t
]L I B K ^ R Y
Theological Seniina r,y ,
PRINCETON, N. J,
>Shflf Scc;;ont.Q2..7.S.
J5oo/, fjo y.3.
^ ?
THEOLOGICAL
TRANSLATION FUND LIBRARY.
VOL. XIV.
KEIM'S HISTORY
OF
JESUS OF NAZARA.
VOL. III.
THE HISTOEY
JESUS OF NAZAEA,
FEEELY INVESTIGATED
IN ITS CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL LIFE OF ISRAEL,
AND RELATED IN DETAIL.
v^
DR. THEODOR KEIM.
TRANSLATED BY ARTHUR RANSOM.
VOL. IIL
WILLIAMS A]^D I^OEGATE,
14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON:
And 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH.
1877. -
LONDON :
PRINTKD BY C. GREEN AND SON,
178, STRAND.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Preface ....
Introduction ....
The Galilean Spring-time
I. — The First Preaching
A. The Initial Sermon
B. The Watchword of Jesus .
C. The Kingdom of Heaven .
D. The Eepentance tliat admits to the Kingdom
Heaven
E. The Method of Jesus
r. The Localities in wMch Jesus preached .
XL — The Works of Jesus
A. Critical Difficulties
B. The Fundamental Facts .
C. The Order and the Beginning of the Works
of
D.
Healing
The Healinc
of the Possessed
III. — The Disciples, and
among Them
Jesus' Life and Teaching
A. The Calling of the Disciples
B. The Sermon on the Mount
C. The Private Life of Jesus .
of
10
12
12
39
48
92
122
134
152
155
170
197
226
250
250
281
335
CONTENTS.
PAGE
IV. — Successful Results and Apostolic Mission . 350
A. The Belief of the People and the Opposition of the
Teachers ..... 350
B. The Election of the Twelve . . .369
C. The Mission of the Twelve . . .393
PEEFACE TO THE SECOND (GERMAN) VOLUME.
I OWE the reader solid productions, rather than long prefaces.
The promise made in the first volume, to issue the remainder of
the work in small portions as rapidly as possible, has not, strictly
speaking, been broken ; yet I did not anticipate a three years'
delay. I can, therefore, fully understand the many friendly
inquiries which have been made, as well as G. Eosch's Catili-
nariau Quousque tandem in the Studien. But the labour proved
to be much greater than I had expected, and far exceeded my
time and strength, much of which was consumed by my treatises
on Chronology, the Herods, the death of Jesus, and John the
Presbyter, which formed the peaceful retinue or defensive escort
of the first volume. Moreover, it soon became apparent that
the atomic character of the material and the views made
it impossible to carry on the work satisfactorily without re-
nouncing the plan of issuing it in fragments before the whole
had been prepared. The necessary point of preparedness is now
arrived at, and the responsibility at present lies with the printer.
A second confession must here be made. Another reason why
the work has taken three years is, that the " solid productions "
could not be compressed into two volumes. The Galilean year
of teaching has filled one volume ; the Jerusalemitic journey
and the history of the passion, with their momentous questions
Viii PREFACE TO THE SECOND (GERMAN) VOLUME.
and archaeological riches, will require a third. The printing is
so arranged that the whole shall be presented to the public in
four divisions of from eighteen to twenty sheets each, issued at
short intervals : of these divisions, the first two — the Galilean
Springtime and the Galilean Storms — are partly ready and partly
in preparation.
I believe I have remained faithful to my promise to investi-
gate freely and to narrate fully, and on this very account it has
been necessary to increase the size of the book. I neither was
willing nor did I dare to give mere empty results, as it is now
everywhere the fashion to do, at the expense of thoroughness and
trustworthiness. This history is too important for either the
writer or the reader to neglect for a moment the inquiry after,
and the clear and intelligible establishment of, the truth. Hence
the painstaking earnestness with which the copious annotations
have been multiplied ; hence also the juxtaposition of the ana-
lytical and the historical-constructive methods in the text itself.
While here and there complaints have been made that the first
volume was too much occupied with investigation, that it led the
impatient reader like Israel through the wilderness, — on the other
hand, even laymen — not merely theologians — whom I believe
capable of forming a correct judgment, have requested me to
continue in the same manner, since it enables them to arrive at
an independent opinion of their own. When firm ground is once
to some extent secured, much of the laborious preparatory work
can be dispensed with, and the simple, concise, transparent his-
torical truth can be exhibited alone. No change will be found
in my critical and historical principles and conclusions. With
reference to the critical and historical question, tlie radical school
of criticism has recently exhibited an arrogant attitude towards
me; and after ten years' practice in remaining silent, I must
PREFACE TO THE SECOND (GERMAN) VOLUME. ix
now, for the sake of the cause, speak out. " After -the melan-
choly issue of the latest attempts to compose a life of Jesus,"
Volkmar imagines that in his Evangelicn (1870) he has attained
"a positively certain" result, "a positively certain" though very
brief life of Jesus. But though this book claims to be a bold
and decisive advance upon its predecessors, it does in truth,
with its fresh resolution of the life of Jesus into a variegated
play of symbols and allegories not dreamt of by even Origen
and Bonaventura, represent merely a great anachronism in the
face of the progress made by this science during the last thirty
years. Scarcely anywhere can we find more that is arbitrary and
uncertain, more frequent repetitions of the chilling " perhaps "
and " possibly," of the restless " but," terms so calculated to
rob the reader of comfort and trust, in a word, more that is
unsubstantial and unsatisfying, than in this book, whose cliief
strength lies in its rigid consistency, and in the i^roof it affords
that rash criticism is as dangerous as dogmatism. Unfortu-
nately, I shall be compelled to devote many notes to the special
provocations offered by the statements and omissions of this
book; though I am convinced that its conclusions, and its
poetical Mark sobered down by weak and prosaic successors, as
Matthew and Luke are said to be, are no longer really dangerous
opponents. The difference of opinion between Ewald and myself,
not only as to the Gospels, but also as to the name Nazara, still
continues : I am not in a position to sacrifice to the discoverer
of an incomparably more important, buried name — to which he
himself refers — the name the explanation of which he himself
justifies. The sermon of the prophet in his own home will
afford an opportunity of looking at this subject again. I might
make some alteration in the dogmatic representations of the first
volume — which, however, do not belong to my jDrovince — but
X PREFACE TO THE SECOND (GERMAN) VOLUME.
the concluding passages of my work will afford me an opjior-
tunity of doing this.
My expectation that the book would bring upon me many
bitter reproaches, has been in several ways fulfilled. Of the
loss of temporal favour, I witnessed a choice instance in the
same year; while the cuts and thrusts of criticism have not
been wanting. On the one hand, the Erlanger Zeitschrift, and
in it the indefatigable Hofmann, has contended that the miracu-
lous conception, so evidently the main point, is still, like Peter,
throned upon a rock. I have found the evidence weak, and the
tone undignified. On the other hand, the opposite party have
sought to prove that they are superior not only to affection and
good manners, but also to knowledge and truth. But I wrote
neither in their interest nor in my own ; I wrote in the service
of history and to the honour of the Lord— that is, of Him who is
historical. Such assailants will also cause me no pain in the
future, and I shall assume towards them an attitude of increased
indifference. At the same time, I should be guilty of concealing
the truth if I were unwilling to acknowledge that I have derived
much encouragement from a far larger number of friendly
criticisms, both favourable and unfavourable. I would here
gratefully mention names representative of the most diverse
theological tendencies — Distelbarth, Ewald, Feuerlein, Haus-
rath, Heer, H. Hirzel, Kesselring, Krauss, Langhans, A. Schaffer,
A. Schweizer, C. Schwarz, Seydel, Tholuck, Weizsiicker, Ziegler.
I can scarcely now recall all the writers ; and the names of the
anonymous critics in foreign publications have seldom reached me.
May God grant to the truth of the Gospel a sure, vigorous,
triumphant resurrection ! May He make manifest, above the
weaknesses and infirmities of the workman, the pure and perfect
truth ! After the tumult of war, in the midst of which we at
PREFACE TO THE SECOND (GERMAN) VOLUME. xi
present stand, missing more sadly and indignantly than ever the
fruits of Christianity, may God open the eternal reign of the
blessings of the life of Jesus — peace on earth, brotherly love,
and human nobleness ! And if I may breathe into these lines
one other wish out of the depths of my heart, it is this : May
the German nation, at this moment standing forth so solemnly,
so enthusiastically, so determinedly, as the armed champion of
God fighting for the highest good of mankind, for right, virtue,
and truth, for the culture that is pure against that which is
meretricious — may she be permitted to fulfil her destiny, to
attain in every intellectual province as well as in the religious,
the real, liberty-giving truth, instead of the half-truths which both
impart and take ^away blessing, and which the crafty defenders
of the past are still forcing upon her ! While old, dead worlds
are setting, her proud mission is to be the apostle of progress, no
longer merely in the^canonics of battles, or of national right, or
of political economy, but also in the religion of Jesus, the re-
ligion of humility, of freedom, of humanity. And should the
two nations, in the future, emulate each other in such a contest,
then the fall of tens of thousands will be — to borrow an expres-
sion of Paul's (Rom. xi. 12) — the riches of the world and life
from the dead.
TH. KEIM.
Zarich, August, 1870.
INTRODUCTION
The stations of the teaching-year of Jesus — a period brief
when reckoned by its days, but infinite when estimated by its
achievements — are plainly marked out. We see the happy
blossoming-time in Galilee; then an increasingly portentous
series of Galilean struggles ; and, finally, the decisive journey to
Jerusalem, voluntarily undertaken and carried out with heroic
courage.^ This order of development is presented to us by the
Gospels themselves, and most perceptibly by the first Gospel,
which, in violent contrasts and with inflexible consistency, ex-
hibits the sudden bursting forth of those tragical and endless
struggles of Jesus from the very bosom of a good and hopeful
spring-time of teaching, and their inevitable issue in the death at
Jerusalem ; while the other sources colour the beginning more
or less with the soberer and darker tints of the end, and thus
more or less tone down or overlook the turning-point in the
middle.^ This three-fold division lies more in the material than
^ Among recent writers, Weizsiicker, in spite of his preference for John, has
adopted this division, pp. 331 sq. Pressense, pp. 387, 388. Weizsacker : (1) the
earlier working in Galilee; (2) the later Galilean period; (3) the Jerusalemitic
period. Hase also (pp. 95, 182, 212) gives the three periods : (1) the acceptable
year of the Lord ; (2) the year of struggle ; (3) passion and glorification. Many
recent writers give the life of Jesus, as Paulus and Ammon did formerly, variously in
a mere series of co-ordinated sections ; comp. Schleiermacher, Kenan, Strauss. Renan
has, like Matthew, twenty-eight chapters.
^ Matt. iv. — X. shows the beginnings, xi. — xvi. the struggles. In xvi. 21, tlie
narrative passes on to the stage of the passion. Luke exhibits, in iv. 16 — 30, and
particularly in the four conflicts of v. 17 — vi. 11, the struggles as taking place at the
very beginning ; Mark does the same, ii. 1 — iii. 6. On the other hand, the great turn-
ing-point is completely obliterated by both. See Vol. I. pp. 102, 119 sq.
VOL. III. B
^ INTRODUCTION.
in the form of our Gospels, which, in a remarkable manner — an
evidence of the literary and spiritual elevation on which this
primitive historiography already stands — have all passed in one
way or another from the three-fold to a two-fold division that,
looking beyond the more minute local, temporal, actual stages of
this life, seeks to strike, as it were, the vital nerve of its activity
in the very centre. In Matthew, the great turning-point of the
Galilean activity of Jesus lies in the determination to suffer,
which Jesus formed in the remotest northern part of Galilee,
and w^hich he afterwards carried out in the south, in Jerusalem.
In Mark, it lies in the same district, in Jesus' double Messianic
confession— through the cross to glory. In Luke, it is found a
step later, at the commencement of the solemn journey of death
from Galilee to Jerusalem. In John, it is found later still, in
the Jerusalemitic transition from the glory of Jesus' life to the
glory of his death.^ All these representations and divisions are
in truth evidently governed by the same fundamental thought,
namely, the clear and distinct exhibition of the significant
dividing-line between life and death in this Messianic career ;
but the conception of Matthew and Mark is plainly the most
profound, since it places the great turning-point in the first
thought of Jesus, and does not postpone it, as do Luke and
John, until the thought is carried into execution.
The question may suggest itself, whether the written history
of the teaching-year of Jesus ought simply to abide by this
ancient and venerable division. There is no force in the doubt
which Holsten in particular has recently made current by the
revival of the old objections of the Platonist Celsus : as if the
predictions of the passion and the so intentionally strong em-
phasizing of those predictions belonged, not to . history, but to
dogmatics, to the desire and the invention of the Evangelists,
who were kicking against the pricks of tlie incomprehensible
death of the Messiah. For this is an arbitrary assumption, con-
^ Matt. xvi. 21, comp. iv. 17; Mark viii. 27—31; Luke ix. 51; John xiii. 1.
Comp. Vol. I. pp. 71 sqq., 102, 156.
INTRODUCTION. 3
tradicted by facts.^ Jesus was actually persecuted ; iu the per-
secution, he resolved to submit to death ; and in this resolve to
die — which did not haunt him merely in his last hours — he rose
solemnly to the highest point of his Messianic conception, of his
Messianic working. So far we might abide by the ancient
pragmatism. And we abide by it, with one allowable deviation.
This resolve to die is not merely — as the Gospels chiefly repre-
sent it — the starting-point of a new series of developments ; it
is, above all, the terminus, the ripe fruit of the Galilean struggles
that those authors have themselves described; and it is im-
possible for us to isolate cause and effect. If we regard the
Galilean struggles, including the resolve to die, as the second
part, then the carrying out of that resolve, the journey to Jeru-
salem and the Jerusalemitic catastrophe — which Luke and John
have exhibited as the second great epoch, and Matthew and
Mark have emphatically introduced as at least the second
division of the second great epoch dated from the north of
Galilee — must be regarded as an independent third part.^
But the Gospels give rise to considerable perplexity by their
tendency to make divisions. It behoves us to acknowledge this
once for all, and as far as possible to dispose of the difficulty.
The sources give, namely, not only the great fundamental divi-
sion, they give also subdivisions, subsections, even diurnal
records. But these subordinate divisions are altogether different
in the earlier Gospels from what they are in the later ones ; and
in the former they are also — at least as to the greater part of the
Galilean period — multiform, contradictory, and, even when they
harmonize, not always trustworthy. We find the commence-
ment of the ministry, the choosing of the Apostles, the mission
of the disciples, the teaching by parables, the disputation con-
cerning the commandments, in epoch-making, leading positions ;
1 Holsten, Zum Evangdium d. Petrus u. d. Paulus, 1868, pp. 152 sqq. Origen,
Con. Cel. 2, 13 sqq. Comp., on the other hand, my remarks in the Prot. K.-Z.
1868, No. 8. Further details when speaking of Csesarea.
"^ Matt. xix. 1 ; Mark x. 1. Their first subdivision is the Galilean conclusion,
Matt. xvi. — xviii.
b2
4 INTRODUCTION.
and we find again, in these different subdivisions, diurnal series
of sayings, and particularly of actions.^ But there is nowhere a
satisfactory harmony in the order of events ; and at the same
time we discover — at first not without concern — that neither in
great things nor in small is it so easy as it is found, however, to
be by the modern partizans of the second or the fourth Gospel,
to give preference to one source over another, since, notwith-
standing the most sincere intention of restoring the actual course
of the history— an intention with which every Evangelist is to
be credited, and which Luke has even avowed — this scattered
material has been necessarily differently arranged, the arrange-
ment having been regulated only by the writer's preference and
supposition, by the calculation of probability and by artificial
juxtaposition.^ Thus, for example, it is equally improbable that
the ministry of Jesus opened, as Matthew says it did, with a
great Sermon on the Mount and a cycle of great deeds, as that it
opened with Luke and Mark's series of conflicts with Judaism
and Pharisaism, together with a smaller but yet copious series of
miracles. In the former, we have the Jewish-Christian view of
Christianity; in the latter, the freer Gentile-favouring view; the
former requiring on the first public appearance of Jesus an ex-
planation of his attitude towards the Law, and the latter, an
early breaking through the national limitations. The several
series of actions, which with tolerable uniformity, though differ-
1 Comp. the analysis of the Gospels and the table of the Gospels, in Vol. I. For
the diurnal series, see especially Matt. viii. 1 sqq. ; Luke iv. 31 sqq. ; Mark i. 16 sqq.
Luke has the advantage of a looser sequence, iv. 31, 33, v. 1, 12, 17, vi. 1, 6, 12,
&c. Mark also, throughout his book, loosely connects events by numberless— about
80 — ands; yet at the very beginning, in chap, i., he bursts upon us with a number of
immediate chronological sequences {tvd'noQ).
^ Whilst recently many have thought themselves able to restore even to the very day
the chronological order, according to Mark (or John) — comp. Schenkel, Hausrath,
Holtzmann— Schleiermacher was unprejudiced enough to deny the possibility of doing
this even in the case of his favourite John, on account of the "tendency" which
existed in that Gospel {Lehen J. 168). Comp. generally the critical introduction to the
Synoptics in Vol. L especially pp. 112, 113 ; or merely the single example of the em-
bassy from John (Luke vii. 18), and the answer of Jesus, that "the dead are raised
up," immediately following the narrative of the dying servant of the centurion, and the
bier of the young man of Nain.
IKTEODUCTIOy. 5
ences of detail, are exhibited by all these Gospels, bring into
view another very influential law of this ancient historiography :
the law of material relationship. The Gospels themselves and,
according to plain evidences, their sources before them, have
variously introduced into the confusion of the scattered material
the arrangement most helpful to the memory and best capable of
producing an impression, and in this way have brought together
allied sayings and allied narratives.^ Hence the groups of doc-
trinal sayings, of controversial sayings, of Sabbath conflicts, of
miracles small and great. Naturally, the distinction between
the earlier and the later Galilean periods was not strictly main-
tained ; and even the distinction between the Galilean and the
Jerusalemitic periods was to some extent — less in the actions
than in the sayings — broken down.^ This arrangement of the
material is, in all cases, a source of perplexity to the modern
historian. If it be consistently carried out, then it gives rise to
no deception as to the chronology ; but it thus lays the restora-
tion of the chronology as a heavy and even impossiV)le task upon
the shoulders of posterity. If it be inconsistently carried out, if
it alternate with a chronological arrangement, or if it profess
itself to be a chronological arrangement, then it creates for itself
and posterity an endless and mischievous confusion. And this
mischievous confusion exists in the Gospels. They possess both
modes of arrangement, and have to a great extent — Matthew
most of all — treated the arrangement according to matter as an
arrangement according to time. Jesus gave mi&sionary instruc-
tions to his disciples at different times, but they are all brought
together into connection with the missionary effort in Galilee ;
he often spoke in parables, but seven parabolical addresses are
^ In the sources of our Gospels there already stood together the now everywhere
connected narratives of the jiaralytic, of the publicans, and of fasting ; two Sabbath
controversies ; the storm and the Gadarenes ; Jairus and the woman with the issue of
blood.
" Thus it is certain that many passages in the Sermon on the Mount and the mission
speech (Matt. v. — vii. x.) can belong only to the last times of Jesns, and Luke and Mark
have placed many things later, especially in the Jerusalemitic eschatological address.
Upon this point, the later divisions of this work must be referred to.
6 INTRODUCTION.
crowded together into one day.^ He disputed with the scribes
concerning Beelzebub and concerning signs from heaven; he
engaged in controversy as to despising the publicans and as to
the sanctity of fasting : it is made to appear that one of these
controversies immediately followed the other.^ He twice pro-
faned the Sabbath, according to the opinions of the Scribes, by
allowing his disciples to pluck the ears of corn, and by healing
the man with a withered hand: we are told that he went
directly from the corn-field into the synagogue in order to heal
the man.^ He often wrought miracles; but miracle after miracle
is crowded into one or two days, another sick man coming as
soon as the former one goes away healed, while other days are
without miracles, or are not mentioned at all.* In this respect,
Luke and Mark sometimes agree with Matthew, and sometimes
do not. But even in Luke and Mark there is repeatedly a four-
fold sequence — four miracles and four greater miracles, four con-
troversies and four exhibitions of weakness on the part of the
disciples.^ "With few exceptions, the order of events up to the
solemn Galilean turning-point in the career of Jesus, when
occurrences become more definite and characteristic, is open to
question.®
In this fatal condition of things, several prominent authors
on both sides — Schleiermacher on the one hand, Strauss on the
other, neither of them without followers — have felt compelled to
refrain from attempting to construct a history of the ministry of
Jesus with a chronological development, the Jerusalemitic cata-
strophe excepted; and to content themselves with simply placing
^ Matt. X. xiii.
' Matt. rii. 22, 38, ix. 9—17; Luke xi. 14—16, v. 27—39; Mark ii. 14—22.
* Matt. xii. 1, 9; also Mark ii. 23, iii. 1. On the other hand, Luke rightly sepa-
rates the two, vi. 1, 6.
* See especially Matt. viii. ix. » Comp. the table at end of Vol. I.
' The call of the disciples and the healing of Peter's mother-in-law are about the
only consecutive events in the beginning of the Gospels, the historical sequence of
which is probable. The later chronological sequences are much more tenable, especially
from Matt. xv. 1, onwards.
INTRODUCTION. 7
in juxtaposition the inner and outer relations of the life of Jesus,
and by this means more logically re-arranging the primitive
groups of events.^ And this method is instructive in and of
itself, and not merely because it is accidentally expedient. By
bringing together all naturally allied facts, it succeeds up to a
certain point in exhibiting a perfect, distinct, well-rounded and
complete picture of the teaching, the actions, the daily life, the
places and journeys and dates, the circle of disciples, the popular
agitation, and the opponents ; while a different treatment, with
its chronological sequence of events which would nevertheless
remain uncertain, would be in danger of scattering and dissipat-
ing, instead of gathering together, the manifold material. Looked
at more closely, however, this method is seen to be a destruction
rather than a restoration of history. History is development ;
and the greatest spiritual movement which the world has ever
seen could not find expression in already stereotyped forms, either
on the part of the great actor himself, or on that of his adherents
and opponents. And this history actually does exhibit a develop-
ment of its own. That development is not confined to the
crowning of the Galilean ministry of Jesus with a journey to
Jerusalem, a Messianic entry, and the crucifixion of the despised
King of the Jews. It has already been in progress : Jesus him-
self grows in knowledge, in revelation, and in working ; around
him spring up belief and unbelief ; and it is altogether impos-
sible to place primly side by side, like dried plants in a herba-
rium, the things that existed and could exist only successively,
and that shaped themselves only in the midst of sharply-defined
conditions, in the midst of fierce conflicts and grand complica-
tions, as the dissolution of an older era, and perhaps as an open
contradiction to it. Jesus dedicated himself to the Jews, and he
dedicated liimself to the Gentiles ; he sought his Messiah ship in
his life, and he sought it in his death : but he did not exhibit
both attitudes at one and the same time, and the transition from
the one standpoint to the other was made only under the force
^ Com p. especially Schleiermacher's Leben J. 165, &c. Strauss, xsiv.
8 INTRODUCTION.
and pressure of definite liistoidcal situations.'^ Therefore when
we renounce the history of this life, we obtain nothing but an
unfaithful, indistinct, colourless representation of it, a represen-
t^ion necessarily exhausting itself in monotonous abstractions.^
Such a representation is an offence against this history which
possesses in so liigh a degree life, movement, progress, conflict,
and dramatic organism ; it ceases to be an offence only when, in
agreement with the fourth Gospel, one thinks seriously, and yet
in contradiction to the truth, of a Christ complete from the
beginning in purpose and knowledge, and consistent with him-
self even in his antitheses and contradictions, and when one also
thinks of a world of unbelief and belief fully developed from the
first. Schleiermacher and his followers have held fast substan-
tially to this Johannine Christ. The present age has advanced
beyond him, and having recognized the progressive, struggling,
human Christ of the earlier Gospels as well as of modern culture,
it cannot possibly remain stationary at half-way, and sketch
afresh — even if merely, like Strauss, from mistrust of the sources
— an unprogressive Christ. The present age must compel the
sources to give it the living and acting Christ, to narrate a real
history of Jesus.
Whatever -may be the actual character of the epochs, periods,
and diurnal records exhibited in detail by the Gospels, so much
is certain, viz., that traces of development in the activity of
Jesus, proofs of it, great and small, plain and obscure, external
and internal, are profusely scattered throughout those sources ;
^ This progressive character is certainly not admitted by every one, and to the
ohjections of Corner and of Hofmann (Gesch. Chr. pp. 11, 27, 30, 35, &c.), those of
Herzog {R. K XXI. p. 204), and Wieseler {Beitrdge, 1869, p. 15), are to be added.
Beyschlag also {CJiristol. p. 89) speaks of the morbid striving of the age to discover
development. In truth, the objections have but little force, as will be shown in con-
nection with the separate details.
* For instance, nothing can easily be more preposterous than the course pursued by
Neander, who {L. J. 1st ed. pp. 145 sqq.) anticipates the teaching of Jesus as a whole
and gives a history afterwards, briefly mentions, in the description of the Jerusalemitic
catastrophe, the disputations with the opponents, but refers for details to a previous
place (p. 557) : this is simply violently destroying history and its dramatic develop-
introduction: 9
and that it is exactly the obscure, occasional, involuntary, and
hidden evidences that establish the most positive advances.^
And when one has secured these most trust-worthy guides, then
will the intentional way-posts of the Evangelists — their periods
and their diurnal records — grow in value in proportion as they
harmonize with or do not contradict the former. Thus it is pos-
sible to construct a real history, the sayings and doings and inci-
dents of which distribute themselves into stages, are developed
by stages ; a history whose incidents, thus pointing both back-
wards and forwards, and by no means excluding general views
and organic central-points, instead of destroying the unity of this
life, create a vivid, individual, multiform character, perhaps not
wanting in involved and knotty points, but at least without the
insipidity and unreality of an abstraction. It is possible that
this history cannot now, in all its parts, be composed of mathe-
matical certainties, but only of probabilities ; yet even a history
composed of probabilities, and accused perhaps of arbitrariness
by the blind and their leaders, will be better, more grateful,
more edifying, than the untrue history of tradition or the dead
history of unsubstantial speculation — the history the beating of
whose heart, the development and growth and activity of whose
life, have ceased.
^ Certainly one cannot find, in these internal indications, a mode of conception so
objective, so dependent on the letter or on the assumed calendar-days, as that of
Wieseler {Bdtrdgc, 1869, Preface, and p. 15). He finds this and nothing else.
imi fart.
THE GALILEAN SPRING-TIME.
The second century, not without an intentional symbolism,
fixed the first public appearance of Jesus in the spring, or,
according to the fourth Gospel, about Easter. It is not known
for certain whether this assumption rests upon tradition ; but in
itself it is not only pretty and ingenious, it harmonizes also with
the indications in the Gospels, which, in the Sermon on the
Mount, paint before our eyes the boisterous storms, the soft
breezes, and flowery splendour of spring, and the gladsome life
of nature. In the Sabbath controversies, we see the corn-fields
white and bending to the harvest ; and in the parables, the com-
pletion of the harvest. On the one hand, the early part of the
year is before us ; on the other, the summer. There is nothing
to prevent us from placing the first public appearance of Jesus
in the beginning of the spring of A.D. 34. His early ministry
possessed a spring-like character: he stood forth with a full
unquestioning faith in his mission and in his nation — in his
nation as a whole, and not in a mere Johannine remnant ; and a
childlike, genuinely Galilean faith hastened to greet him. His
conviction of the nearness of the kingdom of heaven gave to his
words a joyous ring ; his utterances were full of encouragement
and benediction, and — contrary to the inference drawn by many
from Mark — were harsh to no one. His healing hand, the help-
mate of his mouth, wrought powerfully in its own strength and
THE GALILEAN SPRING-TIME. 11
by means of the deexD sympathy that was awakened. Life sprang
up throughout the fruitful fields of Galilee. In the presence of
the wonderful phenomenon of the new Teacher, and in the pre-
sence of the streaming forth of the fervent love of the people
and of the disciples, contradiction, astonished and affrighted,
retired as winter before the spring.^ Such is the general impres-
sion produced by what we know of the first teaching period
of Jesus, and by his earliest and most characteristic utterances.
Among the Gospels, Matthew most fully exliibits this first
Galilean sunshine; but Mark and Luke also, notwithstanding
their premature introduction of conflict, spread out before us
vivid pictures of the first happy, unresting activity and growth
by the Lake of Gennesareth and in Capernaum ; and in John,
there is a succession of joyous feasts and harvests of gladness
by the Jordan, at Jerusalem, in Samaria, and in Galilee, even
though from the very beginning the narrator points solemnly
and sadly to the lurking unbelief, and to the reticent mistrust of
Jesus towards even the faith that welcomes him.^
^ In Vol. II., the spring of A.D. 34 is already given as the time of the first public
appearance of Jesus, and an appeal is made to Clem. Horn. 1, 6, -where the same
period of the year is fixed upon. This testimony is confirmed by one somewhat older
in the fourth Gospel (ii. 13 sqq., iv. 35) ; comp. Hitzig, Geschichie Israels, 1869, II.
p. 567. Kecently, H. Sevin {Zur Chronol. d. L. J. Dissert. 1870), takes my chro-
nology as his basis, but relies too much on Mark iii. 21, vii. 1. Further details at
the proper place.
2 Matt. iv. 12— X. 42; Luke iv. 14— v. 16; then conflicts, v. 17— vi. 11, &c.
Similarly Mark. John ii, 1 — iv. 54 ; the first conflict, ii. 18 sqq. ; the mistrust of
Jesus, ii. 23 sqq.
12 THE FIRST PREACHING.
Division I.— THE FIEST PEEACHING.
A. — The so-called Sermon on the Mount,
Jesus opened liis ministry by publicly challenging the atten-
tion of the whole nation, from that time forth entirely renouncing
his temporal occupation.'^ This is the expression of, or the
impression produced by, the earlier Gospels, in which Jesus is
represented as standing forth in the synagogues and wherever he
could find hearers, preaching the kingdom; and then imme-
diately afterwards as already assuming the right to speak wdth
authority, and as collecting his more intimate disciples and
sharing with them the shelter and sustenance of their homes.^
This representation is preferable to that of the fourth Gospel,
which first describes the collecting of the disciples, and makes
this to be followed by a kind of private and retired life among
them and his mother and brothers in Cana and Capernaum; and
then passes by degrees, through the larger yet still private gather-
ing at the marriage at Cana, to the first public ministry at the
Passover in Jerusalem.^ According to all that we know, this
latter account is unhistorical, since Jesus neither collected his
disciples in the wilderness where John was, nor led his mother
and brothers about with him as companions or as sharers in his
sentiments, nor attended the marriage-feast at Cana, nor cele-
brated the Passover in Jerusalem. This Gospel is moreover in-
consistent with itself, for it is by no means clear why Jesus, after
having been fully introduced to the people in the wilderness of
^ Mark vi. 3 is no proof of a continued engagement in his handicraft. See, on the
other hand, Luke viii. 3.
2 Matt. iv. 17 sqq., viii. 14 sqq. ; Mark i. 14 sqq. Luke separates the first public
appearance and the call of the disciples yet more widely, iv. 14 sqq., v. 1 sqq. ; cer-
tainly, according to iv. 38, inaccurately.
* John i. 35 — ii. 13 sqq.
THE SO-CALLED SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 13
John, should afterwards for several weeks retire again into
private life. Nor is it the actual intention of this source to
establish an initial period of private teaching, though the acci-
dental grouping of its first incidents may suggest this ; but its
purpose is rather — not to speak of other motives — after an un-
obtrusive Galilean prelude, to reserve the full revelation of Jesus,
the real and proper entering upon office, for Jerusalem.^ Thus
the often-repeated assumption — an assumption made by Schleier-
macher and defended by Eenan and Ewald — of a commencement
of the ministry of Jesus in the houses of a few either related or
intimately associated fishermen, whose hospitality he enjoyed,
and who were the first he convinced and won, must be laid aside
as groundless.^ Though this modest beginning may appear more
consistent with ordinary human experience, and therefore more
credible, and may harmonize in a remarkable manner with the
missionary career of a later founder of religion, whom Eenan is
so ready to bring in for the sake of comparison; though the three
Gospels may have exaggerated the initial participation of the
people, Luke having done this most of all, he speaking even of
a rapidly spreading renown ; yet we would far rather say that
this first public appearance of Jesus before the great unlimited
public is alone worthy of him, for only in such an initial public
ministry does the man who is firmly convinced of his mission
and of the need of the people, the determined divine hero, reveal
himself; whilst an initial wooing of individuals woidd make him
look like a timid novice or an anxious and uncertain experi-
^ The earlier tradition had to be satisfied by placing the beginning of the activity of
Jesus in Galilee, ii. 1 sqq. (marriage at Cana) ; but the full and public prophetic
ministry was made to begin at the central-point, Jerusalem (comp. above, I. p. 178),
ii. 13 sqq. The necessity of placing at the beginning the testimony to the Messiah
borne by those who were specially called, i. e. the Apostles, and the great symbolic
miracle of the wine, which demanded a private social gathering, helped to make it
appear as if an initial period of privacy were described.
^ Renan, p. 104 : Un petit cercle d'auditeurs. Jouissant encore de peu d'autorite.
Comp. p. 149. Ewald, p. 331 : There appear to have existed in Kaphar-Nahum
several houses in close proximity, the inmates of which were on friendly terms.
Similarly Hausrath, Ncut. Zeityesch. 1868, pp. 383, 388. Comp., on the other hand,
p. 356.
14 THE FIRST PREACHING.
menter with his own strength and with the good-will of the
people, or even like a little, narrow-minded schemer.^ It is also
evident that the successor of the Baptist could, like the latter,
address himself only to the nation, and not merely to his friends
or to an Essene-like brotherhood, and that the man who pro-
claimed the kingdom could not restrict the great and compre-
hensive kingdom of God to a single house and a single room.
It was the inalienable right of every adult Jew to make such
a public appearance as a teacher in the streets, in the houses,
even in the synagogues. No diploma, no examination, after the
modern pattern, was needed by the teachers as their authoriza-
tion. No diploma was possessed by even those who came out of
the learned schools of Jerusalem ; they were content with the
honour of being spoken of by the people as the disciples of
HiUel or of Shammai.^ Even this legitimation from the lips of
the people was, however, wanting to Jesus, and it now and then
necessarily happened that he was reproached with this lack. It
is true that, so far as we know, he was not thus reproached by
the Scribes, although they notoriously recognized no learning
except the true understanding and observance of the old tradi-
tion. It was the people themselves who, in their unlimited
respect for the great teachers of Israel, and in their astonished
mistrust of a wisdom which seemed to them neither conceivable
nor trustworthy when not connected with a school, thus re-
proached him, though they did not exactly despise his doctrinal
addresses.^ But in spite of the high reputation of the schools,
this objection could not command the field; even the Jewish
teachers in Rome and in Assyria were not recognized because of
their Jerusalemitic training, but because they possessed or pre-
•^ Liike iv. 14.
2 As Hillel was recognized as the disciple of Sbemaia and Abtalion ; see above, I.
p. 349.
^ Matt. xiii. 54; John vii. 15. Superstition in the old tradition, Matt. v. 21, xv.
1. Jerome, Pesach. f. 33, 1 : At quamvis per totum diem dissertaret (Hillel), doc-
trinam ejus non receperunt, donee tandem diceret : sic audivi a Shemaja atque Abta-
lione. Lightfoot, p. 305.
inE SO-CALLED SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 15
tended to possess an exact acquaintance with the Law; and
Jewish merchants, Galilean experts in the Law, and even im-
posters, officiated as missionaries in Adiabene and Eome.i But
men had learnt from the Old Testament that in every age God
magnified the little and the despised, as in the cases of Israel,
David, and Solomon ; and that He called His prophets from the
flock and the plough. In the most recent times, neither Judas
the Galilean nor John the Baptist had been, properly speaking,
a Scribe. Thus it is intelligible that Jesus himself, as a matter
of course, bore the titles of Scribe, Teacher, Eabbi, though he had
not — as Ammon supposed — studied in Nazara, or — as Paulus
held— received authority to teach from the Essenes ; and that
not only the people and the disciples, but also the Pharisees and
the Scribes, addressed him by such names.^ The general cha-
racter of Jewish life was less artificial and conventional, and
more religious, than the life of to-day ; the deed made the man,
and God sent forth His mouthpiece when it pleased Him. The
man who spoke with more power than the Scribes, and who was
able to move his hearers strongly and to impart comfort — as did
John and Jesus, and others after them — was recognized as some-
thing more than a teacher : men called him a prophet.
We should accept with the deepest gratitude an inaugural
sermon by Jesus, if we could become possessed of one so easily,
so authentically written or printed, as are the sermons of the
1 Comp. Josephus, Ant. 18, 3, 5 ; 20, 2, 3.
^ SiSdaKoXoc and ^aOtjTi^g, Matt. x. 24 sq., xxiii, 8. Also pa^lStl, xxiii. 7;
Kaet]yTiT7}g, ver. 10 ; ypa^ijxaTEVQ (even of the disciples), Matt. xiii. 52. Addressed
by the Scribes as Si^daKokoq, Matt. viii. 19, ix. 11, xxii. 16. Very common among
the Rabbis were abi (my father), rahbi (great one or elder), mori from moreh
(teacher). Comp. the degrees : Major est Rabbi quam Rab et major est Rabban quam
Rabbi et major est qui nomine suo vocatur quam Rabban (whence Rabbuni, see Mark
and John). According to the Rabbis, the title Rabban came into use with Gamaliel
the elder (the teacher of Paul), and his son Simeon (others call Simeon Hillel's son).
But when Griitz (followed by Volkmar) makes the Rabbi-title subsequent to. the de-
struction of Jerusalem, not only is he contradicted by Jost and Herzfeld, but also
nothing is more certain than the very old use of the address " my Rab," which '^alone
appears in the New Testament, and is not to be confounded with the objective' iJi^e.
Comp. Lightfoot, p. 357. Wetst. p. 482. Ewald, pp. 25, 305. Herzog, xii. p. 471.
16 THE FIRST PREACHING.
present day. A first authentic utterance of Jesus would remove
a thousand difficulties, and would place his whole personality,
his knowledge, purpose, capability, in an enviably clear light.
And indeed it would appear as if we were not to be without this
firm and established inaugural utterance. With a certain eager
impatience we hasten past the few introductory words witli
which, according to the Evangelists, Jesus first opened his mind :
" Eepent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand !" They, are too
brief for us, too meagre ; they have been already made too familiar
by the Baptist ; or, if they are full of a new meaning, they are
too obscure. We pass over also the first public appearance in
the synagogue at Capernaum, which, though probably derived
from the earliest tradition, has nevertheless been reported too
meagrely. We turn our eyes towards a less meagre report
which Matthew — and Luke also, and why not, in some sense,
even John ? — promises to give us.^
There can be no doubt that Matthew has given so significant
a position to the Sermon on the Mount because he found in it
the original programme of Jesus, to a certain extent the pro-
gramme that explained the outline sketched in the utterance^
" Eepent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." It is true he
allows the " commencement of the ministry of Jesus to precede
the sermon ; and this precedence of the commencement of the
ministry is proved afresh by the gathering of the multitudes
round him from every part of the Jewish territory, attracted by
his fame, which had already spread abroad throughout Syria.
But the very haste with which he hurries over the commence-
ment in order to come to the Sermon on the Mount ; the im-
posing gathering together of all Israel ; the wide compass, the
important contents, of the sermon itself ; finally, the numerous
retinue of Messianic deeds by which the sermon is accompanied ;
all this shows that it is Matthew's purpose to give here the
1 Matt. iv. 17, V. 1 sqq. The appearance in the synagogue, Luke iv. 31, Mark i.
21, may belong to the earliest tradition, whilst Matthew postpones it in favour of
the Sei-mon on the Mount, and transfers the brief remark upon the impression pro-
duced to the end of that sermon.
THE SO-CALLED SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 17
definitive inaugural sermon.^ It is admitted on all sides, even
by Baur and Strauss, that this address undoubtedly contains a
great number of genuine, vigorous, and striking utterances of
Jesus, a veritable microcosm of the new higher conception of the
universe which he, a sudden incarnation of God, presented to
mankind for all time. It contains indeed — if we notice more
closely the period in which we here find ourselves — a treasure
of such original and pregnant sayings of Jesus as he actually
delivered in the spring-time of his teaching.2 But it is impossible
to approach this treasure with that positive certainty winch
would sensibly lay hold of and handle the first great utterances
of the Lord, and would embrace and enjoy as a sweet booty the
complete substance of this address, without the renunciation of
a single sentence. At the very threshold of the sacred year of
teaching, we begin unwillingly to use the critical pruning-knife ;
but this is as necessary as a surgical operation often is to a
living organism, and it will lead to the clearing away of obscuri-
ties and obstructions.
We need not very deeply regret that the second Gospel has
omitted this address as completely as the fourth. Even the con-
tradiction of the third Gospel, which places it somewhat later,
may be explained or passed over. These differences are quite
intelligible. Mark, from the beginning to the end, notoriously
prefers actions to sayings, for the sayings were too Jewish, too
legalistic, for him ; and the suspicious hiatus which his exag-
gerated scenery— far surpassing that of Matthew and Luke-
does not hide, the hiatus in the third chapter from which the
Sermon on the Mount has simply fallen out, has been noticed
by Ewald, Schenkel, and Holtzmann.^ Still less than Mark,
^ iv. 24 sqq. Galilee, Decapolis, Judsea with Jerasalem, and Persea, are men-
tioned. Syria comprehends, not the whole province (Bleak, Hilgenfeld, Meyer), nor
even Ccelo-Syria, but the Palestinian Syria. Herodotus, 2, 104; Josephus, Cont. Ap.
1, 22; Philo, Vit. Mos. 2, 10; Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift, 1867, p. 370.
2 Baur, Das Christenth. der drei ersten Jahrb. 1853, pp. 25 sqq. ; Strauss,
pp. 204 sqq.
' Vol. I. p. 121. Mark's preference for actions, i. 27, iii, 7 sqq., vi. 7, &c. •
indifiFerence to sayings, iv. 2, 33, vi, 34, vii. 8, 13, &c.
VOL. III. C
18 TEE FIRST FRE ACHING.
could the fourth Evangelist proclaim a legalistic religion which
in his age was defunct ; and for the same reason, the Pauline
Luke had already toned down the religion of the Sermon on the
Mount into mere morality. This depreciation of the importance
of the sermon explains its later position in Luke; moreover,
Luke was doubly compelled to remove the Sermon on the Mount
farther forward, because he had placed an initial sermon at
Nazara at the commencement of Jesus' ministry, and wished to
treat the Sermon on the Mount as one delivered on the occasion
of choosing the disciples.^
The best-grounded suspicions are aroused rather by Matthew
himself, and are afterwards confirmed and strengthened by Luke
and Mark. The author was conscious of, but has by no means
mastered, the difficulty occasioned by his placing in the begin-
ning what did not actually occur in the beginning. He gives an
exaggerated description of the concourse of the people, enume-
rating all the districts of Palestine, with the exception of Samaria,
as sending their contingents to the crowds that gathered round
the new preacher and worker of miracles — Galilee andDecapolis
in the north, Judaea with Jerusalem and Persea in the south.
But immediately after the sermon, the position of affairs is
remarkably simplified : instead of streaming multitudes, there
appears a much more limited surrounding ; the activity of Jesus
is confined to the Galileans, nay, to the immediate neighbour-
hood of Capernaum, where his miracles very gradually occasion
a concourse of the people from a more modest extent of country .^
Luke and Mark give the same impression ; and they have the
advantage of representing the gathering together of the multi-
tudes as taking place, not before, but after the sermon. From
the above, it would follow that the Sermon on the Mount does
not belong to the beginning, but to a later period. There is a
still better reason for placing it later. Wliether that sermon
1 Vol. I. p. 100.
^ Comp. iv. 25, vii. 28, viii. 1, and viii. 14 sqq. Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschrift,
1867, p. 370.
THE SO-CALLED SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 19
were deHvered earlier or later, the hearers of the actual Sermon
on the Mount were never those great masses of people, but quite
other persons, such as could not have appeared on the scene
until somewliat later. It is true that Matthew— as well as Luke
—converts the whole nation into hearers, and Luke brings in
other nationaHties as well.^ And yet these authors cannot
conceal the fact— Luke being the most conscious and the most
perplexed— that the essential kernel of those instructions was
received by merely the wider circle of the disciples of Jesus.
It was upon his disciples that Jesus looked, it was they whom
he pronounced blessed, it was they whom he instructed concern-
ing the Law and the Prophets and the Pharisees. Hence the
designation of his hearers as the successors of the prophets, as
disciples of the teacher, as the salt of the earth, as the light of
the world, as the pattern people in the nation to the glory of
God.2 But this intimate circle of disciples to whom the Sermon
on the Mount belongs, must have been gradually formed, and
must have gradually acquired its distinctive significance as the
salt of the earth and the light of the world ; and Matthew him-
self cannot disguise the fact that at the period at which he fixes
the sermon, scarcely any members of the circle had been gathered
together ; wliHe Luke, placing the sermon somewhat later, is jus-
tified in regarding the gathering together of the disciples as in
the main accompHshed, as being indeed confirmed and sealed by
the Sermon on the Mount, which serves the office of consecra-
1 Luke vi. 17, differing from Matt. iv. 25, mentions even the inhabitants of the
coast of Tyre and Sidon, therefore heathen Phoenicians. Alark iii. 8 makes the
further addition of Idumsea.
" Matt. V. 1 sqq., 13 sqq., vi. 9 (comp. Luke xi. 1) ; Luke vi. 17, 20, 40 sqq. In
these passages there is no trace of a special circle of Apostles (to whom Luke repre-
sents the address as being directed). In Matt. vii. 21, 24, the people seem to be in
the speaker's mind ; less distinctly in v. 23, vii. 11. The same is the case in Luke
VI. 17, 24, sqq, 27, 41, 46. These additions are to be found chiefly outside of the
nucleus of the Sermon on the Mount. Luke vi. 24 sqq. is an arbitrary alteration.
The wider circle of disciples often mentioned, comp. Tholuck, Bergpr. pp. 14, 15-
Weiss, Jahrb. deutsch. Th. 1864, pp. 54, 64. On the other hand, Hilgenfeld {Zeit-
schrift, 1867, p. 372) thinks only of the Twelve.
C 2
20 THE FIRST PllE ACHING.
tion-address of the Apostles.'^ Finally, the contents of the ser-
mon show traces of a somewhat later date. It is true that the
references to the scanty harvest of the kingdom, to the judgment
of the Messiah, to the false prophets and successors of Jesus, at
the close of the sermon, prove nothing to the point, since these
passages, belonging to the last days of Jesus, are not to be
reckoned as part of the original Sermon on the Mount. But
even the proper nucleus of the sermon, the great attack upon
Pharisaic legalism, does not belong to the very beginning of
Jesus' public ministry. Jesus at first neither protested against
the suspicion of rebelling against the Law and the Prophets, nor
could he have so far departed from the peculiar circumspection
and discretion which he as a teacher otherwise exhibited, as to
place before his disciples — to say nothing of the nation at large
— those bellicose, more than Johauninely sharp and bitter theses
against the prevalent and fashionable hypocritical piety of the
age. To regard those theses as forming parts of an address to
the people at large, would be to invert the proper relation of
things : Jesus could not thus violently make the spiritual autho-
rities obnoxious to the people, and as a matter of fact he himself
stood for some time in a pacific relation to those authorities, and
only gradually, and not at once along the whole line, opened
l)attle with them. Can any one imagine that a bitter conflict of
the widest dimensions and the fullest publicity was followed by
petty skirmishes over details ? And, even when we adopt the
more correct conclusion that the Sermon on the Mount was
addressed to the disciples alone, and not to the general public,
^ In Matt. iv. 18 sqq. only four disciples are as yet called. Others called, viii. 19
sqq., ix. 9, therefore later. In Luke also only four or five disciples are called pre-
vious to the Sermon on the Mount, v. 1 — 11, 27 ; he purposely represents others
as being called just before the journey to Jerusalem and before the choosing of the
Seventy, ix. 57 sqq. Nevertheless, since the Sermon on the Mount shows the exist-
ence of disciples, he speaks of a great multitude of disciples as being present on that
occasion, vi. 17. Recognizing the necessity of the case, he has not shrunk from doing
violence to history by hastily introducing disciples and the Twelve and the choosing
of the Twelve immediately before the Sermon on the Mount. And Mark has followed
hJra.
THE SO-CALLED SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 21
there still remains, though somewhat weakened, the impossibility
that the greater conflict should have preceded the lesser; for
even the disciples had to be slowly weaned from Pharisaism,
and in the case of Jesus himself the greater attacks, the general
system of his polemics, had naturally to be developed out of the
lesser.i From all this it follows that the Sermon on the Mount
was no inaugural sermon, but a later doctrinal sermon for the
circle of the disciples, as Augustine supposed ; but Matthew has
converted it, not without doing violence to its sense and to the
— as yet — much more modest actual attitude of Jesus, into an
inaugural sermon to the people. And he has done this because
many passages at least might have belonged to the first popular
sermon ; but rather because its spirit is so characteristic and,
with the addition of the fine utterances of Jesus about child-
hood, is more or less the epitome and the expression of the new
Christian consciousness.^
While Mark leaves the difficulty where it was, by merely
mentioning the first synagogue-sermon in Capernaum in passing,
Luke increases our perplexity by giving us an inaugural address
of Jesus in Nazara, the town of his childhood and youth. It is
true that even Luke does not regard this as literally the first
address in Galilee, but in a general way assumes that other
discourses had been already delivered ; it is, however, the first
sermon whose analysis he gives, and whose solemn character,
^ The disciples Pharisaic, Matt. xvii. 10; system of polemics, comp. xv. 1 sqq.,
xxiii. 1 sqq.
* The premature insertion of this sermon has been recently deduced particularly
from the synoptical comparison with Luke and Mark (comp. Holtzmann, Weizsiicker).
Hilgenfeld has been led, chiefly by the contents and the listeners, to the conclusion
that the sermon ought to stand immediately after the choosing of the Twelve, Matt. x. ;
Zeitschrift, 1867, pp. 371, 372. He has not given prominence, however, to the weighty
fact that Jesus could not so early have placed himself in opposition to the Law in the
presence of the people. Among the ancients, Augustine in particular (De com^. cv. 2,
19) regarded Matthew's Sermon on the Mount as intended for the disciples (that of
Luke for the people). Following Augustine, Chemnitz {Harm. ev. 1. p. 412) regarded
it as a consecration-address for the Apostles (= Luke), although he (1. p. 414) and
most of the later writers, including Tholuck {Berypredig, 3rd ed. 1815, pp. 14 sqq.)
and Bleek (I. pp. 220 sqq.), have never excluded the people. Comp. above, p. 19,,
note 2.
22 THE FIRST PREACEINO.
important contents, and momentous issue, lead him to give it a
dominant position.^
According to Luke's narrative, Jesus, on the Sabbath, in the
synagogue of his native town, intimated, by standing up, to the
president of the synagogue and to the congregation, that he
wished to speak. The minister of the synagogue handed to him
the prophet Isaiah, which was probably then being read. Jesus
unrolled the book and found — according to the tenor of the nar-
rative, by divine guidance rather than by his own choice or the
direction of others — the comforting words of Isaiah (Ixi. 1, 2), in
which the prophet proclaims to the exiled nation their delivery
by the Persians, and announces his own commission as the
anointed of God to carry good news to the poor, to preach
deliverance to the captives and sight to the bHnd, to set at
liberty the bruised, and to proclaim the acceptable year of the
Lord.2 Wlien he had given back the book, and amid the
strained attention of the listeners had sat down — as was the
custom of teachers — to expound, he said : This day is this Scrip-
ture ftdfilled in your ears ; thereby openly declaring himself to
be the herald of the great good time, the spiritually anointed
prophet, and, more tlian that, the Messiah. The address which
followed, but which the Evangelist does not report, excited the
astonishment of the assembly; the sober, working-day experi-
ence of the hearers, however, counteracted its influence, and at
its close, when it was customary to express approval or disap-
proval, the question was raised, " Is he not Joseph's son ?" The
question at once disclosed to Jesus the abortive issue of his
address ; he began again to speak, but instead of words of con-
solation he administered rebuke : " Surely ye will say to me,
1 Mark i. 21, 22; Luke iv. 16—30, comp. rers. 14, 15. On the form of the word
Nazara, see Vol. II. ; and again below, on Matt. xiii. 54.
2 Non legunt in lege nisi stantes. On the other hand, the book of Esther, legat vel
stans V. sedens. Lightfoot, p. 508. The minister is the chassan (custos) halceneset,
who had charge of the synagogue and the books ; or his under-servant. Buxt. p. 730,
The books were rolls, megillut, hence dvaTrrvaaio, to unroll, opp. eiXiWoi ; comp.
Winer, Schreibkunst.
THE SO-CALLED SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 23
Physician, heal thyself; before thou helpest others, procure for
thyself a position, authority ; repeat, here at home, the wonders
of Capernaum \^ But no prophet is well received in his native
place. Elijah, at the time of the famine, was sent, not to Israel,
but to a widow in the Phoenician Sarepta ; Elisha did not heal
the leprosy of his own people, but of Naaman the Syrian." Thus,
at the very beginning, he pointed out, in the unbelief of Nazara,
the unbelief of Israel, and anticipated the belief of the Gentile
world. This completed the breach : the pride of his native town
was doubly incensed. The child of Nazara had appealed to the
heathen world, which even in Galilee was regarded with genuinely
Jewish contempt. He was led to the brow of the hill on which
the town was built, to the "precipice" which is stiU pointed out,
in order that, in the spirit of antique justice, he might be hurled
from it. But he went forth through the midst of the people,
and took with him his gospel to Capernaum.^
This narrative gives a vivid and highly coloured picture of
Jesus' first public appearance. But it is more ingenious than
real. The other Gospels by no means represent Jesus as begin-
ning in his native town, and as fixing his residence in Caper-
naum after having broken with Nazara ; but as making his first
appearance in Capernaum, and as wisely avoiding liis native
place, which did not yet know how to appreciate him. Not
until after he had achieved success did he go to Nazara. Even
the source made use of by Luke must have placed this carefully-
considered procedure much later, long after the opening of the
ministry in Capernaum ; this is certain from the demand made
by the Nazarenes for the deeds done at Capernaum, a demand
which Luke derived from his source, though his new arrange-
1 Hetzer: "Healer, heal thyself !" In the Talmud : Medice, cura propriam claudi-
cationem. Lightfoot, p. 510. Also in the classics, Cicero, Ep. 4, 5 : Mali raedici,
qui ipsi se curare non possunt. Wetst. p. 681.
^ KaraKgnt^^viaiioQ, Ps. cxli. 6. 2 Chron. xxv. 12. Persons who were to be stoned
were also generally thrown down backwards from a scaffold about twice as high as a
man, Lightfoot, p. 354. Winer, Lebenstrafcn, Steinigung. Sepp, Plbjcrhuch, II.
p. 87. As to the spot, see Robinson, III. p. 423. He estimates the hill-side as from
forty to fifty feet high, near the Maronite church. See above. Vol. II.
24 THE FIRST PREACHING.
ment of the narrative rather required him to suppress it alto-
gether. The other Gospels, Matthew and Mark, have moreover,
at this later date, an occurrence which is certainly similar, yet
much simpler. They are silent as to the contents of the sermon;
they make Jesus reply to the rejection of the son of Joseph by
merely referring to the common lot of prophets ; they know of
no attempt upon the life of Jesus, but simply of his refusal to
perform miracles.^ It would be absurd to suppose that there
were two distinct public appearances at ISTazara, each running in
the same groove ; and the author, prudently remaining silent as
to a second appearance, has refrained from making such a suppo-
sition.- Moreover, the possibility of the formation of the fuller
and more definite account out of the simpler and earlier, is
undeniable ; even Luke himself may have skilfully and boldly
constructed out of the then existing materials at once a picture
of the opening, and a programme of the future course, of the
ministry of Jesus.
This assumption is strongly supported by the text. "VYe may
overlook the minor dijSiculties, namely, that Jesus had only to
stand up in order to become at once both reader and expounder
of the Holy Scriptures to the congregation; that instead of tm-n-
ing to the Law, which always occupied the first position, he
turned or was forced to turn to the Prophets, and precisely to
that so serviceable prophet Isaiah, and to the most welcome of
all the Messianic passages that tradition has ever placed in his
mouth ; and that instead of abiding by the letter of the passage,
he, by addition or omission, introduced arbitrary alterations of
his own.2 But we are most astounded by the explanations of
1 Matt. xiii. 54 sqq. ; Mark vi. 1 sqq. Volkmar (Ev. p. 70) ventures to give it as
his opinion that Matthew made use of Luke, but omitted the sermon at Nazara.
® Yet StoxT, Paulus, Wieseler, even Ewald and Meyer, have found two accounts;
most modern writers, especially Schleiermacher, De Wette, Kem, Baur, Bleek, and
Kostlin, hold the two to be identical.
3 Reader and expounder were generally distinct. See above, YoL II. Lightfoot,
p. 281. Instance of a person's being asked to speak, Acts xiii. 15. The passing by
XhQparasheh \Wiq lection from the Pentateuch) is generally explained by supposing it
had been already read, and that the haphtkareh (prophetic passage) was about to be
TEE SO-CALLED SERMON OX THE MOUNT. 25
Jesus. For, in his sermon, he proclaimed the fulfilment of the
prediction, the advent of the kingdom of God, and even of tlie
Messiah, though at that time there was not a trace of any of
these gifts of God to be seen, and though, according to the most
certain evidence we possess, he, as a wise and prudent man, at
first veiled everything, and kept the kingdom and the Messiah
of the kingdom in the obscurity of the future. This sermon
makes him at the outset prefer the Gentiles to the Jews,
which he could not possibly have done at the very time of his
assumption of the Jewish Messiahship, and which later became
a fact only as the issue of severe conflicts, and even then in a
merely qualified sense. It makes him speak irritatingly, and
threaten and break with the Jews before he had scarcely ceased
uttering words of blessing, and though he had cautiously omitted
from his text the reference to the " day of vengeance." And it
represents him as not having found, in the presence of a very
conceivable and pardonable initial astonishment, the repose,
gentleness, and patience, out of which on other occasions he was
not surprised by even the most disturbing experiences. The
picture is, in every respect, a distorted one : the end is trans-
posed to the beginning, and this inversion does violence, not
only to the narrative, but also to the person and character of
Jesus himself, since that which was justified at a later period —
whether the subject in question be the Messiahship or the rejec-
tion of Judaism— becomes inconsiderate and precipitate, pas-
sionate and even vindictive, when placed at the beginning. The
displeasure of the ISTazarenes is thus justified rather than not :
the false prophet ought to die, and he remains alive only through
a miracle — two details, again, which are unhistorical, since the
read. But this is not readily suggested. John, Jesus, the whole of the New Testa-
ment, seize upon Isaiah. Jesus does it in Matt. xiii. 14, xv. 7. Matthew alludes to the
passage in question in xi. 5. Luke leaves out of the passage from Isaiah (the blind,
according to the LXX.) laaaaQai r. avvrtTpififi. t. Kapd.; also the conclusion k.
I'lfikpav ai'Ta7roS6(THO(j. On the other hand, there is inserted from Isaiah, Iviii. 6,
cLTToar. TeOp. iv d
) j3. avrov Trdvroiv SsffTro^ei; Daniel
iii. 33, t] jSatTtXft'a aliTov, /3. alwvioc; 1 Sam. viii. 7 (after the declaration of the
people's will to have a king), ifii i^ovSfvojKaai, tov jx)) jSaaiXivffai tn avrwv. —
Lord of the world, Lord of the nation, Exodus xix. 5, 6, Xabg Trepiovaioc airb ttcivtuv
TU)f i9vG>v. efii) yap kari Tzaua r) yij. vj-ttig 6t tOEaQk /xoi (SaviXeiov tepuTEV^a
{mamlechet hohanim) kuI lOvog liyiov ; comp. ib. iv. 22 sq., vi. 6 ; 1 Kings viii.
15 sq.
^ Comp. Exodus xix. 5; Deut. v. 1 sqq., vi. 1 sqq., xxviii. 1 sqq.
^ Comp. Zech. xiv. 9, iarai kvqwq fig fiaaiXea eirt iraffav rrjv yt)v. Also verse 16.
44 THE FIRST PREACHING.
tained by those who appeal to the fact that the Eabbis, in their
awe of the name of God, were glad to make use of the word
heaven.^ The idea of heaven is essential to the new name,
which is, far more than the "kingdom of God," quite intrin-
sically a name of antithesis, of opposition, but also of assurance of
eternal victory over the earth, united into a gigantic, demoniacal,
universal monarchy, as a contrast to the ideal of the people of
God. Israel, powerless for centuries, in each successive century
only more and more helpless in the grasp of the empires of the
world, and at the very date of the composition of the book of
Daniel (B.C. 167) captive and bound in the hands of the suc-
cessors of Alexander the Great, impatiently awaited that whicli
was to overthrow the kingdoms of the earth, viz., the kingdom
of heaven, a kingdom as wide and even wider than the other
kingdoms, as durable and even more durable than they — nay,
eternal. The four great human kingdoms which rose out of the
earth and ultimately out of the infernal depths of the sea, which
got possession of, devoured, and trampled down all the lands
under heaven, lifting themselves up to the stars of heaven only
to fall one after another, one by means of another, were to be
finally succeeded by the kingdom of the God of heaven, who, in
the clouds of heaven, would solemnly invest His saints with
regal power, and amid signs in heaven and upon earth would
give to them the whole earth, the kingdoms of all the kings
under heaven, all races and tongues, as an unchangeable, perma-
nent, and eternal empire.^
^ De Wette, Bihl. DogmatlJc, 3rd ed. 1831, § 204 : SJiamaim is equivalent to
elohini (maaseh sh. = God's work). Such expressions as the name, honour, help,
punishment, of heaven, are used instead of the name, &c., of God (Lightfoot, p. 263 ;
Ewald, p. 25, comp. p. 35) ; but, according to what follows, this explanation does not
suffice for the expression, " kingdom of heaven."
* Dan. ii. 39, (BaffiXda rptTtj, i) Kvpuvasi Trafftjg r>;c yyjc ', vii. 17 sqq., TiaaaptQ
^aaiKuai avaGrrjaovrai ini Trjg yijQ (Chald, min-ara) ; ib. 3, naa. Oj)pia jxi-yaXa
dvefiaivov Ik r/jc OaXaaarji^ (comp. Rev. xiii. 1 ; Hitzig, on Dan. vii. 2); ib. 23,
fiaaCKtia TiTCipTt] tarai iv ry yy, ijTig VTrepe^ti ndaag rag (SaatXuaQ Kai KaTa(pciyiTai
raaav ri)v ytiv; iv. 14, 22, 29; v. 21, »'; /3. twv avOpioTrwv ; vii. 27, t) /3. tCjv (3.
tS)v viroKciTo) itavTog tov ovpavov; viii. 10, iniyaXvvOt] hojg Tt]g ^ci/ajuewf rov
oi'pavov] ii. 37, 6 Btog tov ohpai'ov ; vii. 13, i^ov jitTci twv I'f^iXuJv tov ovpavov
THE WATCHWORD OF JESUS. 45
Under the influence of tlie favourite book of Daniel, and kept
alive by protracted hardships and oppression under the Greeks
and Komans, to whom it has been supposed that the prophetic
book was open as early as the time of Alexander the Great, this
prospect, this hope of the kingdom of God, of the heavenly
kingdom, had been handed down from generation to generation
through the last two centuries to the days of the Baptist. The
literature of these later ages, even the Alexandrian literature
(the Book of Wisdom in particular), has preserved a number of
traces of this hope ; the Pharisees called God the only Lord and
Commander of Israel, to the exclusion of the Herods and the
Eomans ; Judas the Galilean, the turbulent predecessor of the
Baptist, added the decisive last word to the Pharisaic teaching
against the Eoman rule, and, declaring that a human ruler by
the side of God was not to be tolerated, he sought, sword in
hand, to realize the ideal of Daniel, to supersede the eartlily
sovereignty of the Ptomans by the sovereignty of God.^ Finally,
the old conception of Daniel's was exactly seized upon and
carried through the land by John the Baptist, who was great
through the revival of the sacred name, but greater still through
his faith in the near approach of the fact itself, and through his
resolve to prepare the way for the divine redemption by a judg-
ment not executed by a human arm, but dependent upon human
repentance.^
MQ vioQ avSp. ipxofiivoQ, Kai ahrip io69ij rj jSaaiXfirr, e^ovrtia alioviog; verse 18,
TrapaXryipovTai tj]v /3. aytoi vipiarov ; verse 27, Kal i) (3. ruii' fiaa. twv viroKdru)
Travrbg r. ovpavov tS69r) ayioiQ v\piffTOV — (iamXda atmnos ; vi. 27, ttoie? m^fitia
Kai repara ev rq) ovpav(p Kal tirl rJ/G y'^C- Renan also traces the expression back
to Daniel, pp. 78, 79.
^ Comp. Vol. I. pp. 261, 317 sqq., 346 sqq. Jos. Ajit. 18, 1, 6, fiovov yy^fiova
Kai SecnroTijv tov Oebv VTrsi\t](p6TEg (Pharisees). B. J. 2, 8, 1, (ca/ci^oij/, €i juerd tov
Beov olffovffi 6vr}Tovg SeoTTorag (Judas the Galilean). Wisdom, x. 10, ^ainXiia Oeov ;
V. 17, fSnaiXnov einrpsTTHag, SidSiJua KaWovg ; i. 14, ^Sov fiaaiXeiov ini yiig.
Often said of God, Kvpiog, (iaaiKEvg. The whole conception perhaps an Alexandrian
abstraction.
* We gain a clearer idea of the Baptist's position when we look to Isaiah ix. —
xi. for the foundation of his addresses in the wilderness. Though the expression
"kingdom of heaven" is not found literally in the book of Daniel (many passages in
the Rabbis, Lightfoot, p. 264 ; Wetstein, p. 256), yet the exact idea and almost the
46 THE FIRST PREACHING.
Verbally, Jesus is nothing more than the literal repeater of the
Baptist's watchword ; but a fictitious transference of this watch-
word from John to Jesus is naturally much less probable than
such a transference from Jesus to John.'^ Whether the meaning
attached to this cry by Jesus was the same as that attached to it
by John or not, two very important results followed from tliis
initial utterance. In the first place, Jesus hid his party colour
from no one. Cautiously as he may have separated his first
appearance and ministry from the Baptist as to both locality and
form, prudently as he refrained at first from mentioning the
names of the Baptist and of the Baptist's princely suppressor,
yet he so thoroughly recognized the correctness of the Baptist's
fundamental conception, its appropriateness to the age, its deep
hold upon the age, upon the thought and speech and conscience
of the nation, that he perpetuated this cry as a sacred, unassail-
able, divinely prescribed utterance; and notwithstanding his
competency to be the creator of a new phrase, he persisted in
the use of the old one, at the risk of exposing himself, on the
one hand, to the charge of being a mere disciple of John's, and,
on the other hand, yet more to the venomous enmity against the
revolutionary Johannine tendency.^ In the second place, by
following John in preaching the nearness of the kingdom and in
preparing the nation for the kingdom by means of repentance,
he refuted at the very outset that conjecture of modern inquiry
which opposes the paucity of its sceptical findings to the
profusion of the initial sayings, and seeks to establish itself
out of the sources themselves — the conjecture, namely, that
Jesus at first stood forth only as a clever utterer of detached
sayings, maxims, and aphorisms, belonging to different provinces
very expression are to be found there, as Lightfoot, Bertholdt, Ammon, De Wette, and
Renan have shown.
^ See above, Vol. II. Comi). Strauss, p. 197. The second according to Weisse,
I. p. 315, Hofmann, Holtzmann, and others.
* Jesus does not speak publicly of John until the later Galilean period. Matt. xi.
Still more openly at the very beginning of his last visit to Jerusalem, xxi. Of
Antipas, Luke xiii. 32.
THE WATCHWORD OF JESUS. 47
of daily life, or at most to the province of an illuminated legal-
ism.^ The undoubted repetition of the kingdom-cry of the
Baptist shows that Jesus never occupied himself merely with
isolated questions ; that, as to his thinking and his purposes, he
never lost himself in the periphery, in scattered details, in un-
systematic trilling with minutia3 ; that, just as his determined
self-consciousness was inseparably bound up with the ultimate
and highest questions, so in his preaching he had before his
mind's eye a complete world, a theoretical world, which he
wished to make clearly known, and a practical world which, with
the profoundest earnestness and the boldest courage, he en-
deavoured to fashion ; and hence that all the individual questions
were merged in the cardinal question, How will the kingdom of
heaven come ?
But since the complete independence of Jesus from first to
last, and liis express claim to be the bringer of '' news," compel
us to conclude that he possessed something peculiar to himself,
what, then, was the peculiarity in his preaching of the kingdom
and of repentance which distinguished him from John?^ The
fact that the inaugural utterances have been found to be un-
available, by no means leaves us with nothing but the mere
assertion of this pecuharity, and with the explanation either
undiscoverable or intangible. We have not merely a number of
Jesus' utterances concerning the kingdom which belong or which
may belong to the first period of his ministry, though by accident
they have been preserved to us only in his later addresses, as,
e.g., the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, in which the
complete originality of his standpoint is apparent; it is easy also
to discover unmistakable fundamental features of his conception
of the universe, features which remain the same amid all the
variety of details, and which first make clearly intelligible the
1 Renan, pp. 71, 81 : Premiers aphorismes de Jesus, on which account he is, quite
consistently, classed with the Scribes, Simeon the Just, Antigonus of Socho, Jesus
Sirach, Hillel, &c. Comp. also Holtzmann, Syn. Ev. 1863, pp. 130, &c.
» Matt. xiii. 52.
48 THE FIRST PREACHING.
cUhut of Jesus and the rise of a new Messianic movement.
Among those features may with certainty be reckoned the un-
qualified, unreserved faith in God, the recognition of God as the
Father of mankind, the voluntary renunciation of earthly things
and of anxiety about what is earthly, the rising to the apprecia-
tion of the higher moral truths of the Law — features which we
find, sometimes broadly laid down and sometimes only indicated,
in the Sermon on the Mount, and which afterwards re-appear
again and again. ^ Eelying on the basis of these thought-kernels,
it will be possible to describe Jesus' kingdom of heaven. Who-
ever wishes to rebut the charge of making an arbitrary selection
from the sayings of Jesus, is bound to offer at least some proofs
that, as has been or will be pointed out in other departments, so
in this department also there existed, or may have existed, de-
velopment, differences between the earlier and the later.
C. — The Kingdom of Heaven.
Jesus announced the kingdom of heaven." Now and then he
substituted for that title the expression, "kingdom of the Father,"
or "kingdom of God," or quite simply, "the kingdom;" at a later
period he also called it his own kingdom.^ The more recent
^ That the fundamental conception in v. 3 sqq. is one of the earliest, follows from
its purely anticipatory teaching with reference to the kingrlom of heaven, and also from
the peculiar tone of blessing and of glad tidings that marked Jesus' earliest style of
preaching. This is of course not the place to give proofs of the date of the individual
passages ; the proofs must be sought in the general course of the history itself.
^ Fleck, Be regno Christi, 1826, De regno divino, 1829, are out of date. On the
other hand, comp. Weiffenbach, QucE Jesu in regno coslesti dignitas sit. Syn. sententia
e-vponttur, Giessen, 1868, p. 5.
^ fiaaikiia ovpmnov, thirty-two times in Matthew : iii. 2, iv. 17, v. 3, 10, 19
(twice), 20, vii. 21, viii. 11, x. 7, xi. 11, 12, xiii. 11, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52,
xvi. 19, xviii. 1, 3, 4, 23, xix. 12, 14, 23, xx. 1, xxiii. 13, xxv. 1. The finir.
nvpai'wv in the Sin., John iii. 5, is hardly original, but a correction from Matt, xviii. 3 ;
comp. Clement, Horn. 11, 26. (3aff. GfoS stands four times in Matthew: xii. 28,
xix. 24, xxi. 31, 43. In vi. 33, the reading, according to Sin. and Vat. (thus also
Tisch. ), ought to be r^)' (Saa. Kai Tt)v SiKai. abrov. In xix. 24, the reading f3a(T.
Ofoii should be retained (contrary to Tisch.) on the authority of the best MSS., and
also as the more difficult reading (instead of the repeated /3. r. oi., xiii, 41, xx. 21. Simply /3arov. 1, Amicitia, neeessitado,
similitudo cum Diis. Ti^oaofiowv ti 6ea>, Plutarch, De gen. Socr. 11 ; De ser. num.
vindicta, 5. tlKwv 9eov, after Diogenes the Cynic, Lucian, Pro imag. 28. vioq 9iov,
Epict. Diss. 2, 5, 10. Comp. Zeller, Phil. Griech. III. 1, p. 402. Zeus, irarijp
dvSpixiv re Oi&v r£, Iliad, 1, 544.
» Seneca, De ira, 2, 27 ; De bene/. 6, 23 ; 2, 29 ; 4, 5 ; EpisL 73, 95.
3 Seneca, De henef. 2, 29 ; 4, 4, 26 ; 7, 31 ; 6, 23 ; De clem. 1, 7 ; Exdat. 31, 110.
Comp. especially the passage which recalls Matt. v. 45, De henef. 4, 26 : Si Deos
imitaris, da et ingratis beneficia ; nam et sceleratis sol oritur et piratis patent maria.
Comp. also the passages in Plutarch, De superstil. 4, 6, 13 ; De defect, orac. 7, &c.
•* Seneca, E2nst. 73; comp. 31, 06, 41, 95.
72 THE FIRST PREACHING.
it which has the sweetest sound is never actually a truth, a vivi-
fying, joy-producing faith, but only a transient effervescent inspi-
ration, or a pretty display of rhetoric intended merely to ward
off the reproach that " the gods were without heart and head."
It was never the expression of sincere faith, because the neces-
sary basis was wanting ; on the one hand, belief in the Godhead
sank into a faith in heroic men ; on the other hand, faith in
human nature was lost in the terrified belief in gloomy destiny ;
and over the double abyss only fancy played with the platitudes
about " the paternal gods " and " godlike men," phrases which
were scarcely tolerated in prosperity, and were answered by
scorn and suicide in adversity.'^
The religion of the Old Testament stands much higher in this
respect. While it speaks distinctly of the Godhead and of the
absolute dej^endence of the creature, it nevertheless does not
sacrifice the dignity of man. In the completest realism, it har-
bours the highest idealism. It believes in the image of God, in
the legal relationship between God and His nation, and calls the
latter the son of God, His first-born, His bride, and His spouse.
It also describes the relationship between God and the king of
Israel as that, of Father and son.^ In the most troublous times,
it clings to the conviction that Israel cannot perish, because the
honour of God was bound up with that of Israel.^ On the con-
trary, it anticipates a future in which the spirit and the power
and the authority of God in the world will be concentrated in
the chosen king of Israel, and the nation shall enjoy to the last,
both sacerdotally and regally, the presence of the glory of God.*
Thus in the later writings particularly, in the second part of
Dc mort. Claud, lud. 8 : Stoicus Deus nee cor n. caput habet. The
comfortless scepticism everywhere in Seneca himself. In the form of despair, Pliny,
Hist. nat..2, 5.
^ Image, Gen. i. 26 sq. ; Wisdom ii. 23 ; legal relation. Exodus xix. 5 sq. ; son,
first-born. Exodus iv. 22; Hosea xi. 1 ; bride, spouse, Hosea ii. 19 ; Jer. iii. 20;
Ezekiel xvi. 8 ; king = son, 2 Sam. vii. 14 ; Psalm ii. 7, 12 (comp. Hitzig on the
passage).
8 Deut. iv. 31 sqq. ; Joel ii. 27 ; Isaiah xl. 27, Ii. 5 sqq., Ixiii. 16, Ixiv. 12.
^ Isaiah xi. 1 sqq., ix. 6 sqq., Ixi. 6, Ixvi. 21 ; Joel ii. 28 sqq.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 73
Isaiah, in the Psalms, the paternal designation of God appears
more prominently and with a fuller significance than in the
earlier wiitings. It is the nation that cries to God in Isaiah,
" Thou art our Father, though Abraham knoweth us not, and
Israel (Jacob) doth not acknowledge us."^ But the individual
member of the nation also takes the great name into his mouth :
" Thou art my Father, my God, and my Saviour." And the
word is used with reference to the pious : " Like as a father
pitieth his children, so God pitieth them that fear Him."- In
the time of the composition of the Book of Sirach, in the time of
Philo and of the composition of the Book of Wisdom, when the
choicest teachings of the Jewish and Greek views of the universe
were already being placed side by side, the name becomes much
more frequent ; man appears simply as the bearer of the features
of relationship to the Father, and the pious man and the philoso-
pher are called the true sons of God, and are said to be of equal
birth with, and companions of, the Logos, the second God.^
Slowly but surely did the new and higher conception of the
universe thus penetrate into Jewish soil, the conception which
was to be crowned by the teaching of Jesus ; the epithet "son of
God " passed from being a national to be a personal title, from
being a title of protection to be one of relationship, from being a
mere title to be a reality. But surely, as these conceptions grew
and progressed in Israel, and undoubtedly as Jesus himself was
injfluenced by them, it is nevertheless easy to recognize the
timidity with which they advanced as compared with the un-
hesitating confidence that marked the utterances of Jesus, and
to see also in that timidity the evidence of an impure admixture
with the earlier belief in God which refused to be broken down
until it was broken down by Jesus.* When Isaiah or the
1 Isaiah Ixiii. 16, Ixiv. 8 ; Jer. iii. 4, 19 ; Mai. ii. 10 ; Deut. xxxii. 5, 6.
* Psalm bcxxix. 26, ciii. 13.
3 Ecclus. xxiii. 1, li. 14 [A. V. verse 10] ; Wisdom ii. 1-3 sqq., v. 5, xi. 11 [A. V.
verse 10], xvi. 21. Philo, see above, Vol. I. pp. 289 sqq.
* That Jesus was affected by these influences, see Matt. viii. 12, xv. 26, xxi. 28,
74 ' THE FIRST PREACHING.
Psalms attempt to explain and illustrate the conception, they
invariably decline into a description of the Lord, the Creator
and Protector on the one hand, and of human dust and divine
handiwork on the other ; or, like the Hellenes, they treat the
conception of "the Father" as a mere figure borrowed from
human relationships.^ In the book of Sirach, also, the Father is
only like a father; he is in truth the Lord and the God. To
Philo, He is the maker and fashioner of the world and of men ;
and to the divine threat to punish Solomon after the manner of
men, Philo is compelled to add the explanation that it was
uttered solely for the instruction of the multitude.^ It was just
the same among the Eabbis.^ The prevailing conception of the
Old Testament to the end is that of the Lord and his servants ;
the higher conception is imperfectly developed in thought, in
faith, and in practice ; it awaits its perfection, its deliverance,
and the deliverer came in the person of Jesus.
A careful consideration of all this will enable us to realize the
general character of Jesus' preaching of the kingdom of heaven :
it is on the whole a preaching of joy and jubilee for mankind,
whether we have regard to what it at once offered or to what it
promised iri the immediate future. It is a preaching of salva-
tion, deliverance, life, blessedness, in very deed a good and
joyous message, as Jesus himself, borrowing Isaiah's words, calls
it.* Hence the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount pours
out a shower of beatitudes ; and only the morose world-hating
Ebionite of Luke's source is able to break up the eight beati-
^ Isaiah Ixiii. 16, Ixiv. 8 ; Psalm Ixxxix. 26. The Creator- conception also in Hosea
viii. 14; Mai. ii. 10; Deut. xxxii. 6. Mere comparison, Deut. i. 31, viii. 5; Psalm
ciii. 13 ; Isaiah xlix. 15, Ixvi. 13 ; comp. 2 Sam. vii. 14 ; Ecclus. iv. 10.
» Ecclus. ir. 10, xxiii. 1, li. 14 [A. V. verse 10]. Philo, see above, Vol. I. pp. 292
sq. ; comp. particularly Q. Deus s. immut. p. 301, irpog rj)v rwv voXkHv SiSaaKoKiav
tlaaytrai. Similarly, Josephus, Ant. 4, 8, 24.
^ Israel the spouse of God, mother, sister, dove, Schottgen, p. 129. Plrhe Ah. 3,
14 : Dilecti sunt Israelitse ex eo quod vocati sunt filii Dei. Comp. above, Vol. I.
p. 340, note 1. Also Lightfoot, Gfrorer, Tholuck, Kamphausen on the Sermon on the
Mount. Wittichen, Idee Vaters, 1865, Idee d. Mencken, 1868.
* Matt. xi. 5, x.\vi. 13, xxiv. 14 ; Isaiah xl. 9, Ixi. 1.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 75
tudes into four blessings and four woes, with the result that the
bitterness of the second quartette completely neutralizes the
sweetness of the first. In this respect, the cry of Jesus differs
altogether from that of his predecessor, the Baptist, with which
however it challenges comparison rather than with that of Moses
and the Scribes, with which Luther has ingeniously classed it.
John also preached salvation, a Messiah, and a Messianic commu-
nity ; and Luke even converts the Baptist into an Evangelist ; yet
John preached above all the divine severity and anger, fire and
judgment, and he never used the term blessedness for the salva-
tion of the saved out of the fire. So far did he still stand on
the ground of Moses, Elijah, and Ezra, that he believed in the
severe and jealous God and the unworthy trembling servant, who
in the day of the Lord with difficulty finds grace and mercy. In
this respect it is a spiritual world of a different character which
is proclaimed by him who, judging from his initial cry, appears
to be following completely in the footsteps of the Baptist. It is
true, resemblances to the Baptist are not altogether wanting :
Jesus also describes the day of the coming of the kingdom of
heaven as a day of storm and tempest, of judgment and fire, and
he therefore, like John, insists upon repentance ; but, neverthe-
less, the joyous, blissful glance and tone everywhere predomi-
nate, especially in the early period ; and in the Sermon on the
Mount the beatitudes and the new and exalted features of the
service of God are very characteristically placed first, while the
anxieties, the terrors of the future are placed last, as if men-
tioned merely by way of admonition.^
There remain the questions. When did Jesus expect the king-
dom of heaven, and ivhy did he so expect it ? By pointedly
announcing the kingdom as approaching and God as drawing
nigh, Jesus kept the kingdom of heaven suspended between
the future and the present, and at once denied that the kingdom
had already appeared among the Jews even in the most brilHant
^ Matt. vii. 24 sqq. Cast into the fire, later, xiii. 40.
76 THE FIRST PREACHING.
periods of the history of Israel.^ The references to the future
predominate. The beatitudes point entirely to future prosperity.
The opening sentence, " Theirs is the kingdom of heaven," sounds
indeed as if he would offer and confer something present, some-
thinrr already actual, tangible; but the explanations follow, —
" They shall inherit the earth, they shall be comforted, be filled,
obtain mercy, see God, be called the children of God." This
future tense pervades the whole sermon : the coming of the
kingdom is prayed for ; a future admission into the kingdom of
heaven is spoken of, and a future decision of the Lord of the
kin-Tdom with reference to such admission ; and finally reference
is made to future catastrophes. This mode of expression is con-
tinued also elsewhere than in the Sermon on the Mount.^ At
the same time, the kingdom is at hand, as the watchword of
Jesus directly shows, and as is suggested and indicated by the
"constant repetition of the name, by the continuous looking for
coming blessings and calamities, by the admonition to be pre-
pared, and by the prayer for the advent of the kingdom.^ But
how is it that the kingdom appears to be future and yet close
at hand ? These two facts are not to be explained merely by
Jesus' imitation of the Baptist, nor yet merely by his foresight,
reticence, or prudence ; but by his own peculiar conception of
the kingdom and his own innermost self-consciousness. For
here he follows John with as little servility as elsewhere ; and
he never acts from motives that are merely prudential, though
he might keep alive the Messianic agitation by means of the
phrase that had become proverbial, or mislead those who were
lying in wait by concealing the immediately impending cata-
1 With r/yyiKf, comp. besides higgia (see above, p. 42, end of note), the Hebrew
haroh, Tcirhat elohim, Isaiah Iviii. 2 (the LXX., erroneously, lyyi^eu' 9E(p); comp.
Psalm Ixxiii. 28. The watchword, harob hajom, Joel ii. 1 ; Isaiah xiii. 6 ; Ezekiel
vii. 7 ; Zeph. i. 14 ; comp. Isaiah xl. 9, 10. The sentences referring to the future
show plainly that the kingdom had not previously existed ; it was at most only pre-
pared for, Matt. viii. 11, 12, xxi. 33.
« Matt. V. 3 sqq., 19 sq., \-i. 10, vii. 21 sqq., viii. 11, x. 7.
3 Matt. iv. 17, V. 3 sqq., vi. 13, vii. 24 .sqq.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEX. 77
strophe, or repeatedly wiu for himself and the people a short pro-
bation. His reason for teaching the futurity of the kingdom was
on the whole that of John : like him, Jesus could not make the
kingdom of heaven dependent on the actions of men, not even
on his own actions, but simply on God's omnipotent wuU that
causes the times to go and come, that would bring to pass the
storm and the sunshine of the last days, the blessings together
with the " things added," and the judgment.^ But his motives
for directing attention to the near approach of the kingdom of
heaven w^ere certainly different from those of the Baptist. The
latter regarded it as a point of honour with God no longer to
suffer the degradation of His people ; Jesus knew nothing of any
question of honour on the part of God with reference to the
nation, but to him it was a question of the heart between God
and His human creatures. He felt it to be a necessity that the
fatherliness of God, in which he believed, should be j)ractically
revealed without delay, without a cold, hard, procrastinating
waiting until perfection were actually attained, and that the
human filial yearning with its ardour and its pangs should find
speedy satisfaction. This view of the motive of Jesus' proclama-
tion of the nearness of the kingdom certainly strikes the most
vital part of his preaching and of his idea of the universe ; and
when it is remembered that Jesus found already upon the scene
the susceptible minds which the Baptist had been anxious to
prepare to enter into possession immediately and at once of the
gifts of their Father, and first of all His forgiveness — viz., the
poor in spirit, the long-suffering, the meek, those that hungered
after righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peace-
makers — his preaching of the near, the immediate future of the
kingdom of heaven, a future so near that it impinges upon the
present, becomes much more intelligible. And yet more fully is
this the case, when it is also remembered that he saw the sun-
beams of the Divine fatherliness already breaking through the
clouds with light and warmth, and enlightening and cheering his
1 Cbmp. Matt. vi. 33, xi. 26, xix. 2G.
78 THE FIRST PRE AC HI XG.
hearers themselves, at the very moment when he was beginning
to proclaim it.^
But we must not forget a last and mysterious point : in a most
forcible and unquestionable manner, the kingdom of heaven was
transferred from a distant to an immediate future, to the very
present, by the self-consciousness of the man who did not, like
John, vaguely and without sure guidance grope after the coming
deliverer, but who knew that he himself w^as that deliverei-,
though he veiled himself before the people, and though the
Divine Providence veiled him in part even from himself We have
already sought this higher self-consciousness of Jesus at his bap-
tism, among other reasons because thus alone can we explain his
public appearance together with and after John, and because, as
Weisse also sees, there is no point in the ministry of Jesus that
can dispense with this self-consciousness ; but chiefly because it
is impossible to describe his beginnings — the beginnings of a
ministry as brief as it was intense — as an uncertain groping and
feeling after and experimenting, without disparagement to his
person and his work.- That from the beginning to the end he
was pleased to speak of liimself only as a scribe, a teacher, a
leader, or in. some sort as a prophet and indefinitely a lord, is no
proof of the absence of this higher self-consciousness ; he thus
spoke of himself out of humility, and it was out of discretion
that he hid his real character, and because he waited for the
verdict of God and of men.^ He nevertheless gave early indica-
tions of his higher nature by calling himself greater than the
temple, a lord of the Sabbath, and one who was authorized to
exercise the divine prerogative of forgiving sins. In the Sermon
on the Mount, he speaks of himself, with his disciples, as being
^ Matt. V. 3 sqq., 45 sqq., vii. 21, xii. 50.
* Gomp. above, Vol. II. A gradual and late-developed consciousness of Messiah-
ship, in Strauss, Schenkel, Weifltenbach. On the other hand, Weisse, I. p. 318;
Hausrath, I. p. 424 ; Holtzmann, II. p. 353 ; comp. Albaric, Pressense (p. 327) ; my
Oesch. Chr. p. 80.
* Teacher, Matt. x. 24 sq., xxiii. 8, 10 (ciSaaKaXor, Kn0j)yr)TriQ), xxvi. 18 ; scribe,
xiii. 52 ; lord, x. 24; prophet, v. 12, x. 41, xiii. 57, xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 33 sq.
THE KIXGDOM OF HE A VEX. 79
the salt of the earth, a light of the world, a fiilfiller, not a
destroyer, of Moses and the prophets, of the religious basis of
the nation of Israel.' And especially did he sum up his claims
at the beginning in that mysterious name by which he preferred
to designate himself to the last — the name by which Volkmar
thinks he was first designated by Mark, or perhaps by Peter —
the name of Son of Man} It may be objected to our appealing
to this name, that the condition of our sources prevents us from
guaranteeing Jesus' employment of this name at the beginning
of his ministry, and that, in the most favourable case, the name
is obscure and equivocal, and may have had in the mouth of
Jesus himself an elastic and varying meaning, at first signifying
but little, and afterwards more. But an exact historical investi-
gation destroys the first objection, and with it in the main the
second also and the third.^ For it is above all certain that, in
his later Galilean period, Jesus regarded this name as designating
what he had been from the beginning and had shown himself to
be. Wlien speaking of his first appearance, he says, " The Son
of Man came eating and drinking;" and when taking a retro-
1 Matt. xii. 6, 8, ix. 6, v. 13, 14, 17.
' For earlier treatises on this conception, see Schleusner, Lex. gnec. lat. in N. T.
3rd ed. II. pp. 1174 sq. In recent times, Scholten, De appellat. tov v. t. a. 1809 ;
Bohme, Verstich, das Geheimniss des M. zu entlmllen, 1839 ; Gass, De utroque I. X.
nomine, 1840 ; Nebe, Uehe?- den Begriff des Namens, 6 v. r. a. 1860. The most
important in recent times are, Baur, Die Bedeutimg des AusdrucJcs Menschensokyx,
in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift, 1860, pp. 274 sqq. ; ib. N. T. Theol. 1864, pp. 75 sqq. ;
Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschrift, 1863, pp. 327 sqq. ; Colani, /. Chr. et les croyances
messianiqites, 2nd ed. 1864, pp. 112 sqq. ; Holtzmann, in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift,
1865, p. 212 ; Beyschlag, Christologie, 1866 ; Nandres, /. Chr. lefils de Vhomme,
1867 ; Schulze, Vom Menschensohn und vom Logos, 1867 ; Weiflfenbach, I.e. pp. 11
sqq.; Wittichen, Die Idee des Menschen, 1868; Ewald, 3rd ed. pp. 304 .sq. ; Hase,
5th ed. p. 154 ; Schenkel, p. 374. Review of the literature on the subject, e. g. in
Bleek, Synopse, I. p. 358 ; Holtzmann, I. c. pp. 212 sqq. ; the Commentaries of
De Wette and Meyer ; Volkmar, Ev. pp. 199, 450.
^ Baur held (A^. T. Theol. p. 81 ; comp. p. 75) that the name was used with a
varying meaning, since he thought it possible that Jesus at a later period first adopted
the Messiah title of Daniel ; comp. also Colani, p. 80 ; Strauss, p. 227. But Weiz-
sacker (1864, p. 429), and Nandres after him (pp. 34 sqq.), believe that Jesus used it
with a varying meaning, because they find in the epithet itself only a designation of
himself as a prophet (if not also implying a prophetic self-consciousness), after the
manner of Ezekiel.
80 THE FIRST PREACHIXa.
spect of the whole of his ministry, he asks his disciples, " What
do men say that the Son of Man is ?"^ And the significant say-
ings with reference to the eagerness of certain persons to follow
him, to which he gave utterance previous to the completion of
the number of the twelve Apostles, and the sayings against the
Scribes uttered in the prelude of his controversies with the
Pharisees — "The Son of Man hath not where to lay his head;"
" the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins ;" " the
Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath " — belong unquestionably to
the early part of his ministry.-
It is true that the difficulties offered by the idea are consider-
able, and on this account the want of unanimity on the part of
expositors is not quite the humiliating spectacle which Bey-
schlag says it is.^ One might have supposed that the more
frequently the name appeared in the New Testament, the less
would be the obscurity that gathered round its meaning. Cer-
tainly, it occurs only four times in the New Testament outside
of the Gospels, and is never used by Paul, — a remarkable indica-
tion, as much of the independence of the development of the
apostolic period, as of that of the evangelical tradition in the midst
of the subsequent current of history. In the Gospels, however,
it appears seventy-eight times, or, omitting the parallel passages,
fifty times, or again, omitting John's Gospel, thirty-nine times.
By far the larger number of instances occur in Matthew and
Luke, only about a dozen in Mark and John, the later books
which form the transition stage to the complete cessation of the
name in the New Testament.^ It is exactly on account of the
1 Matt. xi. 19, xvi. 13. lu Luke (Lx. 18) and Mark (viii. 27), certainly, it is only,
" Who say men that / am ?"
* Matt. ix. 6, viii. 20, xii. 8. The early date of these passages will afterwards
be shown more in detail in the history of the miracles and the controversies. The
earliest formal use of the name in each Gospel, Matt. viii. 20 ; Mark ii. 10 ; Luke
V. 24 (comp. vi. 22) ; John i. 51.
3 Christol. N. T. 1866, p. 21.
•* Passages outside of the Gospels : Acts vii. 56 ; Rev. i. 13, xiv. 14 ; Heb. ii. 6.
In the Gospels, Matthew has twenty-nine passages, Luke twenty-five, Mark thirteen,
and John eleven. (Nandres, p. 33, erroneously gives Matthew thirty-two, and Mark
THE KIXGDOM OF HEAVEN. 81
great number of passages that the name occurs in so many rela-
tions and in so many different lights that the meaning seems to
become intangible, though the two later Evangelists attempt —
yet inadequately — to point it out. If we turn to the Old Testa-
ment, in which the first roots of the name are to be sought, we
find there notoriously different significations ; and if we take
counsel of the ancient and modern expositors of the Old and
New Testaments, we meet with a still more marked variety of
opinions.^
In the examination of such a strange and evidently genuinely
Eastern name, it is advisable to make the Old Testament our
starting-point. There we often find this expression, in both the
singular and the plural, used to designate and describe human
nature ; hence, in the well-known parallelism of Hebrew verses,
" man " and " son of man " are frequently used interchangeably.
Since this descriptive phrase inserts the individual in the chain
of the race and of the conditions and limitations of human
nature, it acquires not merely a poetical character, but also a
categorical pointedness : it expresses more exactly than any
other the physical and even the physi co-ethical littleness and
infirmity of human nature in antithesis to God, and also again —
as a kind of completion of the contrast — in antithesis to the
undeservedly high dignity to which the exalted God raises the
work of His hand by revelation and grace.^ This contrast is
fourteen. Grimm, in his Lexicon, overlooks Matt. xxiv. 30 (bis) ; Mark viii. 31 ; John
viii. 28, xii. 23). Ten passages are peculiar to Matthew and Luke : Matt. x. 23,
xiii. 37, 41, ivi. 13, 27, 28, xix. 28, xxiv. 30, xxv. 31, xxvi. 2 ; Luke vi. 22, ix. 22,
26, xii. 8, xvii. 22, xviii. 8, xix. 10, xxi. 36, xxii. 48, xxiv. 7. Mark has only
ii. 28 peculiar to itself (viii. 31, 38 = Luke). All the passages in John are peculiar to
that book. From the absence of the name in Paul and the Revelations, Volkmar
(p. 199) infers its unhistorical character !
1 Mark (ii. 10) delineates the Son of Man as the representative of human interests ;
John (v. 27) as the incarnate representative of the supremacy and judicial rights of
God over mankind : neither is an altogether incorrect description, yet neither is quite
complete. With reference to Mark ii. 10, read in the light of Matt. xii. 7 sq., I would
remark provisionally that Mark rationalizes subjectively, and that the character of " re-
presentative of human interests " is contained also in the older expression of Matthew.
* Comp. Num. xxiii. 19 ; Deut. xxxii. 8 ; 2 Sara. vii. 14 ; Ps. viii. 4, xi. 4,
xii. 1, 8, xiv. 2, xxi. 10, xc. 3 ; Is. Ivi. 12; Job xvi. 21, xxv. 6 (equals oanpia,
VOL. III. G
82 THE FIRST PREACUINQ.
notably depicted in the eighth Psalm, and in the book of Ezekiel,
which represents God as in tlie habit of addressing the prophet
as "Thou son of man !"i This contrast of lowness and majesty
had already acquired in these passages a character of mysterious-
ness, the appearance of a special, individual and unique, privi-
leged position. This was still more the case in the great predic-
tion in the book of Daniel of the kingdom of the saints or of the
people of God, which was to supplant the four great secular
kingdoms: after God, as judge, has deprived the four terrible
beasts of their power, one " like a son of man " is to be carried
in the clouds of heaven to the throne of God and invested with
regal authority over the whole earth.^ He who is like a son of
man, that is, according to the ancient signiticance of the expres-
sion, which must not be forgotten, he who is weak as contrasted
with the strong beasts, but who also is superior spiritually and
through the fellowship of God — he is, in the sense of the whole
book, the people of God as a whole, and not an individual. But
tlie literalness of Jewish exposition, and the tendency to look for
a personal deliverer of the nation, made it easy to conceive of
him as an individual, as the Messiah of tlie future. In this
sense the passage has been understood, not only by Christen-
dom, but also by the Jewish books of Enoch and Ezra, and by
the later Eabbinical Judaism. It must be confessed, however,
that the pre-Christian date of the books of Enoch and Ezra,
especially of those parts of the book of Enoch that treat of the
Messianic Son of Man, is strongly contested.^
o-(fwXr;5), &c. Besides the physical littleness (comp. Ps. viii.), the moral is also imli-
cated, Num. xxiii. 19.
1 Ez. ii. 1, 3, iii. 1, 3, 4, 10, 25, xl. 4.
' Ke-bar senash, Coq v\hc, avQphnrov, Dan. vii. 13. Just the same in Rev. i. 13,
xiv. 14.
=* Ordinarily only the characteristic of "humanity " (Volkmar, p. 198) in antithesis
to the kingdoms of the beasts is made prominent ; but here, as elsewhere in the Old
Testament, the idea of weakness which is strength in God, is not to be excluded, at
least in Dan. iv. 14 [Auth. Vers, verse 17] shephal anashim expressly appears. That
the " Son of Man " of Daniel is a personification of the nation of saints (Hitzig, Hof-
mann, and later writers), follows from the language of the chapter (vii.) itself; Ewald,
THE KIXODOM OF HE A VEX. 83
As regards Jesus himself, in -his use of this expression he does
not by any means presuppose that his contemporaries had
attached to it any unalterable categorical meaning, any indelibly
impressed signification. This is evident from his complete reti-
cence as to higher titles, and from his later questions addressed
to the disciples on the subject of their conception of his cha-
racter—nay, as Matthew says, of their conception of what he was
as the Son of Man. It is also expressly proved by the fourth
Gospel, and is not contradicted by the rejection by the judges at
Jerusalem of his appeal to the entire prophecy of Daniel.^ As
given in the first and fourth Gospels, the name of " Son of ]\Ian "
expressed a vaguer, less palpable, more variable, and— as Weisse
says — less definitely stamped conception than did the well-
known and, by Jesus, long-avoided title of the JMessianic Son of
on the other hand (with him, e.'■ «•> ('^^ ^"-''Q ^ov ©Eoii,
rvTr(;j Kal ev aapKi h. 100 : Son of Man because of his birth
by the virgin, — mediately Son of David, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham — therefore, however,
not properly a man of men (c. 48). Ignatius, E]^^- 20, 6 Kara adpKa ek yei'oi'g
AajSic, 6 V. a. Kai i'. 9eov. Irenseus, 3, 19, 3, filius Dei, quoniam ex Maria habuit
sec. hominem generationem, factus est filius hominis ; 4, 33, 11, verbum caro erit et
fil. Dei fil. hominis; 3, 10, 2, &c. Similarly, later writers, comp. Holtzmann,
p. 214.
- The higher nature, the ideal of humanity, the second Adam, held by Herder,
Neander, Olshausen, Weisse, Hofmann, Beyschlag (the last finding even pre-existence),
and others. The lower character, Hugo firotius, Wilke (comp. Schleiennacher, like-
ness to men, p. 293), Baur, and othei-s. See following note. Comp. Holtzmann,
pp. 214 sqq. ; Schulze, pp. 65 sqq.
3 Baur holds intrinsically the view of Grotius, that Jesus is, to express it in a few
words, the one qui nihil humani a se alienum putat, 1860, p. 280 ; 1864, p. 81.
Somewhat similarly Strauss ; also Schenkel ; recently Scholten, who, in Ev. nach Joh.
1867, p. 236, says that the only thing which attracted Jesus to the vocation of Mes-
siah was the desire to be a man and to bring in the kingdom of humanity. Holtz-
mann (i)p. 233 sq.) has given prominence to the characteristic of glory, and— after
Schleiermacher — especially to the judicial attitude of Jesus (according to Mark ii. 10 ;
John V. 27) ; and passages like Matt. viii. 20 he has explained— under the ju.st blame
of Nandres (p. 25)— by admitting that the strongest contradictions met in Jesus.
Then again, by speaking (though without consistency) of a peculiar central po.sition
among men, of the universal and human meaning of the name, he (p. 235) atone and
the same time bridges the space between himself and Baur, as well as between his own
view and the perfected man of Naudrcs.
92 . THE FIRST f RE AC HI KG.
views, much less the obscure intermixture of them. It is the
task of modern science to buiki up the truth out of these anti-
theses and confusions.^
The Son of Man as the Messiah who, though veiled, is yet
fully conscious of himself, of his greatness, and of his vocation, —
this title, this fact, is a fresh guarantee of the strength of Jesus'
faith in the immediate nearness of the kingdom of heaven, and
explains his coniidence : the kingdom was where he was, or it
was waiting only for him to unveil himself, for God to unveil
him. But his knowledge that he was the Messiah, and his
express will — avowed in this, as Ewald calls it, most modest and
most loveable name — to be the human Messiah, not merely a
ruling, lordly Son of God after the gross Jewish ideal, but an
associate of men, an intercessor for and a helpfvd servant among
men, — this knowledge, this will, throws a fresh and fascinating
light upon the genuinely human character and the spiritual as
well as moral fundamental conception of the kingdom of heaven
which he always preached ; it promises, for the progress of his
work, every gift, every qualification needed to guide man to the
fulfilment of its unsatisfied longings, to the actual vision of its
eternal ideal ^ and finally it shows the lingering and apparently
so decisively important anticipation of regal glory to be a cloudy
phantom of the imagination, whose features and outlines, be-
gotten of the ideal poetry of a sensuous national genius, are
already yielding to the sober, earnest self-knowledge of Jesus ;
for, in truth, his authority lay in his serviceableness.
D. — The Eepentance that admits to the Kingdom of
Heaven.
Since the kingdom of heaven is at the door, Jesus, like John,
insists upon repentance as the human preparation which does
not indeed make and bring into existence that kingdom, but
' The antitheses are best brought together by De Wette, Colani, Hilgenfeld (Zeit-
^thrift, 186:3, yi>. 327 sqq. ; comp. 18''5, p. 40).
THE REPENTANCE THAT ALMITS TO HEAVEN. 93
which renders man fit and worthy to receive it. There is, how-
ever, a great difference between the two demands for repentance.
In point of fact, Jesus does not preach repentance so much as
righteousness ; he addresses not merely sinners, but the righteous
also ; he brings to the righteous benediction instead of humilia-
tion ; finally — and this is the most noticeable dissimilarity — his
insistance upon repentance and righteousness belongs to quite
a different world, is dictated by quite a different spirit, from the
Johannine. In harmony with all this, the form of Jesus' appeal
is decidedly less harsh, violent, and impetuous than that of the
Baptist's. These differences can be understood only in connec-
tion with Jesus' new conception of the kingdom of heaven.
'V\1iere heaven and earth have a tendency to approach each
other, as they do in Jesus' preaching of the kingdom, then on
the side both of God and of man negation must give way to
affirmation, anger to love, sorrow to joy, remorse to activity;
and there everything that has an affinity to God goes forth to
meet the Diviue Visitant, not in garments of mourning but in
holiday raiment, and proud of being like him and of becoming
like him.
In requiring repentance — literally, a change of mind — univer-
sally and before all other things, Jesus assumes the previous
existence of the dark shadows of failure, sin, guilt.^ He unre-
lentingly tears away all title and claim to moral goodness from
the earth, not merely from the mass of his contemporaries, but
also from the pretentious magnates of virtue among tlie pious
teachers, and finally also from himself when the belief of men
is, as it were, too soon ready to call him good. He denies this
^ fXETcn'ota, fisravoflv, alteration, change of mind. The vovq is the intelligent and
moral personality, similarly as in Paul, Comp. Matt. xv. 1(3 sq., xvi. 9, 11, xxiv. 15.
The ethical feature is yet more distinctly prominent in the idea fpovelv, xvi. 23 ; but
elsewhere the change is conceived as immediately connected with the intellectual func-
tion, xiii. 15. Comp. also the ideas ivQv^iiianQ, ix. 4 ; ciaXoyiaiiol, xv. 19. The
seat of all these functions is the heart, icapoia, ix. 4, xiii. 15, xv. 19. — Holtzmann
(II. pp. 353 sqq. ) finds in Mark evidence to show that Jesus only gradually laid aside
the impetuosity of John's appeal.
94 THE FIRS 7' PliEACHIXa.
claim even to the heavens, for he does not call the angels good,
although they do the will of God : the only being that is good is
He who is over all, God.^ He charges the earth and men with
sin and evil dispositions ; he calls men unclean, perverse, dark
and blind, lustful, selfish, worldly in thought, word, and deed,
corrupt and dry trees, dead and lost.^ Nay, the whole gene-
ration is perverse, evil, adulterous, contemptuous or deceitful
towards God, a brood of vipers ; the whole world is without
light, without salt, a theatre of offences.^ In the sinfulness of
their nature all men are alike and are all obnoxious to the Divine
chastisement, which here and there, in isolated instances, is
inflicted, a solemn earnest of what is to come.* Here are splin-
ters, there beams ; here great, there small, debts ; but debtors,
sinners, are all men, and all must cry for forgiveness, all must
turn or j^erish.^
These strong utterances are, however, qualified. There are in
the world not merely sinners characterized simply by a greater
or less degree of sinfulness ; there are good men and evil men,
righteous and unrighteous, upright and perverse, men who have
not strayed and men who have strayed, healthy and diseased.
There are trees that are sound and others that are corrupt, trees
that are green and others that are dry, eyes that are good and
others that are evil, a good soil and a rocky soil. And it is by
no means the case that the good kind exists only in a few speci-
mens, and the bad in the remaining many : on one occasion, the
Lord, with the view of eulogizing the love of God towards His
1 Matt. xix. 17 (comp. vii. 11), xii. 34, vi. 10.
^ Sinful, Matt. ix. 2, 13, xxvi. 45; evil-disposed, vii. 11, vi. 22, xii. 39 ; iinclean,
XV. 20, xvi. 6 ; perverse, xvii. 17 ; dark and blind, vi. 23, xv. 14, xxiii. 16, &c.,
Luke iv. 18 ; lustful. Matt. v. 28 ; selfish, worldly, xvi. 25 sq. ; corrupt, dry, vii.
17, xii. 33, Luke xxiii. 31 ; dead, lost, Matt. viii. 22, x. 6, Luke xv. 24.
^ Matt. xvii. 17, xii. 34, 39, 45 ; without light, without salt, v. 13 sq. ; offences,
xviii. 7.
^ Luke xiii. 1 sqq.
5 Matt. vii. 3, xviii. 23 sqq. (comp. vi. 12) ; Luke vii. 4 sqq. Conversion, Matt.
xiii. 15, xviii. 3.
THE REPEXTAXCE THAT ADMITS TO HE A VEX. 95
wandering children, speaks of ninety-nine wlio had not wandered.^
We have here, clearly, not simply isolated passages, but an anti-
thesis running through the whole of Jesus' teaching, an anti-
thesis which can be found even in the fourth Gospel, though
there it rests only on the basis of a philosophically coloured
theory of the universe.^ It is therefore impossible to suppress
this prevailing antithesis of the two classes, though dogmatists
are glad to attempt so to do, and please many by making the
attempt. By the terms " the good " and " the righteous," Jesus
certainly does not signify merely either those that are good in
the popular and inexact sense of the word, or indeed those
that are righteous in appearance, such as in fact he often dis-
covers and exposes among his antagonists ; for his judgment
is independent and severe. Neither does he refer to the good
merely in idea without any question as to whether such really
exist ; nor to those that shall be good in the future after they
have heard and profited by his preaching and his call to repent-
ance.^ For the good upon whom God causes His sun to shine
and His rain to fall as He does upon the bad, and those that
have not wandered, over whom God rejoices less than over the
returning wanderers, must be as real existences as those that
walk by their side, particularly since God Himself stands to-
wards them in an actual and not merely a supposititious relation
of sympathy. Moreover, the righteous upon whom God's sun
has already long smiled, cannot be merely the righteous men of
the future.* And the meek, the merciful, the peacemakers, tlie
pure-hearted, whom Jesus pronounces blessed in the lieginning of
1 Righteous and unrighteous, Matt. v. 45, ix. 13, xii. 35 (comp. x. 41), xiii. 17,
xxiii. 35, Luke xv. 7 ; upright and perverse, Matt. vi. 22, xvii. 17 ; strayed,
xviii. 13; sound, ix. 12, Luke v. 31 ; trees, Matt. vii. 17 sq., xii. 33, Luke xxiii. 31 ;
eyes. Matt. vi. 22 ; soil, xiii. 5 ; the ninety-nine, xviii. 13.
2 Comp. the good and bad in the fourth Gospel (iii. 19 sqq.) as a fixed and universal
antithesis.
3 Good in the popular sense, Luke xviii, 18 sqq. ; apparently righteous, Matt. vi. 2,
Luke xvi. 15, xviii. 9, xx. 20 ; righteous in idea, Matt. ix. 13, or indeed xviii. 13 ;
the good men of the future, v. 3 sqq., xiii. 43.
* Matt. V. 45, xviii. 13.
96 THE FIES'T PREACHIXG.
the Sermon on the Mount, and to whom he promises reward
instead of punishment, and the diligent merchantmen who seek
goodly pearls, — all these must have been prepared for his coming,
like the cliildren that stand round him, of whom he requires no
conversion, and to whom, as to the humble, he promises the
kingdom of heaven.^ Truly, Jesus is not to be measured here
by modern theories, which in order to honour him and to place
at his feet a humanity that is in need of salvation, have, with
mechanical definiteness, with only partial consistency with
experience, without regard to the honour of the Creator, and
finally without regard also to the honour of the Prince of man-
kind, established the unqualified sinfulness and lost condition of
all men. Jesus, although he sees the shadows of the world as it
is more clearly than M'e, does not darken them in order to make
himself appear brighter ; he rejoices in the light that shines in
the darkness ; he calls it light and not darkness ; and, finding
many in whom the light overcomes the darkness, he derives from
that light, from those souls with their possession and their longing,
encouragement to hope for a kingdom of heaven in the world ;
and he finds his triumph in being the leader and guide to salva-
tion of both the good and the evil.
It is true we may be perplexed by the apparent contradiction
which lies in the best attested utterances of Jesus, in which he
in one place calls all men sinners, and in another carefully dis-
tinguishes between the righteous and the sinful. "We may also
be perplexed by the call to repentance which he seems to address
to all, and which yet, as if on second thoughts and as it were out
of timidity, he withdraws with reference to the good. In Luke,
at least, he speaks distinctly of righteous persons who need no
repentance and have never broken a divine commandment ; and
he speaks of his mission to call, not the righteous, but sinners to
repentance, or, as Matthew has it, generally to call them.- We
might seek to escape from the difficulty by supposing that Jesus
^ Matt. V. 3 sqq., xiii. 45, xviii. 1 sqq.
* Luke XT, 7, 29. Comp. also tbe difference between Luke v. .32 and Matt. ix. 13.
THE REPEXTAXCE THAT ADMITS TO HEAVEN. 97
relinquished his call to repentance, and finally his whole ministry,
M'ith reference to the righteous whom he learnt to recognize and
whom he could leave to themselves, and confined his efforts to
sinners, to the poor lost multitude whose miseries and hopeful
penitence were bequeathed to him as an inheritance by John,
and w^hose claim upon his assistance Jesus so often touchingly
acknowledged, and summarized in the sentence : The Son of
Man is come to seek and to save the lost.^
These difficulties, however, present nothing that is insur-
mountable, and such a way of escape as that above suggested
would only lead us astray. An absolute contradiction in the
genuine utterances of Jesus is an impossibility, — at least it is
not to be assumed unnecessarily. A limitation of the call to
repentance, nay, of the call in general, to sinners, woidd funda-
mentally destroy the genuinely Johannine and national character
of the initial attitude of Jesus, as well as the breadth and sanc-
tity of his ideas. It would come into direct collision with his
actual appeal to the waiting pious, with the claim he made upon
those who had not wandered, with his faith in the fulfilment, in
his own person and performances, of the holy longing and seeking
of prophets and righteous men, and with his express designation
of his disciples and followers as righteous.^ As must be seen at
once, its introduction into his teaching could be effected only by
violence. The elucidation and reconciliation of the difficulties in
question lie in the words of Jesus himself. He pronounces all
men to be sinners, blotting out as it were all distinction, espe-
cially when his purpose is to rebuke the vain arrogance of the
creature towards God, and to humble man in the presence of the
Pure and Holy One : in this relation, he finds no one good, every
one is more or less a debtor, every one, even the righteous dis-
ciple, must plead for mercy.^ This, in a word, is the meaning of
1 Matt. ix. 11 sqq., x. 6, xv. 24, xviii. 12 sqq., xxi. 32; Luke xv. 4 sqq., xix. 10
(this last pis.sage in Matt, xviii. 11 is spurious and interpolated).
* Matt. V. 3 sqq., xviii. 12 sqq., xiii. 17, 45, x. 41 sq.
' Matt. xix. 16 sqq., xviii. 23 sqq., vi. 12, 14 sq., v. 7. The Jew.s distinguish
between those who are righteous through repentance (haah teshuhah) and those who
VOL. III. H
98 THE FIRST FRE ACHING.
the well-known passage, " I came not to call the righteous, but
sinners." This passage has often been misunderstood, in the
way in which it was misunderstood by Luke, who preserved the
coming of Jesus for the righteous as well as for sinners, by
supposing that he really called the former, though not to the
repentance to which he called the latter. But in fact this passage
neither recognizes the practically righteous, nor excludes them
from the calling, though an exclusion has been inferred from the
circumstance that Jesus had been previously speaking figura-
tively of those who, being really whole, needed no physician. This
passage, richly figurative and allusive, excludes from the appli-
cation of the calling merely the category of the righteous, the con-
ception and presumption of complete righteousness, the Pharisaic
self-rigliteousness ; and it requires the practically righteous, and
yet more those who pretend to be righteous, such as they stand
before him, to remove themselves from the category of the
righteous in the completest and most solemn sense at the very
threshold of the calling, and to place themselves in the category
of sinners in order through the calling to find righteousness in a
new and true manner.^ The greatness of the doctrine of Jesus is
seen in the fact that he does not become one-sided in the carry-
ing out of this most fully authorized and most tenaciously held
point of view, but that by the side of this genuinely religious
and humbling abolition of human distinctions, and of this exhibi-
tion of the fundamental difference between God and His crea-
are perfectly and sinlessly righteous {zaddik gamur). Much vaunting ; yet there is
also the sentence, Major poen. q. justitia. Lightfoot, pp. 541 sqq. ; Schottgen,
p;). 293 sqq.
^ Matt. ix. 1.3 and Luke v. 32. The above is not to be illustrated by immediately
identifying "the whole" in Matt. ix. 12 with the category of "righteous" in verse 13.
When Jesus says that the whole or the strong need not a physician, he uses this prover-
bial expression (comp. Wetstein, p. 358 ; Zeller in Hilgenfeld's ZeiUchrift, 1867, p. 203)
to justify his coming to the aid of the spiritually sick, i. e. of sinners ; but he does not
by any means say (1) that spiritually whole persons exist in the sense in which physi-
cally whole persons exist, (2) that the Pharisees are such, (3) that he withdraws his
ministry from thos^better pei-sons. He therefore says "righteous" categorically, and
not "the righteous." More in detail when treating of the conflicts with the Phari-
THE EEPEXTAXCE THAT ADMITS TO HE A FEN. 99
tures, there runs unalterably, indelibly, and with equal authorita-
tiveness, the genuinely ethical preservation of the moral estimate
and standard by which men are divided into good and bad : all
are bad or have something bad in them, and yet there are good
among the bad, good to whom sin is not wanting, but in whom,
nevertlieless, the good and not the bad rules.
Thus Jesus remained consistent with himself, by requiring
repentance of all, yet requiring it differently of the good than of
sinners. In the case of the latter, repentance involved sorrow, a
turning in every sense, a true revolution of sentiment ; in the
case of the former, the righteous and those that loved righteous-
ness, it implied sorrow on account of the little progi'ess made in
the already commenced right course, and an eager pursuit after
the, as yet, unattained perfection. The one conversion he
demanded of the nation, which, in case of impenitence, he
threatened with a worse fate than that of Sodom and Gomorrha ;
the other he required of the disciples, whose mutual jealousy he
reproved by the example of the child which he placed in their
midst, and by the warning that if they remained as they were
they would not see the kingdom of heaven.^ "VVliere can we
better seize this meaning of the utterances of Jesus — his relative
relinquishment of repentance in the case of the righteous — than
in the double reading in Luke and Matthew of the saving of the
lost ? Luke says there is greater joy in heaven than over the
ninety-nine righteous that need no repentance ; Matthew says
that to the shepherd the one strayed sheep, which he seeks and
finds, is of more moment than the ninety-nine that have not
strayed.2 Therefore the persons who, in Luke, need no repent-
ance, are they who, in IMattliew, have not strayed ; they are not
exactly such as are absolutely sinless, not exactly such as are
altogether superior to repentance, as Luke, or rather his source
tinged with Jewish self-righteousness, uncautiously, nay erro-
neously, asserts, but thfiy are the men who have not broken with
' Luke xiii. 1 sqq. ; Matt, xviii. 1 sqq. Comp. justification by works, xii. 37.
- JIatt. xviii. 12 sqq. and Luke xv. 7.
II 2
100 THE FIRST PREACHING.
the good, they are the good on the way to higher goodness ; they
do not stand in need of moral revohition, but — to use Kant's
expression — of moral reparation (moralische Atishesserung) ; they
are the non-sinners and sinners of Jesus, the repentance-free and
the repentant. It is this higher class of mourners that he has in
view in the introduction to the Sermon on the Mount. The poor
in spirit — i. e. those who are conscious of their poverty — and the
quietly waiting, the mourning, to whom he promises the heavenly
and the terrestrial kingdom and consolation, are, in the first place,
according to Old Testament phraseology, the suffering, mourning,
waiting pious of every kind, marked by outward or inward need,
and hence the external consolation of a prosperous terrestrial
kingdom is not withheld from them ; but chiefly, according to the
expressions themselves and the whole spirit of the context as
Avell as of the teaching of Jesus in general, they are they who in
the depth of their souls are agitated concerning spiritual ques-
tions, are internally dissatisfied with their inner state, are sor-
rowful, but are yet hopefully anticipating divine redemption.
And thus the three beatitudes of the poor are followed by the
fourth beatitude of those that hunger and thirst after righteous-
ness and are to be filled ; and then by the fifth and following
beatitudes of the virtues which in the friends of righteousness
already exist in their rudiments and yet are ever struggling after
perfection.^ All this is the repentance which he preaches to the
pious of Israel, and which he would fain find already among
them : not absolute conversion, but a humble recognition of the
imperfections of their higher life, an eager longing for perfection
in virtue, and a waiting upon God, who creates perfection in
those that sigh for it.
Finally, though Jesus, moving among these two classes of
men, seems to devote his efforts preferably to the grosser sinners
— a point upon which the Gospel of the Hebrews already has its
doubts — we are as little justified in finding in that a one-sided-
ness of conception of his vocation, as we are in finding a one-
^ Matt. V. 3 — 11. More in detail when treating of the Sermon on the Mount.
THE REPENTANCE THAT ADMITS TO HEAFEN. 101
sidedness of liis predilections.^ His natural sympathy, as so
many of his cordial and encouraging utterances show, is with
the righteous who thirst for God and for the bliss-giving waters
of righteousness ; the need and want in the masses, and the mass
of want in each one arousing the sympathy of infinite compassion,
together with the swelling of a glad high hope, drove him to-
wards the sinners.^ In such a sense then are the well-known
sayings to be understood : The Son of INIan is come to seek and
to save that wdiich is lost ; the Shepherd, heaven itself, rejoices
more over one strayed but recovered sheep than over ninety-nine
that have not strayed.^
Since Jesus requires repentance of both righteous and un-
righteous, he necessarily holds it possible for even sinners to
comply with the requirement. Sin is the work and institution
neither of God, nor of any other superhuman cause ; but rather
— so purely moral is the view of Jesus — it is the deed of the
man who errs, who degrades himself, who grows in wickedness,
who loses himself.* The original institution of God is in many
things the antithesis to the transformations effected by men.
The clear eye is the healthy original nature of man ; the evil
eye, wliich fills the human body with darkness, is a horrible cor-
ruption which criminates itself and the man who possesses it.^
It is true that God punishes man with moral incapacity, but
only when man has exhausted his power of resistance and his
folly ; it is true that Satan seeks and obtains entrance into the
soul of man, but only when that soul has prepared itself for
^ Eligam raihi bonos, Hilgenfekl, 4, 16.
^ The righteous, comp. Matt. v. 6 sqq., xii. 49, xiii. 17, 45 ; need and compassion,
ix. 12, 36 sq., x. 6, xv. 24; hopes, xxi. 32, xviii. 12 ; Luke xviii. 9 sqq.
3 Luke xix. 10 (Matt, xviii. 11); Matt, xviii. 12; Luke xv. 4 sqq. Perhaps
many, in view of these passages, would prefer thus to interpret Matt. xi. 1 3 : I am
come not so much to call the righteous as rather sinners (comp. above, p. 98). The
strong negation, however, excludes this interpretation.
* The independent action of man, Matt. xii. 33 sq. ; faults, xviii. 21 ; degradation,
vi. 22 sq., xii. 45 ; growth, xiii. 30 ; losing of self, xvi. 26 and Luke ix. 25.
* Matt. vi. 22 sq. Comp. the expressive, " From the beginning it was not so,"
xix. 8.
102 THE FIRST PREACHING.
him ; it is true that the world is seductive, but the dislike to
what is good with which it inspires man implies a previously
existing tendency to good, on account of which it fails to gain
the mastery in every one ; and finally it is true that the com-
munity draws the individual into its vicious current, but the
individual member of the community nevertheless voluntarily
fills up the measure of his nation's iniquity.^ The man, every
individual, is the creator of his own moral life and of his own
fate. He has the choice of one of two masters ; he can train his
life's tree well or ill ; and the definitive chooser resides in the
depth and freedom of the heart.^ Out of the treasure of the
heart the good man brings good, the evil man evil ; out of the
heart proceed good and evil thoughts, words, and works ; a man
is compassionate or harsh according to the condition of his
heart ; and in the heart the good and the evil sowers sow their
seed.^
By this voluntary activity of the heart, by this great Either
— Or of the thoughts and determinations, man fixes his own
destiny, acquires an internal definite relation to the good or to
the evil, makes a hearth, a world, a treasure of good and evil,
out of which whatever is therein shapes itself into words and
works with moral, and apparently physical, necessity, just like
the corrupt sap of a corrupt tree. " A corrupt tree cannot bring
forth good fruit." "How can ye who are evil speak what is
good ? " " If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great
(dominating and controlling every action of life) is that dark-
ness ! " * And yet here also there still is responsibility, liberty ;
to the experienced and advanced sinner are addressed such words
^ God, Matt. xiii. 11 &qq. ; Satan, xiii. 25, xii. 44 ; world, xviii. 7; community,
xxiii. 31. sq.
* Matt. vi. 24, xii. 3.3 ; comp. vii. 16 sqq. Meyer's interpretation .of xii. 33 is a
distorted one : " Either admit that I am good and my fruit good." The context and
vii. 16 sqq. speak plainly enough (comp. ku^ttovq ttoihv, vii. 17).
Matt. xii. 34 sq., xv. 19 ; words, works, ib. and vii. 16 sqq. ; compassion,
xviii. Za ; hardness of heart, xix. 8 ; the sower, xiii. 19 sqq.
* Matt. xii. 33 sqq., vii. 16 sqq., vi. 23, comp. xv. 19.
THE REPENTANCE THAT ADMITS TO HEAVEN. 103
as, "Why act thus ?" and "Woe !" and " Either — or 1" and " Ye
would not !"^ In fact, in proportion as Jesus lovingly and con-
descendingly — in contrast with the Pharisees — fixes his gaze
upon the vilest sinner, in proportion as he looks into that sin-
ner's heart rather than upon the hopeless desolation of the out-
ward life, does he discover everywhere the remains of a better
and a higher nature, the clear or the dawning consciousness of a
distinction between soul and body, of the value of the soul, of
obligation towards God, of the impurity of sin ; he discovers this
consciousness in the "evil generation," among publicans and
sinners ; even among the Gentiles he sees the affection of the
family and of friendship, among harlots on the banks of the
Jordan he finds repentance and faith, among all an unrest of the
soul that is without God yet is seeking Him ; in the barrenest
field he finds a soil ready to receive the nobler seed which the
Good Sower scatters.^ He is sharp-sighted enough to recognize
the smallest, the most languishing blossom of goodness ; and he
is great enough to despair of no one in whom there yet remains
one spark of good, or even the mere power to put forth one
higher effort of will. It is true that he never omits to teach
that no progress can be made without the assistance of God,
without divine grace, calling, and election, — and herein he shows
himself to be a true Israelite ; but it is not until later, when
sadly reflecting upon the futility of his efforts, that he utters the
appalling doctrine of the Old Testament, that God gives His
grace to one and withholds it from another — nay, that He robs
the non-possessor of any lingering remains of goodness, that He
is a hardener of the hardened.^
In this comi^lete and emphatic recognition of man's power of
^ Why? Matt. ix. 4; woe ! xviii. 7, xxiii. 13 sqq., xxvi. 24 ; either — or, vi. 24,
xii. 33 ; not willing, xxiii. 37 ; responsibility, to the very word, xii. 36 sq.
'^ The remains, eomp. the fine narrative of the woman that was a sinner, Luke vii.
36 sqq. ; recognition of the distinction between soul and body, Matt. vi. 25, comp.
X. 28 ; value, xvi. 25 sq. ; obligation, vi. 24 ; impurity, vi. 22, xv. 20 ; love, v. 46
sq. ; repentance, xxi. 32; unrest, xi. 28 sq., xiii. 44 sq. ; soil, xiii. 19 sqq.
3 Matt. xiii. 11, xvi. 17, xix. 11 sq., 26; hardening, xiii. 12 sqq.
104 TEE FIRST PREACHINa.
independent action even in the case of the sinner, we discover
first of all the preacher of repentance who appeals to the human
will, and not at once to the help of God ; and in the next place,
we discover the ethical, heroic character of the general teaching
of Jesus, and his jealous maintenance of the dignity of man on
principle as well as on the ground of his experience of human
life. But in the practical teacher we still see at the same time
the acute theorist who recognizes the limitations of the liberty
which he defends, the ban of the law of sin which man lays
upon himself and which can be taken off only by God, and even
then only by means of a moral revolution. How often has this
problem of evil been attacked by tlie most gifted minds and left
unsolved ? In the Old Testament the prophets, in the ISTew
Testament Paul and John, have toiled at this problem ; later,
Augustine and Pelagius, together with their successors down to
the time of the Eeformation, have endeavoured to serve the truth
by their untenable one-sidednesses, which have sometimes done
violence to the divine grace, sometimes yet more to human free-
dom. Jesus has not solved every question : he was a preacher
to the people rather than a dogmatist ; but the most important
fundamental- outlines, the perpetuity and the limits of human
freedom, the efficacious and yet not irresistible divine assistance
— these eternal questions of moral speculation have been handled
by him with elastic acuteness and ease, with a stricter adherence
to both facts and principles than by any other, and therefore
generally with truthful penetration. Hence, on the ground of
this recognition and on the ground of these presentiments, be-
lieving in God and in men, he preached to all — Ptepent !
Eepentance is regarded by Jesus as a work to be performed
by man with divine assistance. Hence his appeal first to men,
Eepent ; hence also his complaint. The Ninevites, the publicans
and sinners repent, but ye have no repentance !^ God, however,
performs His part ; He sends His messengers, prophets and more
than prophets; He speaks through preaching and miracle, in
' Matt. iv. 17, xi. 20 sqq., xii. 41, xxi. 32.
THE REPENTANCE THAT ADMITS TO HEAVEN. 105
order that men may turn and believe, may be willing or indeed
not willing.^ The fourth Gospel is the first to speak of a new
birth through water and spirit, altogether from above, altogether
from God ; in that Gospel the whole world lies involved in an
infinite antithesis of what is beneath and what is above, of flesh
and spirit, earth and heaven, world and God.^ Jesus has scarcely
once described with anything more than mere passing references
the separate parts of repentance, the change of sentiment and the
actual turning, or the new birtli itself, the virtue of repentance
on the one hand, the virtue of believing obedience and of moral
result on the other.^ It is not his purpose to describe, he aims
at practical results ; and lie brings about those results by forcing
the penitent disposition by threatening, by producing shame,
and by exciting hope. He utters threats based on the unalter-
ableness of the decisions of the day of judgment, and on the
power of God, who can irremediably destroy body and soul in
hell; he awakens shame by pointing to the horrible darkness
and impurity wrought by sin in man, in that high, God-related
nature, and to the mercy of God even towards those that despise
Him ; he causes hope to dawn by placing before the eyes of men
riches instead of poverty, satisfaction instead of the sense of
want, the word of forgiveness instead of judgment.* But in
^ Matt. xi. 18 sqq., xii. 39 sqq., xxi. 32, 34 sqq., xxiii. 37.
* Corap. John iii. 3 sqq.; above, pp. 27 sq. The more detailed proof belongs to the
treatment of the Johannine system of doctrine.
^ M^.TCivoia, usually translated repentance, signifies as such chiefly the change of
sentiment (comp. Rom. ii. 4 sq.), which bears immediate "fruit" in an altered coupe
of life (comp. Matt. iii. 8). The other part of repentance i.s the conversion, crrpa-
(prirai, Matt, xviii. 3, also dvayevvr^Oiji'ai ; it is this at least in the view of the
Apostles. Justin, Ap. I. 61 : dv firj dvaytvvi]6iJTe, oh fii] ihiXOijre dq rfjv (iaa. r-
ohp. Comp. Clem. Horn. 11, 26, which remind us at once [dvay. uc?ari ^wvri) of
John iii. 3 sq. There can be scarcely any doubt of the more genuine character of the
formula in Justin and even in the Homilies than of that in John, for in the former it
is shorter and simpler, while in John it is deprived of its earlier meaning— which
meaning nevertheless still shines through it (ver.se 4)— of being born again, not of a
birth from above. In John, dvo)Qiv always means the latter (iii. 11 sq., 31, viii. 32).
Contrition, fit-an't\taOai, Matt. xxi. 29, 32 ; TrtvOdv, v. 4 ; the obedience of faith,
Tri(TTtQ with diicainavvt], xxi. 32 ; result, xvi. 24.
" Matt. V. 25 sq., x. 28, xi. 22 sq., xii. 36, 41, &c. ; ib. vi. 26, xv. 20, r. 45 ;
ib. V. 3 .sqq. ; Luke xv. 11 sqq. ; Matt. vi. 12, 14 sq., xviii. 12 sqq.
106 THE FIRST PREACHIKG.
such utterances there is ever clearly to be seen what he regards
as the essence of sin, and also what he regards as the essence of
repentance. In antithesis to the sinner's self-seeking and world-
liness, to his contempt of God shown in ingratitude, unbelief,
indolence, contumacy, accompanied by arrogance, ill-will, and
violence towards his fellow-creatures, the spiritual nucleus of
repentance is self-renunciation and child -like seK- abasement
before God and man, in particular the determination of the will
to a child-like trust in God as well as to the rendering of a
debtor's service to Him.^ This fundamental conception of re-
pentance, of turning from self and from the world with its enjoy-
ments, but also from its hireling life and its wretchedness, is
beautifully described in Luke's parable of the Lost Son who goes
fortli from the father self-sufficient, but who, " coming to him-
self," resolves to return to his father.^ This is in fact the spirit
of the repentance taught by Jesus, — not merely, as in John's
teaching, the terror of the servant in anticipation of the punish-
ment which will be inflicted by the approaching lord, but the
contrition of the child in the presence of his father.
The profounder, the more spiritual and soul-probing, this inner
process in the sense of Jesus is, so much the less is it bound up
with an external course of action, with external works and signs,
in the manner insisted on by John. Here is no making use of
the water of the Jordan or of the Lake of Galilee, in order by its
coolness and its suffusion and its washing to intensify the con-
sciousness of a solemn break with and cleansing from impurity ;
here, no confession, no fasting, no giving away of unjustly
acquired wealth, is demanded. It is evident that Jesus allows
the mourners to fast, but he has nowhere requu^ed it ; and we
^ Self-seeking and worldliness, contempt of God, Matt. vi. 24, xvi. 26 ; Luke
xvi. 15 ; ingratitude, Luke vi. 35, xvii. 18 ; unbelief, Matt. xvii. 17, comp. vi. 30 ;
indolence, xx. 6; contumacy, xxi. 28 sqq., comp. vi. 24; arrogance towards men,
xviii. 28 sqq., xx. 25, xxiv. 49, xv. 19, xxiii. 12 ; ill-will, xx. 10 sqq. On the other
hand, humility, Tanuvovv lavrbv wc TraiSia, xviii. 4, xxiii. 12, comp. ^iKpoi, vrjirioi.
' ATrac)vi}aa-^^--A' \
THE METHOD OF JESUS. 129
of what avail is it to divide one's service cunningly between two
masters, if there is only One Master, He whose advent is at
hand, who is able to save body and soul, or to cast both into
prison, into hell! This mode of treatment possesses some
resemblance to the Socratic method : it is different in form and
tone, but it shares with that method acuteness and inexorability
of logic, a basis of facts and an astonishing self-knowledge. This
eminent logic, which as a rule has been too little noticed, is seen
even in the compactness and conciseness of the sentences, which
exhibit themselves to us either as propositions or conclusions.
There is absolutely no superfluous word: the last word just
suffices to make the sense intelligible, or perhaps merely to
make an allusion apparent; and the copious manner, the pedantic
explanatory style, was first introduced by Mark, in direct anta-
gonism to the spirit of Jesus.^ This logic is equally apparent
in the systematic, exact sequence of the individual points that
compose a theme, and chiefly in the inferences and indeed in the
syllogisms often formally expressed or at least implied in the
controversial as well as the doctrinal addresses, in which there
frequently occurs the inference of similarity, the inference from
small to great and vice versa, the inference of the excluded third,
or that of the impossible.- The inferences in the controversial
addresses, especially those against the Pharisees or the Saddu-
cees, and again especially in the expository references to the Old
Testament, have been held to be rabbinical or indeed sophistical ;
and upon several points it can be proved that Jesus argued simi-
larly to Hillel and the great Scribes : but there is never in him
anything over-subtle, never any lurking fallacy, but all is nature,
veracity, intelligibility, directly enlightening force; and even
when he appears to force his own meaning upon words, we find
in close connection therewith a sagacity and a profundity in
1 Comp. Mark vii. 18 sqq., viii. 17 sqq. ; comp. also above, Vol. I. p. 133.
^ This admirable sequence of the several points is especially observable in the
Sermon on the Mount, in the parabolic addresses, and in the controversial addresses
(comp. Matt. xv. 23). Syllogisms, Matt. vi. 24 sqq., vii, 7 sqq.. 16 sqq., xii. 3 sqq.,
11 sqq., 25 sqq., xv. 17 .sqq., xxiii. 17 sqq.
VOL. III. K
130 THE FIEST PREACHING.
which a discerning religious mind learns to reverence a new
truth, though that truth was not within the reach of the authors
of the old Scriptures.^ Thus in Jesus' mode of speaking we have
again a strong proof of the great and harmoniously complete
mind which originated it : everything here flows pleasantly to-
gether — perception and conception, fancy and abstraction, a
nature which, though oriental, yet in its power of clear abstrac-
tion, its moderation and self-control, and its moral direction, was
at the same time occidental : in every respect an organ for all,
a teacher of the world.
In this delineation of the style of Jesus' teaching, special pro-
minence has been given to the earlier Gospels. Neither Justin's
description nor our own answers to the style of teaching in the
fourth Gospel. It is true, some degree of similarity is not want-
ing : the fourth Gospel can never altogether ignore the funda-
mental features of the life of Jesus. Thus we have here also old
and new concise, profound sayings of Jesus, as well as, very
occasionally, a style richly figurative, and even a beautiful
amplification of the old parable of the Good Shepherd. With
all this we find, moreover, dialectic acuteness and mastery,
and everywhere fine, sublime, vigorous, and sweet utterances of
Jesus. Oh this account, many are still inclined to explain away
or reconcile the differences between John and the other Gospels.^
But the impartial reader cannot escape from the conviction that
in the fourth Gospel he is introduced to quite another world.
Instead of the brief, concise sayings of the Synoptics, we have
here long, endless addresses, enlivened only by the objections of
1 Comp. Matt. xii. 3 sqq., xxii. 29 sqq. Strauss's censure, pp. 259 sq. More in
detail at the appropriate place.
* Occasional occurrence of sayings contained in the Synoptics, e.g. John ii. 16, 19,
33, iv. 44, xiii. 16. Fresh sayings, e.g. iii. 6, 16, iv. 10, 14, 21 sqq., 35. The
metaphors light, darkness, life, death, food, drink, the wine, sheep, &c. The passage
about the good shepherd is (contrary to Weizsacker) pure parable, x. 1 — 5 ; on the
other hand, the passage about the vine, xv. 1 sqq., is pure allegory. Liicke (pp. 123
sqq.), while recognizing the difference between John and the Synoptics, seeks to ex-
plain it away. The most recent investigation of the subject in Holtzmann's Schriftst.
Verh. d. Joh., in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift, 1869, p. 62.
TEE METHOD OF JESUS. 131
opponents, addresses concerning the retention of which in the
memory of the reporter considerable anxiety has long been felt ;
instead of distinct and certain progress, we have circumlocution
and repetition ; instead of sharp decisive pooof, we have a pre-
ponderance of assertions, confessions, and exclamations ; instead
of the sustained prophetic style, we have perpetual exhibitions
of emotion, sometimes of irritability and bitterness, and some-
times of a weak and effeminate sensibility. Instead of the
wealth of themes of the other Gospels, we have here a single,
monotonous, central subject, the divinity of Jesus, set in a com-
plete compendium of dogmatics ; instead of the concrete world
of the sensuous and moral consciousness, we have abstract ideas
and antitheses ; instead of the strong, sensuous, independent life
of the parables, we have a mere external decorating of the domi-
nant personality, of what the writer holds to be the correct idea,
with allegorical upholstery ; instead of the actual enigmas of
nature, we have artificial obscurities and distortions. In a word,
in contrast with the natural, vigorous, and inimitable originality
of the new Master of religion, here stands the clever and acute,
but subtle and artificial, rejuvenizing and reproduction of the
figure and teaching of Christ out of the thought and feeling of a
later age, out of the philosophy and mysticism of the highly sen-
sational Christianity of the second century, tlie Christianity that
was wresting its Lord from the destructive hands of Gnosticism,
and was casting itself with love to the former and abhorrence of
the latter into the bosom of him who had the words of eternal
life for Gnostic and for all other times.
If it be asked how far the utterances of Jesus can be shown
to be rhetorical or poetical productions, the answer is, they are
neither orations nor poems. The aim of Jesus did not consist in
endeavouring to influence his hearers by means of art, or by
gratifying an aesthetic taste : he aimed at convincing and saving.
His words, the means of producing that conviction, sought to
produce their effect by their matter, by the disclosure of facts
k2
132 THE FIRST PREACHING.
and the commendation of the truth, not by a brilliant and fasci-
nating style. Nor are his separate addresses carefully thought
out, polished, and written down, elaborated here into a powerful
passage, there into a beautiful one, as was the case even with
the prophets ; but they are the impromptu and natural outflow
of his personality and of the moment. Thus our demands must
be moderate ; and we have no right to institute a comparison
between Jesus and the Greek orators and poets, or even the
prophets. There is no doubt that among those orators, poets,
and prophets, we meet with more of the effect of rhetoric, a
closer attention paid to the proportionate treatment of things
great and small, as well as more of sublime description and
lyrical sentiment. But if we take the addresses of Jesus as they
are, in their natural construction, and in the shape which the
Evangelists — often rather destroyers than builders up — have
given to them, we shall, in view of them in the gross, and yet
more in their details, be surprised to discover an innate art of
speaking eloquently and convincingly, of dressing the weightiest
matters in the most appropriate clothing ; and having tried
Jesus by this test, we cannot speak of him otherwise than as a
master who even in this province was capable of the highest,
and who would have achieved the highest had he been conscious
of a vocation in this direction. We discover the born orator,
indeed without any flattery the orator, in his laying bare of the
decisive point of a question, in his detection of the false state-
ment of a question, in the lucidness of his divisions, in the sharp-
ness of his antitheses, in the convincing clearness and drastic
penetrating force of his proofs and his refutations. We see the
orator also in his brevity, as elegant as it is pithy, in his careless
treatment of the best example of the good and the bad, which
by its simple statement is condemned or justified, in the fulness
and abundance of the views and metaphors which appear at his
bidding, and prevent the paucity of his favourite pictures from
giving the impression of want and poverty — an impression
THE METHOD OF JESUS. 133
wliich might be most readily produced by the fourth Gospel.^
At one time he fixes the strained attention by stating a dilemma,
throwing in some remarkable similes, and dunning the hearer
with a string of questions which the hearer is often left to
answer for himself ; at another time, he assists the understand-
ing and the recollection by articulate divisions or by standing
introductory and closing formulae.'^ Sometimes he becomes im-
pressive by repeating single words and sentences, partly in series
of sacred numbers, by bringing together positive and negative
statements or by parallelisms of kindred turns of thought, by
strong emphasis, by series of increasingly vigorous expressions,
and by forcible concluding images.^ Sometimes he bursts forth
into interrogative reproaches and sudden counter-questions, into
censures, denunciations of woe, and crushing irony, into a
breathless heaping-up of unconnected sentences and of powerful
closing apostrophes.* Sometimes, again, his sorrowfulness finds
expression in irony, sometimes he is affecting in the tenderness
of his entreaty, which like a clear mirror gives a real picture of
the compassionate and humble speaker.^ He breathes the spirit
of poetry chiefly into the utterances delivered in the confiding
^ Examples everywhere in the Sermon on the Mount. Decisive point of a question,
comp., besides the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. xv. 11, 20, xxiii. 17 sqq. Division,
comp. vi. 25, 28, 31 sqq.; antitheses, vi. 19 sqq., xii. 33, xvi. 26; abundance of
figures, vi. 26 sqq., vii. 7 sqq., 16 sqq., 24 sqq., xi. 7 sqq., xiii. 1 sqq.; repetition
chiefly in the figures of the tree, the seed, and the harvest. The figures in the
fourth Gospel are notoriously repeated.
^ Dilemma, vi. 24, xii. 33 ; questions and retarded answers, xi. 7 sqq., comp.
vii. 16, 22, ix. 4 sq., xii. 3 sqq., 11 sqq., 26 sqq., xvi. 26 ; articulation, introductory
and concluding formulae, comp. Sermon on the Mount and xxiii.
' Repetition of words, xxiii. 37; introductory and concluding formulae, v. 3, 21 sqq.,
vi. 1 sqq. ; positive, negative, vii. 13 sq., 17 sq., 24 sqq. ; parallelisms, v. 27 sq.,
vii. 7 sqq., 24 sqq. ; Mark ix. 42 sqq. ; emphasizing, Matt. xv. 7, 20 ; expressions
increasing in emphasis, vii. 7 ; concluding figures, vii. 24 sqq.
* Reproaches, Matt. ix. 4, xii. 27, 34, xvi. 2 sq. ; counter-questions, comp. xv. 3 ;
denunciations of woe, xi. 21 sqq., xxiii. 13 sqq. ; unconnected sentences, x. 8 sq.,
xxvi. 40 sq., 45, 55, especially Mark xiv. 41 sq., 48 sq. ; concluding apostrophes,
Matt. vii. 5, 23, ix. 6, xi. 22 sqq., xii. 7, 12, 32, 39, 49 sq., xvi. 4, xxi. 27,
xxiii. 37 sqq. Renan, p. 334 : Only a God could so kill, not a Socrates, nor a
Moliere !
■"* Matt. xi. 16 .sqq., 28 sqq.
134 THE FIRST PRE ACHING.
intimacy of his friends, tliose utterances which form the kernel
of his teaching, that sun of liis self-consciousness, that spring-
gladness of an earth wedded to God ; in those utterances he
paints the birds of the air in the toillessness and freedom from
care with which the great good Creator has favoured them, and
the lilies of the field in the marvellous festive beauty of nature's
apparel, unsurpassed by king Solomon.^ Here he is in perfect
harmony with his love-winning message. At the close of the
Sermon on the Mount, in the mission sermon and the preaching
about the future, he vividly depicts scenes from nature and from
history. In this he contrasts less strongly with the prophets
and even with the Baptist, whose peculiar Titanic province lay
just here. Tlidr emblem was the storm, Ms the sun.
F. — The Localities in which Jesus preached.
Speaking generally, Jesus at first confined his ministry to
Galilee, his home. As to this fact, the three older Gospels and
the Acts of the Apostles are quite unanimous against the fourth
Gospel, which allows the home to apjjear as little in the prophet
as the prophet in the home, and brings Jerusalem, "the only
appropriate place," and also Samaria, the future first-fruits of the
believing Gentiles, into the foreground, at the expense of Galilee,
" the corner." ^ Allegiance to history is, certainly, to some
extent, preserved : Jesus ministers thrice — in all a year — in
Galilee, and thrice in Jerusalem ; from the scene of John's bap-
tizing, he retreats to Galilee, where he ministers and works
miracles, at least in the midst of a narrow circle ; in his second
and third journeys, he seeks and finds refuge from his Jeru-
salemite opponents ; he narrowly escajDCS being proclaimed king
in Galilee, where, notwithstanding all the opposition he en-
^ Matt. Ti. 25 sqq., x. 29 sqq.
" Ewald, Joli. Schriften, p. 13, and Gesch. Chiistus, 3rd ed. p. 333. On the
Samaritan- Gentile ministry, in its appropriate place. Schleiermacher (p. 180) calls
the Galilean position an opinion. John i. 47, iv. 44, vii. 3, 4, 52. To a certain
extent, the Evangelist distributes the unbelief among the brethren and the Jews.
TEE LOCALITIES. 135
connters, he is never in danger of losing his life, as at Jeru-
salem ; and at Jerusalem itself he is later named, from his
home, the prophet out of Galilee. Nevertheless, not only is the
whole of the second great period spent in the south and not in
the north, but in the first period Jesus does not appear publicly
before the nation first in Galilee, but in Jerusalem, whither his
eye is turned and whither he directly hastens; in the second
Galilean journey he finds in Galilee — a district of whose attach-
ment to its native proj)het he had from the beginning a low esti-
mate — a readiness to hear and to receive him only on account
of his notorious miracles in Jerusalem ; and the third Galilean
journey closes with a great and general declension of the people,
in contrast with the strong and pure faith of Samaria and even
with the faith of many Jerusalemites.^ The question of the
superiority of one or the other of these accounts need not be
further dwelt upon. It is possible that the Johannine account
may still commend itself to many as the more exact, and especi-
ally as affording a correct and striking explanation of the retreat
to Galilee, on the ground of a mistrust on the part of the Jeru-
salemites of a southern ministry of Jesus commenced while
John v/as still preaching: but history dispels this illusion by
the single consideration that Jesus' foresight and wisdom would
not have allowed him to begin his peculiar and — notwithstand-
ing the fourth Gospel — undeniably fundamentally different
ministry either at or near the scene of the Baptist's labours.
Whoever wishes to give a different account must tell of a public
appearance of Jesus on the same ground as the Baptist, of a
necessity of transferring the ministry to Galilee, and then again
of restless glances towards and visits to Jerusalem. Undoubtedly
^ Comp. John i. 44 — ii. 12, iv. 1 — 54, vi. 1 — vii. 1. The saying of Jesus about
the prophet in his own country, iv. 44, a crux intcrpr., has been erroneously inter-
preted — under the guidance of Origen and others — by the critical school, as if he had
called Judsea his home. But the author does not treat history so freely as that (comp.
i. 46, vii. 3, 41, 52) ; nor does he require the reader thus to treat it. The context,
also, points forwards and backwards only to Galilee, where the prophet has no weight
until he has made himself a position in the metropolis. Thus Liicke, Tholuck,
De Wette, Meyer, Scholten.
13G THE FIRST rREACHINO.
this would be to follow the narrative of the fourth Gospel, but —
a high price to pay ! — it would be to load the person of Jesus
with impossibilities, indiscretions, and improbabilities of all
kinds.^
If we accept it as historically true that Jesus, without any
vacillation, without experiment, without Ewald's " period of pro-
bation," took up his position at once in Galilee, and not in
Judsea, nor in Persea, it is not thereby asserted that he renounced
the south and Jerusalem. As Jew, as Prophet, as Messiah, if he
were conscious of being such, he could not forget " the city of
the Great King."^ And not only does his later journey to the
south, undertaken in the midst of unfavourable circumstances as
a necessity imposed by heaven, reveal his steadfast leaning to-
wards Jerusalem ; but his previous reference of the leper to the
priests, with the view of bearing testimony to the priesthood,
plainly shows the direction of the thoughts of Jesus.^ He had
certainly not previously come into contact with the Jerusalem-
ites, not even by occasional festival journeys to the Temple.
These festival journeys belong, indeed, to the mechanism of the
fourth Gospel ; but the older Gospels contain no traces of his
own journeys, but refer rather to the journeys of his Galileans.
The older Gospels plainly represent the later journey as a com-
plete novelty; and the pilgrimages to the Temple, no longer
obligatory on the Jews outside of Jerusalem, and at least reduced
1 For fuller details, see above, Vols. I. pp. 177 sq., II. p. 351 sq. The most plausible
harmony between the Synoptics and John is to be found by seeking the Synoptical
retreat of Jesus to Galilee, in order to labour there, less in John i. 44 than in iv. 1,
where Jesus for the first time contemplates a lengthened stay in Galilee, because his
John-like ministry in the south has become obnoxious to the hierarchy. The fourth
Gospel, indeed, would place the imprisonment of John about this time; comp. Matt,
iv. 12. Yet, notwithstanding the necessity of establishing himself in the north instead
of in the south, Jesus was, accoi-ding to John v. 1, already again in Jerusalem. Haus-
rath {N. T. Zeitgesch. I. pp. 385 sqq.) has recently spoken, in a purely fantastical
manner, of a wandering of Jesus to Jerusalem through Samaria, when he was driven
out of Capernaum, after the healing of the paralytic, and when he had been threatened
with execution by the synagogue and Antipas. The grounds are untenable, as, c. g.
the passage in Matt. xi. 7 sqq. is supposed to be directed to the Jerusalemites.
■ Is. Ix. 14 ; Ps. xlviii. 2 ; Matt. v. 35. 3 ^att. viii. 4.
THE LOCALITIES. 137
from three to one, do not liarmonize with the principles, the coiu-
posedness, and the discretion of Jesus.^ He had, nevertheless,
come into contact with Jerusalem while in Galilee ; for not only
did the Galileans who made pilgrimages to Jerusalem bring back
reports of what was occurring in that city, and of the doings of
Pilate and the Scribes, but there was also not wanting a flocking
to him of the people from Judsea and Jerusalem, a circumstance
narrated by Matthew only too early. This flocking of the people
to him proved, as well as did the tentative advances made to the
new Teacher by Jerusalemite Scribes and Pharisees, that friend
and foe outside the narrow provincial boundaries felt that he
wlio had newly appeared upon the scene had a mission to the
whole land. 2
The localities of the Galilean ministry of Jesus are from the
very beginning difficult to discover ; and this difficulty increases
rather than diminishes during the progress of his ministry. But
critics are unanimous in holding that Jesus began his preaching
of the kingdom in the already described Lower Galilee, on the
shores of the charming lake of Gennesaret, in proud and smiling
Capernaum.^ Por though Luke, contrary to Matthew, represents
the preaching of the kingdom as opening in Galilee generally,
and at Nazara in particular — which is quite unhistorical, — yet,
even according to Luke, Jesus quickly goes to Capernaum.
And though, according to Mark, the preaching of the kingdom
^ No trace of any festival journeys of Jesus, but rather of those of others, Luke
xiii. 1 ; the novelty, Matt. xvi. 21, xxiv. 1 ; the supposed traces, Matt. xxvi. 6, 18,
Luke X. 38, Matt. x. 4, xxvii. 57, xxiii. 37, cannot be any longer seriously referred
to; comp. Gesch. Chr. p. 19, note. Principles, not only v. 35, xxi. 13, xxiii. 16.sqq.,
but also ix. 13, xii. 7, v. 23 sq., vi. 6. Disci'etion, see Vol. IL pp. 347 sq. Com-
posedness : in his situation, travelling was only a distraction. It is true that according
to Exod. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23, Deut. xvi. 16, festival journeys three times a year were
required by the Law ; but Luke ii. 41 shows that the reduction to one journey a year,
which was customary in the ca.se of those who lived at a great distance, was also cus-
tomary even for the not distant province of Galilee. Comp. Vol. L p. 303. l!ut the
guesta at the sacrificial feasts were the commissioned deputies of thousands who did
not go up ; see Vol. L p. 279.
* Matt. iv. 25, comp. Luke vi. 17 ; Matt. xv. 1 and Mark vii. 1 ; finally, Luke
V. 17.
3 See Vol. II. pp. 354 sqq.
138 THE FIRST PREACHING.
began while Jesus was journeying, and the gates of Capernaum
opened to him only in consequence of the calling of Simon,
whose house was there, yet this account places the first trophies
of Jesus' ministry at Capernaum.^ On the other hand, there
remains the great difference that in Matthew and Luke, and
approximately even in John, the preaching at Capernaum bears
the character of that of a resident, but in Mark of that of one
who was merely passing through the town. Matthew represents
Jesus as formally settling at Capernaum. In Luke, -a protracted
course of preaching at Capernaum follows Jesus' departure from
his native town Nazara. But in Mark, Jesus is in Capernaum
only on one Sabbath, and hurries away again on his journey in
the middle of the night, fleeing even from his companions, in
order to be faithful to his far-extending missionary vocation.^
Thus from the very beginning we have totally different repre-
sentations of the ministry of Jesus : one, the picture of a quiet,
persistent, slowly but surely constructive, well-considered, and
to some extent pleasurable labour; another, the picture of a
hurried, breathless, and superficial multiform activity. The final
verdict already lies in this alternative. Jesus, certainly, is a
follower of John ; he certainly is a zealous worker ; but much
more is he a discreet master-builder, a patient pioneer, an enemy
of mere effect and of boisterous popular excitement. In the
latter respect, he contrasts consciously with the Baptist ; and it
is a result of this conscious difference that one of his character-
istics came after the other, that he first of all settled in his
native province, and there frequented the dwelling-places of men,
and encamped as it were in those dwelling-places, establishing
himself at one point and concentrating his labours upon that
point, wishing there to produce results and to build for himself
a strong citadel of refuge, and one from which he might extend
his operations. As an historical evidence in favour of Mark's
^ Luke iv. 14 sqq., 31 sqq. Moreover, Luke's narrative is self -contradictory iu
referring to a previous activity in Capernaum, iv. 23 ; Mark i. 14 sqq., 21 sqq.
* Matt. iv. 12 sqq. ; Luke iv. 31 ; Mark i. 21 ; comp. below.
THE LOCALITIES. 139
representation, we may recall the fact that, according to Matthew
and Luke, Jesus afterwards travelled about, and that he uttered
the well-known sentence about the shelterlessness of the Son of
Man ; but of course the later does not exclude the earlier and
the earliest ; and the persistent return to Capernaum in all the
Gospels, the pronouncing the bitterest "Woe !" over Capernaum
in particular, and indeed the distinct recognition in Matthew of
Jesus' liability to be taxed in this " his " town, are striking evi-
dences in proof of his earlier fixed settlement.-^ It is also plainly
to be seen how Mark has arranged — though not without error —
his also in other respects forced picture of the ministry of Jesus
out of his predecessors : Matthew had described a one day's
ministry of Jesus at Capernaum, in the very same surroundings,
only he had previously given Jesus' settlement in that town ;
and Luke had described a Sabbath ministry there, and an early
morning departure thence on a missionary tour, but he had evi-
dently enough described this Sabbath as one among many.^ The
opinion that there was a persistent connection with, a constant
limitation to, the immediate neighbourhood of Capernaum, is
far more historically defensible than a disconnection of Jesus
with Capernaum in the perpetual restlessness of missionary
labour ; and this is so because there exist very few certain
tracks of his routes, and only isolated glimpses of his presence
^ Matt. viii. 20, to which Hilgenfeld (Zeitschrift, 1867, p. 369 ; comp. Pressense,
p. 422) appeals against me, as if it contradicted a residence in Capernaum. The woe,
Matt. xi. 23 ; liability to be taxed, xvii. 24 sqq. The persistent return to Capernaum
is supported also by the other Gospels ; see Vol. II. p. 354. Hence the misplacement
of the residence in Matthew is to be ascribed to the original Evangelist, and only the
Scripture passage to the second hand. The second volume has given data sufficient
against Hilgenfeld, whose criticism is only subjective, for he even strikes out of the
original text (p. 392) the house of Jesus (Matt. ix. 10, 28, xiii. 1).
* The forced representation of Mark (comp. i. 35, iii. 20 sq.), see Vol. I. p. 133.
In Luke iv. 31 — in contradistinction to Mark i. 21 sqq., notwithstanding the simi-
larity of expression in other respects — a protracted ministry in Capernaum is spoken
of (" he was teaching," comp. Luke iv. 15, xix. 47, xxi. 37), a fact overlooked by the
hasty, yet in the opinion of some historically correct, Mark. Thus Weisse (I. p. 288)
thinks that Matthew deduced the residence at Capernaum from Mark.
140 THE FIBST PREACHING.
here and there. But even this opinion would be an exaggera-
tion.^
Notwithstanding Jesus' settlement in Capernaum, the evan-
gelical tradition, on its side, unanimously insists upon an exten-
sive missionary plan from the very beginning ; it is repeatedly
asserted that Jesus went through the whole of Galilee, into all
the cities, towns, and villages, and preached in their synagogues.^
This report carries weight with it on account of the definiteness
with which it makes its appearance ; and it seems quite in cha-
racter with the man who had a mission to the whole of Israel,
who proclaimed the kingdom that was both heavenly and earthly,
and who placed the advent of that kingdom so near ; who after-
wards sent forth twelve Apostles to the fo^^r winds and to tlie
twelve tribes, and eventually himself turned his course towards
Jerusalem and his face towards the Gentiles. While the Baptist
had summoned the people together at one point, in order to
expound to them the question of the day, the continuation of
this work in the altered form demanded by the position and the
idiosyncracy of Jesus, was, it seems, possible only by means of
an alternation of sojourn and travel, whereby Jesus might visit
city after city, district after district, and thus quietly, yet ener-
getically and effectually, prepare men's minds for the great day
of the future. On the other hand, by the side of the settlement
in Capernaum, there stands the important fact that the very
Evangelists who write so much in a general way about the
journeyings of Jesus, know as good as nothing about the details
of those journeyings, with the particular exception of those that
belong to a late period. For even the journey of Jesus to the
^ It is easy to show that, in the Synoptics, Capernaum is the continual central point
of the early period of Jesus' ministry. Gomp. Matt. viii. 5 sqq., ix. 1, 28, xi. 20,
xii. 9, 46, xiii. 1, 36, xiv. 34, xvii. 24; Luke vi. 6, vii. 1, viii. 4, 19, 40; Mark ii. 1
(ii. 13, 23), iii. 1, 19 sqq., iv. 1, v. 21, vi. 53, ix. 33. According to Volkmar (p. 70),
Matthew had again forgotten the residence at Capernaum, in viii. 1 sqq., 20.
- Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, xi. 1, 20 ; Luke iv. 15—44, v. 12, viii. 1, xiii. 22 ; Mark
i. 21, 38, 39, vi. 2, 6.
THE LOCALITIES. 141
remote Nazara, and its neighbouring places Cana and Nain —
supposing the latter be admissible at all — evidently belong to
an advanced period; the journey to Gadara, besides being no
missionary journey, is awkwardly placed early by Matthew ;
and finally, the great concourse of people at the Sermon on the
Mount, although narrated generally, and perhaps to be accepted
as the consequence and effect of a widely-extended missionary
progress, does not in the place in which it is found exist for
history. It might, therefore, be advisable to suspend our judg-
ment upon all the reports of early missionary journeys, together
with the express declaration of Jesus concerning his missionary
vocation, which Luke and Mark have unhistorically made him
utter as early as in the first four weeks, or indeed in the first
days, and to explain them as the result partly of making Jesus
resemble the missionaries of the apostolic age, and partly of
confounding the earlier with the later events in the life of
Jesus.^
Yet we cannot go quite so far as this, and especially because
the sayings of Jesus to those who wished to follow him — sayings
which, according to aU evidences, belong to the earlier period,
and indeed are placed in that period by Matthew — show him to
be already on his wanderings ; because, further, the missionary
address to the Twelve, which belongs to the middle period, very
distinctly pre-supposes his own personal experiences of travel
and entertainment ; and because, finally, we meet with at least
several notices of definite journeyings which are represented by
such names of localities as the Plain of Gennesaret, Magdala,
Bethsaida, and Chorazin." We receive the impression that Jesus,
after a brief initial ministry in populous and flourishing Caper-
naum, explored the immediate neighbourhood, partly in order to
prosecute his mission in a wider field, and partly to escape the
precipitate thronging of the people who had been specially
1 Luke iv. 43 ; Mark i. 38 ; comp. Volkmar, pp. 102, 108.
- Matt. viii. 19, 20 (Luke ix. 57), Matt. x. 11 sqft., xi. 21 sqq., xiv. 3-1.
142 THE FIRST PREACHING.
aroused by tlie miracles of healing.^ Notably all three Gospels
agree in representing the concourse of people in Capernaum in
consequence of the first miracles as being, at the very first, the
occasion of Jesus' leaving the town late in the evening or early
in the morning, or, according to Mark, at dawn ; after which, as
the Gospels here differently report, he went either over the lake
to the Gadarenes, or retired to a desert region on the west shore,
and then went farther on his missionary journeys.^ Passing over
this irreconcilable contradiction, we may venture to look upon
the lovely paradisiacal Plain of Gennesaret as the field in which
Jesus laboured. It is a fact that on his landing in this plain at
a later period, he was most sympathetically received by the sur-
rounding population ; and also that his ardent adherent Mary,
the healed demoniac, undoubtedly belonged to INIagdala, the
village still know^n as Medshel, consisting of w^retclied huts in a
filthy condition, but magnificently situated on the southern border
of the plain, about a league and a half from Capernaum, if the
latter be Khan Minyeh.^ Better attested than this journey to
the south, is that to the north, in a direction away from the
royal city Tiberias. Northwards from Capernaum, and beyond
^ I still look for Capernaum (comp. Ptol. 5, 16, 4) in Khan Mlnyeh, because the
grounds for that belief, given in Vol. II. pp. 365 sq., outweigh the doubts suggested
to me formerly by K. Furrer. Eecently, besides Ewald (3rd ed. j). 331), Ebrard
(Stud, unci Krit. 1867) and Furrer {Bilidlexikon, and on the map of Galilee) have
decided for Telhum. On the other hand, Caspari has justly rejected Telhum, but has
at the same time placed the town too far to the south by the " Round Well" (pp. 20,
126). See above, Vol. II. p. 370. I would add, that Josephus' remarks on his sojourn
at the village of Kepharnome ( Vita, 72), support the claims of Khan Minyeh rather
than those of Telhum. It is at least more conceivable that one who was slightly
wounded should retire from the Jordan in the neighbourhood of Julias, two leagues and
perhaps more rather than only one, since in the uncertainty of the final issue of the
conilict, Telhum was too near to the enemy. Moreover, the old authorities favour
the northerly position of Bethsaida with respect to Capernaum, whilst if Telhum be
Capernaum, Bethsaida must be looked for to the south. Finally, no importance is to
be attached to the fact that the Jews confound the tomb of R. Tanchuma which is
sought for at Telhum with that of Nahum (Capernaum) ; comp. Sepp, II. pp. 177, 190.
The confusion arises from the similarity of the names.
^ Matt. viii. 18; Luke iv. 42; Mark i. 35.
' Matt. xiv. 34; Luke viii. 1 sqq. Magdala, see Vol. II. pp. 364 sq.
THE LOCALITIES. 143
the' transient, scarcely more than league-long, idyll of the Plain
of Gennesaret, lay the neighbouring towns of Bethsaida and
Chorazin, immortalized by Jesus' denunciation of punishment,
yet to-day almost undiscoverable.^ A narrow rocky path, at the
height of about thirty feet above the water, winds round the hill
which embraces and protects the hallowed plain on the nortli.
Upon those ancient stones Jesus travelled towards Bethsaida,
lying half a league distant on the shore of the lake, at the foot
of low hills from which an abundance of water noisily rushed
under the shade of tall thickets.^ At present the place is called
Ain (spring) Tabigha. A mill, traces of a conduit, and the tradi-
tions that linger among the inhabitants, still represent in the
solitude the once busy fishing tow^n to w^hich Peter and Andrew
are said to have belonged, and perhaps also Philip and Natha-
nael.^ From Bethsaida, the road runs half a league further in a
north-easterly direction to the present Telhum, in the neighbour-
hood of which Jesus, leaving the lake, turned towards the north-
west into the quiet little valley of Wady ISTashif ; and at a dis-
tance of half a league from Telhum, a league from Bethsaida, and
a league and a half from Capernaum, he reached the large peasant
village of Chorazin, hidden among hills, and still recognizable in
Bir (wxll) Kerazeh, and by a number of ruins.* These are the
1 Matt. xi. 20 sqq. ; Luke x. 13.
* Furrer, Wand. p. 322. Robinson seeks for tbe old Bethsaida in Ain Tabigha
(see above. Vol. II. p. 3C7, 2nd note) ; and Furrer beard tbe same opinion from an old
Jew on the spot. The ancients also favour a northerly position for Bethsaida and
Chorazin with respect to Capernaum. Epiphanius' account — "not far from Caper-
naum " — is quite in harmony with this. As is well known, Seetzen and Hitter sought
it rather in Khan Minyeh. Ewald (p. 332) is indefinite. Caspari (p. 110) speaks of
the haven of Capernaum ! Gratz (p. 236), even of Julias.
^ John i. 45 sqq.
* Vol. II. p. 367, 2nd note, agrees with Robinson in rejecting the identity of this
spot with Chorazin ; on the contrary, compare my article, Chorazin (unfortunately
rich in printer's errors), in Schenkel's Bibellexilcon, I. pp. 519 sq. The great simi-
larity of the name is striking (comp. tbe variations, Chorazein, the usual form, K(h)o-
ro(a)zain(m), Cboi'azan, Chorazze ; Talmud, Cborashin, Koro(a)zaim). Moreover, no
one would have sought tbe place in this obscure corner without some reason. Jerome
describes it as in litore. The evidences in support of it are numerous. Comp.
Ewald, p. 332. Comp. the map of Van der Velde. The distance from Capernaum is
a little greater than that given by Jerome (two Roman miles). Instead of Sepp's deriva-
144! THE FIRST PREACHING.
only tangMe points in the first missionary tour of Jesus. We
may, however, surmise that in this once richly populated dis-
trict, a number of now unnamed places, of which only scanty
vestiges remain, greeted his arrival ; and it may safely be pre-
sumed that as he turned from the lake into the mountain valley
on his way towards Chorazin, the rest of the background of the
north-western shore between Magdala and Telhum, the towns
and villages of Wady Humam, the Valley of Doves near Mag-
dala, and of Wady el Amud or Eubudjyeh near Capernaum,
received visits from him. If we are willing to extend the early
ministry of Jesus beyond the limits concerning which we have
the most certain evidence — the shore between Magdala and Cho-
razin, a tract of about three leagues— that which most readily
commends itself to our notice as the modest theatre of that
ministry is the district including the eastern border of middle
Galilee, the coast and its immediate background exclusive of the
hilly district of upper Galilee, of the plains of middle Galilee, and
of the Samaritan boundary of southern Galilee. For it is capable
of proof that he first visited the plains and the hills at a later
period ; and even when he recognized the necessity of consider-
ably extending the limits of his mission, he still forbade his dis-
ciples to visit the Phenician north-west and the Samaritan south.
At any rate, he confined his early ministry within far narrower
limits than is generally supposed ; and it is of religious-dogmatic
interest to know that he did not anxiously and slavishly make
his preaching conform to the details of the dogmatics of a
universal call. Above all, it is certain that he always returned
from his wanderings to the lake, to the three towns, chiefly to
Capernaum, the scene of most of the recorded incidents ; and
that he made the ancient rendezvous of Galilee the head-quar-
ters of the kingdom of God.^
tion of the word, that from chorashin (woods, Bux. p. 837) is much more probable, or
from chariszin (water-trenches). The Chorazin of Naphtali celebrated for wheat and
willows (Bux. p. 1089 ; Caspari, p. 76 ; Gratz, p. 360). Comp. the ruins of Kerazeh,
north of Jerusalem (Van der Velde).
^ The rendezvous, see Vol. II. p. 375.
THE LOCALITIES. 145
It is especially noteworthy that Jesus — differing widely in
this respect from his greatest disciple Paul, who won over the
capital cities — sought rather the smaller towns and villages, and
avoided the larger. During the whole of his ministry, we have
no trace of his having visited the great cities, Tiberias, Tari-
chaea, Gabara, and Sapphoris. The most interesting question is
that of his relation to Tiberias, the residence of Herod Antipas,
scarcely three leagues south of Capernaum, and a league and a
half from Magdala.^ We might suppose he had visited it, not
exactly because a later tradition represents him as having
preached on the Horns of Hattin, which rose behind the city ;
but because of the proximity and of the importance of the city,
of the largeness and breadth of his principles, of his knowledge of
royal palaces and courtiers, of his acquaintance with the court, and
of the adherence of the wife of a man in power, one of Herod's
governors, to the new Galilean teacher.^ The fourth Gospel—
without any reliability, it is true — seems to point yet more defi-
nitely to connections between Jesus and the inhabitants of Tibe-
rias.^ In all this, however, we find no certain proof; and the
fact that tliiP- court first became acquainted w4th Jesus at a late
period speaks rather to the contrary. To the silence of the Gos-
pels respecting the chief cities, to the evident preference of Jesus
for the country, his aversion to crowds, his mistrust of the rich,
and his cautious attitude towards the men in power, must be
added the facts tliat Jesus, in his discourses about John, toler-
ably early revealed his very intelligible antipathy to courts, his
wish to avoid them, his refusal to allow them to participate in
the kingdom of heaven ; and that, again, in sending his disciples
forth on their mission, he forbade them not only to go into the
Samaritan towns, but also in the ways of the Gentiles.^ He
avoided Tiberias as the residence of Herod and as a Gentile city ;
1 See Vol. I. p. 270.
^ Matt. xi. 8, xiv. 1 .sqq. ; Luke viii. 3. Hattin, see under Sermon on the Mount.
' John vi. 2.3.
* Antipathy to courts, and to Antipas, Matt. xi. 8, xx. 25, xvi. 26 ; Luke xiii. 32,
xxiii. 9 ; the way of the Gentiles, Matt. x. 5.
146 THE FIRST PREACHING,
and later also, when visiting Nazara, both motives forbade his
entering its celebrated neighbour, Sepphoris, the second city of
Galilee, the favourite of Phenicians and Eomans.^
We know somewhat more concerning the localities — in the
narrower sense — of the missionary work of Jesus, than concern-
ing the towns and villages in which he laboured. Jesus pre-
ferred to deliver his addresses in the synagogues. Upon this
point the Gospels are quite harmonious, including even the
fourth ; and besides the synagogue at Capernaum, which is often
mentioned, there appears later that of Nazara also.^ An inven-
tion of this synagogue-ministry of Jesus for the pxn-pose of
defending his legally Judaistical point of departure against a
suspicion of revolution and of Johannine subversion, is altogether
incredible, even though isolated appearances in the synagogue —
such as the opening sermon in Luke— may awaken doubt. These
appearances in the synagogues are too often and too undesignedly
reported ; and they accord altogether with the strongly-marked
character of the ministry of Jesus. The fact that Jesus fre-
quented the synagogues shows at once that the activity of Jesus
was discreetly accommodated as much to the social as to the
religious ordinances and habits of the nation.^ Here he found
the inhabitants of each neighbourhood voluntarily assembled,
since religion and frequently also civil affairs had here their
speaking-place ; he did not, like John, force the people in this
respect into a violent, striking, and sensational departure from
their regular course of life. Here, again, he connected his teach-
ing with the legitimate worship and edification of the Israelitish
community ; and proved in a simple and striking manner that
the religion which he preached, instead of breaking with the
powers of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets which
he read and which he more broadly expounded, was willing to
1 Comp. above, Vol. I. p. 271, II. p. 4.
2 Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, xii. 9, xiii. 54; Luke iv. 15, 16 (liis wont), 31 (this appear-
ance in public = Mark i. 21, may Lave been the first in the synagogue at (Japemaum);
John vi. 59, xviii. 20 (always in the synagogue and the temple).
3 Comp. al)ove, Vol. II. pp. 154 sq.
THE LOCALITIES. 147
recognize them, to uphold, develop, and perfect them. It is
impossible to overlook the remarkable serviceableness of this
two-hundred-years old institution of the synagogue to his under-
taking; less a place for worship than for the teaching of the
Law and the Prophets, the synagogue entitled him to unfold the
views which he had derived from the Old Testament itself, and
it made it the people's duty to listen to and examine a doctrine
which had been developed out of recognized and hallowed ground.
That he readily" obtained opportunities of speaking, is shown by
the Gospels as w^ell as by all the other accounts of the syna-
gogue-service, a service not by any means bound up with the
priests and the learned Scribes. Strangers were readily allowed
to speak for the sake of freshness and variety, and on account of
the easily understood deficiency of speaking talent in the respec-
tive towns; and Jesus soon became not only well known to
the synagogue authorities, but also a coveted and sought-for
speaker.!
The synagogues could not, however, exhaust the activity of
Jesus, although at first— as in the case of Paul afterwards— he
seems to have limited his public ministry to this extremely
unobtrusive form.2 As a rule, the meetings took place only on
the seventh day; the week-day meetings were attended by a
very small fraction of the population, and are never mentioned
in the sources. The preacher of the approaching kingdom could
not, in the long run, wait for the seventh day, though that day
would naturally always be the festival and crown of his ministry
and works of healing. In the towns, the space at the synagogues
soon became too limited ; and in small towns and villages there
were no synagogues. Moreover, in the East, business and pur-
suits of all kinds are readily transferred from closed rooms to
the open air ; and Jesus personally was a friend of direct and
unrestrained intercourse, and a friend of nature. Thus we see
^ Comp. above. Vol. II. pp. 154 sqq. Acquaintance with Jesus, Matt. ii. 18;
Luke viii. 41.
* Comp. Matt. iv. 23; Luke iv. 15 sq.
L 2
148 THE FIRST PREACHING.
him preaching or healing within the house and without the
house, in the lanes, in the market-places, at the cross- ways.^ But
there was yet another kind of locality, from which he could not
absent himself. The man who had grown up in the midst of
God's creation, who found in that creation the hundred-fold con-
firmation of his inner thoughts and feelings, who in proportion
as he lovingly descended to the facts that could be seized by the
intellect of the simplest of the people, filled his preaching with
an inexhaustible multitude of the symbols of God's thoughts
incarnated in the great economy of the universe, — such a man
must speak under God's open sky, on the smiling shore of the
lake, or even on the gently swelling wave, among the lush
verdure of the field or of the wilderness, best of all there above
in the free air and meditative stillness of the Galilean hills,
where he could bring himself and his hearers nearer to the God
of heaven and earth, and could point with his finger to the
truth that sat throned in heaven and yet grew in the grass.^
These free-nature sermons, during which he was wont to sit
quietly, confidingly, a sure and kindly guide of the greatest of
spiritual movements, while the people ranged themselves in a
circle around him as in the synagogue, are placed by the Gospels
for the most part at the late period, when the concourse of
hearers had become great and opposition had developed itself;
but, even if it were possible to be in doubt as to the earliest
period, the Gospels themselves have placed the pearl of the
preaching of Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount, in the Galilean
spring-time.^ That sermon belongs at least to the close of the
^ In the house, Matt. viii. 14, 16, ix. 10 ; Luke v. 17. In Mark ii. 1, contrary to
all possibility, Jesus' preaching to the masses of the people is erroneously transferred
to the house. Comp. Mark iii. 19. Lanes, Luke xiii. 26, comp. x. 10 and Matt,
vi. 2 ; market-places. Matt. xi. 18 ; Mark vi. 56 ; cross- ways, comp. Matt. xxii. 9.
* On the shore, from the ship, Matt. xiii. 1 sq. ; Luke v. 1 sqq. ; Mark ii, 13,
iv. 1 ; on the grass, Matt. xiv. 15, 19, comp. vi. 30, Mark vi. 39 ; hills. Matt. v. 1,
XV. 29 sq.
3 Sitting, Matt. v. 1, xiii. 1, comp. xv. 29, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 55 ; standing, Luke v. 1,
comp. ver. 3. See also Vol. II. pp. 133, 236. Listeners sitting in a circle, Mark
iii. 34 (comp. Matt. xii. 49). Comp. synagogue. Vol. II. p. 158. Learners in Jeru-
THE LOCALITIES. 149
spring-time, and gives a picture of the popular preaching of
Jesus, even though it is a sermon to the disciples ; and it locates
itself upon the hill whence one sees the earthly and heavenly
kingdom of the beatitudes, and points to the city on the hill
which cannot be hid, and to the majestic sunlike glory and sun-
like career of Jesus' vocation to be the light of the world, and in
sight of the flowers of the field and the birds of heaven dismisses
the demons of anxious care.
Besides the larger places of assembling, there were always for
Jesus smaller, more limited localities, the narrowest mission-
spheres, the mission in the house. We have already rejected the
opinion that Jesus began with the house-mission, and afterwards
gradually extended his ministry into a mission to the nation.^
On the contrary, the actual fact was that with him the two were
contemporary and connected. From tlie crowds which he was
accustomed himself to disperse or indeed suddenly to forsake, he
retired into the houses ; from the houses he again went forth
into the great public mission, or was compelled, as already in
Capernaum, to transform the house-mission into a public mis-
sion.- When he was on his missionary journeys, the house was
often not merely his place of abode for the night, but also the
head-quarters of the kingdom of heaven. This is seen, with
especial clearness, in his missionary address to the disciples.^ It
may be that he imposed the house-mission more distinctively
and almost exclusively upon his weaker, timid followers than
upon himself, because they could labour more confidently and
upon surer ground in a small sphere than in a large one. But
it is evident that in this respect he had learnt from experience ;
that he had, on his journeys in unknown j)laces, often found in
salem, Luke ii. 46 ; Acts xxii. 3. Ligbtfoot, p. 326. Also above, Vol. I. pp. 336 sq.
The people stand on the shore, Matt. xiil. 2.
^ See above, pp. 12 sqq.
" Dispersion of the crowds, Matt. xiii. 36, xiv. 22, xv. 39, comp. viii. 18 ; in the
houses, viii. 7, 14, xiii. 36 ; Mark i. 29, vii. 17 ; transition from house-mission to
public mission, Matt. viii. 14 sqq., ix. 10 sqq., comp. Mark ii. 1 sqq., iii. 19.
^ Matt. x. 11 sqq.
150 THE FIRST PREACHING.
the house of his host fresh light as to his course of action, a
centre from which he could work and convert a small mission
into a larger one ; that, indeed, he often made the opening of a
new mission or the giving up of one already commenced depen-
dent upon the demeanour and character of the households into
which he went invited or uninvited.^ In fact, Jesus had every
reason for engaging in this domestic mission as Avell as in his
great public mission, which latter, however, his imitation of the
prophets and the Baptist, or more correctly his recognition of the
national character of his religious task and its pressing urgency,
prevented him from ever neglecting. His circumspection, his
retirement into privacy, his partiality for the individual form of
humanity, and his leaning towards the quiet maintenance of
existing ordinances, perhaps chiefly the fundamental require-
ments of his personality and his doctrine — which his great pub-
lic addresses also sought to satisfy — all tended, not towards the
production of a great sensation, but towards the cultivation of
heart and mind, the calling forth of personal characteristics,
the creation of men with personal experience of salvation, of
converts, of persons blessed through the double influence of his
teaching word and of his impressive personality.^ Hence he
reclines at noon or evening at the table of the man whom the
chances of travel make his host; in Capernaum, he pays and
receives visits, nay, he even entertains guests, or himself accepts
invitations to the midday meal or to the supper in the hospitable
Galilean houses.^ On such occasions he speaks differently than
when addressing the people. He is sparing of the pearls of his
preaching, which he will not profane by uttering them at inap-
propriate places or before unappreciative audiences.^ His per-
sonal influence is present, but he does not refer to spiritual
matters either at great length or with solemn emphasis. The
1 Invites himself, Luke xix. 5 sqq. ^ Comp. Matt. xi. 28, xii. 48 sqq.
' Host, Luke vii. 36, xi. 37, xiv. 1, xix. 5 sqq. ; Matt. xxvi. 6 ; visits. Matt.
viii. 7, 14 ; receives visits, ix. 1, 10, 14, 18 ; breakfast, Luke xi. 37 ; meal, vii. 36,
comp. Matt. xxvi. 6; eating on the Sabbath, Luke xiv. 1.
* Matt. vii. 6.
THE LOCALITIES. 151
same is true of the occasions when he eats with publicans, when
he visits Peter's house, and even at the marriage at Caua, that
representative picture, as spirited as it is miraculous, of the
domestic ministry of Jesus. But it is exactly at such times and
places that he finds occasion, briefly and incidentally yet impres-
sively, to introduce one or another of his piquant, nervous, tender
aphorisms. Bread, salt, wine, clothing, and Avashing, become the
vehicles of higher truth ; and it may well be that on such occa-
sions he utters the sayings concerning the bread and the fish
which the father does not withhold from the asking child, the
wine in the skins and the fresh must which has too rough a taste
for the guests. We have actually extant a number of examples
of such house-and- table-talk, though Luke's copious collection
of table-talk leaves much to be desired with reference to occasion
and genuineness.^ Sometimes Jesus is questioned by the dis-
ciples of John about fasting, and by the Pharisees concerning the
publicans ; sometimes he accepts proffered homage or suppresses
a false enthusiasm.^ He prescribes for the Pharisees that strive
to get the best seats. Christian rules for the table ; to the invited,
rules to be observed at the host's entertainment ; to his morose
entertainer, Simon the Pharisee, he commends the reproving
example of the loving sinner, the grateful debtor.^ To the much-
cumbered Martha he points out the few things, nay, the one
thing, needful; and he blesses his penitent, self-denying host
Zacchseus with the saying about the salvation of the lost.^
^ Comp. especially the raeal at the publican's, Matt. ix. 10 ; the meal at Bethany,
xxvi. 6 (comp. Luke vii. 86). Also in Luke, particularly x. 38 (Mary and Martha),
xi. 37 (controversy about washing), xiv. 1 (controversy about the Sabbath), xiv. 7
(higher and lower places at table, comp. Jos. Ant. 12, 4, 9), xiv. 12 (invitation of the
poor), xiv. 15 (the great feast of God), xix. 6 (Zacchaeus). Each will be more fully
treated as occasion requires. Many passages are later, particularly in the table-talk in
Luke xiv., e.g. xiv. 7 (comp. Matt, xxiii. 6), xiv. 12; xiv. 15 shows traces of Ebionite
influence. The controversial sayings in xi. 37 are very clumsily introduced ; but
vii. 36, xiv. 1, 15, also are not above suspicion.
^ Questions, Matt. ix. 11, 14; homage, Luke vii. 86 sqq. ; Matt. xxvi. 6 sqq. ;
suppression of enthusiasm, Luke xiv. 15, comp. xi. 27.
' Luke xiv. 7 sqq., vii. 36 sqq.
* Luke X. 88 sqq. Mareta, marat beta = lady, Buxtorflf, p. 1247. Well-attested
reading, oXiyuiv i] ii/ot;. Zaccheeus, Luke xix. 5 sqq.
152 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
Division II.— THE WOEKS OF JESUS.
Words and works make up tlie whole of the ministry of
Jesus. He himself now and then thus summarizes his activity ;
and the Evangelists, with Matthew at their head, have still more
explicitly recognized this great duality, and have grouped the
whole life of Jesus more or less in accordance with it.^ By
means of this parallelism they have not only given life and
freshness to their representation — for even the fourth Evangel-
ist has found in the works and miracles of Jesus a relieving
counterpoise to the monotony of his long addresses, — but they
have written under the conviction — the three earlier Gospels
more so than the fourth — that the narrative of the works of
Jesus would furnish the conclusive and supreme evidence of his
divinity, or at least of his Messiahship. They have, therefore,
related a number of such narratives ; and at different periods of
his life, particularly at the beginning and the end of his Gali-
lean ministry, they have constructed a long chain of miracles.
Each successive author has gone further in the same direction :
Mark has subordinated the words to the works, and John has
condensed what was greatest into a select few of examples.
They have not suppressed the utterances in which Jesus qualifies
or denies the value of miracles and of belief in miracles ; but
they have given much more emphasis to the words in which he
proves his greatness from his miracles, and they have added to
his own sayings passages from the prophets to show that those
very works are fulfilments of the Old Testament.^ And what
was still wanting to this exaltation and glorification of the works
1 The categories, preaching and healing, Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35 ; Luke ix. 2, 6 ; Mark
i. 39. In his missionary address, Jesus himself uses these categories, Matt. x. 7 sq. ;
Luke X. 9 (comp. Luke ix. 2, 6 ; Mark vi. 7, 12). See also Matt. xi. 5, 20 sqq.
^ Comp. Matt. viii. 17, xii. 17 sqq. ; in both instances, it is true, the work of the
second hand.
THE IVORKS OF JESUS. 153
of Jesus, is supplied in the narration by the astonished and
admiring people whose enthusiasm for the works of Jesus is
always described as being much greater than that for his
preaching.^
Without doubt, the works of Jesus were actually much more
extensive than his so-called miracles. His cleansing of the
temple, his controversy with his opponents, were in point of fact
works ; nay, his most pacific preaching was not only a word, it
was a work. It aimed at newly-forming, really at transforming,
men and their circumstances ; and it attained its end. It set
men in motion ; and it not only tore away from the Scribes their
customary adherents by gathering hundreds or thousands around
itself, but it also shook the invisible world of spirits in some
instances out of their security and in others out of their despair,
and disseminated an unrest and a rest hitherto unknown. Un-
fortunately, the ancient historiography of the life of Jesus has
mentioned these latter facts only too sparingly, and has described
their occurrence with too few details, although the creative
awakening of these mental processes, of this great interchange of
mental goods, was certainly the crown of the religious activity
of Jesus, and would ultimately prove the best and most satisfac-
tory explanation of his other works. Here and there, indeed,
mention is made of the powerful impression produced by the
words of Jesus, who spoke as a fully authorized ambassador of
God and not as the Scribes — nay, who, according to tlie fourth
Gospel, spoke as no man had ever spoken ; and the impression
produced by Jesus is seen still more forcibly than by means of
verbal description, in the fact that men became his disciples,
yielding to the irresistible attraction of his call, in the tears of
the woman that was a sinner, in the avowal of the lame man, in
the joy of Zacchseus and the publicans, in the devotion of the
listening Mary, in the blessedness of the brethren and sisters
who, lying at the feet of him who was meek and lowly, found
1 Matt. ix. 8, 31, 33, xii. 23, &c. ; Mark i. 27, 45, ii. 12, &c.
154 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
rest for their souls.^ But — with the exception of the Apostle
Paul, who was silent concerning the miracles of Jesus and
repulsed with displeasure the Jewish demand for signs, in
which respect the fourth Gospel has partially followed him —
men formerly attached much greater importance to the external
works, the bodily healings and the physically great or even
miraculous effects ; and it is altogether in keeping that Luke
and Mark from the very first completely overlook the influence
of the doctrinal teaching of Jesus, and refer that divine attesta-
tion which the multitude recognized in his words to his powerful
and miracle-working utterances ; and that Matthew directly and
repeatedly, though unconsciously, contradicts, by introducing
narratives of miraculous signs, Jesus' refusal to give signs.^ This
preference for the sensuous has continued until modern days, in
spite of the Pauline condemnation of it, and has at the same
time brought the grossest confusion into history. With carnal
security and insatiability, men have accepted as their prey all
these narratives, just as they stand, as accredited facts, and have
deduced from them inferences of an endless perspective, which
are necessarily contradicted not merely by sober criticism and
the human conception of the life of Jesus, but also by Jesus
himself, by -his clear historical word.^
^ Rest to souls, Matt. xi. 28 ; forgiveness, ix. 2 ; power of the word, xii. 49,
xxi. 32 ; Luke vii. 38, x. 39 ; John vi. 68, vii. 4(3.
* 1 Cor. i. 22, comp. John iv. 48, xx. 29, but also ii. 11, 18, 23, iii. 2, iv. 45,
V. 36, x. 25, 38, xii. 37, xv. 24. The greater emphasis laid upon miracles than upon
teaching, Luke iv. 36 (32) ; Mark i. 27 (22) ; comp. Matt. vii. 28 sq. Matt. xii. 38
sqq. has a double contradiction, for (1) the sign of the resurrection is artificially
brought in, ver. 40, and (2) those who demand signs are threatened, ver. 43, with the
withdrawal of the miraculous efifects already produced (for this is the artificial connec-
tion).
^ The utterly uncritical hunger for miracles, in Pressens^, Jesus-Christ, 1865 ;
Steinmeyer, Wunderthaten des Herrn, 1866. Comp. Ewald, 3rd ed. p. 290: a king
must speak less than act ; necessary as teaching may be, yet, strictly speaking, it is
by no means a truly royal occupation.
CRITICAL DIFFICULTIES. 155
A. — Critical Difficulties.
In this province of the history of Jesus — one that is excep-
tionally obscure and perhaps never to be completely illumined —
it first of all behoves us clearly to perceive what are the great
historical difficulties ; and in the next place to ask to what
extent and with what explanatory resources a cautious histori-
ography is in a position to engage in the work of construction.
It is impossible here for the historian to hide from himself and
others a number of discouraging facts.
In the first place, the Gospels differ widely among themselves
as to the number, character, and consequences of the so-called
works. It is true that out of about twenty incidents narrated in
detail by the earlier Gospels, our sources have a dozen or more
in common, in some cases three of the sources, in others only
two, agreeing together; and even the fourth Gospel coincides
more or less with its predecessors in four or five out of its six or
seven miracles.^ But each Gospel has also its own fresh pas-
sages, peculiar to itself. Matthew has the small, Luke the large,
draught of fishes ; Luke, the raising of the dead at Nain, the
healing of the deformed woman, of the man wdth the dropsy, of
the ten lepers, of the servant whose ear was cut off; Mark, the
healing of the dumb mute and of the blind man ; John, in the
beginning the marriage at Cana, and at the close the raising of
Lazarus. We see here plainly the increase of the miraculous in
the later Gospels, chiefly in Luke and John ; and the supposi-
tion of a justified gleaning of what had been omitted, is met by
the strong suspicion that the increasing marvellousness of the
1 In Matthew I reckon twenty miracles, in Luke nineteen, in Mark eighteen.
Those common to all three are : (1) Peter's mother-in-law; (2) leper; (3) paralytic;
(4) Jairus' daughter ; (5) woman with issue of blood ; (6) man with withered hand ;
(7) (jradarene ; (8) lunatic ; (9) blind men at Jericho ; (10) storm ; (11) miracle of
feeding. Those common to two Gospels are : centurion's servant ; dumb devil ;
demoniac at Capernaum ; second miracle of feeding ; second storm. John alone has
the miracle at Cana and the raising of Lazarus ; and, in common with other Gospels,
he has the healing of the ruler's son, the infirm man, the miracle of feeding, the
storm, the blind.
156 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
miracles in the later Gospels — the great draught of fishes, the
changing of the water into wine, the recalling to life of the
young man at Nain and of Lazarus — reveals less a modest
gleaning of what had been left untold than a heightened mythi-
cal tradition. This impression is still more strongly produced
by the narratives of those miracles that are given by the several
Gospels in common, when we examine their substance more
closely. In the first place, the detailed features are very diverse:
here one blind man, there two ; here one possessed, there two ;
here a fever patient, there a paralytic ; here one who is sick,
there one who is dying ; here a girl who is dead, there a girl
who is on the point of death ; here a word from Jesus, there a
touch. In the above instances the fourth Gospel has not been
taken into account : that Gospel transforms a Capernaum miracle
into a Cana miracle, a Galilean one into one at Jerusalem, a
blind man into a man born blind, a miracle of healing in the
house to one at the pool, one in the near distance to one in the
far distance, two healings on week-days to healings on Sabbath-
days. At the same time, as a rule, the miracles increase in mar-
vellousness as they descend from the earlier to the later writers.
In Matthew, the paralytic is brought to the Lord upon a bier ;
in Luke, he is let down from the roof ; in Mark, he is let down
through the uncovered roof, — therefore he is brought to Jesus in
spite of the greatest obstacles, which faith overcomes. The ill-
ness of the woman with the issue of blood becomes more and
more serious as the case passes from Matthew to Luke, and on
to Mark; and the condition of the demoniacal Gadarenes or
Gadarene grows more and more dreadful. To the same source is
due also the progression from persons who are diseased to per-
sons who have been long diseased, or who were born diseased, from
the simply diseased to persons who are dying or dead. In Jesus'
miracles of healing, the sudden healing passes into the gradual,
the healing by a command into that with means and appliances ;
the later authors, indeed, placing before us what is apparently
the easier form of healing, but what is in fact, with its varied
r
CRITICAL DIFFICULTIES. 157
manipulations, the more mysterious. The last form of dissimi-
larity is in the different order of sequence. Here also points of
contact do not altogether fail : they are most frequent between
Luke and Mark, less so between Matthew and Mark; but all
three often go hand in hand, as in the first miracles and in the
last, as well as in the placing together of particular narratives —
those of the storm on the lake and the demoniacs, of the woman
with the issue of blood and the dead or dying young daughter of
the ruler ; and John, notwithstanding the great liberties he takes,
has respected the order of his predecessors, from his second to
his sixth miracle. On the whole, however, there prevails a great
diversity of arrangement : here an artificial octade or decade,
here a quaternion of miracles ; a chapter of greater miracles, here
at the beginning, there at the end ; a different initial miracle, or
indeed a different termination of the miracles, here in Matthew,
there in Luke and Mark, and again in John. All this will be
made clear and palpable in the history of the separate incidents.
It would be an illusion to suppose that recourse to the oldest,
or to the best corroborated, account would relieve us of all diffi-
culties. This procedure has its undoubted advantages, and will
be here observed as far as practicable. But it is by no means
conclusive, for in this province especially it must be superficial
and unpromising. We possess, indeed, an oldest, but certainly
not the oldest, the original Gospel ; and in the oldest we possess
there is already a world of myths. And there are instances of
unanimity between the three, or even between the four Gospels,
which may compel criticism to deliberate more carefully before
it yields to doubt, than is necessary with reference to accounts
that are imperfectly attested : nevertheless, we know well enough
^tliat the three, or the four. Gospels have often drunk at one and
the same source, whether that source be what is now called
Matthew or the primitive Matthew, Mark or the primitive Mark,
and that therefore they do not always establish the truth out of
the mouths of two or three witnesses. We would here simply
mention that our Gospels frequently speak in a general way of
158 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
an indefinite number of miracles, and yet almost always confine
themselves to the repetition of the well-known miracles men-
tioned by their predecessors : a proof that the sources did not
flow copiously to them, and that the accounts of eye and ear-
witnesses were a source which had long been dry. The process
of filtration to wliich the received tradition must be subjected,
will therefore have to be carried on the more minutely, effec-
tually, and accurately, and with all the most delicate apparatus
at our command.
It is at once easy to discover that a large number of the works
ascribed to Jesus must be withdrawn as unauthenticated or as
superfluous. All those works are unauthenticated which are
from time to time mentioned in the Gospels in a merely general
way, as illustrative of the ministry of Jesus. The statement that
introduces the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, " He healed
every sickness and every disease, .... and they brought unto
him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and
torments, the possessed, the lunatic, the paralyzed, and he healed
them," is repeated with more or less of variation again and again
not only in Matthew, but also in Luke, Mark, and John.^ The
possessed, the blind, the lame, the dumb, and the deformed, are
enumerated with special copiousness. That these enumerations
have no claim to strict historical accuracy — though that there
were other cases of healing than merely those reported in detail
cannot be doubted — is to be inferred from the many introductory
accounts of Matthew and of his co-Evangelists which do not by
any means constitute an historical situation, as much as from
Matthew's final account of the cases of healing of blind and
lame in the temple at Jerusalem, which account is improbable
in itself and is altogether unrepresented in the other Gospels.^
1 Matt. iv. 23 sqq., viii. 16, ir. 35, xii. 15, xiv. 14, 36, iv. 30, xix. 2, xxi. 14;
Luke W. 40, v. 15, 17, vi. 17 sqq., vii. 21, ix. 11 ; Mark i. 32 sqq., 39, iii. 10 sqq.,
20, vi. 55 ; John ii. 23, iv. 45, 48, vi. 2, vii. 31, xii. 37.
2 Comp. Matt. iv. 23 and the parallel passages ; xiv. 14, xv. 30 — in connection
with the miracles of feeding — and the parallel passages ; also Luke vii. 21, the mira-
cles of healing on the occasion of the arrival of the messengers from the Baptist, comp.
Matt. xi. 1 ; miracles of healing in the temple, xxi. 14.
CRITICAL DIFFICULTIES. 159
It is, moreover, very instructive to reflect that if these general
accounts of miracles of healing were literally historical, there
would at last remain no more sick persons for Jesus to heal;
and yet we find a great many making their appearance up to the
end, and in the time of the Apostles.^ Indeed, if these reports
were not simply additions by the authors, their vague and gene-
ral character would prevent us from forming a decisive opinion,
would fail to supply an historical affirmation. Equally unau-
thenticated are the works which are simply the subordinate and
incidentally mentioned accompaniments of an important and
significant event in the life of Jesus. In the narrative of the
centurion of Capernaum, in that of the Canaauitish woman, and
in the controversy with the Pharisees concerning the kingdom
of the devil, the actual healing of the servant, of the daughter,
or of the man, is a matter more or less indifferent ; the author
briefly mentions the healing as a formal conclusion, but his
account gives no distinct picture of the healing ; his attention
and ours is fixed on something quite different, namely, on the
interview which precedes or follows.^
Among the superfluous narratives are, in the first place, the
duplicates, the more or less accidental and involuntary doubling
of one and the same incident in the mouth of loquacious,
changeable tradition and in the written precipitate of that
tradition. Matthew and Mark have a double feeding of the
multitude; but the second with the 4,000 men resembles the
first with the 5,000 to a hair, does not assume the existence
of the first, and is happily avoided by Luke and John. Mat-
thew has two blind men in the cycle of initial miracles ; again,
on tlie journey through Jericho, he has first there a dumb
demoniac, and then later — in the controversies — he has an-
other who is also blind : in both cases, it is doubtless the same
incident, at least the homage of the friends and the objections
1 Matt. xiv. 14, 35, xv. 30, xix. 2; Acts iii. 1, v. 15, 16.
« Matt. viii. 6, 13, xv. 22, 28. The miracle of healing in xii. 22 is first certified,
although the address is the principal thing.
160 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
of tlie opponents are exactly the same, and the two accounts
are unquestionably drawn from different sources, the author or
the interpolator having inserted as separate incidents what he
found in one source earlier and in another later, in one shorter
and another more lengthy.^ Thus, in the two storms in Mat-
thew and Mark, it is possible to discover an original identity,
notwithstanding the peculiar features which distinguish them;
at any rate, it is remarkable that Luke has only the one and
John only the other. It is in the same way possible that one
fact or one conception forms the foundation of the narrative of
the small draught of fishes by Peter in Matthew, and of the large
one in Luke. Who, then, shall decide whether the different, ever
increasingly copious, narratives of blind men and of men born
blind, of lame men, of lepers, of demoniacs of every kind, are to
be referred respectively to different facts or to only one ?
The history of the miraculous draught of fishes exhibits an-
other mode of origination of the superfluous narratives. In the
miracle-seeking manner of the Jews, many works are artificially
elaborated out of words, and chiefly out of the figurative sayings
of Jesus, out of his parables : a mode of origination to which
Weisse drew particular attention.^ The possibHity of such a
mode of origination must be admitted beforehand, when we per-
ceive that in other departments the words of Jesus have been
notoriously and violently made to refer to facts : thus, when he
declines to give any sign other than the sign of Jonah— i.e. of
Jonah's preaching— one Evangelist quite erroneously understands
him to refer to the exhibition of divine power in the resurrec-
1 Hilgenfeld is inclined to regard the dumb demoniac in Matt. xii. as an addition ;
but it m°ight rather be asked whether the last two pictures of the cycle, viii., ix., are
not to be regarded as additions by the interpolator. For the crisis was reached in
ix. 18—25, and ver. 26 forms a concluding sentence. The meagreness of the narra-
tion, that follows, and its imitation of the preceding narrative (ix. 27, 31, comp.
ver. 26), are at once noticeable ; the cry, " Thou Son of David" (ix. 27), is in the
first place impossible, and the non-recognition by the original author of the identity
of this incident with a later one (xx. 30) is inconceivable. On the other hand, xii. 22
is an organic member of the original context of the controversies.
* Ev. Gesch. I. pp. 372, &c. Comp. R. Seydel, in Schenkel's Zeitschr. 1870,
p. 74.
CRITICAL DIFFICULTIES. IGl
tion'oiit of the belly of the fish, i. e. out of the grave.^ But there
are striking instances in the department we are now treating of
Jesus promises Peter that he shall become a fisher of men.
Luke, and in another later place the supplementer of John, have
added to this promise an accompanying sign in Peter's great
draught of fishes, about which the other Gospels are silent,
though IMatthew has made room for a small draught of fishes by
Peter.2 Jesus uttered a threat against the unfruitful Jewish fig-
tree, and Luke gives this threat : in Matthew and Mark — not in
Luke, it is true — there has grown out of it the great final miracle
at Jerusalem of the cursed fig-tree.^ Jesus called himself the
physician of the sick, the saviour among the deaf, the blind, tlie
leprous, the dead: how many narratives of miraculous healing of
unhistorical blind and lame in the temple at Jerusalem may not
have been developed out of these expressions ?^ To the Baptist's
inquiries as to liis Messiahship, Jesus answered in the words of
Isaiah's prophecy : Blind men see, lame walk, lepers are cleansed,
deaf hear, dead men are raised up, and to poor men the Gospel
is preached. Did he, contrary to Isaiah's meaning, and contrary
to the unequivocal final word about the spiritual Gospel of the
poor, refer to the physically diseased, to the physically diseased
alone, to those who were physically raised again, as the Gospels
understand him to have done, and as Luke attempts to demon-
strate by illustrations ?^ Let us further look at two of the longer
parables. The Gospels give the parable of the seed of the word,
the seed which he and his disciples after him scatter, and wliich
brings forth fruit a hundred-fold : now, the feeding of the 5000
by Jesus and the Apostles is, in Matthew, very significantly
placed in almost immediate connection with this parable, and in
Luke and Mark with the sending forth of the Apostles ; and
John has shown, without disguise, in the Galilean miracle of
^ Matt. xii. 39 sq., comp. Luke xi. 29 sq.
" Matt. iv. 19, xvii. 27 ; Luke v. 4 sqq. ; John xxi. 6 sqq.
' Luke xiii. 6 sqq. ; Matt. xxi. 18 ; Mark xi. 12.
■» Matt. ix. 12, viii. 22, xv. 14, xi. 4, comp. xxi. 14.
" Matt. xi. 1; Luke vii. 2, 12, 21.
VOL. III. M
162 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
feeding, and also in the Samaritan harvest, the spiritual meaning
which underlies the incidents.^ The third Gospel gives the
parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the glorification of Lazarus
in his death, and the mistaken belief of the rich man in torment
that his brothers under the Law would believe if Lazarus arose
from the dead ; in the fourth Gospel, there is developed from
this parable the crowning miracle of Jesus, the resurrection of
Lazarus, which was nevertheless without influence upon the
unbelieving, worldly Jews.^
Such picture-stories grew out of the words of Jesus, or, in the
absence of words, out of the general impression of his ministry,
and served the purpose of depicting that impression. We cannot
be angry at their existence ; for though they are unhistorical and
superfluous, they are, in the spirit of the East, representations
full of significance. Modern divination, with all its sagacity,
has, it is true, drawn a number of exaggerated and untenable
inferences from these representations : for instance, it is difficult
to sustain the proposition that healings of demoniacs or healings
at a distance are simply artificial symbolisms, a kind of figurative
description of the subjection and conversion of the near and dis-
tant heathenism.^ Yet it is unquestionable that at least some
incidents' in all the Gospels have taken their rise from such
points of view, a special instance being that of the humorous
and, in a literal sense, impossible incident of the demoniacs and
the swine in the Gentile Gadara ; bvit this tendency was com-
menced chiefly by Luke and perfected by John. In Luke (fol-
lowed by Mark), the very first work, the healing of tlie furious
demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum, has a purely symbolic
significance, as much so as the initial sermon at Nazara : it is
Jesus' proof of strength, the evidence that his word has authority
and force. Luke has, yet more distinctly than Matthew, painted
^ Matt. xiii. 3 sqq., xiv. 19 sqq. ; Luke ix. 1, 13 ; Mark vi. 7, 37; John vi. 11, 35,
iv. 35 sqq.
^ Luke xvi. 19 sqq. ; John xi. 1 sqq.
3 Thus especially Yolkmar, Rel. Jesu, 1857, and EvcmgeUen, 1870.
CRITICAL DIFFICULTIES. 163
tlie Gadarene demoniac as the representative of heathenism. In
the ten lepers, which he substitutes for the one leper of the other
Gospels, he intends to exhibit, very significantly in the district
of the kingdom of the ten tribes, the spiritual leprosy which was
curable both in Jews and Samaritans, but was less severe and
more easily curable in the Samaritans.^ It has been already
mentioned that the miraculous feeding of the multitude, the
healing of the dying servant, and the restoration to life of the
dead young man, are, in Luke's context, introduced essentially
as illustrations of the words of Jesus.^ Finally, in the fourth
Gospel, all the miracles are from beginning to end only pictures
of ideas, as was seen by Herder. The external miracle is only
the rude foundation, only the introduction to the higher spiritual
truth which, as a rule, follows in much greater detail and is
much more impressively given.^ The reader receives the im-
pression that the Evangelist attached little importance to the
material foundation, that he regarded it only as the indicator,
or only as the " staves " for the sensuous and infirm people — as
was later said of the pictures in Christian churches — by which
they might acquire a presentiment of or might find the truth :
to a certain extent, that material foundation is the potentiating
{Potenzirung) of the parabolic speeches of Jesus, so that men
might not merely hear words in words, but see them in pictures.
The depreciatory manner in which Jesus ever and anon speaks
of signs gives the same impression ; as does yet more the author's
Philonic view of the sayings and signs of the Old Testament,
in which he discovers, not God himself, but God's accommoda-
tion of himself to flesh and blood.^ Hence also the remarkaljle
freedom of the Evangelist in this province, — his new and arbi-
trary handling of the old narratives, and his careless construction
1 Luke iv. 33 (Mark i. 23), viii. 26 (Mark v. 1), xvii. 12.
^ Luke vii. 22, and 2, 12. Miracle of the loaves, see above, pp. 101 sq.
^ Comp. Strauss's new L. J. p. 12. Hence is explained the paucity of Johanniue
miracles ; against Schleiermacher, p. 238.
* Conip. the passages on signs, above, p. 154 ; and on Phllonism in Vol. L pp.
281 sq. (.Jolin V. 37).
M 2
164 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
of tlie new. The marriage at Cana, tlie first miracle, is a picture
of the master of joy, who through life and death overpasses
Judaism ; the miracles of the healing of the nobleman's son and
of the infirm man are signs of the far-reaching, unresting ministry
of the Father and the Son ; the miracle of the loaves exhibits the
Messiah feeding his faithful people with his word, with his body;
the storm reveals the divine ruler who brings the ship of the
Church into port, though it be after some delay ; the man born
blind affords an opportunity for the putting forth of Jesus' power
to enlighten, and Lazarus of his unlimited ability to give life.
The unhistorical and superfluous miracles have been derived
not only from the words and the great works of the life of Jesus
— words and works which could be so easily translated into
objective, material, symbolic narratives — but to a certain extent
also from the Old Testament. The influence of this factor has
sometimes been exaggerated, especially by Strauss in his first
" Life of Jesus," in which he represents the history of Jesus as
containing a series of mere copies of Mosaic or prophetic myths.
Volkmar has recently, one-sidedly and vmcritically, fallen back
upon this theory. At present, Strauss admits that only that
which has an affinity to Jesus has been imitated, and the old
material has received the inspiration of a new and higher spirit.
We would still more openly say that the starting-point of the
miraculous narratives is as a rule not the spirit of the Old Testa-
ment, but the spirit of the New, the actual existence, sayings,
and doings of Jesus, and that this more or less historical Jesus is
secondarily here and there stamped with the impress of Jewish
forms of perception and thought, i. e. with the impress of the
mythical forms of thought of the Old Testament.^ This Jesus is
certainly a zealot, but yet much more is he a loving friend of
man : hence, with the exception of the cursing of the fig-tree,
which however did no man any harm, none of the penal judg-
ments of Moses or Elijah or Elisha have been transferred to
^ Strauss, Lehen Jesu, I. pp. 96 sqq., II. pp. 1 sqq. ; Ltben Jesufiir das Deutsche
Volk, pp. 150 sqq., 262 sqq.
CRITICAL DIFFICULTIES. 165
him, though their benevolent actions have been ; whilst the
most that can be said on the other side is, that an inclination to
imitate Elijah in calling down fire from heaven has been ascribed
to his disciples.^ As a matter of fact, this Jesus heals the sick,
such even as the Old Testament either did not know or did not
prominently mention, — the possessed, the paralytic, those suffer-
ing from haemorrhage, and the dropsical ; and on this account,
perhaps, the healings effected by the ancient men of God in the
cases of the leprous and the blind, or even their restoration of
the dead to life, are also ascribed to him. This Jesus speaks of
the fruitful seed of the word of God, and is always translating
the letter of his preaching into deeds of human love, into a fresh
system of higher ordinances ; and on this account, perhaps, the
miracles of feeding of Moses and Elijah are introduced into his
life.^ Admitting the primarily Christian and to some extent
historical origination of the miraculous narratives, there naturally
still remains ample space for the influence of the Old Testament.
The having regard to, the imitation of, the Old Testament, natu-
rally and quite spontaneously occurred in the narrating and re-
narrating of the life of Jesus ; and this was the case not merely
because the narrators and their after-narrators — at least those
among them who were Jewish Christians — lived in those old
histories, but also because of the nature of their dogmatics. The
Old Testament itself described the Messianic period sometimes
as an epoch of universal salvation and prosperity, and sometimes
as an epoch of fulfilment.^ To the fulfilment belonged the
accomplishment of all and every prediction of salvation in a
spiritual and yet more in a temporal sense, and the appearance
of a man who should be equal or superior to Moses and the pro-
phets. The contemporaries of Jesus, the Jews of Paul and John,
and also the fourth book of Esdras, and even the Eabbis, looked
^ Comp. Luke ix. 54.
^ ]\Iore in detail when treating of the miracle of the loaves, of the narratives of
raising the dead, &c. Luke iv. 25 sqq. Even Ewald (p. 299) admits that the narra-
tives of the New Testament have their roots in the myths of the Old.
'■' Comp. only Joel ii. 30 ; Is. xxix. 18 sqq., xxxv. 5 sqq. (Matt. xi. 5), xlii. 7.
166 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
for this doer of wonders : as was the first deliverer, so M'OuM be
the last ; and what God, the holy, the blessed, would do in the
time to come, that had He already done in the past by the hands
of righteous men. The manna, the drying up of the sea, the
healing of the blind, the restoration of the dead to life, must
happen again.^ Especially fine is the description of the Messiah
in the Talmud, where he is represented as binding up the wounds
of the sick and wretched, and as awaiting, in the midst of such
a Good-Samaritan-like activity, the conversion of the nation.^
Moreover, Jesus himself is anxious to fulfil Moses and Elijah ;
and he bases his whole history upon the Old Testament.^ It is
therefore quite intelligible that the Evangelists should have gone
further in the same direction, and that the oral tradition should
have outstripped even them. They have not refused the demand
of the Jews to see signs, as did the severe, principle-obeying,
intellectual Paul, and — what is most to the point — as did Jesus
with his refusal to give signs from heaven, and his preaching of
the treasure hidden in the field ; the Evangelists were them-
selves Jews, and required signs for themselves as well as for
others, the signs of Moses and Elijah. The subject of fulfilment
is most fully dwelt upon by Matthew, who is ever referring to
the prophets, even when narrating miracles ; but Luke also, the
Pauline Christian, has written an inaugural address of Jesus'
which is full of the idea that Jesus must reproduce Elijah and
Elisha.* That actually unhistorical fulfilments are introduced,
^ 1 Cor. i. 22 ; John vii. 31. 4 Esdras xiii. 49 sq. : Proteget populum et tnnc
ostendet eis (miilta) plurima portenta. Comp. vii. 26 sq. Sohar Ex. f. 3 : Tempore,
quo revelabitur rex Messias, quot signa et miracula alia conspicienda se dabunt in
mundo. Schottgen, p. 13. Bertholdt, p. 168. Midrash Kohelet, f. 73, 3 : as the
first deliverer (Moses), so the last (Messiah). Nidr. Tanch. f. 54, 4: God will awaken
the dead as he did through Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel. He will dry the sea, as He
did through Moses. He will open the eyes of the blind, as He did through Elisha.
Schottgen, pp. 110, 251. Gfrorer, Jahrh. des Heils, II. pp. 318 sqq. Strauss, the
first Lehen Jesu, I. p. 96, II. p. 1 ; the new L. Jesu, p. 152. Sometimes, indeed,
the Talmudists deny the miracles of the Messiah ; Lightfoot, p. 25 ; Schottgen, p. 213.
* Schottgen, p. 88 ; Oehler, Messias, p. 438.
^ Comp. Matt. v. 17, xi. 14, xvii. 12, xi. 5, xxvi. 54.
* Matt. viii. 17, xii. 17; Luke iv. 25. Comp. also Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5.
CRITICAL DIFFICULTIES. 167
we Have already sufficiently seen from the preliminary history of
Jesus. That they occur also in the j)rovince of the miraculous,
we have already been convinced by the application made of the
passage from Isaiah, when the Baptist sent messengers to Jesus ;
and the following history will in its details necessarily strengthen
this conviction, since it will enable us clearly to perceive how
the narratives of the restorations to life, of the miracle of feed-
ing, of the storm on the lake, are constructed upon — sometimes
to the very word — the narratives or sayings of the Old Testa-
ment. There naturally remains the question of the possibility
of repetition or of the separation of matter and form ; we do not
expect to obtain a satisfactory solution of this question as a whole,
but only in isolated instances, and the critical judgment at least is
already deprived of the hope of seeing a secure edifice constructed.^
But after all these assaults upon the miraculous position, the
most dangerous has yet to come. Assuming that all these inci-
dents — i.e. all these cases of sickness, all these necessitous cir-
cumstances, all these results of Jesus' activity — are attested, the
fact remains that the soul of the whole, the inner connection,
the relation between cause and effect, jDower and performance,
means employed and result achieved, is in the highest degree
obscure. Assuming for a moment that the healing of the paraly-
tics, the feeding of the 5000 men, actually occurred, liow were
they brought about ? This is the nucleus of the whole question,
and the Gospels have done little to give us a clear and sober
representation of this nucleus. Either they have barely stated
the result in the case or cases in question, as " they were all
healed," " they saw," " they heard," " they walked," " the hand,
the ear, was restored," without troubling themselves — a point on
which Dr. Paulus notoriously relied — about the special cause of
the cure ; or, even in cases in which they have in passing men-
^ Apologetic bistoriograpby can support itself by tbe argument tbat if Jesus actu-
ally bealed, bealed even lepers as did Elislia, or if be actually so entered Jerusalem on
an ass, as Jewish expectation required, a whole system of similarities ungbt actually
have arisen without being uubistnricaL
168 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
tioned this or that mediate cause — here the psychical compassion
of Jesus, there certain physical manipulations, and there again
the believing disposition of the sick and of those who surrounded
them — they have, as a rule, in the spirit of Jewish thought and
of Christian faith, looked beyond all mediate causes to the mira-
culous in a wider or a narrower sense, and to the miraculous
person of Jesus, and have explained the results as due to his
creative will or to his mysterious power. Here, at what is pecu-
liarly the decisive point, all facts as such cease, for the arrange-
ment of cause and effect is really the work of the observing,
more or less carefully and keenly criticising, eye-witness or
reporter, and not an actually occurring sequence, not something
actually objective ; here begin presentiments, subjective judg-
ments, dogmatic assumptions ; and here the subjective factor
forces itself so violently into the sources, that the most diverse
explanations cross each other, the natural explanation contra-
dicting the supernatural, and in the case of the latter itself there
are to be found again two altogether diverse modes of explana-
tion; indeed, to make the reader despair of discovering any higher
point at which these explanations might be found to unite, the
Evangelists understand by miraculous operations simply some-
thing that "had never before been known — as they themselves
occasionally say, and as the thought and language of the Old
Testament and especially of the people leads us to expect, — or
rather, to speak with modern definiteness, something absolutely
unaccomplishable by the orderly cosmically constituted opera-
tion of the forces of terrestrial nature and mind.^
Who will blame these authors for having thus concluded ?
They have made an altogether legitimate use of their reason, of
the principles in which they were educated, even if they were
present and observed, or thought they observed what they did
not actually observe, but could merely have inferred by means of
the involuntary co-operation of the functions of the human mind.
^ JFatt. ix. 33 ; Luke v. 36. Similarly, Jos. Ant. 10, 2, 1 : ra TrrrpdXoyn k. /tn'^w tTjc
*X7ri, &c. He repeatedly exclaims against "the confused
naturalistic exegesis" of others ; but there is also such a thing as a tendency to a con-
fused and forced symbolizing and allegorizing. Nor has it yet come to pass that the
community of the present day can perform all the miracles of Jesus (p. 120).
THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 171
works of Jesus with respect to the Old Testament has been
already specially dwelt upon ; we may, in addition, refer to the
great difference between the works of Jesus and those of the
prophets, there being in the latter a preponderance of nature-
miracles, in the former to an altogether disproportionate extent
a preponderance of miracles of healing, in which, moreover, Jesus
accomplished his purpose essentially by liis mere word, without
means, without water or salt or meal or figs, without a rod and
without incubation.1 Many of these works are directly and
inseparably bound up with the original words of Jesus or with
attested historical facts, as, e. g., the healing of the infirm man,
and the healing of the possessed in the presence of the Phari-
sees; nay, they are indeed broadly but immediately borne witness
to in Jesus' very words or in his surroundings, which themselves
also represent a fact. The Pharisees admit the healings of the
possessed, but explain them as brought about by a covenant with
the devil ; according to the report of the disciples, the people
hold Jesus to be Elijah, the man of miracles, or some one of the
great wonder-working prophets ; and the tetrarch Antipas sees
in him John the Baptist, raised from the dead by the higher
powers." Jesus himself refutes, by an argumentation too masterly
tojbave been invented, the calumny of a covenant with the devil;
he proves that his works, wrought by the power of the Spirit of
God, reveal the advent of the kingdom of God ; and he threatens
liis antagonistic contemporaries with the return of all the expelled
devils. He points to the great signs of the times ; he condemns
the Galilean cities for their unbelief in the face of his mighty
works; he ordains his Apostles as his successors in healing.^ It is
true, these attested utterances form the basis of an important dis-
tinction in the narrations of the Gospels : only Jesus' works of
healing, and not his external interferences with nature in multiply-
ing loaves, in changing water into wine, in stilling the storm, are
1 1 Kings xvii. 21 ; 2 Kings ii. 20, iv. 29, 34, 41, v. 10, xx. 7.
2 Atatt. ix. 34, xii. 23, 24, xvi. 14, xiv. 2. Corap. John vii. 31.
3 Matt. xii. 25 sqq., 43, xvi. 1 sqci., xi. 21, x. 8.
172 , THE WORKS OF JESUS.
accompanied by ■ these utterances ; and the great and brilliant
nature-miracles, the so-called signs from heaven, he has alto-
gether repudiated in equally well-attested words. But who will
not be content if the one remains standing, though the other
totters or even falls ?^ For the works of healing, and for them
alone, we have also the testimony of the Acts of the Apostles, of
the apostolic age, and even of the Talmud, which does not deny
the works of either the Master or his disciples.^ Finally, these
incidents of healing are confirmed by probabilities of every kind.
To a certain extent they were antecedently probable, since the
people expected such works from a prophet, or indeed from the
Messiah, and the art of healing, particularly that of driving out
evil spirits, flourished among the Jews, and above all among
those who were most renowned for their piety — the Essenes and
the Pharisees — and had been introduced into the Greco-Eoman
world by hundreds of professional dabblers in it.^ But the pro-
bability of the works of healing ascribed to Jesus is to be found
still more plainly in their own character ; for it is the genuine,
historical Jesus who is here exhibiting his compassion towards
the needy, is indignant at the power of the evil one, and is con-
strained to put forth his healing virtue, works fundamentally by
means of his spiritual word and requires spiritual faith, and
finally imposes silence upon those that are healed. This is a
Jesus such as th at sensuouj , miracle-seelmig age^couM scarcely^
have invented ; but it is a Jesus whose success even in this pro-
^ Matt. xvi. 1 sqq. Comp. Schleiermacher, p. 223.
" Acts X. 38 ; 1 Cor. xii. 9, 28, 30 ; 2 Cor. xii. 12 ; Rom. xv. 19. At a later
period, comp. the remarkable sentiments of Quadratus, Eus. 4, 3 ; Just. Aj). II. 6 ;
Tryph. 30, 76, 85, 121 ; Irenseus, 2, 31, 32 ; Eus. 5, 7. On the Talmud, comp.
Lightfoot, pp. 25, 304, 323, 540. See also above. Vol. I. pp. 22 sq.
3 Comp. Is. xxix. 18, xxxv. 5, xlii. 7, Iviii. 8 (rd ia^iara aov raxit dvarsXti).
Also Josephus, Ant. 3, 11, 3 ; 8, 2, 5 ; B. J. 2, 8, 6 ; 7, 6, 3 ; Con. Ap. 1, 31.
Justin, Tryi^h. 85. Pliny, His. Nat. 30, 2. Lucian. Philop. 16. Matt. xii. 27 ;
Luke ix. 49 sq. ; Acts xix. 13. The Talmud enumerates the unshe maaseh = workers
of miracles down to 11. Channia (A.D. 250) ; Ammon, L. J. p. 130. See also above.
Vol. I. p. 377 ; Oesch. Christus, p. 123. Sometimes the Pharisees forbade the exor-
cising of diseases, and denied eternal life to exercisers. Sanhedr. 90 a; Gratz, III.
p. 470. Comp. below, the remarks on the possessed.
THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 173
viiice we can at all events have a presentiment of, if we cannot
altogether comprehend it : for who w^ill draw limits to the opera-
tion of this word, this — as the beginning showed — soul-piercing
word ?
At any rate, it was scarcely Jesus' purpose to perform works,
or, as he himself was fond of expressing it, to exercise " powers "
(St^vayuets).-^ His chief purpose was to " preach," and like John he
sought his vocation in preaching. According to several sources,
he met the demand for works of healing by referring to his mis-
sion to preach, and to miraculous signs, which he repudiated, he
opposed as his signs the preaching of repentance and its effica-
cious influence ; and he made life, and blessedness, and safety in
the coming universal storm, dependent upon obedience to his
word in its earnestness, in its wisdom, and in its love.^ Hence
there is no doubt that Jesus' answer to those who spoke to him
of the tetrarch Antipas is not altogether genuine, — an answer in
which healing and the expulsion of devils appear as a mission to
which he exclusively and passionately devoted himself until he
went up to Jerusalem.^ The great reformation or revolution in
the things of the external world, esjjecially the distribution of
blessings and the removal of evils, he clearly reckoned among
the facts of the future, as the future " addition " to the triple gift
of the kingdom of God : in such a sense he spoke of a palin-
genesis, of a regeneration of the world, and he regarded that as
the prerogative of God, while his own duty was the palingenesis
of souls.*
But here, as in many other cases, facts drove him further,
though not exactly upon a " false path," for they were to him
the voice of a divine call. The confidence of men and their
misery hastened, as is usual and at the same time instinctively —
for religion seemed the panacea for all evils — to the new teaclier
and besought his help, though there was already no lack of phy-
1 Matt. xi. 21 sqq. ; Heb. geburot (jahve), Deut. iii. 24.
2 Matt. xvi. 1 sqq., xii. 41, vii. 24; Luke iv. 43; Mark i. 38.
3 Luke xiii. 32. * Matt. vi. 33 sq., xix. 28.
174 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
feicians, even of female physicians, in Galilee and in Capernaum
itself^ The Gospels throughout, the fourth least distinctly, have
preserved this historical feature ; they show at the .beginning,
nay, almost everywhere, the absence of initiative in healing on
the part of Jesus ; the initiative came rather from the people,
from the sick, and even the possessed."^ In the first place, Jesus
could not limit and hedge in his love and compassion ; on the
contrary, his sympathy naturally, as well as from principle, went
out towards the wretched, the poor, the "sick/'^ But with this
irresistible impulse to compassion, from which he later himself
derived the necessity of his performance of works of healing,
there came also the question of his mission. There was no ques-
tion as to his duty to administer spiritual consolation to the sick
and infirm, and he therefore performed this duty to the disabled
paralytic without delay. But should he give corporal help, or
should he refer those who urgently cried for help to God's future
time of the " health of Israel " ?* Salvation, healing, restoration,
the appropriate blessing for the dry ground, for the weak and
the dead, — these things were the signs of the Messianic period,
and were also regarded as such in the teaching of the schools :
" He will come and wiU save you," said Isaiah. Now, if the
people met' him with this longing and with this faith — whether
they regarded him as a prophet or as the Messiah does not
matter, for miracles were looked for from both — was it not an
indication from above that that time of healing ought to begin at
once, and ought not to be delayed until the future to which he
was looldng forward ?^ Trust in God, and, as a result, deliver-
1 Comp. Matt. viii. 16, xiv. 35, iv. 24 ; Mark iii. 11. Physicians at Capernaum,
Josephus, Vita, 72 ; female physician (at Gamala), il. 37. Mark v. 26 : many phy-
sicians. In the Old Testament, several prophets made use of their skill in medicine.
Isaiah's figs, Is. xxxviii. 21.
* Initiative of Jesus, only in appearance, Matt. viii. 1-1 (but comp. Luke i v. 38,
and better still Mark i. 29), xii. 10. In truth, not found until the later authorities,
comp. Luke xiii. 12, xiv. 2; John v. 6, ix. 1.
3 Matt. ix. 12, 36. * Is. Iviii. 8, to. Idnara aov raxv avartKu ; li. 8.
s Is. XXXV. 4 sqq. ; and the rest of the passages above, p. 172, note 3. Comp.
Is. xl. 29 sqq., xliv. 3, Iviii. 11, Ixv. 20 sqq.
TEE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 175
ance from cares and evils ; the enriching, saving help of God ;
the possibility of doing what was impossible, — this was the
kernel of his word as he preached it to all and chiefly to the poor:
if the diseased siglied and groaned around him, was it not his
appointed office, and was it not his certain expectation, to disarm
the evil of human life by praying confidence ?i Finally, in many
diseases he read the punishment of sin ; and in the most terrible
of all diseases, in possession as it everywhere presented itself
before the view, the opinion of the people as well as his own saw
the power and the tyranny of Satan, who maintained his God-
resisting empire in the world and daily pushed it further : was it
not his holy task to uproot both sin and the curse of sin, at any
rate to be a watchful, active foe to the foe of God and man,
instead of idly or at least helplessly gazing, as God's ambas-
sador, at Satan's growing authority, nay, at the daring and
defiant invasion of the " spirits " ?2 Out of such reflections there
would arise to him the necessity of being the physician of the
bodily as Avell as of the spiritually sick ; and before he had fully
resolved, and while he still trod the new ground with a kind of
timidity and anxiousness, he had already acted in obedience to
the right feeling of the moment ; nay, without acting, he held the
fruits of his appointed labour already in his hand; for under his
tender and compassionate glance, under his elevating word, and in
the believing touching of his garment, the sick grew well or felt
themselves relieved.^ Such occurrences would not be to him
the ground of his conclusion, but would clearly be sources of
gratification and encouragement ; the unconscious, and still more
the conscious, performance of such works appeared now to him-
1 Matt. vi. 25, 34, xix. 26. « ji^tt. ix. 2, 29, xii. 25 sqq.
^ These motives have beea forgotten by Renan and Strauss, who simply say that he
was compelled to work miracles, real or apparent, whether he wished to do so or not
{Gesch. Christus, pp. 122 sq.). Comp. Scheukel, pp. 72 sq. Weizsacker has tlie two
points: (1) Jesus aimed at a comprehensive reformation, at soundness, in contrast to
imperfection, of life (p. 362) ; and (2) the moment overcame him ; he was, not without
internal timidity, carried away by the agitation of the masses, by the tempestuous
movement of spirits (pp. 364 sqq.), and not properly convinced.
176 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
self as a new legitimation of his Messianic office, a legitimation
which, indeed, he took pains to cover from those who were with-
out—by whom it would at once have been very well understood
— by the privacy of his works.^
Before we pass on to the details of these works and to the
order in wliich they occurred — chapters which are so difficult
that it is impossible to err in placing the centre of gravity in
them— it may appear advisable first to obtain a general idea of
the character and process of these w^orks of healing, in order
at least to get a Light thrown over the whole, perhaps also over
the individual works. This must be done without many critical
presuppositions, which cannot be generally admitted ; on the
other hand, it must be marked by a preference for the indica-
tions of unity and relationship in the reports, the harmony of
which, in contrast to what is diverse and irregular, will then
at any rate lead to some critical results.
The acts of healing of Jesus presuppose, in general, a certain
disposition, and indeed a spiritual disposition, on the part of the
sufferers. The sick eagerly seek him, press upon him, fall down
before him, touch his clothes, beg for mercy, express faith in his
power to help.2 Instead of the sick themselves, those who
belong to them — fathers, mothers, sons-in-law, masters, bearers —
often appeal to him, or bring the sick and place them immedi-
ately at his feet.3 This faith often betrays its uncommon strength :
the centurion is too humble to ask Jesus to enter his house ; he
begs for only a word ; and he is convinced that if his soldiers
come and go at his bidding, then all the spirits of disease, or
indeed all earthly things, must be at the command of him who is
not a subaltern.* Faith betrays its strength chiefly in conflict
1 Matt. xi. 21, xii. 28, also viii. 4, 18, ix. 30, xii. 16 ; Mark i. 43, iii. 10, v. 43,
vii. 36. Matt. ix. 8, 33.
» Matt. viii. 2, ix. 27 sq., xx. 30, ix. 20, xiv. 36; Luke viii. 45; Mark i. 24, 34,
40, iii. 9, 11, ix. 22, &c.
3 Matt. viii. 6, ix. 2, 18, 32, xiv. 35, xv. 22, 30, xvii. 15 ; Luke iv. 38 ; Mark i. 30.
* Matt. viii. 5 ; Luke \\i. 1.
THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 177
with external and internal hindrances. In one place, the bearers
of the paralytic, finding no other means of ingress, let down their
unfortunate friend with great pains from the roof; in another
place, the woman with the issue of blood, forsaken by the whole
world, abashed in the presence of Jesus and of men, and with
difSculty asserting herself in the pressure of the crowd, yet with
faith that she shall be healed then and there, touches the gar-
ment of Jesus behind him. In another place, the blind men of
Jericho will not be driven away by the people, but cry louder
and louder, using even the Messianic title, " Son of David, liave
mercy!" In yet another place, the Gentile Canaanitish woman
is undeterred by Jesus' silence and by his passing by, undeterred
even by his repulse and by his hard words, until he himself is
compelled to confess: "Woman, thy faith is gl-eat!"' Jesus
demands this faith ; when he discovers faith, he consoles the
paralytic, and when he hears the believing utterance of the
woman he grants her request. He assures himself of the exist-
ence of the faith by asking, " "What will ye that I should do unto
you ?" and yet more by the words, "Do ye believe that I can do
this ?"2 He excites it, and strengthens it, when it appears to be
still impure and half-formed, sometimes by blame and admoni-
tion, sometimes by a word of promise, sometimes by both, as in
the cases of the lunatic in Mark and of the ruler in John.^ He
supports this faith when external misfortune has seemed to bury
it by reaching the stage of sickness unto death : " Fear not ; only
believe!"* Hence, in many cases, he ascribes the deliverance
directly to the faith.^ But where there is no faith, he refuses to
perform any miracle : he does no miracle, and can do none.^
Sometimes the faith is not mentioned, as, e. g., at the healing
^ Matt. XV. 22. The other examples are well known.
« Matt. ix. 2, XV. 28 ; xx. 32, ix. 28.
3 Mark ix. 19, 23 sqq. ; John iv. 48, 50. Coinp. Martha and Mary, John xi.
21 sqq.
* Luke viii. 50 ; Mark v. 36.
5 Matt. ix. 22 ; Luke xviii. 42 ; Mark x. 52 ; Luke xvii. 19.
^ Matt. xii. 39, xvi. 1, xiii. 58 ; Mark vi. 5, 6.
VOL. III. N
178 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
of the mother-in-law of Peter, and at that of the man with the
withered hand.^ The omission is often due to the rapidity of the
narration ; in the latter of the above cases, the interest of the
narration is altogether absorbed in the controversy that has
broken out with the Pharisees. In the incident of the healing
of Peter's mother-in-law, the existence of the faith is taken for
granted : believing disciples are in the company, and the healed
woman at once translates her faith into gratitude. So in the
narrative of the paralytic, faith is quite incidentally yet certainly
assumed ; the act of faith seems here to be ascribed chiefly to
the bearers of the sick man; but the words of Jesus, "Son, be of
good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee," show, plainly that a bond
of faith exists between the sick man and Jesus.^ To how great
an extent the faith of the sick persons was active in the cases of
healing at a distance, will have to be considered when those
cases come before us. It must be acknowledged that the later
Gospels, while they have here and there made the act of faith
more prominent, are in other places silent about it, a circum-
stance which may be dej)endent upon their view of the miracu-
lous, creative initiative of Jesus. Thus there is no mention of
faith in Luke in the cases of the young man of Nain, of the
deformed 'woman, of the man with the dropsy ; in Mark, in the
cases of the deaf mute and of the blind man of Bethsaida ; and
in John, in the cases of the paralytic and of the man born blind.
John represents the faith of the sisters of Bethany as a wavering
reed, before which Jesus is compelled to exhibit the resurrection
in reality.^ It is evident that, contrary to the true history, the
works of Jesus have here already become proofs of his glory,
which are based upon his nature and do not require human co-
operation, or attract that co-operation only as something supple-
mentary and collateral and not really auxiliary.
1 Matt. viii. 14, xii. 10.
^ Matt. ix. 1 sqq. "Their faith" applies also to the sick man.
' Also in Acts iii. 1, ix. 33, in contrast to xiv. 9, no mention is made of faith.
Stronger emphasis laid upon faith in the case of the lunatic, Mark ix. 22 sqq. Martha
and Mary, John xi. 21 — 40.
THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 179
I'he healing of the possessed, of which we can here speak only
briefly, involved a different set of circumstances. From the
nature of the disease, faith on the part of the sufferer could not
be reported. On the other hand, faith on the part of the sufferer's
friends is not necessarily excluded ; and in the narrative of the
lunatic this faith is indeed expressly represented as efficacious.^
But when this faith is altogether wanting, as in the case of the
Gadarenes and of the possessed man of Capernaum, instead of it
a spiritual excitement on the part of the sufferers themselves is
always assumed, and one might say that this was the case here
almost more visibly than with other sick persons. There is an
anxiety, an alarm, which seizes these persons as soon as they
come into contact with Jesus. They have a mental perception
of his greatness, and they recoil from him. But in the very act
of recoil they are attracted ; they cry to him involuntarily, they
would be freed of his presence, would be alone, and yet cannot
conceal the interest with which they regard him ; they beseech
their tormenter to leave them, and yet they recognize his power,
his just authority ; they struggle, in their beclouded conscious-
ness, to become clear as to his nature and their position in rela-
tion to him, and then, with or without protest, yield themselves
up to the menace or command which he directs towards them.
Though all these movements of mind are in the sources ascribed
immediately to the foreign " spirit " in the man and not to the
man himself, this cannot hinder us in the present day from find-
ing room for more accommodated views, and — what is of most
importance — from establishing the fact that the traces of spiritual
processes in Jesus' works of healing extend as far as the province
in which the result appears to rest upon the simple activity of
Jesus, the simple passivity of the man healed.^
The prevailing disposition of Jesus, called forth by contact
with the wretchedness of the people and issuing in the determi-
1 Matt. viii. ]fi, ix. 32, xii. 22, xvii. 14 (Mark ix. 22). But comp. also Luke
xiii. 11, where the demoniacal evil does not affect the self-consciousness.
- Matt. viii. 28 sqq. ; Luke iv. 33 ; JLark i. 23, &c.
n2
180 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
nation to achieve their deliverance, was the participating com-
passion which, according to the beautiful expression of the second
hand in the Gospel of Matthew, he exhibited in taking upon
himself the sicknesses of men.^ This compassion is invoked by
the men themselves : " Look upon us," " Help if thou canst,"
"Have mercy!" Jesus often, both generally and particularly,
assumes its existence; nay, it is expressed by himself either
explicitly in words, or actually in sighs and utterances, as when
he defends his performance of works of healing on the Sabbath
by appealing to the universal sentiment of humanity and to the
humane custom of saving an unfortunate animal, — how much
more an unfortunate man ! ^ Here and there, besides this com-
passion or instead of it, we see a joyous or admiring yielding to
the irresistible force of the faith that urges itself upon his atten-
tion, as in the cases of the centurion, the Canaanitish woman,
and the blind men of Jericho. Spiritual sympathy is here yet
more strongly developed than compassion ; but it leads to a
doubly intensified compassion; for the higher interest, just like
the lower, strengthens the directly human emotion. At the same
time, there is by no means wanting, especially in the presence
of demoniacs, anger against Satan who has bound men, or, in the
j)ersons of his legionaries, has come in Jesus' way. Yet personal
feeling is not the only source of the action of Jesus : that feeling
flows into a sense of official duty, and into the liveliest conscious-
ness of a universal, nay, of an Israelitish mission. He recognizes
it as his obligation to do good on the Sabbath, and as his com-
mission to diminish the dominion of Satan by j)lundering the
^ Matt. viii. 17. Similar expressions in tlie Talmud concerning the Messiah
sojourning among the sick. In imitation of Is. liii., Soh. Exod. f. 85, repi-esents the
Messiah as crying : Omnes morbi, omues dolores, omnes pcense Israelitarum veniant.
Eseque omnes veniunt super ipsum. Nisi autem ille eas auferret ab Israele et trans-
ferret in se, non esset ullus homo, qui' posset portare castigationes Isr. propt. gravit.
poen. leg. Schottgen, p. 88 ; Lightfoot, p. 308.
^ Compassion, Matt. ix. 36, xiv. 11, xv. 32, xx. 34 (corap. viii. 17, x. 6, 8); Luke
vii. 13 sq., ix. 38 ; Mark i. 41, vii. 34. Compassion invoked, Luke ix. 38 ; Mark
ix. 22. Appeal of Jesus, Matt. xii. 11 ; Luke xiii. 15.
THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 181
household of Satan.^ In the fourth Gospel, this official con-
sciousness predominates over the personal feeling, in a peculiar,
but certainly not historical, manner. Suffering and disease are
here compelled to minister to the honour of God and His Son >
the sick Lazarus does not awaken compassion ; on the contrary,
he must die ; and Jesus — a God instead of a man — awaits
patiently the sacrifice of death in which the dying and the rising
again are destined to glorify him ; wdiilst the natural human feel-
ing, with its deep emotion and tears, asserts itself only by w^ay
of complement, too late, and inconsistently enough, at the grave.^
Only in rare cases is the act of healing introduced by notice-
able emotion on the part of Jesus. The Gospels ordinarily
exhibit Jesus in an earnest and exalted condition of mind, it is
true, yet quiet and self-possessed ; not strikingly excited ; at the
most, amiable and friendly towards his sick. Thus it happens
that he is depicted even as sitting when performing his works of
healing.^ He is most powerfully affected when dealing with the
possessed. The " menacing " is not to be thought of apart from
such strong excitement ; and the special mention by Mark of
the saying of the disciples, " He is beside himself," and perhaps
also the saying of the Pharisees, " He casts out devils by means
of the devil," may have reference to such nervous paroxysms, to
the flashing and darkening of the countenance of Jesus.* In the
cases of other diseases, " menacings " are mentioned by only the
later Gospels; for the energetic breathing with which Jesus
1 Matt. xii. 10, 25 sqq. Compassion, and anger against Satan, Luke xiii. 15, 16.
Comp. remarks on Lazarus. Wonder and admiration, Matt. viii. 10, xv. 28, xx. 32.
Attitude towards the nation. Matt. ix. 36, x. 6, xv. 24 ; Luke xiii. 16.
2 Jolin ix. 3, xi. 4, 40, ii. 11, xi. 33, 35, 38.
3 Matt. XV. 29 sq. ; Mark vii. 34.
* Mark iii. 21. But the reference here may be to the incessant and harassing
activity in healing sick and demoniacs generally (iii. 10, 11). On account of the pro-
bably unhistorical character of this part of Mark, there is however no certainty to be
obtained concerning this assumed opinion, which may have been derived from 2 Cor.
V. 13; Acts xxvi. 24 (not from 1 Sam. xxi. 13). In Matt. ix. 34, xii. 24, it is the
Pharisees who are said to be speaking. These last passages may also have another
explanation, viz., that they describe simply the causality, not a habitus. But the
latter explanation is in harmony with the menacings. Comp. also Matt. xi. 18.
182 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
threw his commands at certain of the persons whom he healed,
bidding them make nothing known, might be regarded as only a
voluntary continuation of the excitement of the act of healing.
Of a violent breathing before the act we read only in the latest
Gospel, in the narrative of the resurrection of Lazarus. This
description is fine, though it is not historical ; for as the reason
of this repeated violent breathing, of this powerful " self-agita-
tion," we have partly the effect produced upon him by the
increasing complaints of the sorrowers, moving him even to
tears, partly depression of mind on account of the weak, ever
fainting faith of the bereaved, and, finally, partly the internal
repulsion and disgust of the man of life in the presence of the
horrid facts of death and decay, that seemed to give him the lie.
Only we are not able to forget that Jesus had, with uncompas-
sionate deliberation, himself procured and prepared the hostile
fact.i
The healing itself seems, in a very preponderant degree, to
have been communicated by and dependent upon a sentence
uttered with infinite confidence, and with the self-consciousness
of one who was sure of success, an utterance in which only the
most perverted mistrust would detect a fictitious transference of
the divine creative formula to the Messiah.^ The sentence is
sometimes the simple affirmation of the expressed wish, accom-
panied occasionally by a stretching out of the hand in token of
compliance ; and sometimes it is a brief word of command : " I
will, be thou clean;" "As thou hast believed, so be it unto thee;"
" Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity ;" " Stretch forth
thine hand;" "Take up thy bed, and walk;" "Maid, or young
^ Luke iv. 39. Comp. Mark v. 40. Angry demeanour or violent breathing, Matt.
ix. 30 ; Mark i. 43 ; John xi. 33, 38. Sympathy with the mourners, vers. 33, 35.
Grieved by unbelief, vers. 37, 38 (comp. Matt. ix. 25).
^ Matt. viii. 8, 16, ix. 2, 6. Luke and Mark, notwithstanding their materializing
tendency, also assume this purely spiritual procedure, e.g., in the cases of the infirm
man, of the man with the withered hand, of the blind man of Jericho, and of all
the possessed. An imitation of the divine efficacious word may be conjectured in the
incident of stilling the storm, Matt. viii. 26 (see indeed Mark iv. 39) ; but not in the
so evidently psychologico-ethical mode of operation of Jesus.
THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 183
man, I say unto thee, arise ;" " Lazarus, come forth ;" " Hold thy
peace, thou unclean spirit, and come out of liim."^ Yet such words
of command have been fabricated by the later Gospels, in which
they are found even where they are wanting in the writings of
the earlier narrators ; the later Gospels, moreover, develop them
more fully, and wrap them in Aramaic words as if they were
magical formidiie.^ It is full of significance that Jesus often either
prefaces or supj^lements this expression of compliance with an
encouraging, confidence-awakening exclamation, or with a men-
acing, warning one: "Be of good cheer, my son, my daughter;"
" Go in peace, thou art made whole ;" " Sin no more, lest a worse
thing befall thee."^ It is still more significant that he first
offers to the infirm man the spiritual consolation of forgiveness,
and then grants him bodily healing as a kind of consequence ;
and that, finally, by connecting the result with the faith to
which he holds out the promise of success, — " Be of good cheer,
daughter, thy faith hath saved thee !" — he brings into operation
the whole energy and weight of the human will, of human hope>
struggling, and self-reliance, as completely as it is possible for
them to be called into exercise and intensified.
In most cases, in the best attested cases, and without excep-
tion in all the cases of the healing of the possessed, such an
utterance is the only means employed by Jesus to effect the
cure. The sensible proximity of Jesus to the sick or to the dead
1 Matt. viii. 3, 13, ix. 6, 22, 29, xii. 13; Luke iv. 35, vii. 14, xiii. 12, fee;
Mark i. 25, ii. 11, &c. The cry, "I say unto thee," a favourite expression of Mark's,
ii. 11 (Luke v. 24), v. 41 (on the other hand, Luke viii. 54). Also Mark ix. 25. In
T. 41, the writer shows that he has introduced tlie expression.
^ Comp. the young daughter in Luke viii. 54, Mark v. 41, with Matt. ix. 25 ; the
lunatic in Mark ix. 25 with Matt. xvii. 18, Luke ix. 42 ; the Gadarene in Mark v. 8
with Matt. viii. 32, Luke viii. 29. Also Luke iv. 35 ; Mark i. 25, iv. 39. The
Aramaic phrases of Mark v. 41, vii. 34. Comp. moreover the Gnostics, Ironreus, 1, 21,
3 (also Eus. 4, 11) : 'E/BpaiKa riva ovojxaTa tniXiyovffi, npoc to ^ciWov KaTa7r\i]-
'iaaQni tovq rtXaovfisvoVQ. Similarly, Alexander the prophet of lies, Luc. Alex. 13;
comp. Plutarch, De Superstit. 3. Even Volkmar (p. 389) admits that the foreign
language is representative of magic.
3 Matt. ix. 2, 22 ; Luke viii. 48 ; Mark v. 34 ; John v. 14.
184 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
is generally assumed, except in the cases of avowed healing at a
distance ; but the intrinsic value of tliis proximity lies in tlie
fact that the sick are thereby enabled to hear Jesus' word or to
see his person. At the same time, there are certainly cases
reported of a sensible taking hold of the sick. He touches the
leper, he takes Peter's mother-in-law and Jairus' daughter by the
hand. In a number of passages this sensible contact has alto-
gether taken the place of the utterance.-^ In the later Gospels,
these sensible means, these material ceremonies, are strikingly
multiplied; though, again, in other places these later writers
give simply the utterance where Matthew speaks of healing by
sensible contact. Jesus takes the sick aside, sets them forth,
places himself at the head of the bed on which the sick are
lying, is ever laying his hands upon the sick, lifts up the sick,
touches the bier of the dead. He effects numerous cures by
anointing (a recipe that he also gives to his disciples), he places
his fingers in the ears of the deaf mute, he spits and touches the
man's tongue with the spittle, he spits upon the eyes of the
blind and lays his hands upon him; nay, in John's Gospel, a
washing in the pool of Siloah is added to the use of the spittle
in the case of the man born blind.^ It belongs to this pseudo-
medical method, wliich is distinctly brought into comparison with
the attempts and failures of medical men, that Jesus makes exact
inquiries before the healing into the circumstances connected
with the sickness, in order to arrive at a diagnosis, that he in-
1 Matt. viii. 15, ix. 25, comp. ver. 29, xx. 34, xxi. 14.
* Luke xiv. 4 ; Mark vii. 33, viii. 23. Mark iii. 3 ; Luke iv. 39. Laying on of
hands, Luke iv. 40, xiii. 13 ; Mark vi. 5 ; lifting up the sick, Mark i. 31 ; the bier,
Luke vii. 14; oil, Mark vi. 13; spittle, Mark vii. 33, viii. 23; John ix. 6 sqq.
Matthew rejects the spittle, see Volkmar, p. 409, and Weizsacker here inclines to
accept it (p. 372), while Schenkel (p. 117) and Hausrath (p. 380) believe in the
same ; and Volkmar adventurously converts the oil into Christianity (p. 351), and the
spittle into the mouth of Jesus (pp. 387, 407). On the other hand, in the case of the
blind men, Matthew gives the sensible contact, which is wanting in Luke xviii. 42 ;
Mark x. 52. Also in the case of the mother-in-law, Luke at least has only the words,
though in the cases of the demoniacs he has the rebuking, iv. 39.
THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 185
troduces or effects the cure gradually, and that after the cure he
gives directions as to the diet and the rest of his patients.^
We should undoubtedly be missing the way if, like so many
moderns since Paulus, we thanked these later authors for their
disclosures and explanations, for their solution of the enigmas,
for their pointing to the medical skill and the Essene remedies
of Jesus. With their materialistic descriptions, they give only
an obscure mixture of rationalism and superstition. As cultured
Westerns, they might believe in natural, rational, gradually
operating means employed by Jesus to effect his cures ; as
Easterns, prone to believe in the mysterious, they might repre-
sent him as the bearer of divine powers, not in his spirit, but
in his body, powers which were operative by the contact of his
body, his hands and fingers, with the sick.^ As to the degree in
which that rationalism with its gradual cures can be made to
combine with this mysterious mode of suddenly awakening the
dead by mere contact with the bier, they have not troubled
themselves, and hence there remains after all the impression of
a mysteriously manipulating magician.^ It is most important
here to notice that the healing by words, which did not neces-
sarily at any rate require supplementary means, is copiously
attested, and in the writings of the later authors themselves
occasionally appears strangely mixed up with their additions ;
and, moreover, that this mode of healing alone answers to the
ideal, spiritual character of the whole ministry of Jesus, and is
1 Comparison, Mark v. 26 ; inquiries, Mark ix. 21 ; gradual character of cure,
viii. 23 sqq. ; diet, Luke viii. 55 ; Mark v. 43 ; rest, John xi. 44.
" Comp. the employment of oil and spittle in medicine and magic, Josephus, Ant.
17, 6, 5; James v. 14 ; TertuUian, Scap. 4 ; Suet. Vespas, 7 ; Tacitus, Hist. 4, 81 ;
Die G. 66, 8. Magic, with spittle, Pliny, H. n. 28, 2, 4 ; Pers. 2, 33 ; Prop. 4, 7,
37 ; TertuUian, Jcj. 6. Anointing the sick in the Jewish exorcisms : Ille, qui mus-
sitat (incantat), det oleum super caput et mussitet. Lightfoot, pp. 303 sq. Physical
power, Luke v. 17, vi. 19, viii. 44 sqq. ; Mark v. 29 ; comp. vi. 56, Matt. xiv. 36
(communicated in answer to request). The "magical" element in Mark, see also
Volkmar, p. 391.
* Irenseus, 1, 24, 5 : Utuntur et hi (r.asilid.) magia et incantationibus et invocat.
et reliqua universa periergia (Aots xix. 19).
186 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
most consistent with his initial resistance, which was only pos-
sible on the supposition that Jesus never was a physician, and
never used or wished to use external means.^ Or does any one
think that, having been forced into practices similar to those of
physicians, he afterwards learnt the physician's art ? At the
same time, it would have to be acknowledged that, in individual
cases, attested by all the sources, Jesus effected cures by means
of touching, and that in this fact there is to be found an excuse
for a representation which draws too large conclusions from the
cases of cure by touching. Cure by sensible contact was the
form which the materialistic and even superstitious thought of
the people most frequently longed for — so much so that this very
request was made to him, " Lay thy hand on and bless ;" "Allow
thyself to be touched;" and that, without any request and in
spite of his forbidding it, the people crowded round him and
handled his clothes, and even without his active participation
sick persons were healed by thus handling his clothes.^ This
form Jesus consented to adopt, though he sought to lift the faith
of the people higher, omitted or otherwise applied the desired
form, repressed or set it aside by insisting upon faith in his word.
And he was able to descend to this form, because by means of it
men most -easily exercised the faith — more or less pure — which
he required; and because in this mode of action, which alone
was applicable to the possessed, on account of their wildness and
their natural fear of him, he could give fuU expression to his
^ Healing by words, comp. the infirm man, the centurion, the Tyrian woman, the
man with the withered hand, the persons that were possessed. Combination of words
and sensible contact, Luke vii. 14, viii. 54, and Mark v. 41 (against Matt. ix. 25) ;
Luke xiii. 12 sq. Words unnecessary, Mark v. 34, comp. ver. 29. Protracted opera-
tion in the case of blind man, Mark viii. 23 ; and, on the other hand, merely words,
Mark x. 52 ; Luke xviii. 42, where Matt. xx. 34 has only contact.
" Laying on of hands asked for, Matt. ix. 18 ; Mark vii. 32, viii. 22 ; comp.
2 Kings V. 11 ; contact, Matt. xiv. S6 ; touching his clothes, ix. 20 ; Mark iii. 10 sq. ;
merely words asked for, Matt. viii. 8, comp. ver. 16 ; healing without active partici-
pation of Jesus, see the woman with the issue of blood in Luke and Mark, but Matt.
xiv. 36 is somewhat different.
TEE FUXDAMEXTAL FACTS. 187
self-denying devotedness to the suffering, to liis ardent desire to
help them, and to his deep sympathy with them.^
The Gospels throughout represent the result of the utterance
and of the sensible contact as instantaneous, emphatically as
real and not illusory, though cases of impossibility of healing
because of defective faith, and also of relapse of the sick, are not
excluded.^ In numberless instances it is said, "They were
immediately healed," " They were all healed." " As soon as he
had spoken," says Mark, "the leprosy disappeared." Peter's
mother-in-law stands up at once and serves the guests. The
infirm man takes up his bed and walks. The young man of Nain
sits up and begins to talk. Lazarus, wrapped in his grave-
clothes, hastily comes forth out of the sepidchre. In the cases
of healing at a distance, it is calculated more or less exactly how
the word of Jesus was efi&cacious " in the same hour " at a not
very remote distance, or at a distance of five leagues. There is
something grand and impressive in these descriptions of the
effects produced in nature by the word, by the spirit. Certainly
they are effects which, in such an immediateness, seem to belong
less to experience than to poetry and myth. And a mythical
character is visibly impressed upon many of these narratives.
But to say this does not by any means necessarily imply that
the gradualness of certain cures possesses a firm liistorical basis.
Gradual cures are narrated in an extremely small number of
instances and only in the later Gospels ; and if we exclude those
— as the healing of the infirm man — in which Jesus prolonged the
action for ethical or pedagogical reasons, wdiere the result still is
instantaneous, there remains simply the narrative of the blind
man in Mark, and even there the patient obtains his perfect
eyesight in the course of a few minutes. This one example has
no weight against the countless number that differ from it ; and
it is altogether a late, artificial, rationalistic picture of Mark's
^ Instead of the asked-for laying on of hands, taking the dead by the hand, Matt.
ix. 18, 25.
"^ Matt. xiii. 58, xii. 43 sciq.
188 TEE WORKS OF JESUS.
We may say tliat the proof lies entirely on the side of the sudden
cures; and though it is not to be denied that many of these
have had their origin simply in myth or in system, yet there is
nothing to show that the less frequent actual cures effected by
Jesus were not of this rapid character, since we are not pre-
vented on rational grounds from ascribing to him a powerful and
intensified spiritual influence.^
The operative power by which the works of Jesus were
wrought, was regarded by liimself differently than by — not only
his opponents but also — the people and several Evangelists.
His opponents explained his power to themselves and the peoj)le
as due to a covenant with Satan, therefore as a Satanic power :
the people explained it as a divine power ; but, in keeping with
their tendency of thought, they gave to their explanation an
immediate and sensuous character, and sought his power in his
body and even in his clothes. Hence the touchings without
end.^ The Evangelists have not risen altogether superior to this
conception. Only two of them have looked beyond it : Matthew
— who, it is true, is merely an empiric, but is on this very
account so valuable to history — does not believe in the power of
sensible contact, but only in the power of the words and the will
of Jesus ; -and John, the metaphysician, derives the ability of
Jesus intrinsically from his divine attributes, from his godlike
possession of power, life, and glory.^ On the other hand, in
Luke and Mark the popular opinion prevails ; contact with the
clothes of Jesus is immediately curative, as in the case of the
woman with the issue of blood; for since God is with him,
therefore the divine forces are operative in him, stream forth
from him and heal all who come into contact with him.^ Jesus
himself does not betray any knowledge of this outflow of healing
^ Mark viii. 23 sqq. ; comp. Luke svii. 14; John ix. 6 sqq.
* The devil, Matt. ix. 34, xii. 24 ; power of God, Luke v. 17, vi. 19, viii. 46 ;
Mark v. 30 (iii. 10, vi. 56). Comp. Autipas, Matt. xiv. 1.
=* Matt. viii. 16, ix. 21, 22, comp. xiv. 36; John v. 17 sqq. &c. (ii. 11, xi. 40).
■* See the passages above, note 2. Already in Acts x. 38 it is said, God was with
him !
THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 189
power. He harmonizes with Matthew, connecting his power
only with his word, or more exactly with his human word ; and
he goes beyond Matthew by showing the deep foundation of this
efficacious word. It is his own subjective faith, his firm confi-
dence in God, through which he obtains not only a hearing, but
also immediately active, effectual power, and through which also
his disciples receive strength to remove mountains ; it is, in the
next place, by the objective gift of God's Spirit — whose connec-
tion with his life of faith he does not however exactly describe —
that he repeats the works of the prophets, possesses power and
authority, casts out evil spirits, and sets up the kingdom of God
in the stead of the kingdom of Satan.^ In the restoration of the
possessed, he claims the whole operation as his own deed ; in
the healing of the sick, he divides the result between himself
and the healed. In the often-used words, "Thy faith hath
saved thee !" he depicts faith neither as the single means, nor
again as a means inefficacious of itself and only morally indis-
pensable. The latter view is directly refuted by the expression
which ascribes to faith the office not only of calling forth Jesus'
own personal willingness to assist, but also of itself supplying
actual help ; the former view is opposed by the frequently-
occurring form of expression in which Jesus emphasizes the
dependence of his own or of the divine participation in the cure
upon that of the sick person : " According to thy faith, so be it
unto thee !" To Jesus, the deciding power evidently lies in the
combined believing energy of the healed and the healer.^
In harmony with the above, Jesus could not form a low esti-
mate of the value of his works, or a lower estimate than that of
the people, the disciples, and the Evangelists. If lower, it was
only in so far as he required first of all faith in his preaching
and in the spiritual results of liis preaching, and directly refused
the visible signs from heaven which some sought for and which
1 Matt. xvii. 20, xxi. 21, comp. xxvii. 43. The Spirit, xii. 25 sqq.
^ Matt. viii. 13, ix. 22, xv. 28 ; Luke xvii. 19, xviii. 42 ; Mark x. 52.
190 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
others missed.^ But besides faith in his preaching, he also
required faith in his signs, and so much the more because by
those very signs he preached and in the most direct manner
wrought spiritually upon the minds of the people ; and in
refusing signs from heaven with their unfruitful gratification of
curiosity, he by no means renounced the signs upon earth, the
signs of the times, the fruitful, curative, efficacious signs wrought
upon men.2 The fourth Gospel first confounded the two kinds
of signs, and brought into view, in endless contradiction with
itself, the antipathy of Jesus to the signs from heaven which
were to compel men to believe.^ Jesus himself, on the contrary,
gave a testimony to the priests at Jerusalem in the healing of
the leper ; in the healing of the paralytic he showed to the Pha-
risees the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins on earth
as the representative of God ; he took it amiss that the Phari-
sees and the Baptist did not see the signs of the times, the signs
of the near approach of the time of fulfilment and of the Messiah,
in his preaching and in all the resiilts of his preaching ; he
regarded it as criminal on the part of the people that they did
not believe the works which, never wrought before by any pro-
phet, would inevitably bring even the Gentiles to repentance,
and on the part of the Pharisees that they, blasphemers against
the Spirit beyond forgiveness, ascribed to a diabolical source the
works of the Spirit of God, works which showed the actual
advent of the kingdom of God.* A man would have to turn
away his eyes altogether not to see that Jesus believed that in
his works of healing he was giving to himseK and the peojjle, to
friend and foe, a large amount of Messianic proof ; and the fact
that at least in the beginning he kept his works private, and
forbade, though in vain, their being noised abroad, is explicable
simply, on the ground that he wished to avoid a premature
1 Matt. xii. 41, xvi. 1. ^ Matt. xvi. 1.
^ John iv. 48 (xx. 29). Comp. above, p. 154. In John xiv. 10 (opp. ver. 11), the
words of Jesus are also reckoned with the ipya.
* Matt. viii. 4, ix. 6, xi. 1 sqq., 20 sqq., xii. 25 sqq., xvi. 1 sqq.
TEE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 191
announcement of his prophetic, his Messianic calling, which
might shorten, or nullify, or even falsify, his life-Avorks.^
These general results, though they are principally of a nega-
tive kind, are by no means of inconsiderable importance, since
they show what the works of Jesus, according to all evidences,
were not. These works, first of all, were no mere more or less
medicinal cures brought about by actual medical skill on the
part of Jesus similar to that practised by the Essenes, as Eation-
alism is anxious to prove ; or by magical jugglery and Egyptian
sorcery, as Celsus, the Talmudists, and to some extent also
Reimarus and Eenan, have held ; or, what is least objectionable,
by the involuntary and voluntary transference of healthy nervous
force to the sick, as Gutsmuths taught in the beginning of the
present century, and as Weisse has recently maintained in his
theory of magnetic forces.^ All these views are refuted by the
fact that Jesus ordinarily wrought his works of healing simply
and with surprising suddenness by his word, without means or
instruments, without water or oil, herbs or stones, names or
1 Matt. viii. 4, ix. 30, xii. 16 ; Luke viii. 56 ; Mark v. 43, vii. 36, viii. 26. On
the other hand, Luke viii. 39, in the case of the Gadarene, contains an injunction to
make the incident known. Also Mark v. 19.
^ According to Paulus [Lehen Jesu, I. p. 123), Jesus derived his skill from the
Essenes, was an experienced physician, made prognosis in each case (p. 201), required
time to perfect his cures (p. 277), gave exact prescriptions (p. 249). Venturini speaks
of herbs, tinctures (I. pp. 145, 149), of instruments, and of a portable medicine-chest
(p. 154). Ewald (3rd ed. V. pp. 296, 425) also speaks of appropriate external means,
of acquired skill and practices of the profession. — On Celsus, see above, Vol. I. pp. 30
sqq. ; Talmud, ib. pp. 21 sqq. ; III. p. 172. Reimarus (p. 249) says that before the
uneducated Jesus performed works that were miraculous only in appearance, but that
before the educated he merely spoke abusively. Renan (pp. 255 sqq.) says that Jesus,
like Simon Magus, practised charlatanry and jugglery, at first against his will, and
afterwards as a means towards a moral end. Comp. Strauss, p. 266 (Gesch. Chr.
pp. 121 sqq.). H. C. Gutsmuths, Diss. med. de Christo medico, Jena, 1812. Comp.
Ennemoser, Kieser, J. A. G. Meyer, Passavant in Winer and Ha.se (§ 47). Wei.sse
(L pp. 335 sqq.) goes so far as to refer Jesus' public appearance as Messiah to this
magnetic force, and to explain the circumstances ending in his death at Jerusalem as
resulting from the decline of this force. Yet Weisse regards the force of animal-
magnetism, in others only an accidental phenomenon, as a necessary accompaniment
of Jesus' higher nature. Krauss {Lehre v. d. Offenb. 1868, p. 212) opposes this
theory, which is shared by Krabbe (p. 285), Lange (II. p. 284), and Pressense (p. 381) ;
but, with Rothe, leaves open tlie question of unknown natural forces.
192 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
formulse, incubation or even contact, without ceremonies or com-
plicated processes of any kind ; and that, moreover, we have
nowhere any evidence, certain or even probable, either of a medi-
cal training of Jesus or of his possession of a superior nervous
force. Little as these works are the results of mere human
handicraft in either a good or a bad sense, as little are they the
opposite, namely, expressions of a divine immanence, manifesta-
tions of a higher nature, as has been asserted by dogmatists and
romanticists of all kinds from the fourth Gospel down to Stein-
meyer. For Jesus everywhere assumes the genuine human cha-
racter of his works, his essential equality with his human disci-
ples, who can rival and even surpass him ; and the facts them-
selves reveal the intrinsic influence of his human compassion as
well as of the human faith which grows out of this compassion.
Even a less extreme view of the immediately divine factor in his
works of healing is in the main opposed by the records, though
such a view seems most readily to connect itself with our belief
in God, and best to solve the enigmas of these unique miracles of
healing. The view we refer to is the faith in a special divine
hearing of prayer, in such a sense that God Himself is the real
actor, and Jesus only the mediator, intercessor, proclaimer, and
communicator.^ While it is unquestionable that Jesus ascribed
the results he achieved to God, that he sought his power and
preparation for preaching and for healing in prayer, that he also
encouraged his faithful followers to achieve unhoped-for suc-
cesses in obtaining personal gifts and powers, even as to earthly
matters, on the same celestial path of prayer ; it is yet a still
more significant fact that Jesus, in the moment of healing, except
in a quite unimportant number of instances in weakly attested
narratives, where he looked up to heaven or called upon God,
did not pray, that likewise he did not instruct his disciples to
heal by means of prayer, but that he directly regarded trust, con-
fidence, and the call and command of confidence, as itself an
^ Thus Pressense, p. 378 (renunciation of omnipotence !). Beyschlag, Christ,
xiii. sq.
THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 193
efficacious and irresistible force.^ It might at first be supposed
that in the frequently-occurring expression, " Be it unto tliee
according to thy faith/' Jesus in reality uttered a wish of bless-
ing which was equivalent to a supplicatory cry to God ; but it is
plain that that wish was at least no prayer in itself, but was
regarded as the bearer of an efficacious power, and Jesus indeed
ascribed such a power to the mere greeting of " Peace !" by his
Apostles. To refer this power of faith to the power of prayer
has been again and again attempted with very brilliant argu-
ments ; but sober investigation refuses to ignore the distinction
which the words and the conduct of Jesus have made ; it refuses
to transform human power at once into divine power, and con-
sequently finds it necessary to consider — not how l)elieving
prayer can call forth divine activity, but — only how faith
strengthened by desire and prayer can of itself eflect the greatest
results.^
"Wliilst, therefore, the cause of the great results under con-
sideration is to be sought in the first instance in Jesus himself,
or more exactly in his spiritual life with his human force of will
and his religious confidence, but also with that passionate sym-
pathy and complete self-surrender with which he approached
the universal misery, it lies in the nature of the subject that we
must not forget the second factor wliich the lips of Jesus himself
sufficiently emphasized. As spirit, according to its nature, is in
the highest degree capable of influencing spirit, so, in these
^ Result produced by God, Matt. ix. 6 ; Luke viii. 39, comp. v. 17, vi. 17, ix. 43 ;
Matt. ix. 8 ; prayer enjoined, Matt. xxi. 21 sq. ; retirement for prayer previous to
works of healing, Luke v. 16, vi. 12; looking up to heaven (at the miracle of feeding).
Matt. xiv. 19; Mark vi. 41, vii. 34 (deaf-mute); John xi. 41 (Lazarus). Prayer at
the miracle of feeding and at the raising of Lazarus. The intimation that devils can
be driven out only by prayer and fasting does not belong to Matt, xvii., as verse
21 should be erased on the authority of Sin. and Vat. (see Tisehendorf ) ; but it
first appears, and then without "fasting," in Mark ix. 29. Ewald (p. 4iJ4) still holds
the verse to be genuine, and explains it incorrectly. The power of faith, Matt.
xvii. 20, xxi. 21 ; authority, ix. 6 ; power of the spirit, xii. 28. Comp. the words,
" Wherefore could we not ?" xvii. 19. On the other hand, Num. xii. 13, "Heal her,
God !" Comp. 2 Kings v. 11 ; Josephus, Ant. 3, 11, 3, healing leprosy by prayer.
« Matt. viii. 13, ix. 29, xv. 28 ; comp. Mark i. 25, iv. 39.
VOL. III.
194 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
healing processes, tlie co-operation of the patients is beyond all
doubt recognized by Jesus.^ In the opinion of the people in
Galilee — if not at Jerusalem, where the miraculous ceased —
Jesus, reverenced as the great man, the prophet, the saviour,
called forth love by his personally manifested love, faith by
his faith, volition by his volition, powerfully enough to deter-
mine and change the course of the physical life. We do not
here propose to draw safely to shore by means of a single
phrase all the reports of works of healing in the Gospels, or;
having long since given up the above attempt, even a part of
those reports. The reader is as little likely as the writer to
mistake as to the impossibility of solving the problem of spirit
and matter, of body and soul, either in a life of Jesus or else-
where. We must, however, be permitted both to uphold the
special solution which Jesus himself pointed out, and to illus-
trate it with some analogies from experience. Undoubtedly
many of Jesus' works of healing belonged preponderantly to the
province of spirit, as, notably, the cases of healing the possessed :
it is not possible here, in the face of the strong excitement which
Jesus at once and very visibly produced upon minds in this con-
dition, to dispute the probability of a setting free of the higher
self-consciousness, especially of the enslaved volition.^ Other
cases belonged rather to the physical province ; but here also
the diseases were unmistakably more or less accompanied — as
in the case of the infirm man — by circumstances of spiritual
sorrow or impotence. Here it is at once intelligible that the
mere stimulation of the oppressed or dormant life of the soul
would bring with it an immediate release from the predominance
^ Wolfg. Rychard of Ulm, the enlightened, humanistic physician of the Keforma-
tion period, in his letters finely pointed out the operative power of the "confidentia"
of the sick. See my essay on W. Rychard, Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 315.
2 SchleierinacLer (pp. 214 sq., 218 sq., 226) rightly speaks of the influence of the
dominant will upon an oppressed will. Similarly Lotze, Medic. Psychol, pp. 302 sq.
Comp. Hufeland, Tissot, and others, in Padioleau-Kisenmann, p. 161 ; and the old
book, Medic, hermen. Unters. d. in d. Bibel vorkomm. KranheTigesch, 1794 (said to
be by Prof. Schreger, of Erlangen).
THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 195
of, from the one-sided slavery to, material infirmities and pains :
this can be illustrated from the experience of every one who has
watched himself, and has forgotten his body amid the activity of
his mind. This mastery of the spirit over the flesh is, according
to its nature, without definite limits. At least, experience teaches
that the agitation of vivid imaginings and volitions has suddenly
and completely either overcome or produced physical obstacles
and pains ; that imaginary illnesses have passed into actual ill-
nesses, and vice versa ; that the power of the imagination truly
resembles the creative action of the womb. In this sense, Kant
spoke long ago of the capacity of the will to become master of
the diseased sensations of the body. In such a manner do men
regard, with many deductions but without absolute rejection, the
numberless reports of heathen, Jewish, and Christian times, con-
cerning sudden miraculous healings at epochs of spiritual excite-
ment by the influence of great occasions, great men, or great
institutions, such even as monkish saints and cloisters, which
to-day are anachronisms and are nourished only by superstition.^
^ The Jewish miracles, comp. Gescliichtl. Chr. p. 123. Among the heathen, the
healings in the temples {e.ff. in the temple of J5sculapius at Mgx ; in the Egyptian
temples) ; Apollonius of Tyana ; even the emperor Vespasian, Suet. Vesp. 7 ; Tacitus,
Hist, i, 81 ; Die C. 66, 8. Christian healings of demoniacs, even attested cases of
raising the dead to life, in Justin, Irenfeus, Tertullian, Eusebius (4, 5) ; see above,
p. 172. The founders of cloisters in the Middle Ages, Francis D'Assisi, Catherine of
Sienna. Miracles at Rome and Naples, Einsiedeln and Treves. English kings, also,
were renowned workers of miracles ; see Hase, Gnosis, 2nd ed. I. p. 440. In later
times, the miracles of the Appellants, and of the sects. The worker of miracles,
Johann Joseph Gassner (died 1779), who healed and did not heal more than 20,000
men {Ilerzoffs Enc. IV. p. 464) ; the Canon Prince Alexander of Hohenlohe, in the
third decade of the present century. Particular recent instances, the pastor Blum-
hardt in Swabia, recognized in Guerike's Church History as the restorer of the apos-
tolic gift of healing; Fraiilein v. Seckendorf, in Kannstatt (disciple of the virgin
Trudel, in Mannedorf, Canton Zurich, whose successor was the preacher Zeller) ; the
Catholic curates at Balingen (healers by anointing), and the spiuning women in
Thamm, near Ludwigsburg ; and finally the famous Catholic exorcism in Alsatia
(A.D. 1870), where the devil entered into not only swine but also geese. On the
other hand, in the same year, the aspirant to infallibility, Pius IX., failed to effect
a miracle similar to that in Matt. ix. 6. Attested narrations in Faulus, E.vcr/et. Ildb.
I. ii. p. 508. A collection of narrations in Dr. A. Padioleau's work on Moral Thera-
peutics in the Treatment of Nervous Diseases (awarded a prize by the Parisian Academy
of Medicine), translated by Dr. Eisenmann, Wiirzburg, 18C5. A number of analogous
instances further on.
o 2
196 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
To mention only one instance, how remarkable are the healings
by Vespasian in Alexandria, attested by three writers and the
most credible living witnesses !^ We do not degrade Jesus by
admitting Vespasian's healings to have been facts ; we do not
thereby cause Jesus' works of healing to evaporate in phantasy-
cures, — the term used by Strauss in order to express partly the
secondary importance of the person of Jesus, and partly the
unreal or at least only transient nature of the healings. For
though it may be that such healings occurred in other times
also, yet they occurred in his time in a special degree only in
connection with and through him ; and other times have been
unequal to his, in the extent and attestation of the cures, and
chiefly in the purity and depth of the moral-religious basis, even
though it is too much to talk — with Ewald or Holtzmann— of
thousands of cases of healing.^ But no one was restored without
his participation, and merely by virtue of the patient's own imagi-
nation ; for the few individuals of whom we have isolated reports
that they were restored without his knowledge and volition,
merely by touching his clothing, came into contact not only wdth
his mantle, but also with his personality, and with that personal
influence of his which laid hold of the whole of the people. It
was necessary that he should be there, that he should operate ;
that he should reveal in his preaching a new God, a new uni-
verse ; and in his works of healing, in his compassion, and in the
certainty of success with which he wrought his works, a new, a
higher, a sublime man. Only under these conditions could the
masses be inspired with enthusiastic faith, or the newly-breath-
ing hearts and spirits of the sick and their friends with longing
and hope, with the willingness to co-operate. He gave the
impulse, tliey yielded to it ; and he received the impulse from
God, who empowered him thus to work, conferring upon his
royal mind " authority " for ever, and enabling him to exercise
^ See previous note. Volkmar (p. 107), indeed, derives Mark viii. 23 from tliis
circumstance.
2 Ewald, p. 298 ; Holtzmann, JUd. Gesch. pp. 355, 368.
ORDER AXD BEGINNING OF WORKS OF HEALING. 197
this authority in each instance by virtue of his divine and
prayerful life.^ It must suffice in this place to state general
views and general probabilities, leaving the definite details to be
given in their respective places. It belongs, however, to this
general review not to overlook the fact that the view which has
been unfolded, the psychologico-ethic view, is the prevailing one
in tlie science of to-day ; and that the old unqualified belief
in the miraculous was condemned as long ago as the time of
Ammon, as a spiritual idiosyncrasy.^
C. — The Order and the Beginning of the Works of
Healing.
The uncertainty as to the order and even as to the commence-
ment of the works of Jesus, has been already above lamented.
Ojjinion in this matter is by no means shut up to the illusion
that in any one of our Gospels, in the Gospel which each person
liappens to select as his favourite, the jjurest and the truest
sequence and the purest and the truest commencement of the
miraculous works of Jesus can be easily and conveniently grasped
and plucked like ripe apples. It would certainly be an excellent
thing if such were the case : how content would be the chrono-
logist who foregoes the correct sequence of the events with a
very heavy heart ; how happy would be the psychologist who
wishes to study the laws of the development of this part of the
ministry of Jesus with infallible certainty ! Nay, if we had but
the commencement, how beautifully could we carry further the
threads of the texture whose secret we should then have dis-
1 Matt, ix. 6, xii. 28.
' Besides the medical writers (corap. above, p. 19i, Wolfg. Rychard in the 16th
century; more recent writers, ib.), among the modern theologians who hold this
view are Schleierraacher, Ease, Hausrath, Holtzraann, Rothe, Schenkel, A. Schweizer,
Weizsiicker, and to some extent also Paulus, Neander, Winer, Ewald, Lange, Krauss,
and from another side Strauss and Renan. Hence that what Jesus did was only
mirabile, not miracuhim, Schleiermacher, Neander, Rothe, A. Schweizer, Krauss.
Not only does Schleiermacher rejoice that few objective nature-miracles are recorded,
but Neander, Ewald, and Weisse, do the same. Ammon, Fortbihluvg, p. 333.
198 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
covered ! But nothing of all this is offered to us ; and it is of
no profit to imagine that Mark will to-day, as John was sup-
posed to do yesterday, smooth away all controversy. Matthew
insists upon being heard as well as Mark; and it does not
require much skill to discover the artifices which Matthew, and
Luke, and Mark, and even their predecessors, employed, in order
to restore an orderly and if possible instructive sequence or
development, with great freedom, in truth, as regards the actual
course of events.^ Since this is so, it may seem advisable, on
account of the uncertainty of the sequence of the kinds and of
the occurrence of mii-acles, to bring together at once all the
accounts and all the incidents into one section. But this method
would not only be wearisome on account of the length of the
section and the similarity of the pictures, it would also involve
a complete surrender of the historical process. It is clear that
the further course of the life of Jesus would be emptied and
denuded by this placing of all the facts at the beginning. It is
clear that the extent and the character of Jesus' works of healing
in the first Galilean period are different from what they are in
the second Galilean period, when their fame goes through the
whole land ; and different again from what they are in the Jeru-
salemitic period, when the miracles have as good as died out,
^ The miracle cycle of Matt. viii. ix. shows artificial aggregation. The eight
principal narrations = the eight beatitudes, the first quaternion pointing twice to
Israel and twice to the Gentiles. The last two miracles in Matthew are duplicates of
former narrations. But similar-, only smaller, groups in Luke iv. 31 sqq. ; Mark
1. 21 sqq. See also Luke vii. 1 — 1 7 ; and in Luke and Mark the four great miracles
between the parables and the mission, Luke viii. 22 — 56 ; Mark iv. 35 — v. 43, and
the closing group of Mark vii. 24 — viii. 26. Certain conclusions are indeed no longer
possible. With only some degree of ivohahility can it be assumed, with regard to
Matt. viii. ix., in relation to Luke and Mark, that (1) Matthew has indulged too
much in grouping incidents together, especially those which stood before and after his
antedated Sermon on the Mount ; (2) Luke and Mark have here given the sequence of
some of the events moi-e correctly, but even they have arbitrarily placed some, e. g.,
the demoniac, too early ; (3) the oldest tradition may have been, (a) the mother-in-law
and the evening of works of healing (in Matthew these are preceded by the leper, the
centurion, Judaism and heathenism; in Lulce and Mark by the demoniac); {b) the
leper, in Matthew significantly placed as the first miracle, Luke iv. ; Mark iii. ;
(c) the infirm man at Capernaum ; (d) the centurion (after the Sermon on the Mount,
which must he placed later). See Matthew and Luke.
ORDER AND BEGINNING OF WORKS OF HEALING. 199
It is clear that many of the works presuppose a strengthened
seK-consciousness on the part of Jesus, and a strengthened faith
on the part of tlie disciples and the people : such works there-
fore cannot be placed in the beginning. Finally, it is clear that
many of the works of healing are most intimately bound up with
the later Galilean adventures and conflicts of Jesus : should we
bring the earlier and the later incidents together into one sec-
tion, or should we relate twice the later facts with their accom-
panying struggles, the exhibition of which naturally falls late ?
Whilst the historical interest raises these objections to the
centralization of the works of Jesus, it has already, notwith-
standing all the hindrances and difficulties, won and established
certain distinctions of date. We have now therefore to press on
upon the same road from one point to another by a study of the
facts and of the writers. In the first j)lace, it must be noted that
a number of miracles of healing and of great works consistently
stand either near the beginning or near the end : Peter's mother-
in-law, the leper, the infirm man, the centurion, appear early; the
Canaanitish woman, the lunatic, the blind men of Jericho, and,
when examined closely, also the Gadarenes, Jairus, and the
woman with the issue of blood, appear towards the end, as do
also the great nature-miracles of the loaves and of the storm.^
It must next be observed that several incidents are shown by
their character or their surroundings to belong either to the
beginning or to the close. The former is plainly the case with
the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, and with the concourse of
people occasioned by a relatively smaU work ; also with the
healing of the leper, even with that of the centurion's servant.
The latter, on the other hand, is the case with those works which
1 Luke viii. 22 and Mark iv. 35 place the storm, the Gadarenes, Jairus, and the
woman with the issue of blood, late ; Matt. viii. 23, 28, ix. 18, early. But in this
instance it is easy to show the superiority of the former representation (see remarks on
the individual incidents) ; and at least Jairus and tlie woman with issue of blood stand
relatively late even in Matthew. As to the storm, the case is decided not merely by
Luke viii. 22, Mark iv. 35, but yet more by the relation of duplicate of Matt. viii. 24
to the later storm in Matt. xiv. 24, Mark vi. 45, and the parallel passages to the
later nature-miracle of the loaves.
200 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
are accompanied by severe struggles aud retreats, as well as by
Messiauic confessions ; as, e.g., a series of narratives of healing
IDersons possessed, the narratives of the man with the withered
hand, of the dead raised to life and of the woman with the
issue of blood, and finally of the blind men of Jericho.^ On the
whole, we must not fail to see that the later Galilean period was
crowned with the greatest works : at tliat period was the atten-
tion of the court of Tiberias first attracted to Jesus, then did
Jesus declare the presence of the kingdom of God, basing his
declaration on his casting out of devils, and then did he utter
his woes over the Galilean cities because of their unbelief in the
face of the many and striking mighty works done in their midst.^
On all these grounds, we shall place the greatest works, including
the mythical nature-miracles, at the end of the Galilean ministry.
The reference of the healing of the possessed absolutely to tliis
point, is not prevented by the case of the demoniac of Caper-
naum, introduced as an opening miracle by the second and third
Gospels ; but it is perhaps prevented by the general intimation
of all the Gospels that Jesus WTOught such works from the
beginning, and by the general probability that he specially
acquired his renown and his mysterious importance in this at
that time so. important a department.^
Which works were not among the first of the works of Jesus
can be more certainly determined than the so much more desir-
able affirmative opposite. The initial works in Luke, Mark, and
John — the possessed in the synagogue at Capernaum and the
wine-miracle at Cana — are simply the artificial programmes of
those writers, as will be further shown at the proper place, in
opposition moreover to those critics who would rather give up
^ Comp. the dumb demoniac, Matt. xii. ; Gadarenes, viii. ; man with withered
hand, xii. ; the ruler's daughter restored to life, and the woman with the issue of
blood (in connection with the late controversy on fasting), ix. ; the men of Jericho, xx.
Detailed confirmation further on.
2 Matt. xiv. 1 sqq., xii. 23, 28, xi. 21.
^ Matt. iv. 24, viii. 10; Luke iv. 33, 41, vi. 18 ; Mark i, 23, 34, iii. 11 ; Acts
X. 38.
ORDER AND BEGINXING OF JVORKS OF HEALING. 201
Jolm, than Luke or Mark.i Nor can we be satisfied with Mat-
thew, though he does not phice the greatest masterpieces at the
very beginning. Instead of that, he gives, quite at the Galilean
beginning, and before the Sermon on the Mount, which itself
stands unhistorically early, a general mention of all kinds of
diseases which were healed by Jesus, and of the mass of sick
persons, nay, of whole districts, that thronged towards him : in
this we see plainly that early and late events are promiscuously
mingled, an opinion which is confirmed by the much simpler
beginnings that are described after the Sermon on the Mount.^
Here, then, must everything be deceptive, if we cannot seek
and discover, in the very Capernaum incidents which the three
Synoptics have introduced, without pretension and without
adornment, the actual beginnings, nay, a description from older
and truer sources than their own new renderings of history. And
indeed we may here first of all follow Luke and Mark, in which,
if we reject the sensational story of the evil spirit, the ministry
of Jesus opens modestly and unpretendingly with the healing of
Peter's mother-in-law ; and we may also appeal to the fact that
in Matthew, as in Mark, this entering into Peter's house admir-
ably connects itself with the acquaintance with Peter made
just before on the shore of the Galilean lake, and sealed by
the call to Peter to become a disciple. On the other hand, the
two previous healings in Matthew — that of the leper and that of
the centurion's lad — owe their early position chiefly to their
importance with regard to Jesus' attitude towards Judaism and
heathenism, and at any rate presuppose a call by Jesus, which,
on account of the falling away of the Sermon on the Mount, has
still to be spoken.* We have, doubtless, just here, one of the
1 The want of individuality of the demoniac of Luke and Mark, even Weisse has
recognized (I. p. 477).
2 Matt. iv. 23 sqq., viii. 1 sqq., 14 sqq.
3 Luke iv. 38; Mark i. 29; Matt. viii. 14.
* Also on account of an assumed real connection with his unhistorically early
Sermon on the Mount, Matthew placed the centurion in the first rank. Comp. Luke
vii. 2. It may indeed he found that this incident in Luke stands in connection with
202 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
most instructive examples illustrative of the dependence and
freedom of our three Gospels with regard to their less elaborated
and more trustworthy written sources.^
When Jesus returned — whether on a week-day or a Sunday,
we know not — to Capernaum, with the first-fruits of his circle
of disciples, gathered by the Galilean lake, he allowed Simon
(Peter) to introduce him to his household.^ Simon was married,'
and, together with his mother-in-law, dwelt in his own house.
He found the old woman lying in bed, ill of a fever. In the
damp marshy atmosphere of the shore of the lake, fevers are
wont to linger even at the present day.^ The Jewish historian
and Galilean general, Josephus, was treated by the physicians
at Capernaum for a wound-fever.* Jesus, as soon as he saw or
heard of the evil, Avithout being actually asked (as the later
writers say he was, they antedating the belief of the people and
of Jesus himself in his power to heal), went to the bed of the
sick woman and gave her a sympathetic greeting by touching
her hand.^ And lo, the fever yielded, and the woman, happy
and grateful, could not refrain from rising and personally serving
her guests, or, as Matthew finely says, her guest, at the midday
meal.*^ This firstling of the miracles carries with it a force of
conviction possessed by no other. The mitigation of a fever by
an approach which probably was not intended to have any such
result, the restoration to clear and joyous consciousness by the
return of the son-in-law, still more by the accompanying pre-
Luke vii. 22 ; but while this latter passage affords the motive for introducing here the
whole narrative of the young man of Nain, in the incident of the centurion, which
stood connected with the Sermon on the Mount, the sickness was simply converted
into a near approach to death.
^ Hilgenfeld also has perceived this, ZeitscTirift, 1867, pp. 370 sqq. Yet he insists
upon retaining the healing of the leper as the first miracle.
* Luke and Mark give the Sabbath, on account of Jesus' commencement of his
ministry in the synagogue.
' See above, II. p. 362. •* Josephus, Vita, 72.
5 Luke iv. 38 (Jesus is asked) ; Mark i. 30 (Jesus is told) ; Matt. viii. 14, 15
(simply the fact of Jesus' going into the house).
^ Comp. 1 Kings xx. 16. Josei^hus, Vita, 54 : the midday meal {cipiarov =
SenrvQv /xtarj/ilSr). ) on the Sabbath at the sixth hour, /. e. twelve o'clock at noon.
ORDER AND BEGINNINO OF WORKS OF HEALING. 203
sence of the revered guest, by bis mild and elevating greeting,
and the soothing sympathy shown in bis touching her hand with
his, — this healing power of a new beneficent stream of feeling
and thouglit, and of a powerful stimulus of volition, in wliich
the womanly sentiment of honour with regard to the due enter-
tainment of her guests had not the last place, appears so free
from mystery, so humanly natural, that we could believe in the
repetition of this fact even in our own times ; at least, all of us,
in both our healthy and our sick times, in every kind of gloomy
and depressed condition, have abundantly experienced the in-
vigorating influence of a friendly word, of cheerful society, even
of a single pressure of the hand — in truth, the influence of indi-
vidual upon individual, of force upon force. This miracle, there-
fore, may be considered intelligible and rational, as we say to
those who are wont to be too quickly offended at what is
rational ; and Jesus' engagement in works of healing seems here
to be quite an involuntary occurrence, which drew after it and
introduced further consequences, and a conscious and intentional
course of action. Volkmar has singularly failed to appreciate
this incident, regarding the mother-in-law as only a symbol, the
first deaconess of the new covenant.^
It is true that already in this incident the growth of myth
cannot be altogether overlooked. In Luke and Mark, everything
is magnified, everything is more intentional, more mysterious.
Jesus is accompanied by several others ; according to Mark, by
the four first-chosen Apostles, among whom is Andrew, joint-
owner of the house. By this escort his help is entreated against
the sickness, the strong fever as Lvike says. According to Luke,
he stands with an air of mystery at the head of the bed, and
rebukes the fever, i. e. he speaks as if he were scolding and
threatening an enemy. According to Mark, he not merely
touches the sick woman, he firmly grasps her hand and lifts
^ Paulus (p. 222) has already said tbat fever is often healed by touching, by strong
impression on the nerves. Venturini (p. 100) writes foolishly. Schenkel (p. 68) is
correct. Volkmar, pp. 98—100.
204 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
her up in sucli a way that without any further ceremony she
walks and waits upon the guests. The other sources leave us to
suppose that she rose up of herself ; Luke, however, like Mark,
representing this as taking place immediately.^
Though this incident may have occurred in a simple and
natural way, the people of the town, of course genuine Gali-
leans, fixed their attention solely upon the result, and held it to
be miraculous.^ The news rapidly spread among the people,
and towards evening — between three and six p.m. — a crowd of
people had collected — according to Mark the whole town — bring-
ing their sick to the miraculous physician.^ The Evangelists
narrate — it is true in that general way which makes verification
now impossible — that Jesus healed many sick, especially the
possessed, whose appeals, silenced by Jesus — as already in the
morning — Luke and Mark describe more definitely ; and that he
then fled, as it were, from the crowd, at once according to Mat-
thew, on the next morning according to Luke, and in the gloom
of the early morning, leaving behind even his disciples, accord-
ing to Mark. In this fundamentally consistent report, we have
doubtless an historical reminiscence. It is of great interest,
partly because it gives a life-like picture of the rise of the
popular excitement produced by the first works of Jesus, and
^ Corap. Josephus on the exercisers of the devil : ?(7rf p KEfpa\i)g arac, A )U. 6, 8, 2.
Ille, qui mussitat, det oleum super caput et mussitet, Lightfoot, p. 304.
* See above, p. 169, note.
^ Matthew, in the evening (oipln, comp. Wilke-Griram's Worterhuch, and helo-w,
the history of the passion), here not the late evening, but from three o'clock onwards,
for the people did not come in the night, and Jesus did not either heal for hours in
the night, or indeed go on board ship. Luke has the time of sunset (about seven
o'clock) ; Mark, fusing Matthew and Luke, the evening after sunset, i. e. the beginning
of the night (which came on about eight o'clock even in summer, comp. Winer, Tag) ;
but both narrations are improbable, and introduced only in order to establish Jesus'
remaining in the place through the night and his mysterious departure very early in
the morning. Mark has been preferred (Holtzmann) because he shows the Sabbath
to have been respected by the waiting of the people until the evening, the Sabbath
ending about six o'clock ; but it is evident that Mark does not think of the Sabbath,
and the people are nowhere in the Gospels represented as paying so much respect to
that day. Comp. the coming together of the people on the Sabbath in Josephus,
Vita, 54. Objections, Sclileiermacher, p. 188.
ORDER AND BEGINNING OF WORKS OF HEALING. 205
partly also — as most modern critics perceive — because it shows
the strong repugnance felt by Jesus with regard to a course of ac-
tion not essentially belonging to his ministry, and which was the
starting-point of an impure, materialistic, and at the same time
compromising agitation. We can verify nothing connected with
Jesus' sudden departure : the Gospels contradict each other, and
the lake-voyage mentioned by Matthew into the country of
Gadara is as improbable as the journey given by Luke and
Mark, a journey postponed until the morning of the next day on
account of the Sabbath.^ Indeed, this latter journey has several
peculiarities : Jesus' secret and hasty departure, the hastening of
the people, or of the disciples, after him to bring him l)ack, and
the declaration of Jesus as to his call to preach in other towns
also.2 This declaration would have greater importance if it
contained a confession of his that his vocation was, as to its
principle and purpose, to preach and not to heal ; but the decla-
ration only lays stress upon the duty of restlessly pushing his
missionary work farther and farther ; and this whole represen-
tation of the restless missionary who hurriedly rushes away the
moment after he has begun in Capernaum, and even flees secretly
from the disciples he has but just chosen, as Elijah at last sought
to escape from Elislia, seems to be an altogether forced descrip-
tion of the author's, especially of Mark's.^ Moreover, we see in
a moment that the miraculous healing of the leper narrated
immediately afterwards could hardly have fallen in this period
of commencement.
The works of healing which stand next belong to a somewhat
later time. In every case they assume that Jesus has acquired
considerable renown. But -they also exhibit much greater diffi-
culties. The series is opened by the restoration to health of the
leper. For it cannot be overlooked that all the older Gospels
1 It is impossible that Jesus could have gone to Gadara at the very beginning. See
above, p. 198, note.
« Luke ir. 42 ; Mark i. 35.
3 Comp., with Mark i. 35 sq., the passage in 2 Kings ii. 1 sqq.
206 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
place this incident at or near the head of the series : in Matthew
it stands first of all, in Luke and Mark it stands next to the
healing in Peter's house. The more exact notes of time and
place are certainly unreliable ; in Matthew, the healing precedes
Jesus' entry into Capernaum ; in the others it immediately
follows his departure thence : but the faith of the sick person
shows that the activity of Jesus was then already as many
weeks old as the Evangelists say it was hours or days. We
may assume, with great probability, that other than mere his-
torical reasons induced the writers to place this incident so
prominently in the foreground — indeed, in Matthew in the very
front : it was intended to show at one and the same time Jesus'
strict conformity to the Law, and in picture his purifying,
redemptive influence upon Israel.^
In the neighbourhood of Capernaum, therefore, if we are to
believe Matthew and Mark, or, according to Luke's more pro-
bable report — a report incidentally supported even by Mark —
in a town, perhaps in the town of Capernaum itself, and in tlie
residence of Jesus, there came to him a leper, i. e. a man
suffering from that frightful disease of blood-decomposition
{Blutzersetzungshranhhcit), which is favoured by hot and damp
air, by want- of cleanliness, and Idj a poor diet, especially by a
diet poor in fatty and oily foods, and is still the heritage chiefly
of the East, where, from the days of antiquity, sometimes Egypt,
and sometimes Palestine — the latter with the most malicious
slanders against the history of the Jews and the Mosaic Exodus
— has been regarded as its breeding-place.^ Among the Jews
themselves, the leper was regarded as " the smitten of God," and
his suffering as a divine chastisement, Mdiich a man could not
1 Matt. viii. 1—4 ; Luke v. 12—16 ; Mark i. 40—45.
^ Mark also favours the neighbourhood of Capernaum (i. 40, comp. with vers. 35 sqq.
and ii. 1). Even the house in Mark can have reference to Capernaum (comp. iUfSaXe,
i^eXOivv), which is denied quite arbitrarily (as Hilgenfeld also sees) by Volkmar.
Luke mentions a town indefinitely. On leprosy, see Winer's and Schenkel's Jieal-
Worterb. On the slanders, see only Josephus, Cont. Ap. 1, 31, and Tacitus, where
he repeats the Greek reports, Bist. 5, 3 : Orta per .ffigyptum tabe, quae corpora
foedaret.
ORDER AND BEGINNING OF WORKS OF HEALING. 207
wish to see inflicted on any but Lis deadly eneniy.^ These four,
says the Talmud, are to be looked upon as dead, — the blind, the
leper, the poor, and the childless.^ As a rule, the disease begins
with reddish spots on the skin, out of which swellings, knobs,
and ulcers, gradually develop and spread over the whole body.
One organ after another is seized, the organs of respiration, of
speech, of hearing, of sight ; and the end, often after many years,
is consumption and dropsy. With the most minute precision,
the Mosaic legislation provided for the observation and treat-
ment of these unclean persons ; as a preventive of contagion —
which is generally denied by modern science — and also on
account of the disgusting character of the disease, it was or-
dained that a leper should rend his clothes, keep his head bare,
have a covering over his mouth, cry " Unclean, unclean !" and,
" as one dead " among the living, reside in a separate dwelling
outside of the camp or the town.^ These sanitary regulations
were naturally very unwelcome ; the sick were, indeed, avoided
as something evil, from motives both of prudence and of reli-
gion, but they were not shut up. Insuf&ciently restrained in
unwalled localities, they forced themselves into the very towns,
though they thus made themselves liable to a punishment of
forty stripes ; and they were suffered even in the synagogues,
the worshippers protecting themselves by a partition and by the
ordinance that the sick should be the first to enter and the last
to leave.^
Thus is explained the fact that Jesus met with such unfortu-
nate sufferers, and that they are frequently mentioned in the
1 Greek lepra, from lepras - rough, scabby ; Hebrew zaruah, the smitten ; in.
Arabic, the epileptic ; possibly (see Gresenius) from gara — to scratch, to be scabby.
Deadly enemy, 2 Sam. iii. 29 ; 2 Kings v. 27. Regarded by the Persians also as a
divine chastisement, Herod. I. 138.
2 Lightfoot, p. 518.
3 Lev. xiii. 45 sq. ; 2 Kings vii. 3, xv. 5 ; Josephus, Ant. 3, 11, 3; Cont. Ap.
1, 31. Comp. Talmud : ex urbe, Lightfoot, p. 551.
* 2 Kings vii. 3. Lightfoot, I. c. The reader should call to mind the zeal for the
puritas israelitica, Lightfoot, p. 282.
208 THE WOBKS OF JESUIT.
narratives and utterances in the Gospels.^ The district of Gen-
nesaret, with its damp atmospliere and the fish-diet of tlie
inhabitants, might be specially favourable to the disease. The
leper approached Jesus when the latter was alone in the house
or on the country-road, and when his crowded escort of people —
which Matthew too readily introduces into the return home
after the Sermon on the Mount — must at any rate be supposed
to be absent, — the leper approached and fell prostrate and
besought him, "Lord, if thou wilt^ thou canst make me clean!"
He believingly brought his desire into the presence of Jesus'
ability. And Jesus stretched out his hand affirmatively, and,
touching him, said, " I will, be thou clean !" and the leper was
immediately cleansed. But Jesus strictly commanded him,
according to Mark with excited breathing, " See thou tell no
man, but go thy way and show thyself to the priest, and offer
the sacrifice which Moses has commanded, for a testimony unto
them." ^ The Gospel naturally tells us nothing further about
the removal of the disease, about the visit to the priest, and
about the elaborate and costly sacrifice ; but Luke says that the
fame of Jesus grew more and more, while Mark — ascribing to
the healed man a disobedience which he repeats in the case
of the deaf mute — represents the leper as making known the
cure on all sides, notwithstanding the menacing command, and
therefore also as neglecting the command to go at once to
Jerusalem.^
If we unhesitatingly accept this report as it is and as it is
usually understood, discovering its support in the strong faith of
^ Luke iv. 27, xvii. 12.
- Volkmar, boasting of his having advanced beyond Dr. Baur, whose attitude towards
Mark was simply that of wonder, in a fabulous manner makes the menacing and the
reluctance of Jesus refer to the suppliant's deifying act of falling upon his knees,
though this does not come under consideration at all. See only Mark v. 22, vii. 2.5,
X. 17. For a testimony, comp. the characteristically genuine passages in Matt. x. 18,
xxiv. 14.
* Lev. xiv. 1 sqq. Josephus, Ant. 3, 11, 3 : TtoiKikai Ovaicu. Comp. Lightfoot,
p. 300.
ORDER AND BEGIXNIXG OF WORKS OF HEALING. 200
tlie sufferer and the great compassion of Jesus, — a compassion
which jNIark explicitly attests, and which without that attesta-
tion finds an emphatic expression in the fact of intercourse with
a sufferer from such a horrible disease and in a contact avoided
even by the priests, — we nevertheless find ourselves at once in
the midst of great difficulties. To believe that a malady so
deeply rooted in the body, in the flesh and blood to the very
marrow, a malady to which melancholy was only a secondary
accompaniment, could be removed by a mere though extraordi-
narily loving and sympathetic address, accompanied by contact,
is, as Strauss and Schenkel insist, a much more daring assump-
tion, and one much less in accordance with experience, than that
of tlie cure of fever patients or paralytics or even the possessed,
in whose cases a thoroughly efficacious act of volition is much
more conceivable.^ However well-established the fact may be
that this disease, as is reported by both the Old Testament and
Josephus, was often arrested by a copious discharge of the
matter which produced it, and however certain it may be that
the experienced eye of the priest was able to recognize the signs
of the removal of the disease whilst the body was still externally
covered with its marks, all this goes but a little way to prove
that we have to do with such a case, or that, even if recovery
was discernible, such a sudden disappearance of the symptoms
should have taken place as the experienced priests never wit-
nessed.2 It seems, therefore, that either we must retain the fact
witliout being able to find a sufficient explanation, or we must
conclude that the report has been more or less corrupted.
The mythical explanation, going to the extreme of denying
the whole, finds here a strong support. This Gospel narrative is
certainly much less open to attack than other narratives, as, e. g.,
the far later account in Luke of ten lepers healed by Jesus on
* The Egyptian elephantiasis is accompanied by dejection and extreme melancholy,
noticed in Winer's Real- W.
^ Josephus, Ant. 3. 11, 3 : If any had been freed by God from his disease through
earnest prayer, and had regained a healthy complexion, &c. Cont. Ap. 1, 31 : If the
disease be healed, and the natural constitution be recovered, (Jcc.
VOL. III. r
210 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
his journey to Jerusalem.^ Yet it is observable that the Gospels
have already heightened the colour of the narrative, for Luke
makes out of the " leper " " a man full of leprosy," and Matthew
introduces crowds of people, and Luke and Mark exaggerate the
spreading abroad of the news of the case, a circumstance not
reported at all by Matthew.^ It is yet more conceivable that
the Gospel purposely placed a leper at the commencement as a
picture of the sinfully impure Jewish people.^ And here the
Old Testament comes in. It is true there is no Isaian pro-
phecy concerning lepers, as there is concerning the blind and
the deaf, which could have been condensed into a material fact.
Yet the passage from Isaiah is introduced with this very addi-
tion ; and this may have been done with a reference to the
picture in the first chapter of Isaiah, of the sinful nation which
is sick from the sole of the foot to the head, or to the descrip-
tion, in the elsewhere quoted thirty-fifth chapter, of the " holy
way " in which no one who bears a stain shall go. Moreover,
the leprous Job hovered before the eyes of the writers of the
New Testament, by whom he is transformed into the figure of
the much-enduring and at last delivered Lazarus.^ Finally,
leprosy and the healing of leprosy appear in connection with
Moses from' the time when he was first called, as well as in con-
^ Luke xvii. 12, evidently in imitation partly of the first case of leprosy healed,
and partly of the case of Naaman. The very district in which the healing is said to
have occurred (on the way to Jericho-Gilgal), reminds one of the latter case. The ten
lepers may represent the ten tribes. Volkmar, on the incident of the leper (p. 119),
says that it may be left undecided whether a fact lies at the basis of the narrative or
not — everything is on his side. Impure heathenism and Judaism are both repre-
sented : to think only, as was formerly done, of heathenism, was prevented by the
facts of the case. Of course, we cannot here think of heathenism at all.
^ The colossal exaggeration in Mark i. 45 appears to the allegorist Volkmar as only
a delineation of the progress of Christianity in the world. On the other hand, he
finds fault with Matthew. To the old ridicule (comp. Ritschl) of Matt. viii. 1, 4
(against which see Luke viii. 56, Mark v. 43), he adds the expression of Matthew's,
iKaQ. T] XsTrpa, as if it were not allowable in the language of the people to say, e.g.,
the fever was healed. Matt. iv. 23. Joseph us, Co7it. Ap. 1, 31.
^ Hence in Matthew it is the first detailed narrative of healing (in Mark the third,
in Luke the fourth).
^ Is. Ixi. 1, comp. Matt. xi. 5; Is. i. 6, xxxv. 8 ; Job ii. 5 sqq.
ORDER AND BEGIXXIXG OF WORKS OF HEALING. 211
neection with the miracle-working prophets of the ninth pre-
Christian century, particularly Elisha, whose typical resemblance
to Jesus the Gospels have otherwise recognized in word and
incident, even to the healing of Naaman the Syrian.^ It is
interesting also to find that the Talmud represents the IMessiah
as moving in the midst of the sick and the leprous, nay, as even
himself suffering from leprosy.-
At the same time, it is impossible to overlook altogether the
striking marks of genuineness in the report, seen in Jesus'
sending a sick man to the priests — an act otherwise not repre-
sented, yet so intelligible as occurring at the commencement of
the ministry of Jesus — with the view of making a recognition of
the priesthood and Jerusalem; and seen also in the emphatic and
unusually impassioned prohibition to make the circumstance
publicly known, a prohibition which stands alone in the imme-
diately surrounding cases of healing. We may thus arrive at
the conclusion that the thrice-given report is not to be put aside
as absolutely unhistorical. But if a positive miracle cannot here
be admitted, still less can a modified degree of the miraculous.
For if we supposed that Jesus' word of healing or of consolation
was at once distinctly operative, or, if not at once, that it gradu-
ally brought about the removal of the ulcers ; or if we thought
it preferable to ascribe less of the result to the action of Jesus,
and to believe in a process of healing already begun, and in a
supplementary beneficial influence of some kind exercised by
Jesus, yet it is to be hoped without any pretension to peculiar
merit; we should, in either case, come into collision not only
with the Evangelists' conception of the miraculous character of
the cure, which in the end would have to be given up, but also
with the most substantial part of the whole narration, with the
emphatic command to go to Jerusalem, a command which sup-
plies the final and fundamental element in the healing process,
and which proves the cure or after-cure to be complete. A per-
1 Exod. iv. 6 ; Numb. xii. 10 ; 2 Kings v. 1 sqq. ; Luke iv. 27.
^ Comp. above, p. 180, note 1. Ocliler, Messias, p. 438.
r 2
212 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
fectly non-miraculous explanation, making this case an actual
pendant to that of the healing of Peter's mother, is more pro-
bable. The " cleansing " which the sick man asked for may
originally have been nothing more than that declaration of
cleanness which, in the very same words, was reserved to the
priests by the legislation of Moses. ^ Luke and Mark are the
first to lose altogether this sense of cleansing. In order to
understand the wish of the sick man and the behaviour of
Jesus, it must be remembered that the legal mode of obtaining
a declaration of cleanness for a sick Galilean who would have
to travel to Jerusalem, was troublesome and expensive enough ;
and that even the Scribes had long since undermined the Levi-
tical ordinance, by placing themselves as men learned in the
Law in successful competition with the priests, and by them-
selves uttering the decisive sentence, while, in order to avoid a
direct disobedience to Moses, they left to the priests the empty
and formal executive : The man is clean, and the priest shall
declare him clean ! Since Jesus stood before the public as a
Scribe, the convalescent might in fact, with Jesus' sentence in
his hand, dispense with going to Jerusalem ; and Jesus, on his
part, could himself, without being either physician or priest, cer-
tify, according to the practice of others, a visible recovery; nay, he
could, to the consolation of the man and in confirmation of the
end of his terrible ban, seal his recovery by a touch which until
then every one had shrunk from giving, but still reserving the
formal sentence to tlie legally authorized priest.^ And it is this
^ Paulus Las expounded it in both ways. L. J. p. 277, and Exeget. Hdh. I.
p. 708, decide and explain that this leprosy is no longer contagious (on the other
Land, Strauss .say.s, what i.s right in itself, that the Gospels refer to something greater).
The former explanation in Schenkel, pp. 73, 373. On the contrary, Pressens6, p. 427.
In Lev. xiii. 1 sqq. the fiiaiveiv and KaQapiZnv of the priest is everywhere understood
as meaning clean and unclean. Lightfoot, quite correctly (p. 306) : Pronuuciahis.
^ The Scribes, see Vol. I. pp. 332 sq. Recovery through prayer, also in Josephus,
Ant. 3, 11, 3. The avoidance of such a man, without " any human kindness " (Cont.
Ap. 1, 31). Ant. 3, 11, 3 : fi-qCivi cvv^iaiTil)^Ltvoi kti I'EKpou p]^h> Sia^spovTi^.
Cont. Ap. 1, 31 : kcu rbv atl/dfiEvov ahrHtv i] 6[j,u>po(pov yerofiivov ov KaOapov
//yJrai.
OIWER A XV BEGIXNING OF WORKS OF HEALING. 213
very reservation which affords the strongest evidence on behalf
of this explanation. With regard to the curing of a leper, Jesus
need not be either so violently agitated, or so anxious to reveal
his attitude towards the priesthood, or, finally, so harsh to the
healed man himself ; but with regard to a declaration of cure,
which was not legally in his own liands, and with reference to a
convalescent who might avoid the legal course, it was necessary
for him to forbid the spreading abroad of the news until after
the journey to Jerusalem, and to obtain a full recognition of his
really legal proceeding from the priests, nay, from Jerusalem.
Such a course of action on the part of Jesus might, without any
miraculous healing, excite attention and admiration, on account
of his heroic love of his fellow-men and his determined conduct ;
but the materializing mythical spirit, insatiable and prone to
misconception, was only too near at hand to add this case to the
many real works of healing, and to convert the declaration of
cleanness into an actual cleansing.^
The narrative of the infirm man (the paralytic), who by the
w^ord of Jesus was enabled himself to carry home his bed,
standing in the Gospels after the above-mentioned incidents and
at the first return to Capernaum, occupies an altogether appro-
priate position so far as it synchronizes with the beginning of
the movement among the masses, and of the enthusiastic efforts
of the sick and their friends.- ]Matthew relates the case most
simply. An infirm man, lying upon a kind of bier, was brought
to Jesus after his landing, and as he was entering the town on
his way home.^ In view of the faith of the sick man and of hia
compassionate bearers, Jesus at once said to him : " Be of good
1 If it be said that the strict command was directed against the spreading abroad of
the news, the answer is, No, it had sjiecial reference (aWa) to the legally primary
visit to the priests. The spreading abroad of the news is not, in itself, once for-
bidden ; but the priests are to have an evidence of Jesus' recognition of the Law (as
Chrysostom rightly says, in contradistinction to most moderns).
« Matt. ix. 1—8 ; Luke v. 17—26 ; Mark ii. 1—12.
^ Comp. with Matt. ix. 1, 2, the passage -xiv. 34. The house ( f Jeans is not here —
as in Luke and Mark— to be thought of.
214 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
cheer, my son ; tliy sins are forgiven." He looked upon bis ill-
ness as a result of sin, and he found that his conscience pressed
yet more heavily upon him than his body.^ But a second utter-
ance followed the first. Several Scribes found in the first utter-
ance blasphemy against God, because it contained an infringe-
ment of the prerogative of God, although the old prophets also
had thus infringed upon the Divine prerogative.^ His ]Derception
of their thought was quickly followed by the winged proof and
refutation which was logic and action in one : " Which is easier
to say, Thy sins are forgiven ? or. Stand up and walk 1" As if
he would say, They are equally difficult, equally easy, impossible
to you and possible to me. " But that ye may know that the
Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins " — from this
premiss he passed to the conclusion of action, and, turning
towards the sick man, said, " Stand up, take up thy bed, and go
thy way to thy house ! He did so, and the people gave praise
to God who had given such power to men."^
This grand deed required no exaggeration, but it was natural
that it should find it. Luke and Mark busy themselves with
a rich and highly coloured description of it. In their forced
manner they depict, immediately after the arrival of Jesus at
his house, a large concourse of people, the great impediments
which faith had to break through, the miraculous insight into
the minds of the opponents, the literal fulfilment of Jesus' word
of command. Luke in particular describes the concourse of
^ Dixit R. Cbija fil. Abba : Nullus fegrotus a morbo suo sanatui', donee ipsi omnia
peccata remissa sunt. Nedar. in Schottgen, I. p. 93. Paulus, I. p. 498. Strauss,
II. p. 84. Comp. Lev. xxvi. 16 ; Deut. xxviii. 21 ; Matt. xii. 45; Luke xiii. 2, 11 ;
John V. 14, ix. 1 sqq. Since Jesus did not so act in other cases, the remarkable coin-
cidence of the passage from the Talmud does not afford any explanatory parallel.
* The prerogative of Divine forgiveness, Exod. xxxiv. 7 ; Ps. xxxii. 2, 5 ; Jer. xxxi.
34, xxxiii. 8, &c. Ignominious death of the "blasphemer," Lev. xxiv. 16; Josephus,
Ant. 4, 8, 6. Yet the prophets pronounced forgiveness in the name of God, comp.
Is. xl. 2 ; Nathan, 2 Sam. xii. 13. The atonement of the high-priest by means of
sacrifice was a somewhat different thing, Lev. xvi.
' Equally difficult, thus correctly Fr. Meyer, De Wette ; the utterance easier than
the work, Bleek, Volkuiar. The argument of the latter against Matt ix. 6 is worth-
kfcis (p. Vi'Ji).
ORDER AND BEGINNING OF WORKS OF HEALING. 215
people ; Pharisees and Scribes must be present out of every
village of Galilee and Judasa, and also out of Jerusalem, in order
to add their testimony to that of the people of the place. But
the locality given is inconsistent with the descriptions of both
authors. According to the sources, Jesus is at home and
teaches the people, whom he could not teach en masse in his
house. Yet the house cannot be dispensed with, — it is needed
to provide impediments through which faith may break. The
way to the house is beset far and wide ; the bearers, the four
men of Mark, try every means of forcing their way to the lower
room in which Jesus is teaching, but in vain,^ They then ascend
with their sick friend from the street or from the court, by
means of the side-stairs or of a ladder, to the flat roof, and lower
the sick man by ropes through the opening in the roof or over
the edge of the tiling — no, says Mark, through the tiling, broken
open as in war — to the feet of Jesus.^ These alterations, affect-
ing only the framework of the older narration, are mere triviali-
ties when compared with the transformation which John requires
the incident to undergo. In the fourth Gospel, the illness has
lasted an average life-time, thirty-eight years ; the cure is trans-
ferred to Jerusalem at a feast time, on a Sabbath, by the healing
spring Bethzatha (Bethesda) ; and of the faith which achieves its
^ The upper chamber (Meyer) is not suggested by anything in the narrative, not-
withstanding Acts XX. 8 ; Lightfoot, p. 438.
* Flat roof, Matt. x. 27, xsiv. 17. Jerome, upon Ps. cii. 7 (ad Sun. et Fretel.) :
Habent plana tecta, quae transversis trabibus sustentantur. Two means of ingress, by
the door and by the roof, derech (jacjin, Lightfoot, p. 438. The latter was often only
by a ladder, ascendere extra domum per scalam appositam, ih. Luke's expression, Sia
Kepafxajv (tiled roof), exactly corresponds to derech gagin, via per tectum (comp. only
ctd 9v()idoQ, Tsixove, 2 Cor. xi. 33), where the reference is either — as Lightfoot,
Strauss, and Grimm suppose — to the above-mentioned way into the interior of the
house through the roof, or to the external breastwork, the cornice of the house (comp.
Winer, Ilaus, and Dach), over which the sick man would be let down to the door of
the house. Of a removal of the tiles or bricks, of a violent entrance into a strange
house (a.s in war, Josephus, Ant. 14, 15, 12 ; 13, 5, 3), Luke evidently is not think-
ing ; this was left for Mark, whose colossal misunderstanding— which oppresses even
Olshausen— Yolkraar has the credit of defending as the original (with removal of tiles
and laths). Even Strauss— like Woolston— ridicules Mark (danger of slaying those
who stood below), p. 434. Comp. Wilke-Griram, dprt^of.
216 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
object in spite of all hindrances, nothing remains but the vexa-
tion of one who was deprived of his healing bath by swifter feet>
There remains, however, similarity enough to attest the identity
of tlie incident, and it is not worth the trouble to answer those
who are so fortunate as to discover two miracles ; for the ill-
ness, the culpability, the helplessness, the call of Jesus, the con-
troversy wdtli the Pharisees on the subject of blasphemy, as well
as the period — in the early part of Jesus' ministry — are the
same.^ Freedom of, and dependence upon, the Synoptics, are
scarcely anywhere more strikingly noticeable than in this Johan-
nine narrative of healing ; and the same may be said of that
ideal tendency which, in the restoration of a man who had been
infirm for thirty-eight years, offers us the undisguised representa-
tion of the eternal and vivifying activity of God, here exercised
immediately on behalf of Israel, who, through decades, through
centuries, and notwithstanding all their national festivals and
jubilees of deliverance, still languished thirty-eight or forty
years in the wilderness, until the deliverer came in the Logos
of God.3
The only question to be considered here is, as to which is the
first account. IVe get no aid from the supposition of a fictitious
^ John V. 1 sqq. Instead of Bethesda (Betchesda, house of grace), must now
(especially since tlie discovery of the Cod. Sin., confirmed by Eusebius, Onomasticon,
comp. Tisch.) be read Bethzatha (Sin., It.), or Bezatha (Kus., Cod. Reg., It.), or Beze-
tha, Beta chadata, corap. the name of the new part of Jerusalem, Bezetha ( = Kaivfi
TT.), Josephus, B. J. 5, 4, 2 ; 5, 5, 8 (2, 19, 4 ; 2, 15, 5); therefore new house, or
exactly the pool of the new town. It is an interesting fact that tradition has located
the Bethesda pool in the neighbourhood of this new town itself {B. J. 5, 5, 8), in the
K. (E. ) of the temple (Birket Israil), probably taking a trench of the fortress Antonia
for a pool lined with masonry, and the Stephen's Gate, a little to the N.E., for the
old Sheep Gate, Neh. iii. 1. Robinson supposes the pool to be more to the S., where
now the copious Well of the Virgin flows intermittently. Tobler, Denkhl. pp. 35 sqq.,
gives it up. Comp. Robin.son, II. pp. 136 sqq. ; Winer; Herzog; Furrer, Bihl. G.
p. 21, seeks Bethesda to the W. of Haram. Gratz, p, 471, gives a false derivation of
Bethesda, from bezaiiti (^Bux. p. 339), marsh.
* Comp. Strauss, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Scholten, and also Weisse. On the other hand,
naturally, Meyer and even De Wette.
•^ The Purim festival, which is probably assumed, was a national deliverance festi-
val. Esther ix. 29 sqq. ; Josephus, Ant. 11, 6, 13. Thirty-eight years in the wilder-
ness, Deut. ii. 14.
ORDER AKD BEGIN NINa OF WORKS OF HEALING. 217
fulfilment of the Old Testament. This supposition is more
applicable to the cases of the lame men in the beginning and
middle of the Acts of the Apostles.^ The guarantee of originality-
lies in the simplicity of the nevertheless highly coloured account,
in the characteristic mode of procedure in effecting the cure, and
in the genuine Pharisaic controversy. A crudely rationalistic
explanation is, however, not admissible. Even the infirm man
of John's Gospel was no lazy fellow, whom Jesus unmasked and
sent home with his bed." And the allegorical art which sees in
the infirm man only a picture of heathenism, and in the mur-
muring Pharisees a picture of Judaism, is more than arbitrary.^
On the other hand, we can understand that a paralysis which
was not of long standing — so far as we can gather from the nar-
rative — and which was not one of the worst of cases, for it does
not appear to have affected the mind of the patient, and the
circumstances occasioning which were temporary, would have
really yielded to such an uncommonly strong excitement as was
produced by the very presence of the sick man, and still further
strengthened by the address of Jesus, the longed-for consolation
for the sinner, the word of power.* Incapacity to move oneself
is capable of being cured ; and among the curative means,
besides time, and the restorative energy of the organism, and
baths, are the emotions of joy and terror, and perhaps most
of aU the powerful stimulation of the dormant power of voli-
tion, to which even the crutches hung as spoils, in honour
of the holy Virgin, in monastic cloisters bear testimony. He
who recognizes the efficacy of physical means, must deliberate
^ Acts iii. 1 ; in verse 8 and xiv. 10 there is a direct imitation of Is. xxxv. 6
{aXiirai wq iXa(pog x'^^^c)- The former patient was more than forty years old, Acts
iv. 22. Yolkmar's criticism overlooks the fact that this narrative is of a later type
than that of Matthew.
* Thus Woolston, Ammon, Paulus ; comp. Liicke, Lange, Weisse (Evancjelinifr.
p. 268, where moral imbecility, originally mentioned in the form of a parable, is
assumed).
* Volkmar, p. 133. Whence comes the heathen ?
* According to Panlus {Exeg. Hdb. I. p. 494), Jesus delivers the sick man from the
delusion of a special divine punishment.
218 TEE WORKS OF JESUS.
before he denies that of psychical ; man is first spirit, and then
matter. 1
On the occasion of the healing of the centurion's lad at Caper-
naum, Jesus already stands on the boundary of his first ministry
of healing ; he sums up the consequences, less to the bodies than
to the souls of the people, and he finds himself justified in
deducing a final judgment,^ Luke is right in so far as he places
this incident a little later than Matthew, and a little later than
the healing of the infirm man ; yet, in this respect, Matthew
agrees with Luke, since he places the incident immediately after
his antedated Sermon on the Mount. There is here also a para-
lytic or an arthritic patient, at least according to Matthew;
though, on the other hand, Luke, preparing the ready answer of
the worker of miracles to the doubting Baptist, troubles himself
less with the kind of disease than with the nearness of the death
which was vanquished by the raiser of the dead. A centurion
of the garrison at Capernaum, perhaps the commanding officer
of the troops stationed there, a man therefore in the service of
the tetrarch Antipas, and, as in the course of the narrative he is
shown to be not a Jew by birth, a Gentile or a Samaritan, such
as the Herods were wont to have in the army, came to Jesus in
the streets of the town and besought him on behalf of his son
who was racked with pain at home.^ Jesus promised to go ; the
man's humility and faith deprecated Jesus' going. " I am not
^ See the examples in Paiilus, I. pp. 508 sqq. ; Paclioleau, particularly pp. 159,
172. Prof. Dr. Biermer, my esteemed colleague, told me of a case in the hospital
(1869), in which a girl, who had for some time been unable to stand on her feet, sud-
denly became able to walk when threatened with the use of the electrical machine, and
was then very grateful to the person who had regained for her her power of volition.
Similar instances among hypochondriacal and hysterical patients have been mentioned
to me by my esteemed colleague, Prof. Dr. Cloetta.
^ Matt. viii. 5 ; Luke vii. 1 ; John iv. 46. In Matthew, two cases of healing after
the Sermon on the Mount ; in Luke, one after the same sermon ; in John, two mira-
cles, one case of healing. Notice the relation betv/een John and Matthew.
^ Accoi-ding to Josephus {Ant. 19, 9, 1, 2), the troops of King Agrippa I. consisted
principally of Samaritans and persons from Cassarea. Silas the Jew, however, stood
at their head {ib. 19, 7, 1), .and the guard consisted of Babylonian Jewish knights
(ib. 17, 2, 3).
ORDER AND BEGINNING OF WORKS OF HEALING. 219
worthy," he said, "that thou shouldest come under my roof;
speak but a word and my boy will be healed. Tliough I am a
man under higher authority, I can nevertheless say to my
soldiers or my servants, ' Go,' ' Come,' ' Do this,' and they do it.
How much more " — for this is what he meant to express in his
genuinely soldier-like figure — " how much more canst thou, who
art not a subaltern, say to diseases or to the spirits of the
diseases as to thy servants, 'Come,' and'Go'!"^ In astonish-
ment, Jesus said to those who accompanied him, "Not once
have I found so great faith in Israel!" This was a noble testi-
mony to Israel, a still nobler to the man from without. And
then he said to the centurion, " Go thy way ; as thou hast
believed, so be it done unto thee." And the boy was healed at
the same hour.^
Luke's account is more artificial. It is true that the conver-
sion of the son into a much-loved servant is the opposite of an
exaggeration ; but this difference may well be due to a misun-
derstanding of Matthew's text.^ To represent, however, the
servant as already dying is an exaggeration, the appropriate
precursor of the raising of the dead reported to the Baptist. But
doubtless the most important exaggeration is that of the faith of
the centurion, which is elevated to a parallel to the faith in the
narrative of the paralytic, only with a greater prominence given
to that humility which already appears in Matthew's account.
The centurion is prevented by his modesty from coming to Jesus
himself, but sends Jewish elders as his intercessors ; and as
Jesus draws nigh, he sends his friends anew, declares himself
unworthy that Jesus should enter his house, and asks for only a
word. Jesus is astonished ; and the returning messengers find
^ Comp. Matt. iv. 24 ; Luke xiii. 10.
2 Matt. viii. 11, 12, is an inappropriate addition to verse 10 ; comp. Luke vii. 9,
xiii. 28. See also below, p. 223.
' The boy (ttoXq), of Matthew maj' be either son or servant, but servant is CovXoq
in verse 9, and boy is son in xvii. 18 (also ii. 14 sqq.). Matt. viii. 9 completed the
mistake of Luke. Such zeal for a servant is not probable. John also took it - son,
iv. 46.
220 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
the dying servant restored to health. The general absence of
originality betrays itself here at once in the double embassy ;
further in the overwrought humility which withdraws its own
request ; in the address of the centurion, which he could have
spoken only in the presence of Jesus, as in Matthew's account,
and not by the mouths of messengers ; in the want of any
answer from Jesus ; and in the attestation of the result by the
messengers as eye-witnesses.^ But these exaggerations again
are trifling when compared with John's account, even though
John here and there remains nearer to Matthew. A courtier,
that is, a servant of the tetrarch Antipas, hears at Capernaum
that Jesus has arrived at Cana on his (second) journey from
Judsea to Galilee. At eight o'clock in the morning he hastens
towards Cana, five leagues distant, in order to fetch Jesus to his
son, who is dying of fever.^ Jesus, whom he meets with at
about one o'clock, is at first harsh, contrary to his nature, but in
harmony with the spirit of the Gospel : " Unless ye see signs
and wonders " — thus he places him in the category of the obsti-
nately unbelieving Jews — "ye will by no means believe !" But
the father perseveres, and Jesus says-, " Go thy way, thy son
lives," and thus, as it w^ere, excites in him to an appropriate and
successful degree the faith of a third person. Miraculous tele-
gram of the Lord ! The father travels back to Capernaum, cer-
tainly at an almost blamably slow rate, for he does not reach
home until the next day, when his servants meet him with the
message, " Thy boy lives." He asks for definite particulars, and
lo ! he finds that the fever ceased at about one o'clock on the
previous day. And then the man believes, with his whole
house.^ Undoubtedly this is the same incident as that recorded
^ The secondary character of Luke's account also in Strauss, p. 459 ; Schenkel, on
the contrary, prefers Luke (p. 103). A double message also in Luke viii. 41, 49.
^ As to Cana, see the later localities.
^ The seventh hour is, according to Jewish reckoning (from six o'clock in the morn-
ing), one o'clock in the afternoon ; and according to Roman reckoning (from twelve
o'clock), seven o'clock in the morning (or evening). There is a difference of opinion as
to the reckoning adopted in John's Gospel (i. 39, iv. C, xix. 14) ; the former is every-
ORDER AND BEG IN XI KG OF WORKS OF HEALING. 221
in Alatthew and Luke, but it is treated with excessive freedom.^
Here also the miracle is one of the earliest, and occurs at Ca-
pernaum; here also appear a royal dependent, though a Jew
instead of a Gentile, a son at the point of death, assiduous ser-
vants, an act of faith, an utterance, a cure effected at a distance.
The modifications are but few, and leave the honour entirely
with Jesus and not with the father : the exercise of power at a
distance is magnified both with reference to space and time, an
exercise of power at a distance of five leagues and yet completed
with a momentaneousness that almost mocks the wilfully slow
and blind father, who does not learn until the second day what
had taken place on the first, but who, out of gratitude for the
heightened miracle, is with his whole house converted to Chris-
tianity, a detail of which the earlier writers knew nothing. ^
Eeturning to Matthew, we find that our investigation is not
yet finished. There are reasons to doubt the antiquity and to
object to the spirit of the passage, as well as to question the
miracle itself. Tlie incident is not given by Mark at all ; and it
is suspected that Matthew's Gospel did not originally possess it,
because the friendly attitude of Jesus towards tlie Gentiles con-
tradicts the Gospel, and especially the narrative of the Canaan-
itish woman; and because that very narrative of the Canaanitish
woman makes that of the centurion appear to be simply its
duplicate, with the addition of a tone of greater friendliness
towards the Gentiles.^ Hence Mark has only the incident
of the Canaanitish woman, Luke only that of the centurion;
while it was left to our existing Matthew to have both. But
this objection does not say much. The two incidents have
where to be preferred ; comp. the history of the passion. "Yesterday " is dated not
from the Jewish, but the natural, day. It is to be remarked that in John's Gospel
the Gentile of the Synoptics has become a Jew, because the Gentiles that believed
immediately without signs have already been exhibited iu Samaria.
1 Storr consistently assumed three inciJents ; later critics differ as to whether there
were two or one. Comp. Meyer on John iv. Even Ewald reckons two.
■•' The second miracle in Matthew.
3 Comp. Strauss, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar. Hilgenfeld favours the belief that the nar-
rative in Matthew is an addition, Volkmar that it is a duplicate.
222 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
points of resemblance, but more points upon wbicb they differ :
for the centurion was at once received, but the woman vigor-
ously repulsed ; and there is a distinct variety of humility in
each of the supplicants, and the narratives refer to distinct
phases of life, and give in each case characteristic words of
Jesus.^ That Luke and Mark have only the one or the other,
can be well understood in the case of Luke, and is intelligible in
the case of Mark ; on the other side, one can understand that
Matthew possessed the two already in its original form.^ Finally,
the difficulty here lies less in the similarity of the narration, than
in Jesus' view of heathenism, which in our narrative he meets in
a friendly, in the other in an unfriendly, spirit. But the differ-
ence is here in the matter itself: the Canaanitish woman is a
Gentile, the centurion is no Gentile, but only one who came
from the Gentiles but is now a member of the Jewish commu-
nity. It is, indeed, striking that Matthew introduces him with
just such an address to Jesus as was customary with the Jews,
and without a word of confession, about which he could not pos-
sibly have been silent if the man were the opposite of a Jew.
From the fact that he is afterwards distinguished from Israel as
one who was born a Gentile, we cannot force the conclusion that
he was still a pure Gentile. The opinion that he was a proselyte
is supported not only by the fact of the extensive spread of
proselytism, but also by the great interest which this conception
would have for the Jewish teacher, and finally by the clear and
— at least in this respect — valuable intimation of Luke's that the
centurion was a proselyte of the first rank, a benefactor of the
Jews, a builder of the synagogue, — a trait of history which is all
^ Similarity in the figure of father (mother) and child (son, daughter), in the
humility, in Jesus' admiration and in his answer. Far greater distance in the second.
® Luke has not the narrative of the Canaanitish woman (Matt. xv. 22), because it
is un-Pauline ; hence also Mark has skilfully altered it, although Mark's narrative is
regarded as quite genuine in the Leben Jesu. Mark, however, has thrown out the
narrative of the centurion, although that narrative would have been suitable to his
book, because he has put aside the controversy about John, with the long Judaizing
speeches, in which controversy the narrative of the centurion was embedded by Luke,
whose arrangement Mark followed.
ORDER AXD BEGINNING OF WORKS OF HEALING. 223
the "more unassailable inasmuch as Capernaum had doubtless
first risen to its height of prosperity and had acquired its syna-
gogue during the last decade, in consequence of the erection of
the Galilean royal residence in Tiberias.^ On these grounds, the
narrative of the centurion was already, in the work which j^re-
ceded the present one, reckoned as the oldest of the first Gospel;
and this opinion was supported by the air of venerable antiquity
which the account possesses in contrast with that of Luke, by
its historically correct position after the Sermon on the Mount,
and by the fact that it cannot be broken away from Matthew's
cycle of miracles without disturbing the context.^ On the other
hand, it must be admitted that the words of condemnation of the
Jews, which follow the recognition of the centurion's faith, but
only they, may belong to the interpolator, since they do not
harmonize with the context, but interrupt it, dislocate the stand-
point which Jesus then occupied, and in Luke are given in quite
a different place. ^ But even if these words were retained — not,
it is true, as being uttered by Jesus, but as being written by the
author — they would not be altogether unintelligible : the author,
who finished his history with the breach between Jesus and his
nation, could, as well as Luke in his Nazara sermon, ascribe to
Jesus a prophetic anticipation, which in the first four pictures in
Matthew is figuratively depicted, and in the subsequent history
slowly but really obtains its fulfilment.^
At rest upon the question of the sources, we may still find
cause for anxiety as to the matter and spirit of the miraculous
narrative. Here appears Jesus' first cure at a distance ; a second
follows in the case of the Canaanitish woman. In the general
review, this category has been noticed only in passing, without
an examination of the detailed difficulties. If these difficulties
^ Synagogues built by private individuals, Lightfoot, p. 514. Tbe picture of Cor-
nelius (Acts X. 2) is later.
' Oeschichtl. Christus, pp. 54 sqq. ' Luke xiii. 28.
* On the arrangement of the first quaternion of miracles in Matthew (alternating
Jews and Gentiles), comp. above, p. 198.
224 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
■were found to be so great as to overthrow all earlier supposi-
tions, must then those suppositions give way, or must the narra-
tive be given up ? Cures at a distance totally shut out the per-
sonal contact of Jesus with the sick, a contact which in otlier
cases is the rule. Cures at a distance do not in any way imply
the exercise of faith on the part of the sick. Cures at a distance
cut away — as Strauss also finds — all natural or half-natural ex-
planations of the results ; and Strauss has particularly shown that
with the formula " that cures at a distance have in them nothing
inconceivable when regarded as the results of spiritual activity,"
nothing is gained, since men are not mere spirits operating upon
each other spiritually. Strauss finds himself shut up to the tri-
lemma: If Jesus spoke as the Gospels say he did — "Go thy
way, be it unto thee according to thy faith," or indeed, as John
gives it, " Thy son lives " — then either he must have been con-
scious of being able, as a real worker of miracles, to effect such a
cure, or in his blind faith he was a presumptuous enthusiast, or
he was a shameless swindler and impostor. Thus Strauss and
others — both passionate and temperate critics — have found de-
structive criticism the only escape from their difficulty, and have
regarded this incident as simply a fictitious imitation of the
miracle of Elisha, who cleansed from leprosy the Syrian general
Naaman, at a distance, in the waters of the Jordan.^ Perhaps,
however, it is a profounder idea which appears equally in Elisha's
act of curing at a distance and in those of the New Testament :
the powerful operation of the word of God and of His messengers
is in figure carried beyond Israel into the lands of the far-off
Gentiles.^ Both ideas are ingenious, but Elisha's example is not
to the point, for the dipping in the Jordan is added as an effi-
cient means to the words spoken by the prophet at a distance,
and the two narratives exhibit generally little similarity ; and
the far-reacliing preaching to the Gentiles would not be illus-
trated in the most striking manner possible by the agency of
^ Strauss, pp. 462 .sq. ; 2 Kings v. 1.
* Coinp. Volkmar, Rel. J., and Evanrjdien.
ORDER AND BEGINNING OF WORKS OF HEALING. 225
Gentiles dwelling so near at hand, by help afforded at the dis-
tance of a street's length. And after all, in these New Testa-
ment narratives, in the words of Jesus, and exactly in the cases
in question, there is much real, uninvented reminiscence.^
Nevertheless, it is not therefore necessary to believe in the
purely miraculous, or, with Dr. Paulus, in the sending of an
Apostle to be the communicator between the persons. The com-
munication lay with the father and the son. Doubtless the
father had not undertaken his journey to Jesus without the
knowledge and faith of the son ; this possibility is affected only
by John's mention of the fever. Eestorative power already lay
in this highly-wrought faith and expectation ; and what, besides
John's words, hinders us from bringing the actually perfect heal-
ing into connection with the return of the confident and rejoicing
father, the return which is assumed in the very words of Jesus ?^
But did Jesus speak as an enthusiast ? Even if he spoke as John
represents, he spoke in harmony with the already demonstrated
certainty that sickness would yield to the two-fold faith. But if
he spoke as Matthew and Luke represent (and he thus spoke also
in the presence of the Canaanitish woman), " Go thy way, and as
thou hast believed so be it unto thee !" then did Jesus utter not
directly a command, but, as in many other instances, simply
such an affirmation as stood midway between a benediction con-
ditioned by the will of God and the faith of the house, and an
ef&cient act.^
1 In Luke xvii. 14, John ix. 7, are rather features which might suggest Elisha.
' Olshausen thought of the operation at a distance of magnetic forces ; Weiz-
sacter (p. 372) more correctly ascribes the results to the general faith which was
independent of personal presence, indeed, to the influence of the popular agitation.
Similarly Lange, II. p. 275, says that the cure passed by a mental road through the
heart of the father, of the mother. Such cures at a distance A. Wysard also admits
(with reference to more recent facts). ReformUdtter, 1870, p. 1.
3 In Mark vii. 29, the form of expression is, it is true, quite different : "The spirit
is gone out." The wish in the imperative, as Matt. ri. 10 ; Acts i. 20, opp. Gen. i. 3.
VOL. III.
226 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
D. — The Healing of the Possessed.
Besides the cases, aljove referred to, of healing those who were
diseased in body, there are the so-called exorcisms of evil spirits
from the possessed.^ Definite and detailed incidents are not,
indeed, narrated in this first period ; and we have here nothing
else to do than to examine a little more closely the unhistorical
character of the first miracle of Luke and Mark, and the later
position of the third miracle of Matthew, the incident of the
Gadarenes. But we have seen that the Gospels — with the ex-
ception of John's, which offers us nothing at all in this province,
apparently avoiding it — and, in addition to the Gospels, the Acts
of the Apostles also, assume the occurrence of this species of
healing during the whole, including therefore the early period,
of the ministry of Jesus, and even find in such cases the peculiar
characteristic of his ministry.^ In fact, these cases of healing
are especially noteworthy ; they belong to the most obscure of
all subjects, and more than anything else betray the peculiar
mode of conception not only of the age, but of Jesus himself ;
and at the same time they give us the clearest insight into the
fact that the cures effected by Jesus were essentially spiritual
operations.
Possession was a modern disease among the Jews. Neither
Moses nor the prophets had smitten or threatened Egypt or
Israel with it. Not until a far later period did leprosy cease to
be the greatest of evils. The disease was preceded and created
by the belief in a Satan and an angel of wickedness.^
There are to be found in the Old Testament early instances
of the introduction of ideas borrowed from the primitive oriental
universal antithesis of good and evil, which in Parseeism was
personified in Ahriman " the evil spirit," and Ahurmazda (Or-
^ Comp. my article, Besessene, in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon.
^ See above, pp. 170 sqq.
^ The late Jews, it is true, represent Adam and Nor.b as having had to do with
demons, the latter with the wine-demon. Buxtorf, p. 2339. Lightfoot, p. 33.
THE HEALIXG OF THE POSSESSED. 227
muzd) "the very wise Lord." The licentious sons of God, the
serpent, the unclean Leasts, the phantoms and goat-like satyrs,
perhaps also the well-known Azazel, may also be mentioned as
shadow-pictures of the obscure world which the Orient else-
where possessed, and which Judaism at a later date is known to
have largely imported.^ For with such admirable energy has the
Old Testament consistently and with a profound moral insight
carried its divine discovery — the conception of the unity of God
— into the province of the freedom of created beings, that even
the unclean world, the serpent, that symbol of the evil creation
of Ahriman, are reckoned as creations of God ; the deceivers of
mankind are sons of God; the executors of mischief are the
divine angels of misfortune ; the spirit that seeks to be a false
spirit in the prophets of Israel appears before God with his pro-
posals ; the evil spirit that attacks king Saul is called a spirit
from God ; and the temptation of David to evil is said to be an
act of the angry and forsaken Deity.^
Not until after the times of the carrying away of the nation
into inner Asia, after the Babylonish exile (B.C. 588), and after
the Persian rule, were the germs of the dualistic belief strongly
developed among the Jews. The later Greek literature also, in
Plutarch, confirms the opinion that the doctrine of demons was
imported chiefly from Persia.^ At this point there appears
tangibly the conception of Satan as an angelic being antagonistic
to man, and addicted to tempting man, although continually held
in subjection to God. He is depicted as the tempter of David
in the numbering of the people ; and around him there gather
gradually the subaltern powers of evil, who, standing nearer to
man, are most dangerous of all to him.* In the later pre-Chris-
^ Gen. vi. 1, iii. 1; Lev. xi. 1; Dent. xiv. 1. The night-woman (nachtfrau), lilit,
Is. xxxiv. 14. Satyrs, seirim, Is. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14 ; comp. Lev. xvii. 7, 2 Chron.
xi. 15. Azazel, Lev. xvi. 8.
'^ Gen. vi. 1 ; Ps. L^xviii. 49 ; 1 Sam. xvi. 14 sqq. ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 ; 1 Kings
xxii. 21 (irv. xpfvStQ).
' Plutarch, Be def. orac. 10.
* Zech. iii. 1 sqq. ; Job i. 6 sqq. ; 1 Chron. xxi. 1.
228 TEE WORKS OF JESUS.
tian literature, especially in the books of Baruch and Tobit, the
belief in such existences is very distinctly expressed. The
dccmonia or evil spirits, the Persian Daevas (Devs) and Drujas,
here already appear as the molesters, assailants, and destroyers
of men ; especially Asmodeus, the Persian ^shma-Daeva, is,
according to Jewish-Medish belief, enamoured of women, and
slays in the bridal chamber seven bridegrooms, who wish to
share with him the object of his jealousy.^ That age is already
busy with superstitious means of expelling these evil spirits, and
an angel gives a recipe for a fish-fumigation. Asmodeus flees
from the smell, and, being bound by the angel in the wilderness,
never returns.^ Also in the book of Enoch, in the Targums, in
the Talmud, we can follow this development. The book of
Enoch enumerates the twenty rulers of the 200 fallen sons of
God, and among them Azazel in particular ; the Talmud men-
tions Asmodeus, besides Sammael the king of the demons ; the
Targums are acquainted with the hurtful spirits of morning,
noon, and night, against whose evil influences fastings, ablutions,
prayers, and phylacteries are to be used.^ But the best voucher
is the later contemporary of the rise of Christianity, Josephus
the Jerusalemite. He knows of demoniacal beings who enter
living men, terrify them, choke them, nay, take complete posses-
sion of them, deprive them of their reason and slay them, if no
help can be found, which happily, since the days of Saul and
Solomon, he knows to have been obtainable.* Even the illumi-
nated Jews of Egypt were not able to get rid completely of this
new faith ; on the contrary, they themselves were the means of
^ Baruch iv. 7, 35 ; Tobit iii. 8, vi. 7. Asmodeus (Talm. Aslime(o)dai) is the
Persian ^shma-Daeva (Renan, p. 262), or Ashemaopha (Ewald, IV. p. 269).
'^ Tobit vi. 7 sqq.
' Book of Enoch, capp. vi. sqq. (after Gen. vi. 1). Targums and Talmud, in Light-
foot, p. 308. Schottgen, p. 124. Asmodeus is called malka, sar, rosh shcde. Sbibta
is dangerous to those who neglect to wash their hands, and also to children. Light-
foot, pp. 3i, 331. Praying, ib. p. 356. Schottgen, p. 233. Comp. Winer, Beses-
sene, Gespenster, and Phylacterien. Roskoff, Gesch. des Teufels, 1869.
* Josephus, Ant. 6, 8, 2 ; syKo9f?6/i£Voi, 6, 11, 2 ; Xa/i^avo/ievog, 8, 2, 5 (Solo-
mon) ; B. J. 7, 6, 3.
THE HEALINQ OF THE POSSESSED. 229
establisliing it anew, by becoming the mediators and colporteurs
between the East and the West. They incorporated with this
new faith Greek superstition, and they elevated into a current
technical expression in the Jewish, Gentile, and Christian world,
the Greek word daemons (in the diminutive, diemonia), that is,
primarily the "distributing" deities, but subsequently used of
every kind of lower and dreaded divinity, finally of the torment-
ing and inferior spirits or "devils."^ For the gods of the Gen-
tiles, as well as the evil spirit of God in Saul, the angels of
misfortune, and phantoms, are all classed together by the Greek
translators of the New Testament as dcemonia, a word corre-
sponding to the Hebrew shecUni? And the Gentile Greek litera-
ture shows on its part the reflex influence of this Jewish mode of
conception, particularly in the fact that the specific Jewish belief
in demons, the belief in possession, in a sensuous-fleshly and
evil nature of the intermediate existences, found acceptance far
and wide, and in the later Platonism was made use of in the
explanation and purification of the old mythology.^
This belief in demons, in devils and inferior devils who took
possession of men, this belief in actual possession but also in
possible or actual recovery is found also in the New Testament,
especially in the Gospels. Above all, it appears deeply rooted in
the popular mind. The people, instigated by the Scribes, say of
the Baptist, and according to John also of Jesus, " He hath a
devil."'* The father of the lunatic boy describes to Jesus — at least
^ Demons, Greek properly oi Saiovreg = those who distribute destinies. Comp.
Homer, Od. 5, 396 : an inimical demon harassed him. Development of the belief in
the intermediate beings in Hesiod, Pythagoras, Plato, Chrysippus. Even Aristotle,
De mirah. Bekk. 166 : caifiovi Karoxog-
' The gods as demons in the Greek translation, Deut. xxxii. 17 ; Ps. cvi. [cv.] 37.
Evil spirit in Saul, 1 Sam. xvi. 16, ^3. Angels of misfortune, Ps. Ixxviii. [Ixxvii.]
49. Phantoms, Is. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14 ; Ps. xci. [xc.] 6 (nsffiififtpivu Saifwrin).
3 Comp. Plutarch, Maximus Tyrius, Celsus, Lucian (Pseiidoloy. 16), Philostratus,
Porphyry, and the Neo-platonists generally. On the similar theory of the Talmud, see
bolow, p. 240, note 4.
■» Matt. xi. 18, comp. ix. 34, xii. 24 ; John viii. 48.
230 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
according to the Gospels of Luke and Mark — his son's disease as
a case of possession : " A spirit seizes liim, lie suddenly cries out,
tears him with foaming, and scarcely departs from him, bruising
him." The Gentile woman of Canaan also cries before Jesus,
" My daughter is sore vexed with a demon." ^ No wonder, for
the teachers of the people themselves recognized these facts and
made them important points in their dogmatics. The Pharisees
divided the evil spirits into classes and orders, with Beelzebub as
their monarchical head, who was originally nothing else than the
supreme deity of their neighbours the Phenicians. He was called
the chief or arclwn of the demons ; the Pharisees, in their envy,
accused Jesus of casting out demons by the aid of Beelzebub ;
and tliey even based the reputation of their school on the
number and character of their exorcisms.^ Tlie same opinions
are also found in our Gospels. The conceptions of the
authors of the Gospels are indeed, in a certain way, much
better attested than those of the people or of the Pharisees, or
of Jesus, because the writers are in all these cases reporters
who plainly enough in so many places put their own view
directly into the mouths of the people.^ In doing this they
have certainly not been guilty of an act of historical injustice,
since their views and those of the people can be shown — as the
reader may find on referring only to Josephus — to have essenti-
ally coincided. Thus our authors speak of demoniacs, or of men
with spirits, with evil and unclean spirits, with spirits of unclean
demons. They speak of a human possession of unclean spirits,
and naturally still more of a demoniacal possession of men.
These spirits molest men, are reluctant to depart from their
victims, whom they seize, tear, drive from place to place, and
strangle — in fact, so dominate and possess, that it is no longer
the men who speak and think and w411, but simply the masters
^ Matt. xvii. 15, xv. 22.
^ Matt. xii. 24 sqq., ix. 34, xii. 27. More in detail when describing the Beelzebub
controversy.
' Coinp. Mark i. 27.
THE HEALING OF THE POSSESSED. 231
that dwell in them.^ It is possible that not merely one, whether
a subordinate or the supreme devil, has established himself in a
man ; there may be seven of the more wicked demons or even
a legion, though it is not shown in what relation they stand to
each other, beyond that of brothei'ly companionship.^ These
dwellers in men thus acquire a condition of terrestrial, animal-
sensual rest, instead of a wearisome wandering to and fro in the
wilderness, or indeed of a return to the gloomy underworld : they
acquire this condition in men, but also in unclean beasts, and
the possessed creatures must go with them to their favourite
locality, whether it be the deserts, or the mountains, or the
sepulchres.^ The endeavour to retain their comfortable position
comes in conflict, it is true, with their tendency to wear out,
misuse, injure, and destroy those whom they enter; but the
compensation seems to be found in the possibility of substitut-
ing new dwellings for those that are worn out. The details of /
the control and exhaustive use of the dwelling are in the
highest degree various : the specific form is the occupation of
man through his higher nature, accomjDanied with those pheno-
mena which in the present day are regarded as belonging to the
province of insanity and madness.* The demon that produces the
phenomena of epilepsy appears to be always less mischievous,
and is generally quiet, though according to the account in Mark
especially obstinate.^ There are also demons whose most impor-
^ daijioviZoi-iivoi (also among later Greeks, instead of ^aij^io^nwrn^, Sai^oviKoi,
Saifiovi6\i)7rroi, comp. larvati, lymphatici, cerriti, &c. ), in the aori.st caifioviaOii^,
■Kvivji. aKciOap-a, civOp. tv ttvevi.i. (Heb. ruach raah, rucbot tbiiniah), Matt. iv. 24,
xii. 43 ; Luke iv. 33 ; Mark i. 33. Possessing unclean spirits, Mark iii. 30 ; Matt,
sii. 45. Vexed with spirits, Luke vi. 18 ; Acts v. 16. Seized, Luke ix. 39 ; Mark
ix. 18. Driven about by spirits, Luke viii. 29. Dominated by them, Acts x. 38.
The spirit reluctant to depart, Luke ix. 39.
^ Matt. xii. 45 ; Luke viii. 2, 30, xxii. 3. Comp. Ccetus daomouum, Lustorf,
p. 2338.
3 Matt. viii. 29 sqq. ; Luke viii. 28 sqq. ; Mark v. 10 ; Matt. xii. 43 sqq., comp.
iv. 1.
* Matt. viii. 29, &c.
' Matt. iv. 24, xvii. 15; Markix. 14—29. Mohammed held his epilepsy to be
A<^inoniacal. Herzog, XVIII. p. 772.
232 THE WORKS OF JESUS.
tant peculiarity lies in speechlessness and in depriving tlieir
human instruments of some of their senses, e. g., in blindness.^
Thus it would be possible to connect a "spirit of infirmity" with
every bodily defect, with a deformity, or indeed with a fever.^
Finally, there were cases of possession which exhibited simply
mental, and no physical, marks ; thus the sacred authors were
able to speak of an entering of Satan into Judas, the malevolent
betrayer; and on the other side, the Jews could speak of an
alliance of the Baptist or of Jesus, whose sayings and doings
they did not understand, with demoniacal powers.^ The limits
of the application of the conception were naturally fluctuating.
Not all the dumb, deformed, and blind, not even all the lunatics,
were said to be possessed, though/the rule regulating the distinc-
tion was not laid down. It is in harmony with this that the
later Evangelists, as may be easily seen, were favourable to the
increasingly wide expansion of the conception.^
But before we pass on to the healings themselves, it is pre-
eminently interesting and important to ask the question. What
was the attitude of Jesus towards the opinion of the age on the
subject of possession ? For that we have here to do with an
opinion of a certain age, we, writing in the spirit of scientific and
Christian freedom, are not prepared to join the chorus of those
who are not free in denying, even if it should be shown that
Jesus himself shared in the opinion. That inexplicable derange-
ments of mind and body, especially when they made their ap-
pearance in ra]3id paroxysms, should be referred, by a con-
sciousness equally uninstructed religiously and naturally, to
higher j)owers good and bad, was as consistent with the popular
standpoint from the East to Eome, as the gradual withdrawal
^ Matt. ix. 32, xii. 22 ; Luke xi. 14. Comp. also Matt. iv. 24, xv. 30, xii. 43 ;
Mark vii. 32.
* Luke xiii. 11, comp. viii. 2, iv. 39. Sudden, especially nooturnal, illnesses of
children occasioned by Shibta, Lightfoot, pp. 34, 527.
^ Luke xxii. 3 ; John xiii. 27. Also Matt. x. 25, xi. 18.
* Comp. Matt. iv. 24. Also Luke vii. 21, xiii. 11, viii. 2, iv. 39, xxii. 3 ; John
xiii. 27.
TEE HEALING OF THE POSSESSED. 233
of liighflying conceptions was to advancing science.^ The latter
began among the Hellenes with the renowned Hippocrates of Cos
(B. C. 400), who was the first to refer epilepsy — already called
by Herodotus " the sacred disease " — to natural causes ; and
this Hippocratic spirit made such progress in the course of
centuries, that even the Jews Pliilo and Josephus explained such
diseases more or less rationally, and the great Christian teacher
Origen (in the third Christian century), who w\as in other
respects a man of illumination, found himself with his restora-
tion of the possessed by means of faith altogether deprived of
the help of the highly renowned Alexandrian physicians and
their physiologies. That which tlie Church persisted in uphold-
ing has been since the end of the 17th century so shaken by
Balthazar Bekker, Christian Thomasius, John Solomon Semler,
and most of all by modern natural science, that criticism no
longer entertains any doubt upon the subject, whilst the defence
of one position after another has been given up, and even the
doubts of the " Christian physicians " have been admitted.^ If,
in these straits, from the time of Eeinhard, all belief in posses-
sion in modern days has been renounced, with the view of
^ Comp. Herodotus, 4, 79 : (iaKX^i'm k. virb rov Qiov fiaivErm. lb. 3, 33 : kpri
voffoQ. Aretseus, De caus. morb. diut. 1, 4 : £ia rijc So'^tjc SaifiovoQ hq t. avQp.
ilooSov. In the Gloss, z. Ei'uhJi. f. 42, 2, it is plainly said : sp. malus est daemo-
nium, quod turbat intcllectum ejus. Further : omne genus melancholice vocant spir.
malum. Lightfoot, p. 536. Maim. Gerush. 2 : sui compos non est. Lightfoot,
p. 33. Hence the wine-demon of Noah, ib.
* Semler, Comm. de dcemontacis, 1760 — 62. Timmermann, Dintrihe de dwmoni-
acis evangeliorum, 1786. Jahn, BiU. Archdol. I. p. 411. De Wette, Bibl. Doym.
3rd ed. pp. 146 — 148. Comp. Wetstein, pp. 279 sqq. Strauss, II. pp. 6 sqq.
Bleek, I. p. 218. Hippocrates, irtpl Ifpijc voaov. Aretseus, He caus. morb. diut.
Philo, He gigant. p. 286 (De Wette, p. 146). Josephus, B. J. 7, 6, 3 : ra KaXovfi.
Saifi., Tavra ck novijpwv tariv dvOp. Trvsvfiara (an opinion which Lange repeats, II.
pp. 286 sqq.). Origen on Matt. xvii. 15. Justin, Ap. 1, 18 (the dead). On the
contrary, ib. 2, 5, 6. Tatian, c. Grcec. 16. Clem. Horn. 8, 18 sqq. (giants). On the
later illumination, comp. Hagenbach, Hogmengesch. II. p. 443. Limitation of
demons to the time of Jesus (Reinhard). Kesuscitation by Eichenmeyer, Justinus
Kerner. Retention of the ancient narratives by Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange, Fressens.
Comp. also the disciples in Schiittgen, p. 89 : raagister, an vis, ut comiter te in vita
tua et serviam tibi in hoc itinera? Respondit: potes mecum ire. Ivit ergo post
ipsum. John Mark, in Acts xiii. 5.
* Luke xvi. 10; Matt. xiii. 12, xxv. 21.
3 Comp. Matt. xiii. 10, 18; Luke viii. 9.
* Secret teaching, eomp. Weisse, I. p. 380; Renan, p. 291. In limited sense as the
first announcement of what was destined for all, Schleiermacher, pp. 247 sq. Re-
cently, Wittichen, Jahrh., 1862, pp. 314 sqq. ; also in the preface to his work, Die
Idee Oottes. Oa the other hand, Hilgenfeld, preface to Gcsch. Kanoiis. Pressens6,
p. 357. Formerly, the Gnostics, and in a certain sense even Clem. Alex., referred
back the ijavsis to .some of the favourite disciples of Jesus. Clem., Strom. 7, 17, IOC ;
282 TEE DISCIPLES.
is so far right, that Jesus neither established a secret society nor
taught a secret doctrine, as was supposed by the Gnostics and
the Alexandrians of former times, and by the illuminati of
modern days ; and that the special teaching he gave to his dis-
ciples consisted in the main of explanations and elucidations
of his general preaching, or previsions of questions and facts
which were afterwards to become the property of all. Thus it
is evident that his expositions of the later parables or of the
controversies with the Pharisees are in fact nothing more than
elucidations ; and that the explicit passage in his mission-
speech, asserting that noticing should remain hidden, and that
the disciples should in the future proclaim openly what they
had heard from him in private, distinctly and concisely expresses
the national character and the only temporarily-delayed pub-
licity of all his principles, which he indeed expressly asserted in
the presence of his opponents.^ In this limited sense, however,
there was really a secret teaching given to the disciples, even to
disciples selected from among the disciples. From Galilee to
Jerusalem, he addressed to them a series of communications
which for the time concerned them alone — nay, the publication
of which to the people he forbade either for a definite time or
indefinitely; whence it came to pass that the disciples often
asked him whether what he said to them concerned them alone
or all men.2 One of the first and one of the most important of
these addresses to the disciples is the Sermon on the Mount, a
sermon which up to the present time has generally been re-
garded as addressed to the people, and has therefore been mis-
understood.^
Eus. 2, 1. Later the Illuminati and Rationalists, connecting it with Essenism or
Philonisra. Comp. Bahrdt, Venturini, Ballenstedt, in Hase, § 40, who also rejects the
secret teaching. Pharisees, see above, Vol. I. p. 333, note 2.
^ Matt. xiii. 10, x. 26 sq. In the presence of his opponents, Matt. xxvi. 55 ; Luke
xxii. 53 ; Mark xiv. 49 ; John xviii. 20.
' Matt. vii. 6, xvi. 20, xvii. 9. Qviestion of the disciples, Luke ix. 23, xii. 41.
3 For the literature of the Sermon on the Mount, comp. Bleek, Meyer, Tholuck.
The best is Tholuck's Bergrede Christi.
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 283
"WTio were the real listeners to the Sermon on the Mount has
been shown in an earlier part of this work; but there still
remains quite untouched a multitude of diflficulties with which
this avowedly finest monument of the intellect of Jesus is — con-
trary to the expectation of the cultured but critically inexperi-
enced reader — beset. ^
In the first place, this Sermon on the IMount was -^ratten by
two hands ; and the two authors to whom we owe it, Matthew
and Luke, agree neither as to its contents nor its form, nor alto-
gether as to its date and purpose. Fortunately, the opinion that
we have here two distinct Sermons on the Mount, belonging to
distinct periods, is now nearly given up.^ At present, and with
justice, critics are not fond of such artificial re-duplications of
things that are really single ; but, driven to the definite question
as to which account is to be preferred, some find the sermon as
given by Matthew the more nearly genuine and the more ancient,
while others decide in favour of that given by Luke.^ That both
writers give one and the same address is shown rather by the
still existing great similarity of the contents, than by the con-
nection of the sermon with a liill, for indeed Luke, apparently to
^ The bearers, see above, p. 19. Weizsacker (p. 336) not quite correct wben be
says it was addressed, not to tbe disciples, but to tbe pious among tbe people generally.
Tbis sermon universally admired, from tbe ancients to tbe Socinians, wbo would sacri-
fice everytbing else for the three chapters (Tboluck, Bergrede), and to Baur, Hrei
erste Jahrb. pp. 25 sqq.
* Matt. v. 1 sqq. ; Luke vi. 20 sqq. In Luke a little later, on tbe occasion of the
choosing of tbe Apostles, in tbe plain instead of on the bill, standing, not sitting,
30 verses against 107, rejection of tbe preaching of tbe Law, &c., yet great resem-
blance in tbe external scenery and surroundings (e. g. tbe narrative of tbe centurion).
A duality of addresses was essentially assumed by Augustine (consequently also by tbe
Church), wbo saw in the later address of Luke a repetition of a part of tbe former in
the presence of the people (Cons. Ev. 2, 19). Andr. Osiander {£v. Harm. 1530) held
that Matthew's address was delivered before Easter, and Luke's about Whitsuntide.
Lange, H. pp. 567 sqq. On the other hand, Origen, Chrysos., the Reformers and
Luther, believed in tbe unity of the sermon.
' For Luke, Evans. Biisching, Vogel, Siefifert, Fritzsche, Olsh., Schulz, Schneck.,
Wilke, Holtzmann (earlier form of tbe Lorjia), &c. For Matthew, Schleiermacher (on
Schr. d. Luk. p. 89 : our reporter had an unfavourable place !), De Wette, Meyer,
Tboluck, Strauss, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Weizsacker, and others. A middle position, par-
ticularly Bleek, L pp. 220 sqq.
284 TEE DISCIPLES.
make room for the multitude of hearers, has transferred or, as
Baur thought, degraded it from the hill to the plain. Luke, as
well as Matthew, has the beatitudes ; he gives also, partly at
least in the same words, the points of Jesus' moral precepts, love
towards one's neighbour and abstinence from judging, and at the
close the antithesis of good and bad, of the wise man and the
foolish man. It may be said that he accompanies Matthew from
beginning to end, though he omits some of Matthew's rich
material. The predominant impression produced is, that Mat-
thew gives the more nearly original form of this sermon. For
the eight beatitudes of Matthew are in Luke artificially divided
into a quaternion of beatitudes and a quaternion of woes ; the
moral precepts are confusedly intermingled by the haste, the
insupportable abbreviations, repetitions, and dislocations, partly
also by the inappropriate complements, of the compiler ; and
finally, here and there, the broader style or an unintelligible
transition points evidently enougli to the older source upon
which the report is based.^ If one still hesitates to subscribe to
De Wette's strong verdict of " caricature " of Matthew, and, with
Holtzmann, is inclined to. look for the original source rather in
that which is disconnected and harsh than in that which is
smooth and easy — although the co-existence of harshness and
artificial construction is a proof to the contrary, — yet the ob-
viously evident later date of Luke's report is incoutrovertibly
discovered in the peculiar character of that report. In one
place, we have gross naked Ebionitism uttering the battle-cry
of external poverty against riches, a cry which is a perverse
distortion of the elevated spiritual conception of the kingdom of
heaven in the mouth of Jesus and in the words of Matthew's
Sermon on the Mount. In another place, we have a violent
disruption of the moral teaching of Jesus from the religion of
^ Luke's arrangement : (1) Four beatitudes, four woes, for poor and rich, vi. 20 —
26; (2) Jesus' moral teaching, {a) love of enemies, vers. 27 — 38, {h) enlargement in
parables, vers. 39 — 45; (3) conclusion; vers. 46 — 49. Traces of compilation, vers. 27,
31, 35, 38 sq., 41, 43. Phraseology, vers. 21 sqq., 27 sq., 30, 32 sqq. (three mem-
bers), 37 sq., 48 sq.
TnE SERMOX ON THE MOUNT. 285
the Old Testament, Jesus' historical position being thus left rest-
ing upon air ; and the connection between the old and new, so
finely given by Matthew, is either converted into an unintel-
ligible riddle, or is justified as the actual original by its contrast
with the work of a bungler.^ This two-fold and indeed antago-
nistic peculiarity of Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount
also permits us to decide as to the origin of this document. The
naked doctrine of poverty belongs to Luke's source; the non-
Jewish, disjointed morality belongs — a fact which Holtzraann
altogether overlooks — to the Pauline Luke himself; and tliere-
fore the report as a whole is inferior to Matthew's report both in
value and in age, even though here and there, in minor matters,
through the influence of Luke's relatively old source, a nearer
approach to originality should be pointed out than is to be found
in our present form of Matthew. ^
But if we turn, encouraged and expectant, to Matthew, we
still find even here a number of difficulties. It is true the pro-
per nucleus of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount — the beatitudes,
^ Traces of a later age : The direct antagonism to Judaism (vers. 26, 46); exclusion
of Christians from the synagogue (ver. 22) ; persecution (ver. 27). Kingdom of God
instead of kingdom of heaven (ver. 20) ; Father instead of Father in heaven (ver. 36) ;
God (ver. 35); sinners, thrice, instead of publicans and Gentiles (vers. 32 sqq.);
thorns instead of thistles (ver. 44), &c. Artificial suggestion of a sermon to disciples
(ver. 40), of a sermon to the people (vers. 24, 27, 46).
* The original author, himself dependent upon Matthew, is the EInonite (Strauss
also, I. p. 642) who has been described above. Vol. I. p. 98 sq., and whom now Volk-
mar also silently accepts. The first use of this first Gospel of the Hebrews, James
iv. 9 (comp. ii. 5, 6, v. 1 sqq., 12), whilst Matt. v. 16 is first used by 1 Pet. ii. 12.
The Pauline author beti-ays himself as the compiler, particularly in vi. 26, 27, 31, 43,
46. The majority of the cases of transference of isolated passages to quite other posi-
tions, show — as De Wette, Tholuck, Strauss, have long pointed out — no superiority to
the context of Matthew. Thus the saying about salt, Luke xiv. 34 (Mark ix. 50),
light, viii. 16 (Mark iv. 21), the Law and the Prophets, xvi. 17 (comp. xvi.) 31, trea-
sures in heaven, two masters, xvi. 1 sqq., prayer, xi. 1 sqq., absence of anxiety,
xii. 22 sqq. The later type can here be everywhere pointed out, and indeed follows
from the secondary narratives into which the sayings in question are introduced. A
relative superiority lies only in the facts that (1) in general several things separated
from the Sermon on the Mount appear independently placed, as the question about
prayer, xi., absence of anxiety, xii. ; (2) that the saying about the narrow gate
(xiii. 24) is placed in a later period ; (3) that this last passage appears to be even
more nearly original than Matt. vii. 13, 22.
286 THE DISCIPLES.
the charge to the disciples, and the whole exposition by Jesus of
his relation to the Law and the Prophets — is a consistent unity,
quite appropriate to the time when Jesus was beginning to
instruct his disciples. But it has long been a question whether
everything, whether the whole of tlie copious and important con-
tents of the following two chapters, belongs to the unity of one
comprehensive address.^ It is, in the first place, improbable
that Jesus, the pedagogue of the disciples as well as of the
people, at once delivered, right over the heads as it were of his
hearers who were but beginners, a sermon so long and so full of
weighty matter, even if he were able to extemporize with such
systematic grandeur and beauty. It is further certain that Mat-
thew was fond of bringing together addresses and works in great
artificial groups, e.g., the great series of works immediately
following the Sermon on the Mount : can we, then, accept the
great group of sayings in that sermon as strictly composing one
discourse ? In the next place, it has long since been discovered
that many parts of the Sermon on the Mount, even though Luke
has given them in a similar manner, lie together simply as a
loosely connected series of deposits, the layers of which, not
Jesus, but simply the narrator, has arranged ; that in the middle,
after the attack upon the Pharisees, the connection becomes
weaker, and towards the end ceases altogether, many of the
passages near the end being given by Luke and Mark in quite
other contexts.^ The last part of the sermon, the reference to
1 Calvin lias candidly admitted the free composition of the addresses in Matthew
and Luke (Tholuck). So have also a number of more recent critics, Semi., Corrodi,
Eichh., Herder, Kuinol, Fritzsche, Olsh., Schneck., Bleek, Kern, Schwegler, Wilke,
and others. Volkmar suggests a derivation from the meagre passages in Mark. The
actual unity has been defended by Paulus, Stier, Ebrard ; and with more moderation
by Tholuck, Neander, Meyer, even Baur and Strauss.
" The end of the connected arrangement in Matthew has been fixed (Neander,
De Wette, Bleek, Strauss) at vi. 19, at the furthest at vii. 1 or 6, although Luke also
gives the concluding passages, on judging, the fruit of the trees, Lord, Lord, the house
on the rock (Luke vi. 37 sqq., 43, 46, 47—49). Hilgenfeld (1867, p. 381) regards
Matt. V. 18 sq., vi. 14 sq., vii. 6 — 11, as interpolations. On the divergences of Luke
and Mark, see above, p. 285, n. 2. If necessary, it would be possible to find an arrange-
ment even in the latter part of the sermon in Matthew : — II. Communications re-
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 287
the small measure of success, to the Messianic judgment, to
false prophets, irresistibly suggests — as Luke also shows — a
much later period.^ From all this follows the necessity of break-
ing up the artificial structure, and of limiting the Sermon on the
Mount to its original matter, Jesus' address of welcome to his
band of disciples contained in the fifth chapter ; and if we add
to that the criticism of Pharisaic virtue in the beginning of the
sixth chapter, it must be with the consciousness that these sen-
tences, though related to the foregoing both as to matter and
date, were nevertheless originally spoken on a different occasion.^
In a former part of the present volume, what was most probably
Jesus' first sermon to the people has been restored from a part
of the old Sermon on the Moimt ; several of the concluding pas-
sages appear to belong to a later period.^ The real Sermon on
the Mount fell somewhat later than that first fine sermon to the
people. Since, on the one hand, it assumes the existence of an
extensive circle of disciples, and, on the other hand, exhibits
the gladness of the early period of the ministry, and, notwith-
standing a determined antagonism, refers with great circumspec-
tion to the Scribes, and finally — in Luke at least — belongs to
the season of ripening corn-fields, it may be placed at Whitsun-
tide, and the sermon to the people at Easter.*
specting the laws of the kingdom : (1) theoretical and practical antagonism to the
Pharisees; (2) general moral principles (vi. 19) — (a) withdrawal from what is earthly,
and a child-like seeking after God and His righteousness (prepared for in vi. 2, 4, 5,
6, 16, 18), vi. 19 — 34 ; (6) duties towards men, vii. 1 — 12 (critical and officious
importunity, gifts of men and gifts of God, and concluding principle). III. Final
invitation, vii. 13—29. But the connection is stiif and forced from vi. 19 onwards
(comp. Luke xii. 22 sqq.). Indeed, the antithesis to Pharisaic ascetici.^m in vi. 1 — 18
does not harmonize with what goes before, either internally or externally, for the form
and the designation of the opponents as hypocrites are quite out of character with the
preceding. This passage is interpolated only on account of the similarity of its matter.
1 Matt. vii. 13 ; Luke xiii. 23.
* Matt. V. 1 — 48, vi. 1 — 18, with omission of the Lord's Prayer, 9 — 15.
3 The sermon to the people, see above, pp. 28 sqq. The concluding part belongs to
the period of the Galilean breach.
* Gladness, Matt. v. 3 sqq., 14 — 16; beginning of the antagonism, 10 — 12, 17.
The expressions referring to the Scribes are very guarded throughout the fifth chapter;
and even in the sixth, the hypocrites are not expressly called Scribes or Pharisees, nor
288 THE DISCIPLES.
The " Sermon on the Mount " was therefore, in a strict and
peculiar sense, that greeting of the members of the kingdom of
heaven which Matthew has detailed in such a masterly way in
the beginning of his long address. The more unembarrassed, the
more unreserved, Jesus is represented as being in his communi-
cations to them, and the more solemnly he is made to depict
their relation towards heaven and earth, so much the more
appropriate is his retirement to that hill where he, a true Gali-
lean, was wont to seek his freedom, his rest, his meditation, his
nearness to God.^ On this account, we cannot assent to the
supposition that the narrator has arbitrarily created for the law-
giver "the mount," in imitation of Sinai, the mount of Moses, or
of some other traditional hill-top.^ He has given him neither a
" high hill," nor thunder and lightning, nor, by way of variety,
a murmuring sound of the divine breath of peace ; nor has he
depicted him as the superseder, but rather — notwithstanding all
the strongly pronounced antagonism to the Sopherim — as the
humble follower and fulfiller, of Moses. Much as we should
like to behold and lay our hands upon "the mount" of Matthew
are they by any means directly identified with them. In xv. and xxiii. the attacks
are both more violent and more specific. Harvest, Luke vi. 1. For the most part,
critics are content to speak of a later period generally, after the completion of the
circle of disciples (according to Luke); thus Bleek, Press., Hilg., Holtzm. ; although
Meyer, almost alone, holds fast to the earlier position, but maintains that Jesus had not
so definitely announced himself as the Messiah, &;c. These very features, the antago-
nism to the Pharisees, and finally the attempt to harmonize Mattiiew and John (Matt. v.
and John v.), led Tholuck to assume the late period of the return from the borders of
Phenicia (Matt. xv. 21, 29) for the Sermon on the Mount, by which he thought Luke
vi. 17 was well explained ! Schenkel (p. 1125), Holtzmann {Jild. Gesch. p. 392), would
postpone the antitheses to the time of Matt. xv. 1. Comp. Press, p. 445. A. Osi-
ander (see above, p. 283, n. 3) mentioned Whitsuntide (for Luke).
1 Comp. the insurgents' strongholds at Arbela, south of Capernaum, which gave
Herod so much trouble, Josephus, Ant. 14, 15, 4, 5. Even the successors of Judas
the Galilean, down to Masada !
* Baur, Br. Bauer, Volkmar, Delitzach, thought of Sinai ; Gfrorer {II. Sar/u,
p. 199), of the still celebrated hill of the miracle of the loaves; Volkmar, of the hill
of the resurrection or that of the ascension. Special reliance has been placed on the
fact that the Gospels always so significantly speak of the hill. Matt. xiv. 23, xv. 29
(more exactly defined, xxviii. 16; indefinite, xvii. 1); Luke ix. 28; Mark iii. 13;
vi. 46; John vi. 3, 15.
THE SEEMOX OX THE MOUXT. 289
as the starting-point of a new world, it cannot be pointed out to
us with perfect certainty by any human ingenuity and discovery.
Even Matthew himself does not boast of an exact acquaintance
with it. He speaks, definitely and indefinitely, of the other
hills which were trodden by the feet of Jesus, in such a way as
to have given rise in many minds to the mistake of supposing
tliat Jesus constantly frequented but one hill, or that the author
describes but one.^ But the Latin tradition has here and there
attempted to satisfy its material craving, by pointing either to
the bare hill of Safed, or rather to the singular elevation Hattin,
in the background of the well-known rocks of Arbela and of the
Wady Humam that opens near Magdala, two leagues to the west
of Tiberias, with its two horns (Kurun Hattin), "the little throne
of a Mighty One whose footstool is the firm earth," rising sixty
feet above the plain that stretches east and west.^ Neither of
these points is in the right locality, since they lie too far —
three leagues north and south — from Capernaum, and the
Horns are too near to Tiberias ; while, on the other hand, the
difficulty of the limited extent of Kurun Hattin is removed by
the fact that the hearers did not number thousands, but con-
sisted simply of the disciples. To say nothing of the fine hill of
Tabor, which lies too far to the south, Eobinson has recently
discovered on the shores of the lake a full dozen of eminences
which would offer themselves to Jesus as fit places for his
preaching.^ AVhen we examine the subject more closely, we
^ See preceding note. The hill of the beatitudes was regarded as identical witli
that of the miracle of the loaves, &c., by Quaresiraus (1639), Adrichomius (1C80),
and Brocardus (1283). See Tholuck.
2 Brocardus (1283) locates the hill six leagues from Safed, a stone's throw from the
lake of (ralilee (Tholuck), a measurement which certainly removes it far from Safed.
The Kurun Hattin, celebrated through Saladin, 1187, named by Cotovicus (1(J19),
Quaresimus, Adrichomius, also especially by Korte (1741). Comp. Tholuck. Press,
and (Jaspari still hold to the K. Hattin. Tlie (luotation from Schubert's Heine im
Mortjeuland, III. p. 223.
^ The extent of the surface of the eminence, by Pococke (Bcfchrcib. d. Moryenl.
p. 98), only 19 paces long, 16 broad. See Tholuck. Robinson, III. p. 485. But he
misses the plain for the people !
VOL. III. U
290 THE DISCIPLES.
see that the Evangelists had in view simply the nearest con-
spicuous eminence to Capernaum, the rocky hill which forms
a headland in the lake immediately on the north of the town,
and bounds and protects the plain of Gennesareth. Brocar-
dus in the thirteenth century, and Graf Solms in the fifteenth,
named this hill; and Eobinson himself has established its fitness
for an assembly.^
But more important than all this is the question, whether
Jesus addressed his Sermon on the Mount to the whole number
of his disciples, or, as Luke gives it, particularly to the select
few, to his twelve. For, according to Luke, the address was
delivered after the choosing of the twelve. But since the choos-
ing of the twelve was certainly a later event and — as will be
shown — coincided immediately with the mission and the mis-
sionary address ; since, further, the Sermon on the Mount has
throughout the character of an early and opening discourse;
since, in Matthew, it is from beginning to end addressed to the
larger model community, and even in Luke — where mention is
also made of the great mass of the disciples — shows as good as
no trace at all of the separation of the twelve ; therefore, disre-
garding Luke's objectless intimation, we must hold fast to the
opinion 'that the discourse as a whole was addressed to the
complete and unbroken circle of the disciples.^
Jesus sits down upon the hill : an intimation that he wishes
to make a halt, or, more correctly, that he wishes quietly to con-
template, to speak, to teach. He will offer to the mind, the will,
the heart, of the hearers, for their sober consideration and manly
verdict, the mature wisdom of his soul. Although this will be
as the revelation of new great worlds to them, he wishes to
^ Tholuck. The hill is neither any hill nor the range of hills (Tholuck formerly,
Ebrard, Bleek), but mons, quem nostis (Fritzsche), or qui prope erat (■n-'Xijcriov,
Euth.). Capernaum is plainly referred to in Matt. viii. 5; Luke vi. 12, vii. 1;
Mark iii. 13. Ewald also (p. 390) thinks of the neighbourhood of Capernaum.
2 Matt. V. 3, 14—16 ; Luke vi. 13, but also xvii. 20. Special for the Apostles, at
most verse 40 ; but even this is quite appropriate to the larger circle of disciples.
Comp. later, the mis.sion.
TEE SERMON OX THE MOUXT. 291
speak without passion and Avitliout exciting passion. He aims
at their blessedness, a blessedness in which there shall be no-
thing unnatural or forced, but which shall be full of a rich flow
of deep and warm emotion. When he is seated, the disciples
approach and form a ring — they are not expecting, it would
appear, merely to rest themselves on the ground, as was cus-
tomary.^ And he opens his mouth — as the narrator significantly
says — that the expectation may not be disappointed, that some-
thing greater may be given than the world has ever heard,
greater than tlie disciples expect.^ The first part of his address
is a cordial and sublime invitation to the kingdom of heaven.
"Here is, indeed," says Luther, "a fine, sweet, affectionate begin-
ning of his teaching and preaching. For he does not start like
a Moses or a teacher of the Law, or, we A^'ould say, a John, with
commands, threats, and alarms, but in the most affectionate
manner, with nothing but enticements and allurements and
delightful promises."^ The mouth of Jesus proclaims to the
world beatitudes. There is in the eight beatitudes an inex-
haustible stream of the gifts of God, of the real gospel.^ Only
in Luke does the gospel stream fail, for there, after four beati-
tudes, we have as many harsh, Baptist-like woes.^ Jesus does
not directly point to his disciples as the recipients of the bless-
ings, yet he has them in view. Certainly there is not wanting
an insistance upon a pledge : the benediction is dependent upon
' Matt. V. 1. In Luke vi. 17, he stansitlin, Ewald, llilg.,
not counting verse 10 on account of its similarity to verse 3 and its confused view
of the universe, only seven. An analogy may be found (Hilg.) in the fact that the
number seven is represented also in the addresses in Matt. xiii. xxiii. r>ut eight
miracles, viii. ix. Moreover, Luke has four beatitudes and four woes; comp., iu
addition, Luke vi. 22.
* Luke vi. 20 — 26. (a) Toor, hungering, weeping, hated. (6) Rich, full, laugh-
ing, applauded (corresponding to Matthew's first, fourth, third, and eighth beatitudes.
Who cannot see here a compilation and a grosser rendering?
U 2
292 TSE DISCIFLES.
manifold conditions, without whicli tlie corresponding manifold
blessings cannot be realized. The practical fulfillers of these
conditions are blessed in the present, because they will inherit
in the future, in the near future, all the possible treasures of the
kingdom of heaven.^ These conditions throughout — though not
in Luke — have corresponding spiritual and moral foundations;
and in conformity with this, the divine fulfilment also lies pre-
ponderantly in a higher sphere, not in a lower. He first com-
mends t\\Q four virtues of sorrow: "Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ; blessed are they that wait
[die Harrenden], for they shall possess the earth; blessed are
they that mourn, for they shall be comforted ; blessed are they
that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be
filled. "2 The virtue of sorrow is resignation and hope in heaven.
The resigned are the first and the third, they who, in their self-
consciousness, with regard to both external and internal condi-
tions, are possessionless, cast down, humble, or, more exactly
expounded, the children of the people of God who mourn over
themselves and over Israel. The hopeful are the second and
fourth, who do not lose patience in their God, or, more exactly
expounded, they who are lifted by longing and gladness out of
their sorrow into the righteous life upon earth which, according
to the promise of Isaiah, God will bring to pass in the days of
the Messiah.^ The kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of the
(full of possessions [salig-voU], fortunate, Gr. jUff/capioc, Hebr. ashre) are
the poor in spirit, became the kingdom of heaven will be tlieirs, &c.
2 After the Itala, Orig., Cod. D. has, contrary to the majority of the codices of the
beatitudes, the TrpaeTc (false translation, meek) before the TTEvOovvreQ (mourning),
although many, as Meyer, still defend the older, which is, however, only the easier,
reading.
3 Poor in spirit, quite according to the analogy of the 0. T. shiphle ruacli, Isaiah
Ivii. 15; Prov. xxix. 23, nishbere leb (Isaiah Ixi. 1); I'li/zi/Aoi Trvi-vfiari, Eccl. vii. 8;
rmrnvoQ Kapdiq., Matt. xi. 29 (comp. Isaiah Ivii. 15, 1x1. 3, Ixvi. 2; Baruch iii. 1;
Rom. xii. 11). Also, by the Rabbis, humble (shaphal), and high (gaboah) spirit.
Scbottgen, p. 15. LXX. : Tavnvofpiov, avi'TtTpiiifi., u\iy6\pvxog. Poor in the
sphere of the mind or of self-consciousness, feeling or knowing tliemselves to be poor
(thus Chrysos., TaTreivoi k. avvrtrpifJifi. tijv Sidvoiav), whether the occasion of the
feeling of poverty be external or internal want. In the light of the context (verse 4),
and of ihe most nearly corresponding 0. T. conception of the Ebionim, Anavim,
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 29.3
earth, at once the wliole, the higliest, the one and all of the
future, will be thrown altogether, according to promise, into the
bosom of those who have so long suffered and languished ; and
■ then begin the several blessings, comfort for sorrow, complete
satisfaction of the longing for righteousness. Jesus includes in
his beatitudes not only the virtues of sorrow, but also the virti/cs
of vigorous, joyous, creative activity; he recognizes the existence
of something good upon earth side by side with sin ; and with
the help of those who are good and righteous, will he set up, or
at least prepare for, the kingdom of heaven. Hence the second
quaternion of beatitudes : " Blessed are the merciful, for they
shall enjoy mercy in the judgment; blessed are the pure in
heart, who have not lusted, who have not been inflamed against
their fellows, for, as godlike, they shall look upon God." Finally,
blessed, according to tlieir dispositions, are they whose conduct,
by work and suffering, renovates the world : " Blessed are
the peacemakers, for they, as true descendants of God, shall
be called the children of God ; blessed are they who are perse-
Aniim, external want is not absolutely excluded ; but verse 6 shows that the reference
is preponderantly to the province of internal want. So much i.s correct in tlie incor-
rect translation, poor in intellect, knowing themselves poor in intellect, or indeed
ingenio et eruditione parura floientes (Fritzsche, comp. emperor Julian). False, also,
the ancient Catholic explanation : pauperes spiritu (Vulg.), voluntarily poor (Baur), or
even beggars for spirit (Fiirst v. Solms and Weiffenbach). Finally, the .supposition, on
the critical side (even Baur, Hilg., as well as Yolk., p. 537, according to whom every
one sees it), that the original form is the simple word poor without addition, is a
mistake. Such a supposition is opposed to Jesus (comp. Matt. xxvi. 11), and to
the whole spirit of his teaching, and to the original and antique concejition of Matt,
(notwithstanding xi. 5) comjiared with the trivial one of Luke ! Barn. 19 postu-
lates in quite another style nkoiKnoi nvtv^i. — The Trpatlg are not the meek (Vulg.
mites, thus Luth. ), notwithstanding Matt. xi. 29, because that would be inconsistent
with the 0. Test, and the context. They are the poor of Ps. xxxvii. 11, who, in con-
trast with the high-minded sinners, wait upon the Lord, the I'lvvx^oi, nekeh ruach in
Isaiah Ixvi. 2. The ntpOovvrfc are, according to the 0. T. (Is. Ixi. 3, lenachem et
abelim, LXX., Trfv^.), the mourning patriots generally (Luke ii. 25), but in accordance
with the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, they are, as Chrysos. says, more particu-
larly they who are troulded on account of sin. Tlie hungering and the thirsting,
Is. Iv. 1 ; Ps. xlii. 3, Ixiii. 1 ; Ecclus. li. 24; Baruch ii. 18; John vii. 37. Righteous-
ness, not the avenging help of God, Is. Ivi. 1 sqq., but righteousness abiding in man,
Ivii. 19, Iviii. 8, lix. 4, 9, 12 sqq., ixi. 3, 10, Ixiv. 6. Satisfying fulnes.s, Ps. xvii. 15 ;
John x. 10.
294
THE DISCIPLES.
cuted on accoimt of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven."! Thus the last promise returns to the first funda-
mental promise, as indeed does also the last qualification to the
first, to the suffering poverty that is powerless against the world.
This is a sign that Jesus does not too sanguinely expect the
unresisting surrender of the world at the first summons of his
call to the kingdom ; it is a proof also that, on the one hand, he
demands from his followers the pledge of a noble heroism in
acting and suffering, as if the kingdom of heaven were to be
forcibly obtained by human power, and that, on the other hand,
as a man of religion, he expects to obtain complete success, vic-
tory and triumph upon earth, only by means of divine power.
Having arrived at this point— the blessedness of the brave who
are willing to do and endure everything for the sake of righte-
ousness—Jesus no longer abstains from acknowledging from
whom he expects everything, and to whom, above all, his beati-
tudes belong, for he addresses the disciples themselves with a
last " Blessed," which applies and amplifies the eighth beatitude,
and, in the words of Isaiah, places before them the prospect of a
great reward in heaven for every persecution and— with imme-
diate reference to their at that time comparatively tolerable
position— for every reproach and venomous word suffered in
following the prophets and in representing his person. But at
this point he passes from the beatitudes to the tasks, from the
invitation to the duties of the kingdom of heaven.^
The second part of the Sermon on the Mount exhibits the
1 The merciful (Hosea vi. 6; Is. Iviii. 7) will find mercy in judgment, Matt
vu. 1, VI. 14, xviii. .35. Pure in heart, bare lebab, EhBfiQ KapSia, Ps. Ixxiii 1 13
ot>p. Ex. XX. 17; Is. lix. 2 sqq., Ixiv. 6; Joel ii. 13; Ez. xxxvi. 29; Zech. xiii 2
Comp. the Essenes, above. Vol. I. p. 378. More than puritas israelitica, Lightfoot
p. 282. Looking upon God, Ps. xvii. 15; Matt. xxii. 11; Rev. xxii 3, 4 • 1 John
in. 2; comp. Shabb. f. 151, 2, on Matt. v. 7, 8 : quic. miseretur hominum, i'lli etiam
misenc. exhibetur a Deo. Schottgen, p. 17. Bab. Bav. B. f. 10, 1 : ob quadrantem
unum
pauperi datum particeps fit homo beatificse visionis. Lightf. p. 296.
makers (not, peaceful), comp. Matt. v. 22-26. Sons of God, Hosea i. 10 ; Matt. v. 45.
^ Is. li. 7. In the above manner, .Jesus can have then already thus expressed him-
self; words of reviling were early uttered, Matt. ix. 34, x. 25, xi. 18, 19, xii. 24
Otherwise it mi-ht be said that the Evangelist had anticipated these words (Matt'
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 295
sphere' of lalour of the new disciplesliip. " Ye are the salt of the
earth ! Ye are the light of the world !" The all-embracing self-
consciousness of the new JNIaster transfers itself with strong,
unbroken faith, with the faith of the prophets which sees as
present what is future, to the band of poor disciples, to the
fishers and the publicans, who without him can be nothing, but
with him can become everything ; and it so transfers itself that he
will rely upon them, and that they, because of him, shall rely on
themselves, on their importance in the kingdom of heaven. The
first presentiment of their vocation, and, with the presentiment,
the first proud strength, the first strong resolve, he introduces
into their souls with the two great utterances just quoted. They
are the salt, the only salt of the earth, which shall season the
earth, and shall give it character, strength, animation, instead of
its insipidity, weakness, and helplessness. They are what the
prophets so often promised to the whole of Israel, the light of
the world, which, as a single sun in the firmament of humanity,
should dispel the darkness of ignorance and of sinful impurity .^
Though the sense of his words does not go so far as to assert
that he will become, in his diciples, the vivifying salt, the illu-
minating light, to all the nations to the end of the earth — for at
this period his mind is satisfied with being a light "in the house,"
in the house of Israel — it is nevertheless his belief that he is
introducing a light which shines in its uniqueness over the whole
earth, which glorifies and illumines the whole of the hitherto
dark world, and which, seen in the remotest distance, shall every-
where excite admiration, reverence, lowly homage.^ It is true
X. 16, 23). In Luke vi. 22 sqq., the exaggeration is evident : expulsion from the
Jewish community, universal hatred of the Jewish people.
^ These figures are given by Luke and Mark in quite other contexts, — salt, Luke
xiv. 34; Mark ix. 50; light, Luke viii. 16, xi. 33; Mark iv. 2] (partly to the disci-
ples, partly to the jieople). The figure of salt not in the Old Test. (Col. iv. 6 ) ; yet
comp. Job vi. 6 : aproQ ciinv u\6q. Light, Israel the light of the Gentiles, Is. xlii. 6,
Ix. 1, &c. Rabbi Jochanan ben Sakkai was called ner olam, the light of the world,
Schottgen, p. 25.
* Comp. the limitation, Matt. v. 15. Diffusion among the Gentiles, see preceding
note, and in Jewish tradition, Schneck., Beitr. p. 81.
20(3 THE DISCIPLES.
the salt can lose its virtue and the light can be consumed in
vain. But who would, as virtueless salt incapable of recovering
its virtue because no one on earth can salt it again, be thrown
away as unfit for anything except to cover the streets and to be
trodden under men's feet in Galilee, as salt was on the hill of
the temple ?^ Who, when he was like a town on a hill and lying
in the light, would hide himself from the eyes of men ? Who
would kindle a light in order to put it under a bushel, instead of
on a stand whence it might shine upon all in the house ?^ From
the impossibility of such perversity in the circle of the disciples,
springs the immediate application, the direct and practical in-
junction : " So let your light shine before men, that they may
see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven !"^ This
injunction is at the same time an exposition. What is the salt
of the earth, what is the light of the world, to do ? Preach,
travel, call the world to conversion ? Not at all in the first
instance, though the later Apostles stand in this circle, and after-
wards the address refers to teachers of the Law. But simply to
walk and act piously, with a pure heart and clean hands ; to be
merciful, to jDromote peace, to endure persecution with patience ;
to live as a virtuous brotherhood, like the Essenes, but in the
midst of the world ; to be a city, a community displayed before
the eyes of the dwellers in the valley, and, without preaching or
disputation, simply in the sight of the godlike pious, to acknow-
ledge and believe in and glorify the God who is akin to them,
is creative in them, and whom they have learnt by inference to
recognize as " their Father."'*
^ To be translated : wherewith shall the salt be salteJ ? Mark ix. 50 (salt becomes
saltless). Covering of the streets, Erub. f. 104, 1 : spargunt salem in clivo, ne nutent
(pedes). Schcttgen, p. 24.
'^ Fulgent. 3, 6 : lucernam modio eontegit. By the city, Weizsacker (p. 336) thinks
Jerusalem is meant. But the Galilean hill towns ? See above, Vol. II. p. 18.
^ Comp. Hebr. hikbid., Rabb. illustrare, glorif., exalt., pulcrura facere Deum.
Schottgen, p. 25. Noteworthy, Soli. Lev. f. 2 : quando Isr. perfect! sunt in oper.,
etiam noraen Dei s. pcrfectius redditur. Sch. p. 49. This passage is evidently made
use of in 1 Pet. ii. 12. Jesus himself a pattern, Matt. xi. 29.
^ This has been made the fundamental idea in 1 Pet. iii. 1, &c.
THE SEllMOX OX THE MOUNT. 297
The third part of the Serinou on the ]\Iount is the hirgcst and
the most important. It exhibits the noble works of the city on
the hill, the details of the duties of the field of labour, the splri-
tual ordinances of the kingdom of heaven. But in Israel there
can be no doubt concerning the ordinances of God, — they are the
Law of Moses, or the Law and the Prophets, so far as the latter,
having not only revealed God's \^'ill as to the future, have also
made known His moral will, His requirements.^ Will Jesus
teach other ordinances of God, will he be a second Moses, still
solemnly standing on Mount Sinai ? No ; in a striking manner
he protests, in the presence of his disciples, against the opinion
that he intends to abrogate either the Law or the Prophets: "lam
not coTiie to ahror/ate, but to fulfil"'^ It is not exactly known why
lie made this protest, whether on account of a false assumption of
the disciples or of the people, or on account of a calumny origi-
nated by his early opponents ; nor is it known upon what the
opinion or the false accusation could have been based. It must
not be imagined tliat he credited any one with thinking he
would abrogate and mishandle the Law in the same way as the
Scribes : for no one credited the Scribes with doing this, although
they did it ; and no one found in him a mere copy of the Scribes.
Nor must it be imagined that many, on the ground of Old Testa-
ment passages concerning the time of the Messiah, expected a
new law, a new covenant : for no one at this period regarded him
as the Messiah.^ The preconceived opinion must have arisen,
^ Thus Matt. vii. 12; but already, v. 19 ,sqq. Calvin correctly, opp. Beza. Predic-
tions have beeQ thought of by the Fathers, the Reformers, and moderns, even when
their .starting-point is correct, Bleek, I. p. 247.
"^ Matt. V. 17. The Law or the Prophets, disjunctive copulative, Alatt. vii. 12 ;
Luke xxiv. 44.
^ The Scribes had in reality partly abrogated the Law, Matt. v. 19, 20, xv. 3,
xxiii. 23. Above, Vol. I. p. 335. Lightfoot, p. 31 : verba scribarum pulcriora sunt
verbis Icgis et graviora sunt veTh\& prophetarum. The coming of the Messiah brings
a change: Kaiva II iydj dvayytWijo, Is. xlii. 9; Jer. xxxi. 31. The Law, Ez. xxxvi.
26 sqq. Certainly 6 vu/xog 6 inrdpx'^^ f'C '"''*' a.i'^vn, Baruch iv. 1. "'Euiq dv i)\io^
K,
N. T., ypa(pi)v. Matt. xxvi. 56; Iikuioq., iii. 15; vo/iov, Rom. xiii. 8 (differently
Gal. V. 14). Since in Gal. v. 14, Rom. xiii. 8, the fulfilling of the Law can signify
both a perfecting and an executing, the context must decide which meaning is here to be
adopted. The context, however, vers. 17— 20 (comp. xxiii. 3, 4), speaks plainly enough.
1 Matt. V. 18, 19 (thus Aug.); comp. vii. 12, 20—24, xii. 50. Complaint against
the Scribes, v. 20, vi. 2, 5, xxiii. 3, 4.
300 THE DISCIPLES.
and deed ; and the noble works of the city on the hill are seen
in the fact that a serious effort is made to keep the Law, and
that thus the Law itself rises again from the infinite mass of
rubbish under which it had been buried.
His earnestness in thus perpetuating the Law, in thus restor-
ing it to a position of authority and influence in every-day life,
for the present and the future, is at once confirmed by a
genuinely Jewish affirmation, and by an insistance upon the
maintenance of the very letter. "For verily, I say unto you,
till heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one single little
stroke shall in no wise pass away from the Law, till all be
fulfilled."^ The iota was the smallest letter in the post-exile
alphabet of the people, the little stroke or little curve was the
finest and smallest curved stroke, the scarcely visible element
and fragment of a letter ; even to the vanishingiy small, the
very smallest, command must everything be fulfilled ; the word
of God cannot return void, but must remain until heaven and
earth and all creatures pass away — wliich will never pass away,
or not until everything that is finite, until man and every human
ordinance, decay, and God alone remains." From this dignity
1 Matt. V. 18.
^ The iota, in tlie earlier alphabets, three fingers (oath), comp. Winer, Schrift; the
tables in 8th ed. by Sclnader of De Wette's Einl. ins A. T. See also above, p. 297,
note 3. Sank. f. 20, 3 : testamentum vacillans in aliqua parte (thus the book of
Deut. complains to God against Solomon, on the ground of Deut. xvii. 17) vacillat in
toto (comp. Deut. xxvii. 26; Gal. iii. 10). God answers: Salomo et mille similes illi
peribunt, at vocula de te non peribit. Apicula una de lit. Jod non peribit. On iota,
a name applied also to little towns or persons, see Lightfoot, p. 283 ; Schottgen, p. 28.
On the little curved stroke, Tanchum, f. 1, 1 : quicunque Cheth in He comrautaverit,
destruit mundum. Quic. Beth in Caph comm., d. m. Qui Daleth in Resh conim.,
d. m. "Till heaven and earth pass away," may be the expression of the finite, after
which comes the new, or the infinite, though relative with respect to God. Similar
phraseology is often found in the sense of the relative cosmical infi)iity : Gen. viii. 22;
Ps. Ixxii. 7, cii. 20, 27 ; Job xiv. 12 ; Baruch i. 11. Comp. the passages given above,
p. 297, note 3. The very stress laid upon the antithesis between the end and God
(Ps. cii. 27) or the words of Jesus (Matt. xxiv. 34), brings out the greatness of God or
of Jesus by contrast with the relative infinity of the universe. Luke, xvi. 17 (opp.
Marc, in TertuUian, Adv. Marc. 4, 33), understands the words in this sense of rela-
tive infinity ; and in fact Jesus could only tiius, without an internal contradiction, have
made a solemn declaration for the Law. At the same time, he is by no means think-
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 301
and this unending permanence of the Law naturally flows the
inference as to the future, as to the lives and conduct of the
disciples : " Whosoever shall break, in teaching and in practice,
one of these least commandments, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven ; but whosoever shall do and teach it, shall
be called great in the kingdom of heaven."^ And like a light-
ning-flash, which shines from east to west, and strikes where no
one expected, so is the inference darted back from the future
into the past and the present. It is made use of in a compre-
hensive, incisive, throughout remarkably unsparing and out-
spoken criticism of the wide-spread, prevalent dogmatics and
ethics of the Israelitish present; and upon the ruins of the
latter is inscribed, in large, plain, distinctly-written characters,
the aftirmation, the legality, insisted upon by Jesus. " For I say
unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed that of the
Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom
of heaven." With these words he opens — surprisingly, because
the Pharisees appeared to observe exactly those little things, the
iota, the letter of the Law; and declaratively, asserting that since
they neglected the great and did not observe the little, therefore
they not only would be little in the kingdom of heaven, but had
to expect exclusion — thus he opens his profound criticism on the,
2Jrcvailing sijstem, his attack upon the old and powerful Phari-
saism, his proclamation of a new morality preparatory to the
new religion, which was nevertheless ultimately the mother also
of the former. "2
ing of an end of heaven and earth ; comp. Matt. vi. IP, 20, xxii. 30. The passages
xix. 28, xxiv. 29, do not point to an absolute end, which is spoken of in Is. Ixv. 17;
Rev. xxi. 1 ; 2 Peter iii. 13.
^ I cannot, with Sin., D, It., strike out the second hemistich of verse 19, for the
omission is sufficiently explained by the similarity of the concluding words. Tiie very
solemnity of the asseveration demands copiousness and affirmative completeness; more-
ovei', the position of the doing before the tectching is original.
* Pharisaic insistance upon little things, Matt. xv. 2, 3, xxiii. 23, 26. Do neither
great things nor little, xxiii. 3, 4, 23. The Pharisees themselves distinguisli between
great and little, though in a very different way from Jesus ; in verbis legia sunt vetita
quaidam, qusedam permissa, in hi.s sunt levia et gravia, at verba scribaruin omnia
gravia. Gfrorer, Jahrh. Heils, I. p. 146; Lightfoot, p. 330; Schottgen, pp. 3(1, 130.
302 TEE DISCIPLES.
His opposition to the Pharisees is developed in two well-con-
structed series of attacks. After some preliminary remarks, he
dwells first on their teaching and their exposition of the Law ;
and then — if we take in the later address of the sixth chapter —
upon their favourite religious acts and pious exercises. First,
he refers to their theory, which indeed seeks to realize itself in
practice ; and then to their practice. It is easy to perceive here,
that Jesus confines his initial attack essentially to the most vital
points, to the Law and the immediate exposition of the Law ; he
refrains at present from that criticism of the arbitrary additions
to the Law which he later brought so crushingly to bear upon
his opponents.^ In the present day, it is a matter of dispute
whether these attacks are really directed against the Pharisees,
and we are about to prove the very opposite of what many
think. The criticism of the theory is said to be directed against
the Law of Moses itself, the criticism of the practice against the
Pharisees. The fact is, on the contrary, that the former criticism
is directed against the Pharisees, and the latter against only a
class, against the hypocritical among the Jews and among the
Pharisees. The second is shown by the words, as well as by the
probability that Jesus did not at first thus harshly reject Phari-
saism as "a whole ; and even in his criticism of the theory, he noto-
riously rejected it, not harshly, but with some reservation.^ We
must examine the criticism of the theory more in detail. It is true
that the solemn formula of Jesus can be translated, "Ye have heard
that it was said to them of old, . . . but I say unto you !" And
this may suggest the ancient people and Moses, the lawgiver.^
Comp. the references to Matt. xxii. 36, xxiii. 23. On the objections against the
genuineness of Matt. v. 18, 19, see below.
^ Matt. XV. 1, xxiii. 1.
^ On the distinction made by the Pharisees themselves and their contemporaries
between persons who were sincere and those who were "painted" or hypocritical, see
above. Vol. I. pp. 344, 345. More in detail below.
' Thus the old view of the Fathers, the Catholics, Socin., even of Neander and
Baumgarten-Crusius. Tholuck; Bleek (I. p. 257); Ritschl (Altk. K. p. 43); Stock-
meier in Hagenbach's A". Z., 1868, Jan. See, as historian (with a mixture of what is
unsound), Bleek, I. pp. 256, 257.
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 303
It is "also true that several antitlieses seem aimed at the mere
letter of the Law of Moses without any Pharisaic addition, and
several at the letter to whicli additions had been made from the
Law itself^ But who can think it possible that Jesus, a moment
after he had solemnly confessed the Law of Moses, would directly
confront that Law, not for the purpose of improving it, but of
abrogating it ; or that he, a moment after he had announced his
unrelenting antagonism to the Pharisees only, would be betrayed
into antagonism against IMoses ? We can, moreover, appeal to
the condemned sentences themselves : some are unmistakably
Pharisaic, mere worthless additions to the Law, and all are
specimens of superficial and trivial literalism. Therefore, even
if we translate, " It was said to those of old," we must not think
of the very ancient people, the contemporaries of Moses, but of
the later people who had been under the hands of the Scribes.
But the formula can be much better translated, and indeed on
both linguistic and logical grounds must be translated, thus :
" Ye have heard that it was said hy them of old, .... but / say
unto you !"^ The persons spoken of are the well-known ancients,
the presbyters of Jewish tradition, mentioned also in the ISTew
1 Matt. V. 27, 38 ; also v. 21, 31, 33, 43.
^ With a dative sense, Tholuck, De Wette, Meyer, Bleek, Eitscbl, Weizsiicker. With
an ablative sense, Beza, Scbottgen, Fritzsche, Ewald, Lechler. In the New Test, the
expression, "It is said," is certainly usually read with the dative, Gal. iii. 16;
Rom. ix. 12, 2G ; but the ablative sense is quite possible, fi'p/jrrti Ifiol, tkt'i, Luke
xxiii. 15. Winer, Grainm. % 31. This explanation is here doubly necessary, although
apparently the antitheses form a good parallel, (1) tppt9i] — tytli, ('2) apxnioig — 1'j.rtv.
For, first, the iyui requires a more emphatic antithesis, since the most important point
is the speaker, not those spoken to ; against which it is not enough to object that in
that case r. apx- ought to have stood before the verb (it stands as near as possible to
tyio), or that afterwards tppii9)] repeatedly stands alone, and that therefore the whole
antithesis is concentrated in the verb (it would be enough for the complete antithesis
to stand only in vers. 21, 33). Secondly, .Jesus could lay stress on what the ancient
teachers had said (ameru kadmonenu, Scbottgen, p. 33), because these teachers were
the authorities for the present also (comp. v. 20), but not upon what Moses or later
teachers had said to the ancient people. The latter was a matter of indifference ; nay,
to lay stress upon it would have been absurd, because the chief tiling to be considered
was the teaching given to the people of the present, and because the peojjle of the
present "had heard," not what had been taught to the ancient people, but what had
been taught to themselves.
304 THE DISCIPLES.
Testament, the old teachers of the Law from the times of Ezra,
the teachers whose tradition was on the lips of the young in the
school and among the people, in the synagogue and in the
market-place. Jesus fought, not against Moses, hut in the name
of Moses against the expositors of Moses.^
We now come to the theory of Jesus against the theory of the
ancients, the expositors. He solemnly and emphatically esta-
blishes liis positions in six paragraphs, each marked by the repe-
tition of the antithetic formula.^ There is order even in the
sequence of the antitheses. It can be easily perceived that he
has here relied upon the ten Mosaic commandments, which he
everywhere respects as the utterance of God ; yet he has done
this with considerable freedom, for his purpose is to be concise
and yet comprehensive, to bring into view the actual funda-
mental injuries inflicted by his opponents and his own funda-
mental requirements. There is here nothing more noteworthy
than the fact that he confines himself to the conmiandments of
the second table. He has, by generally confining himself to
this, borne testimony to the soundness of the religion which, with
all its ardent yearning after God, is nevertheless almost more
zealous for men than for God ; and he has also shown how dis-
paragingly and rebelliously Pharisaism must have dissipated,
curtailed, and falsified that noble bequest of Mosaism — humanity
and the love of our neighbour. It is true that in the hands of
Jesus the second table acquires a different aspect. In the old
Law, the first table contained the commandments, the second
had only prohibitions : God is to be honoured, while men are
^ The opxrtTof, as Luke ix. 8 (for which, Zech. i. 4, vii. 12, o'l tfinpoaOw), or
Matt. XV. 2, 7rj)£(T/3/irfpot. By the RabLis, chasidim (chachamim) rishonim (Deat.
xix. 14), Lightfoot, p. 285; or kadmonim (comp. dpxnloc, 1 Sam. xxiv.JL3). Comp.
TTapdSoaiQ iraTspiuv, &c. Josephus, Ant. 13, 10, 6; Gal. i. 14. It is ridiculous to
assert .that apx- is not found used for at least the ancient Scribes. Tholuck; Bleek
(I. p. 256).
* "Ye have heard" in the synagogue (see above, Y«l. II. p. 157), also in the
Talmud: shameu, audiverunt. Lightfoot, p. 285. "It is said," itamar B. 124.
Schottgen, p. 33. Ewald and Kostlin reckon seven antitheses, addiug v. 42 to the six.
Comp. below, p. .316, note 1.
THE SERMOX OX THE MOUXT. 305
merely, protected from evil. Jesus has to do only with the
second table, but to the prohibitions of evil are added commands
to do good. In three sentences he describes the sin against our
neiglibour, and in three the love of men.i
There are, then, three and three antitheses in the theory of llie
Law. Judaism did not know any higher moral prohibitions than
the two: "Thou shalt not kill; thou slialt not commit adultery!"'
As they seem to have had i^recedence in time, so has Jesus here
and elsewhere placed them in the first rank. Nay, since there
was nothing greater, and the other commandments — particularly
the tenth, "Thou shalt not covet!" — were themselves included
in these two prohibitions, the latter comprehended the whole
series. AVhat comes next as a. third, the prohibition of divorce,
is in every respect only an addition to the second, or, Ave may
say, an application of it.^ Following the order of the Hebrew
Bible, Jesus begins with the prohibition of murder, which the
Greek translation, in its less robust morality, is inclined to put
second ; he follows, however, the order adopted by the Scribes.^
" Ye have heard that it was said by them of old. Thou shalt not
kill ; and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judg-
ment." What does he find objectionable in this prompt justice
against the capital crime of society ? If the concise Law says
merely, " Thou shalt not kill," is not the addition in harmony
with the spirit and even with the letter of the Law ?* " But I
say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be
1 Antithesis 1 (Matt. v. 21) -corresponds to the sixth commanclinent (Ex. xx. 13);
ant. 2 (ver. 27), seventh and tenth comm. (Ex. xx. 14, 17); ant. 3 (ver. 31), the
same comm.; ant. 4 (ver. 33), the ninth comm. (Ex. xx. 16); ant. 5 and 6 =
tenth comm. ((TriOvfiia, also Qvjioq for conflict, Ga). v. 16 sqq.). Jesus generally kept
the second table chiefly in view, Matt. xix. 18, &c. A chiefly verbally aflirniative turn
of the construction of the commandments inculcating truthfulness and patient and
active love ; indeed, from the beginning, there is a striving after a positive construc-
tion ; comp. ant. 1, 2. Similarly, Hilg., 1867, p. 375.
^ Consequently Hilgenfeld (p. 375) reckons only five antitheses.
' In the parallel passages* to Matt. xix. 18, Luke and Mark place adultery before
murder, as Cod. Vat. of Exodus xx. 13. Philo, De D'-caL, comp. Weizsacker, p. 356.
* Ex. XX. 13; Deut. v. 17.
VOL. III. X
306 THE DISCIPLES.
in danger of the judgment ; and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Eaca ! (good-for-nothing !) shall be in danger of the
high council (Sanhedrim); and whosoever shall say, Fool! (god-
less !) shall be in danger of hell- fire." ^ We see what it is he
misses. The mere prohibition of murder, the cold, juridical,
genuinely Pharisaic reference to the judgment, is not enough.^
The crime is not sufficiently condemned. It is true that for
murder, for the horrible and impossible offence, there is no
further punishment ; but besides murder, there are other deeds
of violence which are still prevalent, offences not merely of the
fist but of the mouth, offences which are not recognized, not
punished, though they deserve the whole scale of punishments
to the very highest, from the lower judgment to the higher, even
to hell-fire ; and the ancient lawgiver had included in his prohi-
bition of murder these offences, which his successors had ignored.
Jesus significantly adds two things. In the first place, all sacri-
fices offered to God are worthless unless the injustice of word or
deed against one's neighbour be previously expiated. " There-
fore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remember that
thy brother has aught against thee, leave there thy gift before
the altar, and first go thy way and be reconciled to thy brother,
^ Much juridical casuistry among the Jew, comp. Lightfoot, p. 286, also above.
Vol. I. p. 340 ; but little ethics. Yet a judicium Dei is spoken of as well as a judi-
cium hominum. Schottgen, p. 34. Interesting parallel, Sohar. Ex. f. 50 : quic. prox.
s. vocat rasha (godless), ille detruditur in gehennam. Schottgen, I. c.
^ Triple climax (comp. among the Jews, Lightfoot, p. 287): (1) Anger (strike out
the spurious and cautious e/k/j, Eph. iv. 26) against a brother ( = Israelitish com-
patriot, Lightfoot, p. 285) comes before the lower tribunals in the towns of Israel,
Deut. xvi. 18 ; Joseph us, Ant. 4, 8, 14 (seven men). The Talmud distinguishes
between the tribunal of three men and that of twenty-three (little Sanhedrim, Light-
foot, p. 895; Winer, Gericht, Synedrmm). (2) Rek (Aram, with article Ileka =
empty, kh'oq, James ii. 20, a frequent word of contempt among the Jews, especially
against the Gentiles, Lightfoot, p. 286), this term of abuse. Good-for-nothing ! comes
before the great Sanhedrim of seventy, which has the prerogative of sentencing the
crimioal to death without appeal. (3) The abusive term Fool ! nabal (Greek, cicppojv,
Xoifiog, Ps. xiv. 1 ; Job ii. 10 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 25) =godless, renders the offender obnoxious
to hell-fire {ykvva, from ge bene Hinnom, Valley of the sons of Hinnom, on the south
of Jeru-salem, where, until the time of king Josiah, children were sacrificed to Moloch,
2 Kings xxiii. 10. The place of the worship of the gods is=Hell or tlie Gate of Hell.
Lightfoot, p. 2SG).
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. Si)?
and blien come and bring thy gift." A remarkably fine sentence,
commanding even tlie postponement of sacrifice if, at the last
moment, at the very altar steps, a dark memory disturbs the
worshipper's reflections over his moral purity before God. A
similar thing might have been said by isolated Jewish teachers,
but by very few, because in their estimation the outward sacri-
fice covered everything; nay, it could have been seriously meant
by none of them, because each of them regarded the withhold-
ing of sacrifice with horror.^ In the next place, Jesus exhibits
the responsibility and punishment incident to quarrels between
neighbours, in a Avell-conceived Eastern combination of pictures
of the earthly and the heavenly judge. "Agree with thine
adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him (to the
judge), so that the adversary may not deliver thee to tlie judge,
and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into
prison. Verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come
out thence, till thou hast paid the last farthing." 2
The second great prohibition is that of adultery. The same
defect, the same correction, as in the case of the first prohibition.
Pharisaism went no further than to prohibit, "Thou shalt not
commit adultery;" but under these few words, the lawgiver had
prohibited more than the mere outward act, which, it is true,
Pharisaism also utterly refused to tolerate.^ " But I say unto
^ ^ainoi' = korban (Mark di. 11 ; Matt, xxvii. 6; Josephus, B. J. 2, 9, 4 ; Ant. 4,
4, 4). Similar Jewish passage in Lightfoot, p. 287 (restitutio furti usque ad prutliain
— to the very smallest part, see next note — ante oblationem). More details in Sclidtt-
gen, p. 35. But a withholding of sacrifice is not permitted, or at most of the libamen
post sacrificium. Comp., however, Jom. f. 85, 2 : dies expiationis expiat, quae homo
c. Deum commisit, sed quae c. proximum commisit, non expiat, donee cum eo in gratiam
redierit. Schottgen, p. (33.
' This verse is usually understood (see Schottgen, p. 36) as only symholio of the re-
lation to God ; but the material basis drawn from actual life is its fundamental feature,
and gives it its independence. The officer, lictor judicii, Lightfoot, p. 288. Farthing
(2 peruthot) is the fourth of an as; an as was only ^ of a pound of copper, ^-^ of a
denarius. Horace, Ep. 2, 2, 27 : omnia perdere ad assem.
* Noli mcechari, Schottgen, p. 26. Aspiciens calcaneum, minimum digitum femina;
est ac si coiret, Lightfoot, p. 290. The mere thought, Schottgen, p. 37. On the
other hand, it is a disgusting ground of boasting, that renowned Rabbis sat by the
X 2
308 THE DISCIPLES.
you, that whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her, has
committed adultery with her already in his heart." ^ Truly, here
his prohibitions pass beyond the act, or the word, to the very
demeanour, to the secret province of the heart, which, in the
opinion of the people, was independent of the external law; and
he makes the man who sins in heart as obnoxious to the penalty
of death as he who sins in act. War, therefore, war to the death,
does Jesus wage against the lusts of the heart, a more deter-
mined war than that waged by the Eabbis against the same
offences. " If the right eye, the right hand, any one of the very
best of thy members, seduces thee to evil, pluck it out, cut it off,
as is done with criminals ; it is better that one member should
be lost, than that the whole body should go to hell !"^ He does
not mean this literally ; he recognizes no cutting and piercing,
no Indian penance, torture, and slaying. But he finds the real
sinner in the heart, and not in the bodily member ; it is, how-
ever, his purpose to inculcate the necessity of guarding the heart
by controlling the member which is the material source of entice-
ment, by strict discipline, retirement from the world, and even
physically mortifying abstinence.
The third prohibition, that of divorce, is an appendix to the
second. " Whosoever puts away his wife, say the Scribes, let
him give her a writing of divorcement." Thus have they briefly
and conveniently formulated a definition of the Law itself; and
in showing themselves thus accommodating, they have given
evidence of their willingness to make divorce as free from in-
convenience as possible, and on their own part not to be over-
bathing-places of women in order to show that in eos dominari non potuit mains
affectus.
^ Comp. tenth commandment, Ex. xx. 17.
^ Cutting oflF the hand often mentioned by Josephus as practised in the Galilean
war, Vita, 30, 34, 35. The expression also in Matt, xviii. 8 ; Mark ix. 43. Similarly
by the Rabbis : qui manum ad membrum vir. admovet, abscindatur raanus ejus ad
umbil. usque. Prsestat ut findatur venter ejus, quam ut ipse descendat in puteum
corruptionis. Lightfoot, p. 289. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 5. Seneca, Ep. 25 : alterius vita
emendanda, aXi. franr/enda sunt.
THE SERMON OX THE MOUNT. 309
scrupulous, but to be satisfied with such a practical course of
action as shall not do violence to the external form of the legal
precept.^ In reality, they have been only too accommodating.
The Law imposed upon divorce a moral limitation, making it
dependent upon an actual odious offence on the part of the
woman ; but the majority of the Scribes have, in the interests of
Eastern sensuality, derisively broken down the limitation ; and
the Scribes of Jesus ignore any limitation whatever, and recog-
nize any frivolous pretext, if only the bill of divorce be written,
the external ordinance of Moses be complied with.^ " But I say
unto you, whosoever puts away his wife causes her to commit
adultery with her seducer or so-called husband." Since Jesus
finds adultery in the mere lusting after a woman, he is only
consistent when he discovers in the bill of divorce, given as a
rule at the instigation of lust, consummated adultery, not only
on the part of the man, whose crime of horrible and perpetual
adultery is not for a moment questionable, but also on the part
^ The passage contains an allusion to Deut. xxiv. 1 ; but there the condition on
which the bill of divorce (sepher keritut, airooTaaiov ^ifiXiov, aTVoaraaiov) may be
given is added : ervat dabar, daxutiov izctaj^a (comp. Deut. xxii. 14, 17). A form
in Lightfoot, p. 291 : die hebdom. N. raensis N. anni N. in provincia N. ego N., fillus
N., de civitate N., cum summo anirai consensu — repudiavi, dimisi atque e.vpuli te N.,
&c. Only in special cases were men bound, Deut. xxii. 19, 29.
' The strict Shammai, in accordance with the Law, held fast the turpitude, turpia
nuditas, a point upon which so much stress was laid, that the mere going out capite
non velato, nudata cervice, was sufficient ground for a divorce. Lightfoot, p. 290.
On this account, many Rabbis, when they went out, locked up their wives. Bammidh.
rabh. s. 9, thus fixes Shammai's precept : Shammseani dicunt : ne ejiciat quis uxorem,
nisi in ea inveniatur adulterium. Schottgen, p. 157. Others, more compliant, allowed
divorce in the case of a woman non bene morata (comp. Josephus on his wife: fi))
apiOKofiEvoQ avTijc; role i)9tHa arpaTitorov, which only leads to blows, and by
which the ass is altogether ruined. Langen, Letzte Taye J., p. 297. {d) Borrowing,
especially on the Sabbath, when no business is transacted. Comp. Deut. xv. 7 ; Ecclus.
iv. 5. Schottgen, p. 42.
* Comp. above, p. 121, and Celsus, Origen, 7, 3. Toled. L, Schottgen, p. 42.
Similarly the Scribes, see above, p. 315, note 1.
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 317
— if not in the special figurative example, yet in real life — a re-
peated yielding and a repeated endurance of suffering. It is true
his opinion is, that men should not only yield in little matters,
but that even in great matters they should not hastily have
recourse to litigation. But the tolerance which he wishes to
teach and which he inculcates in the name of the purest
morality itself, is no cowardly shrinking from bearing testimony
against sin, but is itself such a testimony, and is a greater testi-
mony than a merely verbal one such as he himself also bears.^
And the effect at which he aims is not the encouragement of
sin, but its discouragement ; for he so far, and in this justly,
reckons on the goodness of human nature as to expect that in
view of these " good works " even the wicked will be compelled
to praise the Father of such pious men.^ If it be objected that
this is but the impracticable idealism of personal piety, it must
first be asked whether Jesus had not soberly and seriously in
view an actual community based on these principles, such a
community as he always reaUy had in view ; and it must next
be asked — a question to which Jesus' followers have, in isolated
cases, afforded a complete answer — whether the world be more
firmly established by legal tribunals and prisons than by such a
shame-begetting retaliation as the Master inculcates. And it
must, moreover, be remembered that Jesus holds out to those
who are really incorrigible the prospect of the judgment of
God.
Finally, the last, the sixth thesis, to which the fifth, and
chiefly the latter clauses of the fifth, prepare the way. For
giving to those that ask, to borrowers, has already introduced
the transition from a passive endurance to an actively benevo-
lent behaviour towards our neighbours. " Thou shalt love thy
neighbour, and hate thine enemy," so says the morality of tlie
Pharisees. This maxim, so mild in its beginning, so harsh in
^ Comp. Matt. xii. 7, xxiii. 32. Then John xviii. 22 sq. (Matt. xxvi. 67). Taul,
Acts xxiii. 2 sq..
2 Matt. V. IC; 1 Peter iii. 1.
318 THE DISCIPLES.
its close, is not to l)e found in the Old Testament, which, notwith-
standing its fresh reminiscences of the conflicts of the immigration,
never inculcates hate, not even against the Moabites, and least of
all against all nations. But this maxim is a Pharisaic deduction
from the Old Testament. From the beautiful precepts, " Thou
shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, thou shalt not be
angry v/ith the children of thy people, thou shalt love thy neigh-
bour as thyself," the reverse commands were, with apparent
justice, inferred, " Thou shalt be angry with the stranger, thou
shalt hate thine enemies."^ It is unquestionable that this maxim
originally expressed the national ethics which a religiously
isolated and politically down-trodden people like the Jews natu-
rally adopted and developed into what the ancients called the
hatred of the human race, and the further dogmatic elaboration
of which was handed over to the Scribes, who were themselves
also nationally jealous.^ The only question is. Did the Scribes
do nothing more, or did they, as falsifiers of all the moral con-
ceptions of the Old Testament, in their spirit of anger and of
vengeful retaliation, most immorally pass from narrow precepts
to narrowest, from gross rendering to grossest, by permitting
^ The first part, Levit. xix. 18 ; and the second part, the antithesis, is derived from
the same passage, vv. 17, 18: oZi ^iai]aHQ tov aS. aov, ov firjvieiQ roic vioii(^ tov
Xaov (TOV Kal ayantjCTdc, &c. Hatred against strangers is not here insisted upon, but
it might be deduced herefrom. Against Moab, Ammon, &c., the most that is insisted
upon is that no covenant be made with them, no favour shown them, their prosperity
and salvation be not sought for ever, Deut. vii. 2, xxiii. 3 sqq. ; but hatred is not com-
manded. Kindness towards Edom, the Egyptians, ib. xxiii. 7.
^ Tacitus, Hist. 5, 5 : adv. alios omnes hostile odium. See above. Vol. I. p. 299.
The Romans (couip. the Sar Roma, above, p. 239, note), as the fourth monarchy,
according to Daniel, hated and appointed to destruction, comp. above, Vol. I. pp.
320, 324. See also Ferd. Christ. Ewald, Abodah Sa7-ah, od. d. Gotzendienst, a trac-
tate out of the Talmud, Niirnb., 1868, pp. 5 sqq. Shammai, Zadok, see above. Vol. I.
pp. 261, 342. Talmud : proximus non ethnicus ; cum dicit proximum, excludit
ethuicos. Lightfoot, pp. 285, 344. Nationes mundi canibus assimilantur (midr. till.),
ib. p. 31. Populi terrarum non vivunt, ib. p. 518. Nationes mundi erunt sicut
conflagratio furni, ib. p. 611. Midr. Teh. f. 26, 4, &c. ; noli gentilibus benevol. aut
miserie. exhibere, Schottgen, p. 43. No help in necessity, but death to the foe in
war, Maimonides, in Lightfoot, p. 295 (prohibitum, eos a morte liberare). Assist-
.ince to no Gentile woman in childbirth, giving suck to no Gentile child, Ewald,
p. 187, &c.
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 319
hatred, not only against the stranger, but also against the private
enemy among their own people ? In itself this would not he
surprising; to a certain extent this maxim would be but the
consequence of the inculcation of revenge ; and Jesus has in
appearance throughout understood the exposition as applying to
private animosity. Tliough the passage is usually understood
thus, because it appears to have such a meaning, because thus
what is obscure becomes still more obscure, and what is clear
still more clear, yet this explanation is incorrect.^ The neigh-
bour, in the Old Testament sense, is not the friend, but the
compatriot ; therefore the enemy must be simply the stranger.
From the Old Testament could be drawn only the maxim incul-
cating hatred against the stranger. The Pharisaic spirit would
have permitted hatred against the private enemy, but could not
have demanded it as a religious duty ; only hatred against the
national enemy could have been thus demanded. " Thou shalt
hate, thou art re(|uired to hate, thine enemy." Jesus himself,
under the term enemies, understands in the first place perse-
cutors, who, according to the then existing situation, would be
distinctly marked off from the Jews as Gentiles. He does not, it
is true, describe the enemies later simply as publicans and Gen-
tiles ; but he mentions the publicans and Gentiles, the loathed
of the people, because he wishes to put to shame the narrow-
mindedness of the people towards strangers by means of
strangers and their associates, who indeed do not perform
more than, but who do perform the same things as, the pious
nation.
But the greatness of Jesus loses nothing, if Pharisaism loses
a little of its erroneousness. When Jesus demands an exhibition
1 Even Tholuck and Meyer represent the Pharisees as speaking thus also of private
enemies. If there were a special reference to the godless, then this would be more
probable, since such were placed on the level of Gentiles. Abot. Nat. 16 : ama omnes
et odio habe Epicurasos. Taan. f. 7, 2 : licet impudentem odio prosequi. Schottgen,
pp. 43 sq. Lightfoot, pp. 344, 295. Ewald, pp. 79, 190. But the antithesis in the
text is a purely national one, and there was no obligation to cherish hatred against a
merely private enemy.
320 THE DISCIPLES.
of love towards the foreign enemy, he demands it at the same
time on behalf of the private .enemy ; nay, he demands it ex-
pressly on behalf of the latter, " But I say unto you, Love your
enemies and pray for your persecutors, that ye may be sons of
your Father in heaven ; for He makes His sun to rise on evil
men and on good, and sends rain on just and unjust."^ He
makes no distinction, therefore, between external and internal
enemies ; and even if by the terms evil and unjust he refers
primarily to the Gentiles, yet neither here nor elsewhere does
he refer to them alone. Before his ardent faith in the dignity
of mankind, before his spirit of fervent affection, the limitations
of love fall away, therefore consistently the distinctions between
man and man, therefore by anticipation the distinctions between
nations. But his deepest motive is not his love, nor the dignity
of humanity, as he otherwise represents it. Here at the close
comes in his deepest motive, which has given such a tension to
all his moral demand for enduring and acting virtue. He draws
his virtue from heaven; his whole morality, apparently so terres-
trial, so human, so limited, so free from the services of worship,
he draws from the service of God, from religion : the Father in
heaven endures and gives gifts like a king; He tolerates the evil
upon earth, both Gentiles and Jews ; He gives sunshine and
clouds to His sinners ; and the ideal of the pious man is to be
like Him, to become a son of the Father. Jesus draws his virtue,
to a certain extent, also from the earth. " For if ye love them
that love you, what reward have ye ? Do not even the publicans
so ? And if you are kind to your brethren only, what do ye more
than others ? Do not even the heathenish the same ?" Certainly
^ Comp. here the parallels in Seneca, Benef. 4, 26 ; 7, 31 ; see above, pp. 71 sq.
By the Jews, Mechilt. f. 27, 1, on Ex. xv. 2 : num vero homo Deura ereatorem s.
pulcrum facere potest ? Similis esto illi. Quemadm. ille clemens est et misericors,
sic tu quoque cl. et m. esto. SchiJttgen, p. 25. Pluvite ad justos et impios, Taan.
f. 7, 1 ; Schottgen, p. 47. Also Shabb. f. 88, 2 : contumelia adfici, neminem vero
adficere, audire ignominiam neque rependere. SipJn: f. 174, 1 : qui gaiulet adversitate
prox. s., ille est impius perfectus. Sank. f. 48, 2 : patere tibi ab aliis maledici, noli
vero aliis raaledicere. Soh. Gen. f. C7 : prreceptum est homini, ut oret pro iiapiis.
Schottgen, pp. 44 sq.
THE SERMOX OX TITE MOUXT. - 321
tliis leavniiig from the earth is only a kind of comparison. It
is, as Seneca says, no virtue to be as good as or better than the
worst.^ It is only a negative picture, a shadow, a distortion, in
comparison with the ideals, the pattern pictures, which shine
from heaven, and are immediately reflected back from the
human soul as presentiments of a higher destiny. Love in return
for love — what is the greatest love, what is the greatest thing
worth, what can it effect, what is its power, in the sight of God,
as a recompense to God? Equality with publicans and Gentiles,
what a miserable emulation '^ Thus he comes back to God :
likeness to God is to be the object of emulation, nay, the aimed-
at but unattainable goal ! " Therefore be ye perfect, as your
lieavenly Father is perfect."^ No one has seriously placed thus
high the aims of man ; hence no one has thus loftily exhibited the
virtue of man. We know heathenism and its beautiful sayings,
which, even though heathenism, like Jesus, took the divine as
its pattern, could not be realized, because it possessed no life-
blood seeking in its perpetual flow to force itself into, or in its
circulation to find a pause, in God.^ But the old covenant also,
and not merely Pharisaism, hides its face with shame.'^ What
that old covenant dimly saw, longed for, lost from sight and
again sought, viz., the pattern man, him Jesus has exhibited.
Humanity has taken the gift, the discovery of which had been an
1 Ejy'ist. 79 : nee enira bonitas est, pessimis esse inelioreni,
- Publicans, see above, p. 266.
3 By the Talmudists, Israel is often called populus perfectus, perf. in operibus, qui
non peccavit in Deura. Even the sentence, Soli. Lev. f. 2 : quando Isr. perf. sunt in
operib., etiara nomen Dei sanctum perfectius redditur. Scbottgon, pp. 48 sq.
* See above, pp. 117 sq.
^ It is true that the Old Test, teaches the saving of the wandering or fallen ox of
the enerny, Ex. x.xiii. 4 sq. (thus differing from the later Judaism, see above, p. :US,
note 2) ; the doing no harm to the oi)pressor, Ps. vii. 5 ; the taking no joy in harm,
the wishing no evil, Prov. xxiv. 17; Job xxxi. 29 sq. ; the giving refreshment to the
liungry and thirsty enemy, Prov. xxv. 21. But how often is vengeance invoked, Ps.
vii. 6 ; the fall of the enemy triumphed over, Ps. liv. 7 ; nay, in the very finest pas-
sages, resignation is inculcated in order that God may so much the more avenge, Ps.
vii. 7; Prov. xxiv. 18. Comp. also the coals of fire, ih. xxv. 21. Samuel the Little,
see al)0ve, Vol. I. p. 338.
VOL. 111. Y
322 TEE DISCIPLES.
endless problem ; and however much it may sigh over the ideal
of Jesus, so long as the earth stands must it preserve that ideal,
since it cannot help loving it, Avillingly or unwillingly.
At this resting-point of the criticism and revision of the
ancient moral teaching, there remains yet a question which
requires an answer. Here and there, it may be, in opposition
to the moral teaching of the time, with its lack of moral delicacy
of feeling and with its coarseness of juridical, religious, and
national conception, Jesus has turned back to the moral, humane,
and ideally rich spirit of the Old Testament. When all is con-
sidered, however, has he not, in his attack upon what w^as Phari-
saical — and this attack was the sharp sword, though not the
heart, of his whole ministry — quite as much struck at, con-
demned, and destroyed one half of the Old Testament ? For,
to speak impartially, is not the Old Testament half Jesus-like,
moral, spiritual, humane, and half Pharisaical, ceremonial, deal-
ing in statutes, retahatory, vengeful, and narrow-minded ? And
is not its former and enduring characteristic taken hold of and
lifted into prominence by Jesus, and its latter and temporary
characteristic perpetuated, in exact formulae., as it w^ere, by
Pharisaism, as a system of ordinances ? Or, not to go quite so
far, is it not unquestionable that the expounder of the spirit at
least far oversteps the letter of the Old Testament, that letter
the perpetuation of which, according to the introduction of the
Sermon on the Mount, he insisted upon with a strong assevera-
tion ? This difficulty, which will repeat itself in ever new forms,
is not to be met — as many moderns, with singular arbitrariness,
attempt to meet it— by omitting the inconvenient passage about
the perpetuity of the letter, or by translating the eternal per-
petuity into a brief one, lasting only until the advent of the
imminent kingdom of heaven.^ It is to be met by first cahnly
^ Matt. V. 18, 19, is regarded as a more or less later Jewish -Christian (or anti-
Pauline) interpolation, by Roth, Grfrorer, Baur, Hase, Ililg., Schenkel, Strauss, Weizs.,
Holtziii., rJtiid.; coiiip. Gescluchtl. C'hr. p. 48. Tholuck. Schenkel now makjs a
THE SEILMOX OX TUB MOUNT. 323
reviewing the attitude of Jesus towards the Law, and by then
considering how far this piety of the letter, with or without any
self-deception, is compatible with that attitude. Nothing is more
certain than that the Law is upheld by Jesus from first to last.^
From the Pharisaic human expositions and additions, he can and
will from day to day more and more widely depart; but the Law
itself, the ordinance of the great God, must rise from its fall,
more vigorous, more powerful, more glorious than it was before.
In Jerusalem, there is still only the old answer to the inquiry
after the way to life: "Keep the commandments." ^ This fact
is so overwhelmingly opposed to the obscurations of modern
science, that the fourth Gospel with its counter testimony may
be put aside, and the apparent divergences in the older Gospels
— of which more have been found than exist — may be left to be
treated in their appropriate places.^ To Jesus the authority of
first antithesis out of Matt. v. 18—20, Bihel-Lexikon, III. p. 282. Strauss tbinks
(p. 212^ vv. 18, 19, might be conveniently cut out, and that the connection would
then be good. But is the attack on the Pharisees to be joined on to the annulling or
fulfilling in vei"se 17, and not rather — instead of the utter vagueness of such a connec-
tion — to the teaching and doing of the little and the great, in which the Pharisees
were notoriously lacking (xxiii. 3, 23, v. 21 sqq.), that is, on vv. 18, 19? These
utterances are quite in harmony with the conservative Jewish standpoint of Jesus, and
are also in Luke xvi. 17 attested by the Pauline writer almost against his will. A
Jewish -Christian attack upon Paul (RiJth, Gfrorer, Hilg.) is here not to be thought of,
because the fanatical Jewish Christians accused Paul, and with justice, of overthrow-
ing not only the little, but the ivhole Law (Acts xxi. 28). The opinion that the pas-
sage assumes the imminent end of the Law through the advent of the kingdom of
heaven, is contrary to all possibility (Chrys., Paulus, Schleiermacher, Neander, Tholuck,
Planck, Ritschl, Ewald, Weizsiicker). I gladly give prominence to the acute treatise
by Karl Planck, Pn'nzip dcs Ehionit. in the Theol. Jahrh. 1843; but how could he
have thought that the most solemn declaration in favour of the Law, and its deter-
mining influence upon the future and abiding destiny of men, should be closely accom-
panied by the declaration of its end, of its temporary character !
^ Geschichtl. Chr. pp. 47 sqq. The Ebionite sentence of Jesus against sacrifice is
spurious. See above. Vol. I. p. 44.
3 Matt. xix. 16, xxii. 36, xxiii. 1.
^ Matt. xi. 13 (Schl.), xv. 1 sqq., xix. 7, xxvi. 28, 61. Modern critics believe mostly
on a more or less conscious going beyond the Law on the part of Jesus : Schleiermacher
(after John !), Hase, Neander, Schenkel, Strauss, Renan, Baur, Ewald, Holtzmann,
Weizs., Pressense. Even Bleek (L pp. 251 sqq.), lelying on John, and on the second
limitation of the perpetuity of the Law in Matt. v. 18. Reimarus was more correct;
and recently Gratz, Albaric.
Y 2
324 THE DISCIPLES.
the Law was unshakable, because it rested on two foundations :
in the first place, he did not doubt that it was the manuscript of
God; and in the next place, he found in it two ruling principles,
which, to his mind, conferred upon it eternal nobility.^ The fear
of God and the love of one's neighbour, Hillel had said, and this
was also afterwards said by Paul, the pupil of the Pharisees ; but
Jesus found the love of God and of one's neighbour to be at once
the religious and the moral pearl of the Law.^ Nay, he fell back
upon an ultimate, highest, supreme law in the Law ; to him the
Law was the good, the pure, the holy, the perfect absolutely, a
copy of the Good and the Perfect One in the heavens, and at the
same time an expression of the longing of human nature for
purity and perfection.^
But this reverence for the Law certainly did not exclude a
criticism of it. The penetration to the principle of the Law
already shows an elevation of something above the infinite mass
of commands which in the Old Testament are all invested with
the same authority. In the commands of the Old Testament,
the love of God and of one's neighbour is not represented as the
whole Law, but as one thing among many.* As soon as any one
thing is elevated above another, there is a separation and a
preference ; one command lies nearer to the principles, another
further off. From the time of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus
distinguishes between great, small and smallest, difficult and easy
commandments.^ He is also fond of placing the Law and the
Prophets side by side ; the Law represents great and little, the
Prophets, preponderantly, great, i. e. moral, commandments.^
Thus in compassion, reconciliation, purity of heart, he sees
great commands ; in the paying to the temple tithes of the pro-
^ Matt. XV. 6, xlx. 4, xxii. 37—40.
8 Matt. xxii. 37. Hillel, Pbilo, see above, Vol. I. pp. 337 sq. Also, non profanare
nomen Dei (idololatria), Schottgen, pp. 184, 189.
3 Matt. V. 48, XV. 18, xix. 17. * Dent. vi. 5 ; Levit. xix. 18.
^ Matt. V. 18, 19, xxiii. 23. Another reason for this distinction hy the Scribes,
see above. Vol. I. p. 335. More in detail on Matt. xxii. 36, xxiii. 23.
« Malt. V. 17, vii. 12, ix. 13, xi. 12 sq.
THE SERMON OX THE MOUXT. 325
cluce of the field, and even in sacrifices — whicli the Scribes, and
indeed the nation, regarded as the greatest command — he sees
little commands; and he always, even in the Sermon on the
]\Iount, emphatically inculcates merely the great commands,
teaching the little commands only incidentally and as accom-
paniments to the former.^ With these distinctions is undeni-
ably introduced the beginning of the dissolution of the compact
faith in the Law. But Jesus guards against a diminution of
faith in his part of the Law. Making a sharper distinction
between the heterogeneous parts than did the prophets, he is
at the same time more careful than any of them to connect those
parts together. He demands that both the great and the little
be observed ; he does not exclude from the kingdom of heaven
the man who neglects the little, but he makes him the least in
that kingdom, in which the fulfiller of the whole Law is great.^
He does this, not out of mere humble submissiveness, but also —
in the same way as, and yet differently from, the Pharisees on
the one hand, and Philo on the other — because he knows that
the least command " hangs " on great principles, is supported by
and filled with them.^ On account of this connection, the least
is important and deserving of respect — nay, to him, as to Philo
and the Scribes, it contains " mountains of doctrine."* This at
once throws a light on the expositions in the Sermon on tht
Mount, w^hich, through the reference to the Pharisees, are ex-
tended to the Law. " Thou shalt not kill," is, in the mind of
Jesus, certainly not a little command ; but it is, in its verbal
expression, much smaller than its real meaning, which Jesus
discovers and upholds with the conviction that he is upholding
what the Law itself has asserted. Here he expounds like Philo
and with the same faith ; only Philo expounds allegorically,
and Jesus in a soberly moral sense ; Philo unhistorically, and
1 Matt. V. 23, ix. 13, xii. 7 (Hosea vi. 6), xxiii. 23.
« Matt. V. 18, 19, xxiii. 23. =* Matt. xxii. 40.
* See above, Vol. I. pp. 283 sq., 331 sq. Comp. the par. Matt. xxii. 29 sqq.
326 TEE DISCIPLES.
Jesus always in harmony with the higher spirit of the Old
Testament.
From time to time, however, there arose a dispute as to the
relative merits of the commands, and it was not always easy to
put in practice Jesus' precept, "First the great, and then the
little command."^ The law of the Sabbath forbade work ; the
moral law allowed the doing what was necessary to the main-
tenance of life, and commanded the saving of one's neighbour.
Here Jesus could settle the difficulty by deciding that the law of
the Sabbath must be limited by the moral law.^ But the oldest
law asserted the indissolubility of the marriage bond, while the
Mosaic ordinance permitted divorce. Here Jesus decided for
the oldest law of the mouth of God and of the most rigorous
morality ; and he mitigated the contradiction between that and
the Mosaic ordinance by the assumption — the consequences of
which he overlooked — that Moses had accommodated his ordi-
nance to the rudeness of his contemporaries.^
Such conflicts with the Law are, however, exceedingly few.
The affirmative attitude is throughout the predominating one;
and if Jesus was able to identify himself with the great funda-
mental ideas of the Law, and to obtain large views even from
its petty • details, it may be asked, in conclusion, what was to
prevent him from predicating an endless perpetuity to the Law
and to every iota contained in it ? This passage, therefore, was
not interpolated by the Jewish Christians ; and it may with
almost less probability be ascribed to timidity or reticence, to
fictitious fervour or to short-sighted precipitancy, on the part of
Jesus. The utmost that can be admitted is, that Jesus did not,
could not, thus lay stress on the iota at the close of his ministry,
any more than he could on the sacrifices of Moses or the fasting
of the Pharisees.* The conservative teaching of Jesus, dictated
1 Matt, xxiii. 23. * Matt. sii. 1—12,
3 Matt. xix. 3. See above, p. 310, note 2.
* Neither Matt. v. 18, nor vi. 1 (comp., on the contrary, ix. 15), nor v. 23 (comp.,
on the contrary, ix. 13, xii. 7), is repeated.
THE SERMON OX THE MOUNT. 327
by a Hriu, sincere, and elevated conviction, is not shut out from
the recognition of posterity, since his well-considered and truth-
ful combination of criticism and piety towards the Law, which
could discover defects, and could still better remedy them, was
untenable beyond the limits of his personal life, during which he
lovingly laboured to reconcile the awakening antitheses. For
though he correctly and affectingly exhibited the connection
between the little and the great in the Law, the consciousness
of the great duties in contrast with the diminishingly small and
by himself in his life often neglected ones, was nevertheless
aroused ; the chasm between the small and the great was irre-
vocably opened, and it was closed again neither by means of
loose connections nor by ingenious interweaving of the great
into the little, where the contradiction of the matter and the
form would be soon perceived.^ Even if Paul had not appeared,
the disciples of Jesus, if they did not stand still in the midst of
universal progress — nay, if they did not fall back from the eleva-
tion of Jesus, must have observed not only that the degradation
of what was regarded as great to the position of the small
offended Judaism as much as the entire abrogation of the
Law, but also that Christianity itself, with the best inten-
tion of observing what was great and not neglecting what was
little, must have simply regarded the troublesome minutiae of
the Law, not less than the industrious elaboration of those
minutiae by the Pharisees, as a drag upon the great, and in
truth as the foe of what was good. Though the circle of the
Apostles did not see this, or at least did not see it clearly, there
remains for our recognition the indisputable facts that Jesus in
his innermost genius overstepped the limits of Judaism, that
J' No instance of neglect of the Law on the part of Jesus can, it is true, be formally
established. But his self-dispensations from the severe rule of the Sabbath, his de-
preciation of the value of sacrifice, his indifference towards the Pharisaic regulations as
to ceremonial pnrity (comp. his touching the leper and the woman with the issue of
blood), point in that direction ; and there is at least nothing actually said of a sacrifice
oflfered by Jesus, or of a sacrificial visit to a feast, or of the removal of ceremonial
impurity, or even of a dread of such impurity.
':,28 THE DISCIPLES.
Paul fully developed the spirit of the teaching of Jesus, and
that Paul and John, when they depicted Jesus as the breaker of
the Law, described less the actual character of his life than his
figure as it stands in the history of the world.^
The Scribes were still more interpreters of the religious ritual
of the Law than they were moral lawgivers. For the sake of
completeness, it will be well to imitate the compiler of the
Sermon on the Mount, and to follow up the criticism of the
theory of duty to one's neighbour, by Jesus' condemnatory
criticism of the religious services of the Pharisees. It is true
that, notwithstanding many points of connection, it is almost
more than probable that Jesus did not utter these three fresh
antitheses at the same time as the six previous ones. The
opponents bear another name ; instead of thesis and antithesis,
there is simply a vigorous antagonism, overthrowing and then
building up; instead of doctrine, practice; instead of attack
upon doctrine, the rejection of practice ; instead of incisive,
quietly acute, and comprehensive brevity, we have wealth of
detail on a limited canvas, an artificial ostentation of refrain, a
more agitated and excited mood, and an inexhaustible play of
annihilating irony.^ Yet this attack plainly enough falls in the
early period of Jesus' ministry, and also belongs to the addresses
to the disciples. It gives the disciples definite instruction con-
cerning the elements of piety, as was done in the preceding
sermon concerning the elements of morality ; and notwithstand-
ing the stronger character of the antagonism, it still refrains from
that recklessness and universality of attack upon things and
^ The first Apostles were not absolutely faithful to the Law, comp. only Peter, Gal.
ii. 12 ; and also the transgressors of the Law, even James, Josephus, Ant. 20, 9, 1 ;
but it was no necessary consequence, Gal. ii. 14. On John, see above, Vol. I. pp.
173 sqq. ; and Geschichtl. Chr. p. 14.
^ Similar and apparent connection, particularly in the doctrine of reward, Matt,
vi. 1 sqq., corap. with v. 12, but also vi. 19 sq. The toleration of alms and fasting is
connected with that of sacrifice. The righteousness, however, in vi. 1 is quite dif-
ferent from that in v. 20. I am surprised that the independence of vi. 1 sqq. was
not earlier recognized.
THE SERMON OX THE MOUNT. 329
persons which he later exhibited before the disciples and even
before the people. In this address he is less reticent than in the
previous one — in which he essentially confined his remarks to
things, and as good as entirely avoided personalities — for he
here depicts the "hypocrites" with all the warmth of strong
displeasure, and by the use of this epithet recalls to our minds
the later unsparing addresses. Hence it is to be concluded, with
strong certainty, that this address also was delivered to only the
circle of intimate disciples, and not to the popular crowds, to
whom he neither did nor could give such commands until later.
And yet it cannot be overlooked how, even before such a circum-
scribed audience, he guards himself against directly designating
the pious men Pharisees, or charging the party as a whole with
the faults which were found so fully developed in individual
members or adherents of it, in those who had long been decried
as "painted," though indeed at the same time in the most culti-
vated and most prominent champions of the party.^ Especially
convincing witli reference to the early date of this address is the
conservatism he exhibits towards pious usages which, or some of
which at least, he a little later entirely repudiated.
As has been already intimated, Jesus, when remarking upon
his opponents' rules of piety, their prescriptions for religious
services, passes over the offering of sacrifice and the worship
in the temple — from which Galilee was far away — and selects
only the most popular daily observances ; and these observances
he criticizes only in their practice, without inquiring into or call-
ing in question their conformity to Scripture or their value. A
close examination shows that the somewhat striking unanimity
with his predecessors upon a number of external pious practices
— whose scriptural basis is in truth as slight, as doubtful, as their
higher value before God and before the judgment of enlightened
morality — is, however, not great. In the first place, he protests
against the way in which these principles are acted upon by the
"hypocrites;" then he finds no place at all for at least one im-
1 Hypocrites, sec above, Vol. I. p. 344.
330 THE DISCIPLES.
portant daily usage of tlie Pharisees, purification ; and finally he
gives a qualified assent to three usages — in other addresses,
however, to only two, and in reality he recognizes the necessary
character of only one.^ We perceive here, more vividly than
elsewhere, how this new view of the world was slowly — and if
slowly, not so on account of personal timidity or of deference
to Jewish disciples — but surely evolved from the bosom of the
old in a truly historical manner. The traditional pious practices
were to continue, but they were to be observed in a fresh spirit.
But when a fresh spirit takes possession of old forms, it shatters
tlie confined and unsuitable tenement, and builds for itself a
new house.^
That which Jesus emphatically and in repeatedly varied ex-
pressions finds fault with in the three customary pious practices
of the Pharisees, and particularly of the hypocrites among the
pious of that time, is the acting to be seen of men, the ostenta-
tion, the aiming at producing a sensation among the people, who
were expected to look upon, admire, and, if possible, to revere
their saints. In his remarks on this characteristic, fidelity and
humour go hand in hand. These leaders of the people never
received such a well-aimed, caustic, satirical rebuke. A second
characteristic of this piety is less emphatically, but more signifi-
cantly, dwelt upon. The piety which makes itself conspicuous to
men has, however, its ultimate object in God, as the one towards
whom it is intrinsically directed ; certainly here there is implied
the opinion, which like a curse accompanies all the Pharisaic
works of the Law and all the offshoots of tlie Law — the opinion
that the God-pleasing features in piety are ceremonial perfection,
attention to petty details, and expenditure of time. On such a
supposition, an ostentatious service of God harmonizes excel-
lently well with a boastful service of men. This tendency of
^ Slighter scriptural basis for fasting, but also for the meclianical observances of
prayer and alms.
^ Volkmar (p. 188) sees in these rules merely the Je-wish-Christian practices after
the destruction of Jerusalem !
THE SEBMON OX THE MOUNT. 331
tbe piety of his opponents Jesus brings into notice, at least iu
the case of prayer. By referring to the mechanical employment
of many words by the Gentiles in their prayers, he is evidently
opposing a tendency which exists not only among the Gentiles,
but also in Israel, and which can be shown to flourish, nay,
which he says does flourish, among the Scribes. In contrast
with all this, his fundamental requirement in religious practices
is the same as that of the best of the Scribes, namely, retirement
from men and stillness before God; that is, the complete and
pure giving up of the soul to Him to whom the worship
is addressed. Accordingly he insists upon single-mindedness
and brevity; for it is not a question of length of time and multi-
tude of words, but simply of the utterance of the heart, of the
disposition, which longs for communion with God, who needs
long and eloquent addresses as little as He needs to be informed
of human aflairs.^ Only for such pure and sincere conduct is
there reward in heaven, whilst ostentation receives at once its
reward from men. By reward, Jesus here understands, using the
Jewish mode of expression but attaching to it his own meaning,
that recompense from God which confers the appropriate and
promised blessing upon the righteous human action, although
that action, honouring the perfect Father, is not performed for
the sake of payment, and God does not strike a bargain with the
worshipper.^
The first of the three attacks of Jesus upon the pious usages
of the time is directed against almsgiving, which was character-
istically the favourite "work of righteousness" of that as degene-
^ The Rabbis again and again insist upon stillness and retirement, cliosbecb, seter
(gadol ha-oseh zedakah beseter), in contradistinction to Trappj/uirt ; study of the Law
in angulo vel conclavi, precari voce submissa, verbis paucis. Lightfoot, pp. 296 sqq.
Praestat non dedisse, quarn sic (palam) dedisse. R. Jannai Bab. Chmj. f. 5, 1, ib.
p. 297. Schottgen, pp. 56 sqq.
' Merces impiis datur in hoc mundo. Merces legis alia nulla est, prreterquam
uiundus futurus. Mercedem meam accepi in hoc mundo. Nulla mihi merces ultra in
seternum exspectanda. Schottgen, pp. 53 sqq.
332 THE DISCIFLES.
rate as pretentious age.^ He cannot here intend to denounce
what the humane spirit of the Old Testament had long before
taught, nor to charge the Scribes with not having in this respect
touched the Law with their fingers. The Scribes have, in beau-
tiful sayings, commended the wretchedness of the poor, especially
of the poor of Israel, to the people, and have offered their own
contributions to relieve it.^ But he censures the abuse of alms-
giving. He does not here expressly mention self-righteousness,
the conceit of merit on account of human and indeed merely
external acts ; to point to the canker of this practice, to human
ambition, suf&ces to exhibit its worthlessness in all respects.
The hypocrites who perform their kind works to the sound of
the trumpet in the synagogues, in the streets, in order to be
seen and to be glorified of men — they already have their reward.^
"But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy
right hand doeth, that thine almsdeed may be in secret; and thy
Father who seeth in secret. He shall requite thee." One hand is
to conceal it from the other, the hand stretched out to give, from
tliat which is looking on. In this fine and pregnant sentence he
says much more than in his previous utterance : the good deed
must be hidden not only from men, but from the doer himself.
The deed as a deed must be purely performed without the prying
^ Dan. iv. 24 [A.V. verse 27] (zidkah = compassion towards the poor). Tobit ii. 14
(comp. xiv. 11 ; 2 Cor. ix. 9 ; Acts x. 4) : ttov dmv ai iKuqnoaiwai aov Kai ai
BiKaioavvai aov. This zidkah also in Talmud, Bux. 1891 ; Lightfoot, 296.
* See above, Vol. I. p. 337. Lightfoot, p. 296.
^ Collections in alms-boxes were made in the synagogues, as at Jerusalem (also in
the form of the shopharot, Lightfoot, I.e. Schottgen, pp. 51 sq.). The streets, not the
approaches to the synagogues (against Schottgen). Sounding the trumpet, buccinari
(buccinator, Cicero, Div. 16, 21 ; ovx viro caXiviyyi i-iovov, dXX' IttI ict'jpVKi fiotxiverai,
Achilles Tatius [5th cen. B.C.], 8, 10), a somewhat similar figure. A trumpeter going
before the almsgiver (somewhat as beggars blow a trumpet in the East in the present
day), is as little to be thought of as a derivation of the figure from the shopharot of the
temple and the synagogue. Calvin and others have thought of the former, Schottgen
(p. 52) of the latter. Matt. vi. 2, 5, 16, xxiii. 5. Comp. Bava hathr. f. 10, 2 :
omnis eleera. et miseric, quam ethnici faciunt, peccatum est illis, quandoquidem illi
non faciunt, nisi ut per ea gloriam consequi velint. Schottgen, p. 51. See also
preceding page, n. 2.
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 333
observation of the doer liimself, so that no remembrance of the
deed may remain except with God, no gratification may be ex-
perienced except on the part of God, and that no self-satisfac-
tion, self-laudation, self-righteousness, may follow the action.^
He speaks in exactly the same manner of the second practice,
prayer. They are not to pray as the hypocrites, who love to
pray standing in the synagogues and at the corners of the
streets, in order to be seen of men. Such persons already have
their reward. But they are to go into the chamber, and with the
door fastened pray to the Father who is and who sees in secret.^
Finally, he comes to fasting. "When ye fast, do not look morose,
as the hj^ocrites look ; for they mask their faces that their fast-
ing may be unmasked before men. Verily, I say unto you, they
have their reward at once."^ Such abstinences, painful to the
natural man, prescribed in the Old Testament as obligatory only
on the great day of atonement, but after the exile very commonly
practised from a real or pretended spirit of servile humility, were,
as may be easily conceived, the show-performances of the Pha-
risees. This renunciation of the flesh, of the needs of the body,
this pure, heroic self-surrender to God, this humiliation for
one's own sins and the sins of others, for the sins of the whole
nation, was the most brilliant evidence of sanctity. The blacker
and sootier with dust and ashes, the holier; indeed, also, the
blacker the more vain. Jesus, like Isaiah in earlier times, saw
this promenading vanity too often. And now he does not wish
to disturb an old and pious usage, though he does not command
it. But he wishes to reform it. " But thou, when thou fastest,
anoint thine head and Avash thy face, that thou do not appear to
^ Bava bathr. f. 10, 1 : quaenam est ilia eleem., qu?e liberat a morte secunda? Ilia,
quum quis dat et nescit cui det. Schottgen, p. 55.
" Always the standing attitude at prayer, Lightfoot, p. 29S : stare nihil aliiul (imuu
orare. Luke xviii. 11.
'^ Comp. Levit. xvi. 29 ; 2 Sam. xv. 30; Esther vi. 12 ; 1 Mace. iii. 47. Taan. 2 :
in publ. jejuniis aceipit unusquisque ciiieres et imponit ca]nti suo. Juch. f. 59 : nigra
fuit facies ejus prte jejuniLs. Lightfoot, p. 303. Isaiah Iviii. 5, bowing down the head
as a bulru.sh.
334 THE DISCIPLES.
men as one wlio fasts, but to tliy Father in secret." ^ He requires
the appearance and demeanour appropriate to a festival. Here,
in a noteworthy manner, he says two things. Only the fasting
which does not exhibit itself, which so little a]3pears to men as to
mislead them, as to seem the very opposite of itself, a pleasant,
joyous life bordering on worldly frivolity — only such a fasting is
a service rendered to God. This service to God, moreover, can
consistently clothe itself only in forms of gladness, for it is in-
trinsically no service of sorrow, but a service of joy. How com-
pletely does Jesus here break through the old conception, which
insisted upon servility, fear, expiation, suffering ! The heaven of
Jesus is not gloomy : it is bright and clear ; it is the heaven of
the Father who is in the heavens. Hence fasting is no depreca-
tion ; it is an exaltation to the divine superiority to want, to
contempt of what is earthly, since man has the One, the Father."
Thus were the Pharisaic pious ordinances not merely innerly
purified and placed on the basis of a pious disposition, but the
practices themselves became fresh both in aim and in execution.
At least, the fasting of Jesus was in form and matter altogether
different from that taught by the Scribes. Since this was the
case, it was impossible for Jesus to concern himself with the
perpetuation of that pious exercise as such. It was not divinely
commanded; as usually practised, it was indefensible; even in a
reformed shape, it was superfluous, in as far as it was merely an
isolated, and therefore limited, arbitrary sign of what the whole
life was and should be. It is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus
never practised the fasting which he tolerated in his disciples ;
and that later, in contrast with the disciples of the Pharisees and
of John, he unreservedly repudiated it as an obsolete clothing of
an obsolete spirit, which henceforth had no religious application
^ Example of a Rabbi who weeps at home, but on going out washes, anoints him-
self, eats, drinks. Schottgen, p. 66.
2 The principle of joy which altogether forbids fasting, Matt. ix. 15. Here fasting
is a sorrowing {TrtvOtli'}, comp. Hebr. innah naphsho (see, to humble the soul,
Tcnrtivovv ^vj(^r]v).
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF JESUS. 335
at all, but simply a human and voluntary one in circumstances
of sorrow.^ But what applied to one pious practice applied more
or less to the others. Almsgiving was a usage in the circle of
Jesus, hut so little stress was laid upon it, that Jesus, when
anointed, rejected in ever-memorable words the rigid Pharisaical
principle.^ Prayer was upheld in the most explicit way ; but
the mechanical estimate of it by length and quantity, by fixed
times and hours, by formulae and trivialities of posture, eked out
with the assistance of phylacteries — all this clumsy machinery
of the Pharisees was utterly condemned. Thus Jesus' antagonistic
criticism of the pious practices of the age really penetrated deeper
than it appeared to be ; it rejected not merely the defective
sentiment — it rejected in fact the practice and the spirit of the
practice. Sweeping away the spirit of works, the spirit of pride,
the spirit of servility, the spirit of mourning, it left no com-
mandment standing, but only liberty and toleration. It trans-
formed or abolished the practice by prominently opposing to the
official mechanical routine more urgent performances for God
and man, the complete ethics of the duties of the heart and life ;
while against the non-observance of the practice it aimed no
threat of exclusion from the kingdom of heaven.
C. — The Peivate Life of Jesus.
Perhaps, apart from the addresses to the people and to his
followers, the most important school for Jesus' disciples was
their participation in his private life — in his every-day life we
would say. Yet it was not exactly in the simj)licity of liis
private life, where his demeanour was familiarly attractive and
inviting, that his imposing greatness would shine forth most
overwhelmingly. But he himself, his own personality, was
always much greater than anytliiiig he said or did, and his
every act rose out of his personality as nothing more than au
1 Matt. ix. 15. = M:ttt. xxvi. 8-11.
336 THE DISCIPLES.
imperfect expression of his inner world. Herein we find tlie
force of his words, " Blessed are your eyes, for they see ; and
your ears, for they hear." ^ A glance at the silent, resting, pray-
ing Jesus was a rich acquisition ; an occasional unconstrained
utterance was a treasure, a pearl, and yielded new light and new
love. In a word, the whole tone and spirit of Jesus' manner
of life formed a great course of instruction which taught without
doctrine, which in particular put a speedy end to the phantom
of Pharisaical saintliness, to the legal dead mechanism, popular
and influential as that legal mechanism might be. At the same
time, by the force of example, by making the people familiar
with the new idea, it brought to pass the beginning of a new
sound, natural religious life.^
As the Sermon on the Mount had already foreshadowed, in
the presence of Jesus there were no gloomy fastings, as among
the Pharisees, Essenes, and the followers of John, no scrupulous
washing and purifying of the hands, vessels, and implements, in
order to avoid religious defilement; there were, moreover, no
severe, repeated, systematic prayer-performances, which were
missed not only by the Pharisees and by those who were
still disciples of John, but even by several who had come
over froin among such, and now stood among the disciples of
Jesus.^
Certainly, Jesus placed before his disciples a model prayer, so
terse and brief, and at the same time so rich, so glorious in praise
and petition, in deprecation and vow, that Christendom, despair-
ing of finding a better than the best, as Jesus at the moment
found it, daily prays in his formula, not only out of piety, not
only — as, indeed, many persons do — out of superstition, but out
of necessity, and as the outpouring of the deepest thoughts and
feelings. And because of its character, we must, at this part of
our history, apply ourselves to a closer examination of the Lord's
1 Matt. xiii. 16. ^ jj^tt. ix. 14, xii. 1, xv. 1.
■* Previous note. Comp. Luke v. 33, xi. 1 ; ]M;.rk vii. 3.
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF JESUS. 337
Prayer.^ j\roderii science l>egau by attacking this prayer, some
critics deriving it altogether from Jewish or Persian formulaj,
some denying any connection between its several parts ; while
Bruno Bauer, with his logical theory of Mark, regarded it as an
evidence of the superiority of the least of the Evangelists that he
knows nothing of "the whole affair." ^ These, however, were
mistakes ; and if it must be admitted, with Wetstein, that not
only the address to God, together with the first two petitions,
but pretty well all in detail, re-appears here and there in Jewish
Talmudic prayers which, though later, are however not altogether
dependent upon Jesus ; yet the union of truly biblical simplicity
with non-originality of details is a merit, and the perfection of
the composition as a whole, with its blending of solidity and
breadth, childlikeness and wisdom, vigour and humility, has not
been reached by the Jews.^ The matter, certainly, is in part
questionable, and in part demonstrably spurious. The conclud-
ing doxology was added by the Church. Further, Luke has a
shorter form, in which one petition is altogether, and another as
well as the opening address itself are half, wanting. The con-
struction of the first petition varies ; and it is possible that the
divergent reading of Marcion originally stood also in Luke.*
1 Jlatt. vi. 7—15; Luks xi. 1—4. The literature, in Tholuek, Bergrede; Bleek,
I. p. 298. The latest, A. H. H. Kamphausen, Bas Gehet des Herrn erklart, 1866;
J. Hanue, D. Gehet d. H., iu Jaluh. deaUch. Theol. 1866, pp. 507 sqq.
^ The former, Wetstein, p. 323 (tota h. oratio ex formulis Hebrseorum apte concin-
nata), in a somewhat diiferent manner (see below) Augusti and Aloller ; the latter,
Herder, Riehter, Rhode, Seyffarth (see Tholuek). Against the latter, Gebser (1824).
No connection: J. C. F. Schulz, and especially Seb. MiJller, Neue Ans. schwier.
Sullen, 1819 ; the latter advances the hypothesis that the Lord's Prayer gives, in its
separate petitions, only the beginnings of Jewish prayers to which Jesus provisionally
referred the disciples, an opinion most probably based on the prayer Kaddish, and
which Augusti (Denkw. IV. p. 132) adopted. Bruno Bauer, K7: d. ev. 0. I. p. 300.
* De Wette, Tholuek, and even Blcek, wish to limit the resemblance to Jewish
prayers to the opening address and the first two petitions; but this (see below) 13
arbitrary, and Bleek himself shows a more correct principle (I. p. 300). Even Wet-
stein : tam apte, ut omnia contineat, &c.
* See, here, Tischendorf's 8th critical edition. Formerly the difference between
Luke and Matthew was small, even in Lachmann's edition, since Luke was harmonized
with Matthew ; after Griesbach, Tischcndorf has established the differences. These
VOL. IU. Z
338 THE DISCIPLES.
But in each case, Matthew is decidedly superior to Luke ; and
up to the present time few have been induced by the brevity of
Luke's version to prefer that.^
are specially: (1) In Luke the address is only, Father! (2) Third petition wanting
(Matt. vi. 10 fin.). (3) Second half of the sixth petition wanting (Matt. vi. 13).
Marcion plainly reads (Tertullian, C. Marc. 4, 26) : fXOtrw rb iiyiov ttvevjio. aov i^'
ilfiaq Kal KaOapKrartti r'uxag (thus also Greg. Nyss. Orat. Dom. 3, Max. Conf. I.
p. 350). Tert. I. c: a CQio spiritum s. postulem ? (according to Marcion's text). The
presence of this reading in Marcion is inexplicable without a basis, and still more so
its presence in Greg. ; I hold it to have been really original in Luke (comp. Hilg.,
Volkm.), and still j^'^'eserved in the leading point of the teaching about iirayer, xi. 13.
^ Whilst many (not including Tholuck) have recognized the position given to the
Lord's Prayer by Luke as the more correct one (see Kamph. p. 8), few have been in-
clined to find Luke's text the more original. Two different occasions and speeches
(thus, following the ancients, Meyer still ; on the other hand, Calvin had boldly already
decided more correctly and indeed for Luke, Kamph. p. 5) are, of course, no longer to
be thought of. For Luke : Schleiermacher, Baumg. Crus., Br. Bauei-, Holtzm., Schen-
kel, Weizs., Kamph. ; for Matthew : Neander, De Wette, Bleek, Ewald, &c. (conip.
Kamph. p. 8). Kamph. finds in Matt, only paraphrases, a close aiiproximation to
battology ; Bleek is inclined to think that Luke gives the notes of a listener, Matthew
the completion by the other disciples. The following points are decisive : (1) Luke's
Ebionite source is later than Matthew, comp. only Luke xi. 5 — 13. (2) The Lord's
Prayer is plainly inserted merely as introduction to the address on prayer — in such a
case the curtailment is very intelligible. (3) Luke's source evidently has additions, at
least in minutis (ver. 3 daily, ver. 4 every one). (4) The full form of address,
"Father in the heavens!" is in harmony with Jesus' mode of expression, with the
becoming demeanour and devotion of one who is praying from below and for what is
below (see verses 2 and 3), and the choicest expression of the common character of the
prayer (ow Father) must be present at the very beginning to indicate the tone of the
whole. (5) The leap from the highest, the kingdom, to bread (vv. 2, 3), is abrupt
and painful ; moreover, it is characteristic of Jesus' practical manner to lay stress on
human performances, on the fulfilment of the Divine will ; but in the first petition this
is done only in the abstract, in the second (as if God alone were to act) not at all (on
the contrary. Matt. vi. 10, comp. vii. 21, xii. 50, xxi. 31, xxvi. 42). The coming of
the kingdom is very beautifully supplemented by the fulfilment of the Divine will, by
which the earth is raised to a level with heaven. (6) The joyous temperament of
Jesus would not conclude the prayer with a mere negative ; the complement, "And
deliver us from the evil one," the idea of deliverance, of successful resistance, must
close the prayer (Matt. vi. 13), and only the gloomy Ebionite could halt at a negative,
although he has what is similar in xviii. 3. (7) All systematic arrangement is de-
stroyed in Luke. We do not know whether the third petition (bread) is to be reckoned
with the previous two as a petition for gifts, or with the fourth and fifth as a petition
for help in need ; or whether it represents (only a single petition, whilst in the other
cases there are two) a third category of its own. These objections are noticeable also
from the division by Schenkel. In Matthew, the elucidation (vi. 14 sq.) is all that
can be left open to question (comp. xviii. 35). But Jesus may have repeatedly given
utterance to this principle; and he may have added it as an illustration on this
occasion.
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF JESUS. 339
The order of the prayer is this: After invoking God umlur the
new, or at any rate newly-understood, name of the Father in the
lieavens — nay, under a new name, that of the common Father of
a human brotherhood who cry, "Our Father!" follow the six —
not four, nor five, nor seven, nor ten — petitions.^ The first three
make their starting-point the Eternal One, into whose heaven
the suppliants enter ; and relate to His rights, interests, and
institutions, which heaven and earth must recognize and serve.
The person of God is to be hallowed, i.e. recognized and honoured
in its absolute uniqueness. The kingdom of God, still a longed-
for future, is to come upon earth. The fulfilment of the will of
God, the fundamental condition of the advent of the kingdom
for all and for each, is to come to pass on earth as in the
heavens.^ In the third petition, the wishes expressed descend
^ God, as Fatlier, in the Old Test, and by the Rabbis, see above, pp. 72 sqq. Com p.
Lightfoot, p. 301 ; Schottgen, p. 60. Tholuck. Kamph. pp. 22 sqq. In Old Test,
comp. particularly Is. Ixiii. 16 (Fs. ciii. 13), and Ecclus. xxiii. 1 : Kvpin, Trdrtp Kni
Sea-jTora K^iig f-tov. By the Rabbis, abinu basbaniaim (often). Our Father, comp. the
Rabbis and Bub. Berac. f. 30, 1 : orantem oportere semper, cum orat, se cum ecclesia
consociare. Number of the petitions : four according to Luke (Schenkel, p. 180, temp-
tation the conclusion of the fourth) ; five according to Luke (the pations of Luke, par-
ticularly Kamph. p. 17) ; seven according to Matthew (deliverance from the evil one,
which, however, is only the positive to the negative, being separately reckoned), Aug.,
Luther, Tholuck, Bleek, Kostl., Hilg. ; ten petitions, Stier, Beden Jesu, 1843, I. pp.
198 sq., reckoning with the rest, (1) invocation, (2) the condition in Matt. vi. 12,
(3) the spurious conclusion. Six petitions, Orig., Chrys., Calv., Reform. It is interest-
ing that Tholuck, although reckoning seven petitions, nevertheless finds a Trinitarian
arrangement, as does also Stier (Tholuck ; Kamph. p. 20).
* Tertullian distinguished (1) coelestia, (2) terrena; thus, correctly, also Wetstein
(who, indeed, reckons six coel.), Tholuck, Schenkel, Kamphausen. But De Wette's
point of view (contrary to Kamph.) is quite admissible, namely, that the first tliree
petitions exhibit merely aspiration, the second three checks. This view, indeed, is not
to be got rid of. Weizsilcker and Hanne incorrectly divide the sentences into vows
and petitions. Jewish prayers analogous to the first three petitions : In the synagogue
prayer Kaddi.sh (Vitr. D. Syn. vet. III. 962). Schottgen, p. 61 ; jitgaddel vejitkad-
desh sherao vejamlich malkuto, i.e. magnificetur et sanctificetur nomen ejus magnum
in mundo, quera sec. beneplacitum suum creavit, et regnare faciat regnum suum.
Bab. Berac. 40, 2 : ista oratio, in qua non est memoria regni Dei, non est oratio.
Sanh. 28, 2, similar. Soh. Exod. f. 28 : Deus vult, ut glorificetur nomen suum ia
terra, quemadm. gloriosum est in coelo (per angelos). As prayer, Bab. Berac. i. 2J),
2 : volunt. tuam fac in coelis et dato quietem spiritus timentibus te infra, Lightfoot,.
'z 2
340 THE DISCIPLES.
more comiDletely from heaven to earth. But for the earth there
are not only joyous wishes : here there is more to negative than
to affirm, more to take away than to build. Thus the last three
petitions bring in the needs, the limitations, the checks, of poor
human life. First there is bread, the elementary earthly sub-
sistence ; it is modestly asked that God will supply the bread
necessary for to-day, and thus free man from care. Then there
is the spiritual bread, the forgiveness of sins, the clear sky be-
tween Creator and creature, without which it is impossible to
live ; this is asked for with the assurance, conditioning the
granting of the petition, that the petitioner will also forgive
his debtors. Lastly, there is the dread of the future threatening
afresh the sky that has become clear, the tempting power of sin,
with the final petition for preservation from temptation, for
deliverance from the evil power of temptation, from the devil.^
p. 302. Schottgen, p. 62. To sanctify (Levit. x. 3 ; Ez. xxviii. 22, xxxviii. 23),
finely explained as yvwvcu and (pofStlaOat, Is. xxix. 23 sq. The kingdom of God is
more definitely explained by redemption and the coming of the Messiah, see the prayer
Kadd. in Schottgen, p. 61 : efflorescat redemtio ejus (Dei) et praesto adsit Messias et
populum suum liberet. Will in the heavens, comp. Matt, xviii. 10, xxii. 30. On
earth, vii. 21.
^ Jewish analogies to the fourth petition : £ab. Berac. f. 29, 2 : necessitates populi
tui Israelis sunt multae ; sit beneplac. tuum, ut des unicuique, quod sufiicit in alimen-
tum. Comp. above, p. 33, note 2. Fifth petition : (Ps. Ixxix. 9) Targ. Ps. xxv. 11 :
propt. nomen tuum, domine, relinques peccatum meum. Relinque omnia pecc. mea.
Jovia, f. 85, 2 : dies expiat. non expiat. (pecc), donee cum prox. in gratiara redieris.
Sixth petition : (Ps. Ixxi. 4) Berac. f. 16, 2 : Eabbi Judah precari sic fuit solitus :
sit beneplac. tuum, ut liberes nos ab impudentibus et impudentia, ab hom. malo, a
socio m., a vicino m., a Satana destructore, a judicio duro et ab adversario duro.
Comp. Jalk. Rub. f. 139, 2 : venit tempus ad inducendum ilium in manus tenta-
tionis. We cannot go into the endless controversy (the camificina Scult. ) of theolo-
gians and philologists over tiriovaioc, which does not elsewhere occur (as Origen early
noticed) in the whole Greek literature; comp. Tholuck, De Wette, Meyer, Bleek,
Kamphausen. The clearest explanation is offered by the Gospels of the Hebrews,
lechem machar, bread for the next day (Athanas. : ali^voQ /xiWovrog), Salm., Grot.,
Seal., Wetst., Bengel, Fr., Win., Mey., Hilg., Buns., Grimm, Holtzm., Scbenkel
(Karaph. p. 90). This explanation appears to make the word easily derivable from
l-n-inixrn ((Tritvai, to come next), and it also appears to give a good sense. But it
contradicts Matt. vi. 34, as has been noticed by De Wette, Weizs., Delitzsch, Tholuck,
and Kamphausen ; it cannot seriously be based on Ex. xvi. 4 sqq. (thus, however,
•Hilg. 1867, p. 379), and this is also Tholuck's opinion; and, in relation to Matt.
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF JESUS. 341
The justification of the petitions, as well as the certainty of their
being answered, are worthily and vigorously expressed in the
spurious doxology at the end, which ascribes to God the preroga-
tive and the power to comply with the petitions. Jesus himself
would find such a demonstrative concluding doxology, after the
simple petitions previously given, so much the less necessary
because he left the judgment of the petitions to God, who, he
knew, was acquainted with the needs of the petitioner.^ But
the chief point is that Jesus gave even this prayer, as a pattern
vi. 34, the petition is not a becoming one, but the contrary. See, in addition, the
passages from the Rabbis, above, p. 33, note 2. Therefore the only derivation that
can be admitted is that from the other fTTfi/a (to be upon), as an adjective derived
either directly from the iiarticiple (comp. iOt\ovaioQ), or from the noun ovain (comp.
i-Kovaih)Ct]Q). In meaning, the two approximate, since the former would have to be
rendered, the bread thereto appointed {tTTHfii, of reward and punishment), thereto
belonging (comp. Prov. xxx. 8 ; Ez. xvi. 27 : t. vofii/ia aov), the latter, the bread
needful to life, to existence. The objection to the last two explanations — that it
should then have been twovcnog (comp. 'nrovffia, iTrovcnwci^Q) — can be decisively met
by referring to the occurrence elsewhere of the hiatus in Greek (comp. only v. 33), and
particularly to the possibility of the antithesis of a similar sound to Trspiovatoc (comp.
Kamph., following Leo Meyer, against the exegetist Meyer and others, pp. 86 sqq.).
But it is easy to decide between the derivation from the participle and that from the
noun. The former (by Leo Meyer and Kamph.) can be admitted only when the
secondary reading of Luke is followed (the food belonging to the day). Jloreover, it
is not correct to say that ovcrla signifies only substance or essence ; it signifies also life,
existence (Soph. Track. 911 : dwaig ovaia, Tholuck, also Grimm, p. 164, comp.
eTTovaia, irepiovuia), therefore ETriovcrtoc is that which is necessary to existence. This
meaning was early found in the word by the Etym. Mag. ; Suidas : ini ry ovai<} y'l/ioiv
apj-io^wv; in such a sense the Pesh. translated : panis necessitatis nostra; Tert., It.,
Vulg. (Luther), quotidianus. Comp. the expositions of Orig., Greg. Nyss., Basil,
Chrys., Luther, Beza, Kuin., Tholuck, Ewald, Bleek, Weizs. In antiquity, the
favourite expositions : substantialis and supersubst. (-spiritual), from Iren. till Jerome,
the ^Middle Ages, Delitzsch, and Hengst. ; also venturi seculi, Athanas. and others. As
to the fifth petition, there is a similar sentiment in Ecclus. xxviii. 1 sq., comp. Matt,
xviii. 35. The words "as we also,'' &c., express no legal claim, but simply compliance
with the condition, the con. sine qua non. The sixth petition : temptation direct from
God, Deut. viii. 2, or permitted (Satan), Job i. 12; Matt. iv. 1; Luke xxii. 31;
1 Cor. X. 13; comp. Matt. xxvi. 41. "Evil" is masc, as mostly in JIatt. in the
speeches of Jesus, v. 37, xiii. 19 ; on the contrary, Rom. xii. 9.
^ The doxology is decisively wanting in Luke, in Matthew, in the old Fathers, and
in the codices. It is present in the Apost. Const., 3, 18, and briefer {^aa. ile r. ai.)
7, 24 ; as well as in Aug. Similar are not only Jewish formulae (Lightfoot, p. 302 ;
Schbttgen, p. 64), but also 1 Chron. xxix. 11 sqq. ; Tobit xiii. 23 (Vulgate) ; Rev.
V. 12, vii. 12.
342 THE DISCIPLES.
and example, only at the request of the disciples, and not with-
out protestation against every form of Gentile-like babble, since,
according to the. tradition of Luke — which for once is unobjec-
tionable — the disciples were loath to give up the Baptist's fixed
and circumstantial forms of prayer. And even after he had
given it, he so little permitted its use as the rule and ordinance
of the private circle, that no trace of it appears in the history
of his life, in the records of the Church at Jerusalem, in the
recollections of the Apostle Paul ; until at length, in the second
century, the regular, the mechanical catholic use of this prayer
was established by the Church, which was not, however, there-
fore the inventor of it, but based the use of it on the written
report of the Gospels.^
What was peculiar, distinctive, specific, in the circle of Jesus,
was the direct opposite of all those external observances and
painstaking performances which were more or less indifferent to
his internal religion. And it was exactly in this contrast that
Jesus' opponents found the peculiar mark, the sign of deficiency,
of this new and singular association of men, an association in
which even the initial sign of baptism was entirely lacking;
just as afterwards, heathenism condemned the Christian religion
^ Matthew has the prayer in a more correct place as to time (against Schenkel,
p. 180) ; Luke gives it much too late, in contradiction to the occasion which he describes.
But the prayer did not stand in the midst of the attacks on the Pharisees (where it
would disturb the context, see above, pp. 287, 333) ; it would, moreover, be inappro-
priate for Jesus to force a prayer into the midst of other teaching. What is con-ect in
Luke is the relative isolation, and the concretely drawn occasion (xi. 1), which also
Schl., p. 256, and Weizs., p. 406, have recognized, but Br. Bauer has denied.
Whether on this occasion (not exactly against the Baptist) Jesus spoke Matt,
vi. 7 sq., is uncertain. On the use of many words in prayer by the Gentiles and the
Jews, comp. briefly Lightfoot, p. 300, and Schottgen, p. 58; Wetstein, pp. 322 sq.
Desine decs gratulando obtundere, Terence, Heaut. 5, 1, 6. Multiplicans orationera
au litur, Hier. Taan. f. 67, 3. On the other hand, Berach. 61, 1 : verba pauca sint
ante faciem dei. Also Is. i. 15; Eccles. v. 1 sq. ; Ecclus. vii. 14. No trace of the
Lo)7c X'^P'^S, 47 ; also 50.
3 See the religious agitation in Ephesus in the time of Taul, Acts xix. 17 sqq.
2 a2
356 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
The " infants " or " simple " wliom Jesus placed in antithesis
to the men who were " wise and of understanding," and could
call his own, were chiefly that real strength of the nation con-
sisting of peasants, fishers, and handicraftsmen, whose patriotic
and religious energy was famous throughout the country. This
body of followers was strengthened by that circle of women — so
profoundly influenced by the tender Master of religion — who
were the readiest to effect the apparently impossible rupture
with the ancient teachers. His followers were still further in-
creased by tlie lowest classes of society, who came to him for
refuge — the morally neglected and socially outcast, the publicans
and sinners, the poor and the mendicants.^ It will further on be
much more plainly shown that the adherents of Jesus are, how-
ever, by no means to be regarded as a mere party of the poor.
This readily suggested reproach was never made ; the members
of the circle of disciples themselves, and the illustrious and
well-to-do persons who came for help and counsel, afford a proof
to the contrary. Jesus himself distinguished between his own
and the poor; and in the answer to John, "To the poor -the
gospel is preached," it is at least probable that the reference is
not merely to the materially poor, but also — after the Old Testa-
ment — ^.to all the unfortunate, afflicted citizens of the theocracy.^
But a portion of his adherents was drawn from the proletariat,
as certainly as the sinners and publicans belonged to that class,
and as certainly as he came to seek the lost and declared the
entrance of the rich into the kingdom of God to be difficult.^
So far, a social movement easily and almost involuntarily con-
nected itself with the religious one. While Christianity has
thrust into the foreground the religious and not the social ten-
dency, it has, nevertheless, by the preaching of the imminent
^ Matt. xi. 25 (wise, infants) ; Luke viii. 2, coinp. xxiii. 27 ; Matt. xix. 13,
xxvii. 55 (women), ix. 10 (publicans), xi. 5, xxii. 9, xxvi. 11 ; Luke vi. 20, xiv. 13,
xviii. 35. Josephus, Vita, 12 : vavrai te Kni avopoi.
' Matt. xxvi. 11, xi. 5. The ruler, Matt. ix. 18; rich youug man, xix. 16.
3 Matt. ix. 10, xviii. 11, xix. 23; Luke xv. 1 sqq.
BELIEF OF THE PEOPLE. 357
kingdom of heaven, by the humanity of its principles, and by
its sympatlietic assistance in word and deed, called forth the
greatest social revolution, the gainers by which — the poor, the
sinners, the publicans, in a certain sense also the women — with
a fully justified presentiment early gathered round the standard
which was to lead them to victory. The judgment formed by
this manifold circle of adherents concerning the man in whom
they placed their trust, is indeed somewhat indefinite. Very
generally, as the result of his preaching, and still more of his
works of healing, we are told of nothing besides a universal
astonishment and an offering of praise to God, the God of Israel,
who had given such unheard-of power to men.^ As a rule, he
was addressed as Teacher, Lord, Hehraice Eabbi, j\Iari, Marin,
]\ry Lord, Our Lord, just as were the Scribes ; yet the popu-
lar reflection must have been early led to apply to him the
name by which he was afterwards expressly designated — that of
"the Prophet." 2 Thus the Baptist was also called, whose suc-
cessor he was ; and it is possible that many seriously regarded
him as John, in whose silence and imprisonment the popular
mind could not believe.^
"Whilst the people thus flocked to him or again held them-
selves aloof, some yielding to his influence, others kept back by
indolence, indifference, mistrust, or timidity, waiting for the
decision of the masses or of the holy body of teachers, among
those who held themselves aloof being, to our surprise, and yet
very intelligibly, the family of Jesus, too intimate with his ante-
1 Matt. ix. 8, 33.
s Lord, Matt. vii. 22, viii. 2, 6, 21, xv. 22, xx. 30. Teadier, viii. 19, ix. 11,
xii. 38, xix. 16, xxii. 16, 24, 36. Interchangeably, Matt. xvii. 1.') (Lord), and Luke
ix. 38 (Teacher). The Hebrew name Rabbi is expressly given to Jesus in the earlier
Gospels only by the disciples (comp. Matt. xx\'i. 25, 49 ; Mark ix. 6, xi. 21 ; yet see
l^Iark X. 51, Rabbouni) ; in John's Gospel also by others, iii. 2, vi. 25; comp. xx. 16.
Since, however, this name is identical with Teacher (John xx. 16), the ])eople them-
selves will also have said Rabbi. On this .subject, see above, p. 15, and remarks on
Matt, xxiii. 7. Muri (also mori, comp. above, p. 15, note 2) from Aram, mar, mare,
comp. Martha, above, p. 151, note 4; Bibcl-Lc.cikon, III. p. 52. Prophet, Matt,
xvi. 14; Luke vii. 39.
2 Matt. xxi. 20, xvi. 14, xiv. 2.
358 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
cedents, too remote from his works, and too pious in the con-
ventional manner of the time ; whilst this fermentation of the
popular consciousness was offering more of promise than of any-
thing calculated to undeceive, the Jewish hierarchy, and first of
all the Scribes of the northern districts, deliberated most care-
fully and arrived at a firm and definite conclusion as to the atti-
tude to be assumed towards the newly-risen Teacher of peculiar
ways.^ We should draw a fundamentally false picture of the
first ministry of Jesus if we exhibited him as meeting with a
direct antagonism at the very beginning, as if he and the Scribes
had at once closed in a struggle for life or death, a picture
which, however, is found at present in tlie early groups of con-
troversies in the later Gospels in particular, and in the Sermon
on the Mount of the first Gospel, since these authors, in a way
which we can easily understand, under the influence of the vivid
consciousness of the catastrophe of Jesus, transferred the end to
the beginning.2 The best attested utterances of Jesus, however,
and the best attested facts, show that it was otherwise. Yet it
was not from inlierited devotion, nor was it from timid prudence,
that Jesus at first spared the hierarchy. He was conscious of
the antagonism, and only because he w^as conscious of it did he
fearlessly stand forth as teacher. But he had in view ali Israel,
and his aim was preservation, not destruction. Hence he
claimed a right to say, " He who is not w^ith me is against me,"
1 The family, Matt. xii. 49, xiii. 57. Galilean Scribes, ix. 3, 11, 34, xii. 2, 14, 24 ;
comp. Luke v. 17 ; Mark ii. 6, 16, iii. 6. Jerusalemitic Scribes, Matt. xv. 1. Luke
introduces them as early as v. 17, Mark as early as iii. 22.
^ Polemics in the hearing of the people, in Matt, as early as v. 20 sqq., vi. 1 sqq.
Luke and Mark give controversies with the Scribes at the very beginning, in a series
of five conflicts, Luke v. 17— vi. 11 ; Mark ii. 1— iii. 6; Matt, somewhat later, ix. 1
— 17, and still later and more dispersed, xii. 1 sq. The sources of the Gospels, already
possessed — as the artificial composition of Matt, prove.? — the following aiTangement :
controversy (1) on blasphemy, (2) concerning the publicans, (3) on fasting. To these
Luke and Mark immediately add the two Sabbath controversies, which Matt, does not
give until chap, xii., where he makes them a part of the quaternion containing the
controversy on Beelzebub and that on signs. The controversy on fasting and the second
on the Sabbath at least did not occur until later ; the first Sabbath controversy, how-
ever, was early.
BELIEF OF THE PEOPLE. 359
a claim iu which the striving after universal recognition
occupied a prominent position ; hence he later accepted with
resignation, as willed and brought about by God, the inability of
the wise and prudent to come to the faith ; hence he sorrowfully
and bitterly reproached the Scribes and I*harisees with believing
neither on the Baptist nor on hira, with refusing themselves to
enter into the kingdom of God and hindering others from enter-
ing.^ He moderated the severity of his attitude towards his oppo-
nents in proportion to the vividness with which he entertained
the above sentiments. He did not open his appeal, like the
boisterous and violently irruptive Baptist, with " serpents and
generations of vipers." He did not at once open among the
people his attack upon the ordinances of the Scribes. He placed
first the doctrines of the kingdom of God and of righteousness,
of ]\Ioses and the Prophets, of the love of God and of one's
neighbour, doctrines which Pharisaism also believed. In his
private communications to his disciples, he imposed upon him-
self moderation, notwithstanding his decisive antagonism. He
did not avoid, he rather sought, intercourse with the teachers.
Indeed, he at first met their attacks witli all forbearance, though
with a superiority which left them without an answer. He
attached great importance to attracting them to himself by
friendliness and by unreserved information concerning his per-
son and his cause, both for the sake of the people and also for
the sake of themselves.^ He held it intrinsically possible that
they, recognizing the kingdom of God, should consent to a refor-
mation of their ordinances in the sense of the word of God ; and
he could believe that their honourable and Aveighty position as
interpreters of Moses, and counsellors and teacliers of tlie people,
might then be preserved to them.^ And it seemed as if in such
a way, despite his self-education and independence of the schools,
despite his being a follower of tlie Baptist, despite his new spirit,
1 Matt. xii. 30, xi. 26, xxi. 32, xxiii. 13.
' Openness, Matt. ix. 6, 12, xii. 3 sqq.
3 Matt, xxiii. 2. Thus also Sclileiermaclier, pp. 373, 384.
360 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
lie would be able to overcome contradiction and to gain liis oppo-
nents. Individual Scribes passed over to him and identified
themselves directly with his followers, — an extraordinary testi-
mony to the man who belonged to none of the schools, and M^as
an oj)ponent of the ordinances. Others meditated joining him ;
while yet others, including the leaders of the Pharisees and the
rulers of the synagogue at Capernaum, established relations with
him, listened to him, discussed his teaching among themselves,
raised modest objections, and invited Jesus to their houses and
to their tables. Jesus was recognized as an ardent friend of the
nation, and no one refused to give him the name of Teacher, the
title of Rabbi.^ But the movement in favour of a coalition
gradually came to a standstill, in proportion as the party of the
Scribes came more closely into contact with him and observed
him more attentively, and in proportion as he revealed himself
in questions in which the veiling of his peculiarity, of his anta-
gonism, would be a veiling of the truth.^ A series of collisions
issued in open antagonism ; a series of open antagonisms awoke
both parties to a clearer and clearer consciousness of principles
which could not be renounced, which must be upheld and fought
for. It is imf>ortant here to remember once more that the Ser-
mon on the Mount does not form the starting-point of these
conflicts. The vigorous attacks which in that sermon Jesus
makes upon his opponents, are themselves the fruit of many
previous colHsions; they are moreover not immediately ad-
dressed to the opponents, but only to the disciples. It is also
evident that the opponents themselves, the Scribes, gradually
arrived at a consciousness and a practical recognition of the
antagonism, not through the great polemics of Jesus, which made
1 Matt. viii. 19, xvii. 10, xix. 16; Mark xii. 28 (Matt. xxii. 35). But the Scribes
of the Pharisees, in Mark ii. 15 sq., do not (as Volkmar thinks, p. 152) belong to the
"followers;" they were present only as spies, as the context shows. Invitations, par-
ticularly Luke vii. 36, xi. 37, xiv. 1. Rulers, Luke xiv. 1 ; Matt. xii. 27, xv. 1.
Title, Matt. viii. 19, ix. 11. Sometimes also no title, only "thou" or "this man,"
Matt. ix. 3, XV. 2; Luke vii. 39. Friend of the nation, Matt. xxii. 1(5.
•■' Matt. xii. 10; Luke vi. 7, &e.
BELIEF OF THE PEOPLE. 3G1
petty polemics supcrfliious, but in consequence of the smaller
and individual collisions in the accidents of daily life. These
"isolated prior events" are denied only by the wildest criticism.^
Jesus' collection of his disciples led to a collision which can
be shown to be one of the earliest. In particular, his frateiniza-
tion with publicans and sinners, openly avowed as resting upon
principle, and honoured with a festival on the occasion of his
calling the publican, scandalized the consciousness of the saints,
and even outbade the teaching and practice of the Baptist.^
Pharisaism also called itself a friend of the people, a restorer of
national holiness, and thus a preparer of the way for the king-
dom of God. But since Pharisaism did not measure men by
the heart, but only by the external performance, by activity in
divine ceremonials, by levitical purity, it found in publicans
and sinners, with their dissolute lives, nothing but uncleanness ;
it avoided, as the pure, that which was impure, and abandoned
the people, whom it wished to save but whom it could not toucli,
to their misery and curse.^ These reformers of the people lay
too far apart for one to be able to win over the other. The
Pharisees who stealthily followed Jesus among his adherents,
therefore looked on with abhorrence when Jesus, in his house at
Capernaum — " in the house of the man raised from the dead,"
according to A^'olkmar — reclined at table with a number of such
1 Volkmar, pp. 155, 192, 196.
' Erroneously assuming that the publicans were Gentiles (on the contrary also,
Wies. Beitr. p. 79), Hilg. and Volkmar have attacked the narrative. Hilg., p. 392,
sees an "addition" of the Evangelist (he rejects the calling of Thomas on the same
ground !) also in the house of Jesus (against viii. 20). According to Volkmar, p. 146
(but comp. Hilg. pp. 392 sq.), "the Pauline writer" meant only such an eating with
"Gentiles" as is described in Gal. ii. 12, it being to him a matter of indifference
whether Jesus ate with such or not. The Pharisaically-minded are Chi-istians like
tho.se in Antioch, p. 150.
3 See above, Vol. I. pp. 333, 314. Corap. Bab. Shahh. f. 13, 1 : vide, quousque
se extendit puritas israelitica ! Soh. Gen. f. 50 : exinde disciinus, quod nemo hospitera
in domura s. recipere debeat, si ipsum suspectum habet, quod peccator sit. Lightfoot,
p. 282. Schottgen, pp. 93, 275 : non periiiittebat se tangi a populis terrae. As the
Essenes believed themselves to be rendered unclean by ordinary intercourse with each
other (see above, Vol. I. pp. 375 sq.), so did also the Pharisees. Comp. Lipsius,
article Essaer in Blbd-Lcxikon, II. p. 182.
362 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
sinners. And to this first shock there followed another, Jesus
here and on other occasions ate and drank cheerfully with the
cheerful, without any moroseness, without any repudiation of
the world, and left ahstinence from flesh and wine to the old
teachers of the Law. It is true they had not quite courage
enough to express their surprise to him; but they asked the
disciples, " Why does your Master eat with publicans and sin-
ners ?"i With a dignified calm, he repulsed the fault-finders :
" The strong need not the physician, but the sick ; but go ye
and learn what this is, 'I will have mercy and not sacrifice ;' for
I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners !" A glorious
utterance, in which he claimed as his specific field of action the
proAdnce of sickness, of sin, declared mercy towards men to be
the higher prophetic rule above all external religious services,
and put his opponents to the blush by repudiating the unloving-
ness that was associated with vain ceremonial saintliness, and
also — implicitly at least — the empty boastful pretension to .
righteousness.^ But his victory helped him little against tlie
blindness of prejudice ; the malicious epithets — a glutton and a
wdnebibber, a companion of publicans and sinners — clung to him
still, and penetrated from the Pharisees among the people.^
The Pharisees regarded the mere intercourse with publicans
and sinners as a breach of the ordinances : Jesus did not observe
the law of purity. But it was easy for them to establish, in a
^ Matt. ix. 10 sqq. ; Luke v. 29 ; Mark ii. 15. According to Matt, and Mark, it is
the bouse of Jesus (Beng., Fr., Berl., Eleek, Mey., Hilg.); on the contrary (De Wette
also), the house of the publican is usually thought of, after Luke. How much confu-
sion ! Even Hilg. finds the house of the publican in Mark, and Volkmar derides
Matthew for obscurity, because instead of oik. avTov he gives only o. That the pre-
sence of the Pharisees — to v/hich Mark (oldest reading) gives especial prominence —
was not an act of discipleship is shown (against Volkmar) by ver. 16. Volk., with
fresh derision of Matt., finds it indeed impossible that the Phai-isees could have other-
wise been aware of the feast (p. 166). He holds also that Matt, has omiited the
drinking of Jesus (Mark ii. 16), as if that were not an easy addition of Mark's.
' On the " righteous," see above, p. 98. Luke, v. 32 (differing from Matt, and
Mark), has the addition : to repentance. The passage from the prophets, Hosea vi. 6
(plainly according to the Septuagint : contrary to Hilg. p. 39i). Go ye and learn, abi
et disce, also by the Rabbis. Schottgen, p. 94.
3 Matt. xi. 19.
BELIEF OF THE PEOPLE. 363
numljer of poiuts, his disregard of the Law, even of the written
letter of Moses. The chief offence was given by a second liberty
taken by Jesus, which again was the outcome of his humanity.
In the interest of liuman necessity, he did not scruple to miti-
gate the harsh and burdensome severity of the Sabbath law, with
its prohibition of all labour whatever.^ It is well known how
scrupulously, how sternly, the Jews, especially the Pharisees,
upheld the honour of the day which was said to have been
solemnized by Adam, although they expressly elevated it into
the weekly day of enjoyment ; how, under the ridicule of the
Gentiles, they lost battles and repeatedly lost Jerusalem when
besieged, through their Sabbath rest ; how they restricted the
movements of men, even necessary works of all kinds, to the
most meagre and ludicrous limits, although a sound understand-
ing at least so far broke through as to permit the saving of life
on the Sabbath.2 At the time when the wheat was ripe, there-
fore at Easter or between Easter and Whitsuntide, certaiidy in
the first months of his ministry, Jesus went through the corn-
fields.^ The distance itself gave no occasion for complaint, and
^ Ex. XX. 10 : lo asa kol melachah (repeated). Above, Vol. T. p. 38, reference is
made to an apocryphal passage, according to which Jesus himself permitted field-work
on the Sabbath.
* Vocabis Sabb. oblectamentum. Lautius est convivandiim sabbato quam diebus
aliis. Men must eat three times, even the poor. Triple eating frees from the dolnrcs
Messise. Jewish glosses on Is. Iviii. 13. Lightfoot, p. 319. The prohibitions, jiar-
ticularly in the Talmud, Tractate Shabbat; comp. f. 12, 1 : qui pediculum occidit
Babb., idem est ac si occideret cameluVn. Nedar. f. 31, 2 : sabb. ad pr?ecepta gravia
pertinet. Schottgen, p. 185. Nemo consolatur segrotos aut invisit lugentes die sabb.
ex decreto schote Shammasanje, sed Hilleliana illud licitum perhibet. Schottgen,
pp. 120, 123. Comp. above. Vol. I. pp. 351 sq., 371, Conservatio vitse sabb. pellit.
Schottgen, p. 122.
* Matt. xii. 1 ; Luke vi. 1 ; Mark ii. 23. In Luke, at least in the majority of the
MSS., the Sabbath is called ^evrfpojrpajrov. Lachmann and Tischendorf questioned
the virord as an addition ; but in his eighth critical edition, Tisch. has definitively
admitted it as the more difficult reading. But the word is wanting in Sin., Vat.,
Reg., It., Vg., al. vers. ; and notwithstanding numerous attem[its to explain it, it
remains unex]jlained, and has not been found elsewhere, either in Greek, or Hebrew,
or in the Talmud. The most probable interpretation since Scaliger, is " the first
Sabbath after the second day of Easter," from which second ilny {fitrovi. 6, 5. 41)
seven Sabbaths were reckoned until Whitsuntide (also Ewald, p. 380). Wetstein : the
fir.st Sabbath in the second month. Weizsilcker : the first Sabbath in the second year
364 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
therefore could scarcely have exceeded tlie length of the " Sab-
hath-day's journey," 2000 paces, or a short half a league, which
might have been sufficient to take him to the next village.^ But
the Pharisees complained of work on the Sabbath, for the dis-
ciples, who had already outgrown their scruples, had broken off
ears of corn — which was in other circumstances permitted to
hungry men — and had rubbed them with their hands in order to
appease with the grains the hunger which the Sabbath custom
had itself kept a long time unsatisfied.^ According to the alto-
gether mistaken and extraordinary opinion of Mark, to whom
the traditional breach of the Sabbath was far too trifling, Jesus
had wandered out of the path into the corn, and the disciples
had cleared the way by plucking the ears and had thus made a
path.^ The crime was openly committed ; hence the objectors
hastened, without fear, horrified and enraged, to Jesus himself,
and complained of the disciples who were probably held to have
rendered themselves guilty of death by stoning.'* But the head
of the household screened his household ; Jesus was remarkably
prompt with his answer, the more remarkably so because in this
matter, which required an arbitrarily free and broad interpreta-
(cycle of the Sabbatic year). Meyer, De Wette, and Bleek, regard it as a late gloss.
Comp. Bleek, J. p. 469. Hilg. Quartodec, in Zeitschrift, 1861, p. 289. Wieseler,
Beitr. p. 183.
^ Sabbath-day's journey, Acts i. 12. Talmud, techum (terminus) hashabb; comp.
Tract. Erubin, c. 4. See Lightfoot, pp. 688, 753. Bux. 2582. Winer, SaUatioeg.
* Plucking the ears no theft, Deut. xxiii. 25 sq. At present, the custom in the
East, Robinson, Palestina, II. pp. 419, 430. Bleek, p. 471. Rubbing the ears,
Luke vi. 1. On the Sabbath, no one ate until after i\iQ preces matut. (about 3 p.m.),
Lightfoot, p. 320.
^ Opening a way is the only correct translation (comp. Fr., Meyer, Volkm., Bleek).
Bleek (p. 472) assumes a want of exactness of expression on the part of the author.
One might, if necessary, suppose that the author had unskilfully rendered the Heb.
asah derech (Judges xvii. 8) by noiuv instead of TToitiaOai. Private and public ways
through the crops, Lightfoot, p. 320.
•* In, Maimonides, Shabb. c. 8, the definite maxim is first found: metens sabb.
vel tantillum reus est. Et vellere spicas est species messionis. But this was quite in
harmony with the spirit of the system ; it was forbidden to eat even the fruit that fell
from the. trees on the Sabbath. Lightfoot, pp. 206, 320. According to Matt, and
Mark, the Pharisees complain to Jesus of the disciples ; on the contrary, Luke vi. 2,
"^Yhy do !/c?" &c.
BELIEF OF THE PEOPLE. 365
tion of the Law, and which arose out of a case of special cha-
racter, he could scarcely have been prepared with a legal justifica-
tion. He chose to address himself immediately to the prejudice
of his opponents, and to contradict that prejudice not so much
by general reasons, as directly by a written instance. Thus he
pointed out to them, from the Old Testament, that even David,
the great king — to whose example Eabbinism always readily
appealed — with his retinue, in the extremity of hunger, ate what
was not lawful, since he ate, according to all evidences on the
Sabbath, the shewbread of the priests. Indeed, while thinking
of the j)riests, Jesus quickly and fortunately remembered a second
example, and one which was an unquestionable and immediately
pertinent case of working on the Sabbath : the priests themselves
performed on the Sabbath the labour necessary to the offering up
of the sacrifices, and yet they neither broke the Sabbath nor
incurred any guilt.^ In both examples, he allowed it to be seen
that he was as great as and even greater than David and the
priests. In fact he expressly added : If the priests have a dis-
pensation because of their connection with the temple, here is
something greater than the temple, a higher dispensator for the
disciples than the temple is for the priests.'^ With a view to the
learned among the nation, but also with a view to the attack
upon him, he alludes mysteriously to his Messiahship. In this
1 Examples of David, also, for the Sabbath, Schottgen, pp. 121, 123. The above-
mentioned case, 1 Sam. xxi. 1 sq. But the Evangelists err in speaking of an entering
into the house of God and of a company of men with David, which David only pre-
tended to be the case. Mark errs, moreover, in mentioning the high-priest Abiathar,
whereas it was his father, the "priest" Ahimelech. Ahim. was killed by Saul because
of this occurrence, while his son Abiathar escaped and was afterwards Jiigh-priest
under David. The//'s< example is not quoted by Jesus himself as an instance of some-
thing done on the Sabbath, though the Rabbis, guided by allusions in the passage
itself, 1 Sam. xxi. 6 sq., rightly held it as an instance of eating on the Sabbath,
Lightfoot, pp. 320 sq. The second example of the priests, comp. Maimonides,
Pesach. 1 : non est sabbatismus in teniplo omnino. Lightfoot, p. 321. The Hebrew
expression for breaking the Sabbath is chillel, pellere, impellere s. Schottgen,
pp. 120 sqq. The example of Hillel, see above. Vol. I. p. 313; Geiger, Sadd. u.
Phar. 1863, p. 36.
2 A greater thing (not a greater person). But the greater thing is He, not, accord-
ing to Paulus, the life of the disciples.
366 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
turn of his answer lay at the same time a characteristic distinc-
tion between his argument and that of Hillel to which the great
Pharisee owed his fame. The right of the people to break the
Sabbath when the day for the slaying of the Paschal lamb coin-
cided with the Sabbath, had been defended by Hillel by a refer-
ence to the priests who themselves also slew the sacrifices. The
cogency of this argument depended upon the original sacerdotal
right of the people ; but that of Jesus' argument upon his own
personal elevation.^ Jesus might have been acquainted with
Hillel's much-admired argument; but his own was more startling,
more spirited, more profound. After this more technical argu-
ment, this emulation of Jewish scriptural erudition, he turned to
his simplest and favourite argument, which was successful in the
controversy concerning the publicans : A true understanding of
the words of Hosea, " I require mercy and not sacrifice," would
have prevented you from condemning the innocent, those who
were no more guilty than the priests.^ But in order to complete
the proof of the guiltlessness of his clients as well as the proof
of his personal right, he closed with the most weighty passage :
"For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." To his own
personal dignity, which he even here rather alluded to than
described, belonged through God's grace authority over the Sab-
bath, despite any prohibition of the guardians of the Law,
although he also — as the context itself shows — did not thus
abrogate the Law, but only interpreted it in a befitting way.^
He threw out a world of thoughts in these suggestive and pithy
utterances : no wonder that the later Evangelists, in the face of
this genuine, faithful, compact report of Matthew's, have re-
^ Geiger, I. c.
^ Hosea vi. 6; comp. Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7. According to Hilg. (p. 410), this is an
interpolation : as if the easiest text were the best, and as if the conceptions, sacrifice
(priests) and guiltlessness, would not stand in the best connection with the foregoing.
^ The sentence reminds us of Matt. v. 17 sqq. Comp. the utterances of the Rabbis
concerning the nova lex Messite, above, p. 297, note 3. Nothing is anywhere said of
the end of the Sabbath, only of the end of the festivals, with exception of the day of
atonement. Comp. Oehler, Mess. p. 441 ; also the sentence of R. Elieser : septimus
totus est sabbatum et quies ad vit. set. Schottgen, p. 941.
BELIEF OF THE PEOPLE. 367
lieved,' for themselves and their readers, this difficult brevity by-
curtailments and elucidations.^ But they all agree in this, viz.,
that the Pharisees turned away with enforced silence from this
weighty and unanswerable brevity, which they ^^nderstood and
yet did not understand.
A third conflict was occasioned in the series of healings by
Jesus' forgiveness of the sins of tlie paralytic- In this act, Jesus'
opponents found his most flagrant breach of the Law. Here he
had done violence not only to their regulations, but to the letter
of the Law ; not only to a divine ordinance, but to the personal
majesty, the sovereign prerogative, of God. In a word, he had
sinned not only against the Law, out of ignorance or indifference,
but, with a horrible self-assertion, against God. It seemed to
dart upon them like a light, tliat the principle upon which he as
transgressor of the Law acted, was contempt of God, blasphemy
against God, heathen denial of God, a crime in Israel for which
there was no penalty short of the destruction of the criminal.^
So near an approach was already made to the execution of the
Law upon the offender against whom a year later the general
cry was raised at Jerusalem, He is worthy of death ! That the
catastrophe was so long delayed was due not only to the in-
dependence of Galilee and its sympathy with Jesus, nor to the
circumspection of the opponents, but to that greatness of Jesus
^ Luke has only the example of David, and theu tlie passage about the Lord of the
Sahbath. Mark has introduced, before the latter passage, the rationalistic turn of
thought that the Sabbath is for man and not man for the Sabbath, therefore the Son
of man, &c. The example of the Sabbath -breaking priests, and the passage concerning
the greater thing than the temple, are wanting in both. Here also it is easy to give
the precedence as to age (comp. Volkmar, pp. 203 sq., and partly even Bleek, p. 476)
to the briefer and the plainly rational and even directly contradictory to Exod. xx. 8
(although full of significance, especially with regard to the relation between men and
the Son of Man). But Matt, is more difficult, more obscure, therefore older; and the
subsequent writers modified the Jewish examples which could not be appropriately
placed before tiieir readers, at least after the destruction of Jerusalem. The special
unskilfulnes of Mark, see above. Vol. L pp, 134 sq.
* Matt. ix. 1 ; Luke v. 18 ; Mark ii. 3. Comp. above, pp. 213 sqq.
^ Lev. xxiv. 16. Josephus, Ant. 4, 8, 6. Comp. the scene in Matt. xxvi. 65.
368 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
which presented an attitude of respectful inaction to every
attempt to use force, the turbulent prosecution of which Jewish
fanaticism appeared to insist upon. Exactly here is the fact
significative, that the opponents did not address their reproach —
which otherwise would have sounded loudly enough— either to
himself or to the people, but only whispered it among them-
selves. Jesus did not answer in words ; he did not appeal to
proclamations of blessings and of curses by Moses, the priests,
and the prophets, in the name of God ; he did not appeal to the
vocation of the man of the future, the representative of the
Divine compassion, to proclaim peace and salvation and spiritual
healing. Jesus answered this time with a deed ; and none of
his adversaries could say anything against his proof that walked
about among the rejoicings of the people, his proof that the Son
of Man — an expression which he presented afresh to his antago-
nists as implying superior pretensions — possessed authority to
forgive sins upon earth, even as he possessed authority to make
the lame to walk, an evidence of power with which the Pharisaic
theory of the connection between sin and physical evil funda-
mentally harmonized.^
Tliis Pharisaic opposition, however, was no serious menace to
the activity of Jesus. It was as yet only in its commence-
ment ; it was marked by moderation and reserve ; and, as may
be easily seen, contrary to the usual character of Oriental passion,
it was measured in its opening and its close, for the feud ended
in silence, without a hasty harsh word, without one excited
apostrophe. It did not absolutely preclude fresh conversations,
fresh explanations, visits, invitations, and conversions. And
though with many persons a certain system of watchful lying in
wait now developed itself, the question on the whole remained
undecided, and Jesus himself did not show — as he did later — by
^ Blessing and cursing, Deut. xxviii. 15; Lev. xxvi. 16; 2 Sam. xii. 13; Is. xl. 2.
According to the Rabbis themselves, Mess, miserieordiam impetrat, intercedit pro. Isr.
Schottgen, p. 1055. The theory, Nedar. f. 41, 1 : nullus aagrotus a morbo sno sanatur,
douec ipsi omnia peccata reraissa sint. Schottgen, p. 93.
TRE ELECTION OF TEE TU'ELFE. 3G9
a single word that he despaired of winning his opponents.'^ In
fact, the opposing voices were scarcely audihle in the midst of
the louder and preponderant sympatliy of the people. For it is
incontrovertible that Jesus was at first essentially satisfied with
his success, in evidence of which we need only repeat the words
he uttered a little later in his native town : A prophet has
honour every^vhere, except in his home and in his own house.^
With a longing anticipation of a still greater development of his
ministry, he on his part made preparations to gather in and store
up the harvest which he expected, and which spread out already
ripe before him. In view of all the faith, indeed also of all the
want, which met him from Israel, the exhausted and plundered
flock without a shepherd, he spoke to his disciples the solemn
words, " The harvest is great, but the labourers are few. Pray
ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest, that He tlu'ust forth
labourers into His harvest."^
B. — The Election of the Twelve.
But he did not confine himself to a believing glance, or a sigh
lifted towards heaven; he at the same time quickly added vigor-
ous action. He did what he could with the means he had : he
chose the messengers of his mission and sent them forth, hoping
for the harvest of the kingdom of heaven, wdiich had to him the
significance of a prelude to the last great universal harvest of
God. Looking beyond his own person to the minds and hands
which mankind placed at his disposal, it was only in the circle
of his disciples that he could seek his instruments, the reapers of
1 Comp. above, p. 13C, note 1, Hausratli's erroneous opinion. Inimical watching,
Matt. xii. 10; Luke vi. 7.
" Matt. xiii. 57.
3 Matt. ix. 36—38. In Luke x. 2, placed at the beginning of the unhistorical
account of the seventy. The picture of the flock without a shepherd, Num. xxvii. 17
(when Joshua was chosen as Mcses successor). Also 1 Kings xxii. 17. Under labourers,
Jesus dill not understand himself alone, but by anticipation the Twelve, who were not
sufficient for the harvest.
VOL. 111. 2 B
370 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
the kingdom of heaven.^ The first fruits of liis harvest, his first
sheaf, tlie pattern community which he had trained in order that
they, in harmlessly growing rather than in actually working,
miglit praise the Father in heaven by their virtues — this pattern
community he now thrust, like a good husbandman, into his
pressing work, converted the ears into sickles, and resolved to
believe in their power to reap, although they, as weak, rather
pliant than steeled, beginners in speaking, acting, and healing,
had by no means outgrown his teaching or his guidance. But
since necessity urged — for the kingdom of God was being rapidly
brought near both by God and men — hesitation must give way
to hope.
All accounts agree in this, that Jesus, in the course of his
ministry, chose twelve of his disciples to be apostles. The de-
signation is a matter that requires no special treatment. It is
Greek, and w\as not used by Jesus ; it is simply the translation
of the Hebrew word Malachim, Sheluchim, the sent, messengers,
which, according to all evidences, he used, on which account all
our sources employ the word Apostle quite in the sense of an
official designation, Luke indeed expressly adding, "He chose
from tliem Twelve, wdiom he also called Apostles." ^ It is a
^ According to Ewald (p. 3S'7), the choosing of the Twelve signified in the first in-
stance only a small sympathetic circle ; but against this, the number twelve and Matt.
ix. 37. According to Weisse (p. 40-i), the mission was rather for the purpose of train-
ing the Apostles than for serious propagandism.
^ In Matt, only x. 2, comp. verse 1, Mark vi. 30 (thus both times in the account of
the special sending forth). Luke vi. 13 ; comp. John xiii. 16, general and contemporary
■with the act of choosing, the designation mentioned even by Jesus. airoaToXoQ as
early as Herodotus, 1, 21 ; 5, 38, of any one sent (ayyfXoc, Herod. 5, 36 ; Luke
ix. 52), Hebr. shaluach, Rabb. sheliach, plur. shelichin, 1 Kings xiv. 6. In the Chald.
Pavaphr. Jer. xi. 1, Moses and Aaron are shelichin, Lightfoot, p. 312. In general
sense, 2 Cor. viii. 23 (apostles of the churches) ; also Phil. ii. 25. In narrower sense,
of Christian messengers and teachers, besides the twelve Apostles, Acts xiv. 14. Jesus
himself an Apostle, Heb. iii. 1. Paul claimed for himself and Barnabas an apostleship
equal to that of the Twelve, 1 Cor. ix. 5, comp. Acts xiv. 14. Paul explains the con-
ception (Gal. ii. 7—9 ; 1 Cor. ix. 14) = preacher of the gospel. With the minister of
the synagogue (sheliach zibbur, Buxt. 1411) the name Apostle has nothing to do
{Hausr. p. 489). Schleiermacher's supposition {Luk. p. 87) that the name was
probably later, Strauss (I. p. 617) has already refuted. It lies in Matt. x. 5—7, 16,
xxiii. 37.
THE ELECTION OF THE TWELVE. 371
matter of greater moment, that it might be supposed the name
and the office of Apostle were the fruit of the apostolic period,
that the most prominent disciples of Jesus received the distinc-
tion of this honourable name — which, according to many indica-
tions, was first given to them by others — on the ground of their
being commissioned by Jesus to perform missionary work, or
perhaps on account of what they actually accomplished ; for it
is a fact .that the Evangelists plainly look beyond the earthly
life of Jesus, and Matthew especially has in mind the picture of
Moses who, at his departure, appointed Joshua as his representa-
tive.^ Against this, not only is the testimony of the Gospels and
of the Acts decisive, but almost more so that of Paul. He dis-
tinctly takes it for granted that Jesus, during his ministry, had
twelve Apostles about him, that he had given and had up to
that time preserved to them rights and privileges in the comnm-
nity; and he himself is at great pains to defend against them his
claim to have been also called an Apostle of Jesus Christ, not it
is true by the earthly, but by the glorified Jesus. The Eevelatiou
of John, which is almost equally ancient, affords the same result,
1 In Matt. ix. 36 sqq., the writer is evidently thinking of Num. xxvii. 17 (Moses
and Joshua). According to Volkniar (pp. 223 sqq.), everything that is reported con-
cerning the election on "the hill of the resurrection" (!) is only poetry (based on Ex.
xviii. 1). He further says that, according to Mark, Jesus first chose a wider (iii. 13),
then a narrower (verse 14), circle, to minister among Jews and Gentiles (vv. 8, 15), so
that a Paul, &c., might have arisen out of the wider circle. Also that no support can
be found for an election of Apostles (p. 254) either in Paul's writings (1 Cor. ix. 5, 14,
xii. 28, XV. 5; (ral. i. 17 sqq.), or in the Revelations (xxi. 14); and that Schleier-
niacher's doubt is quite justified. The Apostles' names are not once satisfactorily
given, Matthew and Matthias are identical, and Philip is called sometimes apostle and
sometimes deacon (which is false). He says that only three are certainly furnished
with the designation Apostle (Simon and the sons of Zebedee), the others having passed
simply as zealous Christians. He puts aside altogether the historical testimony of Paul
(pp. 254, 566), who belonged to the natures which are absolutely unable to report
objectively ! — As to Schleiermacher's scepticism with regard to the twelve Apostles
(the number of which, at any rate, he holds to be quite accidental), it rests rather on
dogmatic than critical grounds. Ueber Liik. p. 88 ; L. J. pp. 3C5 sqq. He consider."!
the reference to the twelve tribes too Jewish, the order too mechanical, the choice of
Judas in particular impossible. It was free elective aflanity, with more or less co-opera-
tion on the part of Jesus.
2 B 2
372 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
except that, as a distinctively Jewish-Christian book, it refuses
to admit Paul's claim to be an Apostle.^ The number twelve —
which is not, with Sclileiermacher, to be regarded as altogether
accidental — was certainly not fixed upon by Jesus merely because
it was a round number and a favourite Hebrew number, nor
because he could obtain only this dozen as his " few labourers."
But we discover from the missionary address, which points the
Twelve to Israel and to all Israel, as well as from the later
mention of the twelve thrones of the judgment upon Israel, and
also from the conception of the Eevelation of John, that there
underlay the choice of the number twelve a figurative reference
to the twelve tribes of Israel, though those twelve tribes had
long ceased to exist in their genealogical separateness.^ There
is no basis for the supposition that the Baptist, in so many re-
spects the prototype of Jesus, had also seized upon this number
in his efforts to restore Israel, for John never sent out mes-
sengers. An ingenious but fanciful myth of the second century
gave to Jesus, as the sun of the God-pleasing year, twelve dis-
ciples ; on the other hand, to the Baptist, as the moon, thirty.^
The transition from the fluctuating beginning in the sending out
of individuals to the fixedness of the number twelve, and from
the figurative sense of that number to the privileged character of
a definitely limited circle, was probably due to the fact that to
the Twelve, who soon after found themselves almost exclusively
the only persons that persisted in following Jesus, there were
added no " fresh labourers " worth mentioning, such as Jesus
^ See the preceding note. Also 1 Cor. ix. 1 sqq. ; Rev. ii. 2, comp. xxi. 14; Acts
i. 21 sqq.
^ Matt. X. 6, xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30; Rev. xxi. 12, 14. These passages, as well
as Ezra vi. 17, comp. Acts xxvi. 7, James i. 1, refute the opinion of Schleiermacher
that the twelve tribes had no .significance at all after the exile (p. 371). The number
twelve, in the ca.se of messengers, also Josephus, Vita, 11 (twelve and seventy), B. J.
2, 14, .'). In a different way. Matt. ix. 20; Luke viii. 42 sq. The reference to the
twelve ti'ibes specially definite in Barn. 8 ; comp. Gospel of the Ebionites in Epiph.
30, 13. The licentiously symbolizing view could also find another reference of the
twelve to Elisha's twelve yoke of oxen, 1 Kings xix. 19 !
3 Clem. Horn. 2, 33; Becogn. 4, 35.
THE ELECTION OF THE TWELVE. 373
had originally desired, until after the ascension, when some
were found in Paul and his companions.
The accounts are very much divided as to point of time when,
and the circumstances under which, Jesus chose the Twelve.
Paul and the other oldest sources give us here no information.
At the same time, the oldest Gospel decidedly favours tlie con-
temporaneousness of the election and the sending forth, and also
a somewhat late period for these events. It is true that the
sending forth opens with Jesus' calling to himself " the twelve
Apostles," so that it would appear as if their selection had
already taken place ; but all that follows — the then first men-
tion of the twelve names, the setting forth of their vocation,
their commission, and their equipment, and the introduction of
their then commencing mission with the express words, " These
twelve Jesus sent forth " — all this shows most plainly that the
twelve Apostles had not as such before existed, but were at that
time just beginning to exist.^ It was, however, easy for the later
Gospels to fall here into a misunderstanding. They followed the
guidance of several appearances and of the desire of a later time,
and placed the apostolate of the Twelve as early as possible,
and where they could they represented it as doubly or trebly
ordained. Thus arose the representation of Luke and Mark,
according to which Jesus early selected the Twelve, but later
solemnly sent them forth.^ From this it was but a short step
1 Matt. X. 1 speaks of the twelve later disciples, apostles, just as proleptically as
X. 2, iv. 18, viii. 14 of Peter (xvi. IS). That the Twelve, as a closed circle, had not
hitherto existed, is clear as well from ix. 37 (indefinitely disciples, the wider circle, as
V. 1), as from the stress now first laid on the number twelve, x. 2, 5, xi. 1. The later
Evangelists err in assuming a previous election. On the other hand, Volkmar (p. 243)
is ready with the remark that the institution of the Twelve was not known to the good
Jewish-Christian Matthew. And Strauss (I. p. 614) also erred in thinking that
Matthew assumed the existence of the College of Apostles. But he is correct in hia
remarks on the speculations in an obscure province made by Matthew's successors.
* Luke vi. 13, ix. 1 ; Mark iii. 13, 14, vi. 7. Their dependence upon Matt, can
be seen even in minutiiie. The mysterious vocation in Mark iii. 13 is based upon
Jesus' calling the Twelve to himself, in JMatt. x. 1. The night of prayer in Luke is
based upon the inj'inction to pray in Matt. ix. 38. A very high conception of the
apostolate is already seen in Acts i. 17, 20.
374 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
to the representation of tlie fourth Gospel — which was also
preceded and in part suggested by that of the Acts — accord-
ing to which Jesus chose the Apostles from the very beginning
in the wilderness of John.^ This series of accounts shows the
historical starting-point and the unhistorical terminus. The
election of the Apostles fell later than it is said to have done
in the more recent Gospels; and it occurred without any display
at the time of the sending forth of the Apostles, which sending
forth appears in the later Gospels as a second and distinct event.
The proof of the correctness of this exposition is found at once
in the greater unostentation and simplicity of Matthew's manner
of narrating the circumstance, and in the strong improbability
that Jesus would choose Apostles, i. e. men sent, a considerable
time before he sent them forth, which would have compelled us
to believe that he took delight in and had time for far-seeing
prospective nominations. Mark has very distinctly recognized
this great improbability, by setting forth as the purpose of the
election of the Apostles, " that he might send them forth,"
And when he at the same time again loses sight of this impro-
bability, by representing the first purpose of the choosing to be
Jesus' desire to ensure a permanent environment of followers,
he has left it difiicult to discover in what way this environment
is to be distinguished from the already existing environment of
disciples. And when he has, finally, at the election of the Twelve
and again at the sending of them forth, mentioned the power
over evil spirits as a concomitant gift from Jesus, it is easy to
perceive that the one or the other impartation of that power —
particularly, perhaps, the first — is altogether superfluous, or more
correctly, that the first is in fact the same as the second, that
election and sending forth therefore coincided, and that Mark
himself was unable to make a clean separation of the two acts,
because they happened together.^ In one point he has, however,
been more fortunate than his predecessor and companion, Luke.
The latter, knowing of both an election and a sending forth of
1 John i. 35 sqq., vi. 70; Acts i. 21 sq. « ^ark iii. 13, 14, vi. 7.
THE ELECTION OF THE TWELVE. 375
the Apostles, has given with each act an address. But the
address he has attaclied to the act of election is that Sermon on
the Mount which — as we have seen — had simply nothing to do
with an election of Apostles.^ Mark has struck out the address,
and the act of election has thereby become in subject-matter un-
commonly meagTe, and doubly so in contrast with its ceremonious
formality; and since all necessity and significance are taken
away, it is left as nothing more than an inexplicable, or more
exactly an arbitrary mystery.^
Assuming, therefore, the election and the missionary address
to have been contemporaneous, it remains — to say nothing at
present of the actual reality of the sending forth — to inquire to
which of the Gospels the preference is to be given with regard
to the period of the delivery of the missionary address to the
Apostles. As has been already noted, that address is given
earlier by Matthew than by the others, towards the close of the
first Galilean period. Luke and Mark postpone it until near
the close of the final Galilean period, at the time of the execu-
tion of the Baptist, after the opening of the great conflicts and
persecutions of Jesus, and almost immediately before his resolve
to suffer. This latter date — which is still earlier than that given
by John, who makes the missionary address coincide with the
farewell address at Jerusalem — has plainly several things in its
favour. The growing conflict, the fear of an imminent catas-
trophe, the recognition of the necessity of making an appearance
in Judnea and at Jerusalem, might have induced Jesus to hasten
the progress and to multiply the agents of the proclamation of
^ See above, p. 19 sq. In the whole of Luke's Sermon on the Mount, which, how-
ever, is made to stand in close connection with the election of the Twelve, there is
nothing more than a possible allusion to the apostolic vocation towards the close,
vi. 39 sqq. Matt, might afford some help here with his Sermon on the Mount
(v. 13 sqq.), but he makes no allusion to a mission, the disciples are only a body of
virtuous men (v. 16). Not only Strauss (I. p. 614), but also Schleier. {Ueber d. Luk.
p. 85), recognized the fact that Luke used the Sermon on the Mount as a sermon at
the election of the Twelve.
» Mark iii. 13—19. According to Ewald, iloltzm,, Schenkel, however, the original
Mark contained the address.
376 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MLSSIOX.
the kingdom in Israel, and chiefly in the districts of Galilee, and
thus himself to throw a deciding weight into the scales. On the
other hand, there is much more force in the objection that Jesus'
tone of mind when he sent forth the Twelve — particularly in
Matthew, where the Lord is represented as looking upon the
great harvest-field with lofty emotions; but also in Luke and
Mark — is glad and hopeful. But that such could not have been
the case at this late period, will appear certain when we recall
the parables previously narrated in Luke and Mark, and when
we think of his opponents' resolves to use force and to procure
his death. The actual anxiety of Jesus at this late period, and
his just then so visible seeking for support and comfort in the
little circle of his confidential -followers who had bound up their
fate with his, make such an isolation of strength, such a separa-
tion of master from disciples, impossible.'^ Far more appropriate
to this time are the words spoken by Jesus on his last evening,
and preserved by Luke : Ye are they who "have continued" with
me in my temptations.^ Moreover, the missionary address evi-
dently alludes to the Whitsuntide, three or four months after the
commencement of Jesus' ministry, rather than either to the time
of harvest or to the winter.^ We forbear here to dwell upon a
further reason, the watchword which Jesus gave to his Apostles,
and which' he adopted as the basis of his first, not of his last,
period of ministry in Galilee.* But an end is made of all un-
certainty as to the correct point of time by the discovery of 'the
^ Hope, Matt. ix. 37, x. 5 sqq. ; Luke ix. 1 sqq., x. 2 ; Mark vi. 7 sqq.
* Luke xxii. 28. Comp. Gethsemane, Matt. xxvi. 37.
' Matt. ix. 37 sq. In Luke x. 2, the figure of the harvest can as little remain
unnoticed as the indications of spring in the Sermon on the Mount, or the signs of
summer in the parables. Hilgenfeld, in bringing (1867, p. 398) the address of chap. x.
into connection with chaps, xvi. and xxiii., does not separate between the kernel and
its appendages. On the other hand, Holtzm., Schenkel, Hausr., Weizs., Weiff., relying
on Mark and Luke, have placed the sending forth late. According to Schenkel (Bihcl-
Lex. III. p. 283), Jesus was moved to the mission by a presentiment of his death.
According to Weizs. (p. 401), the election at least occurred before Jesus had lost faith
in Israel.
* Matt. X. 7 ; Luke x. 9, comp. with Matt. xii. 28. This is not pressed,
the missionary address could, nay must, have made u^ie of the iutitial cry.
THE ELECTION OF THE TJVELVE. 377
special" and essentially unliistorical motive which evidently led
the Evangelist Liike to postpone the sending forth of tlie Twelve
until the close of the Galilean ministry. It suited his purpose
to represent the decidedly unliistorical sending forth of the
assumed Seventy as following, in a conspicuous manner, that of
the Twelve. He wished to throw into the shade the limited
Israelitish mission of the Twelve by the philanthropic mission
to the whole Gentile world ; and he did this by giving to the
sending forth of the Seventy larger proportions and greater suc-
cess. Luke's purpose involved the bringing the mission of the
Twelve as near as possible to that of the Seventy ; and since he
could not throw back the latter beyond Jesus' departure from
Galilee and his journey through the serai-Gentile Samaria, he
M'as compelled to place the mission of the Twelve at the close of
the Galilean period. Mark has also admitted this correction of
history, though he has not recognized the mission of the Seventy;
but there exist the clearest evidences that in the whole of this
group of events he has essentially followed Luke.^
The first Evangelist has refrained from describing the election
of the Apostles, and justly, for he was not present and nothing
definite is known about it. Hence he merely mentions that,
in view of the sympathy as well as of the needs of the nation,
Jesus called to himself the twelve disciples, and gave to them
power over unclean spirits and over every disease : he is here
liardly thinking of a mysterious handing over of powers and
means, but rather of an impartation by word and appointment,
such as he found related a moment after in the missionary
address.^ The great importance which the later narrators
attached to the election of the Apostles, was naturally accom-
panied by the presentation to the reader of more exact and more
1 Luke ix. 1 and x, 1. On Mark. comp. above, Vol. I. p. 123 ; also below.
' Matt. X. 1 and ix. 36—38, admirably placed at the close of the cycle of preaching
and healing, x. 1 is explained by x. 8 ; but the question arises whether Jesus then
first presented healing as a right and a gift. Paulus has spoken of a communication of
nje«Ucal knowledge, Ewald of an instruction in manipulation, and Weisse of an im-
partation of magnetic forces. Bleek (I. p. 409) adheres to the miraculous gift.
378 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
imx^osing details. According to Luke, therefore, Jesus spent the
night in solitary prayer upon the mountain, and there gained
inspiration for the election. At break of day, he called the whole
company of the disciples to the mountain, and selected from
them the Twelve. In the meantime, the population of the whole
country had come together, affording in a certain sense a confir-
mation of the necessity of an election of Apostles. Jesus then
addressed to the Apostles, the disciples, and the crowds of the
people, the Sermon on the Mount, which, however, has here
very little fitness. Mark, fond of explanatory details, has
thought proper still further to elucidate this account. He has,
therefore, represented the gathering together of the people as
having already taken place — although this is quite inconceiv-
able, since Jesus had just before escaped from the complot of
the Pharisees and Herodians — and as having naturally suggested
to Jesus the appointment of apostles. To the mountain, whither,
with singular care for the people left to themselves, he had with-
drawn, not exactly to pray, but rather to be quiet and to be
undisturbed in his election, he called not the whole company of
the disciples, but only the honoured Twelve, whom he requested
to ascend the mountain. The act of election was to have been
sealed, not by an address, but — as in the case of the call of the
publican — by a friendly meal at Capernaum, only on account of
a fresh concourse of people — one would have thought, on ac-
count of the plots of foes — tliis intention could not be carried
out.i Luke's discarded mysteries are replaced by others, accord-
ing to Mark's favourite manner. The call to come to Jesus on
the mountain is mysterious. " He called to himself whom he
would, and they came to him." Here is the description of the
act of a sovereign and the obedience of subjects ; and the pas-
sage gives the impression that Jesus called the disciples sepa-
rately by name from the top of the hill, and that they separately
^ Mark iii. 7 represents Jesus as having willidrawn from Capernaum to tbe sea, on
account of the complot; but, as if nothing had happened, there is (1) immediately a
great gathering of the people, (2) then eating again at Capernaum (verse 19).
THE ELECTION OF TEE TWELVE. 379
went up to him. Then there is the giving of power over demons,
one knows not how, perhaps imparted by contact ; and there is
also the giving of new names to Simon and to the sons of Zebe-
dee, an act which proved at once his power and his omnisci-
ence, but wliich, according to credible accounts, belonged to a
later period, and in the case of Peter was connected with the
e\'idence he showed of his correct conception of Jesus at Caesarea
Philippi.^ These mysteries were to have been brilliantly closed
by a friendly meal. All these details are unhistorical ; yet we
must not — like Volkmar — regard either them or the history of
the election of the Apostles in general as mythical fictions, after
the pattern of the election of elders in the history of Moses.^
We renounce, therefore, this decoration of the narrative, and
content ourselves with looking at the twelve Apostles them-
selves. Their names are to be found in not less than four lists :
in Matthew, Luke, and Mark, in connection with the act of elec-
tion ; and in Luke's Acts of the Apostles at tlie beginning of the
history of the church at Jerusalem. Finally, John also has
introduced at least three-fourths of the names in a scattered
manner. These lists, however, do not quite agree, either in the
names or in the order.^ Such a disagreement upon so important
and well-known a subject might give rise to suscipion, and
might suggest a doubt as to the actual occurrence of any elec-
tion of Apostles. Yet it is impossible to overlook the fact that
^ Comp. Matt. xvi. 18. Power over demons, in Matt. x. 8 (comp. xri. 18), ex-
plained by the words of Jesus, but not in Mark. According to bis manner in analo-
gous cases, Mark will have formed a grosser conception of the impartation of the
power. Peter, Mark iii. 16, evidently a grosser rendering of Luke vi. 14.
' As already before, Volkmar (pp. 228 sqq.) again brings in the Jethro incident,
Ex. xviii. 1. As Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, comes to Moses with Moses' wife and
two sons, finds him in the midst of excessive occupation, counsels him, in order not to
wear himself away, to appoint assistants, judges of the people; so, in Mark iii. 21,
come the mother of Jesus and his brethren, in order, certainly, to bind him as beside
himself; but in this connection, at any rate, and under a similar pressure of the
people, the election of the disciple-assistants is narrated. This is ingenious, but
incorrect ; the election, in particular, was quite independent of the coming of Jesus'
relatives. Moreover, the persons in ver. 21 are not his relatives, as will be shown
further on.
3 Matt. X. 1; Luke vi. 14; Acts i. 13; John i. 35 sqq.
380 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
the agreement outweiglis the disagreement, particularly in the
names, and that the order of the names might easily vary.
The question of the names is the most important. And here
there is in reality only one difference which at a first glance is
surprising. One of the last Apostles is called in Matthew, Leb-
basus ; in Mark, Thaddajus, whom Eusebius would degrade to
one of the seventy disciples ; in Luke's two writings, Judas of
James ; and in John, simply Judas.^ It is, however, possible to
harmonize these differences. Libbai or Taddai, the man of
heart or of strength, the courageous man, could be one and the
same person, and he could also be identical with Judas, being
in the one case mentioned by a surname such as the Jewish
teachers were fond of, and in the other case by his personal
name.^ It is intelligible that the by-name, being arbitrary and
passing gradually into use, might have varied slightly, as in the
case of Simon, whom the apostolic Church called the Eock,
sometimes using the Hebrew word and sometimes the Greek,
Kephas or Petros. It is further intelligible, that it would be
found desirable to distinguish this Judas from another Judas,
Judas Iscariot, not merely by calling the former Judas the son
of James, but also by the use of a surname. The earlier tradi-
1 John xiv. 22.
* Matthew has, according to the critical text, only the one, Mark the other. Fond-
ness for surnames, Schottgen, p, 242. Lebbseus (fi-om leb, libba, heart) does not
elsewhere occur ; on the other hand, Tadai, ben Tadai, Lightfoot, 313. A relation
between the two names cannot be arrived at (as De Wette and Meyer rightly see)
from the word shad (Talm. tad) = suckling breast ; but rather from the word shod
(shadad, to be strong), comp. Todah (Jesus' disciple, in the Talmud), above, Vol. I.
p. 23. The word is certainly not to be derived from the related shaddai (Ebrard), for
the divine name was inapproachable. Lightfoot erroneoussly assumed a variation of
the name Judas ; and in Lebbseus a derivation fi-om a non-existing town Lebba, near
Carmel (Jebba, Pliny, 5, 17). Judas of James cannot be made a brother of James,
however much Winer may wish it ; it signifies here, as elsewhere, son (Meyer) ; more-
over, this Judas is not placed with James of Alphjeus in either Luke or the Acts, and
Matt, xxvii. 56 shows that James and Joses were placed together, but not James and
Judas; Of the various hypotheses concerning these three names, only the following
need here be mentioned. Schleiermacher [Lulc. p. 88 ; L. J. p. 369) believed in a
change of the disciples either by death or removal from tlie ranks; Ewald ("p. 399)
held a similar view, viz., that Judas took the place of Lebbaeus (named Thadd.); but
Strauss (L p. 631) thought of a different tradition.
TEE ELECTION OF THE TWELVE. 381
tioii in' ]\Iatthew and ]\Iark had, then, the name customarily
employed in the time of Jesus ; the later tradition in Luke and
John, the name used in the apostolic time after the apostasy of
the second Judas. The identity of the person can be almost
demonstrated : John introduces a disciple under the name of
Judas, but by rej^resentiug him as proposing to Jesus the bold
inquiry of one who thirsts for action — " How is it that thou
wilt reveal thyself unto us and not unto the world ?" — he has in
reality at the same time given him the characteristic of Libbai.^
An instance in which John's Gospel exhibits disagreement as to
a name with the earlier Gospels, is of less importance. Tlie
quadruple report of the earlier sources is not to be rejected in
favour of the different reading of a single later one ; but the
divergence of the later is also not incapable of being brought
into harmony with the earlier lists. Wliere the latter, for
instance, mention Bartholomew, John has a Nathanael ; and
where they (in the Gospels) thrice place him sixth, Philip being-
fifth, John has in the same numerical positions, Philip and
Nathanael. From this it is probable that Bartholomew and
Nathanael are the same Apostle.^ This doubling of the indi-
vidual is intelligible from the fact that Bar Talmai, the sou of
Talmai, is merely a naming after the father, while Nathanael is
either a personal name or a surname, and the same man might
be called this or that, just as the first of the Apostles was called
sometimes Simon, sometimes Kephas or Petros, and sometimes
also Bar Jochanan.^ It is, finally, intelligible that John should
1 John xiv. 22.
* Hilg. {Ev. u. Bricfe Joh. p. 271 ; Ev. p. 244) considers Nathanael to be Matthew
(see above, p. 272, note 2) ; and in Nov. Test. ex. Can. IV. p. 105, as Matthias.
Spath, however, in a detailed essay on Nathanael, in Hilg.'s Zeitschrift, 1868, would
identify Nathanael with John. But the ingenious attempt is not convincing, as both
Ewald and Hilg. have seen : for, apart from John xxi. 2, the first chapter of John
shows — quite contrary to this writer's manner of giving to John the preference to
Peter— that Nathanael was sixth in the series of disciples. That the name Nathanael
(not only Elnathan) was common among the Jews, and therefore was no mere arbi-
trary invention of the author's, is strongly against Si^iith.
* The name Talmai (telem, furrow), rich in furrows, rich husbandman (comp. Are-
tas, ploughman), .stands repeatedly in the Old Test, as a proper name, 2 Sam. iii, 3,
382 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
give tlie preference to the name Natlianael. He was accustomed
to look for mysterious allusions in names; and to liim this name
meant, "God has given it." He had this signification of the
word in view when he represented Nathanael as going to Jesus
of his own accord, though in truth moved thereto by God, and
Jesus as hailing in him a pearl, a true Israelite with a pure
heart; and further, when he represented Jesus as later re-
peatedly saying that no one could come to him unless the
Father drew him, unless the Father gave him. It is even
possible to go further, and to suppose that Bartholomew did
not bear this name at all, but that John invented it as an appro-
priate designation for him, or as a befitting name by which to
characterize the calls of Jesus in general. This opinion, definitely
proposed by Hilgenfeld and Spiith, cannot be strongly supported;
and the supposition in favour of which the same writers have
argued very acutely, viz., that the Nathanael of John was in
reality Matthew or Mattliias, or indeed John, the son of Zebedee
— is untenable. With greater probability, it might be asserted
that he was none other than Simon the Canauoean.-^
xiii. 37, &c. Volkmar (p. 252), without giving any authority, translates it, Brother-
in-law's son! Josephus thrice gives Tholomseus, Ant. 7, 1, 4; 14, 8, 1; 20, 1, 1.
The Septuagint gives Tholmi. The name is peculiar to kings and robber-chiefs. The
Talmud has bar Taliniah, but also bar Talmion (Schottgen, p. 95), which latter is con-
nected rather with Thalmou (the oppressed, a proper name in Ezra ii. 42 ; Neh,
vii. 45). With Ptolemreus (Renan, p. 152, and also Winer and Hausr. ), the word has
nothing to do, notwithstanding B. J. 1, 9, 3, Ant. 14, 8, 1 (Winer). The last passage
is decisive, although in the Talmud (Bux. 2598) Tolmai stands for the Ptolemies.
Nathanael (Hebr. Nethan(e)el), John i. 46 sqq., xxi. 2. The name of kings' sons,
chief priests, Levites, Num. i. 8, ii. 5 ; 1 Chr. ii. 14, xxiv. 6; 2 Chr. xvii. 7, xxxv. 9 ;
3 Ezra [1 Esdras] i. 9; Jos. Ant. 6, 8, 1. The identity of Bartholomew and Natha-
nael (also Bleek, I. p. 415) was held in the Church, but denied by Augustine and
Gregory the Great (Stichart, p. 35). Strauss (I. p. 631) explained this as a fiction of
the harmonists. Schleier. also was sceptical, and held it questionable whether Natha-
nael was an Apostle. Augustine thought he was no Apostle, because of his learning.
But comp. the following note.
^ Simon the Zealot (comp. also Hilg., Ev. p. 244) may be thought of because
Nathanael is said to have come from Cana (John xxi. 2), an assertion which may have
been based on a misunderstanding of the above-mentioned title of Simon ; and further,
because the character indicated in John i. 47 sqq., would be appropriate to Simon the
Zealot, especially in contrast with Iscariot, with whom he stands paired.
THE ELECT lOX OF THE TWELVE. 383
111 the order in which the names of the Apostles are arranged,
the differences are greater. It is at once noticeable that in the
first six, Matthew and Luke, and again Mark and the Acts of the
Apostles, in the main agi'ee; in the second six, Matthew and
Mark on the one hand, and Luke in his two writings on the
other.^ On the whole, there are many points of agreement in
the several lists. Four Apostles have the same place in all :
Simon Peter the first, PhOip the fifth, James the ninth, and
Judas Iscariot the twelfth. Indeed, the whole of the first six
stand generally beyond question and above controversy.^ There
has been here only the minor question of etiquette, whether
Andrew should be placed as second next to his brother Simon,
or as fourth after the favourite disciples Simon, James, and
John ; Mark and the Acts have decided for the latter, ]\Iatthew
and Luke for the former. On the sixth name, the Gospels are
quite unanimous, all giving it as Bartholomew ; it is not until
we come to the Acts that we find Bartholomew placed after
Thomas. In the second six, there is certainly a somewhat
sharper struggle for the right of precedence ; we can understand
this, since these are all later added and less important disciples.
As, however, here also the ninth and twelfth places are definitively
occupied, the struggle turns upon the possession of the seventh
and eighth, and the tenth and eleventh places, not four Apostles
contending with each other, but one pair for the former two
places, and another pair for the latter two. The seventh and
eighth places are occupied by Thomas and ]\Iatthew, in the first
Gospel Thomas occupying the seventh place, while in the Acts
1 iUTTHEW. Luke. Acts. Mark.
Simon, Andrew. Simon, Andrew. Peter, John. Simon, James.
James, John. James, John. James, Andrew. Jolin, Andrew.
Philip, Bartholomew. Philip, Bartholomew. Philip, Tliomas. Philip, Bartholomew.
Thomas, Matthew. Matthew, Thomas. Bartholomew, Matthew. Matthew, Thomas.
•Tames, Lebbajus. James, Simon. James, Simon. James, Thaddaius.
Simon, Iscariot. Judasof James, Iscariot. Judas of James, Iscariot. Simon, Iscariot.
' This also (John's Go.spel being adiled to the lists, making five catalogues) speiks
against the a-ssertion of Volkmar's, that all except the three were only zealons Chris-
tians. Schenkel, Bibel-Lex, III. p. 276, in an inconceivable manner passing over
the sons of Zebedee, gives the order in John's Gospel a.?, Andrew, Simon, Philip,
Nathanael.
384 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
lie is placed still earlier, in the sixth place ; in Luke and Mark.
Matthew has the precedence. Judas of James (Lebbseus) and
Simon the Zealot are tenth and eleventh, the former having the
precedence in Matthew and Mark, the latter in Luke's two
writings. The ground of the order and of the differences
of arrangement is not immediately evident. It can hardly
be that Jesus himself fixed the precise positions, or that
the later Church simply handed down, with slight alterations,
the tradition derived from Jesus. The arrangement was deli-
berately made at a later period, and was certainly no merely
arljitrary one, but was based upon facts. The facts, however,
which supplied the points of view were evidently varied in
character. The precedence w^as given to the earliest disciples :
thus the two pair of brothers filled the first four places. Again,
the preference was given to those who were on the most intimate
terms with Jesus : thus, contrary to the first principle, in Mark
and the Acts Andrew was put lower down, and James and John
were raised to the second and third places. Finally, from another
point of view, Judas Iscariot as the unworthy one, as a traitor to
his apostolic vocation, was placed last. The differences arose
from a blending of these various points of view, and perhaps
partly also from a complete uncertainty with regard to several
of the Apostles. From the blending of those points of view, it
follows also that it is no longer possible for us to restore an
absolutely certain order of the disciples, whether according to
the date of their discipleship or according to their intimacy with
Jesus. It is only of the position of the first four — who are, in
reality, of chief importance — that we have any certain know-
ledge, viz., that in their case priority of discipleship and the
closest intimacy with Jesus were both to be found. As to the
rest, it is at least probable that the date of discipleship mainly
decided the position in the list of the Apostles. This view is at
once in itself genuinely Jewish and early Christian ; it explains
the position of the first four, of Andrew in particular, and per-
haps also of Matthew ; it is suggested by the latest controver-
THE ELECTION OF THE TWELVE. SSo
sies of the disciples ; anJ it is strongly supported by the eoii-
sideration that, ou account of the exclusive position which the
relation of favourite disciples would give to Peter and the sons
of Zebedee, the rest. would stand more nearly on a level with
each other, or would be distinguished merely by the different
date of their call, with the exception of the twelfth, ^vho, and
indeed he alone, would have his place determined by the third
point of view.^ Again, from these facts it may be inferred witli
probability that the Apostles were to a great extent chosen from
the number of those who were early called; individuals — as
perhaps the publican Levi — might belong to a later date, but
on tl^e whole Jesus would naturally give the preference to those
wlio, on account of their longer and more intimate intercourse
with him, were best known to him, and were the best qualified.
This band of Apostles demands some attention at our hands,
even though it plays but an unimportant role in the history of
the life of Jesus, and only after his death comes independently
into notice, and even then not very .strikingly. Nevertheless,
Jesus placed his trust, his hope, in these men and youths ; he
found in them his personal support wdiile travelling the rough
road which lay before him ; and, in his own words, w^e may call
them specially blessed, because they were able to see and to hear
the highest to the end. The individuals can be easily con-
founded for the very reason that the wealth of names — among
which ten are Jewish and two Greek — is not great." For as
three names are repeated, half the disciples could be distin-
guished one from the other only by the name of father, brother,
or town, by a byname, or by tlie riglit of seniority. The most
1 Mattliew comes under our notice only when lie is reg.irded (see above, p. 266) as
the, in Matt. ix. 9 ^identical with Levi), publican who was admitted among the dis-
ciples. On this identification, however, the position of Matthew probably depends, not
only in the first Gospel, but also in the other catalogues. Controversy among the dis-
ciples, Matt. xix. 27, xx. 1 sqq.
* Andrew and Philip are Greek (both names al.'io in Josephus\ a.s is also the cogno-
men Peter, which, however, does not here fome under notice. P.nilns :iltiMii|ited lo
explain Andrew from the Hebrew, apli. from n;idar, vovere' fecit '
VOL. IlL - '.
386 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
important, certainly, make themselves prominent. Simon the
son of John, the afterwards-named Peter, is confounded by no
one with Simon the Zealot ; James the son of Zebedee, no one
mistakes for James the Less. The leadership of Simon Peter in
the catalogue of the Apostles is even to-day recognized as based
on something more than indefensil)le pretension : he is the first
of the Apostles by his call and by his actions, indeed by his ac-
tions during the life-time of Jesus, and not first in the apostolic
period, nor by a violent transference of the relations of the apos-
tolic period to the time of Jesus.^ The mental peculiarity of
Peter, as reflected in the facts of both these sets of relationships,
was an eminent susceptibility to higher impressions to which he
yielded up his whole nature, his emotions and his will ; and, in
addition to that susceptibility, Peter possessed an unmistakable,
brilliant and rapid capacity of seeing things correctly with an easy
and quick glance, of arriving as by divination at a right under-
standing. At the same time, it is true that uotwithstaruiing all
his keen presentiment, his unriddling, his comprehension, of the
nature and thoughts of Jesus, notwithstanding all his quickness
to discover and his eagerness to follow the signs of the times,
and to undertake the tasks they imposed, he was incapable of
really acute and logical thought, and he had no tenacity of will.
In this combination of strength and weakness — which is not,
with Holsten in his otherwise noteworthy criticism, to be re-
ferred to strong excitation of feeling side by side with feeble
powers of thought — Peter was, indeed, the most genuine of all
the Galileans who were with Jesus. He was peculiarly fitted
to become a favourite of Jesus, whom like a perfect mirror he
reflected, whose mental flashes were reproduced in him, whose
heroic step found in him the most sympathetic accompaniment,
whose whole nature turned to him as to its most congenial
home, and yet found in him, just at the most important moment,
only a brittle reed instead of a firm support which Jesus might
1 Matt. X. 2 : i\\Q first, Simon. Yet Fritzsche, on Matt. {p. 358), would have this
to be "accidental."
THE ELECTION OF THE TIVELVE. 387
use when not able to stand alone.^ Peter was destined to occupy
a similar position in the first Christian community, the appointed
leader of the apostolic period, as a prompt, ready, resolute speaker
of the moment, and as a man of correct divination at great criti-
cal points ; and yet, even after the strengthening of his moral
force of will, he was no sure leader, because he stood still at
half-way in his thought and purpose, and was no match for
Paul, the new Apostle of mind, the innovator, either in authority,
or in resistance, or in the winning of adherents.
Somewhat different were the qualifications of the sons of
Zebedee, James and John, the pair of brothers who can be sepa-
rated only by their difference in age, and perhajDS in the degree,
though not in the character, of their dominant mental tendency.
For in both James had the precedence, only, as an early called-
for sacrifice to Jewish anger, to make room for John.^ The sons
of Zebedee were the complement to Peter. To them, also, W'as
not wanting a quick sensibility to new ideas which they enthu-
siastically and fancifully shaped for themselves; and they too
cherished a tender attachment to Jesus, which, however, as
little as in Peter's case excluded altogether a certain naive and
unconscious egoism. But their strongest side was energy of
will, a choleric and percussive resistance to obstacles, a charac-
teristic which on an unknown occasion gained for them from
Jesus the title of " Sons of Thunder." They were marked by a
desire to do their work completely when destroying or building
up ; by a persistent adherence to their own principles even
against Jesus, and still more in apostolic times, when James
^vas the strongest sympathizer with Judaism, and John remained
nearer than Peter to James, the brother of the Lord, the prince
of the Chiu'ch and the assailant of Paulinism.^ Andrew, tliough
1 Holsten, Evang. des Paulus u. Pctrus, 1868, pp. 210 sqq.
" Comp. above, p. 262. Acts xii. 1—3.
3 See Matt. xx. 20 sqq.; Luke ix. 49; Mark iii. 17, ix. 38; Acts xii. 2; Gakt.
ii. 9 (Acts XV.). Boanerges, good Hebrew bene regesh (noise, noisy multitude; Sjt.
and Arab, thunder). The Sh'va, also a full vowel in the Jewish popular pronuncia-
tion = oa; at the present time noabijin = neliijin; coinp. Masada, iu Strab. 12, 2:
2 r2
388 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
brother of Peter and the second disciple called, stands quite in
the rear of these three. He is never Spoken of except in the
latest two Gospels, which attempt in a number of ways to secure
to him the fourth place, to which externally he had a double
claim. Thus in Mark he appears as fourth in the number of
the intimate disciples to whom Jesus in Jerusalem reveals the
future ; and in John he is repeatedly one of the narrower circle
of six.^ In truth, the only narrower circle was that of the three,
Peter, James, and John, in comparison with whom all the others
retired into a second rank. There is nothing more remarkable
than this exclusive community of trust, love, and mutual under-
standing which, at least gradually, grew up by the side of the
comparatively wider society of disciples, and in which Jesus,
combining the characteristics of weaker and one-sided natures,
found himself, his emotions, his thoughts, his purposes, repeated
in a more youthful shape, and in which indeed he often, by im-
pelling his favourites to talk, attempted to listen to himself, his
task, his mission, not without the danger — which, however, in
the critical moment he always overcame — of sacrificing, sur-
prised and irresolute, his own purpose to the impression which
he found existing among them,^ It was these three friends
whom, according to the tradition of all the earlier Gospels, he
took with him alone upon the mount of transfiguration, accord-
ing to Matthew and Mark to Gethsemane, and according to Luke
and Mark to the resurrection of Jairus' daughter. It was these
also to whom Jesus permitted not only the most familiar
utterances, but also the most affectionate demeanour and the
grasp of the hand.^ The first of the three is always Peter, the
Liglitfoot, p. 439 (Beza wanted Benerges). The name is not to be derived,
as the ancients derived it, from eloquence, but from storming (only not exactly with
Gurlitt, Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 715, implying censure), comp. Luke ix. 49. Mark
iii. 17 gives the surnames alone, but as little as in the case of Peter on the right
occasion. On the name Zebedee, see also LXX., 1 Chron. ii. 14 (but not Esr. x. 15).
^ Mark xiii, 3. John i. 40, 44, brings Andrew into the front rank at the cost of
Peter. In vi. 5, 8, xii. 22, he is paired with Philip.
= Matt. xvi. 13—17, 22 sq. ^ ^j^tt. xvi. 22; comp. John xiii, 23.
THE ELECTIOy OF THE TWELVE. 389
second "as a rule James. Tn the later Gospels of Luke and John,
partly also in that of Mark, the second son of Zebedee begins to
acquire greater importance than the first, who was so early with-
drawn from history ; John is here placed before James, or men-
tioned alone, or with only Peter is commissioned to engage the
room for tlie evening meal.^ Indeed, in the fourth Gospel he
begins to rise above Peter, much as not only the history, but
particularly his temperament — less in sympathy with the milder
manner of Jesus — precluded him from coming to the front. It is
true that Peter's position cannot be entirely torn away from him.
He cannot be robbed either of his call at the beginning of Jesus'
ministry, or of his confession in the middle, or of his prominent
participation in the catastrophe at Jerusalem. But from the
beginning to the end, that mysterious bosom disciple " whom
Jesus (the bosom Son of God) loved," and who is in fact no
other than John, has taken from Peter the first place in the call,
in faith, in following Jesus till his death, in intimacy and in
promise.^ This characteristic of the narration is certainly as
repulsive as it is unhistorical, and is explained only by the
desire of the fourth Evangelist to name for his new and daring
Gospel a voucher who, by his position of intimacy with Jesus,
was qualified to make known a higher truth than that tauglit
by Peter or the already existing Gospel.
Concerning the other Apostles, we have in the older Gospels
and in the Acts not much more than tlieir names. The fourth
Gospel, however, not to speak of the apocryphal writings, in its
^ See above, p. 262, note 4. Then not Luke v. 10, vi. 14, but viii. 51, ix. 49,
xxii. 8. In Mark, James generally has the precedence, iii. 17, v. 37, ix. 2, x. 35, 41,
xiii. 3, 13 ; only ix. 38 mentions John alone. In John's Gospel, nothing certain can
be gathei-ed from i. 40, but everywhere else in the Gospel it is not James who is the
bosom friend (xiii. 23) ; therefore here probably it is also John who is the first, and
not James who has been silenced by death.
^ John i. 40 sqq., vi. 68, xiii. 6, xviii. 15 sqq., xx. 2 sqq., xxi. 1 sqq. But Peter
is placed in the background already in i. 40, vi. 20, xiii. 23, xviii. 10, 15, 16, 25,
&e. Comp. the detailed references in Credner, Einl. p. 209, and Scholten, John
i. — iv. That Spiith incorrectly regarded Nathanael as the favourite disciple of the
fourth Gospel, see above, p. 381, note 2.
890 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
clever style gives a number of details which would he eagerly
accepted but for the distrust that is felt towards the free and —
which is of most consequence — freely painting Gospel. We
have already seen its great arbitrariness in giving the calls of
the Apostles, from Andrew to Nathanael. The assertions con-
cerning the rest of the Apostles exhibit also a general indefinite-
ness of conception : these Apostles and their detailed pictures
are present to the Evangelist only to serve as foils to the great-
ness of Jesus, and in that respect are a general type of all disci-
ples. There is a continual repetition of two things, with a varia-
tion of these two things : the Apostles either, with God-inspired
presentiment, pay homage to the greatness of Jesus, as in the
first chapter, or — not without contradiction to their first bravery
— they show by human, earthly narrowness and foolishness, how
little they are, how great he is ; and thus the Gospel continues
to the end.^ Hence we prefer to remain by the mere names
given in the earlier Gospels, and will introduce only in passing
what the latest Gospel may here and there offer that is new.
For what is known concerning Philip, Bartholomew or Natha-
nael, and Matthew, the reader is referred to the foregoing pages.^
The seventh, Thomas, specially called the Twin from his birth,
therefore a Greek Didymos, a Latin Gemellus, Hebrew Teom,
Aramaic Toma, is repeatedly referred to with predilection by the
fourth Gospel, naturally as one who is entangled in his material
views, but also in a higher manner as a realistic calculator,
and as characterized by an irritable melancholy with reference
to the ways of Jesus, whose death he prophesies, whose being
alive he does not believe until it is demonstrated, but whose fall
he as an adherent and a disciple is resolved to share.^ These
^ Comp. Jolin i. 40 sqq., vi. 68 ; but also ii. 22, vi. 5, 8, xi. 8 sqq., xiii. 6 sqq.
xiv. 8. It is partly the antithesis of inspired and human, and partly that of the
divine Jesus and the man with human limitations, comp. viii. 23.
* Philip as a little-minded calculator, John vi. 5 ; as introducer of the Hellenes,
xii. 21, where, certainly, but not before, he is confounded with the deacon Philip of
the Acts.
3 John xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24 — 29, xxi. 2. Thoma (Teom with Aram, article)
e.xpressly called twin by John's Gospel, regarded by Yolkmar (p. 253), on account of
THE ELECTION OF THE TWELVE. 391
facts do not belong to the actual history, and tlie special point of
light in his existence, readiness for self-sacrifice, is borrowed
from Peter or from all the Apostles. The ninth according to
Matthew, James the less or the younger, retreating far behind
his fellow-apostle that bears the same name, the son of Zebedee,
is better known through his father and mother, Clopas and Mary
the adherent of Jesus, than through himself. His kinsliip to
Jesus has been already rejected in an earlier part of this volume.^
The tenth and eleventh, Judas the son — not the brother — of
James, the courageous (Lebbseus, Thaddfeus), and Simon Cana-
mmis or the Zealot, erroneously given by Matthew and Mark as
the Canaanite or as coming from the Gentile borderland, are
shown by their cognomens to be of clioleric disposition, similarly
constituted to the sons of Zebedee, the first, however, brave
rather by nature, and the second in principles which he possibly
learned from the radical school of the Pharisees, Judas the Gali-
lean and Zadok.2 The fourth Gospel shows both — nature and
principle — in a certain measure fused together in the person of
Judas : it is he who asks Jesus why he reveals himself to the
disciiJes and not to the world, and who therefore has the courage
to wish for an energetic external IMessianic manifestation.^ This
John XX. 24, as a representative of Docetic Gnosticism. In trutli, be represents the
direct opposite. Pressense (p. 434) thinks Thomas resembles Peter.
1 See above, p. 276. Alphseus and Clopas, Cleopas (Luke xxiv. 18; John xix. 25)
is the same name pronounced softer or harder ; comp. Lightfoot, pp. 59, 756. Winer
would derive Cleopas (Luke xxiv.) from Cleopatros. Probably Aram. Chalpai (Light-
foot, Chalpi), from Cheleph, town in Kaphtali, Joshua xix. 33 ; or appellative,
exchange, representative, perhaps as posthumous son. Kehppa, kulpa, hammer,
not to be thought of.
- Kai'aj'aiof, Matt. x. 4 (later reading -i'djc) ; Mark iii. 18. In Matt, one sees
slight difference between the pronunciation of this word and that of Xrti/ai^aioc. xv. 22
(thus also LXX.). The name cannot be derived from the town Cana, see above,
p. 382, note 1 ; corap. John xxi. 2. In Luke vi. 15 and Acts i. 13, rightly called
Zealot. This suggests the Hebr. adjective kanna, Talm. also kannai, kanan, kananit
(zeal and the jealous, Bux. 2060 sq. )= zealous, whence kanani. Comp. Ex. xx. 5
(God, ^)/\(.J7?)c) ; Num. XXV. 11 (Phinehas). Jos. B. J. 4, 3, 9 (zealots in Jewish
War). Paul, Gal. i. 14; Jesus himself, John ii. 17. Venturini, Griitz, and Kenan,
have also thought of an earlier intercourse of Simon with Judas the Galilean. Ewald
(p. 399) prefers to regard him as a Pharisaic zealot.
3 John xiv. 22.
392 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MLSSZOy.
trait of character is not inaptly inferred, whether the inference
be made from the name itself or from the proximity of Jiidas of
Keriot, who also seriously missed the material Messiah ; hut it
was, however, not peculiar to Judas, for all the disciples really
entertained similar sentiments, and according to the fourth
Gosj)el, this was specially the case with the brothers of Jesus.^
The close of this history will delineate the character of the
remarkable twelfth Apostle, also a Judas, distinguished from the
former one as the man of Kerijot (Ish-Kerijot, Iscariot), a town
in the north of the tribe of Judah ; he was doubtless thns desig-
nated because he or his father had migrated thence into Galilee.^
From the beginning, the Gospels point more or less distinctly to
the future black deed of this Apostle, Matthew and Mark simply
mentioning the fact, Luke anticipating it as something after-
wards accomplished, John at once loftily and anxiously referring
to Jesus' knowledge of it from the first.^ This representation of
John's Gospel is, as we have already shown, a mere fabrication,
since it is impossible that Jesus could have chosen his betrayer
and murderer to be not only a disciple but also an Apostle.
Hence, in the selection of Judas, we rather see the human limi-
tation of the knowledge of Jesus — a limitation that John's
Gospel is anxious to ignore altogether — the tentative, and at the
same time affectionate and grandly credulous search in which
Jesus, himself great, assumed rather too much than too little
greatness also in others. In consequence of this limitation,
Jesus, in the midst of the most brilliant justifications of his
choice, was not saved from mistakes and disappointments, as in
^ Luke xix. 1 1 ; Acts i. 6 ; John vii. 3.
2 Generally Keriot is sought in the south of the tribe (thus Kenan, p. 153), accord-
ing to Joshua XV. 2.5. Ewald prefers, on account of its proximity, the town Kartah
in Zebulun (Joshua xxi. 34, comp. also Kartan in Naphtali, ib. xxi. 32). But the
form of the word contradicts all this. For the correct explanation, see above, p. 27(5.
Suggef?tive derivation by Lightfoot, p. 313 (also De Wette), from sekorthia, askorthia
(Bux. 1543), tanner's apron (in connection with which he recalls the money-bag of the
fourth Gospel); or from askara, Bux. 1479, strangling. Paulus even suggests shek-
rijut (sheker, a lie) !
^ Matt. X. i; Mark iii. 19; Luke vi. 16; John vi. 70 sq.
THE MISSIOX OF THE TWELVE. 393
tlie case of Judas, and also of the weaker Apostles and of the
weaknesses of all the Apostles, the greatest of wliorn, Peter, is
shown by history to have been a less man than Paul, the Apostle
by the grace of God.^
C. — The Mission of the Twelve.
To these Apostles, then, whom he had selected, Jesus is said
to have given an address containing a number of instructions
before they started on their first missionary journey, which began
at Capernaum, and by no means, as Mark would not unskil-
fully make it appear, from Nazara. The subject-matter and
bearing of this address can be discovered only in a circuitous
M'ay.- Matthew gives an exceedingly copious address, in which
Jesus discloses to the disciples what they have to do, what they
must expect, their consolation, and their reward.^ But we soon
find reason to suspect that the Evangelist has, in this address as
in so many other instances, brought together everything which
Jesus imparted to his disciples at different times during his
Avhole ministry even up to the last days.* In fact, the Evangel-
^ On Judas, more details in the history of the Passion. Against self-deceptions
on the part of Jesus, not only has Schleierraacher (p. 371 ) spoken, who preferred to
question the very appointment of the Apostles ; but also Weisse (p. 396), and Ewald
(p. 393).
' Matt. X. 5—42; Luke ix. 3 — 5; Mark vi. 8 — 11. The departure from Caper-
naum is plainly presupposed in Matt. x. 9 sq. Luke expressly connects the missionary
address with Capernaum (close of the four great miracles— storm, Gadarene, Jairus,
woman with issue of blood). But Mark here interpolates the synagogue scene at
Nazara; and indeed it appears appropriate that Jesus, in the midst of his great
mission on the border of the plain of Jezreel, and yet more as a sequence to the dis-
comfiture at Nazara, should redouble his efforts. But, on the other hand, see Mark
vi. 8, J4, and still more vi. 30, where Jesus appears to be resting at Capernaum (v. 43)
rather than engaged in his mission ! And even if there were not this difficulty, who
would rely upon Mark's interpolation ?
* The address can be thus divided: (1) The commission, vers. 5 — 15; (2) what
they would meet with, 16—23; (3) their consolation, 24— 33 ; (4) the time of divi-
sion, and their prospects, 34 — 42.
* That the address in Matthew is an artificial composition, was admitted not only
by Schleier., Schultz, Sieftert, Holtzm., Meyer, and others; but also by Olsh., Kern,
Tholuck, Strauss, L»e Wette, and Bleek; at the same time, the latter party were in
394 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
ist gives only this one missionary address, no second, nor third.
In fact, also, its subject-matter points to a great deal that belongs
to a much later period. The gloomy views, which are expressed
as early as verse 16, the comparison of the disciples to sheep
that are going among wolves, the reference to the variance
which Jesus would bring upon earth, to the family divisions and
the persecution which he would occasion, to the general hatred,
to the ill-treatment in the synagogues, to the indictments before
governors and kings, to the cross and capital punishment, and
finally the stern and severe threats against those who resist, — all
this is too evidently inconsistent with the essentially kindly and
joyous disj)Osition to which the- mission owed its origin, and
shows instead the physiognomy of the later sanguinary struggles
and of the last farewell address. Indeed, the latter part of the
address refers to times when Jesus was no longer upon earth,
when the Apostles, standing as his successors before the mighty
ones of the world, are thrown upon their own resources and
upon the help of God, and when Jesus, returning, recognizes his
own before the divine judgment-seat. Persons who find every-
thing possible would do well here to reflect whether Jesus, even
if he already knew all that lay hidden in the womb of time,
would or could at the very outset disclose all to his beginners,
whom he in other respects guided so circumspectly and so
wisely. The force of this consideration will be materially
strengthened by observing that IMatthew himself reports utter-
ances in this spirit and in this form at much later periods ; and
that the connection, which Hilgenfeld finds so good, is on the
whole weak and obscure, and is disfigured by repetitions. More-
over, Luke and JNIark — not to speak of Paul, who gives only one
sentence of the missionary address — limit the address to the
doubt as to X. 16 and the rest. Comp. Tholuck, Bergprcdiytj Strauss, I. p. 653;
Meyer on Matt. x. ; Bleek, I. pp. 408 sqq. From not regarding its artificial construc-
tion, Hilgenfeld has arrived at the incorrect conclusion that the address, which he —
without troubling himself about Luke and Mark — regards as an actual unity, should
rightly be placed after Matt, xxiii., and is placed too early by the second hand, i.e.
the Evangelist.
TEE MISSION OF THE TWELVE. 395
opening passages in Matthew, to vers. 5 — 15.^ It may, indeed,
be assumed that Luke had before him the address in Matthew in
essentially its present extent, and that he converted it into his
artificially constructed address to the Seventy : yet it is striking
that he finds places for many of its passages in later addresses to
the disciples or to the people, that he exhibits a second and later
missionary address to the Twelve, and that the boundary of his
first missionary address harmonizes with that boundary of the
address of Matthew which must, for reasons based on fact, be
separated from what happened later. It may, accordingly, be
assumed with probability that Luke, and Mark who resembles
him, were in possession of sources in which the first address of
instruction had the given shorter form, while the other passages
occupied the more or less independent and looser positions which
are suggested by the visible traces of ISIatthew's work of arrange-
ment.^ This shorter form, in fact a real elementary set of pre-
1 Comp. Matt. xxiv. 9, 13. Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 14 (Matt. x. 10 ; Luke x. 7). Ver. 15
in Matt., although also represented in Luke x. 12, is evidently an addition drawn by
the author from a later situation (Matt. xi. 24).
- While Tholuck still thinks that many passages in Matt. x. may be regarded aa
transferred from Luke x., from the address to the Seventy, since Baur's criticism the
verdict concerning Luke has been essentially reversed, and the most recent partizans
of Luke have not altered it. The parallel passages in Luke are : (1) Luke vi. 12 —
16, 40 (Sermon on the Mount); (2) ix. 1—6 (sending forth the Twelve); (3) x. 1—
12, 16, 17 (sending forth the Seventy) ; (4) xii. 2—12 (fresh instruction = Matt.
X. 26—33); (5) xii. 49—53 (fresh instruction = Matt. x. 34-36); (6) xiv. 26 sq.
(=Matt. x. 37 sq.); (7) xxi. 12—19 (eschatological = Matt. x. 17—20, 30, 39;
comp. also Luke xii. 11 sq.). The address to the Seventy in Luke plainly betrays aa
acquaintance with Matt, x., comp. Luke x. 2 and Matt. ix. 37 ; Luke x. 3 and Matt.
X. 16 ; Luke x. 5 and Matt. x. 12 ; Luke x. 7 and Matt. x. 9 ; Luke x. 12 and Matt.
x. 15; Luke x. 16, Matt. x. 40. The parallel passages in Mark are: (1) Mark
iii. 13—19 (election); (2) vi. 7—13, 30 (mission); (3) xiii. 9—13 (eschatological =
Matt. X. 17—22) ; (4 and 5) minor parallels, iv. 22, ix. 41. The distinct parts in
Matthew's address can easily be separated on comparison with Luke and Mark :
(1) The original missionary address, Matt. x. 1—14 (15); (2) eschatological, x. 16—
23; (3) fresh instruction, x. 24—33; (4) scattered pa.ssages, x. 15 (Luke x. 12),
34—36 (Luke xii. 49), 37 sq. (Luke xiv. 26 sq.), 39 (Luke xvii. 33), 40 (Luke x. 16),
41 sq. (Mark ix. 41). It is ea.sy to perceive that the repetitions and the connecting
links in Matthew in this way find an admirable explanation. What the disciples have
to expect is twice repeated (vers. 16 — 23 and 34 — 38), and so is also their consolation
(vers. 24 sqq. and 39 sqq.). Connecting links in Matt. x. 16, 17, 24, 34, 40. And
how are vers. 19, 20 adapted for such a purpose ? Ver. 26 might be regarded in this
light.
396 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSIOK
cepts for beginners, is thus to be made tlie basis of the historical
account of the sending forth of the Apostles.^
This short missionary address is to be found in its purest form
in Matthew. For Luke, and almost still more Mark, give the
address to the Twelve evidently only in fragments, not once
taking the trouble formally to communicate Jesus' utterance
concerning the most important matters of all, the preaching of
the kingdom and the commission to heal. They also introduce
important alterations, particularly with reference to the articles
which the disciples were or were not to take with them.^ The
address to the Seventy, moreover, which Luke has composed
from the long address in Matthew and from several other sources,
is throughout marked by periphrase and party sentiment.^ Mat-
thew's address gives singly and alone the most important funda-
mental characteristics of the address of Jesus, the charge to
preach to Israel and the watchword which the Apostles were to
bear with them like a battle-cry, and finally also the most
original form of the charge concerning the journeying and the
equipments of the Apostles.
Still full of faith in the intrinsically and exclusively Tsrael-
itish character of his ministry, and in view of the faith and need
which met him from Israel, Jesus designated to the Twelve their
mission-field as being, in the words of the prophet Micaiah the
son of Ijmla, "the lost sheep of the house of Israel ;" and he
forbade their going into either the roads of the Gentiles or the
towns of Samaria.* It is here quite intelligible why Luke and
' Matt. X. 1—14 (15); Luke ix. 2—5 (comp. x. 2—12) ; Mark vi: 8—11.
^ Luke ix. 2. Mark gives only a supplementary hint, vi. 12. On what to take
with them, see below, pp. 399 sqq. The greater fidelity of Matthew in this province
is admitted, from Strauss and De Wette to Tholuck and Holtzmann. See below,
p. 401, note 1.
2 Luke X. 4 (5 sq.), 7 — 11. To this is attached the denunciation of the Galilean
lake-towns, vers. 13 — 16 (comp. Matt. xi. 20), which at any rate in this only artifi-
cially created situation is arbitrarily introduced with an anti -Jewish purpose.
* Micaiah, 1 Kings xxii. 17. On the antipathy of the Jews towards the Samaritans,
comp. briefly John iv. 9, and the sentiments of contempt of the Samaritans expressed
in viii. 48 (certainly under the influence of Gnosticism). Also, Lightfoot, pp. 212
(Sam. est sicut ethnicus !), 314, 614. Bleek, I. p. 418. After the death of Herod
THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE. 397
Mark, "witli their advanced view of the unlimited call of the
g(3spel to the whole world, have suppressed this charge. Indeed,
we might ask on what ground Jesus found it necessary to impose
these restrictions, since his disciples, who had grown up in strict
Jewish views and were moreover restrained by the long-since
effected political separation of Samaria and Galilee and the yet
more influential mutual hatred — nay, who showed themselves to
be actuated by narrow Jewish sentiments at a much later date,
after the departure of Jesus, — these disciples would be less likely
tlian their Master to contemplate going into the roads of the
Gentiles, and least of all would they be likely to visit Samaria,
which lay at a distance of fifteen leagues. Hence it might be
thought that Jesus had either never uttered this genuinely Jew-
ish-Christian and anti- Pauline passage, as little as the kindred
one, that the disciples " were not to throw their pearls before
swine ;" or that at any rate he had spoken it at another period.^
But in point of fact Jesus was anxious early to make clear to his
disciples that the sphere of his and their ministry was Israel, the
people of God, and to add the temporarily valid limitations so
much the rather because at that very time haste and concentra-
tion were most necessary, and because the road of the Gentiles
at least lay very near to them in Galilee, and the semi-Gentile
Tiberias was distant only three leagues from Capernaum.^ He
the Great, Galilee and Samaria were politically separated, and still more after the
deposition of Archselaus, A.D. 7, when Samaria was added to the Roman province.
On their arrogance after this time, comp. Josephus, Ant. 18, 2, 2 ; also above, Vol. II.
p]). 261 sq., and in a subsequent volume, Jesus' joui-ney to Jerusalem.
1 According to Weisse (p. 405), this limitation had only a subjective ground. Ac-
cording to Bleek (I. p. 420), it sprang from his personal narrowness and his dread of
offending the Jews. According to Ewald (p. 425), the disciples could have been easily
seduced to go further ! The most recent criticism, on the other hand, regards such
utterances either as actual and serious convictions on the part of Jesus, or as anti-
raulinisms of the later Jewish Christians, e.g. also Matt. vii. 6, where the same seems
to be expressed, only more harshly, with a moral verdict. On this last passage it ia
to be remarked, however, that the Evangelist doe.s not give it a national reference.
See next volume.
2 See Vol. II. pp. 4, 374. How near lay heathendom on the north, east, and west I
Also ou the south, in Gadara, Hippos, and Scythopolis, Absolute exclusion of heathen-
dom, not merely provisional. Matt. xv. 24.
398 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AXD APOSTOLIC MISSION.
did not appoint the separate sphere of labour of each individual :
we see in this an instance of his anxiety in great things, of his
carelessness in details, but also of the confidence which he
reposed in the independent activity of his disciples. It is, how-
ever, conceivable that he had only Galilee with its towns and
villages in view, for it is evident that his two limitations shut
out not only the surrounding heathendom, but also Judsea in the
south, the way to which was through the Samaritan towns. In
fact, the thought could have occurred to him as little as to the
disciples, that his weak beginners should enter Judsea or the
metropolis : this would have been to dissipate and to waste the
forces which found their support in union and in his powerful
proximity, and to lay upon the disciples that most difficult work
of all from whicli he himself still kept aloof, and to which he
had finally to sacrifice himself^
The preaching which he committed to them was the old
baptism cry and his own initial cry. The kingdom of heaven is
at hand ! It is significant that he did not go beyond this cry,
although his ministry had so far advanced that he could soon
after speak of a kingdom and of a person both of which had
already come. He retained the watchword of the whole move-
ment of the time, a watchword the efficiency and intelligibility
of which had been tested, which represented a principle, derived
its power from its uniformity and its persistence, and finally was
necessarily the first seed to be sown in the newly trodden mission-
fields until the more fully developed truth should ripen on the
well-cultivated soil. Even Luke, if not also Mark, has in a cer-
tain measure and slightly indicated this cry of the kingdom; and
in the sending forth of the Seventy he has come still closer to
the truth, only he has transformed the temporal nearness of the
kingdom of heaven into a local one. Mark unexpectedly and by
way of supplement gives the correct information when lie mentions
the repentance cry of the journeying disciples ; in fact, the full
^ Schenkel (p. 116) thinks he sent them towards different districts of the Jewish
country.
THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE. 399
original formula, as it was heard on the banks of the Jordan, also
accompanied the preaching of the discij^les of Jesus.^ The cry
of the kingdom is represented as having been supported by the
facts in wliicli Jesus himself found the accompaniments and
signs of the kingdom of heaven within the sphere of his own
ministry, the healing of the infirm and the expulsion of demons.
This power of healing he gave to his disciples, perhaps not as a
capability newly imparted by some mysterious communication
of power, of which the Gospels now speak, nor by an initia-
tion into the manipulations of his own practice of healing, of
which Ewald speaks ; but he assumed the existence of this
power in them already as the fruit of their exercise of faith,
though the Gospels tell of no case of healing by the disciples up
to this period. He simply asked for the unreserved, full, and
disinterested unfolding of this j^ower : "Freely ye have received,
freely give !"^
The equipment which he prescribed to them is striking.
Neither gold nor copper were they to provide for themselves
in their girdle ; no leathern bag with provision of bread was to
be hung about the neck or taken with them on the way ; they
were to have no second uuder-garment, no provision of sandals,
not even a staff. These articles formed the usual travelling
equipment, and many a careless festival-pilgrim took them with
him even into the temple.* The reason for these prohibitions
1 Luke ix. 2, x. 9, 11 (comp. sxi. 20); Mark vi. 12. See above, Vol. II. p. 236,
Vol. III. pp. 39 sqq., 76, note 1.
^ Matt. X. 8 bas also lepers; the mention of the dead, however, is spurious, and
brought in from xi. 1 sqq. Neither Luke nor Mark has this ; Mark indeed mentions
only demoniacs, but brings in other sick when relating what the disciples effected,
vi. 13.
^ Fully carried out in practice by Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 18, notwithstanding the permis-
sion of Jesus, ib. ix. 14.
* Baculum, pera, calcei, crumena, Lightfoot, p. 314. Pera coriacea, quam a colic
suo appendunt pastores, in qua victualia sua reponunt ; comp. the Cynics. Money
was sometimes carried in the hollow girdle (comp. Livy, 33, 29 : argontum in zonis
babentes), sometimes sewn into the clothes, sometimes kept in a money-bag suspended
over the back. Lightfoot, I. c. The vttoc. are sandals (comp. Mark), not, as Lightfoot
thought, shoes; on the contrary, according to Mark, sandals were permitted. Also in
400 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
is correctly given by Matthew, but unskilfully forgotten or put
aside by the others : " The workman is worthy of his food," i. e.
food and drink and clothing, even to the replacing of the sandals
worn out by travelling, should be given to the Apostles at the
houses where they were entertained on their mission.^ Only the
staff seems to have been unconditionally forbidden, therefore not
reckoned among the travelling requisites which were to be re-
newed at the houses of their hosts. This follows from the words
of Jesus himself, and also from the utterance in Gethsemane.
As preachers of peace, as friends, not foes, of mankind, they were
to forego the use of the otherwise so usual staff, and in this re-
spect were to surpass the Essenes, the rural men of peace, who,
though they carried no weapons, yet allowed them on a journey
and as a protection from robbers.^ This meaning of the words of
Jesus was, however, very early misunderstood. Luke gives cur-
rency to the point of view which he probably borrowed from his
Ebionite Gospel, viz., that the disciples were to take nothing
with them — neither staff, bag, bread, money, purse, second gar-
ment, nor sandals — as equipment and travelling luggage, in
order to show that they were poor and trusted to the Lord, and
to show that they were couriers who— an exaggeration in fact,
or at least in words- — after the pattern of Gehazi, Elisha's ser-
vant, hastening to the resurrection of the son of the Shunam-
mite, were to greet no one by the way.^ This representation of
the passage quoted by Schottgen (p. 9.5), the philosophers are forlndden to wear, not
shoes, but gaily-coloured shoes. The two under-garments woru together, Mark vi. i1 ;
comp. above, Vol. II. p. 255 (John).
^ Mark has quite forgotten the reason ; Luke has not put it in the appropriate place,
X. 7 (the labourer is worthy of his hire).
"^ Jesus evidently forbids several things altogether — money, bag, staff (in the sin-
gular, according to the best-attested reading). Other things in the form of additional
provision, thus the two under-garments and sandals. It is necessary here to interpret
with judgment, and to think neither of an absolute prohibition of sandals (comp. Acts
xii; 8), nor of a supply of staves, which latter seems to be sujiported by the context,
but is impossil)le from the nature of the case. Comp. Matt. x.wi. 52 ; Luke xxii. 3G.
Essenes, see above. Vol. I. p. 378.
•* Luke ix. 3 and x. 4, finally xxii. 35, whei-e the sandals ai-e spoken of as absolutely
lacking ; comp. 2 Kings iv. 29. Lightfoot, p. 519 (the pious greet not or in a
whisper).
THE MISSION OF TEE TWELVE. 401
the matter does not commend itself to Mark. He is no friend of
naked poverty ; and in particular he finds the rejection of a staff
and sandals unpractical and unreasonable. A staff was carried
by the Eabbis, and Gehazi was furnished with one ; and sandals
were worn not only by Israel in the exodus from Egypt, but also
later by each of the Apostles. ]\Iark, therefore, while he consents
to the other prohibitions, particularly that of the second under-
garment, and forbids not only gold and silver, but also, like
Matthew, every copper coin, nevertheless speaks with great and
almost comic definiteness for the permission to take a staff and
to wear sandals.^ Hence we have to thank him that, in the old
Christian paintings, the Apostles are seen with great and cer-
tainly unhistorical travelling staves.
If we confine ourselves to Matthew, therefore, we find that the
command of Jesus, instead of being strange, rather points to the
wise arrangement by which he was anxious to regulate the mis-
sionary operations of his Apostles, and the wisdom of which he
had already verified in his own experience. Instead of seeking
to attract mere popular assemblages, instead of drawing together
crowds of people eager for signs and miracles of healing, instead
of any kind of public demonstration, the disciples were to engage
in a quiet and unobtrusive domestic mission ; they were to be
under the necessity of visiting the homes of the people, they
were to bestow continuous attention to the narrowest circle ;
and, on the other hand, as a bond of union between themselves
and the houses of the people, they were to be content with the
hospitality of the latter, not indeed as an equivalent payment —
which Jesus forbade them to take — but as a reciprocally valu-
able acknowledgment. If it be asked why Jesus did not provide
for any appearance of the Apostles in the synagogues, a sphere
of labour which is first mentioned in later addresses, although in
1 Mark vi. 9, comp. x. 24 (Matt. xix. 24). But the text here should be altered.
Even Iloltz. (pp. 82 sqq., 145 sqq. ) objects to Mark's correction as to staflF and sandals ; .
on the contrary, Schenkel (Bibel-Lcx. III. p. 283) finds the original in Mark. Tho
Kabbis with staflF and bag, Lightfoot, p. 444. Volkmar thinks essentially of the
exodus from Egypt, Ex. xii. 11.
VOL. III. 2 D
402 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC /MISSION.
JNIatthew it appears, it is true, in connection with the long
missionary address, the answer should certainly not assume an
already existing breach with the authorities of the synagogues,
for of this there is no evidence whatever; but the answer should
be based on the point of view of the exclusively domestic cha-
racter of the preaching : Jesus found a ministry in tlie houses
of the people easier and more practicable for his modest, timid
novices, imperfectly trained in the learning of the schools, than
one which challenged the attention of the great public, or found
its audience in the places consecrated to the worship of God.^
Entering into the towns and villages, they were first of all to
look round them tentatively, in order to discover who was
worthy to receive them. Entering into a house, they M'ere to
give the salutation of peace ; and if the house proved worthy,
their peace was to remain therein ; they were to begin to preach
the kingdom and to heal the sick, and were not to think of
changing their house of entertainment until their departure from
the place.2 If the house or place were inhospitable, unworthy,
their salutation of peace was to return to them, it was to be
withdrawn unfulfilled — nay, tliey were to leave the neighbour-
hood, and in the house or in the street shake the dust from tlieir
feet as something unclean, contact with which they avoided as
they did contact with publicans and Gentiles.^ It is worth
^ Renan (p. 293) very justly remarks that at the present time the chief channel of
propagandism in the East is the intercourse of hospitality. Matt. x. 17 belongs at
any rate to a later period; comp. Luke xxi. 12 ; Mark xiii. 9.
^ Shalom lachem, comp. Luke x. 5. This exclamation already in the Old Test.,
Gen. xliii. 23; Judges xix. 20. Great importance attached to it, Schottgen, p. 96,
from Vajih: rahb. s. 9, f. 153 : magna est pax, quippe qua benedict, omues compre-
henduntur. High estimate of hospitality: quic. libenter hospitalitatem exercet, ejus
est paradisus. Majus est recipere viatorem, quam apparitionem shechinse habere.
Comp. Schottgen, p. 108.
^ Comp. the empty return of the divine word in Is. Iv.ll, and the remarkable passage,
1 Kings xxii. 17. The shaking off the dust does not mean the rejection of the very
least particle, nor the refusal to accept the hospitable service of washing the feet, but,
according to the Jewish way of speaking, the removal of uncleanness. Tos. ad Kel. 1 :
Pulvis Syriffi inquinat seque ac pulvis aliarum regionum ethnicarum. Even the fruits
of the earth were avoided on account of heathen dust. Terra ethnica imniunda seque
ac sepulcrctum. Lightfoot, i)p. 315 sq.
THE MISSION' OF THE TJFELVE. 403
noting, " incidentally, what Jesus considered u»elean in tlie
houses. The Jewish scruples troubled him here as little as
they did in his works of healing ; and the disciples were not
to concern themselves with the question whether the house or
the food was levitically clean or not. Here his sentiments were
quite Pauline, as also in the sending forth of the Seventy in
Luke there is to he found a complete accordance with the
words of Paul.^ Uncleanness lies only in the disposition which
turns away from the call to the kingdom.
Concerning the course and the results of this mission, as good
as nothing is related. The best-attested fact lies concealed in
an allusion. The lists of the Apostles exhibit the disciples
grouped two and two : the impression is thereby produced that
Peter was sent with Andrew, James with John, Philip with
Bartholomew, Thomas with Matthew, James the Less with
Judas the Courageous, Simon the Zealot with Judas Iscariot.^
This impression is strengthened when we perceive that the same
mode of sending forth is elsewhere taken for granted both on
the part of the Baptist and of Jesus ; that Luke represents the
Seventy as being thus sent forth ; and finally, that ]\Iark, either
from information or surmise, expressly breaks up the Twelve
into parties of two, the mission therefore into six divisions.^
This arrangement has, of course, nothing to do with a mechanical
separation of the two charges to teach and to heal ; it has pro-
bably also nothing to do with the custom and command of the
Scribes, that the wise man should never go without a companion
with whom to talk concerning the Law. But this arrangement
was for the excellent purpose of easing to the weak their new
1 Luke X. 7 sq. J 1 Cor. x. 27, par. to the saying of Jesus, ix. 7, 10 — 14.
^ Bengel, and also Ewald, Bleek, Meyer, found tres quaterniones. They attenii)ted
to show that on that account the first man in the quaternio always had the same place
in the catalogues. But the texts do not favour this division ; and James, Bartliolnmew,
and Judas, have also fixed places in the sources. Weisse tliought, on the other hand,
that Jesus sent forth only two at a time, and not all the Twelve.
•' Luke X. 1 ; M;nk vi. 7. Also Matt. xxi. 1 ; Luke xxii. 8; Mark xiv. 13. Coinp.
the Biiiitist, Luke vii. U' (iu Malt. xi. 'l, Tisciicndorf, cn'i).
404 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSIOX.
sense of independence and their great task; in the absence of
the IMaster it jDlaced side by side disciple and disciple, brother
and brother, friend and friend, as mutual helpers and comforters;
and it was the complement to tliat wise and affectionate instruc-
tion which sought to spare the apostles everything that was
difficult or impossible, as, e. g., the public ministry in the syna-
gogues.^
In other respects, the greatest obscurity reigns over this apos-
tolic mission. Matthew, after having given Jesus' address of
instruction, proceeds to relate the ministry of Jesus in such a
way that the mission of the Apostles entirely vanishes, though
the presence of the Apostles with Jesus is certainly not seen
throughout a chapter.^ It is true that Luke is able to report that
the disciples went about among the villages, everywhere preach-
ing the gospel and healing, lacking nothing, like the people of
Israel in the wilderness.^ Mark knows more exactly that they
preached repentance, cast out many demons, anointed and healed
many sick. Their return also is reported, as well as their report
of what they said and did; and then the retreat of Jesus with
them, which, according to the less robust account of Mark, was
specially designed to procure them rest and renovation.* A super-
ficial examination might indeed suggest that, according to these
Gospels, the Apostles returned to Jesus with the news of the
death of the Baptist, and that their ministry drew the attention
of the tetrarch Antipas to Jesus.^ It might still more easily be
^ Midr. Ruth in Soh. chad. f. Gl, 1 : ispe tibi culpam attrahis, quia neminem
tecum (especially in itinera) habes, cum quo de lege div. colloquaris. Schottgen,
p. 89.
* At least in xii. 1 ; and indeed already in xi. 25 the disciples are with Jesus.
^ Luke ix. 6, 10, xxii. 35; comp. Deut. viii. 3 sq., xxix. 5.
* Mark vi. 12 sq., 30 sq. Mark adds to the works (Luke) the report concerning
what they had taught. Volkmar on the anointings, see above, p. 184, note 2. The
retreat in Mark, see Gesch. Chr. xv., note.
® Particularly from Mark vi. 30 could this connection be inferred (thus Holtzm.,
Schenkel, Hausrath); but Mark himself expressly represents Antipas as hearing of the
fame of Jesus directly from Jesus himself (vi. 14), and he limits the report brought by
the Twelve to their own works and teaching (verse 30).
THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE. 405
assumed "that Jesus' solemn salutation of the Seventy of Luke on
their return from their mission — according to which Jesus saw,
among their great works wrought on the possessed, the kingdom
of tlie devil finally overthrown — originally belonged to the report
of the mission of the Twelve, which Luke has indeed, at least
partially, transferred to the Seventy.^ But all these suppositions
are tx^-iite untenable. The salutation of the Seventy, in particular,
is of an altogether strangely miraculous and apocryphal nature ;
and the actual report of the two Gospels 'concerning the results
of and the return from the mission is too plainly the mere com-
pletion and finishing touch of the external form to which, after
the call, the actual going forth and return could not be allowed
to be wanting, but which was altogether without any individual
and certain facts. These facts were therefore afterwards prepared
and supplied by certain generalities, by great and crudely con-
ceived miraculous cures, and by distortions of earlier narratives.
It may thus be with confidence assumed that these two Evangel-
ists — as, indeed, Matthew also proves — were without any infor-
mation at all concerning the actual mission of the Twelve ; and
that in truth Matthew, whose account appears so unintelligible
and incomplete, deserves to be commended for the candour witli
which, by his eloquent silence, he has confessed his ignorance of
the results of the mission of the Apostles.
This striking fact, however, may suggest a fresh and serious
supposition, viz., that there were indeed instructions given by
Jesus to his Apostles, but rather for the future than the present,
as Paul and Matthew seem to show ; but that there was no
sending forth, and that the assumed but never actual mission
rests only upon a misunderstanding by Luke or Mark of the
address of instruction, perhaps of that given by Matthew, or
upon the desire to see the subsequent Apostles — whose position
there was a wish to raise as high and to make as authoritative
as possible — recognized as missionaries in the time of Jesus
> Luke X. 17. Hence Renan (p. 295) speaks of a new school of exorcists.
406 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
himself.^ In favour of this, appeal may be made to the fact tliat
the Apostle Paul knew of instructions given by Jesus to the
teachers of the gospel, which in the point upon which he laid
stress agree with what we have in the Gospels ; while, on the
other hand, he has said simply nothing about a sending forth
before the apostolic period.^ But, indeed, this silence proves
nothing, since, though he has mentioned rules of Jesus for the
Apostles, he has not written either a life of Jesus or the lives
of the Apostles. Moreover, the difficulty may be explained by
suj^posing that^the recollection of these journeyings is obliterated
from the Gospels because the results were transient and unim-
portant, while the detailed recollection of the instructions re-
mained because those instructions had a permanent significance
both for Jesus and for the Apostles. At the same time, the
Gospels are unanimous in their notice of the fact ; and the
brevity of that notice, introduced into the earliest account with-
out either pomp or praise, affords the strongest evidence against
invention or fictitious glorification of the Apostles. For we can-
not help thinking tliat even the most insignificant and — in com-
parison with the achievements of the Master — veritably imper-
ceptible expedition would have been more honourable to the
Apostles than an empty though most definite and most impor-
tant commission for the future. Besides, the later and subordi-
nate gift of healing possessed by the Apostles finds its roots in
this mission ; and Luke, in his Gethsemane narrative, offers an
interesting reminiscence by Jesus of the fact, against the histori-
cal character of which not much can be said.^ Stress must be
^ According to Volkmar (p. 350), Paul wished to be held up by the inventive Pauline
writer (Mark) as the type of the ancient disciples ! Paul never went without a com-
panion, found his means of .subsistence, shook the dust from his feet (Acts xiii. 51,
xviii. 6). As if the dust of the Acts of the Apostles were older than that of the
Gospels !
2 1 Cor. ix. 14.
"^ It is impossible, except by a symbolizing infatuation, to uphold the opinion that
Matthew did not intend to describe a sending forth of the Apostles during the life-
time of Jesus. Comp. Matt. ix. 37, x. 1, 5 ; Luke xxii. 35.
THE MISSIOX OF THE TWELVE. 407
laid, also, on the singular appropriateness of an actual sending
forth of the Apostles, partly in relation to Jesus' increasingly-
rapid operations generally, and to his labours in educating the
disciples, and partly in relation to the missionary address itself,
the rules of which, as we have seen, are suited, not so much to
fully prepared Apostles, as to such practising beginners as the
disciples were, and as they again seem to be characterized by the
arrangement in pairs in the catalogues.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to escape from the alread}'-
meutioned conclusion, that the mission of the Apostles neither
extended far nor was of long duration nor was followed by great
results ; that the Apostles returned to Jesus very speedily, after
days rather than weeks, conscious of their feebleness and of
the necessity of his presence, very much as subsequently John
Mark retreated from his first Pauline mission, or as Peter him-
self fell back upon Jerusalem from his independent excursions.^
If Jesus had at this time sent forth his disciples, not simply to
practise them, but with a serious view to the extension in Galilee
of the movement in connection with the preaching of the king-
dom, then certainly the fact is obvious — the inconsistency of
which with the assumption of a later period and with the favour-
able presupposition of Luke and Mark is not to be denied — that
he was to a certain extent and in a genuinely human fashion
mistaken in his disciples; that he, the great one, had given them,
the little ones, credit for more than they possessed. But this
liuman limitation of his insight would be only a confirmation of
an earlier fact already noticed in the selection of the Twelve,
and also a fine and touching exemplification of his peculiarity of
seeking his own equal in men. Notwithstanding recent asser-
tions, it is not to be supposed that Jesus afterwards again sent
forth his disciples ; for Luke expressly speaks of only one mis-
^ According to Wieseler, they were f5eiit out for one day; according to Ki-afft, for
several months (Meyer on Matt. 4th ed. p. 230). One is a.s erroneous as the other ;
the first is at once excluded by the text. John Mark, Acts xiii. 13, xv. 38. Peter,
Acts viii. 14, 25, xi. 2 ; Ual. ii. 11.
408 SUCCESSFUL RESULTS AND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
sion.i On the one hand, his position became more and more
critical — nay, his whole life became one continuous flight, so that
he would not be inclined either to expose his disciples or to rob
himself of the presence of his most faithful friends. On the
other hand, he saw with increasing distinctness that the final
decision would lie, not in Galilee, but at Jerusalem. And
finally, experience had taught him the necessity of fortifying the
inner strength of the disciples by continued intercourse with
himself before he required their external ministry, their serious
entrance into the ranks of the labourers of the kingdom of
heaven. 2
^ Luke xxii. 35. Weisse, Ewald, Renan, speak of a frequent sending forth. Weisse
thinks that the narrative of the Gospels refers rather to a general fact than to a par-
ticular one. Ewald speaks of a number of journeys for practice,
2 Comp. Matt. x. 16, xiii. 52 ; Luke vi. 39 sq.
C. Green & Son, Printers, 178, Strand.
^1^.
-.■^'
Date Due
Mr 31';
^8
FF 1 4 >Jis>
i^fc *. "♦ ;^g
A(>., a.
' V^^^BJJXJ
Pt
!
^
BS2420.K278V.3
The history of Jesus of Nazara, freely
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library
1 1012 00164 0475