instruments for arriving at exact results; but whatever the uncertainties of criticism may be, the assumption that the Synoptics are, in their main features at least, historically reliable is one that would command the assent of a very large majority in the critical world. If the main features, then, be authentic history, the presumption that the details are equally so may perhaps be allowed to hold good, except where strong special reasons can be given to the contrary. While, therefore, we may be found quoting as coming from the lips of Jesus a good many sayings the historicity of which could not be demonstrated in detail, there is no serious danger that the resultant picture will be incorrect in any of its essentials owing to a faulty estimate of the value of our sources. With the exception of one or two sayings of peculiar character and interest, I have not embodied in this part of the work the statements made about Jesus and the words ascribed to him in the Fourth Gospel. Whatever be the amount of historical truth contained in that work, it is generally allowed to comprise a far larger element of the author's or compiler's own thoughts than is the case with the earlier biographies. The contents of the Gospel are therefore reserved for the study of the period in which it was probably composed. In regard to the thorny problem of Jesus' eschatological outlook, something will have to be said later in the course of our investigations. It will be sufficient here to remark that I have not felt either compelled or inclined to adopt what is usually understood by the thoroughgoing eschatological view. Without attempting to maintain that Jesus possessed a full and perfect knowledge of the facts of science or the future course of history, or denying that he was influenced to a considerable extent by the apocalyptic ideas of his time and looked forward to some sort of catastrophic intervention of God in human affairs in connection with the coming of His Kingdom-I yet regard it as certain that he had a far profounder insight into the truth of things than had his disciples and reporters, by whom he was frequently misunderstood and misrepresented, that his eschatological anticipations, whatever they were, were no fixed obsession, but at most a subordinate feature of his main gospel, and that in any case his ethical principles can safely be regarded as independent of his forecast of the history of the immediate future. It would be impossible to include within the scope of this inquiry a fully reasoned justification for these statements; they are meant merely to indicate briefly in advance the position from which it is suggested that the subject before us should be approached. Occasion will arise later on for dealing somewhat more fully with certain aspects of the question. Another difficulty arises in connection with the question as to how far it is legitimate to systematize on the plan here adoptedor indeed on any plan—the spontaneous and occasional utterances of Jesus.1 For to impose a modern schematism of our own upon statements originally made by some teacher of the past in a totally different sequence and combination, always involves the risk of representing his meaning as being something other than it really was; and in no case is this danger greater than in that of Jesus. It is fatally easy to read into his sayings more or other things than he meant to put into them. The position is complicated by the obvious fact that, while a statement always implies more than it actually expresses, we can rarely or never be sure that our own idea of what it implies coincides with the real meaning of the speaker. Serious, however, as the risk is, we have no option but to accept it, unless we are willing to give up altogether the attempt to understand the teacher in question. All we can do is to treat our sources with care and faithfulness, and to hold our judgment in reserve whenever the evidence is fragmentary or problematic. But we shall need to remember that, in endeavouring to arrive at general formulations on the basis of isolated and occasional statements, our constructions, even when they seem to be clear and legitimate inferences from what Jesus said, may be taking us beyond the limits of what was explicit, or consciously implicit, in his own mind. CHAPTER I MANKIND AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD THE INTEREST OF JESUS IN THE LIFE OF MANKIND ON EARTH.Whatever view may be taken of the relative predominance of spiritual, as compared with material, interests in Jesus' idea of the Kingdom of God, or of the mode by which he expected the Kingdom to be established, there can be little doubt that he concerned himself very deeply with the conditions and methods of human life on this earth. It is true that he did not centre his 1 Wendt i. 106ff; Holtzm. Th. i. 176–178; Deissmann LVO 326. attention upon mere externals, or raise an agitation for this or that concrete social reform: nor does he seem to have had any 'programme' in the modern reformer's sense of the term. He was primarily concerned with the spiritual condition of individual men and women.1 At the same time, inasmuch as his gospel affected the convert's life in all its relationships, and the scope of his appeal was, as we shall see presently, universal, his view of the Kingdom necessarily involved the social regeneration of mankind. He taught his disciples to pray that God's will might be done (a condition of things evidently equivalent to the coming of the Kingdom) on earth. He looked forward to the time when the gentle would "inherit the earth." The great bulk of his teaching was concerned with the duties of this life. "The Kingdom of God, the reign of the Divine Will in and through men on earth, is a conception fundamentally social, and casts light upon the principles underlying every social institution."5 We can therefore be sure that in studying his teaching in its reference to, and bearing upon, human society at large, that is to say, upon the world ’– the mass of mankind that lay beyond the limits of his own group of disciples-we shall not be straying away from what was for him a central line of interest, or busying ourselves with topics that he would have regarded as in any way irrelevant to his life-mission. 4 JESUS VIEWS MANKIND AS DEFILED BY SIN.- Human nature in its actually existing form-whatever promise or potency of better things it might possess—was regarded by Jesus as being deeply tainted with evil. "That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, issue 1 Peabody (ii.) 33, 35a; Troeltsch 15, 33f, 48 (" So fehlt jedes Programm einer sozialen Erneuerung," etc.). 2" Christ worked only in his own sphere, the sphere of men's hearts; although, indeed, by operating upon the heart, he meant to operate upon everything else; for all human relations grow out of it" (Neander, Life of Jesus Christ [ET], 344). Similarly Sidgwick, quoted in Lux Mundi, 355, and F. D. Maurice, Theological Essays, 265. 3 Mt vi. 10. 4 Mt v. 5. Bartlet P 94; cf. 93. On the Kingdom of God as a social ideal, and the significance of Jesus' teaching and of the Christian Gospel generally for the social life of men on this earth, see Seeley (xvii.) 219, (xviii.) 230, 232f, 239f, (xix.) 270; Westcott TE(J) 250f; Wendt i. 369–377, 399f; Fremantle 108, 113; Mathews 3f, 8, 32-38, 40, 42, 54, 58f, 70, 72; Peabody (ii.) 37b, 42a ("Nothing could be more contrary to the teaching of Jesus than the vulgar notion that he diverts attention from this world and fixes it on another. His ministry is for this life, quite as much as for any world "); Strong passim, esp. 72; Harnack SG 9-33; Weinel SUS 8; Troeltsch 34f, 48; B. H. Streeter, in The Spirit (1919), 355 n ("I hold that, to our Lord, the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven included the corporate regeneration of society on earth as well as a life in the world to come. The evidence is, to my mind, conclusive against the view of some recent scholars that it included the latter only "). the evil designs-fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, lusts, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, arrogance, folly all these wicked things issue from within, and defile the man." Even the dutiful parent, who knows how to give good gifts to his children, is "evil"; 2 even the disciples of Jesus are taught to pray daily for the forgiveness of their sins.3 It is inevitable that "hindrances "should come. The generation in which Jesus lived he characterized as evil, sinful, and adulterous.5 Many there are who go through the gate and down the road that leads to perdition." JESUS HAS COMPASSION ON THE SUFFERINGS OF MANKIND.In close connection with the general sinfulness lay the general suffering of mankind. Satan and the evil spirits were interested in promoting both. The paralytic who was brought to Jesus for healing was told, "Thy sins are forgiven thee." 8 That Jesus was profoundly concerned over the suffering due to illness and disease, and linked it closely with evil of a moral kind, is shown by the twofold form of his early ministry: it was on the one hand a demand for repentance and righteousness, and on the other hand a campaign of healing and exorcism. Nor was he untouched by human suffering and need in the wider sense. According to Luke, he declared that God had sent him "to proclaim release to captives and restoration of sight to the blind, to set the oppressed at liberty." He invited all who were toiling and burdened to come to him for the refreshment of their souls.10 When he saw the crowds around him," he was moved with pity for them, because they were worried and bewildered, like sheep having no shepherd." 11 He urged his disciples to pray that God would send out more labourers into His harvest-field.12 He regretted the obtuseness which prevented men from turning to him for healing.13 He often longed to gather the children of Jerusalem together, as a hen gathers her chicks under 2 Mt vii. II. 1 Mc vii. 20-23=Mt xv. 18-20. 3 Mt vi. 12 = Lc xi. 4: the preceding petition for food marks the prayer as a daily one. In view of the passages quoted, it is misleading to say that "Jesus is silent as regards universal sinfulness" (Mathews 35). Cf. Stevens 100-102; Bruce KG 133ff. Mt xviii. 7; Lc xvii. 1. Mc viii. 38; Mt xii. 39; Lc xi. 29. Much has of course been written on the moral condition of the world at this time. See, for example, Schmidt 3-133; Lecky i. 161–318; Uhlhorn C 13-149; Farrar EDC 1-10; Bigg CE 90-121; Gwatkin ECH i. 13-50. For the attitude of Jesus to the world in general, see Mathews 59-62 and Holtzm. Th. i. 274–283. • Mt vii. 13. her wings.1 He had come to seek and to save that which was lost,2 to call and to cure sinners.3 THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS THE REMEDY FOR HUMAN ILLS.— The hope of the Kingdom of God was, as is well known, a conception which in Jesus' time had long been familiar to the Jewish mind.4 Jesus himself had been born and bred in the atmosphere of Jewish piety, and he adopted the same conception as the starting-point of his own gospel. It is therefore probable a priori that he appropriated and wove into his own presentation of the truth many of the elements that went to make up the average Jewish idea of the Kingdom. His own ideal and that of his fellow-countrymen must have had more in common than the mere name. At the same time it is well to remind ourselves at the outset that it is also probable a priori that, in adopting the language and ideas of his day, he modified their meaning very profoundly. We get an initial confirmation of this suggestion in the emphasis he lays on the newness of his Gospel. It is related to Judaism and its usages as new wine is to old leathern bottles, as a piece of unshrunk cloth is to an old garment. In place of what was "said to them of old," he substituted his own authoritative "but I say unto you.' "7 When we come to examine the ideas of Jesus in greater detail, we find in his conception of the Kingdom at least one important feature which was but imperfectly represented, though not entirely lacking, in the current notions of the time-viz. its worldwide and universal scope. Contemporary Jewish piety, as we see it at its best in the Protevangelion of Luke, was apt to be narrowly particularistic, and to confine the blessings of the Kingdom to the people of Israel. It was naturally expected of Jesus that he would undertake to realize the national hopes as they were usually understood. Even his disciples hoped that he would "redeem Israel" and "restore the Kingdom to Israel." Men hailed him as "Son of David." 10 On his entry into Jerusalem, the crowds cheered him as one who was coming in the name of the Lord 1 Mt xxiii. 37. 2 Lc xix. 10. Mc ii. 17||s. Cf. Schmidt 139; Seeley (xix.) 270 (" He announces a great mundane project of regeneration. He will not consent to lose those who have apostatised from virtue "). " On the Jewish idea of the Kingdom, see Holtzm. Th. i. 85–110; Dalman, Words of Jesus (ET), 91-147: "On the Kingdom as Ausgangspunkt" and "Zentralbegriff" of Jesus' teaching, see Holtzm. Th. i. 182 and n 1. • Mc ii. 21f||s. Lc i. 32f, 54f, 68–79, ii. 11, 25, 38. 10 Mt ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, xxi. 9, 15; 7 Mt v. 21f, 27f, 31f, 33f, 38f, 43f. 9 Lc xxiv. 21; Ac i. 6. Mc x. 47f||s. |