INTRODUCTION TO THE LlTERATURE AND THOUGHT OF THE BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT STUDY GUIDE by G-. Douglas Straton Grateful appreciation is hereby acknowledged for the permission of publishers to quote from sources herein noted. I CONTENTS I. Origin and Dates of the New Testament Writings The Synoptic Gospels II. The Historical Background of Jesus'·Ministry III. The Life and Teachings of Jesus According to the Synpptic Tradition Period of Preparation and Beginning of the Ministry The Basic Teachings of Jesus Human Nature Christian Love The Kingdom of Heaven Concept of Salvation and Destiny Concept of Judgment Uniqueness of Jesus as Teacher and Man in Christian Faith The Sermon on the Mount, a Short Commentary An Interpretation of Jesus' Miracles The Ministry Continued: Crisis, Retirement, Journey to Jerusalem Basic Issues of Christian Theology and Conclusion of the Ministry The Problem of the Messiahship The Meaning of the Death on the Cross The Problem of the Resurrection The Virgin Birth Stories IV. The Christian Message in the First Century Early Spread of Christianity: Acts The Work and Thought o:f St. Paul The Johannine Interpretation of Jesus, Christianity, and History: John's Gospel, Letter~ and Revelation V. Formations of Old and New Testament Canons p. 124 p. 128.1 p. 128. 8 p. 139.1 p. 141. 2 p~ 142 p. 142a p. 144 p. 149 p. 152 p. 156 p. 159 p. 159.1 p. 159.14 p. 159.20 p. 159.27 p. 160 p. 175 p. 180 p. 190 p. 194 p. 195 p. 198 p. 210 p. 232 124 .. 1· Origjn and Dates of the New __ ,, __ .. _ -:,, __ _.._ - -- -- ~~er~t. Wrli~ In 90 A,.D. a council of Rabbis at the town of Jarnnia in Palestine fixed the Old Testament ca."lon largely as we now have it,, The primary sources for the life and teachings of Jesus are the four Gospels, Matthew, _Mar.!f, ~, and !L£lln, and to some e),.-tent, the letters of Paul. Why did the early church come to acc;pt these literary sources? What are their charac- teristics of authorship and dates of composition, and to what extent may we rely on them as authentic sources? A study of the life and teach:ings of Jesus pre- supposes such questions as these, concerning the nature, and general trustworthines: of the primary documents,. Specifically, for our introductory purposes, we shall consider briefly two p:roblems: how did the early church come to have a New.Testa- ment canon which it regarded as authoritative scripture? and what are the sources ~f the ~ynoptic gospels, ~' Mark, and~? These three Gosp~l~ are called Synopt:i.c•i because they all present the incidents of the life and ministry» and the thought of Jesus, in very similar terms. The Gospel of John differs from them :in a number of significant details, both as to the life and interpretive outlook. A .. The New Testament Canon 1. Ib& n....eEll! for §.. ~: Why did need for an authoritative Christian Scripture arise? In the grow:lng competition of writings 11 it became urgent to find a bash! upon which the early church could counter fantasy a.11d hereGy Q For example, there were the following prominent il1fluences: -- a) b) c) .Qn_ostic he.resies~ one form of which said that Chr1st had not really lived as a.flesh and blood man.? but was a ghost or phantom who had appeared to the Apostles(/ ~l;la=h posnels., which were circulating fanciful stories in connection with the life of Jesus, eog. Ballou p,. 1256. ~rcion Vs Bible, 150 A.D., which ruled out all the Old Testament and included only PaulVs letters and~"€.. -- It became 0 :imperative to have some standard by which the teaching of the church could be regulated.vvl 2., ~ procefil!_ of selection. By what process were our present New Testament books selected as Holy Scripture? Irenaeus~s principles, 180 A.D., were a second century formulation of canons of excellence, trustworthiness, and authority that might guide the early churches in their evaluation of numerous documents circulated among them., A document must have: a) The tradition of an apostle as its author, or someone closely associated with the apostles. 1. E. F. Scott: Th£ LitEU"§tture 2f the New Testament, Columbia University Press 1940, page 289 125 .. b) Must contain nothing contrary to the rule of faith, e.g .. that expressed in the early sermons of Peter and other apostles, as reported, eog., by the Book of~, emphasizing Jesusi death» resurrection, and savior- hood. c) Must be supported by one or more of the leading churches., ~~,.; These rules of selection represented the effort off,..a thoughtful leader of the 2nd Century church2to bring principles of rationality to bear upon the problem of the authenticity and value of early writings. Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (293-373 A0 D,.) published his famous Easter Letter.11 367 A,;,D • ., enumerating the present books of the New Testament and declaring that henceforth they would be the authoritative body of Christian Scripture., By what authority did Athanasius make his list? His opinion reflected the good judgment of the church at large. Among numbers of disputed books, he selected those·which, by common agreement, had come·to be regarded as best. The NT Scriptures were an empirical growth: in the early competition of writings those established themselves which appealed 1:1ost deeply to the experiences of the early Christ!b' heart~ will,. and . intellect. i 2The selection was made unconsciously the mind of ·c.he church at large.,.,.,The church, in the end, selected those writings which had already selected themselves., •• It was by their intrinsic worW,that the writings won their place .. n2 ~ l2.• The Sources @_q Trustworthiness of the $ynoptic Method 3. IhQ S~ Problem. What are the conclusions of modern Biblical scholar- ship as to the composition and general dates of the S;ynoptic Gospels? A study of this question is called the Synoptic Problem. Briefly stated, such a study observes the similarity between Matthew, Mark, and Luk~ and seeks to discover their historic relationships, concerning matters of authorship and relative dates of writing 0 In pursuing this it discovers the sources upon which these Gospels are based. E. F. Scott has expressed the findings of modern Biblical scholarship relative to the Synoptic Problem in these terms: ~1The Gospels, as actual compositions •• .,may be late, but they are made out of materials which had existed long before.n3 Contemporary scholarship points to the introductory paragraph of the Gospel of Luke as a first important clue leading to the above summary. Careful reading of Luke 1:1-4 4 reveals the following significant data: - '} 'l~- 2. Scott, op. cit., page~293 3o Scott, op. cit., page 19 4. iiinasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished runong us, just as they were delivered to us by those who front the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.ii Luke 1:1-4 (RSV) 126. a) The author tells us that a number of writings, (0 many have undertaken to compile a narrative~i) existed previously to his own composit,ion, iAeo the Gc;,.:9.12.e]; 2f. LuJs2, v. 1, and the implication is that he is basing his own writing upon them,. By LukeVs comment, then, we are certain that the literary codefication of Jesusv life had already begun by the time Luke writes .. b) Luke suggests that he himself was not an eyewitness to these events, but that he is attempting to be a conscientious transmitter of the information that came to him., which he belimres had its origin with Vieyewitnesses,i9 v. 2,. c) He further says that he has studied his sources closely; that he has now revised them into a more orderly account; and he affirms his faith in them that they are true. This introduction states Luke?s purposes in writing his Gospel. Part of his intent resembles what we would call today that of an f9historian, 99 a recorder., a transmitter. The first point above indicates that he u~es existing documents, and such a method is the first principle of valid historical writing., His other intention is to be an interpreter, or theologian., as were the other Gospel authorsQ We must conclude, then, that in the light of his own set of values and committment to the Christian movement, Luke tries to be a trustworthy reporter of the accounts that came to him., 4. The Documents to which Luke alludes. Where are these earlier written mate- rials of whichLuke speaks? -r;; they extant anywhere; can we find them? Some of these sources are quoted ~ .. , · · in our present Gospels. In order to locate these source documents we have to examine a scientific kind of book called a vvnarmony of the Synoptic Gospels, n5 published jn three columns with the texts of Matthew and Luke on either side and that of Mark in the centere The arrangement discl;~~s how Matth~ and Luke resemble Mark; resemble each other, and how they differ from &'[ark1 and finally from each other. An analysis of the following diagram will reveal why ;Mf);rk is placed in the middle and how scholars conclude that Mark is the oldest of the three Gospels., Matthew Mark Luke Virtually all Mk~, word for word is found in Mk., Mk .. Mk .. 1. Mtt., and Lk. About 1/6 of Mtt .. and Lk is constituted by irQ,ii another source than Mk, and not appearing in Mk. Qm Ql 2. (except possibly in frag- mentary form). )i~,?-~ts--~ Mtt., 3. 11 ~ Lk. 4. 5. E.g. Burton and Goodspeed:. A Harmony of the S_,,ynoptic Qpspels., Scribner~s, 1929. 127. What conclusions may we draw from an analysis of the Harmony? (1) Marl£ is the oldest of these three Gospels,. Obviously,9 had Mark copied from Matthew and Luke h.e would have most certainly used the extra material they had~ in order to round out and enrich his own report. Accordingly, the simpler and shorter documentr1 that of J.:fmjf~ argues for its priority in time; Matthew and Luke write later,9 using Mark as their primary source. The Mar~ material emphasizes the life, or ministry or w1actsn of Jesus, and to less extent the say:ings. (2) The symbol 99Q99 comes from the German word 'liquelle.,ew meaning 91source,..i9 Q seems to be itself older than Mark, because as many 6 modern scholars believe, Mark to some extent seems to use Q1 or a version of Q., Q was a written source, and had cir- culated as such when it came to the hand of Matthew and Luke. We knew this because the Q material, frequently word for wo~d, appears the same in Matthew and Luke,. Prominently character- izing nQii are the sayings of JesUS:-such as, The Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew and to a considerable extent in !-i~ (Burton and Goodspeed, Harmony page 42-43.) (3) Reading across each level of the diagrarn above and down the entire picture at the same time, we discover that we have in- creased our sources by Qll§.o The four sources now are: Mark, Q, the Lukan source, the Matthian source. When we ask, To what extent may we truet the Gospel record as to itsgeneral historicity or authenticity, concerning the main features of Jesus 9 life and teachings? our confidence is supported by the discovery: (1) that the Synoptics are based on earlier accounts -- there were a variety of sources; (2) some of which at least we know to have been fixed in writing (eege Q, ~' and some of the latter Vs sources 7); (3) with all of them basically agreeing as to the main features of the life and teachings. Prof. Amos Wilder of Harvard University concludes: v~In this way our ultimate sources are not the synoptic Gospels, but their principal sources, Mark and Q, both representing oral tradition slowly taking shape in the 40 1s and early 5ovs, tested by continual repetition before eye-witnesses and subject to their criticism,.. So behind the most important parts of our Synoptic Gospels stand not three, but twelve, even hundreds of eye-witnesses. It is true that the earliest form of this tradition was later subject to some uncon- scious shaping., especially perhaps in the process of being written down. 1w8 5. ~ Formation fil2£ dat.~ .2! the New Testament Litern.ture,. If we divide the first century of the Christian movement into three -.igenerations11 of the classic span of thirty years each; and ask what may have been the primary 6. E.g. see Burton and Goodspeed, sp. cit. PP• 43, 77 for·suggestions of Qin Mark. 7u For a detailed study of the Sources of Mark, the student should consult the nintroduction?? to a standard modern commentary, such as H,. Branscomb: The Gospel of Ma.r:!f, in the Moffatt Commentary series, published by Harper and Brotherso 8,. From class syllabus, Andover Newton c. 1940. 128. literary interests of each of these periods in the developing church, the following arrangement has sometimes been suggested as a convenient way to indicate the dates of the New Testament literature: 9 a) Preservation of Jesus nsayings,n e.,g., vvQ,n Sermon on the Mount material, etc. ~so~ on the Parables. b) Report of the main incidents of his Vilife,vw e.,g .. ~.2.~~~, both written and oral Accounts of the vwpassionu week: -- ---:Yerusalem ministry, trial, death, resurrection c) Circulation of the letters of the missionary movement, i.e. Paulgs letters written at firsthand, the dates of many of which can be ascertained quite accurately~ e,.g.,: -- -Gala~i£ns, 49-51 A.,D. -Ist Corinthians, 54-57 AoD., -Romall~, 57 A.D .. 2n,d E.Efil...§;Tl!i:i_:9D• 60 - 90 A~D., Primary interest represented by the effort to .preserve contact with the past by collecting and writing the accounts of Jesus as Messiah and Savior (recall Luke ~s introduction, Luk~ 1:1-~.): a). Mark c., 70M•85 A.,D. b) Lulf.e - Ac~~ c. 85-95 A.D" c) Matth~ Co 90-95 A.D., .Another major concern of this generation must have been to speak to the growing problem of persecution~ e.g. Revelation. 3,rd generation .• 90 - 120 A .. D. -- Primary interests~ (1) to interpret Christianity in the light of Gentile (Greek) philo- sophy, and (2) to speak to important problems of the early church as a growing institution 9 e.,g.,: a) !l,ohl1-9s Gospel and First Letter b) II - III John, II Peter,~ 9. For detailed discussion of the establishing of these dates a standard modern commentary may be consulted, such as,~ Interpreter 9s Bible, or other standard works such as E. F. Scott, op. cit. 12~ fil:udy Questj.91.l§. 1,. Why did an authoritative scripture come to be needed? 2. By what process and persons were our present New Testament books finally selected? What final date? How do you evaluate the discovery that the NT was canonized as Holy Scripture by a rather natural process? 3s Why is Luke 1:1-4 an important record in the study of the origin of the Gospels? 4. Where, and what are 1 the earlier writings to which Luke refers in his introduction? What is the Synoptic problem and what is its importance? 5. Of what significance are these sources in establishing the general historicity of Jesus? 128.1 C. ,'.!'~ Origin and Purposes of~ Synopti_£ Gospels: Determination of dates and a.uthorships, and resume of their contents as books. Mark 1. Dating the Gospel: We reviewed above the reasoning that has lead scholarship to regard Mark as the oldest of the three Synoptics. In the effort to detennine the period, 70 A.D. to 85 A.D., from which this Gospel came, mo- dern students have based their conclusions on two general points. The first is the testimony of the 2nd century Church Fathers, Papias and Irenaeus. According to the ancient church historian, Eusebius (4th century), Papias, writing about 140 A.D. reported the words of a certain "elder11 who had transmitted to him information concerning former days in the church. Papias quoted the elder as saying that Mark 11 did not hear the Lord or accom- pany him, but was later ••• a companion of Peter. 11 Irenaeus, writing about 174-189 A.D., in his work Against the Heresies, tells us that Mark did not compose his book until after the death of Peter and Paul. This testimony of the early church itself makes plain that Mark was not an eye-witness to the life of J~sus, and that he did not co~pose his work until several de- cades at least after the crucifixion.9a Relying then on this early church testimony at these points, and adding to it a church tradition that Peter and Paul were martyred about 64 A.D. during Nero's persecution, we conclude that the writing of Mark's Gospel would have come sometime subsequent to that date. The second level of reasoning in ascertaining Mark's date is somewhat more conjectural. It is, however, that the book itself, and historic cir- cumstances, suggest 70 A.D., or soon thereafter, as the likely time of the composition of Mark. In the year 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed the city of Jerusalem, in retaliation to a Jewish uprising. Through Christian eyes this event must have seemed like a divine judgment upon the city which had re- jected the Savior. It would also seem to have been the fulfillment of a pre- diction of Jesus, Nik 13:1-2. Sometime soon after 70 A.D. would have been an opportune time, then, to begin to tell the story of Jesus in the more precise form of Nark's Gospel than earlier oral and written fragmentary accounts had presented. 9a The ancient commentaries read as follows. Papias: "And the elder spoke as follows: Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order all that he remember- ed concerning the Lord's sayings or doings. For he did not hear the Lord or accompany him, but was later, as I said, a companion of Peter, who offered his instructions as the occasion required, without attempting to frame an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. So Mark made no mistake when he wrote some things as he recalled them. For he was intent on one aim, - not to leave out or falsify anything whatever of the things he had heard. 11 From E.F. Scott, op. cit. p. 55. Irenaeus: "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church in Rome. After their death, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also trans- mitted to us in -writing those things which Peter had preciched; and Luke, an attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel which Paul had declared. Afterward John ••• published his Gospel while staying in Ephesus in Asia. 11 • From B. Harvie Branscomb,op_:dcmtbt, p-~/x.'\I:·/. · 128.2 We know from Luke I s introduction that the latter author wrote his Gospel sometime within the second generation, i.e. probably between 85-95 A.D., and sometime after Mark wrote his tract. Luke accordingly establishes an upper limit of about 85 A.D. for the writing of ~., 2. Authors_!"iiE 2.f Mark: Tradition has held that this was the Gospel according~ Mark: so the title of the oldest manuscripts are best trans- lated.:% Who was this 11Mark11 of the 1st century church? A man by that name is mentioned in a number of places in the NT: .Acts 12 :12 15:37; Col. L~:10; II Tim. 4:11; Phile. 24; I Pet. 5:13. From these casual references we concluae that he must have been a secondary figure. St. Paul even calls him faint-hearted, Acts 15:37. That the Gospel undoubtedly goes back to the person mentioned in these places seems a reasonable assumption; it is often pointed out that the early church would not have attributed this imrortant document to such a relatively obscure figure, unless he had really had something to do with its origin. We recall that the 11elder11 of Papias' auotation said that Mark was not an eye-witness to Jesus. The Papias fragment, however, indicates that Mark was associated. with Peter, declaring that Mark wrote down Peter's reminis- cences. ( I. Pet. 5: 13 would indicate a similar tradition). Acts 12: 12 indicates that Mark's mother belonged to the primitive church at Jerusalem., and th2.t early Christian meetings were held in her house. From this and the references in the letters of Paul, (the earliest of our NT writings) we con- clude that Mark was an associate of first generation Christians and possibly of some eye-witnesses. In the following ouotations two New Testament scholars summarize in what sense and to what dee;ree Peter and Hark may have been the sources of the Gospel of Mark. ----·- ...... - 9b 9c "While Peter figurAs prominently in a number of the riarratives., there ·±s no'iJllpression .of freshnoss and. exactness. of detail such_§.s·to s.ug- gest an immediate personal source. ~:hile some of the stories doubtless go back to Peter ultimately, they have had a considerable history before they were incorporated in the Gospe111 9c 1 '1"1hatever it may have been in its original form, the Gospel as we now have it is composite, like the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Indeed it may fairly be doubted whether Mark was its author in anything but a qualified sense. It is the Gospel ·, according· to Mark, r based, that is to say, on the collection of notes which Mark drew up from his memories of Peter's conversation. This contribu- tion of Mark forms the nucleus and the most valuable element in the Gospel, but after it left Mark's hands it underwent a process of editing and expansion. tt 9d Branscomb, The Gospel of Mark, op. cit. P• 3 ------ Branscomb, ~ Gospel of~, op. cit • ., p xxii 9d Scott, The Literature of the~ Testament, op. cit, p 58 128.3 3. Structure and Purpose of Mark: T~ composite nature and sources of the Gospel are indicated by the following general structural facts: - The presence of doublets, e.g. the two accounts of the feeding of the multitudes, 6:30-44 and 8:1-10. - The rough way the various episodes are put together by vague connec- tives such as: 11 after that" 11 a few days after11 11Then it came to nass" suggests that the Gospel is constructed out of bits of existing tra- dition, which the author assembles to give some appearance of co- herency and order. Evidence of editing in the abrupt ending of 16:8. An editor has attach- ed 16:9-10, not found in earliest manuscripts, in an effort to round off an otherwise incomplete work. The Gospel never tells of a meeting oi' Jesus with the disciples in Galilee after the resurrection, as was predicted in 14:28 and 16:8. Some of the sources of the Gospel are: 1. Possible reminiscences of Peter jotted down by Mark, as the tradition above cited suggests. 2. An edition of Q, or part of Q, containing sayings of Jesus~e 3. A Passion narrative, compact and detailed. 4. An apocalypse, Mark Ch. 13, which the reference to the "reader" in 13:14 suggests was a written source. ·what was the purpose of Mark's Gospel? It is evident that the Gospel was writte'ntoaGentile com,-rnunity, by the pains the author takes to trans- late Aramaic words for his readers, and to explain Jewish customs, e.g. Mk 3~17; 5:41; 7:34. I Pet. 5:13 indicates that the author of this letter is writing from Rome ( 11 Babylon11 ), with Mark in attendance with him there. It is highly probable, then, that Mark addresses his Gospel to the Christian community in Rome. Furthermore, it would have taken a prominent church such as the one at Rome to support a book that otherwise might have been superseded, since it was so short, and was referred to a relatively obscure figure as author. Such is the evidence that has led many scholars to conclude Mark's Gospel was addressed to the Christian community at Rome. The author is mainly interested in portraying the "life" of Jesus, giving an account of his activity or ministry in Galilee and finally in Jeru- salem. Compared to Matthew and~ very little of the sayings of Jesus are recorded in Mark. Over and above his role as transmitter of what he believed to be the events in the life of Jesus, the author is basically a theologian: the main purpose of Mark's Gospel is theologfoal or religious. The author writes to 9e §ee e.g. Burton & Goodsneed Harmony, op. cit. p. 43-4, 46-7, 51, 54, 77 For a detailed discussion of Mark's sources see Branscomb, op. cit. p xx:iii & d 128.4 give an account of Jesus as the Messiah and my the Messiah was rejected. He writes in defense of a crucified Messiah. More pointedly, Mark paints Jesus as the apocalyptic 11Son of Man. 11 Matthew follows ~ closely in this portrayal while Luke, we believe, modifies this view in certain important respects (see oursubsequent discussion of the idea of the Messiahshiw as told by the various Gosoels). Matthew 1. Authorship~~: Tradition has attributed this Gospel to Matthew, !he t~g8:th~rer,. _9:9 •. However.t.. in }Jk 2:14 and Lk .5:.27 th~ taxgatl!erer.;i..s called _Levi'• This Gospel itself "does not say who its author·is. Iranaeus told us that "Matthew wrote. i-n the _Hebrew language, but the book i~self was written in Greek, and is ~ased on earlier documents also writtE:ln in Greek , for ex~mple, ·. Ma:i;-k and, .S• Scott concludes "That Matthew was per- sonally so obscure .L::• '-" point in favor of the belief that he had something to do with the Gospel", but that we can hardly say more than "that he had ,. drawn up some brief document which served as the nucleus of the later work1191 What are the reasons for believing that Matthew, as we now have it, probably dates from a time between 90 to 95 A.D.? ( 1.) Internal evidence like such expressions as 11unto this day" ( 27: 8,; 28:15) imply a considerable lapse of time between the original events and their report in.Matthew. ( 2.) This Gospel echoes the encl-century disap1)ointment concerning the long delay of the expected return of Christ (24:48; 25:5). ( 3.) It alludes to persecutions, which became p1?rticularly acute toward the end of the century (5:11; 10:18; 25:36, 39). (4.) It mentions the church, which implies that the latter was a going institution by the time the author wrote, (16:18; 18:17). (.5.) It uses Mark as a source, which scholarship generally dates between 70 and 8~D. 2. Contents and Purpose: The plan of this Gospel is ingeniously but arti- ficially arranged-:--For example, the Sermon on the Mount material, collected in Matthew, Chs. 5-7, Luke contains in widely scattered places. Matthew's Sermon may be a composite of many sermuns of Jesus. Ve may notice the compo- sitional character of Matthew possibly best by tracing the transitional words, 11 .£.1.nd when Jesus had finished these sa.yings11 , which are repeated five times and thus seem to mark the division of the book on a five-fold basis (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). Could this scheme be a conscious reflection of the Five Books of l'iioses, implying that Christianity is the New Law which replaces 9f E. F. Scott, Literature of :t.h§. NT, op. cit. p 66-67. 128.5 the old? Jesus is presented mainly as Teacher up to Caesarea Philippi ( 16: 13f),; after that as Savior with "cu!' attention ••• fixed on the great work which he is to accomplish by his death" 9g In contrast to Mark, which emphasizes Jesus's work, Matthew lays stress on Jesus as Te,.·cher, aswell as Messiah and Savior. In addition to the general plan and purpose of the book discussed above, note the following things: (1.) Matthew emphasizes the mission of Jesus as foretold in OT pre- phecy, repeating the phrase 11 that the scripture might be fulfilled" many times. (2.) He emphasizes Jesus 1s teaching in contrast to the ancient Law. (3.) He attempts to relate the te:::chings of Jesus to the needs, cir- cumstances, and practices of the church, 5:27-32; 18:10-14; .5:2.5-26; 7:12; 18:1.5-22; 10:17-36; 16:2/.i-28. ( 4.) There is a Jewish emphasis, e.g • .5: 17-19; 1,5: 24; 23: 3., which appears in some contra.st to the point that Jesus' s message is universal, .5:43f; 8:11-12; 12:21; 21:33-43; 25:42f; 28:19-20. How may these two aspects be reconciled? Scott says that Matthew wanted to include both points, namely, that Christianity had a message to both Je1dsh and Gentile groups. Scott con- cludes that Matthew's "inconsistency is deliberate ••• He believes that within the one church there is room for all types of disciples -- for those who would cling to the Law and for those who have discarded it ••• This catholicity of spirit has m.ade Matthew the representative Gospel, and is also our best guarantee that it has preserved the facts wj_th fidelity. Matthew is not a partisan on one side or another, and makes no attempt to keep anything back or to smooth away contradictions. He puts on record all the different testimonies, assured that they all are necessary towards a f1;ll understanding of the life of Christ. n9h (5.) Recall that Matthew relies on Mark and Q as major sources, to which he has added his own special material, and that he follows Mark closely in presenting Jesus as the apocalyptic "Son oi' Man. 11 Luke 1. Authorship and Date. Recall our study of Luke I s introduction, 1: 1-4, where the author informsus that he uses previously existing sources and documents. Some of these we discovered to be Mark and II Q, and the special Lukan source, 11111 • - - - Tradition assigns this Gospel to Luke, whom Paul mentions as his com- 9g Ibid. p 71 9h Ibid p 7.5 128.6 panion, and as a physician, Col. L.:lLi.. Also bear in mind that the author of ~ and Acts are the same person, as Lk 1:3 and Acts 1:1 make clec:ir by the reference to 11 Theophilus, 11 the person to whom the books are addressed. Since Luke must have been written after Mark, modern scholnrship has placed the writing of Luke-Acts between 8.5-957C'o. 2. Contents and Tlurposes 9f Luke's Gospel: (1.) To put together into a more comprehensive account, l:lf, all of the sources about Jesus's life that had come to him, including :Mark, Q, and the special Lukan source including many of the great parables. Luke takes the liberty to edit and correct Mark where he believes greater historical accuracy (and sometimes literary effect) warrants it, e.g.- - Luke omits the feeding of' the 4000 of Mk 8:lf, our best evidence that this incident is a duplicate of the feeding of the _5000. - He omits the details of Jolm the Baptist's death, Mk 6:18f (which sounds lecendary in character), Lk 3:19-20; 9:7-9. - We will subsequently notice Luke's more realistic rendering of Jesus's important reply to the high priest at the trial, Lk 22:27-29, i"lk 14:61-62 91 ( 2.) In addition to presenting Jesus as God's Son ar..d Messiah, Luke is interested in presenting Jesus's character or biography on its sympathetic and humane side -- Jesus I s compassion and ki11dness to the weak and the erring, e.g.: ... - The story of Zaccheus, the tax collector. Lk 19:.5 - The sinful woman, Lk 7:36f - The poor, outcast Lazarus, Lk 16:11.rf - The faith and goodness of the well-to-do, 8:2-3; 19:1-10; 7:lf - Interest in family life, Mary and Martha, 10:38.f. (3.) The story in .Acts very specifically continues Luke's interest in the world-wide scope of-:uie Gospel, revealed in the portrayal of Jesus's universally humanitarian character: he reports how Jesus rose above the Law, recognizes faith in publicans and Samaritans, and how Gentiles were drawn to him. (4.) Luke writes also to meet official Roman criticism that the Gospel was a political movement; Luke takes pains to stress that Jesus was a teacher and healer. It is in Luke and P.cts that we have Jesus set forth as God's Messiah of suffering service, desc'ribed by II Isaiah, e.g. Lk 4:16f; 22:27, 37. Finally in Luke we have it stressed that the Kingdom of God,is in its central mean.in&; a quality of individual mind and heart, e.g. 13:20_; 17:20, in contrast to the more radical apocalyptic ideas of the Kingdom only as future, trans- cendent reality. To be sure, Luke is 11 eschatological" and 11 apocalyptic11 in its outlook but in a significantly modified sense, we believe, when com- pared to Mark and Matthew. (See our subsequent discussion and natations on these points). 9i Note also such striking variations from Mark as the centurian's comment at the Cross, Lk 23:47 vs. Mk 15:39 and Matt. 27:54. Stud.y Questions 1. What were the main literacy interests of each of the first three generations of early Christians? 2. Why did an authoritative scripture come to be needed? 128.7 3. By what process and persons were our present New Testament books finally selected? What final date? How do you evaluate the discovery that the NT was canonized as Holy Scripture by a rather natural process? 4. What are the main historical questions we must ask in order to chart our course clearly for studying the problem of the origin and significance of a NT book? 5. Why is Luke 1:1-4 an important record in the study of the origin of the Gospels-r-T-'hat, especially, does Luke's introduction clarify about the author as an eye-witness or not to the events in Jesus's ministry? 6, Where, and what are, the earlier writings to which Luke rtfers in his introduction? What is the Synoptic problem and what is its importance? 7. O! 'What singificance are these sources in establishing the general historicity of Jesus? In what sense may we call Luke an 11historian?0 What are his ultimate purposes or perspectives as a writer? 8. Who was Mark? Was he an eye .. witness to the events he reports in the Gospel bearing his name? What rensoning has been offered that the core of this GoB'?el does come from the Mark mentioned in the Book of .Acts and elsemere in the NT? In what sense must we qualify the v\ew that the book as we now have it in its entirity comes from the 11Mark" of the tradition? 9. ,rJhat are the main sources of Mark's Gospel? To what community, very likely, was the Gospel addressed? By what line of reasoning can we arrive at this conclusion? What is the over-all purpose and outlook of Mark's Gospel. 10. ·what is the significance of the cQmments by the 2nd century church leaders, Irenaeus and Papias, regarding the origin of Mark's Gospel? 11. What general evidence discloses that the Gospel according to Matthew is a document coming from the later portion of the first century? 128,8 PART THO ~ Historical Background £f. Jesus' Ministry Assignment:- l:RSV: Rulers, Parties, Taxation, Priests Mtt. 2:1, 16, 22 •••••••••••••••••• Herod the Great; tradition of his cruelty; his son Archelaus at time of Jesus 1s birth. Lk. 3:1-2 ••••••••••••••••••••••••• Pontius Pilate as Roman governor of Judea at time of Jesus I s ministry; Herods Antipas and Philip as te- trarchs of Galilee and Decapolis regions; reference to the high priestly system under Annas and Caiaphas. l~{. 3:6; 11:15-16; 12:13-17, 18-23;Herodians and Pharisees as parties; 41-44 Roman taxation; Temple dues and the Temple wealth; Sadducees; cormner- Mtt. 17:24 and cialization of Temple. Ex. 30:13-16 ••••••••••••••••• Temple taxation Mtt. 11:12 and Jhn. 6:1,5 ........... The Zealot party, men of "violence" who would take the Kingdom 11by force. 11 ~ Two Concepts .2f Religion Amos 5:21-24. IIosea 6 :6-8 •.•.•................ Micah 6:6-8 Isaiah 1:11-17 Jeremiah 7:1-12 Ez. 44:4-9, 15-27••••••••••••••••• 46:1-10 Mtt. 23:1-27•••••••••••••••••••••• Mtt. 22:34 .............. ,, .......••. 5:17-18 Mk. 12:34 Lk 7:36 11:37 13:31 Jhn 3:31 Jl.cts 5: 33-38 The concept of religion as ethical righteousness. Formalized religion in Ezekiel as fountain of the Pharisees' philosophy of religion. (Review also pp. 126-130 of this Guide). Jesus 1s condemnation of Pharisaic extremists. Jesus' friendly relations with ?hari- sees. Jesus not opposed to the Jewish law. Pharisees friends of early Christians. (Revie1,.1 particularly DP 132-134 of this Guide: a Jewish historian on the Pharisees) 128.9 ~ _2s)ncepts of~ R1essiah £!: Deliverer II Sam. 7:8-16 •••••••••••••.••••• Isaiah 9:2-9 11:1-6,16, 12, 14-15 2~2f Psalm 2; 89:3-4, 19-29, 36-37 132 Ezekiel 37:24-25 The tradition and concept of a political type Messiah, 11Son of David" and Ideal King. (Review this Guide P• 74-75). Ps2lms of Solomon, c. 63B, in ·c. Barrett, !:!!, Background, Selected Documents. p. 248 Isaiah 42:1-4 •••••••••••••••••••• 53:1-6 61:1-2 1k 4:16-22 Joel 2:30-3:21 ••••••••••••••••••• Daniel 7:1-2, 9-10, 13-14 See also extra-biblical books in Barrett, op. cit. p 235-253. Apocalyptic Writings from the 1st Century B.C. through 1st Century A.D. 4 Ezra 13:1-11, 51-52 I Enoch 45:3-4; 46:1-4; 48:23; 62:5-7; Assumption of Moses 10 2. Study Guide NT: Part Tw-o The tradition and concept of a 11Suffering Servant," whose methods are not military or political power, but long-suffering, gentleness and persuasion. (Review this Guide pp. lOLf.) Apocalyptic thought and the tradition and concept of a supernatural, heavenly deliverer, the 11Son of Man. 11 ( Review this Guide p. ltC.f) A. The Political, Economic, and Religious Situation B. Types of Jewish Reaction to Rome Study Questions on Part Tw-o 1 .. 2. II .. _T~J!istorical Background of ~sus 9 Ministry A. The Political and Economic Situation: Roman dominationo For mc1ny centuries the Jewish nation had lain~he heel of foreign overlords: :in Palestine -Assyrian conquest of Israel and threat to Judah -Chaldean (Babylonian) -Persian -Greek and Syriac Hellenistic -(M~ccabean period of precarious independence) -Roman 721-610 B .. C .. 597-538 B,.C., 538-332 B,.C,. 332-166 B.,C,. 166-63 B.,C .. 63 B .. C. 130 .. Pompey conquered Jerusalem :in 64 B.,C" Although the Roman administration, in the application of principles of law and justice, attempted :in some respects to be a humane one, it was resented by the freedom loving Jewish nation. To cushion their overlordship, the Romans permitted the Jewish dynasty of the Herods, father and three sons, to rule as puppet ldngs., The Ambitions and Crti.elties of the Herods: - ---= ~-- ------ - -- ......... _._ ... -Herod the Great. -Archelaus, Judea-Samaria. -Philip,, Decapolis region. -Antipas, Galilee and Perea., 40-4 B.,C., 4 BoCo - 6 A .. D .. 4 B .. C. - 34 A.,D., 4 B.,C., - 39 A .. D. 3. A succession of Rol!laf!. governors ruled Judea after Archelaus ]'!_~ deposed in 6 A.,D. Pontius Pilate was governor between 26 and 36 A,.D., !J the time of Jesus 9 ministry. For twenty-odd years Judea had felt the direct weight of Rome. 4. The principal economic problem was the Q.~-taxation of the people by various authorities .. The pretentious building activities of the Herods (e.go Herod the Great 9s new Temple; the costly Hellenistic cities of Sapphoris and Tiberias of Herod A.t~tipns) were financed by levies upon the people. In addition to this, Roman taxes were raised by local Jewish appointees ( the tax collectors or 11publicans91 mentioned :in the NT), who practiced extortion in the exercise of this function. Lastly, there were the Temple taxes or tithes commanded by the Jewish law. The wealth and power of the priestly caste, the Sadducees, or the temple rulers :in Jerusalem stood in great contrast to the humble situation of the poor, the artisans, farmers, fisher folk., The picture is reflected in the Gospels in such parables as the Widow 9s mite, or in the incident of Jesus driving the money changers from the temple. By this act he jndicated his opposition to the commercial debasement of religion. 131 .. B. The Religipus Situation: The religious circumstances of Jesusi day were characterized by two main concerns, one, a.n emphasis by leading groups on ceremonial observance as constituting the indispensable heart of religion; and, two, various types of Messianic hope. 1. The _g_r.9J)[_ing &.m.:eha.§,1.§. .29:. _!seeping ~he Lalf! 2.r Torah_,. since EzekiePs time (~zekiel chapters 40-46; ;[l::zr:a, ~.ah,). Christians have customarily called this aspect of the religion of the time the outlook of the Pharisees, and have described the chief nsinsiw of such vv1egalistic religionvv as: -- _vvundue emphasis upon the eJcternal observance of the Sabbath)) vv _wtthe importance attached to the distinction between the clean and the uncleann (foods, people, ablutions), -Vihypocritical assumption of special holiness: in prayer, alms- giving, and fasting .. v'llO At its extreme, such religion attempted to keep every minute rule that tradition had built up around the Torah or Law of Moses. As a group the Pharisees felt that the coming of the Messiah depended on the literal keeping of the law. J·esus was opposed to a legalistic religion of seeming- ly mere form, rather than genuine ethical substance, vva burden grievious to be borne,V1 he said, Mtt,. 23:4 (Ballou 1134)1 40) However, :in order to see the controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees in broadest perspective, it should be kept in mind that opinion differed widely among Jewish teachers as to the scope of oneVs duties in keeping the law; and between the Pharisees as a whole and the Sadducees as a group. It may have· been the narrower or more conservative school of Pharisees)> that of Shernmai, :in contrast to the liberal more progressive school of Hillel, against which the criticisms of the New Testament are mainly directed., In defense of the Pharisees of that time., Jewish scholars indicate that as a whole they were the progressive group in Judaism as opposed to the Sadducees, or Temple authorities. In addition to its severe criticism, the New Testa- ment suggests that Jesus wasl' upon occasion 1 friendly with Pharisees and Scribesi Mark 12:34; Matthew 22:34 - He said that some were not far from the kingdom, i.ee those who shared his deeper spiritual sensitivity and discernment., Luke 7:36; 11:37 - Had fellowship with the Pharisees at dinner. 13:31 - Warned by them that Herod was seeking his life., John 3:31 - Came to him for teaching. Matthew 5:17-18 - Jesus not opposed to the law. Acts 5:33-38 - Pharisees friends of early Christians. 10. An Introduction to the Study of the Bible, by James Anderson, et.al. Published by the College of Wooster, page 150 132 .. Concerning the Pharisees and the problem of the New Testament presentation, Kaufman Kohler, noted Jewish scholar wrote the following:11 HNo true estimate of the character of the Pharisees can be obtained from the New 1'estament writings, which take a polemical attitude toward them • .,.,nor from Josephus, who, writing for the Roman readers and in view of the Messianic expectations of the Pharisees, repre- sents the latter as a philosophic sect .. vi 91The Pharisees formed a league or brotherhood of their own (haburah), admitting only those who, in the presence of three membersp pledged themselves to the strict observance of Levitical purityll to the avoidance of closer association with the VAm Ha-Harez 9 (the ignorant and careless boor), to the scrupulous payment of tithes and other imposts due to the priests, the Levite and to the poor, and to a conscientious regard for vows and for other peoples 9 property._iv Thei~ ,m::oy;res~i.,"!:,~ gualities @.9: emphases: -Asserted vvthe principles of religious democracy and progressvi against the Sadducees or Temple rulers. Emphasized V9the priestly sanctity of the whole people of Israel.'" - 9iThe very institution of the synagogue for communion, worship and in- struction was a Pharisaic declaration of the principle that the Torah .. is 9the inheritance of the congregation of Jacobm (Deut., 33:3). -Less rigid in the execution of justice than the Sadducees, eog• inter- preted 1,ex talionis "t.6 mean 9Ydue compensation with money99 -- whereas Sadducees interpreted~ 1alionis literallyo -Liberalized and deepened the spiritual significance of the Festivals e.g. Relative to the Day of Atonement, nthe Pharisees "Wrested the power of atoning for the sins of the people from the high priests (see Lev. 16:30) and transferred it to the day itself, so that atonement was effected even without sacrifice and priest, provided there was genuine repentance.'19 -Liberalized Sabbath practices, e.gG made allowance for carrying things (Jer. 17:21-4): extended the definition of 9place 9 to include a mile radius (old rule: could not leave your place on the Sabbath» Ex. 16:29). '19 •• .,their object was to render the Sabbath a 'delight? (Is .. 48:13)., a. day of social and spiritual joy and elevation rather than a day of gloom. 99 -Strengthened the position of women in the home vvagainst the caprice of the husband, 99 by introducing the marriage document. Women after childbirth could return to the household without protracted isolation for weeks, even months, as prescribed (Lev. 12:4-7; l5:19-24)~v • .,.the Hill.elites, and 11. Excerpts from The Jewish Encyglopedia, Volo IX, ed Isidore Singer, Funk and Wagnalls Compa,."1.y.. 1905 p. 661-666. Heb: nperuish:i.m99 ; Aramaic: V9PerishaV'I (the singular of iVPerishayan) i 9denotes ?one who separated himself,i or keeps away from persons or things impurej.in order to attain the degree of holiness and righteousness required in those who would commune with God,. • ., 99 Gk: Pharisaioi 133. especially Akiba, jn being more lenient in matters of divorce, 1:ad in view the welfare and peace of the home~ which should be based upon affection • .,.vi -Stressed learning: The Sadgucean part represented nthe interests of the Temple, while the former, Lthe Pharissic parti/ were concerned that the spiritual life of the people should be centered in the Torah and the Synagogue. While the Sadducean priesthood prided itself upon its aristo- cracy of blood., • .,the Pharisees created an aristocracy of learning instead, declaring a bastard who is a student of the Law to be higher in rank than an ignorant high priest. -'1'1'I.'he ai.in. and object of the Law, according to Pharisaic principles, are in the training of man to a full realization of his responsiblity to God and to the consecration of life by the performance of its manifold duties.,..vw ( 664). -people to deal with one another rvaccording to the dictates of love.n -acceptance o.f God 'Is kingship: fo1plies acceptance of God ?s special decrees; also commandments i'ldictated by reason and the human consci- ence O 'l'I -the avoidance of sino -the fulfillment of God'ls commandments i'lwithout expectation of reward.vv -stressed 9'1Be holy as the Lord your God is holyn (Lev. 19:2) -- the :imitation of God as an ultimate sanction for ethics(cp., Jesus). - 11vLove thy neighbor as thyselft'I is declared by them to be the principal law., iVIt is a _slanderous misrepresentation of the Pharisees to state that they Vdivorced morality and religionv, when everywhere virtue, probity, and benevolence are declared by them to be the essence of the Law .. .,., 91 ( 665). Evaluation of the Pharisees: vvstill, the very air of sanctity surrounding the life of the Pharisees often led to abuseso .. \l'I vv ••• they added new restrictions to the Biblical law in order to keep the people at a safe distance from forbidden ground: as they termed it, Vthey made a fence around the lawv ••• Thus they forbade the people to drink wine or eat with the heathen, in order to prevent associations which might lead either to intermarriage or idolatry .... After they had determined the kinds of work prohibited on the Sabbath they forbade the use of many things on the Sabbath on the ground that their use might lead to some prohibited labor ••• It was here that the foundation was laid of that system of rabbinic law which piled statute on statute until often the real purpose of the Law was lost sight of ••• vv ( 664) • 134. '11'An ancient baraite enumerates seven classes of Pharisees, of which five consist of either eccentric fools or hypocrites: (1) 9the shoulder Pharisee, 9 who wears, as it were, his good actions ostentatiously upon his shoulder; (2) 9the wait-a-little Pharisee v who ever says ;9Wait a little 9 until I have performed the goodact awaiting me;w (3) 9the bruised Pharisee, 9 who in order to avoid looking at womal,1 runo against the wall so as to bruise himself and bleed; (4) 9the pestle Pharisee," who walks with head down like the pestle in the mortar; (5) Vthe ever-reckoning Pharisee, 9 who says VLet me know what good I may do to counteract my neglect; 9 (6) 9the God-fearing Pharisee, 9 after the manner of Job; (8) Vthe God-loving Pharisee, 9 after the manner of Abraham...,.R'" Joshua b., Hannaniah)l at the beginning of the second century, calls eccentric Pharisees idestroyers of the world 9..,.and the term 9Pharisaic plagues 9 is frequently used by the leaders of the time.l''I i''IIt is such types of Pharisees that Jesus had in view when burling his scathing words of condemnation against the Pharisees, whom he denounced as Yhypocrites 9 o • .,Voffspring of vipersv ••• vwhited sepulchres 9 " •• 9blind guidesv ••• He himself tells his disciples to do as the Scribes and Pharisees who sit on Moses seat bid them do, but he blames them for not acting in the right spirit.,. 0 for pretentiousness in many.,...,things (Mtt. 23:27).. Exactly so are hypocrites censured in the Midrash (Pesq R xxii ed. Friedmann, PQ 111), 9wearing tefillin and zizit (phylacteries and fringes), they harbor evil intentions in their breasts. Otherwise the Pharisees appear as friends of Jesns (Luke 7:37, 13:31) and of early Christians (Acts 5:38; 29~9).n Only ill regard to intercourse with the unclean and unwashed multitude, with the 9am-haarez,v the publicanj and the sinner, did Jesus differ widely from the Pharisees (Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30; 7:39; 11:39; 15:2; 19:7) .. In regard to the main doctrine he fully agreed with them, as the old version (Mark 12:28-3h) still has it. 011\Ting, however, to the hostile attitude taken toward the Pharisaic schools by Pauline Christianity, especially in the time of the emperor Hadrian, VPhari8ees 9 was inserted in the Gospels wherever the high priests and Sadducees or Herodians were originally men- tioned as the persecutors of Jesus (see New TestamentL, and a false jJnpres- sion, which still prevails in Christian circles and among all Christian 1r1riters was created concerning the Pharisess.'"., vw l'i ••• Jewish life was regulated by the teaching of the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrian of the pasto A new chaill of tradition supplanted the older, priestly tradition ••• Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future. True, it gave the Je1J'.rish religion a legalistic tendency and made ?separatism? its chief characteristic; yet only thus were the pure monotheistic faith, the ethical ideal, and the intellectual and spiritual character of the Jew preserved in the midst of the do\ilmfall of the old world and the deluge of barbarism which swept over the medieval world .. ~'I · 2. The types of Messianic hope present another important aspect of the religious situation in Jesusv day. The people of Israel had long believed that they would win a victory over their enemies, the succession of foreign oppressors, and that an age of righteousness and peace would finally come, not only for f:,'' 135. themselves, but, in its best expectation, for the world and mankind as a whole. Their Messiah would be God Vs agent in bringing in the new day. There was difference of opinion, however, as to what kind of Messiah he would be. The word nMessiahii means one who is especially Vianointed,n or appointed of God to do a task~l2 In general terms, we find two predominate views of the Messiah in Jesusi time: first, the Messiah as ViSon of Davidvv or a political figure; and second, the apocalyptic or heavenly ViSon of Man~v conception. In addition to these, a third concept, that of the suffering ViServant9Y of Yahweh, was present in the literary tradition of the Old Testamente Although this third view may not have been held by any particular group--save possibly by Jesus himself in relation to the Son of Man idea-it constitutes for some modern students an important clue to Jesusi self-interpretation, and to his historic signi- ficance., The central questions, however, of historical importance and of New Testament scholarship, are whether Jesus associated his work, or himself, with any of these views, and, if so, with which one, or which combination, and in what sense or meaning? How these questions are answered will influence the in- terpretation of Jesus 9 vvethics, vv that is, his teaching as to the i9Kingdom of God, vv its nature and requirements.. Modern scholars differ in their points of view~ Presently we endeavor to outline the main possibilities. In the meanwhile we should describe more fully what the three views were. Judging from Old Testament material and extra--Biblical sources of late Old Testament times, we discuss these views in the probable order of their historical appearance:-- (1) The iq~ gf .sl political 2!. kin_g_:\:r Messial}, a descendant or YYSon of David,vi who would lead Jewish armies in victory over the Romans, and set up a world-wide kingdom of righteousness and peace under the leadership of Israelo He would be a man especially endued of Godj) with power to overthrow Israel 9s enemies, to rule in righteousness and justice and do away with all human evils~ He would be part military leaderj) royal judge, and ethical teacherj) a divine or semi-divine king of the messianic age. Some of the prophets invisaged this age to come on earth as the outcome of historic time. It would be a day of universal peace, plenty, and justice. (I Isaiah, Micah--Ballou 959). In some quarters, the outlook in Jesusv time had corrupted this broader vision into an emphasis on vindictive punishment of Isarel 9s enemies under the victory of a military messiah. (2) The Messiah .sl§. Q Servant of God, who, by his suffering for righteousness sake, would be an agent of salvation in the world. We find this understanding of the Messiah in the 0 Servant1v passages of Second Isaiah (notably chapters 41-53). Such personage wou~d, by long suffering, gentle persuasion, by teaching and example of loving sacrifice, bring Israel Vs message of ethical monotheism, with its concern for justice and brotherhood, to the world. Biblical scholarship is divided as to whether the Second Isaiah intended the portrait of the long-suffering v1servant11 in chapter 53 to be that of an individual, or simply the personification of Israel, the nation, now living in exile and captivity. Israel, 12. Heb. 1~1:ashiach; vv Aramaic; 11Meshicha; 11 Grecized form nMessias, 11 (Enclycopedia of Religion; ed. Ferm, Philosophical Library, p. 485) 136. the nation, is so portrayed a number of times in the Servant poems of Second Isaiah prior to chapter 53. Be this as it may, the idea of messiahship as primarily gentle-service, rather than military or political power, constitutes tho main point, and is found as a significant element :i.n the Gospel picture of Jesus. (3) Th§. .smoca:I.:x.g:t.:tq_ g'.2!1~ pf !:f~., The Greek word napokalyptein91 means to vrunveilVI' or iVuncover .. u Apocalyptic writings purport to unveil, t~at is, to reveal the time of the end. This type of literature flourish- ed in Israel :in the last two centuries before Jesus, and into the Christian era. It was characterized by cryptic., symbolic figures of speech, such as those encountered in the book of D§[bl~ in the Old Testament, and in Revelation in the New Testament,. As the most noted Biblical examples of apo~lypse, a study of the book of Danhl or of ~evtlfili..9.U, will disclose that they were written at a time of per- secution by the foreign power, in the case of~ that of the Syria-Greek ruler Antiochus IV, about 168 BoC~; E~Ytl2:t.i9n suggests one of the Roman persecutions of the late 1st century A.D.,, perhaps that of the Emperor Domitain (81-96 A.,D.). The over-all purpose of such books was to inspire courage and hope in a persecuted people, by proclaiming that the end of their suffering was near, a:nd a time of glorious deliverance at hand, by Gcdis supernatural :intervention :in the affairs of men., God? s angelic)) messianic agent, or iiSon of Man,ii would appear on the clouds of heaven to perform this work., (Da.c"1iel chapter 7, Ballou pp., 1022-1023)., Accord:ingly, in this view the Messiah was to be a supernatural hero, a transcendent being, to whom divine powers were delegated. Other :important features of apocalyptic thought and writing are the following: - -Israel would have opportunity to take vengeance on her foreign enemies, who would be overthrown by the Son of Man. ·-Cosmic signs and dire portents would indicate the end of this world age, such as: stars would fall, moon would turn to blood, sun would be darkened, supernatural beasts would come out of the sea, human calamities and distresses would increase. -A new, immortal age would be issued in, in which the old world would be supernaturally transformed, history ended, the dead resurrected to stand at the Last Judgment, presided over by God himself, ~vthe .Ancient of Days .. ~1 Though the Jews may have developed apocalyptic ideas on their own, many scholars believe it to be likely that they borrowed some of these conceptions from the highly apocalyptic religion of the Zoroastrians, or Persians, under whose rule they had lived for two centuriese In any case)> there were many apocalyptic books in late Old Testament and early Christian times. In addition to Dan_itl, the books of ~ and ~~ are prominent expressions of apocalypse in the canonized - Old Testament. Moreover, many non-Biblical or non-canonical apocalyptic tracts were written in this period .. Among these were: -- -The Book of Enoch.9 c., 64 BoCe -·The Assumption of Moses, c. 1 century A.D .. -II Esdras (4th Exra), c. 1 century A.D. -The Apocalypse of Baruch, 2nd Century A.D. 137. Such names i:a their titles as tiEnochiw wiMoses, vi etc 0 , indicate that many of these books were written as pseudonymous works .. Many scholars believe that such is the nature of the book of Daniel in the Old Testament. (Apocalyptic writings have been collectedin the Oxford ~ and f§eUg_fil2Li"Tc£h~, edited by Charles.) Discussion of Apocalypse brings to the fore the use of another, associated term, ~.ch2tolog:£., ]:sch~l:,2,.1..Q&Y: ( 11eBcha.tosa1 : the furthest, last) is any doctrine of the last times, or the outcome, or end of history., We have just reviewed apocalyptic eschatolog-.f, and prior to that the messianic~political type of eschatology of the Son of David · tradition. We have stated that the chief problem of New Testament scholarship is to determine, if possible, with which concept of the messiah and his 11kingdom11 Jesus may have associated his work and life; or with which comb:ination, or modification of concepts. Did Jesus have specific or particular .§§Chatologic_§):: views? What eschatological hope formed the background of his ethical teaching, and his preach:ing of the kingdom of heaven? Some such question as this states the problem of the Gospels m broadest terms, so far as modern scholar- shipVs effort to come to understand the historical Jesus is concerned. Phrased in its most critical way the specific issue is: was Jesus an Y'lapocalypticvv prophet, that is, a. preacher avowing the apocalyptic type of closure to historic or mundane affairs? The attempt to answer this question 1 or indication of the several ways in which it has been answered in contemporary times, constitutes the underlying dut.y of any effort to present an interpretation of the life and teachings of Jesus~ The following summary anticipates our type of resolution to this problem. C. Types of Jewish Reaction to Rome and the Central Concern of the Christian Movement 1. Q,ompr9J!!i§.s:. and Collaboration with Rome: the policy of the Sadduccees and Herodians. The Sadducees, who derived their name as the heirs of Zadok, high priest in David 9s time, included the priestly rulers or temple powers, and other wealthy, commercial and aristocratic groupso Secure economically, theJr did not desire change. Accordingly they were indifferent to messianic and apocalyptic hopes, but rather supported the house of Herod. They embraced a more conservative view of the Torah than the Pharisees by ruling - out the oral tradition and insisting on the letter of the written law. 2. Revolt against ;Rome: advocated by the V'IZealotn party. This group were political direct-actionists, who wanted no compromise, such as Sadducees and Herodians were making., On the other hand, they wanted no waiting for "'. signs from heaven, such as the apocal;y-ptists expected. They said, rather., vw1et someone arise to cornmax1d them, in the spirit a.,."ld valor of David of old, and they would hail him 9Son of David9- Messiah ... -aud rally.". to his standard ..... 91'13 They exemplified one side of the polJ.tical materialism that dominated the day., The Sad.ducees and the apocalyptists each express- ed other sides of the cmTent materialistic outlook. 3. ~,12og_a..1,YJ2~tQ j.,!li.§rv-ention llQlli ~ ~.es: the apocalyptists looked for the descent of super-natural, divine armies (cp. Joel 3) that would break the Gentile yoke; or for the appearance of the Son of Man on the clouds, whose supernatural power, in the form of a flaming breath (cp. 4 ~ 13) would destroy IsraelVs enemies,. Some of the apocalyptic literature expressed a spirit of vengeance, taking delight in the expected destruction and.punish- ment of the Gentiles ( cp,. Assum2t.i_qu of Moses 10). The apocalyptic liter- ature was not all of the srune value. Some of it breathed a larger and more universal outlook in the ideal of the conversion of the Gentiles (eogo Daniel 4, and 1 Enoch 48).14 As a group the Pharisees shared the view that the Roman yoke could be broken only by a direct intervention of God., Accordingly, they adopted a policy of watchful waiting 9 stressing in the meanwhile strict observance of the Law. Some of them believed that if the Law could be kept perfectly for just one day throughout Judaism the messiah and the ideal kingdom would come. 4,, Announcement gf the kJ!!K,,d£ffi ~§. 2: .r.resent, ang_ presentl;y fulfi).led ethical _wld s:12irjj:,ual realfu, which all m_en fil§:.Y enter: !2Q}i: the program of Jesus. Professor Amos Wilder has trenchantly summarized the several points of view: "The Zealot said, Winthe kingdom; the Pharisee, await it; and Jesus said, Enter it.,iwl5 Jesus essentially revived the universal ethical outlook upon religion of the great 8th to 6th century B.c. Prophets, (e.g. Ballou 943 D, 949 C, 954 C, 956A). He rejected the popular political conception of the Messiah, and although he embraced the eschatological outlook of his day (that is, the belief that the end of the Age was imminent or near), he came to view his mission in the spirit of the Suffering Servant ideal of II Isaiah, as passages like Luke 4:16-22 (Ballou 1063 C), suggest. He apparently used, but spiritualized apocalyptic ideas, including the Son of Man terminology; this he relates to, or re-evaluates in terms of a suffering service role, e.g. Mark 8:31; 10:45 (Ballou 1091 C; Mtt. 20:26-27). 13. 15. Walter Bell Denny: The Career~ Significance of~, Thomas Nelson and Sons, New York, 1939, p. 74. See for examples of this literature, C. K,. Barrett: The New Testament ].ackgro.1!rui: Selected Documents, Macmillan, New York, 1957,p. 227f. Andover Newton, Theological School, 1939-1941. 139. Scholarship is divided as to the exact relationship to each other, and the place in the life and thought of the real or V'lhistoric Jesus / 9 of these ideas or roles of suffering service, the J.saianic Servant, and the apoca- lyptic Son of Man. 'Ihe GospeJ_s do not give us a perfectly clear picture. We shall presently outl:i.n0 the major differences of view concerning this central problem of New 'festament scholarship.. Suffice it for the moment to summarize in two ways what for many Christians may be regarded as the overall reaction and significance of the Christian movement .. First, in the words of Steven Liberty: The iVclash of political forces and aspirations bade fair to bring disaster upon tbe religious future of mankind through the extinction of the national faith of the Jews ••• It was through political aims and theories that~ to the outside observer, human wilfulness appeared just then to make hopeless the progress of true religion--on the one side the great governmental ambition of Rome that would listen to no spiritual authority in limitation of its absolute control, on the other the ••• Judaism ••• which more and more identified the nation with a policy of obstinate intransigence.Hl6 Second, as expressed by the noted 19th Century theologian, Albrecht Ritschl: 'liJesus .. uintroduced a ne·w religion,11uobY setting free the lord- ship of .eeeGod from national and political li~itations, as well as from the expectation of material well-being, and by advancing •• efor mankind •• a spiritual and ethiGal union, which at once corresponds to the spirituality of God, and denotes the,,.,.end of spiritual creatures.iil? It should be said, of course, that the deepening spirituality of Judaism itself, in the growing Synagogue culture which was maturing at that time, outside the Christian movement, was in its right a significant force in the advancement of the ideals just expressed. STUDY QUESTIONS 1. Give a sketch of the main political situation and problem of JesusV day. Of the economic situation. · 2. Describe and state the significance of the Pharisaic emphasis on keeping the Law as one main aspect of the religious situation in Jesusv day. 3. Describe the types of Messianic hope as the second main phase .,of the religious situation, and indfoate main OT passages which describe these views of the Messiah. What does the Hebrew word Hmessiahii mean? 4. 'What was the main content of apocalyptic thought as a whole and two prominent places in the OT which contain these views? 5s Give a sketch of the four main types of Jewish reaction to Rome. 16. 17. The Political Relations .Qf Christ 9s Ministry, Oxford, 19160 The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation. Clark~ Edinburgh, 1902 p. 455). - p. :31. T and T PART TilREE The Life of Jesus accorclin~ .~o ~ Synoptic Tradition Assignment:- 1. RSV Mk. 8:38-9:1 13:26-30 14:62 Lk. 9 :26-27 21:27-32 22:67-9 Mtt.10:23 •••••••••• Jesus' eschetological expectation: problem of the historical Jesus. 139.1 the Mk. Lk. Mtt. 1:1-13 •••••••••• Period of Preparation: Jolm the Baptist; Lk. Mk. 3:7-18 3:13-17 4:1-lh 1:14-45 ••••••••• Baptism; Temptation Ministry opens in Galilee ·with announcement of the Kingdom, authoritative teaching, works of power. 2:1-3:6 •••••..••• Controversies with Scribes and Pharisees begin. 3:7-5:43 ••••••••• Jesus' popularity in contrast to official opposition; typical par~bles of the Kingdom, etc. 2. Study Guide, FT: Part Three:- A. The Problem of the Historical Jesus B. Mark's Outline of the Life C. The Period of Preparation and Beginning of the Ministry -- a short commentary on Mark chs. 1-5. Stu(\y Questions 140 .. III. The ~ of Jesus Accord:i.n.g i£ :the Synopt_j;.£ Tradition A. MarkVs Outline: 1. The Period of .Er..fil2ar:a:!2.,ion: )1k. 1:1-13 John the Baptist; the Baptism; the Temptation,. 2. The Ministry in ~~: Mk 1:14-8:26. (1) Announcement of the Kingdom; teaches with authority; works of power: Mk. 1:14~45. (2) Controversies with Scribes and Phariesees begin: I~{. 2:1-36. (3) Jesusv popularity in contrast to official opposition: Mk. 3:7-5:43. (4) Mounting crisis: popular confusion; mounting opposition: Mk. 6:1-8:26. Withdrawal from immediate vicinity of Capernau.m and Nazareth, 7:24. 3. Th~ Retirement illg Disciples f2r Re-exarrdnation of Effect and Pur:Qose 2! His 1:{;ission.: Mk 8: 27-10: 52. (5) PeterVs Confession at Caesarea Philippi; consequences of Messiahship and discipleship; the Transfiguration: Mk. 8:27-9:13. (6) Journey to Jerusalem: Mk. 9:14-10:52. 4. The Jerusalem Ministry: Mk, chs. 11-160 (7) Jesus 9 final challenge to the nation: Mk. 11-13. Entry; cleansing of the Temple; Conflict with the authorities; the Forecast of Doom. (8) The Passion 19WeekH: Mk. 14-16. Last Supper; Gethsemane; Trial; Cricifixion, the Resurrection. 141 .£2• ~ Problem 2f the Historical Jesus Before we attempt to outline the basic teachings of Jesusj we should realize that he taught with eschatological expectatione That is, he anticipated the imminent consummation of the Age, the coming of the kingdom by the power of God, as the vindication of his pre3.ching the message of the kingdom, and of himself as its spokesman under God. In a number of places he is reported as announcing that the end would come before i~this generationn would 2'1pass awayi2 (e,.go Mark 9:1; 13:30; 15:62; Lk~ 22:67-9; Mtt,, 10:23). This historic circ1imstance, that, characteristic of his time, he announced the end of 22history22 as coming soon, interjects into his ethical teachings or gospel of the kingdom a tension which modern studies should acknowledge. The critical, historical issue, however, is that the end of this world did not come, as he and many of his contemporaries expected6 The problem, then, of his life for modern Christian scholarship, for historical science, psychology, philosophy, theology, and faith-centers in the question: What aspects of his teachings contain (or may be interpolated without undue distortion as containing) universal perspectives and values that transcend the specific apocalyptic outlook or setting of his own day and circumstance? Do his words speak with some validity for subsequent times? Moreover, for Christians particularly, what light or shadow might the first century eschatological expectation, in which Jesus apparently shared, cast upon Christian faith in his role as the Divine Son and Savior? To answer these questions fully now would take us deeply into a study of the New Testament teaching about Jesus? views of his own person,.as various modern interpretations have considered this problem. We presently analyze contemporary views of the 22messiahship'1'1 - particularly as it relates to the apparent references of Jesus to himself as '1 2Son of Ma,nn and to the expected 12arousia, or coming of this figure in power on high; and other matters involving his use of apocalyptic thought and terms. It must suffice for the present to state that some of Jesus utterances about him- self as messenger of the kingdom, and the relationship of men to him, or the requirements of 22discipleship/'1 are cast in the 'l'lcrisis'l'I (Wilder) expectation of the imminent parousia 7 • and take on a quality of 2vcrisis ethic.v'I Particularly a crisis doctrine of discipleship appears, as his mission to evangelize the nation approaches failure, and he himself faces martyrdom.18 At the same time, however, while much of his teaching is invested with such neschatological tensionvv (and all of it should no doubt be initially viewed against this background) other phases of his teaching seem more universal and timeless. He himself refused to calculate the time of the pariousia, and he sometimes spoke of the qualities of the new age in spiritual rather than in literal or material· way (Lk. 17:20-21; Mk. 12:24). He often depicted the kingdom in the parable and simile of real~life situations. It is in his true-to-life pictures or parabolic sayings,, and in his frequently direct announcement of principles of the kingdom, as a present force here and now, where Christians have found the abiding values of his teaching. 18. Amos N. Wilder: Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus, Harper, 1950. 14:t.1 The tone of many of Jesus utterances, their note of ageless wisdom that appeals directly to mind and heart, to experience, reason, and aspiration, suggests that he was speaking of God and Man in terms relevant to life§.§. such on any plane in both its personal and social needs., Jn such clues the faith of the expositor finds in Jesus 9 sayings an understanding of life,p in its religious dimen- sions~ that transcends the particular apocalyptic outlook of the first century. This analyst is in agreement with the form of interpretation which believes that, as we study the Gospel record closely, we hear Jesus speaking with a genuine con- cern for historical reality and the problems of this worldi with a gradual lifting of vision toward eschatological and transcendental themes. 9 19 .. e,.g. Wilder, op. cit. 141.2 C. The Period of Preoaration and the Beginn:i,!IB £!. ~ M:tnisti-x ,!D Galilee: a""briet commentary - - - 1. John the Baptist, Mk l:J.-8, The term 11Gosr:,el 11 here means, not the book or writing~ ~but the'gooct ne-;,:rs of the Kingdom of God. Compare St, Paul. Mark's repetition of the pro:Jhecy from Isaiah 40:3, reflects the early Christian view of John as the forerunner o.fChrist. It points to the early Christian use of Old Testmnent 11prophec:r11 as clairvoy~.nt :i.1rediction of events then tBki:rg place. More important it shm-;s that the Ch:ristian movement was associ2tecl with the deeper spiritual :i.nsi.ght of Second Is,ne.h (S'3e Lk 4:16f) rsf:2rdinr; the nature and character of the Kingdom, in contras+, to the polit:tcal and radical apocalyptic t 1pes of messainism current in Jesns's de.y. Apparently Mark used the Sptungint or ancient Greek translation of Isaiah •• According to Nark, John the B""ptist we.s primarily a moral preacher of repentance, Mlc 1: 2-8 reflecting in this emphasis the ethical pre8.ching of the grea·t 8th to 6th centu:r;;r B.B. prophets of the Old Testament, In coming to John, Jesus associated himself with this line of thought. Luke's special source also inc:icntes John as an etllical preache!', Lk 3:10-ll.1., It is inter- esting to or serve tht,t the LuLe version adds nore o:: tb.e Isa:Lah 40 quotation, concluding ·with 11 all fJ.es:'1 sl1al.l r1ee the salvation of God11 (Lk 3:6), reflecting the ethi.ca.l universalism of the rreat pro:::·hets. But Mtt and Lk add to the picture from the :::-, source., that John was an apocalyptic type prophet of divir1e w~t,h and the day o:f' judgment. In Mtt 3:11-12 and Lk 3:16-17 he is re-')orted as speaking of an m-:.quenchable ftre for the wicked. One of the questions of the Now Test8'nJ.ent · anal;rsis :i:s whetter Jesus · adopts apocalyptic ideas in the literal form of ·'.:.he coi:i,t,einnorar-.1 apocalypticism of his day. Our study will ~ttempt ,to throw some light on this question as \iJ'.0 proceed. Jesus differed from John rnarkly in an important personal:i.ty aspect. John was an ascetic type religious leader, Mk 1:6, clothed in rough garb and ea.ting plain food, whereas Jesus was not an arcetic, Mtt 11:18 (Lk 7 :.33), except in the one respect that he remained unrrJBrried. 2. The Baptisc11, Mk 1:9-11. The expression "in those days" suggests - --- that tJ.1e oriGinal event and the written record is separated by a considerable lepse of time. The purpose of !'fatrk here is clearly Christological; that is to say the report represents what Christians came to think about Jesus, namely, that he was a.p,ointed from the bee:in:ning of his ministry to a messainic office. We may be certa1.n that there was a real bantism event, :for the greater figure, Jesus, as the early Christians would have regarded him, came to and was baptized by the lesser figure, John. Moreover, that John's baptism was a baptism of "repentance" (v.h), to ·which Jesus submitted indicates further that1 the early church did not invent this story, but that it must be based on fact. 9a ~n1at transpired at the baptism? The scene indicates that Jesus had a profoundly moving experience or sense of calling, just prior to him ministry-_; the Baptism records his sense of Divine approval, and the convictfon of his call to serve.19b 19a Branscomb, op. cit. p 16 19b Branscomb, op. cit. p 20 141.3 Mark's account of the baptism implies that the experience was subjective in nature. Mark's re0ort is that Jesus sees the dove and that the voice speaks to him, while that others saw"or heard is not mentioned. Mark's account is 7:'n some contrast to the more objective fea.tures o.f the event which Matthew and Luke give (Harmong 15); in these later Gospels the voice spoke to those standing by, and that the dove appeared in bodily form is emphasized, Mtt 3:17; Lk 3:22. Branscomb concludes that in Mark's account 11we are farther up-stream in a constantly flowing a.ncl enbrgirig tradition. 11 19c Note that the heavenly voice spea.ks the language of Scripture, here Ps 2:7; the last phrase suggests, Is 42:1. The Vestern Text of Luke's version quotes the whole of Is 2 :7, adding 11 today I have begotten you." (Lk 3 :22). Whichever of the two interpretations one may accept, namely either that the opening of the heavens and the descent of the Spirit was a literal super- natural manifestation; or, to believe that behfod the report of "the heavens opened" and 11 the Spirit descendingn lay perhaps, a sudden parting of clouds and a flashing down of sun rays, suggesting the presence of the su])ernatural to those who 1vitnessed the baptism and passed on the account, the Jight phenomena and figure in any case may stand for Jesus I s prophetic-type inspir- 2.tion concerning the Kingdom of love which he was about to pre2ch. Note John l:4f_; I Jc.hn 1:5-7; Acts 2:3-4; 26:18, 23; II Car. 4:6, 18; 5:7 where 'ii'gfit phenomena and light~ a figure of speech standing for Christian experience. 3. The Temptation, Mk 1:12-13 and Lk 4:1-13. Contemplating a new work, Jesus quite naturally would have become emotionally involved in a period of self-examination, testing of motives, i.e. of "temptation." Periods of self- examination, planriing, and decision are common in every life. This event shows the real humanity of Jesus: he was subject to tempte.tion as all men, to intellectual and moral pondering and searching for the Jivine ~7ill for his life. As given in Mtt and Lk the event reflects Jesus's rejection of the temp- tation to become a 0olitical type of leader or messiah, Lk 4:5-8 (John 6:15); the temptc1tion to rmt materi2cl goods and aims ahead of spiritual goods and aims, Lk 4: 3-4. There comes a time in all life when the dee is ion must be made whether we as men a re to devote our talents to the increase of pe• sonal mate,,ial power, or to the service of others in love and self-giving. Finally Jesus rejects the temptation to use the miraculous for display, Lk 4:9-13, as was expected of Messianic claimants , Mk 8:11-12 ~~ The Ministry- in Galilee, Mk 1:14-8:26. Announcement of the Kingdom of God, its mrrd.nent arrival and ethical character; Jesus teaches with authority; his works of power, Mk 1:14-45. Fote the imperativeness in Jesus's appeal in behalf of the Kingdom, and his hope that men might accept it. 11The time is fulfilled11 ; it is a matter of urgency that men accept the message of the Kingc'.om. That it is imminent in time or here and now present, implies that it is immanent in the circumstances of life and history; it may be entered or experiences. immediately, upon "repentence, 11 that i.::: to say, moral cleansing and renewal. The Gospel is the good news, the blessedness of life in harmong with the Will of God. (Fe shall study Jesus' idea of' the kingdom of heaven in further detail presently). 19c Ibid. p 18. . . . -l*- That-· the temptation story is a literary construction is suggested by its use of quotations from the Old Testament: Lk. 4:2 and L:4 reflect Deut. 9:9 and I Kgs. 19:8; Lk 4:4 is a direct quotation from Deut 8:J. Jesus points to the necessity of "repentance" in human life and affairs as a normal and fundamental moral attitude, if there is to be change for the better, for r:,Towth, or progress in humrui affairs. Review carefully our discussion of this area of moral experience, p. 176-177 in the OT section of this study, where we pointed out that extreme or morbid interpret8.tions of the role of 11 pride11 and the need of 11 repentance 11 in human life should be avoided and are essentially f oreiE;TI to the main scriptural teaching in both old and New Testaments. That Jesus did not me;m that c1ll men are subject to a need for "repentance, in some absolutistic or morbid sense seems clear in his refer- ences to the righteous who need no repentance, Mk 2:17, Lk 15:7,31, Mtt 2.5:21-23, 37, as well as by his generally optimistic but realistic philosophy of man and human life., for review of which we refer to our subsequent discussion on the basic teachings of Jesus. In the selection of the disciples we are reminded how any great movement needs men to carry it through Mark I s reference to his entering the synagogue in his own ref,;ion to teach, Jl1kl:21-22, whould be read with Lk 4:16-20 where the report is that Jesus at the openin~l of his ministry looks to the Isaianic suffering service trc1cli tion for his inspiration rn1.d ideal. The Kingdom comes with power in the healinr.s and exorcisms. (1 e later interpret Jesus' s miracles in considerable detail). JJote thus far the belief of his time in which Jesus shared, th2t clemonic spirits are the causes of disease; further, that the healings seem a consequence or coroll2.ry to his moral ministr-J Mk 2 :,5-12. · He is anxious first to heal the mind, and heart and soul; physical blessing and restor9tion may follow - as so often tri1e in the c;:i.ses of psychoneurotic disease. 2. Controversies with Scribes anc1 ?harisees bep:i11, ~1k 2 :1-3 ~6 In the healing of the pF:ralytic, 2:1-12, some of the Scribes pres8"1t become offr-·rlded at Jesus 1s claim to forp:ive sins. Yet there seems nothing strange in J csus' s act here: we too must oftenforgi ve sins, if we expect to be forgiven! At the dinner in Levi's house, 2:13-17, they are offended by his associ- ation with 11 sinners 11 ., and his disregcird of their distinction between 11 clean" and "unclean" ty:Jes of things and DeYsons. Jesus himself rebl1kes their caste atti tud.e toward those considered inferior or unworthy, disclosing on his part a democratic sympathy lacking in some of the religious authorities of the day. Tlle 11 I came" reflects his sense of mission. Another issue arose over fasting, 2 :18-20, and the ritual wrishing of hands (Mk 7:1-8). The Scribes and Pharisees were offended by his failure to keep the feBsts and other regul~iti.ons. It is possible that 2 :19-20 reflects the later asreticism of the early clmrch··. The next issue develops over- Sabbath observance: they are offended at his violation of the Sabbath by permitting his disciples to plucl( f:rain on that day, 2:23-28, and by his heAlinr-: work on the Sabbath day, 3:1.-6. Jesus point here is that human need should come before observance of the law; he cautions against letting the law become clD c1bstract a:rd absoll.tistic tyrrn1t. In connection with a similar point later on hemught that the 11 ..-:bstract lew of the validity of oaths should give way before the law commandinf respect and care of prrents" or persons, Mk 7~9-13.19e We have already pointed 19e Pranscomb, op cit., p 12Lr lLJl • .5 out how the more liberal Pharisees themselves were busy loosining up and interpretaing the law in ways to mnke it serve human need. The plot ag~inst him forms, 2:6; 3:6 -- their minds were closed. Note the strf.-lnge bedfellows, P::arisees with Herodians. How often cheap politic al maneuvers have undone worthy men and worthy causes. Jesus was now becoming conscious of their intransigent spirit; ::i.ccordingly Mark has appropriately repor-tecl. the sayings on the se:,aaration of the new from the old at this pJace, 2:21-22. Jesus evj_dently foresaw that his message would change and burst the old order. 3. Jesus's popular:,.;t:[ J.!! contrast~ official .22eostion, Mk 3:7-5:!~3. Main incic:.ents are: .. The crowds that come from a distance reveal Jesus's initial popularity, 3:7-12. Wote Mnrk's theory of the Mess:Lanic Secret, as modern scholars refertb it, 3:12, also 1:25; that is, since the unclean spirits are supernatural beings they would know of Jesus' s superna.tural origtn and nature 1 Tiiis reflects the supernaturalist Christology o:f Mark and the early church. By appointing the twelve, J:13-19, to go out to preach, he organizes his movement more carefully and widens his activity. The attitude of his family is hostile., 3:20-21, 31 .. 35. (Moffatt trans- lates "family" in J:21, where "friendsu in RSV) Mk 6:3 .. 4 should also be studied here, with Mtt 13+55-56 and Lk 4:22. Evidently Jesus' family and netghbors in his home town of Nazareth vrere not impressed with him as supernatural messenger. The pointed 0r,estions, Tho are my brothers and mother? 3:31-35., reveal at once Jesi.ts's universalism and the simplicity of his appeal. All or any may be followers of him and i-rithin his fellowship, who do 11 the will of God. 11 l'ihat do such passages as Mk 3 :35 and Mtt 6 :10 mean? In its larger context Jesus is he:re carr;-:r:j_ng on and stressirg the fundamental Hebraic ethical idealism and personalizm. Practically, the sayi_Ylg "Whoever does the will of God" means that whenever we love and reppect persons we do God's will;for ,)ersonality is, not only God's own hiP:hest natu:re and being, but in our finite cases represents ·,his hic:,:hest work in creation. (rote I Car 9 :5 · where St. Paul refe,--s to Jesus Brothers.) He is accused of sorcery by his enemies, 3:22-29, and replies that this is blasphemy, and unforFivs.ble. What does he mean by the sin that is unforgivable or 11ete"Y'r'al11 ? What Jesus may mean here is the sin of callirig good evil e~,d evil gooa; wilfull and malicious perversion or misuse of the truth, calling error truth and truth error. Classic modern examples have been the Nazi race theory, or Seno.tor Joseph McCarthy's false and malicious accusation for political adventae.:e, 'Li: wilfull disreg,1rd or misuse of the truth does constitute something psychologicalJy hopeless or "unfor- givable," as long e.s a person persists in such aYJ attitude. It is Jesus's way of emphasizing Moses Fundamental 9th Commandment against deceptive word and action: 11 Thou shnlt not bear f?lse witness." A personality that is deceitful is corrupt at the core. Such personality can never be trusted, and itself establishes the 11unforgivable11 quality of its own evil so long as its deceptive intentions persist. Luccock in the Interyreter's Bible reminds us that "1Jife are peculiarly exposed to this sin whenever we become primarily the defenders of some advantage1119d Ve teDder a note of caution, however; Jesus does not mean here that God is unwilling to forgive even this central most sin of personality, unon the condition of genuine :repentance and desire for 19d Halford E., Vol 7, p 693. salvation and new life. In Mtt 18:21-22 and Lk 17:3-4 he declares that God's read- iness to forgive is unlimited if forgiveness is sincerely sought. (See our sub- sequent study of Jesus's conception of Judgment, p. ). In Mk 4:1-34 we have ty:Jical parables of the Kingdom of Heaven. We pause at this point to analyze briefly the natuI'e of Jesus• papables and the problem of how to understand them. They are the frequent form of address by which he conveys his moral teachings. Imn~diately following this present discussion of Mark's papables of growth we shall analyze more fully Jesus 1s moral and escha- tological teachings as a whole. As we read these papables bear 1n mind the following points:- (1) In treating them guard against two tendencies: One, the tendency to accept entirely without qualification, the interpretation that the gospel authors sometimes put upon them, in terms of the outlook of later times and the needs of the early church. For example, Mark's theory of the parables in 4:10-12 presents considerable difficulty. According to him they are secret or esoteric utterances used in order to wi thold the secret of the Kirtgdom from those outside the inner or initia.ted group; the parahles were meant to be riddles de- signed to hide the tr11th from hearers 1 This internreti::ition sounds as if it comes from a time later 1n the first centur:J, when· Christianity 1<1as being ihter- preted in some quarters as a kind of "mystery religion", like other mystery religions cun•ent in the Roman empire. In any case, Mark's view of the inten- tion of the parables is totally unlike Jesus's intention for them. The latter's purpose in speal{ing in parables we may gather by a careful study of his attitude and utterances as a whole. For instance, present in this same passage is Jesus•s declaration that the parables are told 1n order to simplify and clarify the message, not to obscure and hide it from the hearers. Contrast 4:9, 13, 21-24, 33 with verses 10-12. !IJk 4:12 is a quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10 an ironical statement of the prophet meaning that a.lthough he is speaking quite clearly and plainly, the people in their moral obtuseness will not hear or head. The parallel passage in Mtt 13:12-13, 'Where the quotation is givenimre fully, points this out. Another probable example of an editorial interpretation of the parables by the gospel authors is their ex,lanation sometimes along allegorical lines, as Mk h:14-20 (or Mtt 13:lf) suggests. This interpretation makes the parable of the sower, Mk4:3•9,.an allegory, which reflects missionary problems of the early church, That is to say, Mark's explanation of the parable refers to the practical difficulties that the early evangelests encountered in keeping newly converted pagans within the fold: each difficulty that Jesus utters is interpreted as a particular difficulty met by the early missiona!"J. This is not to claim, of course, that Jesus may not have used alep-Or'IJ occasionally (and even here he may have anticipated such problems as Mark relates in 4:lLf). Allee:oey however, with its usua.l double meaning is not typical of Jesus•s parables as a whole. Rather they were plainly intended to convey a message as directly and simply as possible, in the artistic way of using examples from human life precisely in or- d'erthat his hearers could see the point immediately .. - The second tendency which we must guard against in studying the parables is to modernize them too greatly. 1 ·e are prone to read into them too readily modern concepts and problems. For example, 1'1k Lr:26-29 has sometimes been interpreted, in the idea of the r,rowing seed, as te~chirg the modern doctrine of evolution and the idea of inevitable or automatic human progress. Actually, what the parable teache·s :isthat we may be confident of the Divine purpose in history, :f.n spite or characteristically free from sin, Matthew 5:38-48, lJ-16. In addition to saying that GodVs nature as love, and his own example, were present to in- spire men in the quest for the good life, he suggested that)) men 9 s reasons-- as native impulse-could guide them, Matthew 7:24-27; 9:13; 12:7; Luke 12:57. Jesus put his faith :in all kinds and conditions of men. He excluded none from his society or assistance, not even official outcasts such as publicans or harlots. The often quoted interpretation in John1s Gospel!> nye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you freevv has summarized for Christian faith Jesus 1 understanding of men in the positive terms here set forth. 23. E.g. The Great Cormnandment, The Good Sam3,ritan)) Lk. 10:25-27, etc. ]. Christian L~ In this section we will s:uggest some of the central concerns and perspectives of the Christian ethic. These £-'.re~ the idea of God as loving heavenly Father; the Christian understanding of love e1,s Agape, the New Testament term that has come to swmnarize the VVChristim ethic," in much contemporary Christian discourse, and the place or role of the self :i.11 the society or fellowship of selves, which is the kingdom of God. 1. The Fatherhood of _God: Jesus carried over from his Jewish background and reemphasized. the belief in God as a Father, concerned for, loving, and forgiving men ntheir trespasses, n if men in a like spirit of loving concern .forgave one another 9 s trespasses--to cite the familiar translation of the Lord.Vs prayer. The phraseology, God as 91Father,vv appears in the Old Testament and in other Jewish literature of the late Old Testament age. 24 In the book of the prophet Hosea in the Old Testament God is tenderly depicted as a father in his relation to Israel, VIJny son. n The expression translated 91mercy99 or nsteadfast love99 is chesed, a Hebrew counterpart for the New Testament agape. 25 In the New Testamentll the phrase describing God as l?Fathern appears a number of times, for example., in the Sermon on the Mount (Mtt. 5-7, Ballou 1123-29), and.9 in that context, with love.? or agape as descriptive of the fatherly nature of God 0 26 Inspiration .for the moral life is here described as flowing from this quality or nature of the divine reality (Mtt. 5:44-48 9 Ballou 1125D). Central to the religious experience of Jesus was 2n intense (and for Christians regarded as m1ique) reliance upon, and fellowship with.? God as the Heavenly Father of Love. 2. Agape ~: Christian love is the love for another, or .for otherso It is respect for persons activated, into out-going, self giving service.? which may call for varying degrees of self-denial or self sacrifice in our human relationships. However, rather than some inflexible Hlaw9• or demand.? it is the spirit of willingness to serve.? to yield.9 vvto wash one anothers feet 9 vv in joy and in .freedom.27 The English expression v1altruismn sometimes means a kind of dry, distinterested duty; as we use it below.9 however, we will mean by it Christian love, or the dynamic love of persons. In varying syntactical forms within the New Testament, the Greek word 91agape9V often meMs this active love of persons, and is translated 91love .. 1928 In much contemporary Christian discourse it swmnarizes the Christian ethico.Both the term and the idea are found :L.~ such well knovm places as the following: Matthew 5:44-48: 22:37-40: Luke 10:25-37: Love enemies, etc •••••••• Ballou 1125 Great Connnandment •••••• uBallou 1171 (Lk. 10: 25-37) Good SclJllaritan ••••••••••• Ballou 1171 24. Psalm 68:5, 103:13; Ecclesiasticus 23:21; Book of Jubilees 1:24-5 25. Ho_se.:1. 11:1; 6:6; 10:12; 12:6. See also Hosea 11:4 and 14:4 for the idea of outgoing, serving)> and .forgiving love. 26. 9C., •• I say to you, Love( asapote ) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven ••• 91 .9 Mtt. 5:44 27. Agape is not 91othern than justice, but includes or relates to justice, as that spirit which sometimes calls for arbitration or harmonization of sinc,3re conflicts in interest. 28. In the New Testament, forms of Agape are used in varying senses j for Luke 15:1-3: The lost Sheep ............... Ballou 1173 John?s Gospel, Ch. 15: G:toA.ter love hath no l11P...n ••• Ballou 1158 (I. Car~ Ch. 13: St., Pe,ul 9 s hymn to love., ... ...,Ballou 1201-2 Gal. 2:20 & Eph,. 5:2: Christ 9 s love in under- going suffering and death First John 4:7-12.: o " ••• ".,,.,. 9 •• o Q •• •,.. s ". o .Ballou 1231-32) 145. We may summarize the Christian agape in simplest terms as Giving Love: it seeks realization or fulfillment of otherVs interests and needs. It is altruism in highest meming. Christi2a'l writers today have found it convenient to contrast the New Testament Agape with another common meaning of the word iilove,n also having a Greek original, HEros,H found in PlatoVs beautiful dialogue Symposium. In that writing we havo a moving depiction of tho self, seoking self-realization or self-fulfillm0nt in the highest terms of one 9s quest for spiritual values: truth, beauty .1 and the good. Taking this theme as our own we may let Eros stand for Craving Love, which seeks self-realization or fulfillment of one vs own interests in some form. Eros may encompass the range of cravings from the desire to satisfy bodily or physical appetites to the satisfaction of higher spiritual needs. To spo2.k of love for candy, to satisfy one?s swaet tooth; or love of music.11 to satisfy aesthetic craving;; or love for friendship; or love of lmowledge is to speak of vveros9i on vnrious planes. In addition to love for the opposite sex, or erotic craving, as we say in English, eras in Plato?s dialogue stands .for the full ronge of values for the self. As giving love may be expressed by the classic term Altruismj so craving love may be summarized by the expression ~goismo Are altruism and eogism opposing and contradictory impulses or principles? That the ,vtension99 of ethical life arisos in the problem of the relationship between al truism and egoism is plaj1'l.. That giving love 3 ags,pe ~ should sometimes take precedence over craving loveJI or eros, may also be suggested by the Judoo- Christian ethic$ But does this mean that onevs self or personal being, in one 9s own interests and needs, is in some unalterable or irreconcilable way opposed to other selves or persons in their interests or needs? Does agape conflict with eros? Are love for others and love of self mutually exclusive? What does the New Testament teach about such central concerns of the ethical life? How does it resolve the tension between altruism and egoism? What is the place or role of the self, in one 9 s relation to other selves.? in being? This is the ethical problem. There is considerable controversy among theologians as to precisely what Christian love~ or agapo means, relative to the role or the place of the self in the ethical relationship. Somo discussion c>Jnong contemporary writers, suggests that tho Gosp0l rules out the self and its claims--or at least much argument tends toward a negative view of the rights, needs or place of the self. For example it is said that there is no place for self love in the Gospe129 9 or that in some way Jesus did not really mean in the great commandment.? •9love thy neighbor as example)) not only to show the classic ??love for enemies•1 (Mtt. 5:44) or God9s love toward men (Rom. 5:8), but also to state utilitarian love (Mtt. 5:40), and even love as enjoyment of life for the self, i.e. in an ?ieros•9 sense. In Mtt. 22:37, the great Commandment )l the one term Agapeseis covers love for God? for oneself and for neighbors. 29. cp. George F. Thomas: Christian Ethics and Moral Philosophy, Scribners, 1955, p. 55-57, but also p. 78-79& And see Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, I, 1953, Westminister Press thyself• :vJO Or it has been 2rgtwd thnt ChristL:m ethical motivation is not based on the infinite worth of personality31-but rather that agape means to love another even though he be ?!worthless e ~7 Other Christian opinion insists that the solf is (.escribed in the Gospel as having and playing a legitimat,: role in being t that the largest aspect of Christian teaching is the worthfulness of all persons; the.t all persons mutually share a right to existence, one? s self as woll as the ,::::-ther 9 and that the Christian G?spel of love solves the tension between the altruistic and the egoistic impulses.3~ According to such view the solution to the ethical problem may be suggested by Jesus 9 famous nparadoxicaln utterance itself, where he expressed the principle: nwhoever would save his life will lose it; 3nd whoever loses his life will save it. vv (Mk~ 8~35; Mtt., 16~25, Ballou 1133D). The problem is to interpret what the losing of the self me@s., Does it mean self-abnegation and the obliteration of the self, its reduction to zero, or its complete erasure? Does Jesus mean that desire, or the impulse to live, intrinsic to personality or selfhood, is evil and should be destroyed? Actually the great paradox has its parallel or alter- native phrasing where.11 if we may join the two sayings, losing the self is defined as the dedication of self in service, (Mk 10:42-45; Mtt., 20:26-27s Ballou 1091C): 11 •••• whoever will be great among you, let him be you1~ minister; and whoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant (KJ Mtt. 20:26-27) o Jesus teaching here seems to be that a full-orbed motive for life would be one of dedicated self-giving in service looking to the needs of others, concern for them and their welfare, over and above and beyond mere concern for one self. That Jesus did not mean, by such sayings as the great paradox.11 to rule out legitimate self-interests, seems affirmed in the Grent Commandment:; or in the Golden Rule P where tho self is expressly included ns having rightful place in the ethical rulationship. If one insists on terminology or the letter, in the phrasoology of the Grec1,t Command- ment .11 agape expressly includes the idea of legitimate self-esteom.11 self-regard, or 11lovo of selfn along with love of neighbor~33 The Christi:.m Gospel is a gospel of self-realization for all selvGs inclusively. Indeed, it is not an ethic of self-realization in an exclusive or nselfishn sense. Jesus? ethical teachings in their full context suggests that agape is physchological- ly satisfying, whereas eros alone or by itself~ as a sole motive for life, would be self-defeatingo Live life in terms of a hypothetical eros alone)/ that is, in terms of self-seeking)) deaf to, or heedless of other lives aroltrld us)/ and we will miss the secret of life, or that very self-realization which wo legitimately crave. Live life, however)) in the spirit of agape, and we not only serv\.; and help others to fulfill their lives,'/ but we find highest joy, and fulfill our own lives in tho highest way, by so living--this, in our view, is the meaning of Josusi parc1,doxical utterance. The total outlook of Jesus teaching and the New Testament (as does the Old Testament in its highest reaches of thought) ,--as mankind searches for the solution to the ethical problem--is found in the fellowship that agape establishes, or tends to secure. 30. cp. Rudolf Bultmann: Jesus an_£\. the Word, Scribners, 1958, p. 114-119 31. cp. Paul Rwnsey: Basic Christian Ethics, Scribners, 1950, p. 94 32. For forceful statements of this view see Josiah Royce~ The Religious Philosophy of Josiuh Royce. (ed. S.G. Brown) Syracuse Univ·.Press ,'/1952, p.lL.i-6-7 ~ Albert c. Knudson: Basic Issues in Christian Thought, Abingdon, 1950, p. 191 @d A. C. Knudson)) The Principles of Christian Ethics, Abingdon, 1943, P• 178 33. See note 28 147. Psychological reality seems to be this~ thQt the love rind respect that others have for one vs self is the highest form of self-realization. i,gape achieves this; eros alone or by itself, does not. When one reaches out toward another, in the spirit of agape, that is, to love him and serve his interests and needs, over and beyond one 1 s own--when the other realizes thr.t his life and welfare is your concern too--confidence and friendohip are established. Then, ,'1.S a product of this rela- tionship, when one standSin love and fellowship with others, one experiences full or higest well-being or joy or happiness. We know this in our deeper human friendships. Agape does not rule out legitimate re11ges of eros; it simply says that life lived solely in terms of eros, will not complete its destiny in fellow- ship; whereas m agape we find lifeVs highest satisfactions. Life is a proper m:Lxture of eros and agape, with agape a more inclusive statement of motive, indicating the design of others desire to live along with the self, and m the highest sense, together in fellowship. True, agape should over-reach in its aim just the closer circle of one 9s more intimate friends--to include all and sundry and even those who may be antagonistic, or one 9 s enemies, as Jesus says (Mtt. 5~46). It is active good will toward all men as sacred in their persons. In his saying in Matthew 5:46--nif you love those who love you, what reward have you?n-Jesus seems to mean that love should be more, or reach beyond, or rise higher than, bare utilitarian or mutual or market love-- the love and service of others only if they love and serve in return. 3. The §.elf in the ~ of ~: Such passages as the following emphasize or suggest the right to personal life, fulfillment or self-realization as included in the meaning of agape and the kingdom of heaven. This theme is an extension of the primary New Testament teaching of tho sacredness of per- sonality. Mtt 5 :3f 6:32-33 --The Beatitudes: ,VBlessed are those who,,v etc. Ballou 7~7-12 25:21 Mk 12:30-31 8:35; --On anxiety and trust, and recognition that God !:'.ffirms our need for ma,terial security. --Ask and it will be given you, and Golden Rule. --The faithful servant in parable of the talents to enter into the joy of the master --The Great Commandment: Love neighbor as self --He that loses life in service will find it. 10:42-45 Mttl6:25; 20:26-27 Lk 6:38 Act 20:35 Jhn 16:24 10:10 Mtt 5:23 Lk 18:2-16 Mtt 7~ 6 --Give and it shall be given you. -It is more blessed to give than to receive. --That your joy may be full. --That men may have life abundantly. --Passages including the idea of justice, '3.cknowledging men 9 s fundamental right to selfhood, fair play, and the prmciple of arbitration and adjustment between persons. --The defense of one 9 s person 9 values, and accomplishments against heedless, unjust, or malicious attack or abuse. ?V 1123D 1127c 1128A 1170B 1138A 1133D 1091C (Rom. 12:6J) 18 Mk. 3:14 Mk 9:2f 14:JJf --Acknowledgment of personality differences or ngifts, n and personality conflicts and problems, setting limits to comrt:J.deship.) --Where Jesus selects the disciples so that they would be near him, and PD,sso.ges which expressed his need for fellowship with special friends,., We may conclude by saying that there is an explicit doctrine of ?trewardsii in the Gospel, which emphasizes the self. (Mtt. 5:3, 8, 10; 6: 4,6; 10:42; Lku 6:35; 11:28; Mk. 9g47). Christianity has two ultimate objectives, an objective of motive, and an objective of results. Its objective of motive is Agape; its objective of results is the Kingdom, or Fellowship. Each of these may be transposed and become meAns and result for the other. In stressing agape we must not forget that one ultimate objective of the Christian ethic is fellowship, and fellowship implies oneself and one 9s fulfillment as well as the other self and his fulfillment~ Agape is the means to fellowship. We should expect to experience a sense of well-being, or personal fulfillment (or nself-realiz.'ltion?v) in doing any right or duty, including Agape. (Mtt. 5:lf; Acts 20:35; Lk. 6U8; Mtt~ 25:21, 7:7-12). The Agape-Fellowship polarity of the Christian ethic means the self-realization of all selves in a bond of serving love to each other. The Christian ethic, of course, is not self-realizational in the sense of rer:tlizing the self in exclusion of, or at the expense of otherso The Christian metaphysics and Christian ethics includes oneself as well as other selvese The ultimacy of personality in being and value is the cardinal motif--all persons)) everywhere included, oneYs own as well as another are sacred. The problem of Christian ethics is to solve the ~itensionn between the legitimate claims of one Y s own iiegon and those of another, Fellowship solves this tension and agape creates fellowship. The motive of agape is to love the other person)) in his rnaterinl and spiritual need)) first J) in the sense that it transcends thought of material reward for oneself, or even of the r0ward of wj.rming friendship. One may not win friendship :in some particular isolated case; but he must still love in agape. However 1 the facts usually are that friendship and fellowship are estab- lished; accordingly agape tends to solve the deepest need of the self as a by- product of its activity. Usually agape establishes the earthly fellowship with men, as the normal outcome of the moral laws of the universe. Agape always estab- lishes the fellowship with God. Self-love is an express aspect of Christian ethics)) if it means one 9s self- respectJ) and one~s self-acceptrmce as a sacred person along with other persons, created as such by God. Agape does not mean self-denial or self--abnegation, or self annihilation in some morbid or e:x:treme sense, (This would rather be the ethics of e:x:treme philosophic Hinduism or Buddhism.) J'esus 1 highest ethical teachings include the self: The Golden Rule J) M-.1.tthew 7:12J> The Great Pnradox, Mark 8:35; 10:43-44, The Great Commandment, mrk 12:30-Jl. It is a mistake to say that ChristiM ethics is not self-realizational in the highest sense advanced in our preceding discussion, or that Christian ethics rules out self-love~ in the terms expressed above: i.e. as legitimate self esteem, central to stable personal- ity. It would :indeed rule out self-realization or self-love in some inordinate sense that would exclude others from fellowship with the self 1 or that would seek to dominate others and to live at their expense, in the true meaning of tt"self- ishness~'I or sinfulness. Furthermore, for there to be love, there has to be one who loves, i.e., oneis self or one 9 s om person. For others to be served there must be a self or oneself 149. who serves. Therefore, love itself implies one 1 s self or one?s own person and establishes it in vahne and in being, The concept of service implies two selves .9 one 9 s own and the other. The ChristLm ideal of self-forgetfulness or self- sacrifice does not mean to destroy the self, but to let the self become completely outgoing and loving as God?s own s-Jlf is. Consciousness lies at the heart of the idea of the self. The differ(mce between Christian self-consciousness and pagan or utilitarian self-consciousness or selfhood is that the latter is dominated by consciousness of one?s own needs; whereas Christian selfhood is dominated by consciousness of the needs of others over and above and beyond mere concern with the needs of the self.9 but not exclusive of God 9 s ultimate &ill of~ establishment of all selves in fellowship. Christian consciousness does not deny the legitimate claim and right of oneself to existence? or question the value of self-existence .9 as the Eastern religions in some respects seem to do. Agape includes the self. The Christian ethic is like an eclipse: it has two foci. One focus is self-realizational in the highest form of fellowship--the focus which is the self. However.9 the other focUS.9 the focus centering on on other life.9 is absolutely essential, if the focus of the self is to be realized or to have legitimate me2I1ing and status. Likewise the other person is commanded to focus on us in agape, to establish us. There could be no focus of agape, or the love and service, and establishment of the other, for the sake of the other» if there were not the focus .of the self who serves and establishes» and is like- wise a focus to receive the agape of the other. The outer curve of the ellipse itself is the society or fellowship established by these two principles, both selves going out to each other in agape, as the moral gravitation by which these foci are maintained in being. The Christi1:m ethic is inter-self-realizational. Jesus 9 ethical ideas come to a focus in the phrase, kingdom of heaven. We cannot here trace exhaustively his te,'.c1.ching concerning this figure of speech. We suggest the following outline as indication of the main points. The passages cited range beyond contexts where the phrase ro1y person in need is one?s neighbor --Many to come from east and west to sit 2.t table in the Kingdom --The field is the world --The Kingdom to be given to nations more worthy of it Mk 12:13-17 --Tribute money to C2.esar: the Kingdom?s vvpolitica1v1 implications Ballou 1102 (Mt 22:15) Mt 20:1-16 --Laborers and Hours: Kingdom's vi economicti implications 11 1166 i.e., The Kingdom is a Fellowship of persons: the aim, endi> or objective, of the Christian ethic:- Mt 5:3-16, 38-48 6:19-34 7:1-14 8:11 25:1-13 Mk 2:13-17 10:14 Lk 15:11-32 14:15-24 17:20 --Beatitudes --Love enemies, etc -- Love of men before material goods --Judge not, Golden Rule etc. --the KingdomYs banquet --the wedding guests and Virgins --meal with publicans and sinners in house --Suffer the little children to come --Prodigal Son --Banquet for the poor and outcasts --Kgd. among you Rom 12:1-21 --(Christian virtue) 1st John n .,., Ballou 1123f n i'/ H 1169 Levi 2s 'IV 1070 (Lk. 5 : 29) n 1091 'IV 1173 .,., 'IV 1194 IV 1229-32 151. 4. Its final victory or consummation lies in the future (possibly ultimately a transcendent Heavenly future, miracuJ.ous~ ineffable, glorious) an outcome which Jesus may have anticipated soon. Possibly he came to think of it more as a future realization, then a present possibility~ as his tragic career moved toward its end, and the Kingdom seemed to be hindered by the stubborn opposition of men:-- Mk 9:1; 14:25; lJ:32-37 (a parable of watchfulness) Lk 19:11 Mt 8:11; 13:24-30 (parable of the harvest) 25:1-13 (wise and foolish virgins) Ballou 1169B In any case, Jesus left the fulfillment of the kingdom up to the Fatheris plan and will, strictly refusing to suggest when it might be, saying that only the Father knew, not even the Son. Mk 8:11; 4:26-27; 13:32-33 Lk 17:20; 19:11; 11:16-20 Mt 25:13 In the meanwhilej men are to realize the Kingdom in their ethical action here and now. Mt 5-7 --The Sermon on the Mo1.mt Ballou 1123f Jesus 9 teaching that the kingdom was in real sense already present eventually lessened the tension of expectation in the church and helped Christian history to look toward a stable growth beyond the specific eschatological hope of the earliest ,·1 decades.34 5. The K:ingdom will judge men, if they do not accept it--it is urgent:- Mk 12:9 Lk 17:22f Mt 8:12; 13:24-30; 21:43; 25:1-46 Ballou 1142:44 1169-70 But it brings judgment on all evil men,, who reject it, Israelite and others; it is not merely apocalyptic judgment on Israel 9s national enemies. In sum, Jesus? expression ?The kingdom of heaven 1 defined the good life as fellowship or society. The kingdom idea and his teachings on the sacredness of personality and love are mutually implicated. The kingdom, in most general sense, means that one finds love and fulfillment of personality, and true ivrighteousness 1 vv only in the best social relationships; and suggests the reciprocal point that respect for personality and love lie at the fo1.mdation of all good society .. The social implications of the Kingdom. From the standpoint of our contemporary interest in social ethics, it should be acknowledged that Jesus does not say in specific terms what an ideal political or economic order would be. He was not a political or economic philosopher. Christian interpreters believe, however, that his great sayings and parables are filled with basic principles of ethics, founded in the love commandment, which by implication, are ringingly democratic~ His 1340 , Compare Noss, op cit v p. 572 152. ethical utterances would make tyrnnny and sl"very impossible. The nearest we hear him speak to the express problem of the state and to economic society, are found :in two sayings, perhaps, the tribute money to Caesar (Ballou 1102) and the parable of the laborers and the hours (Ballou 1166). Far from implying th1;;,t Christianity is passive 9 or :indifforent to type of political order, we mo,y :interprolate from the discussion about the tax that it is a teaching bursting against totalitarian philosophy. In addition to acknowl- edging a duty to Caesar, or the state, Jesus suggests here that we owe ultimate allegiance to God, over and above Caesar. The deepest implication of this saying is that the duties and rights of individuality and personality transcend those of the state--ultimate matters of conscience are for :individuals before their God to decide, not for Caesars to decideZ The laborers and the hours parable, over ,md beyond its basic idea concerning the lavish grace nnd love of God, :in the kingdom fellowship? in contrast to the ordinary prudential and calculating relationships of men, suggests a message for economic order. It is that economic society should minister to human need; that ••industry shall exist for man? and not man for industry. 1134 a More basic than profit motive even, or conjointly with it and humanizing it, the principle of respect for)J mid service of persons is the larger motive for economic life and rel2,tionships, as it should be for all human relationships., Jesus 9 Coneept of Salvation and Destiny 1. His prophetic outlook. If we may define salvationJJ in general way)J as a condition of 1igoodn or v1well-beingiv for life free from evil that may beset it, then Jesusi view of salvation would be a state of joyous sonship to, or fellowship with God, the heavenly Father, in a lifo of love., neighborliness, social conscience and nonenessH of moral purpose )J expressed as the Hkingdom of heavenn 2nd as vveten1al life .. ~• On its negative side, the evil from which freedom is sought)J would be the "sins,n with their practical consequences, which might beset us--evil,l1.ggressivo.life heedless of others, inordinate self-centeredness, and selfish pride, to contll2ue :in which is a state of • 9darlmess, v, judgment, and apartness from God.3) Typical passages which throw light on Jesus 1 view of salvation would be the following: Mk. 1:14, 3:35 8:35 2:5 5:34 Lk. 7:50 10:25-37 15:32 .?Repent and believe in the gospelo v9 "Whoever does the will of God is my broth0r. 11 99Whoever loses his life ••• will save it. vv nMy Son, your sins are forgiven. n V•Your faith has saved you; go in peace. 11 "Your faith hath made you well; go in peace. 11 In reply to the lawyer who asked: 91'what shall I do to inherit eternal life?, 11 he repeated the parable of the Good Samaritan and then said: 9'GQJ do likewise. a Speaks of the Lost Son who repented ru1d returned to his father. 34a George Buttrick)J The Parables of JeSUf!.» H.c1rper, 1928, p. 161 35 Mtt. 6:23 cp, also Mtt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:JO; Luke 11:34-36; 22:53. 153 .. Mtt., 5i7 Sermon on Mt.,: 1rfuoever does 211d hears, his words will stand like a house upon the rock., (7~24) fiil4 ",.,,If you forgive men their trespasses~ your heavenly Father will forgive you@n 22:47-50 Love God and your neighbor as yourself, thus fulfilling ¥Vall the law ,md the prophets. 11 25:40 9VJ\.s you did it to one of the least of these my brethern, you did it to me. vv Jn. 13:14-17 riYou .:i,lso ought to w,=1sh one anotherVs feet. For I have given you an example, th1.t you also should do as I have done to you•o• If you lmow these things, blessed are you if you do them. vr 14:15-- JobnVs Gospel emphasizes ethical action or the practice of Je.sus 15 :14 co111ffi.·:indments whereby the believer may become rvonerv with him and with God., In sum, Jesus has a thoroughly prophetic concept of snlvation.36 To the question, What shall a man do vrto inherit eternal life?,n Jesus replied in the s:iJnplest ethical terms: repent, love and serve thy neighbor, honor and love Goct.37 2. The sanctions of his ethic and program0 For what ultimate reasons does Jesus appe::i,l to men to enter the Kingdom of God? What are the final sources of authority of his ethic and pliID of salvation? Jesus emphasizes four sanctions prim-::i.rily.. The first three of these Prof. Amos Wilder calls the ,?fundamental sanctions1v while the fourth in its transcendent2.l aspects he terms 11 •9formaln sanction? the nature of which Jesus could 3.nticipate only by symbolic expr$SSions suggested by the apocalyptic thought forms of his day.38 (1) The appeal to reason and com.man sense; to moral truth, .::ind the innate moral possibility of men:39 Mtto 7:24-27; 9:13; 12:7; Lk. 12:57 (2) The appeal to the nature of God c1s Love; this is the ultimate sanction; Mtto 5:45; 48; 7:21; 10~8b; Mk. 12:30-31; Lk. 6:35-36; 15:3-24 (I Jobn 4: 7-21) In Lk. 15:7 and 23:43 it is evident that God to Jesus.was interested in repent3llce, not in punishment. (I_J_obn _4:::t-8) 7'~i.,; t,,r-~4'r ~ lbe, .ri,.i- ~~ "~~,, 36. See analysis of the OT concept of salvation, p. 103-105 37. Recall our discussion of ?•repentancevv under Jesus v concept of man~ page 143, and the distinction between normnti ve and inordinate or excessive v1pridev1 in the discussion of nsin~• in the OT section of this Guide, page 99-100. We should distinguish between normal and necessary nprideV1 or self-respect, basic to stable personality, and inordinate or 1iselfish pride1V that hinders love and fellowship with others. Doubtless most human beings would do well to 2,clmowledge a tendency toward self-centeredness and inordinate pride of which we should be willing to divest ourselves, or r1repent, 11 with the help of Diidne grace, if we are to get along with people in the best way, and fulfill the spirit of the k:ingdom. 38. Eschatology and Ethics in the Teachings of Jesus, op cit esp. pages 116f 39., ?91\nd why do you not judge for yourself what is right?11 (Lk. 12:57) nEvery one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man, • ..,.netc. (Mtt. 7:24) VVGo and learn what this means)> 91 desire mercy, and not sacrifice.• For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. vv (Mtt. 9:13: cp 12 :7) (3) The authority and example of Jesus himself: Mtt. 7:24; 10:38; 16:21~; 25:40; Mke 8:34; Lko 9:23; 14:23; John 13:14-17; 17:20-21 (4) The appeal to consequences .• i.,e$ to reward nnd j 1dgment here, c1nd here- after: Jesus bro.,-·.denu ~nd 1eepens mor:,\l motive by the power of an endless life 9 .'.:\s B'"-COH ri;:,s 3xpref;sed it!) relative to the belief in a hereaftero He measures thj 1gs tempoml by comparison with things eternal: Mtt .. 5:12--16; 5~29-30; 7dL,.; 18:7-10; Lk. 10:25; 2J:43t John Chaps. 14-15 The appeal to consequences may be swmnrrized as the appeal of the blessedness of life when in harmony with the will of God~ The Beatitudes are typical. The appeal to consequences on its this-wordly or practical side are expressed.9 perhaps most succ:inctly.9 in the Sermon on the Mount!) in those words describing the Christian, or Christian life, as Hthe salt of the earth H and nthe light of the world!) iv whose ngood worksvv are to shine forth as the enlightening and tranforming influen'Ce. Jesus ethica.l teaching as a visocial ethicsn or a visocial gospe1vv is of course!) more a matter of contemporary interpretation of the basic gospel of love, thr:m an express doctrine of the 1st Century New Testament records$ Many 3 however, in modem times believe that the sayings end parables profoundly imply a social gospel, based on the love pornmandment:> emphasizing human dignity, freedom, justices and democracy. Such would be the widest practical consequence of the kingdom.40 3. Jesus on himself as 8ll instrument of salvation. The following reswne anticipates the discussion of the messiahship in our next section. Suffice it here to say, as the messenger of God 1 s kmgd.om of love and brotherhoods he came to think of himself in quite a normal way--just as ,'my teacher or prophet might do--as an :instrument of moral salvation. He realized that he was helping men to become citizens of the kingdom:> ths.t he was serving and saving them by his own living example, his forgiving attitude 9 his healfog power (Mk. 2:5; 10:43-45; Lku 11~20). The famous s2.ying reported in John1s Gospel, 14:6: vvI am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me, ~v is often interpreted j_n negative, narrow, or exclusive terms. Actually the larger context of John vs gospel suggests that this saying can be understood rather with a positive, inclusive meaning. In these central ch2,pters of the New Testament Christology, John 14-15, the love commandment defines the way, the truth:> the life, and the union with the Father. Verses 15,9 21, 23 of chapter 14 and verses 7-17 of chapter 15 breathe a liber<",ting inclusive spirit, rather than a confining, exclusive one (Ballou 1154-1158):- YVIf you love me 3 you will keep my commandments ••• He who has my command me-nt s and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him •• eif a man loves me:> he will keep my word:> and my Father will love him,9 and we will come to him and make our home with him ••• If you abide in me :i and my words abide in you,9 ask whatever you will ••• As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you: abide in my love. If you e.g. Walter Rauschenbush~ 'l'I John C. Bennett~ The Social Tec:,chings of ~§. fl Theology of the Socinl Gospel. ChristiMity and Communism 155. keep my commandments, you will ::-,bide :in my love, just as I hnve kept my Father 9 s commandments .,md 2.bide in his love.,. & This is my command- ment, that you love one another as I have loved you., Greater love has no I112.n th2n this, th;ci.t a man lr,y down. his life for his friends,. You are my friends if you de, wlnt I comm2nd you., • Q This I command you, to love one 0.1.n-:lther?i (RSV) The author of John9s Gospel began his :interpretation of Jesus :in terms of Greek metaphysical doctrine. He describes Jesus as the n·worda (or vv1ogos;n) that is, the rational.:, formativ~ moral power of God that goes forth to ere.ate the worlds. He spoke of Jesus as V1full of grace and truth;?? m1d as ?VThe true light that en- lightens every man., •• 7v (1: 9, l~.). Such terms, and those quoted above suggest mornl rationality and an inclusive universalism, to the effect that the life of love and moral truth, expressed in Jesus, is the only ultimate way men 2nywhere, find s;:tlvation--it includes any or all who live this v~;:i,yn this ,vtruth~V this 99life. H As suggested :in John, Christians may have the faith th3.t Jesus utters and exem- plifies, the moral truth by which all men come to God, if they wish to comeo The statement of the way the truth and the life is found in the general context about keeping his commandments--that is, living life as he enjoins in agape--if we would become vvone 91 with him and the Father. This might include those not technically disciples, a po:int in fact, which Joh..'1 10:16 suggests, where we reado ~ vi •• I have other sheep., that are not of this foldV?; though, indeed, the ultimo.te ::dm in John 9 s outlook is to bdng them also, that vvthey will heed my voice,. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd., ti In the meonwhile, however, there is the vvother • .,.fold.vv Christianity may be :interpreted as historically flexible and inclusive. It need not be viewed as hav:ing a "built in intransigence. H41 What P in its institutional details, the ultimate unity of religious f3.ith for mankind mci,y be in the far reaches of the historical future .9 no one may presently say. W•3 may believe, howevor, thD,t such faith "v-.rill not be greatly different from the highest we nlready know in the Christi.m agape and its counter parts :in the other world religions. The spirit of universCJ.lism and religious inclusiveness is also present in the Synoptic Gospels themselves. Indeed, these Gospels cont2.in the record of e.n increasing call by Jesus to personal discipleship to him as his historic career moved toward martyrdom--as the issues between him and the religious opposition were drrrwn ever mor sharp and he felt the need for uncompromising support, conLmitment and loyalty on the part of his followers. In this historic circmnstance, we have the report that he enjoined his followers to give up personal ties for the sake of the mission; that he even described the commitment to discipleship :in terms of VVself hatred11 that is, the hat:ing of, or turning of one 9 s back upon the things dear to oneis self and one 9 s fa.mil~ ties that might temporize the effect of the mission. To follow him will be to Hrenounce all9i that one has, to bear one 9 s viown cross, vv and to meet with persecutions.42 While recognizing this aspect of drastic summons, reflecting the historic crisis as Jesus felt it--to the effect th3t commitment to the kingdom came to be 41. Conf:ining terms which this rmalyst heard one denominational representative use. 42. Luke 14:26-33; Mk. 10:29; Lk. 11~23--11he who is not with me is against me, and he who do0s not gather with me scatters.'i'i commitment to himself, or loyoJ.ty t0 his person; we should consider such sayings in the total context of the record. They cert::iinly m3,ke clear th:_,,t Jesus expected thoroughgoing and ro,dicn,l chmges of disposition and life on the part of all who repented at his preaching.43 But confession or discipleship did not mean that all were necessarily to follow :in his person(:tl or immediate company as did the Tvvelve, and others who were speci-~.lly summoned~ There was Zacchaeus, the tax- collector;1 who continued in his own c::i,lling. We mention again the laWYer who asked the way to eternal life, for whom Jesus spoke the parable of the Good Samaritan, and then said go, do as the Som1::ritan had done. Many were healed or helped of whom we hear no further--a leper, a paralytic, a centurian, Jairus, the Syrophoenician woman,. Men may continue in their own vocations, with their varied gifts and call:ings, as Paul, writing within the first generation of Christians, interpreted the message.44 The Synoptics bear record that ?9whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother. v1 (Mk., 3 :31) When asked by the disciples whether the man who was casting out demons in his n"'me 9 but who was not fallowing them, should be restrained, he said~ 91Do not forbid him; for no one who does .s. mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. n (Mk. 9: 39-40) And concluding this point at the moment 9 concerning the spirit of univeralism which we find in the SynopticsJ we may cite his words reported in Matthew 8:11-12: 1iMany shall come from the east and the west to sit nt the table in the K:ingdom of Heaven. n As 2. major point of theology we reserve for fuller treatment presently the meaning of his death :in the Christian concept of salvation. It must suffice here to state in general terms what the appro2,ching deo,th may have meant to Jesus as he faced martyrdom. After it became clear that the conflict with the religious nuthorities might result in apprehension ond death 9 Jesus began to connect his message and work with his suffering and death 9 end trusted that God would vindico,te the kingdom in, through 9 by, or beyond his death--r.i,s the climactic event of his total life of self-giving and service~ To anticipate what we discuss more fully later, :in Lk. 4:17; 22:27, 37 he associates himself with tho Isaianic suffering servant. In Lk 13: 33 he speaks of his death ,1,s the perishing of 99a prophet." Though it is difficult to formulate ex2.ctly what Jesus 9 theology c2Ill.e to be in the l!:!,te hours of his life:; we might safely conjecture that 9 with such Isaianic passages in mind, he m2.y well havc3 come to look upon his death as M occasion God would use to disclose some deepest meM:ing of his suffer:ing and sacrifice, as Mark 10:45 or Mark 14:22 imply. 4. Jesus conception of .judgmel'.li. In treat:ing this element of Jesus teachingl' bear in mind that he shared in the mc:dn eschatological thought form of his day--that God would soon end this world ago and usher in the consummation of the kingdom. Also recall the Drominent aspects of his teach:ing on the blessedness or joy of life in acc~ting the kingdom as e:xpressing the positive spirit of his appeal. He is reportedll however.I> as also using such negative or warning terminology as the follow:ing concerning the judgment, hell and perdition: vieternali1 or Hunquenchable fire, 99 the nfurno.ce of fire, n ?!where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, n nt,Jhero their worm does not die .1> n a "place of torment 9 n ~ 9cast into hell, vi ??eternal ptmislunent. ~~45 43. Wilder, op. cit__. p .. 109 44. st. P!:!.ul, Ro111cms 12~4-8 45a Mk. 9~43-49; Mtt. 5~29; 8:12; 13~42, 50; 22:13~ 24:51; 25:30; 41, 46; Lk. 13~38; 16:19-31; 17-22 157. ~ Note also that he speaks of perdition or the judgment as vvouter darlmess,n the place where VVboth soul rmd body are destroyed,n as being swallowed up , by the sea,.46 How may we ovr,luo:he these sayings? Firstly, we m,:,,y conclude th3,t Jesus believed that failure to live the message of the kingdom would bring judgment or distress. To live heedless of persons and of love will make for tm.happiness of spirit on the subjective plane and discord and conflict on the social plr:ne. Failure to heed the moral laws of our world will bring its judgment. The son in the parable of the Prodigal met his retribution for his life of too self-indulgent pleasure when he found himself living with the swine. Jesus anticipated that the nation would be destroyed, if it continued to reject the kingdom of love he had announced, Mk. 13:3 (recall pages 137-138). Such is his concept of judgment on the natural or historic plane,. "\,lfuat is his belief relative to the transcendent or eschatological aspect of judgment? Secondly, references to torment, hell fire, and eternal punishment, such as in the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31) and the Last judgment (Mttq 25), were traditional descriptions. The idea of hell, or (in the i Greek) Gehenna, (Mk. 9:48) had its actual counterpart in the refuse dump \outside Jerusalem, where fires were kept perpetually burning. The Greek expression Gehenna comes from the Hebrew Ge Hinnomo It was in the valley of Hinnen,; near Jerusalem, where, in earliertimes, the Israelites had sacrifed children on fiery altars to Molech. This came to be a place of ccbomination and refuse .. 47 The scene in the p:1rable of the Last Judgment where sheep are separated from the goats, and a sharp division is made, is in form like typical apocalystic thought. We have noted that Jesus uses apocalyptic thought forms but we are also observing that he transcends much of their grosser elementa He suffuses or spiritualizes apocalyptic terms and concepts.11 and seems to employ some of them in metaphorical waysc48 To what extent Jesus was an apocalyptist, in contrast to possible other interpretations, we have yet to examine. Thirdly .11 the idea of a literal.11 eternal fire of torment, a vindictive, non- remedial punishment seems utterly contrary to Jesus? conception of the forgiving love of God. (Some commentators feel that such places as Mtt. 25:46 may be the Gospelists rather than the historic Jesus speaking. )Lp8a In 311y case, Jesus seems to teach in many places that personality is never totally lost or worthless, but that God ?s love is always prepared to go out to the ) sinner. Such hope is suggested in the great p2,rables: the Prodigal son, the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin.11 etc. The references to eternal p1n1ishment ! m~st be con~idered alongside such ~assa~es as Mtt. 7:7-11; 18~21-22;_Lk. t, 17:~say:mgs that announce the immediate :response of God to the sincere 46. Mtt., 6:23; 8:12; 22:13, 25:30; Lk. 11:35; 22:53; Mk. 9:42. 47. .An Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Ferm. 9 p. 295. Note the repetition of the wording of Is. 66:24 in the report in Mk. 9:48; and that Mtt. and Lko omit 9:48. 48,. Mk. 8:31; 10:45--as in the lowly and suffering role of the 99Son of Man.n Mk. 12:18-27--as in his opinion concerning condition of life in the v,res,:i:rrection. vv Lk. 11:20; 17:20--where the divine kingdom is announced in its aspect as a present reality in their midst. Lk. 12:49--where the expression vvto cast fire upon the earth?V is a metaphor for the natural divisions that his message and movement would create among men. 48a. Eg. Interpreter?s Bible, Vol. 7, Abingdon Press, 1951~ p. 566; The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Abingdon-Cokesbu:ry, 1929, pff 992. seeker~ r, d e divine for iv - s seventy times seve:g. This metaphor stresses the indefinite or infinite quality of G()d 9 s desire and readiness to forgive,9 in response to true repentc:,nce. The important th:i.ng for Jesus was salwi.tion from the personal condition or _ V?sin9Y that may lead to ??hell19 or a sto.te of separ::,,tion from God, and the / 'fellowship of the kingdom .. Fosdick has sn,id that the main point of the par- a?les of judgment was to def:i.ne vvthe qualities of character that are eternally disapproved by God.? vi49 so long as such attitudes and qualities remain. The principal teaching of these parables.? e.g. t_hat of Dives and Lazarus (Lk • . 16:19-31) is not to announce the eternal nature 'of hell so much as to stress \ the importance of making our decisions for the Good here and now; that life has j_ts important issuesJ which must be decided freely and 011 their own merits by free personality, without co:mpulsion by the supernatural; and that there is some irrevocableness or f:i.nality about our decisions .. ') Hugo Gressman in 1918 found some parallel to the DJves and Lazar~ theme in Rabbinical literature, and its possible source in an Egyptian tale, which recounted a reversal of conditions for a rich ll1ID and poor man after death.50 This fact suggests that Jesus used a traditional story. Is it necessnry to believe th2,t Jesus endorsed the imagery of th;3 story, in some total or literal sense, any more than he endorsed the grudging attitude of the unjust j't1dge, or the authoritarianism of the nobleman who became a k:i.ng,9 characters in two other parables?50a The nature of many of the parables is that they are graphic ) figures of speech--not anecdotes of literal ho.ppenings--designed to teach important qualities of spirit that characterize the kingdom of heaven, and the urgency of its i.lppea,1, under the eschatological thought form or tension which Jesus accepted and felt. For inspiration for the characters and circumstances which he depicted in the imag:i.native stories which are his parables, he no doubt often drew from familiar real life situ.c:.tions, in their w:~ried color and experience. In any case, the irrevocableness of the award and the unforgiving nature of God as implied in ;the parc1bl52 ,may be balanced by the sayings on the unlimited character of the divine disposition to forgive. Recall also Lk. 15:7 :J i?I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who ropents ,9 n etc.; Mtt. 5:44, ?VI say to you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you:J so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven,9H and the Luke version of this say:i.ng~ vv1ove your enemies •• oand you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is mercifu1.vv (6:35-36) Fourthly, Jesus v references to hell as an objective place of etemal VYfirevv (Mk. 9:48; Mtt. 5:22; 13:42; 25:41) stand :in contrast.? if they ~ro taken literally, to his references to judgment as ??outer darlmessu and a subjective state of soul (Mtto 6:23; 8:12; 22:13; 25:30); and to his objection to the belief of the Sadducees that material conditions obta:i.n in the after life ) (Mk. 12:18). In one place the wording is that the soul is ~idestroyedYY in \ hell, Mtt. 10:28; in another that the judgment of those who reject truth 49. Guide to Understanding the Bible:J op. cit., p. 283 50. References to this source: William Manson: The Gospel of Luke, Moffatt New Testament Commentary, Harper, p. 190; The Interpreters Bible,9 Vol. 8 p. 289; Hillyer H. Straton, The Parables of Jesus, Eerdmans, 1959, P• 187. 50a. Hillyer H .. Straton,9 Ib. P• 189. Lk. 18:1-8; Lks 19:12-27. 159. J and love would be like being swallowed up by the seo., Mk. 9:42" These and the idea of outer darkness may suggest thD,t n11e11ii in Jesus thought meant the annihilation of unwo:cthy personal life.. In any c2,se, it is obvious that such expressions 2,s VVfire 11 and •nouter darknessn are met:::;,phors, symbolic of a possible truth .-:cbout the condition of souls in ::.m after life, who, by their own choice, are unprep::.-1.red to enter the fellowship of God 9 s kingdom. - We conclude that such judgment or perdition could only be conditional, if we t:ust Jesus 9 conception of God as &gf:t~~_j)!_~i_-::_e ~~-1!~!1-t::;y , ~ even the soul standing Rpart who might turn to Him for forgive- 1 ness and acceptance.51 The larger note of the Gospel is that nperfect love casts out fe2.rn (I John 4:18). Jesus appealed fundamentally to the blessedness · of life in fellowship with God as the inducement to men to enter the kingdom. The Beatitudes in th~ Sermon on the Mount are typica1.52 The uniqueness of Jesus as teacher and man in Christian faith. Fosdick has well summnrized that the uniqeness of Jesus as teacher lay in the nselective attention1153a with which he tre3,ted the great themes of his heritage, or the intensity with which he focused upon the theme of the sacredness of human person- ality, and Agape love ,J,s the essence of moral reality, reflecting the Divine Father- hood. For Christians, he has also been regarded D.S unique in himself as expressive of the Divine Reality. Our task, as we look at the problem of the messiahship, is to illuminate this area of understanding, both from the perspective, as an historic fact, of what Jesus may have thought about himself--in so far as this issue may be clarified from the accounts in the gospels--and what the New Testament authors or interpreters of his life thought about him or came to think about him within the framework of theological evalu2,tion. 51. It is interesting that there is the idea of hell as purgatory in I Peter 3:19, 4: 6 where the tradition is that Jesus, between his cruci- fixion and resurrection, preached the message of repentance to the souls in hell, signifying that early Christians were not constrained by belief in irrevocable judgment. In Sto Paul there is the suggestion of belief in a universal salvation, I Cor. 15:28; Eph. 1~23. The Fatherly God of Jesus seemed concerned about repentance ond renovation of character rather thDn punishmemt and retribution, Lk. 15:7; 23:43; Mtt. 9:13. 52. Mtt. 5:16; 48; 9:13; 10:8b; 12:7; Lk. 6:35-36, 12:57a 53~. Guide to Understand:iJlg the Bible, op. cit., p. 42. } Appendix 159a AppU\.l·~ c:n,"; - Mark 9:48. ..where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched". RSV translators indicate in note n.: "verses 44 and 46 (which are identical ·with verse 48) are omitted by the best ancient authorities". The KJV repeated the clause in a verse 44 and 46, revealing apparently that there was variation in the use of this clause as among ancient manuscripts. Neither Luke nor Matthew repeat thi& phrase (see Burton and Goodspeed:Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, P• 131). We know from source criticism that Matthew and Luke used Mark almost in its entirety between them. Were the authors of these gospels using some other (proto-Mark?) version that did not have this saying? Or, if they were using a Mark, source from which our modern versions come, !why did they omit it? The suggestion is that Jesus may not have used this figure llof speech, one current in his time. ~3ny aas~, the following further _ c01nmentary: - Frederick c. Grant on Mark 9:48: - . G±i is doubtful, on the b~sis of the MS evidence, if vss. 44 and 46 (KJV) are atithentic; but from a literary point of vie-~~hey are quite as ap::iropriate as vs. 48 is. The early Christian who gave the series its present arrangement may very well have quoted Isa. 66:24 at the end of each of the three warnings. Tha:t,._ the substan~section goes back to Jesus is scarcely to be doubteful to bear in mind the two perspectives. In interpreting the Sermon we must fir:it realize that it speaks to a particular situation of Jesus•s o-wn day and circumstances. In agreement with its times, it no doubt contains an eschatological dfa;;ension; but in considerable disagre, rnent with its age it represents Jesus spi:ritualized view of the kingdom of Heaven in contrast, on the one hand, to the more materialistic notions o:f the apocalyp- tists and Zealots, and on the other, ·to the narrower views of ·what cqnstitutes life's righteousness as e~tertained by some of the Pharisees. In the second plance, stemming from this latter purpose, the Sermon burgeons, we believe., with a universal message for any age and circumstmces. J.s the liberal perspec- tive asserted., it is plainly a great discourse on persondity as the central meaning of existence, and as giving clue to the value of existence, and to the na- ture or source of existence as a whole. In brief, it says that one's o~m, along with other personality, must be treated as a supreme value. Underlying this ethic is the t.heological belief that God, the source oi' all beirg, is Personal. In the Sermon Jesus [iddresses God as 11Father. 11 By this personalized reference to the teity, Jesus emphasized again for the prophetic tradition the idea of God as lovin,·, personel Being, who stands breatively behind., and gives redemptively to our own persons their supreme value, and provides us with life's opportunity to live and grow accorcting to his loving purposes. 1. The Beatitudes53i (Mtt 5:3-16) depict Christian character. Verses 3-6 review virtues of the individual. Smith .. Goodspeed transle.te 11 1)oor in spirit" by "those who feel their spiritual need" sugr,esting proper humility or modesty, the ahsence of false pride, arrogant or comolacent self-sat1s- · faction, as the first characteristic of the members of the kingdom. Luke has "blessed are i'rou IJoor," by which Jesus may have had specifically in mind the Amhaarei despised by some of the lordly Pharisees, as the example of t,he 'type ol \nodesty with which he wished to contra.st their superior.i ty. those "who mourn" possibly means those who have an alive and sensitive coriscience, who are keenly perceptive, in addition to those righteous who may be abused or neglected, and who mourn as the personal recipients of evil. Jesus hardly means the glum or the gloomy 1 UThe rneek11 may mean those 'Who are characteris- tically gentle in spirit as opposem to the pugrecious or the aggressive. !t would not mei?U the supine or the grav ~lling. Jesus himself was a strong or forthright cha.racten Ofl a numbe:r of occasions recalled for a stand, and deliberate, positive action (I~< 11:15-19). He made emenies l In "Blessed are 53h Ibid. p 162. 53i The above outline £or the Sermon was sugpested by H. c. Eing, ~ Ethics of Jesus, p 19$£. 159.4 those who hunger 8nd thirst after righteousness, for they shall be sDtisi'ied11 Jesus again reveals his basic optimism about human life and its moral destiny. In verses 7~12 we have portrayed Christian personality in relation to other life. .And so blessed are the 11mercifu1; 11 an.d the "pure in heart," The latter are those who strive to be free in coPscience, who are sincere, without deceit in relation to others or themselves, who try to live in veracity, fidelity, honesty, and integrity. Perception of truth, and the telling and living of truth is the central mark of sta'::'>le personality and the cardinal social virtue. 'I'o put it nevatively those who do not dissemble "perceive God11 , come nea:r€st to knowing or shr-ring wht,t God in His ovm Spiritt,al reality is e.s Truth. rp eacemakers0 he calls "sons of God". Healers of discord are universally admired. Chr:1.stians should be .forever at the tr:isk of making pe~ce wherever it ri;a.y be possible. In the reference to the persecuted on his«hceount"lle undoubtedly foresaw the time when his movement woullid meet with hostilitJJ and was endeavoring to prepare his disciples for it. Christian character in its effort to bring the kingdom is often called to sacrifice and to suffering. Note again that the BeBtitudes stress Jesus positive ou:blook upon the self', its legitimate stance in being, and its destiny. His beatitudes point to the inward psycholorical blessine, the self-assurance by the self abcut itself., as its rightful destiny., in its sense of joy and moral fulfillment in attempting to do God's will. Verses 12-16 refer to the 11 rewardsn of the kinrdom, and begin with announcemen·I; of ultimP-te rew.srd in Heaven. But the statement about a final re- ward as lying in heaven, indeed the vision of a transcendent, and perhaps even of an early eschatological destiny of the 1st century motif, should not di$• tract our attention from Jesus I s other emphe.sis in this same context e It. is plain that rewards beF'in to accrue he:re and now in the practical effects that the righteousness of 11.fe., as above portrayed# brings : ·,· : in the peace and harmony of social life. That the reward is prBctical and earthly as well as ultimately heavenly the next verses, 13-16, particularly emphasize: You are 11 the salt11 of the earth, the "light of the world. 11 Jesus armounces here that it is indeed this very Christian character which is the best hope of the world, We note his emphasis s9ecifically on °good works," v. 16. Christianity is not an ascetical, o:r otherworldly religion, or an apocalyptic religion of world destruction. Its ethic, above all, aims 11to distrfl-··ute blessing" ,53j in the immediate and practical or,:iportunit,y, whether some ul time.te historic end be nee.r or far. Indeed, however soon or late, the end or out.come will be ~, as is attested in the Great Prayer later on in the Serrnon. 1iilhile we are mentioning rewards we should point out tbat "rewardn in the Chri~tian etM.c is not a matter of strict 11bookkeeping11-- 5Jk payment for a certain measure of righteousness. This is too commercial or mechanical. God's love, which c;ives the reward, is boundless in i ·s outr oing or giving character. Thus rewards are identicel .for all, whEther reuentant sinner or ascetic saint: Mtt 20:1-16; 2.5:21,23; and are out of all proportion .to "service" rendered., Mtt 19:29; 25:21, 23. >3j 53k Theodo:r.e H. Robinson., Moffate ET Commenteey, The Oosnel of Hatthew, p 33 Harper & Bros. Interpreters Bible., VII p. 288. 2. !!:te ri~hteousness of the kin[dom_ in contrast to the inte~ retation and practice of :ha.risees. In Mtt 5 :17-"'6:3 Jesus' s stresses the inward springs of righteousness. Inner attitude, notive or j_ntention is the key to spiritual health and morel virtue. Some of the Pharisees, he thought, were liviig on the plane of mere duty, or outwe.rd conformity to laws and customs. But w~ra their hearts in it? Jesus wanted to lift ethics from this plane of mere duty and utility to that of dynamic intention, desire, and love. The saying 11 •• Unless youl" righteousness exceeds that of the 0 harisees11 means that mem are not to do right because some law or custom above them demands it., but because a Divine Love -wit,hin 1,·,:pells them. Thus the law is ~1ot abolished, 5:17, but 11.i'uli'illed. 11 Loving desire is the psychological g1..mran-i;ee that ethical law l-'.1111 be carried out .. Moving into greater detail, wheit main problems does this section of the sermon presant? What are the highlights of the messsce? Human lj.fe and the problem of enge;r . v. 2lf. As the main point of these words, I believe that Jesus is here calling attention. to the danger of prolonged anger, which may become hatred. Recall again his main emphasis on the interior life -- or i'111er attitudes as the essence or fount of virtue, Pro- !,onged an&er and hatred may lead to mu.rd.er 1 - Human beings r:et Einr_tr-y naturally, as a normal resuonse to·. people or forces whom they believe may assril them. Norm1ative anger is the working of the natural instincts of self-preser-vation, founded in the biologtcal and psy- chological w:i.11-to-live, which has been crerted within us by God, as the central mark or impuise of finite individuality, :l.n its sense of personal v2lue and right to life. Accordingly Jesus is no c:oubt warning here o;f excessive, inordinate., or, as above said, prolonged anger and continued hatred -- rather then what we have just distinguished here as normative .anger. Precisely in this connect:i.on we note that some of the ancient reports of this saying had included "everyone who is angry with lhis brother without cause shall be lia.ble to judgment." Furthermore, the time factor suggested in the expression "shall be in dr-nger of11 lends support to the theory here 9resented about the saying. Finally, moving from the words themselves into the known life of Jesus as elsewhere on record., we have it reported that he hi,nself became lmg:ry upon occasion -· at the Pharisees; at the money changers, whom he drove from the Temple, and, in John's Gospel, with a whip of Slll?ll cords 1 In the scene with the Syro·9honeoian wo11.an, iJhich ve study later in our continued review of Mark's Gospel, Jesus expressed mger because his own comnatriots were not receiv .. ing his message, Mk 7:27. There is then a ple.ce for narmative anf_;er, and righteous indignatio:n. Jesus is not criticizing these, 1,re belj_eve. He is saying, however, as consummate psychological wisdom., th.'i't 1rre must watch over and control our angers and not let them run awB.y with us. Modem psychiatry deals, so often with cases of mental and emotional illness bnsed on the problem of "repressed anger". The ideal wisdom imi_)lied in Jesus I teB,ching., then, is the reining in and reduction of agger in the first ple.ce, so that the need or tendency to suppress it vill not arise. Accompany.ing the problem of anger is the temptation to "insult" our brother and call him the 11f'ool." Jesus therefore warns that in so doing we tread perilously close to breaking the fu,"ldamental commandment of res·1?ect or regard £or the sanctity of the person of our n.eighbor. He does not, as we shall later see, mean thBt we may not find it necessary upoh occasion, to offer judicious or con.structive oriticism of a neighbor in some circumstances. 1,9.6 In vv 23-24 Jesus announces that God is interested in m~.king human relation- ships the sign ot right relationship with Him: ethics is internal to, and lies at the h9art ot true religion. In this point, of course, Jesus teaching recalls Amos' concept of religion. The rest of the para· raph realistic;mlly reminds us that the rigid, unforgiving spirit will often meet in life with a strict end just accountability at the bar of the courts, when disputes have to be taken that fDr. The lustful look,. In Mtt ,5:27-30 we are in the depths of the iwer l:i.fe of intention and motive, which Jesus•s 11Serm.ontt so specifically illummat.es and challenges. The saying concerning the lustful look refers to the thou.:-a:ht of intention, that is, thouuhts at the level, or d~nth, of decisions of will leading on to actions. One translation has 11looketh ... to lust11 (KJ); another 11looks at a woman with desire0 (Smith-Goodspeed) Perhaps such renderings connote the more precise meaninp th~ the nsv. Jesus is here then thin~ing of the lustful look at its point of decision or emergence into action, where committing the deed would be imminent, if the op,:,ortunity arose in some specific case. He would not be speaking here of fleeting, :i.maginary thoughts that inadver- tently come and go -- which pass in one ear of the mind and as quickly out the other! After all he himself wM imagining adultery., in uttering this very prohibition. Imagination itself, of course, ~s a psychological ouEllity or power, is neutral; is indeed indispensable to man as a higher, free, moral being. It is the very spring of his creative powers as res~1onsible s)iritual oerson. By our imaginations we foresee the possible good in life as well as the possible evil. Jesas•s saying, hoi·ever, is a ·warning a.[':ainst lingering lustful or any other "evil" thought of imagination, lest it become intention and finally action. ( 11Lust11 may have the more general meaning of over-emphasis on any merely material value0 .) If Jesus's t-10rds here be read too narrowly or literally, then nearly every human male that ever was -- and pro0ably half the females ---n would be con- demned, out of hand, as adulterers. Fe do not believe that Jesus -- himself no ascetic, except in the one respect tha.t he remained unmarried., but who never- theless so far as others were concerned, regards marr.iar~e and the sexual side of life positively or f avorablJ--had such a constricted meani,·g m mind. The plucking out of the eye reference., vv 29-30., is an example of Jesus•s use of hyperbole . or heip.htened figure of speece, in order to emnllasize the need tor careful personal, moral disci)line. See 6:.3 and 7:.3-S for examples of hyperbole again: obviously the beam or the log spoken of as in one's eJe co4lJ not be taken literally. Jesus on marria t- md divorce and a C·.1r:.;.stia.."l -~:.iloso _)});I of divorce. In ~:3 -3, Jesus s pronouncemen a out divo~ce mus be understood against the background of the old Mosaic rule., Deut. 24:1-4 1-ihich made it too easy tor a man to dismiss a wife. I.e. Jesus utters these words to give greater protection to women than was then customary. It is en injunction in the s~irit of the highest liberal feminism, s r -curing the rights o£ 1110manhood, in terms of a more premanent status as wife a.nd mother. In general moral teaching, the sa;ring emphasizes the need for sexual fidelity in marriage. It, Sllf~c:e, ... tes ce.t1.tion in entering marriage, and utter sincerity and fidelity in marriage. 11!1!uch is here inulied. Jesus te.::.clles atristia.~s to renounce utterly my e~tering into marriage with the ~ack door left open: 'We can always get out of it if it doesn 1s worktt1$Jl There are difficulties in the pre~etlt ph~aseology. E.g. Why would it 11make her an adulteress"? The logic wou~~· have been clearer had it read, "makes h:•_m an adul terer11 1 as in fact it does read in the pepeat of this saying in JVitt 19:9 (Mk 10:.3-12). The last pri...zase i:"'Qlies that women cannot divorce on any grounds, whereas the first phrase gives grounds for divorce, namely "unc~;.::stity. 11 (Actuolly in mcient Jed.sh society women could not divorce, but could make their husbands divorce them in certain circumstances, e.g. if he were diseased). 1/e sug,. .. c.st tlwt t!'liti set:.ms a too brief and too ambi,::,:uous report for a full ?hilesophy of divorce; the main spirit., however., of the saying is wise and true: marrir..ge should not be lightly or too hastily entered, nor too easily broken. St. Paul _?resents n brot,,.:::.er basis for a Ci1.ri.ntian p!lilosopl;y of divorce, I Cor. 7:1-16. Note St • .:>cul 1s .)os:i..t:tve unde:i:·standing of sexual fai.th.fulness in marriaee, 7:J--h. Ju.stice .:.s well as Jove would sugr.est thc1t St. ')c.t..1 1s wife or husband "who is ~n ·1;.nhil.:~ever11,.; would cover cases of ho)eless incom- patibility. Formal oaths, 5:JJ-37, D.re not necessa.ry, if one is, at all times., per- fectly sincere, or truthful in his speech. In f ,::;c.t, .::r;, oath i;.nplies that unless one gives an oath., he would not be truthful 1 Vhereas intee;rit;r at all times is the first mark of che.racter •• No nef.:d of oaths then ( Tt.is sentiment, of course, states the ideal of a C .ristim sod.et~,, reaching .far be .ond Wh-"t has in fact been attained in the circumstances of courts and judicial proce- dure, where formal oaths seem necessary af'! a practical wa.y to call a.ttention to witnesses the need oi' absolute accuracY and imparttali.ty in the re·)orting of allegedfacts and incidents germane to litigation, 1.f justice is to be attained. 'lr\lhat did Jesus .;1ean 'cy': the 11 per.fecti.on11 of Goe. as the staridard of life, Mtt 5:.38--48? Here we have his consummate um.'ler·standing of the various possible levels of human ethics and types or ranges of justice: (1) Ji'irst and lowest in the sea.le is the law of retaliation, Le;;;; Tdionis, v. ,381 the old barbflric, but positive code, which kept the peace in a rough and reaqy way. (2) Next. . i& life on the basis of utilitarian re\tard, --love and help of others, if they love and help in return, v. 46. (3) Third i..fl the hierarchy of 2ossible ethical relatfonship is life in terms of duty: to c;o 1,1ith a person one mile is to go out of duty. To f).ve a coat as payment of a court fine is to give out of duty to the judgment rendered, t~0-42. Bu.t L...femust ~ress on above duty. (4) AccorcL::-.;..:ly to eo two miles ie to e;o 011t of love. Love mid res,:iect for )ersons exceed:!.ng duty (Ar;a.Je) i~, the hi, hest \node of human relationship, v. LtO-hl, 44. Did Jesna ,,tl . .-:;~: that each hip;her level of ethical relationship as we proceed from (1) t~.ro1.1.th (U is to cm1cel or rule out as illegitimate the precEdiil[l;: stage or step? We., a.an ft know• To be si:.re, he ls sta.t:i:l"'.g the ideal at level ( 4). 531 Geo. A. Buttrick, Interpreters Bible, Vol VII1 op. cit. p. 299. 1$9.8 It is not a judicial cancellin!_:: or condemning of the lower levels, we believe, that Jesus had in mind here. Rather the fact., or our human experience is, that where indeed each higher stage can prevail the lower or lesser mode of relation- ship has been or is absorbed or transmuted i.nto the higher, so that the lower is no longer relevant or needed. Thus the law of utilitarian rewDrd absorbs that of rPtaliation; duty transmutes reward; anc', love fulfills or accomr:ilishes all that duty demands or desired. Where However., each hicher ide~l fails we have, as a matter of practical life, to fall bPck upon the rougher type of security that the next lower level of human relationship prevides. That Jesus did not condenm duty or reward as legitimate motives of the ethice.l life is borne out by many of the parables and sayings, wiere the values of a duty motive, or of a reward motive are positively enshringd. In sum this great parac;raph gives us ho:._:,e in life. The ;i:1ssaf~e assumes that life can be morally triumphant on the whole. I,., e;.:~resses Jesu:::: 1 s 0)./ti.:1- ism about life's ~ossibi:lties. He states that Ag.:::.pe is the D~vi."'le love and that God's nature is the ultimate sanction or, reason for the moral life, for moral effort • .out whd is the "perfection" of Go-:. in verse !18: 11You, therefore., must be perfect, as your heavai.ly Ft!.ther is Jer.fect"? The tfot·l;tew line is briet and abstract. R~ther the Lu:~ •. vers::..on of the sa. in;, illuminates ,Jesus t ou,,ht cet,ter for us. It, :;.·c.c..,s: 11 •• love your enemies, and do good, end lend, eX;1ect:Lng nothing in return (or despairing of no man): and your reward will be :_::reat., and ~ou will be sons of the ],VO)St Hi[';h; :Cor he is kind to the un;;rateful and the selfish., Be .nerciful, even as your F.:.t::er is merciful. 11 (Li..ke 6:35-.36 RSV) Therefore in luke' s rc,)ort of the Q sa ing we have the perfection of God. rendered as the Dj.vine me:rcy. T-.1e 1x·,ri'ection of God then is not some rieid stat:i.c or a1,solute stand:~rd of perfection, an ideal pattern we have to fit, be- fore we can be called Christian. TJ:;e 11 ~Jerfect.:.on of !'.od11 would rP-fer to the Pcrs,rn~l Lov1ng source of beinf;, and to :imitate Him would mean that our own '·,asic and full 1;1otive or purpose should be outgo ng and serving merc;x:, kike God 1o. The Chr:J.stian life is rrrowth. In the Letter of James we have the idea that Christi.m ;1eri'ection is· steadfastness of loving intention, purpose or effort with which we meet the "various trials" o! lite, Christia"l ,.Jerfection is dynamic process; rather than a fine.l o:r fixe1 attainment. Paul makes this clea.r in ·his great passaee in P,j.lor:i:-ines .3 :lJ-15: "Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do., for- getting what lies behirro and straining forward to what· Iies ahea<.f, · I. press. on t~- :w:ard the- goal f(o,: the prize Q;f the upwa.l'd. call of God· in Christ Js'sus,.· Let those t:r us who are ~mature be thus minded; a._nd if in anything you~·are othendee minded;i Ood will reveal thak, also .. to you. 11 •• A wise ,,sychia.t:rist once sRid. that being a Curistian is not like ;;,election to the P~~i Betr.. K~P:-a society, for 1riM.ch a candidate has first to a.tta:ln .'..'.C:?<,emic excellence or 11,::erfection" >.cf ore he can qualif., • W(. G~,ouL:: ~ot su;_J,10s e that our errors, mist;, .. kes, or sins of the past disqualify us. The Chr::.stian life means that we should make effort to change where called for, to grow. I•·, this connection we are reminded of the parable of the Pharisee and the '\11:licen at [)rnyer, Lk 18:10. The .former thour;ht that he had attained and was perfect, whereas the latter, realizing his mm imperfections, yet having the desire ta chanr;e, was more justified in the estimate of: Goel. A wise theoloei.sn wrote conceri:ng the Christian moral process: 159.9 "The quest after sinlessness is, therefore, not an attempt to get rid of the metaphysical 11 roots of sin, 11 nor does it requli:re complete compliance nith all the detailed requirements of an external standard of absolute purity. I j is rather m::ich:: aclilio1e,.heartec3.sdevotion .• to·, ·the f undamerttaI Christtan pr:i.neiples of love· and holiness as will save one from deliberate vfolations of them. Violat! ans may now arld'·1then>oeettr-, rbtltc:Wl:lere"-theyt.are·· ·f ew1 and not ·0f: a .. eer.ious. nature;. ·tl e· mowal. 1· ·· quality of the life is determined by its obedience rather than by its tapses, and in such a case we may speak of a relative sinlessness. Such a sinless. iess is a constituent element in the Christian moral ideal." 53m Turnine,: the other cheek. "Do not, resist one who is evil. But :.~ .:n;/one strikes you on the rie;ht cheek, turn to him the other also~" 5:39. K.:is Jesus a pacifist? In o :r view this say:ing sugcests the ideal attitude for norm.al human situations, the best way to try to apply the µrinciple of respect for persons in personal situations. To rnake this inter::_1:retation clear we might, if necessary, stress the 11one 11 ,-;ho is evil, v. 44. TL.is VE-rse does not tell us not to resist i 11.persone.l evil forees; i.e. it does not say that we should not resist evil as such. Th:i.s verse must be considered beside Mk ll :15 1::l1ere J.ssus u;;;;ed force a:,ainst entrenched evil,; or beside Luke 22 :38 i;here he permitted the disciples to be armed with "two swords" in the ele- venth hour. The sec;t:.el to this injunction to the disci.ples, that they had best go e.rmed into the night of his arrest, is reported in Mtt26 :52. Ai'ter one of them had indeed smitten off the eB.r of a servant of the high priest, the passage contains the f araous line, "Put your sward back into its pJ.ace; far all who take the st-rord wi11 perish by the sword. 11 It utters, of course, the timeless truth that a vengeful or brute.1 policy cannot in the lon:' run succeed; but it does not help us to a::, swer the immediate question. % . .J.t is::::ue ~e believe ±s left inconclusive d.rr the Sermon.. We c.::r.r.ot but "believe, hm:ever, that Jesus 't';odd have indeed resisted someth:Lng like the Nczi t,rrEJ.nny,'j of our ti··,1e., had he been living in our circumst~:inces, though, characteristically he w::>uld have chosen to doubt a way of non-violent !'ESistent suffering, had he been a Ger.::na,., an l~cv:.table martyr' fl .... eath. In ,my cese., the ma,jor truth holds for the saying that the way of love wst take precedence over the way of force. The w.::.y of love must come to )revail so universally that the way of militarr preparedness will not be necessary.53n This ;:,assar;e ~-s a whole in ri:J.-18,e:::;J: .. ~sizin;- virtue ns inner intention., contr,-"J.sts the unostentatious method of giving charity, praying and fasting with the pr ctice of some of the Pharisees, who hy~.,ocritically ~1erformed such works for outward effect or show. The Lord's Prc,J~r 6:7-lL, is a succinct statement of the Ht:-.,r.::.ic ~hiloso,)by of relieion: 53n - Affirmi.J.-::~. thAt God is ,:>ersonal F,:ther, v. 9; - Tr1<.,t tL::.re is a d_ vine pur:)ose or meaning to existnece and human hirtory, v. 10; - Tl1t:t this purpose is ta be achieved in a measure u.:,on eerth, v. 10; - '£h2,t i.:iem. ar _ to help it to come to pass. v 10; a.nd - Thut there is a ~ersorl or individual ~rovidence for each of us, partially understood as God1s l:.cl;l of us in leading the mo:r.al lifE!, v. 11-13. The scying in Mt:t 10 :34, "Do not thirk that I have come to bring peace on earth; I nave not come to bring peace, but a sword," refers to the divisions he realizes his work will cause, as is cleGr by the conts;,xt. It is of R~Uc~eKnR~oft,bt!~ip~f8ci~i~~m&pte11!'istian Ethics, Abingdon-Colsesbury. 1943, P• 153. 159.l~ On material values and anxiety, 6:19-34. These verses speak to the central problem of human life in its stru.gr·le for physical security. The main teaching is that 11his kingdom and his :righteousness, 11 or the love of men, is to come beofre the acquisition of things a.sour chief concern, or as the statement of our full orbed motive. Recall our discussion of this and related themes under the heading 11Christian Love11 , p 141.if. This passage does not teRch asceticism; nor does it deny our need for physical things and ph,-sical security. Rather it teaches that we must replace anxiety w:i.th trust, v. 30, as our characteristic approach to life. Here indeed we probably have the hardest of Jesus 1s commandments to fulfill. Yet modern psychiatry knows how impe:rative it is for a he2.lthy mind to try to live without immoderate anxiety. Indeed we must be concerned, Jesus here allows., about life's problems and evils, but it is possible, and we should endeavor, not to be inordinately anxious. Jesus does not literally mean, v •. , 19f, 25f, 34, that we should be idle and expect God miraculously to clothe and feed us. He uses hyperbole again here as in the former passa,e. The very last verse of the -passage, v. 34 makes this clea.L·, and says in effect: Don't worry about an unknown future, .for today has its problems and troubles of a practica.l sort that we should be concerned about, but not immodera.tely. Do not tryto do tomorrows duties today. Jesus does not mean, however, · that we should not make plans for the future, as a matter of prsctical eve~;day concern. He is not advocatinp a life of idJ.e va.gabondage. Indeed his parable of the :foolish v irg:Lns who took no extra oil for their lamos to the marriar,e feast, revehla his positive attitude toward that Sis.e if life concerned with provisions an.d i'uture contingencies.vfo may reemphasize that Jesus's message is not life- denying and ascetical, but life-affirming in every practical way. His teaching on anxiety., hov;ever, in its full dimensions here is com- summate wisdom. The passage in10lies that anxiety is not itself sin or sinful; as some may supnose. Beinhold Niebuhr in our time has most brilliantly discussed the problem of anxiety in the light of Christian values. He reminds us that because man has an acute sense of imagination, he can anticipate the perils of life -- unlike the animals -- and may strive for security at the expence of others. Anxiety. is naturally rooted :in our human imaginatfon and is a creative impulse. It may, however, be the i'occasion11 for sin, since excessi've anxiety for phJsical security may lead to ag~ression on other life, as we seek to hedge ourselves about with material v2lues at their expeB.se.53o Here it is the part of religious wisdom to a11ay i.nordinate anxiety and replace it with trust and hope. 3. The sacred re\l'erence for personality, Mtt 7:1-14. The problem of critical evaluation of other human be~ngs vv 1-1£ • Jesus begins this section by saying that one should judge or purge oneself of evils and hypocracy, rn\her t.ha,n enp:age so glibly, as we often do, in criticism of others. Censorious judp·ment is .&r commctn~ humen sin. Particularly does this practice ill become us when we so of ten are blind to our own faults. Yet in verse 7 he enjoins us to be aware of defecti\l'e attitudes e.nd conduct in others; and prepared to protect one I s own person a a inst abuse by others, and the advantage that they may take of us out of ignorant and/or mall:icious or 11sw:inish11 motives. In many o:f our off:lcial duties we are called unon to evaluate ct.her peorile. This is a legitimate and proper duty, only we perform 1irt with cir- cumspection, humility, and cautious.faithful consideration of all facts and evidence as we are able to g~thar,.1+1 ord~r to understand them. 530 Nature and D~stiny of Man, Vol. I, Chapter 7 159.11 The secret of life, 7:7-14. This i.nstructive passage begins: 11.Ask, and i t will be given you; seek and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 11 For what is one to ask; and at what (\oor are we to knock? What do these cryptic words of Jesus mean? ~l'he context makes it clear that they express God's interest in the welfare of persons, as objects of supreme value, and His outgoing love toward them. Accordingly, if we seek to understand life and human relationships in these divine terms, of the sa.crecl.ness of nersons; and seek to serve them, as God Himself seeks our own and all human welfare -- we find the secret of life. It opens unto us. The answer to life's h:'Lghest joy and satisfaction is givm. This is, of course, no paltry material reward that is guaranteed here, but rather sniri tual fulfillmeJ'lt in the sense of ga.ining highest satisfaction in life. Yet how can we love and serve others without doing s.o materially? Therefore., in this t pe of Christian E.hhos., all are, in the end, universally blessed materially, through the service of e2.ch :for all. Ve1se 11 -- 11If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to Jmur children., how much more v..ri.11 your Fa.ther who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him? --- suggests a philsosophy of Providmce. The reality and medium of a Di vine Providence for the Christian is precisely the II good gifts" and the "good things" ·est.abidished ma'teria.;llyi,i:n +hr1 l<':\ng.ciom..:9.f .lo,:ve by- the Christian spil"it :itself.. • Through them an.d in themJ.. e. Providence of the l''ather may work. Jesus sparce words here do not elabor a+..e a philosophy of c:rovidence quite as we have done. But the fuller conte>-t o,f this Bnd his teachings as a whole permit an interpolation of this kj_nd, of words no doubt originally meant more simply to enjoin fc)_ith :in the good outworking of life under God. Recall our comment about the words "You ••• who are evil. 11 This is no across the bo!trd doctrine of the inherent sinfulness of man, bu.t rather an e.cknowledrment that men sometimes can be mean and miserly, as suggested in. the Smith- Goodspeed and the New English translations, 11bad as yo~®~-..e'',, tli'at is, we believe, he means to say bad as ~ou may be. A similar exe~esis is sugfested by Moffatt where he renders this expression by 11\'llell, if for all your evj_l ••• 11 etc. (Recall our full. discussion of Jesus I concept of man on pages 142-143£). The paragrao h is summarized and climaxed by the Golden .H.ule v. 12. The l'olden .1;"ule formulates the idea of reverence for persrnality, your own and others. The idea is less arnb:i.guously rendered as the Great Commandment, Vitt \ 22:34-40. The Great Commandment i~pliee: that we rm.1st reverence personality with the same intensity that God e.s Creator reverences and loves persons. An important addendum to the secret of life is the narrow gate, v. 13-14. No doubt in these lines there is the basic eschatological note that the way Jesus is leading them, in opposition to so much that they had taken for granted, id hard; and that they must be willing to follow through the straitened defile and lec1ve much on the broader easier-r-oing way behin? -- as he calls them to a particular and irrevocable c.ommitment to him and his cause. But the more universal message is that Jesus is ca.lling men to a particular role as persons, namely to become citizens of a s:):i.ritual kingdom of love. These words then, like the others of the Sermon, may be interpolated l)rot:i.dly. They remind us that we must concentrate in life -- fix our a.ttention on some one good a.nd major goal and work toward it; for this is the way :')ersonality;i.s made, by focusing life, by realizing one or a few great ideas out of many possibilities. "\i>ie help this process in choosing a major course at college; t.\. life's profession or work; a life's partner. The late, g:reat Josiah Royce w:rote powerfully on this theme, in his studies of selfhood, and of t11e process whereby we come into realized selfhood or meaningful peronnal being. He said "Individuality ••• is the expres- sion of selective interest11 and "Individuality is a category of the satisfied 1.59.12 will" 53p What we know as our spiritual being, he said, is the process of our ideas focussing themselves into concrete activity through 1-ill or purposive activity. Being is an idea willing its indlviduality. Jesus' saying abort the narrow gate through which we must pass suggests a similar understanding of spiritual life and its growth. 4. The closing observations of the Sermon are found 7:15-29. Here he tells us that sincerity and productiveness are the tests of Christian personality. He refers again to "the will of God11 as our ultimate ethical standard, the doing of which qualifies us for entrance into the kin;:,dom of heaven. Here is stressed ethical action over the mere profession of his name as the real test of discipleship -- the constm t challenge ·to Christians and the chruches, lest they become spiritually lazy_. comr,iJ.acent and inactive. In the parable of the House Built u::::ion a Rock we are confronted with Jesus 1s sense of the absolute nature nf his teachings: they are the truth for life. Note the emphasis on €loin~ the words, carrying his principles ou-b in ethical action, as the clue to s al v2tion. If he also means here by the floods and the storm that an apocalyptic closure of time is near at hand, the paragraph ,~uuld have hqd a peculiar urgency for · himself and for his hearers. And though this element, if it be there, has been dissolved away for us today in terms of a specific theory- of history to ·which we can no longer subscribe, there are storms enough of circumstance in our own experience -- often apocalyptic in prooortion in our 20th cer tury times -- which beat in upon our lives to test the truth of many of these words. A closing observation. The Sermon gets peculiarly at the essence of moral viftue as inner loving intention or motive. 'I'he Sermon also in many places stresses 't<-'Orks. 'I'he ~11 formula of moral virtue or act:i.on is, of course, the 0ualit(y of inner intention or motive, plus 'trvorks. Vuorks compre- hend tvro tbings: the means we emply-y to bring about our good works and the con sequencest,o which means lead on. Often j)()Or means are selected; freauently action miscarries and ends up in bad consequences. But a loving motive will tend to assure the best means, and the best conseauences. 53p The~~~ Individual, Macmillan 1912, 1913, Vol. Ip. h55 and Vol II P432. Questions for Part F;;ur: , The Bas~c.:...:....J.eachi,E-gs of Jes_£,s 1. State four major themes in Jesus I s ter chin gs, and familiarize yourself with major passages that bring E1 ach out. '\iilt.cat is his view of man? of God? 2. Do you think the law of respect for persons is a basic moral law? If your answer is affirmative, what would you mean by 11basic 11 ? In what sensi;: mD..Y t .. is be called universal law? .3. E1~;,.)lain clearly the Ci:,ristian concept of love as A6D.~e. How does it contrast with love as Eros? In your v::.ew are acape and eros mutually exclusive? What )Sychological truth seems to lie behing Jc..sut:' s Great P"'.r.:i.c~o":;, i.VUc 8:.35? Whnt }lace does Jesu.s give to the self in the ethical relationship. tr.. v?w.t a.re the several levels of ethical relationships or justice as sugges- ted by Mtt ,5 :J8-48.. Do you think a particular level need cancel out those below it? 5. ll·lhat in general terms does Jesus mean by the I(int;dom of God. How does it relate to the principles of respect for persons and Hga-pe? 6. vJhat are the several principal features or characteristics of the Kingdom? Ref er to scri;:1tures that bear these out ? 7. Explain what Jesus means by Uod 1 s "'ill as ultimate ethj_cal. standard. 8. Be pre;)ared to explain the meaning or 1M.in point of the various sections of the Sermon on the Mount. 9. Do you think v1.rtue should be defined by "inner motive11 ? What is the relation between inner motive 8nd outward ethical act? lO. Give examples of the use of hyperbole lhn the Sermon on the Mount, ll, How is the Lord's Preyer a sun1'11a7y of Hebrz.ic philoSO~lhy? 12. Analyze carefully the full meaning of M-t,t 6:l9-J4. 1a. In the thou;;,ht of Jes~s state ·what s a.lvation is from; what it is to or for; and by what it is conditioned. Familiarize JOursei1 with NT passaees that bring this idea of salvation out. 14. Analyze carefully Jesus's tull concept of judcment; cite his various figures of speech concerning 11 :~erdi tion. 11 What questions do you have about the anaihysis of this problem in the preceeding discussion? 15. In what terms does Jesus think of himself as an instrument, of salvation? (For .further detail on this l">oint we will later rote questions on the idea of Jesus 1 s Messicl1shtp). The student should rond caroflllly tho folloving passagos: :JK 2:3-11; .3:22•27•••••••••Jc,sus 1s hoHl:l.ng works: identifies 8 :11-13 his e.trthority ~.rith his moral Lk 4:9-1.3; 11:201 29£ mossago; repudiates use of 11signs•11; 17:20 his healing works evidence that tho Kingdom comes ·w1 th power• l:lk 1:34; 4:3.lu 3:10 ....... Limits nncl conditions ot his ~:24-34; 6:1-S healing powor. Lk 7:21 Mk 4:.3$-hlJ 6:30•L4, 4S-52 ••• The nature miracles as roported ll:12-14 by l1iD.rlc. In considoring nnd evaluating the account of .Jesus's miracles, it is helpful to divide the subject into t,ho hcrilings ~nc1 tho nature miracles. Host of. the miracles roport(,d of Jesus wore hocl.ing miracloa. The illl,1Jt>rtnnt i' ollowing things should be no·i;od according to the :NT report : 1. According to the Synoptics he refused to give miraculous proof' £or his authority. At ml early stc'.:'.go we road how he rcjoctcd thc uso of mirt1clo for display, the Temptation, Lk L.19-13. Note particularly ].'lk 8:ll-13,J 11< ll:2S't, where he idcntiffos his authority with his moral messagq1 ond repudiates mir;:icle as a 11sign.11 The 11signtt of Jonah meant to him that the lnttcr prophet preached a moral ioossngc of repentance to the people of Nineveh; so would Jesus to the men of Israel in his time. His hearers could accept him or reject him on the basis of his moral appeQJ.. 53~rJe suggest the following i'urthcr rcuding on the problem of the rnirocl0s1 Hnltor Bell Donny: Tho Career md Sienifican<-..e of Josus, Thomas Nelson ~ Sons, 1939, m::sn York. Ch. XIII. Harvey Bronscomb, Tho Gospel of' nark • tlottatt Commentary, op. cit. P• 30-36. The Abingdon Bible Conunontm:···.r, op. cit. P• 921-929 George A. Gordon: Religion and Liiracle P• 83-95 Even in Mark 1:.3-11 his moral message and ministry precede his, healing ministry. His authority does not rest on his works of power; rather his 'ti«)rks of power follow as a corollary of his moral authority. Some interpreters feel that there mey be a conflict of tradition between: Mk 2(3-ll; Lk 11:20' and where the miracles seemed to be "significant evidence to Jesus of the dawning of God rs power"' and 11an authentication of Hia mission and an indication that the reign of evil was at an end.u53r Mk 8:Jl2;. Lk 11:29; Mtt 12:28 17.20 where Jesus seemei: fl.at ]y to refuse to give any sign nt,o this generation"·-- wording which sounds pretty conclusive c:i,.Jfinal~ ... a. If he performed cu.res, then, he regarded them as evidence or revelation that the kingdom had come with power, or as corollaries to his moral author1ty1 rather than as tests of his authority, Mk 3:22-27;, Lk 11:20. 3. The record mc:kes plain that he was limited in his power to heal. Observe Mk 1:34; 3:10 where it says that he cured 11maey11 , not all (note mention ot the 11all11 in 3 ::10 who had diseases but only the ,tmanytt, were cu.red);, also in this connection we cite Lk 7:21. Note especially Mk 6:1-5 where it says 11he could do no mighty work0 in his home neighborhood but cured only tta few sick11 folk. We shoul!d point out also that his cures depended on the faith of those healed., Mk 5:.24-34. Evidently, Jesus 1s: power to heal dep~nded,·~pon,:ia rela:tions-nip ·of., confidence\ 'between:''!' himself and the sick, a standard kind of relation which modern physicians-: and psychiatrists must have with their patients. Such are the main facts of the record itself'. How may we evaluate these reports? We may believe., 'Without stretching credulity too far, that Jesus performed cures. Even his enemies admitted it, Mk 3t22. I$ this added proof that his ministry was having some sort of unusual effect? In any case., we draw a few observations: Our faith may be made easier by the fact that some of the people cured seemed to be suffering from what we would call today forms of psychological hysteria., Mk 1:23; 5:24-34., comparable to hysterical blindness, deafness., paralysis, etc., that psychiatrists treat today. We have already suggested the psychological character of some of Jesus•s cures. at least., by the evidence that faith was necessary on the part of those healed. 53rHarvey Branscomb, The Gospel of Mark, op.cit. P• 71-72. 1.59.16 Such cures would be rendered all the more easy in that day and time, when it was the general belie£ that disease was caused by demonic spirits, over which a powerful holyma.n, as Jesus in the popu]ar thought would have been regarded, might have control. Yet we should probably say that Jesus had a more than ordinary power over men. It is not incredible that he worked healing in the minds, and possibly the bodies of · · people, to an unusual extent or degree £ or his day and time. On broadest philosophical level, we recall the close relationship of mind to body, and the place of mental attitude in the successful. treat- ment of disease, as a generally acknowledged medical £act. Doctors have long lmown that people who want to get well frequently do; while those who lack the will to live :frequently do not. It is a common place of medical experience that much physical suffering roots in psychological disturbance. Jesus worked primarily on the minds and attitudes of persons, healing their sp:trit~ first. There is much evidence for faith healing of some kinds of illness today (this is the source and strength of the Christian Science movement and other.faith healing emphases in Christian denominations). Perhaps we have not explored this whole possibility enough in our modern scientific age. However, we should also acknowledge, by way of caution., that some alleged faith healers of·our time have naively exploited a sacred dimension of the religious mission, which when properly employed conjointly with legitimate medical science, has proved of aid to that science. The NT expression "nightly work," shich is associated with Jesus•s ministry, e4g. in Mark 6:5, comes from the Greek 11dynamis," which means generally "power. 11 Taking a clue from this meaning of the word, it is plain that Jesus' ministry was having an unusual effect or 11power," apparently in the assistance of some people toward healing. We need not., however, transliterate this "dynamis" or mighty work into the traditional notion 0£ "miracle," as an act done contrary to the laws of nature, or in suspension of those laws. This observation leads us into the problem of the nature miracles reported of Jesus. - - --- ~ - - ~ - We may interpret the reports of the nature miracles in two waya,: First, all of them are subject to edifying moral interpretation., with the possibility of seeing behind them natural events that become elaborated by the growing tradition into the marvelous or the legendary. The moral meaning of the nature miracle stories are of inestimable value. According to·Mark, the earliest version of the life of Jesus among the -four Gospels, there are ohly four nature miracles, strictly speaking, reported of Jesus. The supernatural signs at the Baptism, and likewise at the Transfiguration, are not strictly miracles of or by Jesus. Recall our discussion of the Baptismal account in lrark incontrast to -the heightening of this account toward the miraculous as found in~ 169.17 encl Matthew, and the possible natural explanation .of the phenomena at the Baptism, P• Presently we will disOuss the Transfiguration · · · · - · • ·· . ~- • •, and later on , , . · - ~ ~ tmJ. i ' • ~ ~·-/ the Resurrection and the Virginal Birth repbrts as important problems in this area of the miraculous life as a whole, as told by the Gosp:31 reporters. But we return now to the first level of the problem concerning the miraculous works, whioh it is said Jesus performed himself upon nature, · - ·" · · , .... . ·· , and repeat that in the oldest Gospel there are but four nature miracles reported. Let us consider each in turn as we oome upon them in the story: Mk 4:35 ... 41: the stilling of the storm on Galilee. Jesus' original utterance may have been addressed t• the disciples rather than to the waves, when he said 11 Peaoe, bestill." Thus indeed, he does so address the disciples in v. 40. He may have meant the words for them, to quiet their fears. Or the ship may have rounded a promontory into a quiet by sheltered .from the wind. The lake of Galilee is famous for the sudden rising and passing of storms. Mk 6:30,44: feeding of the 5000 (duplicated in the feeding of the 4000, Mk 8:1-10) is a lesson in sharing:53s vVhen the disciples brought out and shared what they had, others in the multitude oaught on and did likewise. Here may be the real event behind the aooount of the multipli~ation o.f the loaves. It is not likely that multitudes would go some distance into the country to hear a great evangelist, and to spend a good p~rt of the day, without taking provisions. Mk 6:45-52: walking on the water. Possibly when they s~~ him walking 11on11 or "alongtt the water, that is, along the shore, they were comforted by the realization that he was near ... again their fears le.ft them. Or the morning mists might have given the illusion that he •. was walking on the water-- is some such natural interpretation possible? Suoh a naturalistic explan- ation is strengthened by the Johannine tradition, John 6t 21, where in conclusion to John's version of the story it says, tt1mmediately the boat was at the land • n Mk l:U 12-14: our sing of the Fig Tree. This is obviously legend because it is contrary to the character of Jesus. Furthermore, to aocept the report literally would call into question his good sense, in cursing a tree for not bearing its figs out of season, as the story relates\ The cursing of suoh a tree would be like the aot of a oonjurer, devoid o.f moral meaning. Such performances Jesus striotly avoided, Mk 8:11-13. 538That the second feeding of a multitude found in Mark is simply a duplicate account of one, original such tre.d.ition is borne outby the tacbs that Luke, coming upon this aocount in Mark, as he was transcribing the later Gospel, simply omits it, plus the curious little anecdote in the account of the sec and Resurrection: Basic Issues in Christian Theology A. The Problem of the Me2_gahship 160, The reader may recall our discussion on the types of messianic hope in Israel in <:esus 7 day, p., 134.-139 1 and our preview of the type of role which we believe he represented:> p. 138. Also recall our statement of the problem of the historical Jesus p. 140-141. 1. The critical historical 911..s3stion is how to evaluate the apocalyptic element in the gospels at those express points where Jesus is reported as claiming to be the supernatural i~son of man:> iv who is to appear immediately upon the clouds of Heaven? Willirun Manson in his study, Christ~s View of the fil:.ngdom of God:> points out the several possible ways modern thought has treated the apocalyptic element in the Gospels. First, it is possible to look at the apocalyptic element or terminology in Jesus~ teaching as incidental, a mere husk, that may be stripped away and more or less ignored. This type of evaluation is strengthened by the recent opening up of the apocalyptic writ:u.1gs of the later Jewish period, which reveal that many of the eschatological ideas in the Gospels were not original to Christianity. Furthermore, there is the possibility that the apocalyptic element represents the interpretation of the evangelists:> or Gospel authors themselves in the early church, rather than that of the historic Jesus. According to this view the evangelists interpreted Jesus in the light of the apocalyptic ideas predominant in their time. Indeed, there appears to be without doubt a heightening of ideas in the record in the direction of an interpretation of Jesus as apocalyptic Son of man,~ development su9gested by a close comparison of the SYI?-opti: . Gospels in some places.5..J Harvie Branscomb believes that the title :m its apocalyptic sense was applied to Jesus by the early church, and presents a strong argt.m1ent to support this view.54 The tendency of interpretation in this direction, then, may be to say that the message of the historic Jesus was centered on ethical and spiritual teaching; and to conclude that, as he may have thought of his mission as being in some way especially appointed, it was a 99Messiahship of servicen to which he was called.55 The second possibility is represented by Schweitzer 9s classic affirmation that the apocalyptic element is all-essential, the very kernel of the Gospel story. In his famous study, .'.rhe Quest of j:,he Historical Jesus.9 (1906) Schweitzer announced that the man of Nazareth was a radical apocalyptic thinker and prophet, who deliberately allowed himself to be martyred, believing that God would vindicate him by causing a metamorphosis of his person into that of the transcendent Son of mano56 This interpreation 53. E.g. Burton and Goodspeed: Harmon_y of the Synoptic Gospels, QP• cit., p. 118-21, 187, 241, 226~ 247-249. 54. The Gospel of Mark, Harper, p. 146-149. 55. So Branscomb, lb. p. 153. 56. Chapters XIX-XX. 161. relies on such passages as Mk. 13:26, JO; 14:61-62; Mtt. 10-23 .. In an eloquent portrayal Schweitzer says th:1,t the historical Jesus threw himself against the wheel of history and was crushed by iti Christianity, however, continues as a historical force because of the 1ispiritua111 power of love that Jesus has released into the hearts of men.57 We have already presented in outline the possiblity of a third point of view.58 It has been ably expressed in similar vein by three respected scholars in the following memorable summaries: 19The truth is ••• that in Jesus v mind the two conceptions were really one (ethics and eschatology). Religious thought ;lways moves aroi.md two foci~ that of experience on the one hand, and that of hope on the other. On the one hand there is no religious faith which does not include the sense of Divine forces alread3r at work to produce a present salvation which does not involve the sense of deficit, a something wanting, which has still to be looked for from the sld.eso The religious conception always turns on these two factors, experience and hope, ethic and eschatology ••• The complexity of the Gospel data is however due to this that in JesusV teaching we see a process going on by which apocalyp- tic ideas are being translated into terms of present and living reality ••• Jesus, in proclaiming the kingdom of Godj and applying to Himself the title ?Son of Man,9 was taking up apocalyptic ideas, and giving His Gospel an initial relation to apocalyptic hopes ••• Apocalyptic supplied the form, therefore, in which Jesus announced His specific message •••• In the sense of having and possessjng God Himself He had the assurance that God 9 s idea for humanity could not be long hindered. He had only to reveal God to men, and the Kingdom would have come •• ~The Gospel of Jesus, by presenting the Kingdom as something already cast like a seed into the ground, breaks through the moulds of apocalyptic thought, and diffuses itself in the world as a religion of realized redemption ... The teaching of Jesus? there- fore, will not be compressed within the limits of an apocalyptic doctrine of the Kingdom ••• n59 57. More recently, Rudolf Bultma11, accepting the apocalyptic school of interpretation initiated by Johannes Weiss (1882)? and carried in one direction by Schweitzer, believes that the only way to save Jesus for the modem scientific world is by a radical process of VVde-mythologizing~v the New Testament apocalyptic picture. That is, ,Vde-mythologizingH would divest the New Testament of its plainly eschatological setting and message--as irrelevant to modem scientific ears--and reinterpret it in terms of the contemporary existentialist philosophy of man. The main drift of Bultmann 9 s view is that ??Jesus Christ99 as savior, the core of the divine 11'Word19 in the Gospel, is relevant to modern man personally in his need as Hsinner1V--whose soul may be renewed in vertical or subjective dimensions by God~ s a,cting through the power of this nfaith, 11 a supreme myster,r of renewal hidden in the depths of bejng. Modem scientific man need not, indeed cannot, accept the eschatological framework of thought of the First Century when the New Testament was written. See Rudolf Bultmann: ~- Christ and Mytholog:~, Scribner, 1958. viDe-mythologizing, n however, is not understood by Bultmann as a process of nrationalizing1v or il'naturalizing~i or nethicizingii the New Testament message, as a former humanistic and liberal Biblical interpretation and theology supposed was possible. The similarity of Bultmann 1s view to Barth1 s and to Niebuhr 1 s~ and his opposition to ~?liberal Christologiesvi (though not to contemporary Biblical criticism) is evident. 58. See P• 138, 140-141. 59. William Manson: Christ Vs View of the Kin_gdom of .Q.Qg, T & T Clarkll Edenburg, 1918, excerpts from pp. 60-101. 162. iiThe use of apocalyptic terms whether by Jewish writers or by Jesus :L1 no way indicates an exclusively otherworldly outlook. Allowance for the symbolic che,racter of these foredasts allows us to see that their concern is in part with the this worldly future of man. Those elements that appear to set a term to the life of this world are in part transparent and disclose in mytl1ica1 form a f,uture of men under divine judgment and grace, indeed, but not transplanted to other conditions of existence., It is not claimed that Man~s deepest intimation of a finally transcendent destiny is absent from apocalyptic~ but that this is joined in it with equally compelling intimations of divine operation in the social-historical future. What form this latter would take would only be suggested by imag- inative terms, and these merge imperceptibly into the imaginative terms with which the final goal of existence is described. iv 60 91He believed the.t the day of God vs rule was near at hand .. o .But there are differences from apocalypticism that are ••• significant. Jesus had none of the hopeless pessimism of the apocalyptists ••• T-ruej it was God and not man that was to bring the kingdom; but man had something to do., He must repent.aoThe beginnings of the kingdom were heree •• Satan 9 s kingdom was already being overthrown (Lk., 11:20; 10:18; Mtt. 11:4, 5, 25-30).e. And one other difference; the apocalyptists were always anxiously scanning the heavens for signs, and calculating times and periods. Jesus left this all with God ...... The emphasis of Jesus is upon the moral character of God., God 9s relations with men are primarily personal and ethical. Hence the rule of the inner spirit. ?VDid the kingdom of God, then~ mean for Jesus simply something individual and subjective: That does not follow fr0m the position taken above •• eThe spirit is one of good will., expressed acti-lrely in service., and the final test of its presence is just this service (Mk9 9~35; 10~42-45; Mt. 25:31-46). We are dealing here., then, not with mere inner emotion or mystical exper- ience, but pre-eminently with a social spirit that can be expressed only in human relationso The goods of the Kingdom which God gives are conquest of evil, forgiveness .. of. sins, the vision of God., the gift of the spirit-- in a word the gift of life (Lk 11~20; 24~47; Mt. 5:8; Mk. 10~17f). Such gifts cannot be passively received,. They make searching demand. And that demand Jesus makes plain. He calls men to repentance, to utter change of heart and devotion of life ••• The will of God becomes not some- thing passively accepted, but actively practiced. ?i61 In debate concerning JesusV relation to apocalyptic thought students have pointed out certain striking contrasts between his views., as expressed in much of the Gospel materials., and the outlook of some of the apocalyptic tracts of the late Old Testament and New Testament periods, such as:--- 60. Wilder, Eschatolo_gy and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus., op. cit • ., p. 53. See also p. 133. 61. Harris Franklin Rall, in The Abingdom Bible Commentary. p. 911-913. Apo cc1J:ypti_g_: e.g. Joel, Enoch literature 62 World situation hopeless. God must end the world order abruptly, catastrophically. Kingdom possible only in heaven after world is dissolved by fire. Son of Man to take venge·ance on Israel?s enemies. A wrathful God to blot out sinners. Extravagant imagery. The end calcu!ated by cosmic signs. 7 i63. Jesus? Teaching: World situation not hopeless: Jesus earnestly expects or hopes that his message might be accepted of men, right up to the end: His appeals for repentance, Gethsemane prayer. Parables of the Kingdom as growth and6as inward 311d spiritual. 3 Kingdom possible on earth, God? s will to be done on earth; his message and work is in behalf of a present redemption611 Jesus teaching that the King- dom is to inclvde any men who do God? s will. 65 Jes~s belief that.God is6tove, anxious to save sinners. Teaches by natural life-like examples. e.g. the parables. His announcements that the time of the end cannot be forecast.68 If Mark 8~31 or 10:45 is authentic, it is clear that Jesus uses the term ?Son of Man 9 in a sense unlike apocalyptic thought--Jesus has spiritualized the concept: (1) the !on of man is already here in himself; he is not a future figure to come; (2) he is a dying Son of man, a suffering Son of man, not an omnipotent, supernatural destroyer of the Gentiles, 9 sinners, and an evil world. 70 He was a nJon of manH who ricame not to be served but to serve.a71 62. Joel, 2~30-3~21; c. K. Barrett, The New Testament Background, Selected Documents, op. cit, p. 235-253. 63. Mk. 4:20f; Lk. ll:20; 17:20-21; 19:11. 64., Mk. 10:25-37; 19:11-26; Mtt. 6:12, 7:24; 20:1-16; Lk. 4:16-19. 65. Mk.3:31;12~9; Lk. 10:25-37; Mtt. 8:11-12; 13:38; 21:43. 66. Lk. 15:1-32. 67. Mk. Ch. 13., 68. Th:. ll:16F; 17:20-21; Mk. 8:11-13. 69. Barret, op. cit. 242, Assumption of Moses 10, where.9 not a Son of man, but vvthe Eternal God alone ••• will appear to punish the Gentiles.9n that Israel can be nhappy,11 71exult,i1 1:nd see its vienemies in Gehenna, and ••• recognize them and rejoice. iv 70. lb. p. 236.9 where--in 1 Enoch, 48.9 69~ the Son of man is to destroy 11sinnersn; and similarly spoken of the supernatural Vl'ffian .v who VYflew with the clouds of heaven tr in 4 Ezra 13. Compare Daniel 7. 71. Mk. 10:45. There is also the possibility that Jesus uses the term 11son of man11 not of himself, but of another personality:, eg. Lk. 9:26-27; 17:24. 2. A messiahship of Service., Regardless of his express use or not of the Son of man terminology, many scholars of our day believe that Jesus assumed and emphasized, more or less consciously, his role as c1 v,messiahVV or spokesman of service, inspired possibly by the Suffering ServMt ideal of the Second Isaiah. The va,lue of this interpr0tation, if true, is that it would depict the historical. Jesus c,s a personality who was more in touch with human reality as we know it. It would understand him in terms less extreme then the apoc- alyptic interpreb:i,tion; it views him as a prophet for the ages, and less a child of the first century. Is it a true interpretation? Did Jesus identify himself vJith the Suffering Servant theme of the Great Isaiah (Chapt. 53); or in what way or to what extent might Jesus, in the last tragic hours of his life, have taken comfort in this theme? Scholarly opinion is open;72 the individual student will have to decide the issue for himself, on the basis of the evidence as he may see it. We here attempt to throw light on the problem in the following way. Much of the liberal tradition in New Testament interpretation has believed that the historic Jesus, if he claimed to have a special role at all, associated his life and work primarily with ·"- message of suffering service. However, in a number of places Mark emphasizes Jesus as the ~vson of manvv in the highapocalpytic sense, eg~ 13:26; 14:62--who declared he would return on the clouds of heaven before his own generation would pass away. Matthew, whom you will recall used Mark as one of his sources, follows the latter quite closely in such a presentation. Yot even Mark reports that Jesus refused to lay cl~im to the Messi~nic office as popularly conceived (8:11-13).73 Jesus refusal to give a vvsignH in this passago suggests particularly the refusal to identify himself mth the full apocalyptic notion of the messi&h, whose coming, it was supposed, would be preceded by many signs.74 We also recall how Mark cites Jesus as a lowly and suffering nson off.riano 11 72. Eg. for a significant defense of the Suffering Servant interpretation see John Wick Bowman: ].'he Intention of Jesus, Westminister Press, 1943. Also Re H. Strachan: 11The Gospel in tho New Testamentyvi Tnterpn,ters Bible, Vol .. 7, p, 15; Vincent Taylor, viThe Life and Ministry of Jesus, 11 Interpretors Bible, Vol. 7, p, 117; Harvey Branscomb, The G;ospel of Mark, op. cit., p. 145-158. For criticism of tho view that Jesus identified himself with the Suffering Servant of Isaiah see Clarence T. Craig, ViThe Identification of Jesus with the Suffering Servant,vi Journal of Religion, XXIV, 1944; p. 240-45; C. T. Craig, 1iThe Teachings of Jesus, The Proclnmntion of the Kingdom, vv Inter- preters Bible, Vol. 7, p. 149. Craig cites James Moffat, The Theology of the Gospels, 1912; c. J. Cadoux, The Historic J\IIission Qf Jesus, 1943~ A. E. J. Rawlinson, The New Testament Doctrine 9f Christ, 1926? Rudolf Otto,~ Kingdom of Go_g and the Son of Man, 1938; C. C. Torry, nThe Inf1 uen ce of II Isaiah in the Gospels ond Acts11 (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1929, p. 249-61) as supporting the Suffering Servant thesis; and K. Lake, ThQ ~eginnings of Christianity; F. Burkitt, Christian peginnin@, 1924, as opposed to the identification of Jesus with the Suffering Servant figure. 73. See parallels in Lk, 11:16, 29F; 17:20-1. 74. This contrasts, of course, with the iiLittle Apocalypso17 of Mark 13. Although Luke, liko Matthew 2,nd Mark, includes the eschatologl.cal view e,i' the kingdom as awaitLng a future, heavenly or transcendent consummation, this writer belives that the third Gospel presents Jesus in a number of places in a modified apocalyptic light. 74a Along with his eschatological concept of the kingdom)) to be sure, Lulrn sets Jesus forth significwtly as fulfilling a role described jn two pass2.ges which come from the Second Isaiah. In Lulrn 22:37 Jesus is reported as directly quoting from Isaiah 53:12, the heart of the Suffering Servant passages, the line which says that VYhe (the Servant) was reckoned with transgressors. n According to Luke Jesus appro- priates the sentiment of this Isaianic line as descriptive of his own destiny, Since this particular quotation from Isaiah is not found in Matthew or Mark, its presence in Luke suggests a trend in this Gospel toward interpreting Jesus in the Suffering Servant light. Scholarship is divided as to whether Jesus9 quotation jn Luke 4:10-19, from Isaiah 61:1-2, in which he identifies his role as that (or bejng like that) of the speaker in Isaiah--is a Servant passage. ijfJ.11:Y, however, have so .t::=:=>---6~# identified the speaker in the opening lines of th~'ts't chapter of Isaiah. 75 - However these finer pomts of scholarship may be s&ttled, the tradition of Jesus as fulfilling the role of :=i. messen~er or a proph(3t of suffering service is strong in the New Testament97° Indeed, withn1 the very traditions which declared him to be nson of man, vi we have seen the central and new note that he is a serving and suffering Son of man. ~~ has capture~ th~s ~pirit of Jesus, as the humble server of men, in the question, put to his disciples: v1For 'Which is greater, one who sits at t2,ble, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.vi (22~ 27) Again a trend in Luke stressing Jesus as servant, or server, may be observed in the fact that thls particular question and its reply, does not have its exact parallel m Matthew and Mark,77 though it is innnediately preceded by the M~ceJ n1et the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.vi (22:26). This latter saying is found in all three Synoptics. C[ 74a .. One such significant place is the trial scene, which we shall presently examine. 75. George Adam Smith, who believes that it is en open question, but sides with those who view the speaker as tVthe prophetn rc.1,ther than nthe ServantH of chapter 53, mentions Driverp Box and others who hold to the Servant interpreation of Isaiah 61:1-2.11 The Book of Iso.i2,h, vol. II, Harper.ii p. 472, note. -~ it seems to m;;-is the effect--;-f Rogers v view:; who sides for the prophet interpreation but says the mess/.',,ge reflects the b1agery of the suffermg servant:, Abingdon, Bible Cornmente.ry. op. cit. p. 672. William Manson app2,rently sides with the Servant inter- pretation, along with the Jewish scholar Montefiore, 'fhe Q.ospel of Lukej Moffatt NT Commentary, Harper, p. 41. Craig, in the article before cited, says that Isaiah 61:1-3 is not a servant passage (p. 2l~4)., 76. In addition to the possible interpretation of Lko 4:16-19 and 22:37 in this light:, there are Luke 22:24-27; Mk. 6:4; 8:Jl; 10:42-25; Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30. 77. See Burton and Goodspeed, fi Harmony of the Synoptic GospeT§._, op. cit. p. 240. 1.66. Our point here is that, whereas Mark (in which Mntthow follows Mark) p:c: :::,r·:1ts us with .'3, high apocalyptic Christology (to be sure not without its servant note too), Luke gives us more clearly a servant Christ,ology. Perhaps the place of critical difference between the two Gospels, concerning Jesus role as messenger of the v.ingdom, is found in the two versions of the trial scene: Mk., 14~60-64 ??And the high priest stood up in the midst, 2nd asked Jesus, ?Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 9 But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, ?Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?? And Jesus said, VI am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.1 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, 1Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?? And they all con- demned him as deserving death,. vv Lk. 22:66-71 ~ 7When day cmne, the assembly of tho elders of the people gathered together: both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away to their council, and they said:; 9 If you are the Christ, tell uso? But he said to them, 9If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God. 'I And they all said:; 9Are you the Son of God, then?? And he said to them? ?You say that I am. 'I And they said, ?What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves .from his ow.n lips. ev As one ponders these reports for clues which may throw light on what th.e historic Jesus believed about himself, one notices, as we have already suggested, that the Mark version is 3. clearly 2,pocalyptic one~ it seems to say that Jesus is the Son of m2n and that they (in their day) will see the Son of man coming. Luke)) however, writes more cautiously. If Luke'ls version is apocalyptic in some respects it is modifiedo For one thing 9 Jesus? reply 9 to the high priest is not an outright affirmation as it is in Mark, but is ambigious o To the question in Luke, riiif you e.re the Christ 9 tell us, vv he replies 9 nif I toll you, you will not believe; and i.f I asl< you, you will not answer; n Dnd farther on he says nYou say that I am. iw For another; he says that the Son of man will be vindicated by the power of God:; not that they will see him come. Do we have here a significant difference r:md a clue that leads us to believe Luke is presenting us with 2., more historic account than Mark? In any case :J the differences between the two accounts, and Luke'ls ambiguity, keeps the possibility open of answering the foregoing question in the e.ffirmative. Luke 9 s ambiguous answer suggests that Jesus may have been signifying that they would not understand him in his true role as a messenger of suffering service. Why should they? They had not so understood him all along. Why now could any one expect them to understand in this late hour? Luke makes clear, of course, that Jesus in some sense cb,imed to fulfill e. messianic role, and also that the kingdom would be realized, no doubt soon~ as an act of God~ 78 In aligning, however~ the career of Jesus with tho suffering messenger, or the suffering servant interpretation~ it is undoubtedly wise to view the 78. Luke includes in his over-all presentation the view that the nsuffering servant.? would ultimately be triumphMt in the indefinite (but possibly ne.?ar) future as the exalted vison of maniw: Lk. 9:26-27i (12:9); 22:29-30, 69. But note various details~ Lk 21:31 reads Hthe kingdom of God is 167. issue with the caution 2,nd realism of C.,T. Craig. In his article, V.The Identification of Jesus with the Suf.ferjng Servant, 9179 in which he criticizes the view that Jesus speci:fic2.lly made this identification, he suggests that Jesus was a sufferer, not because he consciously or deliberately chose to fulfill the role of the Is.s,:i.anic Serrmt ;1 but rather because events shaped themselves with this signi.0.c like its Matthean counterpart ~va sword'l'I (Mtto 10:34) :m which Jesus recognizes the inevitability of conflict between his movement and the old order. I Peter 4:12 speaks of the fire of persecution; could Jesus have had this in mind in using the expression Hfirevv? Is this reference then, a good illustration of the way he used npo c.1,lyptic terms and thought forms as high metaphors of real experience and real events, current or expected? 79. Clarence T. Craig, op. cit8 note 72 9 p. 241+-245. B. The Jerusalem Ministry Jesus's Final Challenge to the Nation Mk Ohs. 11-13 168.l The Entry, 11:1-10. A group of Passover pilgrims recognize Jesus, and hail him, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," lls9, and "Blessed be the kingdom ot our father David that is coming," 11:10. Note the signs of theological development in the transmission of' the story. Heightening Mark's source, Luke's Gospel reads, 11Blessed is the King that comes in the name of' the Lord, 11 Lk 19s38. And John's Gospel, the last to be written, adds, "Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel," Jhn 12sl3. In the same story of the entry, the report in Matthew reads that he was hailed as "son of David" and as "the prophet Jesus from Nazareth," Mtt 21:9,11. Mtt 21:5 and Jhn 12tl5 look upon the event of entry on a colt as the fulfillment of propheoy (Is 62:11; Zech 9:9). Does Jesus•s knowledge of the colt, and his directions about obtaining it, indioate that he had an 11under- ground" in Jerusalem, persons there who were in sympathy end ready to help him? Mk 11:3, 6 indicate that the people in charge of the colt knew and sy:w.pathized with Jesus. - - - - - - ,,. - Recall our discussion on the cursing of the fig tree as a legendary eooount, Mk 11:12-14, P• In the context of the fig tree :Mark has put the seotion on faith and prayer, 11:22-25. We will comment about these verses here and then return to the challenge to the nation theme, commenced in verses 15-18. Here is a challenge to put more t'aith and prayer behind the belief that mountains of' evil may be removed. Too often we shrink t'rom the belief that such mountains may be moved. We do not believe that Jesus is talking here about removing literal mountains magically by prayer. Recall again the sayings in which he refused to assume the role ot' a conjurer who would perform "signs." Do we not have here again his keen use of hyperbole? He is doubtless talking about prayer tor help and strength to remove the moral mountains we face in lite, personally and socially. It does indeed take great spiritual resources, prayer and faith, to get things done or moved in the material world. All great material accomplishments rest upon much faith and prayer, the building of a college; the rounding of a nation; establishment ot a United Nations and the solving of the problem of war; the overcoming of racial antipathy and segregation in the u. s.; the getting ot an education; the making of a happy marriage: the building of a professional lite. Indeed, the primary ethical meaning, or content, of prayer is brought out in his stress on forgiveness in V. 25. A loving pre-disposition in ourselves is the clue or prerequisite to the possibility of removing the mountains of prejudice, or ignorance, or inordinate selt-concern that separate us from others. - ~ - - - - --- The cleansing of the Temp:be, Mk 11:16-19. Jesus protests the secularization and commercialization of religion, subordinating religion to profit-making. 168.2 In 11:18 the chief priests and Sadduoean hierarchy seek to destroy him because he challenged their business racket and their economic privilege. There is the possibility that Jesus is referring to extortionand graft in the "den of robbers" expression. In sum, this stirring scene depicts Jesus in action against social and economic abuse; it reveals his role, to some dramatic extent, as reformer of evil conditions as well as teacher of light and truth. Finally the importance of the scene is that Jesus is not here attempting to overthrow merely a corrupt local institution, but he was "challenging the nation to remember its world mission11 79a Mk 11:17. The description of the Temple as a house of prayer "for all nations" refers also, no doubt, to the fact that it had a special court for Gentiles. of The oonf'liot with the authorities, Mk 11:27-12:44. Here we have a series scenes depicting Jesus's debate with the authorities. His reply to "chief priests, scribes and elders," 11:27-33, reveals hi.a skill in debate: He poses a question to counter a ques. ion, a good rabbinical technique. He does not merely defend his position, but he presses the attaok intellectually. The general implication of the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, 12:1-12, is that by this time he was definitely regarding himself as God's special mes~ senger whom the nation was rejecting; and that, although they were not accepting his message, it would ultimately be victorious--that God might use other means than the Jewish nation te accomplish it. It is one of the places--there are several--where Jesus realized that his message would have revolutionary effect in changing the old religious order. The parable concerns, like the parable of the fig tree in Luke, the failure of stewardship, and its consequences. Some scholars believe that in its present form this parable is an inter- polation of the later church: It is an allegory of Jesus as the rejected messiah. Allegory, however, was not the characteristic form of Jesus's teachings. Recall our discussion of the purpose and method of the parables. Be that as it may, here verses 10-11 do indeed suggest the later exparienoe and perspective of the church: i.e. as a successful Christian movement. Is verse 9 an allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 A. D.? Reply to "Pharisees and Herodians~ Mk 12:13--17. What is the meaning of the tribute money to Caesar? Recall our brief reference to this scene on page 152. Bear in mind that it is not just a clever evasion. The questioners intended to trap Jesus by a clear-out either-or problem. If he had said directly pay the tax he would have lost the popular support; on the other hand, it he had said don't pay it, they oould have denounced him to the govern- mental authorities as a revolutionary. He skillfully changes the situation to a both-and problem. And by his reply to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's he was saying that the tax was small, a denarius, paid once a year to the Roman government -- "Pay it, then; itts of small moment." The full force of Jesus's brilliant implication comes out in the rest of the answer: ''Render •• ,to God the thilngs that are God's. 11 In other words, to :EBY God what is due him is everything. "duty, service, obedience, worship!179b · Jesus deola res here by implioation that the important things are not for Caesars or dictators to decide; but the more 79aWalter Denny. Career and Significance of Jesus, op. cit. p. 79b,F_r~deriak· Gran:t, Int~rpret·ers Bible-,· op. oit., Vol. VII. 842. 168.3 important things of life are for individual oonscience to decide. This is therefore e teaching bursting against totalitarian philosophy: We owe ultimate allegiance to God, not to Caesar\ This is one of the tew places ~ou?litless where we catch Jesus's thinking in political dimensions. Reply to the "Sadduoeee" concerning the resurrection, 12:18•27.. Many of the Sadducees were the sophisticated materialists ot the day; they did not believe in a "resurreotion11 or in an after life and immortality. They ask Jesus this question as a logical trick. Jesus replies by showing that materialistic end apocalyptic conceptions of the after life are shallow and untrue. "Resurreotion11 from the dead, or immortality, is a non ... material, or spiritual experience or state, 12:25, A basic problem in philosophy of religion concerns the idea of immortality. How may we believe in immortality? Jesus' reply, at leasi; focuses on the main point. Faith in immortality rests upon faith in God's power as sufficient to provide further opportunity for life, verse, 24. If one has basic faith in God, faith in immortality is a corollary. Verses 26-27 are a type of rabbinical argument from Soripture to prove the reality of an after life. Reply te the scribe about the Great Commandment, 12:28-34. We are now familiar with the full force of this oommandment from our study of Jesus's ethioal teaching. In I John 4s21 we have the ethioal oonneotion between the two levels of the Great Conm.andment stated. Christ as David's Lord, 12:35-37. The origin end circumstance of this cryptic saying are obscure. What is the meaning of the quotation of Psalm 110.1, either by Jesus or the evangelist, for the purpose of proving that the !hssiah is David's Lord? The original, royal psalm, simply promises viotory to Israel's king. The fir st line is en invitation to "my lord," Le. the king~ by Israel's God, :b.e. 11The Lord," to ascend the throne. Later tradition interpreted it as a psalm of David to honor the U.essiah--the sense in which the quotation is given here. What the words do clarify is that Jesus and the Christian tradition oame to oppose the political conoeption of the l1bessiah, the "Son of David," nationalistic, or royalist conception current in his day. Beyond this p6int it is hard to say what was positively meant. Some oommentary believes the reference indioated that the early church, and possibl,' Jesus himself, "riewed the !.tessiah as the transcendent heavenly Son of' Man. 90 If they are Jesus' s words, he seems to be talking about "the Christ," that is, the r.ressiah, in third person terms, as somebody other than himself. Is this not then a veiled reference by Jesus to his own transcendent divinity? It is probably more aocurate to say that,in its present form, it seems to be an early ohuroh emphasis on Christ as more than just 11 son ri:f' David," i.e. more than ordinary man. The saying is a Christian affirmation about Christ as the transcendent or divine fi'gure, as he came to be regarded by the early church. It is significant to note that Peter is reported as quoting this saying in Acts 2:34, but not as Jesus's words\79d In Mark 12;35-37 and Acts 2:34 on Christ's priority to David, in St. Paul's discussion in Colossians, and the Johannine Logos theology, we trace the rise ·lfSoCominare Interpreters Bible, VII, P• 849. 79dThe Acts reference, and others in the NT to the Ps 110.1 lines that do not attribute them to Jesus., suggests to Branscomb that the quotation may be discounted as coming from Jesus, Gospel of Mark, op. oit. p. 222-225. See also Heb. 1:13; 10:13. 168.4 of the doctrine of the "pre-existence" of Christ. The only way in which the old ttpre-existence11 theology oan have viable meaning or significance for modern Christianity would be to say that the qualities of Jesus's moral personality, or his type of moral consciousness, with its content of love Agape, expressed the eternal, or abiding moral quality or purposes of God. In essence this is what St. Paul and St. John meant in their "pre-existence" doctrine. - .. -- .. --- The .Apocalyptic Discourse, Mark 13, a forecast of' doom. In appraisl ng Mark i3, we should distinguish between a possible forecast or doom uttered by Jesus himself, enshrined in the first few verses of Mk 13, and a later, more elaborate apocalyptic tract, in which the original words were caught up and transmitted. In any case, many scholars have pointed out peculiarities of Mark 13 as a chapter. We suggest the following .f'our points as guides to understanding this chapter. l. Vei,ses 1 - 2, the forecast of the destruction of the Temple may be Jesus's authentio utterance. Later on at the trial soene, 14:58, they aocuse him of saying that the Temple will be destroyed. Jesus was keenly alert to the political dangers of the day. He cautioned against following in the insur- rectionary program of the Zealots, and could foresee precisely the disastrous outcome that such a program might have if the nation went that way, as in fact came about in 70 A.D. Also, possibly Jesus was considering how the Temple, though . magnificent as a building in terms of physioal quantity and grandure, had as an institution failed men s~iritually, and could be only subject to a divine judgment, much as Micah in 3:12 and Jeremiah in 9:11 of their books had predicted the destruction of the earlier temple. 2. Muoh of the detail of the rest o.f' the discourse seems not in character with Jesus teaching about the Kingdom elsewhere expressed. In V. 6-8, 14-20, 24-47 all is apocalyptic; the victory of the heavenly Son of Man over the regimented forces of evil; whereas Jesus usually emphasized the spiritual and individual aspect of the Kingodm. To point up the rather glaring contrasts between the conception here presented and Jesus's view of the Kingdom else- where stated: Apogalyptio Discourse, Mk 13 Mk 13:4£: Jesus willingly indicates the signs that will preoedethe coming of the Kingdom. vs. Jesus's Teaching or the Kingdom Mk 8:- 11 and esp. Lk 17:-20: "The kingdom of' God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is'!.' or 'Thero\' for behold, the kingdom or God is in the midst of you" (i.e. now present); or alternative trans. "within you" (i.e. indicating its spiritual., subjective nature). Indeed in this very chapter we have this point stressed V.32. Mk 13:24t: Kingdom to come as abrupt, cataclysmic event. ';}I:,''~ Mk 13~30, where the prasent generation is to witness the Parousia, the coming of the Son of Man in the Apocalyptic eense. 168.5 Mk 4: 26-30: Kingdom comes unobtru- sively, quietly, even as matter of slow growth, emphasizing again the spiritual and individual aspeot of the Kingdom. Lk 17:22•3; 19:11, where _w.e read that the present generationnwill not eeett 11 , i.e. witness, the Par6ua1a 'limme,diately" ,· es wee expected. Inteed. to these lines suggest that th~ present generation will not witness it at all? Such parables and sayings ot general watchfulness as Mk 13;32-37 (contrast with 13:4:f), Lk 17i22-37; and Lk 19:11-27 frankly warn against speculation about when the kingdom will be f'ina lly fulfilled. These parables enjoin watchfulness, constant vigilence in keeping the requirements of the king- dom, because we do not know v.hen God will call us to an accounting. These sayings illustrate how Jesus may have used some apocalyptic thought forms, but in less precise antioipationthan the popular thinking of his day. In any oase, the sayings listed in the right hand colun,m seem in marked contrast to those in the left hand list. 3. Mark seems to use a written apooalyptio tract, with all the ear- marks of' apocalyptic literature, The Reference to 11the reader" in 13:14 strongly suggests written material whioh he is transcribing. There is present the esoteric idiom or code: "let the reader under- stand" --that is, those who know the code will understand what "desolating sacrilege" means.. It refers probably to the statue of' the Roman Emperor Caligula erected in the Temple in Jerusalem 40 A,D. This parallels the erection of' statue or altar to Zeus in Temple 168 B.C. by Antiochus IV, which prompted the writing of the Book of Daniel, 9:27; 11:31; 12:11. (Luke interprets the "desolating sacrilege" as the siege of Jerusalem, 70 A.D., 21=20). It is obviously written in a time of' persecution and tribulation, Mk 13:12-19, pi-obably that of' Caligula inc. 40 A.D., or Nero's c. 64 A.D. Luke's hint in 21:24 suggests that this apocalyptic material was written around 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed. Verse 13:30 of Mark foresees the immediate end of the age. Accordingly, if' these are the authentic words of Jesus, and if they refer to verses 3-27, rather than to verse 2, then he was indeed a first century visionary, who expected to return soon on the clouds as the Son of Man, as Schweitzer claims. If they are the words of' Jesus in this sense, no suoh historic event, of course, of' this kind took place. Recall, however, our discussion of Luke's general modification of Mark's apooalypticism, pp. 147-149. At two points--one of them following the apocalyptic tract source itself' from Mark-- Luke has changed Mark's references to an immediate appearance of the Son ct Man into an appearance or coming rather of the kingdom of heaven, Mk 13:29; 14:60-64 vs. Lk 21:29; 22:66-71. Luke extends the Parousia into the indefinite future, "until 168.6 the times of the Gentiles are ful:filled,u Lk 21:24, with V. 27, 32. Also Luke's version of the apooalyptic discourse oan be read as anticipating or reporting the hi storio Roman t1vengeanoe'1 of 70 A .D., Luke 21: 22 ,24. Was it then these more historic faots,to whioh Luke alludes, that Jesus had in mind, by anticipation, in some original discourse with his disciples? Could then the discourse in Mk 13 represent an apooalyptio overcast of some original words referring more simply to an anticipated destruction of the Temple by the Romans, as above suggested? In that case, verses 30 and following, if read iDlll18diately after verse 2, would enshrine a more realistic, and perhaps an original saying. The meaning then would be that the present generation would witness the destruction ot the Temple, whioh actually took place about 35 years later. Luke of course makes clear, and in this general point he agrees with Mark, that Jesus also arrbioipated the consummation of the.Age, in an early but an indefinite or undefined future, as we have pointed out, At any rate, a further indication that Mark 13 is an apooalyptio tract is revealed in the announcement that the "elect" are to be saved 13: 20,22. The idea that some are "elect" while others are not is oharaoteristio of apocalyptic thought. In Jesus•s sayings elsewhere, however, there is not a doctrine of the eleot· and the non-elect; rather all and sundry may be tt saved," if they repent. All may 11 go and do likewise, 11 fol lowing in the way of the Good Samaritan, in order to find "eternal lii'e"--it is up to them, to each and every individual in God's eyes. There is inherent promise in all personality. Jesus above all was critical of' the special sin of some of the Pharisees in designating some people as religiously J. outcaste, or beyond the pole, such as publicans, harlots, and the Amhaarez. 4. Undoubtedly, authentic teachings of Jesus do seem to shine up through the apocalyptic overcast of Chapter 13. For example, Verses 32-37 enjoin watchfulness, and enshrine Jesus's anticipation of the consummation, characteristic of his sayings elsewhere. Furthermore, Verse 13:31--"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away"--pointedly transcend in their sentiment the lower-key apocalyptio materialism of his day. Jesus does not think in terms of literal "kingdoms, n whether the earthly or "Davidio" sort, or the supernatural 0 Apooalyptic" kind; but in terms of oternal spiritual truths and values upon which an) kingdom must be founded. The Passi on Week Mk Chs. 14-16 168.7 We consider the main scenes 0£ these chapters. The words of Jesus concerning his death uttered in some 0£ these sc.enas we will here treat briefly, anticipating our further summary in the following section on the meaning of his death. Some of these materials we have already reviewed in our previous discussion of the messiahship. especially in oonne