones into bread, making the supposition, If
thou be the Son. of God; when Nathanael says to Jesus, Thou art
the Son of God, the King of Israel (John i. 49); when Peter con-
fesses, Tlwu art the Christ, the Son, of the living God (Matt. xvi.
16; conip. John vl. 69); when Martha tlius expresses lier faith in
Jesus, I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God (Jolm xi.
27); when the high priest adjures Jesus to tell him if he Lc the
Christ, the Son of God (Matt. xxvi. 63): it is obvious tliat the devil
means nothing more than, If thou be the Messiali; and that in the
Other passages tlie vi'oc; TOV Oeov, united as it is with XptOTbg and

fSaoi^ev^, is but an appellation of tlie Messiah.

In Hos. xi. 1, Exod. iv. 22, the people of Israel, and in 2 Sam.
vii. 14, Ps. ii. 7, (comp. Ixxxix. 28) tlie king of that people, arc
called tlie son and tlie tirst-born of God.. The kings (as also the
people) of Israel had tills appellation, in virtue of the love which
Jehovah bore them, and tlie tutelary care which lie exercised over
them (2 Sam vii. 14): and from tlie second psalm we gather the
farther reason, tliat as earthly kings choose their sons to reign with
or under them, so tlie Israelitish kings were invested by Jehovah,
tlie sunrcme ruler, with the government of his favourite province.
Thus the designation was originally applicable to every Israelitish
king who adhered to the principle of the theocracy; but when tlie
messianic idea was developed, it was pre-eminently assigned to the
Messiah, as tlie best-beloved Son, and the most powerful vicegerent

of God on earth.*

If, then, such was tlie original historical signification of tlie epi-
thet, Son of God, as applied to the Messiali, we liave to ask: is it
possible that Jesus used it of himself in this signification only, or
did lie use it also in cither of the three senses previously adduced ?
Tlie narrowest, the merely phvsical import of tlie term is not put
into tlie mouth of Jesus, but into tliat of the annunciating angel,
Luke i. 35; and for this the evangelist alone is responsible. In the
intermediate, metaphysical sense, implying unity of essence and com-
munity of existence with God, it might possibly have been under-
stood by Jesus, supposing him to liavc remodelled in his own con-
ceptions tlie theocratic interpretation current among his compatriots.
It is true that tlie abundant expressions having tills tendency in the
gospel of John, appear to contradict those of Jesus on an occasion
recorded by tlie synoptical writers (Mark x. 17 f.; Luke xviii. 18 t.),
when to a disciple who accosts him as Good Master, lie replies :

Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is
God. Here Jesus so tenaciously maintains tlie distinction between
himself and God, that ho. renounces the predicate of (perfect) good-
ness, and insists on its appropriation to God alonc.f Olsliausen

* Comp. the excellent treatise of Paulas on the following question in the Eiiil. zum

Tniion .Ipsu. 1. a.. 2a f. •I- Even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage
' -<i-,._ i,;,, Dt.iti,mpnt deserve the

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.                303

supposes that this rejection related solely to the particular circum-
stances of the disciple addressed, who regarding Jesus as a merely
human teacher, ought not from his point of view to have given him
a divine epithet, and that it was net intended by Jesus as a denial
that lie was, according to a just estimate of his character, actually the
cya0oc in whom the one good Being was reflected as in a mirror;

but this is to take for granted what is first to be proved, namely,
tliat the declarations of Jesus concerning himself in the fourth gos-
pel are on a level as to credibility with those recorded by the synop-
tical writers. Two of these writers cite some words of Jesus which
have an important bearing on our present subject: All things are
delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoiceth the Son but
the father : neither knoiceth any man the Fattier, but the Son, and
he to v:homsoever the Son will reveal him, Matt. xi. 27.  Taking
this passage in connexion with the one before quoted, we must infer
that Jesus liad indeed an intimate communion of thouglit and will
with God, but under such limitations, that tlie attribute of perfect
goodness, as well as of absolute knowledge (e. g. of tlie day and hour
of tlie last day, Mark xiii. 32 parall.) belonged exclusively to God,
and hence the boundary line between divine and human was strictly
preserved. Even in tlie fourth gospel Jesus declares, .Sly Father
is greater than, I, b na-rjp y-ov y,dS,w pov ea-l, (xiv. 28), but this
slight eclio of tlie synoptical statement does not remove the diffi-
culty of conciliating the numerous discourses of a totally different
tenor in the former, witli the rejection of the epithet dya6^ in the
latter. It is surprising, too, that Jesus in the fourth gospel appears
altogether ignorant of the theocratic sense of the expression vlog -ov
OEOV, and can only vindicate his use of it in the metaphysical sense,
by retreating to its vague and metaphorical application. When,
namely, (John x. 34 ft.) to justify his assumption of this title, lie
adduces the scriptural application of the term Osol to other men,
such as princes and magistrates, we are at a loss to understand why
Jesus should resort to this remote and precarious argument, when
close at hand lay the far more cogent one, that in the Old Testa-
ment, a theocratic king of Israel, or according to the customary in-
terpretation of the most striking passages, the Messiah, is called the
Son of Jehovah, and that therefore lie, having declared himself to
be tlie Messiah (v. 25), might consistently claim this appellation.

With respect to the light in which Jesus was viewed as the Son
of God by others, we may remark tliat in the addresses of well-af-
fected persons tlie title is often so associated, as to be obviously a
mere synonym of Xpior&c, and this even in the fourth gospel; while
on the other hand tlie contentious 'lov6aw( of this gospel seem in
their objections as ignorant as Jesus in his defence, of the theo-
cratic, and only notice tlie metaphysical meaning of the expression.
it is true that, even in tlie synoptical gospels, when Jesus answers
affirmatively tlie question whether he be the Christ, the Son of the
living God (Matt. xxvi. 65 uar.'t, the hiah uriest taxes him witli blas-

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

304

pliemy; but lie refers merely to what he considers the unwarranted
arrogation of the theocratic dignity of the Messiah, whereas in the
fourth gospel, when Jesus represents liimself as the Son of God (v.
17 f. x. 30 ff.) tlie Jews seek to kill him for the express reason that
lie thereby makes himself 'iaov TU Oeu, nay even eav-bv 6ebv. Ac-
cording to the synoptical writers, tlie high priest so unhesitatingly
considers the idea of tlie Son of God to pertain to that of the Mes-
siah, tliat he associates the two titles as if they were interchangeable,
in tlie question he addresses to Jesus: on tlie contrary the Jews in
tlie Gospel of John regard the one idea as so far transcending the
other, that they listen patiently to tlie declaration of Jesus that he
is tlie Messiah (x. 25), but as soon as he begins to claim to be the
Son of God, they take zip stones to stone him. In tlie synoptical
gospels tlie reproach cast on Jesus is, that being a common man, he
gives liimself out for the Mcssiali •; in the fourth gospel, that being
a mere man, lie gives liimself out for a divine being. Hence Ols-
hausen and others have justly insisted that in those passages of the
latter gospel to which our remarks have reference, tlie vl'o^ rov Oeov
is not synonymous with Messiah, but is a name far transcending tlie
ordinary idea of the Messiah ;* they are not, however, warranted in
concluding that therefore in the first three evangelists alsof the same
expression imports more than the Messiah, For the only legitimate
interpretation of the high priest's question in Matthew makes 6 vibf
rov 6eov a synonym of 6 Xpicn-bc, and though in the parallel passage
of Luke, tlie judges first ask Jesus if he be tlie Christ (xx. 67.) ?
and when he declines a direct answer,-predicting that they will be-
hold the Son of Man seated at the. right hand of God,-hastily in-
terrupt him with the question, Art thou the, Son of God? (v. 70);

yet, after receiving what they, consider an affirmative answer, they
accuse him before Pilate as one who pretends to be Christ, a king
(xxiii. 2), tlius clearly sliowing that Son of Man, Son of God, and
Messiah, must have been regarded as interchangeable terms. It
must therefore be conceded that there is a discrepancy on this point
between tlie synoptical writers and John, and perhaps also an in-
consistency of the latter with himself; for in several addresses to
Jesus he retains the customary form, which associated Son of God
with Christ or King of Israel, without being conscious of the dis-
tinction between the signification which vibi; T. 0. must have in such
a connexion, and that in which he used it elsewhere-a want of per-
ception which habitual forms of expression are calculated to induce.
We have-before cited examples of this oversight in the fourth evan-
gelist (John i. 49. vi. 69. xii 27).

The author of the Probabilia reasonably considers it suspicious

that, in the fourth gospel, Jesus and his opponents should appear
entirely ignorant of the theocratic sense which is elsewhere attached
to the expression 6 vlb(; TOV 6eov, and which must have been more
('•imilLnr to the Jews than any other, unless we suppose some of

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.

305

them to have partaken of Alexandrian culture. To such, we grant,
as well as to the fourth evangelist, judging from his prologue, the
metaphysical relation of the /loyoc y,ovoysvfi<; to God would be the

most cherished association.

§ 64. THE DIVINE MISSION AND AUTHORITY OF JESIJS-HIS FEE-
EXISTENCE.

THE four evangelists are in unison as to the declaration of Jesus

concerning Ills divine mission and authority. Like every prophet,
lie is sent by God (Matt. x. 40. John v. 23 f. 56 f.), acts and speaks
by the authority, and under tlie immediate guidance of God (John v.
19 ff.), and exclusively possesses an adequate knowledge of God,
which it is Ills office to impart to men (Matt. xi. 27. John iii. 13).
To him, as the Messiah, all power is given (Matt. xi. 27); first, over
the kingdom wliich he is appointed to found and to rule with all its
members (Jolm x. 29. xvii. 6); next, over mankind in general (Jolm
xvii. 2), and even external nature (Matt. xxviii. 18); consequently,
should the interests of the messianic kingdom demand it, power to
effect a thorough revolution in the whole world. At the future com-
mencement of Ills reign, Jesus, as Messiah, is authorized to awake
the dead (John v. 28:), and to sit as a judge, separating those worthy
to partake of the lieavenly kingdom from tlie unworthy (Matt. xxv.
31 ff. John v. 22. 29.); offices which Jewish opinion attributed to
the Messiah,* and which Jesus, once convinced of his messlahship,
would necessarily transfer to himself.

Tlie evangelists are not equally unanimous on another point.
According to the synoptical writers, Jesus claims, it is true, the
highest human dignity, and tlie most exalted relation with God, for
the present and future, but he never refers to an existence anterior
to his eartlily career: in the fourth gospel, on the contrary, we find
several discourses of Jesus wliich contain tlie repeated assertion of
such a pre-existcnce. We grant that when Jesus describes himself
as coining down from heaven (John iii. 13. xvi. 28.), the expression,
taken alone, may be understood as a merely figurative intimation of
his superhuman origin. It is more difficult, but perhaps admissible,
to interpret, with the Socinian Grell, the declaration of Jesus Before
Abraham was, I am, 'nplv 'Appaap yewdOo.i, eyu dpi, (John viii.
58.), as referring to a purely ideal existence in tlie pre-determination
of God; but scarcely possible to consider the prayer to the -Father
(John xvii. 5.) to confirm the 66^a (glory) wliicli Jesus had with
Him before the world was, Trpb TOV TOV noay.av elai., as an entreaty
for the communication of a glory predestined for Jesus from eternity.
But the language of Jesus, Jolin vi. 62., where he speaks of tlie Son
of Man reascending dvaftaiveiv where he was before OTTOV fjv TO •n'po-
TEpov, ig^ in itg intrinsic meaning, as well as in that which is re-

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

306

fleeted on it from other passages, unequivocally significative of
actual, not merely ideal, pro-existence.

It lias been already conjectured* that tliesc expressiona, or at
least tlic adaptation of them to a real prc-cxistencc, are derived, not
from Jesus, but from tlie author of tlie fourth gospel, with whose
opinions, as propounded in his introduction, they specifically agree;

for if tfie Word was in ths beginning iclth God (KV ap^y -rpuc; rbv
flew), Jesus, in whom it was made flesh, might attribute to himself
an existence before Abraham, and a participation of glory witli the
Father before tlie foundation of tlie world. Nevertheless, we are
not warranted in adopting tins view, unless it can be shown, that
neither was tlie idea of the pre-existcnce of tlie Messiah extant
among the Jews of Palestine before tlie time of Jesus, nor is it prob-
able that Jesus attained such a notion, independently of tlie ideas
peculiar to his age and nation.

Tlie latter supposition, that Jesus spoke from his own me-
mory of Ills pre-human and pre-mundane existence, is liable to
comparison with dangerous parallels in the history of Pythagoras,
Ennius, and Anollonlus of Tyana, wliosc alleged reminiscenses of
individual states which they had experienced prior to their birth,f
are now generally regarded either as subsequent fables, or as enthu-
siastic self-delusions of tlio3C celebrated men. For tlie other alterna-
tive, that the idea in question was common to tlie Jewish nation, a
presumption may be found in the description, already quoted from
Daniel, of tlic Son of Man coming in tlie clouds of heaven, since the
author, possibly, and, at all events, many readers, imagined that per-
sonage to be a superhuman being, dwelling beforehand with God,
like the angels. But tliat every one who referred tills passage to tlie
Messiah, or tliat Jesus in particular, associated witli it the notion of
a pre-existcnce, is not to be proved ; for, if we exclude tlic represen-
tation of John, Jesus depicts his coming in tlic clouds of heaven,
not as if he liad come as a visitant to eartli from his home in heaven,
but, according to Matt. xxvi. 65. (comp. xxiv. 25), as if he, the
earth-born, after the completion of his earthly course, would be re-
ceived into heaven, and from thence would return to establisli his
kingdom : thus making tlie coming from heaven not necessarily in-
clude tlic idea of prc-cxistence. We tind in the Proverbs, in Sirach,
and tlic Book of Wisdom, the idea of a personified and even liypo-
stasized Wisdom of God, and in tlie Psalms and Prophets, strongly
marked personifications of tlie Divine word ;f and it is especially
worthy of note, tliat tlie later Jews, in their horror of anthropomor-
phism in tlic idea of tlie Divine being, attributed his speech, appear-
ance, and immediate agency, to the Word (^"T3^73) or the dwelling
place (i^FiS'O'o) of Jehovah, as may be seen in tlic venerable;?

* Bretschneulcr, Proliab. p. :>9.   f Porphyr. Vita fythag-. 2G {. Jaiiililiuh. 14, (S3
Diog. Larrt, viii. 4 f. 14. Baurr, Apolloniua vou Tyana, p. Ut 1'. 98 f. 1S.'> f.   t Sec a
nfttiii.-.ntnm .•ni,l rvitosition of tile pa-sau\'s ill Lucke, Coitiin. zuln Ev. Joh. 1, S. 211. 1^

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.                307

TaroTim of Onkelos.* TIiese expressions, at first mere paraphrases
of tlie name of God, soon received the mystical signification of a
veritable hypostasis, of a being, at once distinct from, and one witli
God. As most of the revelations and interpositions of God, whose
oi-o'an tills personified Word was considered to be, were designed in
f.ivour of tlie Israelltish people, it was natural for them to assign
to tlic manifestation, wliicli was still awaited from Him, and whicli
was to be tlic crowning benefit of Israel,-tlic manifestation, namely,
of tlic Messiah,-a peculiar relation witli tlie W^ord or Shechina.t
From tills germ sprang tlic opinion tliat witli tlie Messiali tlie She-
china would appear, and tliat wliat was ascribed to tlic Shechina
pertained equally to the Messiah: an opinion not confined to the
Rabbins, but sanctioned by the Apostle Paul. According to it, tlic
Messiah was, even in tlie wilderness, tlic invisible guide and bene-
factor of God's people (1 Cor. x. 4, 9.);:{: lie was witli our first
parents in Paradise ;§ lie was the agent in creation (Col. i. 16.);

lie even existed before tlie creation,|| and prior to his incarnation in
Jesus, was in a glorious fellowship with God (Phil. ii. 6.).

As it is tlius evident that, immediately after tlic time of Jesus,
tlic idea of a prc-cxistencc of tlic Messiali was incorporated in the
higher Jewish theology, it is no far-fetched conjecture, tliat tlie same
idea was afloat when tlic mind of Jesus was maturing, and tliat in
his conception of himself as the Messiali, this attribute was included.
But whether Jesus were as deeply initiated in tlic speculations of
tlie Jewish schools as Paul, is yet a question, and as the author of
the fourth gospel, versed in the Alexandrian doctrine of tlic /'-oyof,
stands alone in ascribing to Jesus the assertion of a prc-cxistence,
we are unable to decide whether we arc to put tlie dogma to tlie
account of Jesus, or of his biographer.

§ 65. THE MESSIANIC PLAN OF JESVS--INDICATIONS OF A
POLITICAL ELEMENT.

THE Baptist pointed io a future individual, and Jesus to him-
self, as tlic founder of tlic kingdom of heaven. Tlie idea of tliat
messianic kingdom belonged to the Israelltish nation ; did Jesus
hold it in tlic form in wliicli it. existed among his cotcmporarics, or
under modifications of his own ?

Tlie idea of tlie Messiah grew up amongst tlie Jews in soil half
religious, half political: it was nurtured by national adversity, and in
tlic tune cf Jesus, according to tlie testimony of tlie gospels, it was

* Bcrtholdt, Cliristol. Jndicor. § § as-?,-;. Comp. Luckc ut sup. S. 244, note.
T Sehott^'en. ii. S. <1 f.  ^ Tar^r. Jes. xvi. 1 : Isie ^Af^sftris} in d^serto fuit nipes ecclf^iw
Zumis.  In Hertholdt, lit sup. p. 14;';.   g Soliar ehadaseh f. Ixxxii. 4, ap. SclnittRcn, ii,
S. 440.  I| Nezarh Israel c. xxxv. f. xlviii. 1. Silmiidt, liilil. fiir Kritik u. Exrgese, 1,

S. 38, -IfT^ •^272 fPSTS- suha1' Lt!vit- f- xiv- •ric-  Schottgen, ii. S. 43G: Septcm
\iinnina covuli/a .sy/;/, 'iiii<-qn<iin, rnvndtis cond<-retur\ nimii-um ...... et lumen -'1/ciW'atp.

llvtc we have tlie pn'-existnu'e of the Messiah represented as a real one ; for a more ideal

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

308

embodied in the expectation that the Messiah would ascend the
throne of his ancestor David, free tlie Jewish people from tlie
Roman yoke, and found, a kingdom which would last for ever (Luke
i. 32 f. 68 ff. Acts i. 6.). Hence our first question must be this:

Did Jesus include this political element in his messianic plan ?

That Jesus aspired to be a temporal ruler, has at all times been
an allegation of tlie adversaries of Christianity, but has been main-
tained by none with so much exegetical acumen as by the author
of the Wolfenbiittel Fragments,'1' who, be it observed, by no meana
denies to Jesus tlie praise of aiming at tlie moral reformation of his
nation. According to this writer, tlie first indication of a political
plan on the part, of Jesus is, tliat he unambiguously announced tlie
approaching messianic kingdom, and laid down the conditions on
which it was to be entered, without explaining what tills kingdom
was, and wherein it consisted,* as if lie supposed the current idea of
its nature to be correct. Now tlie fact is, that tlie prevalent concep-
tion of tlie messianic reign had a strong political bias; hence, when
Jesus spoke of the Messiah's kingdom without a definition, the Jews
could only think of an earthly dominion, and as Jesus could not
have presupposed any other interpretation of Ills words, he must
have wished to be so understood. But in opposition to tills it may
be remarked, tliat in the parables by which Jesus sliadowed forth
the kingdom of heaven; in tlie Sermon on tlie Mount, in which, he
illustrates tlie duties of its citizens; and lastly, in his whole demeanour
and course of action, we liavc sufficient evidence, that his idea of
the messianic kingdom was peculiar to himself. There is not so
ready a counterpoise for the difficulty, that Jesus sent the apostles,
with wliose conceptions lie could not be unacquainted, to announce
tlie Messiali's kingdom throughout the land (Matt. x.). These, who
disputed wliicli of them should be greatest in tlie kingdom of their
master (Matt. xviii. 1, Luke xvii. 24); of whom two petitioned for
the seats at the right and left of the messianic king (Mark x. 35 ff.);

who, even after the death and resurrection of Jesus, expected a res-
toration of tlie kingdom to Israel (Acts i. 6:)-tliese had clearly from
the beginning to tlie end of their intercourse with Jesus, no other
than tlie popular notion of tlie Mcssiali; when, therefore, Jesus des-
patched them as heralds of Ills kingdom, it seems necessarily a part
of his design, tliat they should disseminate in all places their politi-
cal messianic idea.

Among the discourses of Jesus there is one especially worthy of

pote in Matt. xix. 28. (comp. Luke xxil. 30.). In reply to the ques-
tion of Peter, We have, left all and followed thee ; what shall we
have therefore ? Jesus promises to his disciples tliat in tlie mXt.y-
yevKoia,, when the. Son of Man shall sit on his throne, they also
shall sit ofi twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
That the literal import of this promise formed part of tlie tissue of

"   "    ~   • T    --•' --'•-- ir.n™,. s ins-157.   + Conip. Fritzsche, ii

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.

309

the messianic hopes cherished by the Jews of that period, is not to
be controverted.  It is argued, however, tliat Jesus spoke figura-
tively on tills occasion, and only employed familiar Jewish images
to convey to tlie apostles an assurance, that the sacrifices they liad
made here would be richly compensated in their future life by a par-
ticipation in his glory.* But tlie disciples must have understood
the promise literally, wlicn, even after tlie resurrection of Jesus, they
harboured anticipations of worldly greatness ; and as Jesus liad had
many proofs of this propensity, he would hardly liave adopted such
language, liad lie not intended to nourish their temporal hopes.
Tlie supposition tliat lie did so merely to animate the courage of his
disciples, without himself sharing their views, imputes duplicity to
Jesus;-a duplicity in this case quite gratuitous, since, as Olshau-
sen justly observes, Peter's question would liave been satisfactorily
answered by any other laudatory acknowledgment of the devotion
of the disciples.  Hence it appears a fair inference, that Jesus him-
self shared the Jewish expectations which lie here sanctions; but
expositors have made the most desperate efforts to escape from this
unwelcome conclusion.  Some liave resorted to an arbitrary altera-
tion of tlie reading ;f others to the detection of irony, directed against
the disproportion between tlie pretensions of tlie disciples, and their
trivial services;:): others to different expedients, but. all more unnat-
ural than tlie admission, tliat Jesus, in accordance with Jewish ideas,
here promises Ills disciples the dignity of being his assessors in his
visible messianic judgment, and that lie thus indicates the existence
of a national element in his notion of the Messiali's kingdom. It is
observable, too, tliat in tlie Acts (i. 7.), Jesus, even after his resur-
rection, does not deny that he will restore tlie kingdom to Israel, but
merely discourages curiosity as to tlie times and seasons of its re-
storation.

Among tlie actions of Jesus, his last entry into Jerusalem (Matt.
xxi. 1 ff.) is especially appealed to as a proof tliat his plan was partly
political. According to tlie Fragmcntist, all the circumstances point
to a political design : the time which Jesus chose,-after a sufficiently
long preparation of the people in tlie provinces ; the passover, which
they visited in great numbers ; the animal on which he rode, and bv
which, from a popular interpretation of a passage in Zachariah, h<;

announced himself as tlie destined King of Jerusalem ; the approval
which lie pronounces when the people receive him with a royal greet-
ing ; tlie violent procedure wliicli lie hazards in tlie temple ; and
finally, his severe pliilippic on the higher class of the Jews (Matt.
xxiii.), at tlie close of wliicli lie seeks to awe tlicm into a reception
at him as their messianic king, by tlie threat that lie will show him-
self to them no more in any other guise.

* Kuinol, Comm. in Matt. p. 518. Olshauscn also, p. 714, understands the discourse
symbolically, though he attaches to it a different meaning,  ^ Paulus, exeget. Handb. 2,
S. 613, £ t Liebe, in Winer's exeg. Studien, 1, 59, ff.

310                 THE LIFE OF JESUS.

§ 66. DATA FOR THE PURE SPIRITUALITY OF THE MESSIANIC PLAS
OF JESUS--BALANCE.

NOWHERE in our evangelical narratives is there a trace of Jesus
having sought to form a political party. On the contrary, lie with-
draws from tlic eagerness of tlie people to make him a king (John
vi. 15.); he declares tliat tlie messianic kingdom comes not with
observation, Lut is to be sought for in tlie recesses of tlie soul (Luke
xvii. 20 f.); it is his principle to unite obedience to God witli obe-
dience to temporal authority, even when heathen (Matt. xxii. 21.);

on liis solemn entry into tlie capita], lie chooses to ride tlie animal
of peace, and afterwards escapes from the multitude, instead of using
their excitement for the purposes of liis ambition; lastly, lie main-
tains before liis judge, that liis kingdom is not from. hence ova iv-
TevOev, is not of t/iis v:orld OVK EK -ov is.uaf.wv TWTOV (Jolin xvi. 36.),
and we have no reason in this instance to question cither liis or tlie

evangelist's veracity.

Thus we have a scries of indications to counterbalance tliosc de-
tailed in tlic preceding section.  Tlie adversaries of Christianity
have lield exclusively to tlic arguments for a political, or rather a
revolutionary, project, on tlic part of Jesus, wliilc tlic orthodox tlic-
ologi.-ins adhere to tliosc only which tell for the pure spirituality of
Ins plan ;* and cadi partv lias laboured to invalidate by hcrmencu-
tical skill the passages unfavourable to its theory.  It lias of late
been acknowledged tliat buih are equally partial, and that there is

nerd of arbitration between them.

This has been attempted chiefly by supposing an earlier and a

later form of tlic plan of Jesus."!" Although, it lias been said, tlie
moral improvement and religious elevation of liis people were froin
the first the primary object of Jesus, lie nevertheless, in tlie begin-
ning of liis public life, cherished the liopc of reviving, by means of
tills internal regeneration, the external glories of the theocracy, when
he sliould be acknowledged by his nation as the Messiah, and thereby
be constituted the supreme authority in tlic state.  But in tlic dis-
appointment of this liopc, lie recognized tlie Divine rejection of every
political clement in liis plan, and thenceforth refined it into pure
spirituality.   It is lield to be a presumption in favour of such a
change in tlic plan of Jesus, tliat there is a gladness diffused over
liis tirst appearance, wliicli gives place to melancholy in tlie latter
period of liis ministry; tliat instead of tlie acceptable year of tlie
Lord, announced in liis initiative address at Nazareth, sorrow is tlie
burthen of Ilia later discourses, and he explicitly says of Jerusalem,
that lie liad attempted to save it, but tliat now its fall, botli religious

• So Heinliani, ulx-r dun Plan. wclihen der Stiftcr der christliehen Kelision zum
Besten der ilenselilieit eutwarf. S. r>7 ff. (4tc AuH.) "t- Paulus, Lebrn Jesu 1. li. S. S.'i,
9+, 1()(; rt.; Vcntiirini, •2, iS. ;ilU f. llase, Lebcn Jeau, 1 ed. § § 49, M. (eoinp. theol.
Streilsi.'liril't, 1, S. (11 tl'.), lliiniKli wilh apparent reluctance, anil be now maintains lhat
lo^n^ li;i,] .i.,i,ii ii'uive tlie iioliticul nuliun of the inr.-isiailic kingdom before Ilia miblic ap-

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.                311

and political, was inevitable. As, however, tlie evangelists do not
keep tlie events and discourses proper to tliese distinct periods within
their respective limits, but happen to give tlie two most important
data for tlie imputation of a political design to Jesus (namely the
promise of the twelve tin-ones and the public entrance into tlie capi-
tal,) near tlie close of liis life; we must attribute to these writers a
chronological confusion, as in tlic case of tlic relation which tlie
views of Jesus bore to tlie messianic idea in general: unless as an
alternative it be conceivable, that Jesus uttered during the same pe-
riod, the declarations wliicli seem to indicate, and tliose wliicli dis-
claim, a political design.

Tills, in our apprehension, is not inconceivable; for Jesus might,
anticipate a Ka0li,eci0ai enl Opovovc; for himself and his disciples, not
regarding tlie means of its attainment as a political revolution, but
as a revolution to be effected bv tlie immediate interposition of God.
Tliat such was liis view may be inferred from liis placing tliat
judiciary appearance of liis disciples in tlie "c/ltyyei'Effia; for this
was not a political revolution, any more than a spiritual regene-
ration,-it was a resurrection of tlie dead, which God was to effect
through the agency of tlic Mcssiali, and which was to usher in the
messianic timcs.f Jesus certainly expected to restore tlic throne of
David, and witli liis disciples to govern a liberated people; in no
degree, however, did lie rest. liis liopes on the sword of human
adherents (Luke xxii. 38. Matt. xxvi. 52.), but on tlic legions of
angels, which liis heavenly Father could send him (Matt. xxvi. 53).
Wherever lie speaks of coming in liis messianic glory, lie depicts
himself surrounded by angels and heavenly powers (Matt. xvi. 27,
xxiv. 30 f. xxv. 31 ; Jolin i. 52.) ; before tlie majesty of the Son
of Man, coming in tlie clouds of heaven, all nations are to bow
without tlie coercion of tlic sword, and at tlie sound of tlie angel's
trumpet, arc to present themselves, witli tlie awakened dead, before
the judgment-scat of the Messiah and liis twelve apostles. All this
Jesus would not bring to pass of liis own will, but lie waited for a
signal from liis heavenly Father, wlio alone knew the appropriate
time for this catastrophe (Mark xiii. 32.), and lie apparently wag
not disconcerted when liis end approached without liis having
received tlie expected intimation.  They who shrink from tills view,
merely because they conceive tliat it makes Jesus an enthusiast,!
will do well to reflect how closely sucli liopes corresponded witli the
long cherished messianic idea of the Jews,:}: and how easily, in that
day of supcrnaturalism, and in a nation segregated by the peculi-
arities of its faith, an idea, in itself extravagant, if only it were
consistent, and liad, in some of its aspects, truth and dignity, might
allure even a reasonable man beneath its influence.

Witli respect to that wliicli awaits tlie righteous after judg-
ment,-everlasting life in tlic kingdom of tlie Father,-it is true

* Fritzsche, in Mittth. p. G06 f.   f De Wette, Bibl. Dogm. g 216.   f Bertholdt,

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

312

that Jesus, in ciccordance with Jewish notions,* compares it to a
feast (Matt. viii. 11; xxii. 2 ff.), at which he hopes himself to taste
the fruit of the vine (Matt. xxvi. 29.), and to celebrate tlie passover
(Luke xxii. 16.): but his declaration that in the awv {i.eXXuv the
organic relation between the sexes will cease, and men will be like
the angels ((CTayye/.ot, Luke xx. 35 ff.), seems more or less to reduce
the above discourses to a merely symbolical significance.

Thus we conclude that the messianic hope of Jesus was not
political, nor even merely earthly, for lie referred its fulfilment to
supernatural means, and to a supermundane theatre (the regenerated
earth): as little was it a purely spiritual liope, in the modern sense
of tlie term, for it included important and unprecedented clianges
in the external condition of things : but it was tlie national, theo-
cratic hope, spiritualized and ennobled by his own peculiar moral
and religious views.

§ 67. THE EELATION OF JESL'S TO THE MOSAIC LAW.

THE mosaic institutions were actually extinguished in tlie church
of which Jesus was the founder; lience it is natural to suppose that
their abolition formed a part of Ins design:-a reach of vision,
beyond the horizon of the ceremonial worship of his age and country,
of which apologists have been ever anxious to prove tliat lie was
possessed, f  Neither are there wanting spceclies and actions of
Jesus which seem to favour their effort. Whenever lie details the
conditions of participation in the kingdom of heaven, as in tlie
sermon on the mount, lie insists, not on tlie observance of the Mo-
saic ritual, but on tlie spirit of religion and morality; he attaches
no value to fasting, praying, and almsgiving, unless accompanied by
a corresponding bent of mind (Matt. vi. 1-18); the two main ele-
ments of the Mosaic worship, sacrifice and tlie keeping of sabbaths
and feasts, he not only nowhere enjoins, but puts a marked sliglit
on the former, by commending the scribe who declared that tlie
love of God and one's neighbour was more than v'/hole burnt-
offerings and sacrifices, as one not far from the kingdom of
God (Mark xii. 23 f.)4 and lie ran counter in action as well as in
speech to tlie customary mode of celebrating tlie Sabbath (Matt.
xii. 1-13: Mark ii. 23-28; iii. 1-5; Luke vi. 1-10; xiii.
10. ff.; xiv. 1. ff. ; Jolm v. 5. ff. ; vii. 22 ; ix. 1. ff.), of which in
his character of Son of Man he claimed to be Lord. Tlie Jews.
too, appear to have expected a revision of the Mosaic law by their
Messiah.§ A somewhat analogous sense is couclied in the decla-
rations attributed by the fourth evangelist to Jesus (ii. 19); Mat-
thew (xxvi. 61.) and Mark (xiv. 58.) represent him as being accused
by false witnesses of saying, I am able to destroy (John, destroy)

* Berthold, Christ. Jud. § 39.   •|' E. g. Eeinharri, Plan Jesu, S. 14 ff.   f For an
----....!._ :_ n,. T?i.;..,,;>o hnsnt.1 vW F,r>i nhaniiis. hares, xxx. 16.   S Bcrtholdt, lit

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.                313

the temple of God (Mark, that is made with hands), and to build
it in three days (Mark, I will build another made without hands).
The author of the Acts has something similar as an article of accu-
sation against Stephen, but instead of the latter half of the sentence
it is thus added, and (lie i. e, Jesus) shall change the customs
which Moses delivered us ; and perhaps this may be regarded as
an authentic comment on the less explicit text. In general it may
be said tliat to one who, like Jesus, is so far alive to tlie absolute
value of tlie internal compared witli the external, of the bent of tlie
entire disposition compared with isolated acts, tliat he pronounces
the love of God and our neighbour to be tlie essence of the law
(Matt. xxii. 36 ff.),-to him it cannot be a secret, that all precepts
of the law which do not bear on these two points are unessential.
But the argument apparently most decisive of a design on tlie
part of Jesus to abolish tlie Mosaic worship, is furnished by hia
prediction tliat the temple, tlie centre of Jcwisli worship (Matt.
xxiv. 2. parall.), would be destroyed, and that tlie adoration of
God would be freed from local fetters, and become purely spiritual
(Jolm iv. 21 ff.).

The above, however, presents only one aspect of the position
assumed by Jesus towards tlie Mosaic law; there are also data for
the belief that lie did not meditate tlie overthrow of tlie ancient
constitution of his country.  This side of the question lias been, at
a former period, and from easily-conceived reasons, tlie one which
the enemies of Christianity in its ecclesiastical form, have chosen
to exhibit ;* but it is only in recent times that, tlie tlicological
horizon being extended, tlie unprejudiced expositors of the churchf
have acknowledged its existence. In the first place, during his life
Jesus remains faithful to tlie paternal law ; lie attends the synagogue
on the sabbath, journeys to Jerusalem at the time of the feast, and
eats of the paschal lamb witli his disciples. It is true tliat lie heals
on tlie sabbath, allows his disciples to pluck ears of corn (Matt. xii.
1. ff.), and requires no fasting or washing before meat in his society
(Matt. iv. 14; xv. 2). But the Mosaic law concerning tlie sabbath
simply prescribed cessation from common labour, fa^-a, (Exod.
xx. 8. ff.; xxxi. 12. ff.; Deut. v. 12. ff.), including ploughing,
reaping, (Ex. xxxiv. 21), gathering of sticks (Numb. xv. 32. ff'.)
and similar work, and it was only the spirit of petty observance, the
growth of a later age, that made it an offence to perform cures, or
pluck a few cars of corn.:}: Tlie wasliing of hands before eating was
but a rabbinical custom ;§ in the law one general yearly fast was
alone prescribed (Lev. xvi. 29 ff.; xxiii. 27 ff.) and no private
lasting required ; hence Jesus cannot be convicted of infringing the
precepts of Moses. |] In tliat very sermon on tlie mount in which
Jesus exalts spiritual religion so far above all ritual, lie clearly

* Tins is done the most concisely in the Wolfenbuttel Fragments, von dem Zweck u.
8. f. S. 66 ff. •)• Especially Fritzschc, in Matt. S. 214 ft; f Winer, bibl. Kealwortcrbuch,
2, S. 406 ff.   § Comp. 1'aulus, exog. Handb. 2, S. 273.   || Wiuer, bibl. Eealw. 1. Bd.

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

314

presupposes the continuation of sacrifices (Matt. v. 23 f.), and de-
clares tliat he is not come to destroy tlie law and the prophets, but
to fulfil (Matt. v. 17.). Even if K^puMi, in all probability, refers
chiefly to tlie accomplishment of the Old Testament prophecies, OVR
fj^Obv K.a-aXvaa.i must at tlie same time be understood of tlie con-
servation of the Mosaic law, since in the context, perpetuity la
promised to its smallest letter, and lie "who represents its lightest
precept as not obligatory, is threatened witli tlie lowest rank in tlio
kingdom of heaven.* In accordance with this, the apostles adhered
strictly to the Mosaic law, even after tlie Feast of Pentecost; they
went at tlie hour of prayer into tlie temple (Acts iii. 1.), clung to
the synagogues and to the Mosaic injunctions respecting food (x. 14),
and were unable to appeal to any express declaration of Jesus as a
sanction for tlie procedure of Barnabas and Paul, when tlie judaizing
party complained of their baptizing Gentiles witliout laying on them

tlie burthen of the Mosaic law.

Tills apparent contradiction in tlie conduct and language of Je-
sus, lias been apologetically explained by the supposition, that not,
only tlie personal obedience of Jesus to tlie law, but also his decla-
rations in its favour, were a necessary concession to tlie views of Ilia
cotcmporarics, wlio would at once have withdrawn their confidence
from him, liad lie announced himself as the destroyer of their lioly
and venerated law.f \Vc allow tliat tlie obedience of Jesus to tlie
law in his own person, might bo explained in tlie same way as that
of Paul, which, on his own sliowing, was a measure of mere ex-
pediency (1 Cor. ix. 20. comp. Acts xvi. 3.). But, tlie strong de-
clarations of Jesus concerning tlie perpetuity of the law, and tlie
guilt of him who dares to violate its liglitest precept,- cannot pos-
sibly be derived from tlie principle of concession; for to pronounce
that indispensable, wliicli one secretly holds superfluous, and which
one even seeks to bring gradually into disuse, would, leaving hon-
esty out of the question, be in tlie last degree injudicious.

IIcnce others have made a distinction between the moral and
the ritual law, and referred the declaration of Jesus tliat lie wished
not to abrogate tlie law, to tlie former alone, which lie extricated
from a web of trivial ceremonies, and embodied in his own exam-
ple.:!: But such a distinction is not found in tliose striking passage,-,
from tlie Sermon on the Mount; rather, in tlie vo^ and -rpo<^ra(.,
the law and tlie pro_/)/i.ets, wo have tlie most comprehensive desig-
nation of the whole religious constitution of tlie Old Testament,§
and under tlie most trivial commandment, and the smallest letter of
the law, alike pronounced imperishable, we cannot well understand

any tiling else than tlie ceremonial precepts.||

A liappicr distinction is tliat between really Mosaic institutes,
and their traditional amplifications.^ It is certain that tlie Sabbath

* Fritzsche, S. 211 ff,  + Kuinliani, S, 15 ft; Planrk, Grsrhirlite dea Cliristentliui-ns

in tier Pin-lode sv'iiwr Eiiifuliruiii;, 1, S, 17,') ff.  j: Ur Wrttr, liibi, Ihi^m, § 210,  tj 1'ritz.
-•••  •   ••'...>;.. u (;<>.   m P;uilus. exc'i;, lliiinlb. 1, U. S, UOO f.

315

JESL'S AS THE MESSIAH.

cures of Jesus, his neglect of the pedantic ablutions before eating,
and the like, ran counter, not to Moses, but to later rabbinical re-
quirements, and several discourses of Jesus turn upon this distinc-
tion.  Matt. xv. 3 ff., Jesus places the commandment of God in
opposition to the tradition of tlie elders, and Matt. xxiii. 23, lie de-
clares tliat where they are compatible, the former may be observed
without rejecting tlie latter, in which case he admonishes the people
to do all tliat the Scribes and Pharisees enjoin; where on the con-
trary, cither tlie one or tlie other only can be respected, he decides
that it is better to transgress the tradition of the Elders, tlian the
commandment of God as given by Moses (Matt. xv. 3 ff.).  lie
describes tlie mass of traditional precepts, as a burthen grievous to
be borne, wliicli lie would remove from tlie oppressed people, sub-
stituting Ills own light burthen and easy yoke; whence it may be
seen, tliat witli all his forbearance towards existing institutions, so
far as tlicy were not positively pernicious, it was his intention tliat
all these commandments of 'meii, as plants wliicli Ills heavenly Fa-
ther liad not planted, should be rooted up (xv. 9. 13.). The majority
of tlie Pharisaical precepts referred to externals, and had tlie effect
of burying the noble morality of the Mosaic law under a lieap of
ceremonial observances; a gift to tlie temple sufficed to absolve tlie
giver froin his filial duties (xv. 5.), and the payment of tithe of
anise and cummin superseded justice, mercy and faith (xxiii. 23.).
Hence tills distinction is in some degree identical with tlie former,
since in tlie rabbinical institutes it was their merely ceremonial ten-
dency tliat Jesus censured, wliilc, in the Mosaic law, it was tlie
kernel of religion and morality tliat lie chiefly valued. It must only
not be contended tliat he regarded tlie Mosaic law as permanent
solely in its spiritual part, for tlio passages quoted, especially from
the Sermon on tlie Mount, clearly show tliat he did not contemplate
the abolition of tlie merely ritual precepts.

Jesus, supposing tliat lie liad discerned morality and tlie spirit-
ual worship of God to be tlie sole essentials in religion, must have
rejected all wliicli, being merely ritual and formal, liad usurped the
importance of a religious obligation, and under tills description must
tall a large proportion of tlie Mosaic precepts; but it is well known
liow slowly such consequences arc deduced, when tlicy come into
collision with usages consecrated by antiquity. Even Samuel, ap-
parently, was aware tliat obedience is better than sacrifice (1 Sam.
xv. 22), and Asapli, tliat an offering of thanksgiving is more accept-
able to God than one of slain animals (Ps. 1.); yet liow long after
were sacrifices retained together witli true obedience, or in its stead!
Jesus was more thoroughly penetrated with tills conviction than
tliose ancients; witli him, the true commandments of God in the
Mosaic law were simply, Honour thy father and thy mother, Thou
shcdt not kill, &c., and above all, Thou shall love tlie Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and thy ncliJhbonr as thyself. But his

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

316

the sake of these essential contents, to honour the unessential
which was the more natural, as in comparison with the absurdly
exaggerated pedantry of tlie traditional observances, the ritual of the
Pentateuch must have appeared highly simple. To honour this latter
part of the law as of Divine origin, but to declare it abrogated on
the principle, that in the education of the human race, God finds
necessary for an earlier period an arrangement which is superfluous
for a later one, implies that idea of the law as a schoolmaster, v6fiog
Traidaywyoc (Gal. iii. 24.), which seems first to have been developed
by tlie apostle Paul; nevertheless its germ lies in the declaration of
Jesus, that God had permitted to tlie early Hebrews, on account of
the hardness of their hearts, (Matt. six. 8 f.) many things, which,
in a more advanced stage of culture, were inadmissible.

A similar limitation of the duration of tlie law is involved in tlie.
predictions of Jesus, (if indeed they were uttered by Jesus, a point
wliicli we have to discuss,) that the temple would be destroyed at
his approaching advent (Matt. xxiv. parall.), and that devotion
would be freed from all local restrictions (Jolin iv.); for with tlicse
must fall tlie entire Mosaic system of external worsliip. Tills is not
contradicted by tlie declaration that tlie law would endure until
heaven and earth should pass away (Matt. v. 18.), for tlie Hebrew
associated tlie fall of his state and sanctuary with the end of tlie old
world or dispensation, so that the expressions, so long as tlie temple
stands, and so long as the world stands, were equivalent.* It is
true tliat tlie words of Jesus, Lake xvi. 16., o v6^.og K.a'i. ol npwt>i]rai
w<; '\udvvov seem to imply, that tlie appearance of tlie. Baptist put
an end to tlie validity of the law; but this passage loses its depre-
ciatory sense when compared with its parallel, Matt. xi. 13. On
the other hand, Luke xvi. 17. controls Matt. v. 18., and reduces it
to a mere comparison between the stability of tlie law and that of
heaven and earth. The only question then is, in which of the gospels
are the two passages more correctly stated ? As given in tlie first,
they intimate tliat the law would retain its supremacy until, and not
after, tlie close of tlie old dispensation.  With this agrees the pre-
diction, that tlie temple would be destroyed; for tlie spiritualization
of religion, and, according to Stephen's interpretation, tlie abolition
of tlie Mosaic law, wliicli were to be tlie results of tliat event, were
undoubtedly identified by Jesus with tlie commencement of tlie a'Mv
^e/Utiw of tlie Messiah,  Hence it appears, tliat the only difference
between tlie view of Paul and tliat of Jesus is this: that the latter
anticipated tlie extinction of tlie Mosaic system as a concomitant of
his glorious advent or return to tlie regenerated earth, while the
former believed its abolition permissible on the old, unregcnerated
earth, in virtue of tlie Messiah's first advent, f

* Comp. Paulus, exeg. IIandb. 1. B. S. S98 f.
t Comp. IIase, L. J. S. 81. Kabbincal notions of the abrogation of the Law in

a-Anti.o.cr, ii. s. (ill ff.

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.                317

§ 68. SCOPE OF THE MESSIANIC PLAN OF JESUS-RELATIONS TO THE
GENTILE8.

ALTHOUGH the church founded by Jesus did, in fact, early ex-
tend itself beyond tlie limits of the Jewish people, there are yet
indications wliicli might induce a belief tliat lie did not contemplate
such a.n extension.* When he sends the twelve on their first mis-
sion, his command is, Go not into the, way of the Gentiles-Go
rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. x. 5 f.). That
Matthew alone has tills injunction and not tlie two other synoptists,
is less probably explained by the supposition that tlie Hebrew au-
thor of tlie first gospel interpolated it, than by the opposite one,
namely, tliat it -was wilfully omitted by the Hellenistic authors
of the second and third gospels. For, as the judaizing tendency of
Mattliew is not so marked that he assigns to Jesus the intention of
limiting tlie messianic kingdom to tlie Jews; as, on the contrary,
he makes Jesus unequivocally foretel tlie calling of the Gentiles
(viii. 11 f. xxi. 33 ff. xxii. 1 ff. xxviii. 19 f.): he had no motive
for fabricating this particularizing addition ; but the two other evan-
gelists had a strong one for its omission; in the offence which it
would cause to the Gentiles already within tlie fold. Its presence
in Mattliew, however, demands an explanation, and expositors have
thought to furnish one by supposing the injunction of Jesus to be
a measure of prudence, f It is unquestionable that, even if the plan
of Jesus comprehended the Gentiles as well as the Jews, he must
at first, if he would not for ever ruin his cause with his fellow-coun-
trymen, adopt, and prescribe to the disciples, a rule of national ex-
clusiveness. This necessity on hia part might account for his answer
to the Canaanitish woman, whose daughter he refuses to heal, be-
cause he was only sent to the lost sheep of the liouse of Israel (Matt.
XY. 24), were it not that the boon which he here denies is not a
reception into the messianic kingdom, but a temporal benefit, such
as even Elijah and Elisha had conferred on those who were not
Israelites (1 Kings xvii. 9 ff. 2 Kings v. 1 ff.)-examples to which
Jesus elsewhere appeals (Luke iv. 25 ff.). Tience the disciples
thought it natural and unobjectionable to grant the woman's peti-
tion, and it could not be prudential considerations that withheld Je-
sus, for a time, from compliance. That an aversion to the Gentiles
may not appear to be his motive, it has been conjectured f that
Jesus, wishing to preserve an incognito in that country, avoided the
performance of any messianic work. But sucli a design of conceal-
ment is only mentioned by Mark (vii. 25.), wlio represents it as
being defeated by the entreaties of the woman, contrary to the
inclinations of Jesus; and as this evangelist omits tlie declaration
ot Jesus, tliat he was not sent but to tlie lost sheep of the house of

''' Thus the Wolfenbuttel Fragmentist, ut sup. S. 72 ff. + Reinhard ; Planck, Ge-
achichte des Clirislenthums in der Per. seiner Einfulirung, 1, S. 179 tE f Paulus, Leben

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

318

Israel, we must suspect that lie was guided by the wish to supply
a less offensive motive for tlie conduct of Jeans, rather than by his-
torical accuracy. Had Jesus really bccu influenced by the motive
which Mark assigns, he must at once have alleged it to his disciples
instead of a merely ostensible one, calculated to strengthen their
already rigid exclusiveness. We should therefore rather listen to
tlic opinion tliat Jesus sought, by Ids repeated refusal, to prove tlie
faitli of the woman, and furnish an occasion for its exhibition,* if
we could find in tlic text the sliglitcst trace of mere dissimulation;

and none of a real change of mind.f Even Mark, bent as lie was
on softening tlic features of tlie incident, cannot have thought of a
dissimulation of tills kind; otherwise, instead of omitting tlie harsh
words and making the inadequate addition, and would have no man,
knoic it, lie would have removed the offence in tlie most satisfactory
manner, by an observation such as, he said this to prove, her (comp.
John vi. 6.). Thus it must be allowed that Jesus in this case sccma
to share the antipathy of his countrymen towards tlie Gentiles, nay,
his antipathy seems to be of a deeper stamp than tliat of his dis-
ciples ; unless their advocacy of tlie woman be a touch from the
pencil of tradition, for tlie sake of contrast and grouping.

This narrative, however, is neutralized by another, in which Je-
sus is said to act in a directly opposite manner. The centurion of
Capernaum, also a Gentile, (as we gather from tlie remarks of Je-
sus,) lias scarcely complained of a distress similar to that of tlie Ca-
naanitlsh woman, when Jesus himself volunteers to go and heal his
servant (Matt. viii. 5.).   If, then, Jesus has no hesitation, in this
instance, to exercise his power of healing in favour of a lieatlion,
how comes it tliat lie refuses to do so in another quite analogous
case? Truly if the relative position of tlie two narratives in tlie
gospels have any wciglit, lie must have shown himself more. harsh
and narrow at the later period than at tlie earlier one. Meanwhile,
tlus single act of benevolence to a Gentile, standing as it docs in
inexplicable contradiction to tlie narrative above examined, cannot
prove, in opposition to tlie command expressly given to the disciples,
not to go to the Gentiles, tliat Jesus contemplated their admission

as such into the messianic kingdom.

Even the prediction of Jesus tliat tlie kingdom of heaven would.
be taken from tlie Jews and given to tlie Gentiles, does not prove this.
In tlic above interview with tlie centurion of Capernaum, Jesus de-
clares tliat many shall come from the east and t/ie u'est, and sit
down with tlie patriarchs in the kingdom of heaven, while tlie
children of the kingdom, (obviously the Jews,) for whom it was
originally designed, will be cast out (Matt. viii. 11 f.).  Yet more
decidedly, when applying tlie parable of tlic husbandmen in the
vineyard, lie warns his countrymen tliat the kingdom of God shall
be taken from them, and given, to a nation bringing forth the
fmiifs f.hp.rp.of (^,\alt. xxi. 43.'). All this may be understood in the

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.                319

sense intended by the prophets, in their promises tliat tlie messianic
kingdom would extend to all nations; namely, tliat tlie Gentiles
would turn to tlie worship of Jehovah, embrace tlie Mosaic religion
in its entire form, and afterwards be received into the Messiah's
kingdom.   It would accord very well with tills expectation, tliat,
prior to sucli a conversion, Jesus sliould forbid his disciples to direct
their announcement of his kingdom to tlie Gentiles.

But in tlic discourses concerning, his re-appearance, Jesus re-
gards tlie publication of tlie Gospel to all nations as one of the
circumstances tliat must precede that event: (Matt. xxiv, 14.
Mark xiii. 10.), and after his resurreciion, according to the synop-
tists, he gave his disciples the command, Go ye, and teach all na-
tions, baptizing them, &c. (Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; Luke
xxiv. 47.); i. e. go to them witli the offer of tlie Messiah's kingdom,
even though they may not beforehand have become Jews.   Not
only, however, do the disciples, after tlie first Pentecost, neglect to
execute, tins command, but when a case is thrust on them which
offers them an opportunity for compliance with it, they act as if they
were altogether ignorant that such a direction had been given, by
Jesus (Acts x. xi.). The heathen centurion Cornelius, worthy, from
Ins devout life, of a reception into tlic messianic community is pointed
out by an angel to tlic apostle Peter. But because it was not hidden
from God, with what difficulty tlie apostle would be induced to re-
ceive a heathen, witliout further preliminary, into the Messiah's
kingdom, he saw it needful to prepare him for such a step by a sym-
bolical vision.   In consequence of sucli an admonition Peter goes
to Cornelius; but to impel him to baptize liirn and his family, lie
needs a second sign, the pouring out of tlie Holy Gliost on these
uncircumcised. When, subsequently, tlie Jewish Christians- in Je-
rusalem call him to account for tills reception of Gentiles, Peter
appeals in his justification solely to the recent vision, and to the
Holy Gliost given to the centurion's family. Whatever judgment
we may form of tlie. credibility of this liistory, it is a memorial of
tlie many deliberations and contentions wliicli it cost the apostles
after tlic departure of Jesus, to convince themselves of tlie eligibility
of Gentiles for a participation in tlie kingdom of tlieir Christ, and
tlic reasons which at last brought them to a decision. Now if Jesus
had given so explicit a command as tliat above quoted, wliat need
was tlicre of a vision to encourage Peter to its fulfilment? or, sup-
posing tlie vision to be a legendary investiture of the natural delib-
erations of tlie disciples, why did they go about in search of the
reflection, that all men ought to be baptized, because before God all
men and all animals, as his creatures, are clean, if they could have
appealed to an express injunction of Jesus ? Here, then, is tlie al-
ternative: if Jesus himself gave this command, the disciples cannot
have been led to tlie admission of tlie Gentiles by the means narrated
in Acts x. xl.; if, on tlie other hand, tliat narrative is authentic, the

320

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

for the latter proposition. For that the subsequent practice and pre-
eminent distinction of the Christian Church, its accessibility to all
nations, and its indifference to circumcision or uncircumcision, should
have lain in the mind of its founder, is the view best adapted to
exalt and adorn Jesus; while, that, first after his death, and through
the gradual development of relations, tlie church, which its Founder
had designed for the Gentiles only in so far as they became Jews,
should break through tliese limits, is in the simple, natural, and
therefore the probable course of tilings.

§ 69. RELATION OP THE MESSIANIC PLAN OP JESUS TO THE SAMARI-
TANS--HIS INTERVIEW WITH THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA.

THERE is the same apparent contradiction in the position -which
Jesu-s took, and prescribed to his disciples, towards the inhabitants
of Samaria. While in his instructions to his disciples, (Matt. x. 5,)
he forbids them to visit any city of the Samaritans, we read in John
(iv.) lhat Jesus himself in his journey through Samaria laboured as
the Messiah with great effect, and ultimately stayed two days in a
Samaritan town; and in the Acts (i. 8), that before his ascension he
charged the disciples to be his witnesses, not only in Jerusalem and
in all Judea, but also in Samaria. That Jesus did not entirely shun
Samaria, as that prohibition might appear to intimate, is evident
from Luke ix. 52. (comp. xvii. 11.), where his disciples bespeak
lodgings for him in a Samaritan village, when he has determined to
go to Jerusalem; a circumstance which accords with the information
of Josephus, tliat those Galileans who journeyed to the feasts usually
went through Samaria.* That Jesus was not unfavourable to the
Samaritans, nay, tliat in many respects lie acknowledged their su-
periority to the Jews, is evident from his parable of tlie Good Sa-
maritan (Luke x. 30 ff.); he also bestows a marked notice on the
case of a Samaritan, who, among ten cleansed, was tlie only one
that testified his gratitude (Luke xvii. 16); and, if we may venture
on such a conclusion from John iv. 25, and subsequent records,! the
inliabitants of Samaria themselves had some tincture of the messi-
anic idea.

However natural it may appear that Jesus should avail himself
of this susceptible side of the Samaritans, by opportunely announc-
ing to them tlie messianic kingdom ; the aspect which the four
evangelists bear to each other on flits subject must excite surprise.
Matthew has no occasion on which Jesus comes in contact with the
Samaritans, or even mentions them, except in tlie prohibition above
quoted; Mark is more neutral than Mattliew, and has not even that
prohibition; Luke has two instances of contact, one of them unfa-
vourable, the other favourable, together with the parable in wincli
Jesus presents a Samaritan as a model, and his approving notice of

* Antia. xx. vi. 1. For some rabbinical rules not quite in accordance with this, see

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.                321

the gratitude of one whom he had healed ; John, finally, has a nar-
rative in which Jesus appears in a very intimate and highly favour-
able relation to the Samaritans. Are all tliese various accounts
well-founded ? If so, how could Jesus at one time prohibit his dis-
ciples from including tlie Samaritans in the messianic plan, and at
another time, himself receive them witliout hesitation ? Moreover,
if tlie chronological order of the evangelists deserve regard, the
ministry of Jesus in Samaria must have preceded tlie prohibition
contained in his instructions to his disciples on their first mission.
For the scene of tliat mission being Galilee, and there being no space
for its occurrence during the short stay which, according- to the fourth

0                                      */                     '                          o

evangelist, Jesus made in tliat province before tlie first passover (ii.
1-13.), it must be placed after that passover ; and, as the visit to
Samaria was made on Ills journey, after tliat visit also. How, then,
could Jesus, after having with tlie most desirable issue, personally
taught in Samaria, and presented himself as tlie Messiah, forbid his
disciples to carry thither their messianic tidings ? On the other
hand, if tlie scenes narrated bv John occurcd after the command re-
corded by Mattliew, tlie disciples, instead of wondering tliat Jesus
talked so earnestly with a woman (John iv, 27.), ought rather to
have wondered that lie lield any converse with a Samaritan*

Since then of tlie two extreme narratives at least, in Matthew
and John, neither presupposes the other, we must eitlier doubt the
autlienticity of the exclusive command of Jesus, or of his connexion
with the inhabitants of Samaria.

Li flits conflict between the gospels, we have again the advantage
of appealing to tlie Book of Acts as an umpire. Before Peter, at the
divine instigation, had received the first fruits of tlie Gentiles into
tlie Messiah's kingdom, Philip tlie deacon, being driven from Jeru-
salem by the persecution of which Stephen's deatli was tlie com-
mencement, journeyed to the city of Samaria, wliere lie preached
Christ, and by miracles of all kinds won tlie Samaritans to the faith,
and to the reception of baptism (Acts viii. 5 ff.). This narrative is
a complete contrast to tliat of the first admission of tlie Gentiles:

while in the one tliere was need of a vision, and a special intima-
tion from tlie Spirit, to bring Peter into communication with the
heathens; in tlie other, Philip, witliout any precedent, unhesitat-
ingly baptizes tlie Samaritans. And lest it should bo said that the
deacon was perhaps of a more liberal spirit than tlie apostle, we
have Peter himself coming forthwith to Samaria in company with
Jolm,-an incident which forms another point of opposition between
tlie two narratives ; for, wliile the 'first admission of tlie Gentiles
makes a highly unfavourable impression on the mother church at
Jerusalem, the report tliat Samaria had received the -word of God
meets with so warm an approval there, tliat the two most dis-
tinguished apostles are commissioned to confirm and consummate
tlie work begun by Philip. The tenor of this proceeding makes it

M. r>

322

THE LtFE OF JESUS.

not improbable that there was a precedent for it in the conduct of
Jesus, or at least a sanction in his expressions.

The narrative in tlie fourth Gospel (iv.) would form a perfect
precedent in the conduct of Jesus, but we have yet to examine
whether it bear the stamp of historical credibility. We do not,
with the author of tlie Probabilia, stumble at the designation of tlie
locality, and tlie opening of tlie conversation between Jesus and tlie
woman;* but from v. 16 inclusively, there are, as impartial exposi-
tors confess,! many grave difficulties. Tlie woman had entreated
Jesus to give lier of tlie water which was for ever to extinguish
thirst, and Jesus immediately says, Go, call thy husband. Why
so ? It has been said that Jesus, well knowing that tlie woman had
no lawful husband, sought to shame her, and bring her to repcnt-
ance.t Lucke, disapproving the imputation of dissimulation to Je-
sus, conjectures tliat, perceiving the woman's dulness, lie hoped by
summoning her husband, possibly her superior in intelligence, to
create an opportunity for a more beneficial conversation. But if Je-
sus, as it presently appears, knew tliat tlie woman had not at tlie
time any proper husband, lie could not in earnest desire her to sum-
mon him; and if, as Liicke allows, lie had tliat knowledge in a su-
pernatural manner, it could not be liidden from him, wlio knew wliat
was in man, tliat slie would be little inclined to comply with Ills
injunction.  If however, lie liad a prescience tliat what lie required
would not be done, tlie injunction was a feint, and liad some latent
object. But tliat this object was the penitence of the woman there
is no indication in the text, for the ultimate effect on her is not
shame and penitence, but faith in the prophetic insight of Jesus (v.
19). And this was doubtless what Jesus wislicd, for the narrative
proceeds as if lie liad attained his purpose witli the woman, and the
issue corresponded to the design. The difficulty here lies, not so
much in wliat Lucke terms dissimulation,-since this comes under
the category of blameless temptation (rretpa^ctv), elsewhere occur-
ing,-as in tlie violence with wliicli Jesus wrests an opportunity
for tlie display of his prophetic gifts.

By a transition equally abrupt, the woman urges the conversa-
tion to a point at which the Messiahship of Jesus may become fully
evident. As soon as slie lias recognized Jesus to be a prophet, she
hastens to consult him on the controversy pending between tlie Jews
and Samaritans, as to tlie place appropriated to tlie true worship of
God (v. 20.). That so vivid an interest in tins national and religious
question is not consistent with tlie limited mental and circumstantial
condition of the woman, the majority of modern commentators vir-
tually confess, by their adoption of tlie opinion, tliat her drift in this
remark was to turn away tlie conversation from her own affairs.f
If then tlie implied query concerning tlie place for the true worship
of God, had no serious interest for the woman, but was prompted by

* Rr<.t^1,nn;rl»r nt «nn S 4.7 fl- 97 f.   + Lueke. 1. S. 520 ffi   t Tholuck, in loo.

JESCS AS THE MESSIAH.

323

a false shame calculated to liinder confession and repentance, those
expositors should remember wliat they elsewhere repeat to satiety,*
that in tlie gospel of Jolin tlie answers of Jesus refer not so much
to the ostensible meaning of questions, as to the under current of
feeling of which they are tlie indications. In accordance witli this
method, Jesus should not have answered the artificial question of
tlie woman as if it had been one of deep seriousness; he ought rather
to have evaded it, and recurred to tlie already detected stain on her
conscience, which slie was now seeking to lilde, in order if possible
to bring lier to a full conviction and open avowal of her guilt. But
the fact is that the object of tlie evangelist was to show that Jesus
liad been recognized, not merely as a prophet, but as the Messiah,
and lie believed tliat to turn tlie conversation to the question of the
legitimate place for the worship of God, the solution of which was
expected from the Messiah,')" would best conduce to tliat end.

Jesus evinces (v. 17.) an acquaintance witli the past history
and present position of tlie woman.  Tlie rationalists have endeav-
oured to explain this by the supposition, tliat wliile Jesus sat at the
well, and tlie woman was advancing from tlie city, some passer-by
liinted to him that lie liad better not engage in conversation with
her, as slie was on the watch to obtain a sixtli husband. { But not
to insist on the improbability tliat a. passer-by sliould hold a colloquy
witli Jesus on tlie character of an obscure woman, tlie friends as
well as tlie enemies of the fourth gospel now agree, that every natu-
ral explanation of that knowledge on tlie part of Jesus, directly
counteracts tlie design of the evangelist.§ For according to him, the
disclosure which Jesus makes of his privity to the woman's intimate
concerns, is tlie immediate cause, not only for lier own faitli in him,
but of that of many inhabitants of tlie city (v. 39.), and lie obviously
intends to imply that they were not too precipitate in receiving him
as a prophet, on tliat ground alone. Thus in tlie view of the evan-
gelist, tlie knowledge in question was an effluence of tlie higher nat-
ure of Jesus, and modern supranaturalists adhere to tills explanation,
adducing in its support the power which John attributes to him (ii.
24 f.), of discerning wliat. is in man without tlie aid of external testi-
mony. || But tills does not meet the case; for Jesus here not only
knows wliat is in the woman,-lier present equivocal state of mind
towards him wlio is not lier liusband,-he lias cognizance also of

'                               0

the extrinsic fact tliat slie lias liad five husbands, of whom we can-
not suppose that eacli liad left a distinct image in her mind traceable
by the observation of Jesus. That by means of tlie ^.uietrative acu-
men witli which he scrutinized the hearts of those with wliom lie had
to do, Jesus sliould also have a prophetic insight into his own mes-
sianic destiny, and tlie fortunes of his kingdom, may under a certain
view of his person appear probable, and in any case must be deemed

* E. g. Tholuck, iu may passages,  •)• Comp. Scliiittgen, horae, i. S.970 f. Wetstein,
S. 8G3.   + Pauhis. Lphpn.Ipi.ii 1 a 1 ("? • f.^^^t i ;" l-    2 <-•„„,„ m.i,.,....,.. ;..

324 THE LIFE OF JESUS.

in the higliest degree dignified; but that he should be acquainted,
even to the most trivial details, with the adventitious history of ob-
scure individuals, is an idea that degrades him in proportion to the
exaltation of his prophetic dignity. Sucli empirical knowing/ness (not
omniscience) would moreover anniliilate the human consciousness
which the orthodox view supposes to co-exist in Jesus.* But the
possession of tills knowledge, however it may clash with our con-
ception of dignity and wisdom, closely corresponds to the Jewish
notion of a prophet, more especially of tlie Messiah; in the Old Tes-
tament, Daniel recites a dream of Nebuchadnezzar, which that mon-
arch himself had forgotten (Dan. ii.); in the Clementine Homilies,
the true prophet is 6 TrdvrorE ndvra £(d(i»c- ra [IKV yeyovoTa (if sys-
VSTO, -u. 6e yivopsva wg yive-ai,, ~a 6e iadfieva &)(,• 'Karat •^ and the rab-
bins number such a knowledge of personal secrets among the signs
of the Messiah, and observe that from tlie want of it, Bar-Cocheba
was detected to be a pseudo-Messiah.^

Farther on (v. 23.) Jesus reveals to tlie woman what IIase terma
the sublimest principle of his religion, namely, that tlie service of
God consists in a life of piety; tells her that all ceremonial worship
is about to be abolished; and tliat lie is tlie personage who will effect
tills momentous cliange, tliat is, the Messiah. We have already
shown it to be improbable that Jesus, wlio did not give his disciplea
to understand that lie •vf&s tlie Messiali until a comparatively late
period, should make an early and distinct disclosure on the subject
to a Samaritan woman. In what respect was she worthy of a com-
munication more explicit tlian ever fell to the lot of the disciples ?
What could induce Jesus to send roaming into tlie futurity of re-
ligious history, tlie contemplation of a woman, whom lie sliould
rather have induced to examine herself, and to ponder on the cor-
ruptions of her own heart ? Nothing but the wish to elicit from her,
at any cost, and without regard to her moral benefit, an acknowl-
edgement, not only of his prophetic gifts, but of his Messiahship;

to which end it was necessary to give the conversation the above
direction. But. so contracted a design can never be imputed to Je-
sus, who on oilier occasions, exemplifies a more suitable mode of
dealing with mankind: it is the design of the glorifying legend, or
of an idealizing biographer.

Meanwhile, continues the narrative (v. 27.), tlie disciples of Je-
sus returned from the city with provisions, and marvelled that be
talked with a woman, contrary to rabbinical rule.§ Wliile the woman,
excited by the last disclosure of Jesus, hastens homeward to invite
her fellow-citizens to come and behold the Messiali-like stranger, the
disciples entreat him to partake of the food they liave procured; he
answers, I have meat to eat that ye know not of (v. 32). They,
misunderstanding his words, imagine that some person lias supplied
him witli food in their absence: one of those carnal interpretations

a JQ f 4- TT/i

12.  + Schi'lttsen.

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.

325

of expressions intended spiritually by Jesus, which arc of perpetual
recurrence in tlie fourth gospel, and are therefore suspicious. Than
follows a discourse on sowing and reaping (v. 35 ff.), which, com-
pared witli v. 37., can only mean that what Jesus lias sown, tlie
disciples will reap.* We admit that this is susceptible of the gen-
eral interpretation, tliat the germ of tlie kingdom of God, which
blossomed and bore fruit under tlie cultivation of the apostles, was
first deposited in tlie world by Jesus: but it cannot be denied tliat
a special application is also intended. Jesus foresees that tlie woman,
wlio is hastening towards the city, will procure him an opportunity
of sowing tlie seed of tlie gospel in Samaria, and lie promises the
disciples tliat they at a future time sliall reap tlie fruits of his la-
bours. Who is not here reminded of the propagation of Christianity
in Samaria by Pliilip and tlie apostles, as narrated in the Acts Pf
Tliat, even abstracting all supcriiaturalisni from our idea of tlie per-
son of Jesus, lie might have foreseen tills progress of Ins cause in
Samaria from his knowledge of its inhabitants, is not to be denied;

but as tlie above figurative prediction forms part of a whole more
than improbable in an historical point of view, it is equally liable to
suspicion, especially as it is easy to show how it might originate
without any foundation in fact. According to tlie prevalent tradition
of the early church, as recorded in tlie synoptical gospels, Jesus la-
boured personally in Galileo, Judea, and Perca only,-not in Sa-
maria, which, however, as we learn from the Acts, embraced the
gospel at no remote period from his death. How natural tlie ten-
dency to perfect tlie agency of Jesus, by representing him to have
sown tlie heavenly seed in Samaria, thus extending his ministry
through all parts of Palestine ; to limit the glory of tlie apostles and
other teachers to tliat of being tlie mere reapers of the harvest in
Samaria; and to put this distinction, on a suitable occasion, into the
mouth of Jesus!

The result, tlien, of our examination of John's Samaritan nar-
rative is, that we cannot receive it as a real history: and the im-
pression wliicli it leaves as a whole tends to the same conclusion.
Since IIeracleon and Origen,j: the more ancient commentators have
seldom refrained from giving the interview of Jesus witli tlie woman
of Samaria an allegorical interpretation, on tlie ground tliat tlie en-
tire scene lias a legendary and poetic colouring. Jesus is seated at
a well,-tliat idyllic locality with which tlie old Hebrew legend as-
sociates so many critical incidents; at the identical well, moreover,
which a tradition, founded on Gen. xxxiii. 19; xlviii. 22; Josli.
xxiv. 32, reported to have been given by Jacob to his son Joseph;

hence tlie spot, in addition to its idyllic interest, lias the more de-
cided consecration of national and patriarchal recollections, and is
all tlie more worthy of being trodden by the Messiali. At the well
Jesus meets with a woman who has come out to draw water, just

* liflche, 1, S. 543.   + Lucke, S. 540. note. Bretschneidcr. S. B2.   t Comin. in

326 THE LIFE OF JESUS.

as, in the Old Testament, tlie expectant Eliezer encounters Rcbekah
with her pitclicr, and as Jacob meets with Rachel, tlio destined an-
cestress of Israel, or Moses with his future wife. Jesus begs of the
woman to let him drink; so does Eliezer of Rebekah ; after Jesus
has made himself known to the woman as the Messiah, slie runs
back to tlie city, and fetches her neighbours : so Rebekah, after Eli-
ezer has announced himself as Abraham's steward, and Racliel, after
slic has discovered tliat Jacob is her kinsman, hasten homeward to
call their friends to welcome the honoured guest. It is, certainly,
not one blameless as those early mothers in Israel, whom Jesus here
encounters ; for tins woman came forth as tlie representative of an
impure people, who had been faithless to their marriage bond witli
Jehovah, and were tlicn living in tlie practice of a false worship;

while her good-will, her deficient moral strength, and her obtuseness
in spiritual tilings, perfectly typify the actual state of tlie Samaritans.
Thus, the interview of Jesus with tlie woman of Samaria, is only
a poetical representation of his ministry among the Samaritans nar-
rated in the sequel; and tills is itself a legendary prelude to tlie pro-
pagation of tlie gospel in Samaria after the death of Jesus.

Renouncing tlie event in question as unhistorical, we know noth-
ing of any connexion formed by Jesus with tlie Samaritans, and
there remain as indications of Ills views regarding them, only Ins fa-
vourable notice of an individual from among them, (Luke xvii. 16.);

his unpropitious reception in one of their villages (Luke ix. 53.); the
prohibition with respect to them, addressed to his disciples (Matt. x.
5.); tlie eulogistic parable, (Luke x. 30. ft'.); and his valedictory
command, that the gospel should be preached in Samaria (Acts i. 8).
This express command being subsequent to tlie resurrection of Je-
sus, its reality must remain problematical for us until we have ex-
amined the evidence for that capital fact; and it is to be questioned
whether without it, and notwithstanding the alleged prohibition, the
unhesitating conduct of the apostles, Acts viii., can be explained.
Are we then to suppose on tlie part of tlie apostolic history, a can-
celling of hesitations and deliberations tliat really occurred; or on
the part of Matthew, an unwarranted ascription of national bigotry
to Jesus; or, finally, on tlie part of Jesus, a progressive enlarge-
ment of view ?