CHAPTER IV. JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.* § 61. JESUS, THE SON OF MAN. IN treating of the relation in which Jesus conceived himself to stand to the messianic idea, we can distinguish his dicta concerning his own person from tliosc concerning tlie work he had undertaken. Tlie appellation wliich Jesus commonly gives himself in tlie gospels is, the Son, of man, 6 v'ux; TOV dvOpuirov. The exactly cor- responding Hebrew expression o'w-'ja is in the Old Testament a frequent designation of man in general, and thus we might be in- duced to understand it in the mouth of Jesus. This interpretation would suit some passages; for example, Matt. xii. 8, where Jesus says: The Son of man. is lord also of the Sabbath day, icvpioc; yap eari TOV aapf3aTov 6 vlo(; rov dvOpumv,-words which will fitly enough take a general meaning, such as Grotius affixes to tliem, namely, that man is lord of the Sabbath, especially if we compare Mark (ii. 27), who introduces them by the proposition, The Sabbath was made for man, and not nun for the Sabbath, TO aa.l3f3a.Tov Sia rbv avOpwov eyevero, ov% 6 avOpuTro? 610, TO ad.Pf3a.Tov. But in tlie majority of cases, the phrase in question is evidently used as a special designation. Thus, Matt. viii. 20, a scribe volunteers to become a disciple of Jesus, and is admonished to count the cost in the words. The Son of man hath not where to lay his head, b vioc; TOV avQpwov OVK e^gt, -nov rfjv K.e^aXffv nXivg : here some particular man must be intended, nay, the particular man into whose companionship tlie scribe wislied to enter, that is, Jesus liimsclf. As a reason for the self-application of this term by Jesus, it lias been suggested tliat he used tlie third person after tlie oriental manner, to avoid tlie -Z.f But for a speaker to use the third person * All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying, and rising again, ia here omitted, and reserved for the history of the Passion. + Panli.ii o»n^ TI...-,!.. -i a THE LIFE OF JESUS. 294 in reference to himself, is only admissible, if lie would be understood, when tlie designation he employs is precise, and inapplicable to any other person present, as when a father or a king uses his appropriate title of himself; or when, if tlie designation be not precise, its rela- tion is made clear by a demonstrative pronoun, which limitation is eminently indispensable if an individual speak of himself under the universal designation man. We grant tliat occasionally a gesture might, supply tlie place of the demonstrative pronoun; but that Jesua in every instance of his using this habitual expression had recourse to some visible explanatory sign, or that tlie evangelists would not, in tliat case, have supplied its necessary absence from a written document by some demonstrative addition, is inconceivable. If botli Jesus and tlie evangelists held such an elucidation superfluous, they must have seen in the expression itself the key to its precise application. Some are of opinion tliat Jesus intended by it to point himself out as the ideal man-man in the noblest sense of tlie word ;* but this is a modern theory, not an historical inference, for there is no trace of such an interpretation of the expression in the time of Jesus,f and it would be more easy to show, as others have attempted, tliat tlie appellation, Son of man, so frequently used by Jesus, had reference to his lowly and despised condition.^ Apart however from tlie objection tliat tills acceptation also would require tlie addition of tlie demonstrative pronoun, though it might be adapted to many passages, as Matt. viii. 20, John i. 51, there are others, (such as Matt. xvii. 22, where Jesus, foretelling his violent death, designates himself 6 vib(; -ov avOpurrov^ which demand tlie contrast of liigli dignity with an ignominious fate. So in Matt. x. 23. tlie assurance given to tlie commissioned disciples tliat before they liad gone over tlie cities of Israel the Son of Man would come, could liave no weight unless this expression denoted a person of importance; and that such was its significance is proved by a com- parison of Matt. xvi. 28, where there is also a mention of an ep^eo- Oai, a coming of the Son of man, but with tlie addition ev rff ?a- ot/lefo, avTov. As this addition can only refer to the messianic kingdom, the vib? TOV dvOpw-nov must be tlie Messiah. How so apparently vague an appellation came to be appropriated to the Messiah, we gather from Matt. xxvi. 64 paralL, where the Son of Man is depicted as coming in the clouds of heaven.. Tins is evidently an allusion to Dan. vii. 13 f. where after having treated of tlie fall of tlie four beasts, tlie writer says: I saw in the, mght visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man (aitt 'Tas, ti? vw<; dv6pwTTov, LXX.) came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations iznd languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion. Tlie four beasts (v. 17 ff.) were symbolical of the four great empires, - - --..i a ORS + Lucke, Oomm. zum Job. 299 JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. the last of which was the Macedonian, with its offshoot, Syria. After tlieir fall, the kingdom was to be given in perpetuity to the People of God, the saints of the Most High: hence, he who was to come with clouds of heaven could only be, either a personification of the holy people,* or a leader of heavenly origin under whom they were to achieve their destined triumph,-in a word, the Messiah; and this was the customary interpretation among tlie Jews.f Two tilings are predicated of this personage,-that lie was like the Son of Man, and tliat he came witli the clouds of heaven ; but reformer particular is his distinctive characteristic, and imports either that lie liad not a superhuman form, that of an angel for instance, though descending from heaven, or else that the kingdom about to be es- tablished presented in its humanity a contrast to the inhumanity of its predecessors, of wliich ferocious beasts were the fitting emblems.:}: At a later period, it is true, tlie Jews regarded the coming with tlie clouds of heaven ^•a's "'.?wo? as tlie more essential attribute of the Messiah, and hence gave him the name Anani, after the Jewish taste of making a merely accessory circumstance the permanent epithet of a person or thing.§ If, then, the expression 6 vw<; TOV dvOpwov necessarily recalled the above passage in Daniel, generally believed to relate to tlie Messiah, it is impossible that Jesus could so often use it, and in connexion with declarations evidently refer- ring to the Messiah, without intending it as the designation of that personage. That by the expression in question Jesus meant himself, without relation to the messianic dignity, is less probable than tlie contrary supposition, that lie might often mean the Messiah wlien he spoke of tlie /Son of Man, without relation to his own person. When, Matt. x. 23, on tlie first mission of the twelve apostles to announce the kingdom of heaven, lie comforts them under tlie prospect of their future persecutions by tlie assurance that they would not have gone over all the cities of Israel before the coming of the Son of Man, we should rather, taking this declaration alone, think of a third person, whose speedy messianic appearance Jesus was promis- ing, than of tlie speaker himself, seeing that lie was already come, and it would not be antecedently clear how lie could represent his own coming as one still in anticipation. So also when Jesus (Matt. xiii. 37 ff.) interprets the Sower of the parable to be the Son of Man, who at the end of the world will have a harvest and a tribunal, he might be supposed to refer to the Messiah as a third person distinct from liimself. This is equally the case, xvi. 27 f., where, to prove tlie proposition that the loss of the soul is not to be com- pensated by tlie gain of the wliole world, he urges the speedy coming * Abenesra, see Haveriiick, ut sup. Comm. znm Daniel, S. 244. f Schottgen, horas, u. S. 63, 73; Havernick, ut sup. S. 243 f. ^ See for the most important opinions, Ha- vernick, ut sup. 242 f. § Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David's elegy, 2 Sam. i. 17 ff. as HttSp and the denomination of the Messiah, as na5>. Had Schleier- macher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he would not have called the reference nf ti/'nr -roil I'l fn tlir nasgaL'c in Daniel, a strange idea. (Glaubenal. § OS). Anin.). THE LIFE OF JESUS. 296 of the Son of Alan, to administer retribution. Lastly, in the con- nected discourses, Matt. xxiv. xxv. parall., many particulars would Toe more easily conceived, if the vibi; rov dv6puTrm whose -rapwaia Jesus describes, were understood to mean another than himself. But this explanation is far from being applicable to the majority of instances in which Jesus uses tills expression. When lie repre- sents the Son of Man, not as one still to be expected, but as one already come and actually present, for example, in Matt. xviii, 11, where he says: The Son of .Man is come to save that which was lost; when lie justifies his own acts by the authority with wliicli the Son of Man was invested, as in Matt. ix. 6; wlien, Mark viii. 31 ff. comp. Matt. xvi. 22, he speaks of tlie approaching sufferings and death of the Son of Man, so as to elicit from Peter the exclama- tion, w y.i\ t'ffTai (7oi TOV-O, tins shall not be unto thee; in these and similar cases he can only, by the v'wc; TOV avOpw-rov, have intended himself. And even those passages, which, taken singly, we might have found capable of application to a messianic person, distinct from Jesus, lose this capability when considered in their entire con- nexion. It is possible, however, either that the writer may have misplaced certain expressions, or that the ultimately prevalent con- viction that Jesus was the Son of -Mem caused what was originally said merely of the latter, to be viewed in immediate relation to the former. Thus besides the fact that Jesus on many occasions called him- self the Son of Man, there remains the possibility that on many others, he may have designed another person; and if so, the latter •would in the order of time naturally precede tlie former. Whether this possibility can be heightened to a reality, must depend on the answer to the following question: Is there, in tlie period of the life of Jexus, from which all his recorded declarations are taken, any fragment whicli indicates tliat he had not yet conceived himself to be the Messiah? § 62. HOW SOON DID JESUS CONCEIVE HIMSELF TO BE THE MESSIAH, AND FIND RECOGNITION AS SUCH FROM OTHERS ? JESUS held and expressed the conviction that he was the Mes- siah; this is an indisputable fact. Not only did he, according to the evangelists, receive with satisfaction the confession of tlie dis- ciples that he was the Xpitn-b? (Matt. xvi. 16 f.) and tlie salutation of the people, IIosanna to the Son of David (xxi. 15 f.); not only did he before a public tribunal (Matt. xxvi. 64, comp. Jolm xviii. 37,) as well as to private individuals (John iv. 26, ix. 37, x. 25,) repeat- edly declare himself to be the Messiah: but the fact that his disciples after his deatli believed and proclaimed that he was the Messiah, is not to be comprehended, unless, when living, he had implanted the r-nnviction in their minds. "r '*- --- 4^ An_ 297 JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. dare himself the Messiah and to be regarded as such by others, the evangelists almost unanimously reply, that lie assumed that charac- ter from the time of his baptism. All of them attach to his baptism circumstances winch must have convinced himself, if yet uncertain, and all others who witnessed or credited them, that he was no less than tlie Messiali; Jolm makes Ins earliest disciples recognise his right to tliat dignity on their first interview (i. 42 ft'.), and Matthew attributes to him at the very beginning of his ministry, in the sermon on the mount, a representation of himself as the Judge of the world (vii. 21 ff,) and therefore tlie Messiah. Nevertheless, on a closer examination, there appears a remarkable divergency on this subject between the synoptical statement and that of John. While, namely, in John, Jesus remains throughout true to liis assertion, and tlie disciples and his followers among the populace to their conviction, that lie is the Messiah; in the synopti- cal gospels there is a vacillation discernible-the previously expressed persuasion on tlie part of tlie disciples and people that Jesus was the Messiah, sometimes vanishes and gives place to a much lower view of him, and even Jesus himself becomes more reserved in his declarations. This is particularly striking when the synoptical state- ment is compared with tliat of Jolm; but even when they are sepa- rately considered, tlie result is the same. According to John (vi. 15), after the miracle of the loaves the people were inclined to constitute Jesus their (messianic) King; on the contrary, according to tlie other three evangelists, either about the same time (Luke ix. 18 f.) or still later (Matt. xvi. 13 f. Mark viii. 27 f.) the disciples could only report, on the opinions of tlie people respecting tlieir master, that some said he was tlie resuscitated Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremiah or one of the old prophets: in reference to that passage of John, however, as also to the synopti- cal one, Matt. xiv. 33, according to wliicli, some time before Jesus elicited the above report of tlie popular opinion, the people who were with him in the ship^ when he had allayed the storm, fell at his feet and worshipped him as the Son of God, it may be observed that when Jesus had spoken or acted with peculiar impressiveness, individuals, in the exaltation of the moment, might be penetrated with a conviction that he was tlie Messiali, while the general and calm voice of tlie people yet pronounced him to be merely a prophet. But there is a more troublesome divergency relative to tlie dis- ciples. In John, Andrew, after his first interview with Jesus, says to his brother, we have found the .Messiah, evprfKapsv -rov Vieaaiav (i. 42); and Philip describes him to Nathanael as the person foretold by Moses and the prophets (v. 46); Nathanael salutes him as the Son of God and King of Israel (v. 50); and the subsequent confes- sion of Peter appears merely a renewed avowal of what had been long a familiar truth. In tlie synoptical evangelists it is only after * That the expression ol kv ry irXoty includes more than the disciples, vid. Fritzsche, 298 THE LIFE OF JESUS. prolonged intercourse with Jesus, and shortly before his sufferings, tliat the ardent Peter arrives at the conclusion tliat Jesus is the Xpio-oc, 6 vlw TOV 6eov TOV {,£>v~o<; (Matt. xvi. 16, parall.). It is impossible that this confession should make so strong an impression on Jesus tliat, in consequence of it, he should pronounce Peter blessed, and his confession the fruit of immediate divine revelation, as Matthew narrates; or that, as all the three evangelists inform us, (xvi. 20, viii. 30, ix. 21,) he should, as if alarmed, forbid tlie dis- ciples to promulgate their conviction, unless it represented not an opinion long cherished in the circle of his disciples, but a new light, which had just flashed on the mind of Peter, and through him was communitated to his associates. There is a third equally serious discrepancy, relative to the dec- larations of Jesus concerning his Messiahship. According to John, he sanctions the homage which Nathanael renders to him as the Son of God and Kins: of Israel, in the very commencement of his public career, and immediately proceeds to speak of himself under the messianic title. Son of Man (i. 51 f.): to the Samaritans also after his first visit to the passover (iv. 26, 39 ff.), and to the Jews on the second (v. 46), he makes himself known as the Messiah pre- -T-i.^,1 iw Moses. According to the synoptical writers, on the con- - -i^ro cited and in many others, "' • i - 6), he makes himselt Known <^ ..-- . According to the synoptical writers, on the con- •-- *i.^ instance above cited and in many others, 1 '- T^ni»nnrl tug on the secoiiu ^v. ^/, dieted by Moses. According to the synopncai ,,^.^-._, trary, lie prohibits, in the instance above cited and in many others, the dissemination of the doctrine of his Messiahship, beyond the circle of his adherents. Farther, when he asks Ills disciples, Whom do men say that I am? (Matt, xvi. 15) he seems to wish* that they should derive their conviction of his Messiahship from his discourses and actions, and when he ascribes the avowed faith of Peter to a revelation from his heavenly Father, he excludes the possibility of his having himself previously made this disclosure to Ins disciples, either in the manner described by Jolm, or in the more indirect one attributed to him by Matthew in tlie Sermon on the Mount; unless •we suppose that tlie disciples had not hitherto believed his assurance, and that hence Jesus referred the new-born faith of Peter to divine influence. Thus, on the point under discussion the synoptical statement is * There is a difficulty involved in the form of the question, put by Jesus to his dis- ciples : T'iva fi£ 'ki'/ovoii, 01 ur^p&CTOl rival TOT vibv TOV uv9puT:ov; i.e. what opinion have the people of me, the Messiah? This, when compared wilh the sequel, seems a premature disclosure; hence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its prima facie meaning. Some (e. g. Beza) understand the subordinate clause, not as a declaration of Jesus concerning his own person, but as a closer limitation of the question : for whom do the people take me ? fur the Messiah ? But this would be a leading question, which, as Fritzsche well observes, would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title, not elsewhere discernible in Jesus. (Others, therefore, (as Paulas and Fritzsche,) give the expression vlb{ r. a. a general signification, and interpret the question thus : Whom do men say that I, the individual addressing you, am? But this explanation has been already refuted in the foregoing section. If, then, we rqect tlie opinion that the vlo{ r. (i. is an addition which the exuberant faith of tlie writer was apt to suggest even in an infelicitous con- -- -oBti-ipted to De Wette's view, (exeg. Handl). 1, 1, S. 8G t'.), namely, that ""n^t-nivi (^ ^g "Messiah, hut an indirect one, --•i n,.>6t. already 299 JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. contradictory, not only to that of John, but to itself; it appears therefore that it ought to be unconditionally surrendered before that of John, which is consistent with itself, and one of our critics has justly reproached it with deranging the messianic economy in the life of Jesus.* But hero again we must not lose sight of our ap- proved canon, that in glorifying narratives, such as our gospels, where various statements are confronted, that is tlie least probable which best subserves tlie object of glorification. Now this is tlie case with John's statement; according to which, from the commence- ment to the close of the public life of Jesus, his Messiaship sliincs forth in unchanging splendour, while, according to tlie synoptical writers, it is liable to a variation in its light. But though this cri- terion of probability is in favour of tlie first three evangelists, it is impossible that the order in which they make ignorance and con- cealment follow on plain declarations and recognitions of the Mes- siahship of Jesus can be correct; and we must suppose tliat they have mina;led and confounded two separate periods of the life of Jesus, in the latter of which alone lie presented himself as the Mes- siah. We find, in fact, that the watchword of Jesus on his first appearance differed not, even verbally, from tliat of John, wlio pro- fessed merely to be a forerunner; it is the same Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt. iv. 17) with which John liad roused tlie Jews (iii. 2); and indicates in neither the one nor tlie other an assumption of the character of Messiali, with wliose coming the kino-dora of heaven was actually to commence, but merely tliat of a teacher who points to it as yet future.! Hence the latest critic of the first gospel justly explains all those discourses and actions therein narrated, by which Jesus explicitly claims to be tlie Mes- siah, or, in consequence of which tills dignity is attributed to him and accepted, if they occur before the manisfestation of himself re- corded in John v., or before the account of the apostolic confession (Matt. xvi.), as offences of the writer against chronology or literal truth.f We have only to premise, tliat as chronological confusion prevails throughout, the position of tills confession sliortly before the history of the Passion, in nowise obliges us to suppose that it was so late before Jesus was recognised as the Messiah among his disciples, since Peter's avowal may have occurred in a much earlier period of their intercourse. This, however, is incomprehensibis-• that the same reproach should not attach even more strongly to the fourth gospel than to the first, or to the synoptical writers in gen- eral. For it is surely more pardonable that the first three evange- lists should give us the pre-mcssianic memoirs in tlie wrong place, than that the fourth should not give them at all; more endurable in the former, to mingle the two periods, than in the latter, quite to obliterate the earlier one. * Schneclienburger, uber den Ursprong u. a. f. S. 28 f. f This distinction of two periods in the public life of Jesus is also made by Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. S. 213,536, »ud Schneckenburger ut sup. ^ Schneckenburger, ut sup. S. 29. THE LIFE OF JESUS. 300 If then Jesus did. not lay claim to the Messiahship from the he- ginning of Ills public career, was this omission the result of uncer- tainty in liis own mind; or had lie from tlie first a conviction that he was tlie Messiah, hut concealed it for certain reasons ? In order to decide this question, a point already mentioned must he more carefully weighed. In the first three evangelists, but not so exclu- sively that tlie fourth has nothing similar, when Jesus effects a miracle of healing he almost invariably forbids the person cured to promulgate the event, in tliese or similar words, 3pa y.r]Sev'L ew^c; e. g. the leper, Matt. viii. 4; parall. ; the blind men. Matt. ix. 30 ; a multitude of the healed. Matt. xii. 16; tlie parents of the resusci- tated damsel, Mark v. 43; above all lie enjoins silence on tlie de~ moniacs, Mark i. 34. iii. 12.; and John v. 13, it is said, after the cure of the man at the pool of Betliesda, Jesus had conveyed him- self away, a multitude being in that place. Thus also lie forbade the three who were with him on the mount of the Transfiguration, to publisli the scene they had witnessed, (Matt. xvii. 9); and after the confession of Peter, lie charges tlie disciples to tell no man tlie conviction it expressed (Luke ix. 21). This prohibition of Jesus could hardly, as most commentators suppose,* be determined by various circumstantial motives, at one time having relation to tlie disposition of tlie person healed, at another to tlie humour of the people, at another to the situation of Jesus: rattier, as there is an essential similarity in the conditions under which he lays this in- junction on. the people, if we discern a probable motive for it on any occasion, we are warranted in applying the same motive to the re- maining cases. Tins motive is scarcely any other than the desire that the belief tliat lie was the Messiah should not be too widely spread. When (Mark i. 34) Jesus would not allow the ejected demons to speak because they knew him, when lie charged the multitudes that they should not make him known (Matt. xii. 16), he evidently intended that the former should not proclaim him in the character in which their more penetrative, demoniacal glance had viewed Inm, nor the latter in that revealed by tlie miraculous cure he had wrought on them-in short, they were not to betray their know- ledge tliat lie •WSLS the Messiali. As a reason for tins wish on the part of Jesus, it has been alleged, on tlie strength of John vi. 15., that he sought to avoid awakening the political idea of the Mes- siah's kingdom in the popular mind, with the disturbance wind) would be its inevitable result, f This would be a valid reason ; but the synoptical writers represent tlie wisli, partly as the effect of hu- mility;} Matthew, in connexion with a prohibition of the kind al- luded to, applying to Jesus a passage in Isaiah (xlii. 1 f.) where tlie servant of God is said to be distinguished by Ills stillness and unobtrusiveness: partly, and in a greater degree, as the effect of an * Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 309. comp. 352. Olshausen, S. 263. ^ Fritzache, p. 352. who thinks the pro- JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 301 apprehension that the Messiah, at least such an one as Jesus, would be at once proscribed by the Jewish hierarchy. From all tills it might appear tliat Jesus was restrained merely by external motives, from the open declaration of his messiahship, and that Ins own conviction of it existed from the first in equal strength; but tills conclusion cannot be maintained in tlie face of tlie consideration above mentioned, that Jesus began his career with the same announcement as tlie Baptist, an announcement which can scarcely have more than one import-an exhortation to prepare for a coming Messiah. Tlie most natural supposition is that Jesus, first the disciple of tlie Baptist, and afterwards his successor, in preacli- ino' repentance and tlie approach of the kingdom of lieaven, took originally tlie same position as his former master in relation to the messianic kingdom, nothwithstanding tlie greater reach and liberality of his mind, and only gradually attained the elevation of thinking himself tlie Messiah. This supposition explains in the simplest manner tlie prohibition we have been considering, especially that annexed to the confession of Peter. For as often as tlie thought that he might be tlie Messiah suggested itself to others, and was presented to him from witliout, Jesus must have shrunk, as if ap- palled, to hear confidently uttered that which lie scarcely ventured to surmise, or which had but recently become clear to himself. As, however, tlie evangelists often put such prohibitions into tlie mouth of Jesus unseasonably, (witness the occasion mentioned, Matt. viii. 4, when after a cure effected before a crowd of spectators, it was of little avail to enjoin secrecy on the cured,*) it is probable that evan- gelical tradition, enamoured of tlie mysteriousness that lay in this incognito of Jesus,f unhistorically multiplied the instances of its adoption. § 63. JESUS, THE SON OF GOD. IN Luke i. 35, we find the narrowest and most literal interpre- tation of tlie expression, 6 v't'oc TOV 6eov; namely, as derived from Ins conception by means of the Holy Ghost. On tlie contrary, the widest moral and metaphorical sense is given to the expression in Matt. v. 45, where tliose who imitate tlie love of God towards his enemies are called tlie sons of tlie Father in heaven. There is an intermediate sense which we may term the metaphysical, because while it includes more than mere conformity of will, it is distinct irom tlie notion of actual paternity, and implies a spiritual commu- nity of being. In this sense it is profusely employed and referred to in tlie fourth gospel; as when Jesus says tliat lie speaks and docs nothing of himself, but only what as a son he has learned from tlie Father (v. 19 ; xii. 49, and elsewhere), who, moreover, is in him (xvn. 21), and nothwithstanding his exaltation over him (xiv. 28), la yet one with him (x. 30). There is yet a fourth sense in which THE LIFE OP JESU8. 302 the expression is presented. When (Matt. iv. 3) the devil challenges Jesus to change the stones into bread, making the supposition, If thou be the Son. of God; when Nathanael says to Jesus, Thou art the Son of God, the King of Israel (John i. 49); when Peter con- fesses, Tlwu art the Christ, the Son, of the living God (Matt. xvi. 16; conip. John vl. 69); when Martha tlius expresses lier faith in Jesus, I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God (Jolm xi. 27); when the high priest adjures Jesus to tell him if he Lc the Christ, the Son of God (Matt. xxvi. 63): it is obvious tliat the devil means nothing more than, If thou be the Messiali; and that in the Other passages tlie vi'oc; TOV Oeov, united as it is with XptOTbg and fSaoi^ev^, is but an appellation of tlie Messiah. In Hos. xi. 1, Exod. iv. 22, the people of Israel, and in 2 Sam. vii. 14, Ps. ii. 7, (comp. Ixxxix. 28) tlie king of that people, arc called tlie son and tlie tirst-born of God.. The kings (as also the people) of Israel had tills appellation, in virtue of the love which Jehovah bore them, and tlie tutelary care which lie exercised over them (2 Sam vii. 14): and from tlie second psalm we gather the farther reason, tliat as earthly kings choose their sons to reign with or under them, so tlie Israelitish kings were invested by Jehovah, tlie sunrcme ruler, with the government of his favourite province. Thus the designation was originally applicable to every Israelitish king who adhered to the principle of the theocracy; but when tlie messianic idea was developed, it was pre-eminently assigned to the Messiah, as tlie best-beloved Son, and the most powerful vicegerent of God on earth.* If, then, such was tlie original historical signification of tlie epi- thet, Son of God, as applied to the Messiali, we liave to ask: is it possible that Jesus used it of himself in this signification only, or did lie use it also in cither of the three senses previously adduced ? Tlie narrowest, the merely phvsical import of tlie term is not put into tlie mouth of Jesus, but into tliat of the annunciating angel, Luke i. 35; and for this the evangelist alone is responsible. In the intermediate, metaphysical sense, implying unity of essence and com- munity of existence with God, it might possibly have been under- stood by Jesus, supposing him to liavc remodelled in his own con- ceptions tlie theocratic interpretation current among his compatriots. It is true that tlie abundant expressions having tills tendency in the gospel of John, appear to contradict those of Jesus on an occasion recorded by tlie synoptical writers (Mark x. 17 f.; Luke xviii. 18 t.), when to a disciple who accosts him as Good Master, lie replies : Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God. Here Jesus so tenaciously maintains tlie distinction between himself and God, that ho. renounces the predicate of (perfect) good- ness, and insists on its appropriation to God alonc.f Olsliausen * Comp. the excellent treatise of Paulas on the following question in the Eiiil. zum Tniion .Ipsu. 1. a.. 2a f. •I- Even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage ' -9. f Porphyr. Vita fythag-. 2G {. Jaiiililiuh. 14, (S3 Diog. Larrt, viii. 4 f. 14. Baurr, Apolloniua vou Tyana, p. Ut 1'. 98 f. 1S.'> f. t Sec a nfttiii.-.ntnm .•ni,l rvitosition of tile pa-sau\'s ill Lucke, Coitiin. zuln Ev. Joh. 1, S. 211. 1^ JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 307 TaroTim of Onkelos.* TIiese expressions, at first mere paraphrases of tlie name of God, soon received the mystical signification of a veritable hypostasis, of a being, at once distinct from, and one witli God. As most of the revelations and interpositions of God, whose oi-o'an tills personified Word was considered to be, were designed in f.ivour of tlie Israelltish people, it was natural for them to assign to tlic manifestation, wliicli was still awaited from Him, and whicli was to be tlic crowning benefit of Israel,-tlic manifestation, namely, of tlic Messiah,-a peculiar relation witli tlie W^ord or Shechina.t From tills germ sprang tlic opinion tliat witli tlie Messiali tlie She- china would appear, and tliat wliat was ascribed to tlic Shechina pertained equally to the Messiah: an opinion not confined to the Rabbins, but sanctioned by the Apostle Paul. According to it, tlic Messiah was, even in tlie wilderness, tlic invisible guide and bene- factor of God's people (1 Cor. x. 4, 9.);:{: lie was witli our first parents in Paradise ;§ lie was the agent in creation (Col. i. 16.); lie even existed before tlie creation,|| and prior to his incarnation in Jesus, was in a glorious fellowship with God (Phil. ii. 6.). As it is tlius evident that, immediately after tlic time of Jesus, tlic idea of a prc-cxistencc of tlic Messiali was incorporated in the higher Jewish theology, it is no far-fetched conjecture, tliat tlie same idea was afloat when tlic mind of Jesus was maturing, and tliat in his conception of himself as the Messiali, this attribute was included. But whether Jesus were as deeply initiated in tlic speculations of tlie Jewish schools as Paul, is yet a question, and as the author of the fourth gospel, versed in the Alexandrian doctrine of tlic /'-oyof, stands alone in ascribing to Jesus the assertion of a prc-cxistence, we are unable to decide whether we arc to put tlie dogma to tlie account of Jesus, or of his biographer. § 65. THE MESSIANIC PLAN OF JESVS--INDICATIONS OF A POLITICAL ELEMENT. THE Baptist pointed io a future individual, and Jesus to him- self, as tlic founder of tlic kingdom of heaven. Tlie idea of tliat messianic kingdom belonged to the Israelltish nation ; did Jesus hold it in tlic form in wliicli it. existed among his cotcmporarics, or under modifications of his own ? Tlie idea of tlie Messiah grew up amongst tlie Jews in soil half religious, half political: it was nurtured by national adversity, and in tlic tune cf Jesus, according to tlie testimony of tlie gospels, it was * Bcrtholdt, Cliristol. Jndicor. § § as-?,-;. Comp. Luckc ut sup. S. 244, note. T Sehott^'en. ii. S. <1 f. ^ Tar^r. Jes. xvi. 1 : Isie ^Af^sftris} in d^serto fuit nipes ecclf^iw Zumis. In Hertholdt, lit sup. p. 14;';. g Soliar ehadaseh f. Ixxxii. 4, ap. SclnittRcn, ii, S. 440. I| Nezarh Israel c. xxxv. f. xlviii. 1. Silmiidt, liilil. fiir Kritik u. Exrgese, 1, S. 38, -IfT^ •^272 fPSTS- suha1' Lt!vit- f- xiv- •ric- Schottgen, ii. S. 43G: Septcm \iinnina covuli/a .sy/;/, 'iiii<-qn7 ff. (4tc AuH.) "t- Paulus, Lebrn Jesu 1. li. S. S.'i, 9+, 1()(; rt.; Vcntiirini, •2, iS. ;ilU f. llase, Lebcn Jeau, 1 ed. § § 49, M. (eoinp. theol. Streilsi.'liril't, 1, S. (11 tl'.), lliiniKli wilh apparent reluctance, anil be now maintains lhat lo^n^ li;i,] .i.,i,ii ii'uive tlie iioliticul nuliun of the inr.-isiailic kingdom before Ilia miblic ap- JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 311 and political, was inevitable. As, however, tlie evangelists do not keep tlie events and discourses proper to tliese distinct periods within their respective limits, but happen to give tlie two most important data for tlie imputation of a political design to Jesus (namely the promise of the twelve tin-ones and the public entrance into tlie capi- tal,) near tlie close of liis life; we must attribute to these writers a chronological confusion, as in tlic case of tlic relation which tlie views of Jesus bore to tlie messianic idea in general: unless as an alternative it be conceivable, that Jesus uttered during the same pe- riod, the declarations wliicli seem to indicate, and tliose wliicli dis- claim, a political design. Tills, in our apprehension, is not inconceivable; for Jesus might, anticipate a Ka0li,eci0ai enl Opovovc; for himself and his disciples, not regarding tlie means of its attainment as a political revolution, but as a revolution to be effected bv tlie immediate interposition of God. Tliat such was liis view may be inferred from liis placing tliat judiciary appearance of liis disciples in tlie "c/ltyyei'Effia; for this was not a political revolution, any more than a spiritual regene- ration,-it was a resurrection of tlie dead, which God was to effect through the agency of tlic Mcssiali, and which was to usher in the messianic timcs.f Jesus certainly expected to restore tlic throne of David, and witli liis disciples to govern a liberated people; in no degree, however, did lie rest. liis liopes on the sword of human adherents (Luke xxii. 38. Matt. xxvi. 52.), but on tlic legions of angels, which liis heavenly Father could send him (Matt. xxvi. 53). Wherever lie speaks of coming in liis messianic glory, lie depicts himself surrounded by angels and heavenly powers (Matt. xvi. 27, xxiv. 30 f. xxv. 31 ; Jolin i. 52.) ; before tlie majesty of the Son of Man, coming in tlie clouds of heaven, all nations are to bow without tlie coercion of tlic sword, and at tlie sound of tlie angel's trumpet, arc to present themselves, witli tlie awakened dead, before the judgment-scat of the Messiah and liis twelve apostles. All this Jesus would not bring to pass of liis own will, but lie waited for a signal from liis heavenly Father, wlio alone knew the appropriate time for this catastrophe (Mark xiii. 32.), and lie apparently wag not disconcerted when liis end approached without liis having received tlie expected intimation. They who shrink from tills view, merely because they conceive tliat it makes Jesus an enthusiast,! will do well to reflect how closely sucli liopes corresponded witli the long cherished messianic idea of the Jews,:}: and how easily, in that day of supcrnaturalism, and in a nation segregated by the peculi- arities of its faith, an idea, in itself extravagant, if only it were consistent, and liad, in some of its aspects, truth and dignity, might allure even a reasonable man beneath its influence. Witli respect to that wliicli awaits tlie righteous after judg- ment,-everlasting life in tlic kingdom of tlie Father,-it is true * Fritzsche, in Mittth. p. G06 f. f De Wette, Bibl. Dogm. g 216. f Bertholdt, THE LIFE OF JESUS. 312 that Jesus, in ciccordance with Jewish notions,* compares it to a feast (Matt. viii. 11; xxii. 2 ff.), at which he hopes himself to taste the fruit of the vine (Matt. xxvi. 29.), and to celebrate tlie passover (Luke xxii. 16.): but his declaration that in the awv {i.eXXuv the organic relation between the sexes will cease, and men will be like the angels ((CTayye/.ot, Luke xx. 35 ff.), seems more or less to reduce the above discourses to a merely symbolical significance. Thus we conclude that the messianic hope of Jesus was not political, nor even merely earthly, for lie referred its fulfilment to supernatural means, and to a supermundane theatre (the regenerated earth): as little was it a purely spiritual liope, in the modern sense of tlie term, for it included important and unprecedented clianges in the external condition of things : but it was tlie national, theo- cratic hope, spiritualized and ennobled by his own peculiar moral and religious views. § 67. THE EELATION OF JESL'S TO THE MOSAIC LAW. THE mosaic institutions were actually extinguished in tlie church of which Jesus was the founder; lience it is natural to suppose that their abolition formed a part of Ins design:-a reach of vision, beyond the horizon of the ceremonial worship of his age and country, of which apologists have been ever anxious to prove tliat lie was possessed, f Neither are there wanting spceclies and actions of Jesus which seem to favour their effort. Whenever lie details the conditions of participation in the kingdom of heaven, as in tlie sermon on the mount, lie insists, not on tlie observance of the Mo- saic ritual, but on tlie spirit of religion and morality; he attaches no value to fasting, praying, and almsgiving, unless accompanied by a corresponding bent of mind (Matt. vi. 1-18); the two main ele- ments of the Mosaic worship, sacrifice and tlie keeping of sabbaths and feasts, he not only nowhere enjoins, but puts a marked sliglit on the former, by commending the scribe who declared that tlie love of God and one's neighbour was more than v'/hole burnt- offerings and sacrifices, as one not far from the kingdom of God (Mark xii. 23 f.)4 and lie ran counter in action as well as in speech to tlie customary mode of celebrating tlie Sabbath (Matt. xii. 1-13: Mark ii. 23-28; iii. 1-5; Luke vi. 1-10; xiii. 10. ff.; xiv. 1. ff. ; Jolm v. 5. ff. ; vii. 22 ; ix. 1. ff.), of which in his character of Son of Man he claimed to be Lord. Tlie Jews. too, appear to have expected a revision of the Mosaic law by their Messiah.§ A somewhat analogous sense is couclied in the decla- rations attributed by the fourth evangelist to Jesus (ii. 19); Mat- thew (xxvi. 61.) and Mark (xiv. 58.) represent him as being accused by false witnesses of saying, I am able to destroy (John, destroy) * Berthold, Christ. Jud. § 39. •|' E. g. Eeinharri, Plan Jesu, S. 14 ff. f For an ----....!._ :_ n,. T?i.;..,,;>o hnsnt.1 vW F,r>i nhaniiis. hares, xxx. 16. S Bcrtholdt, lit JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 313 the temple of God (Mark, that is made with hands), and to build it in three days (Mark, I will build another made without hands). The author of the Acts has something similar as an article of accu- sation against Stephen, but instead of the latter half of the sentence it is thus added, and (lie i. e, Jesus) shall change the customs which Moses delivered us ; and perhaps this may be regarded as an authentic comment on the less explicit text. In general it may be said tliat to one who, like Jesus, is so far alive to tlie absolute value of tlie internal compared witli the external, of the bent of tlie entire disposition compared with isolated acts, tliat he pronounces the love of God and our neighbour to be tlie essence of the law (Matt. xxii. 36 ff.),-to him it cannot be a secret, that all precepts of the law which do not bear on these two points are unessential. But the argument apparently most decisive of a design on tlie part of Jesus to abolish tlie Mosaic worship, is furnished by hia prediction tliat the temple, tlie centre of Jcwisli worship (Matt. xxiv. 2. parall.), would be destroyed, and that tlie adoration of God would be freed from local fetters, and become purely spiritual (Jolm iv. 21 ff.). The above, however, presents only one aspect of the position assumed by Jesus towards tlie Mosaic law; there are also data for the belief that lie did not meditate tlie overthrow of tlie ancient constitution of his country. This side of the question lias been, at a former period, and from easily-conceived reasons, tlie one which the enemies of Christianity in its ecclesiastical form, have chosen to exhibit ;* but it is only in recent times that, tlie tlicological horizon being extended, tlie unprejudiced expositors of the churchf have acknowledged its existence. In the first place, during his life Jesus remains faithful to tlie paternal law ; lie attends the synagogue on the sabbath, journeys to Jerusalem at the time of the feast, and eats of the paschal lamb witli his disciples. It is true tliat lie heals on tlie sabbath, allows his disciples to pluck ears of corn (Matt. xii. 1. ff.), and requires no fasting or washing before meat in his society (Matt. iv. 14; xv. 2). But the Mosaic law concerning tlie sabbath simply prescribed cessation from common labour, fa^-a, (Exod. xx. 8. ff.; xxxi. 12. ff.; Deut. v. 12. ff.), including ploughing, reaping, (Ex. xxxiv. 21), gathering of sticks (Numb. xv. 32. ff'.) and similar work, and it was only the spirit of petty observance, the growth of a later age, that made it an offence to perform cures, or pluck a few cars of corn.:}: Tlie wasliing of hands before eating was but a rabbinical custom ;§ in the law one general yearly fast was alone prescribed (Lev. xvi. 29 ff.; xxiii. 27 ff.) and no private lasting required ; hence Jesus cannot be convicted of infringing the precepts of Moses. |] In tliat very sermon on tlie mount in which Jesus exalts spiritual religion so far above all ritual, lie clearly * Tins is done the most concisely in the Wolfenbuttel Fragments, von dem Zweck u. 8. f. S. 66 ff. •)• Especially Fritzschc, in Matt. S. 214 ft; f Winer, bibl. Kealwortcrbuch, 2, S. 406 ff. § Comp. 1'aulus, exog. Handb. 2, S. 273. || Wiuer, bibl. Eealw. 1. Bd. THE LIFE OF JESUS. 314 presupposes the continuation of sacrifices (Matt. v. 23 f.), and de- clares tliat he is not come to destroy tlie law and the prophets, but to fulfil (Matt. v. 17.). Even if K^puMi, in all probability, refers chiefly to tlie accomplishment of the Old Testament prophecies, OVR fj^Obv K.a-aXvaa.i must at tlie same time be understood of tlie con- servation of the Mosaic law, since in the context, perpetuity la promised to its smallest letter, and lie "who represents its lightest precept as not obligatory, is threatened witli tlie lowest rank in tlio kingdom of heaven.* In accordance with this, the apostles adhered strictly to the Mosaic law, even after tlie Feast of Pentecost; they went at tlie hour of prayer into tlie temple (Acts iii. 1.), clung to the synagogues and to the Mosaic injunctions respecting food (x. 14), and were unable to appeal to any express declaration of Jesus as a sanction for tlie procedure of Barnabas and Paul, when tlie judaizing party complained of their baptizing Gentiles witliout laying on them tlie burthen of the Mosaic law. Tills apparent contradiction in tlie conduct and language of Je- sus, lias been apologetically explained by the supposition, that not, only tlie personal obedience of Jesus to tlie law, but also his decla- rations in its favour, were a necessary concession to tlie views of Ilia cotcmporarics, wlio would at once have withdrawn their confidence from him, liad lie announced himself as the destroyer of their lioly and venerated law.f \Vc allow tliat tlie obedience of Jesus to tlie law in his own person, might bo explained in tlie same way as that of Paul, which, on his own sliowing, was a measure of mere ex- pediency (1 Cor. ix. 20. comp. Acts xvi. 3.). But, tlie strong de- clarations of Jesus concerning tlie perpetuity of the law, and tlie guilt of him who dares to violate its liglitest precept,- cannot pos- sibly be derived from tlie principle of concession; for to pronounce that indispensable, wliicli one secretly holds superfluous, and which one even seeks to bring gradually into disuse, would, leaving hon- esty out of the question, be in tlie last degree injudicious. IIcnce others have made a distinction between the moral and the ritual law, and referred the declaration of Jesus tliat lie wished not to abrogate tlie law, to tlie former alone, which lie extricated from a web of trivial ceremonies, and embodied in his own exam- ple.:!: But such a distinction is not found in tliose striking passage,-, from tlie Sermon on the Mount; rather, in tlie vo^ and -rpo<^ra(., the law and tlie pro_/)/i.ets, wo have tlie most comprehensive desig- nation of the whole religious constitution of tlie Old Testament,§ and under tlie most trivial commandment, and the smallest letter of the law, alike pronounced imperishable, we cannot well understand any tiling else than tlie ceremonial precepts.|| A liappicr distinction is tliat between really Mosaic institutes, and their traditional amplifications.^ It is certain that tlie Sabbath * Fritzsche, S. 211 ff, + Kuinliani, S, 15 ft; Planrk, Grsrhirlite dea Cliristentliui-ns in tier Pin-lode sv'iiwr Eiiifuliruiii;, 1, S, 17,') ff. j: Ur Wrttr, liibi, Ihi^m, § 210, tj 1'ritz. -••• • ••'...>;.. u (;<>. m P;uilus. exc'i;, lliiinlb. 1, U. S, UOO f. 315 JESL'S AS THE MESSIAH. cures of Jesus, his neglect of the pedantic ablutions before eating, and the like, ran counter, not to Moses, but to later rabbinical re- quirements, and several discourses of Jesus turn upon this distinc- tion. Matt. xv. 3 ff., Jesus places the commandment of God in opposition to the tradition of tlie elders, and Matt. xxiii. 23, lie de- clares tliat where they are compatible, the former may be observed without rejecting tlie latter, in which case he admonishes the people to do all tliat the Scribes and Pharisees enjoin; where on the con- trary, cither tlie one or tlie other only can be respected, he decides that it is better to transgress the tradition of the Elders, tlian the commandment of God as given by Moses (Matt. xv. 3 ff.). lie describes tlie mass of traditional precepts, as a burthen grievous to be borne, wliicli lie would remove from tlie oppressed people, sub- stituting Ills own light burthen and easy yoke; whence it may be seen, tliat witli all his forbearance towards existing institutions, so far as tlicy were not positively pernicious, it was his intention tliat all these commandments of 'meii, as plants wliicli Ills heavenly Fa- ther liad not planted, should be rooted up (xv. 9. 13.). The majority of tlie Pharisaical precepts referred to externals, and had tlie effect of burying the noble morality of the Mosaic law under a lieap of ceremonial observances; a gift to tlie temple sufficed to absolve tlie giver froin his filial duties (xv. 5.), and the payment of tithe of anise and cummin superseded justice, mercy and faith (xxiii. 23.). Hence tills distinction is in some degree identical with tlie former, since in tlie rabbinical institutes it was their merely ceremonial ten- dency tliat Jesus censured, wliilc, in the Mosaic law, it was tlie kernel of religion and morality tliat lie chiefly valued. It must only not be contended tliat he regarded tlie Mosaic law as permanent solely in its spiritual part, for tlio passages quoted, especially from the Sermon on tlie Mount, clearly show tliat he did not contemplate the abolition of tlie merely ritual precepts. Jesus, supposing tliat lie liad discerned morality and tlie spirit- ual worship of God to be tlie sole essentials in religion, must have rejected all wliicli, being merely ritual and formal, liad usurped the importance of a religious obligation, and under tills description must tall a large proportion of tlie Mosaic precepts; but it is well known liow slowly such consequences arc deduced, when tlicy come into collision with usages consecrated by antiquity. Even Samuel, ap- parently, was aware tliat obedience is better than sacrifice (1 Sam. xv. 22), and Asapli, tliat an offering of thanksgiving is more accept- able to God than one of slain animals (Ps. 1.); yet liow long after were sacrifices retained together witli true obedience, or in its stead! Jesus was more thoroughly penetrated with tills conviction than tliose ancients; witli him, the true commandments of God in the Mosaic law were simply, Honour thy father and thy mother, Thou shcdt not kill, &c., and above all, Thou shall love tlie Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy ncliJhbonr as thyself. But his THE LIFE OF JESUS. 316 the sake of these essential contents, to honour the unessential which was the more natural, as in comparison with the absurdly exaggerated pedantry of tlie traditional observances, the ritual of the Pentateuch must have appeared highly simple. To honour this latter part of the law as of Divine origin, but to declare it abrogated on the principle, that in the education of the human race, God finds necessary for an earlier period an arrangement which is superfluous for a later one, implies that idea of the law as a schoolmaster, v6fiog Traidaywyoc (Gal. iii. 24.), which seems first to have been developed by tlie apostle Paul; nevertheless its germ lies in the declaration of Jesus, that God had permitted to tlie early Hebrews, on account of the hardness of their hearts, (Matt. six. 8 f.) many things, which, in a more advanced stage of culture, were inadmissible. A similar limitation of the duration of tlie law is involved in tlie. predictions of Jesus, (if indeed they were uttered by Jesus, a point wliicli we have to discuss,) that the temple would be destroyed at his approaching advent (Matt. xxiv. parall.), and that devotion would be freed from all local restrictions (Jolin iv.); for with tlicse must fall tlie entire Mosaic system of external worsliip. Tills is not contradicted by tlie declaration that tlie law would endure until heaven and earth should pass away (Matt. v. 18.), for tlie Hebrew associated tlie fall of his state and sanctuary with the end of tlie old world or dispensation, so that the expressions, so long as tlie temple stands, and so long as the world stands, were equivalent.* It is true tliat tlie words of Jesus, Lake xvi. 16., o v6^.og K.a'i. ol npwt>i]rai w<; '\udvvov seem to imply, that tlie appearance of tlie. Baptist put an end to tlie validity of the law; but this passage loses its depre- ciatory sense when compared with its parallel, Matt. xi. 13. On the other hand, Luke xvi. 17. controls Matt. v. 18., and reduces it to a mere comparison between the stability of tlie law and that of heaven and earth. The only question then is, in which of the gospels are the two passages more correctly stated ? As given in tlie first, they intimate tliat the law would retain its supremacy until, and not after, tlie close of tlie old dispensation. With this agrees the pre- diction, that tlie temple would be destroyed; for tlie spiritualization of religion, and, according to Stephen's interpretation, tlie abolition of tlie Mosaic law, wliicli were to be tlie results of tliat event, were undoubtedly identified by Jesus with tlie commencement of tlie a'Mv ^e/Utiw of tlie Messiah, Hence it appears, tliat the only difference between tlie view of Paul and tliat of Jesus is this: that the latter anticipated tlie extinction of tlie Mosaic system as a concomitant of his glorious advent or return to tlie regenerated earth, while the former believed its abolition permissible on the old, unregcnerated earth, in virtue of tlie Messiah's first advent, f * Comp. Paulus, exeg. IIandb. 1. B. S. S98 f. t Comp. IIase, L. J. S. 81. Kabbincal notions of the abrogation of the Law in a-Anti.o.cr, ii. s. (ill ff. JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 317 § 68. SCOPE OF THE MESSIANIC PLAN OF JESUS-RELATIONS TO THE GENTILE8. ALTHOUGH the church founded by Jesus did, in fact, early ex- tend itself beyond tlie limits of the Jewish people, there are yet indications wliicli might induce a belief tliat lie did not contemplate such a.n extension.* When he sends the twelve on their first mis- sion, his command is, Go not into the, way of the Gentiles-Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. x. 5 f.). That Matthew alone has tills injunction and not tlie two other synoptists, is less probably explained by the supposition that tlie Hebrew au- thor of tlie first gospel interpolated it, than by the opposite one, namely, tliat it -was wilfully omitted by the Hellenistic authors of the second and third gospels. For, as the judaizing tendency of Mattliew is not so marked that he assigns to Jesus the intention of limiting tlie messianic kingdom to tlie Jews; as, on the contrary, he makes Jesus unequivocally foretel tlie calling of the Gentiles (viii. 11 f. xxi. 33 ff. xxii. 1 ff. xxviii. 19 f.): he had no motive for fabricating this particularizing addition ; but the two other evan- gelists had a strong one for its omission; in the offence which it would cause to the Gentiles already within tlie fold. Its presence in Mattliew, however, demands an explanation, and expositors have thought to furnish one by supposing the injunction of Jesus to be a measure of prudence, f It is unquestionable that, even if the plan of Jesus comprehended the Gentiles as well as the Jews, he must at first, if he would not for ever ruin his cause with his fellow-coun- trymen, adopt, and prescribe to the disciples, a rule of national ex- clusiveness. This necessity on hia part might account for his answer to the Canaanitish woman, whose daughter he refuses to heal, be- cause he was only sent to the lost sheep of the liouse of Israel (Matt. XY. 24), were it not that the boon which he here denies is not a reception into the messianic kingdom, but a temporal benefit, such as even Elijah and Elisha had conferred on those who were not Israelites (1 Kings xvii. 9 ff. 2 Kings v. 1 ff.)-examples to which Jesus elsewhere appeals (Luke iv. 25 ff.). Tience the disciples thought it natural and unobjectionable to grant the woman's peti- tion, and it could not be prudential considerations that withheld Je- sus, for a time, from compliance. That an aversion to the Gentiles may not appear to be his motive, it has been conjectured f that Jesus, wishing to preserve an incognito in that country, avoided the performance of any messianic work. But sucli a design of conceal- ment is only mentioned by Mark (vii. 25.), wlio represents it as being defeated by the entreaties of the woman, contrary to the inclinations of Jesus; and as this evangelist omits tlie declaration ot Jesus, tliat he was not sent but to tlie lost sheep of the house of ''' Thus the Wolfenbuttel Fragmentist, ut sup. S. 72 ff. + Reinhard ; Planck, Ge- achichte des Clirislenthums in der Per. seiner Einfulirung, 1, S. 179 tE f Paulus, Leben THE LIFE OF JESUS. 318 Israel, we must suspect that lie was guided by the wish to supply a less offensive motive for tlie conduct of Jeans, rather than by his- torical accuracy. Had Jesus really bccu influenced by the motive which Mark assigns, he must at once have alleged it to his disciples instead of a merely ostensible one, calculated to strengthen their already rigid exclusiveness. We should therefore rather listen to tlic opinion tliat Jesus sought, by Ids repeated refusal, to prove tlie faitli of the woman, and furnish an occasion for its exhibition,* if we could find in tlic text the sliglitcst trace of mere dissimulation; and none of a real change of mind.f Even Mark, bent as lie was on softening tlic features of tlie incident, cannot have thought of a dissimulation of tills kind; otherwise, instead of omitting tlie harsh words and making the inadequate addition, and would have no man, knoic it, lie would have removed the offence in tlie most satisfactory manner, by an observation such as, he said this to prove, her (comp. John vi. 6.). Thus it must be allowed that Jesus in this case sccma to share the antipathy of his countrymen towards tlie Gentiles, nay, his antipathy seems to be of a deeper stamp than tliat of his dis- ciples ; unless their advocacy of tlie woman be a touch from the pencil of tradition, for tlie sake of contrast and grouping. This narrative, however, is neutralized by another, in which Je- sus is said to act in a directly opposite manner. The centurion of Capernaum, also a Gentile, (as we gather from tlie remarks of Je- sus,) lias scarcely complained of a distress similar to that of tlie Ca- naanitlsh woman, when Jesus himself volunteers to go and heal his servant (Matt. viii. 5.). If, then, Jesus has no hesitation, in this instance, to exercise his power of healing in favour of a lieatlion, how comes it tliat lie refuses to do so in another quite analogous case? Truly if the relative position of tlie two narratives in tlie gospels have any wciglit, lie must have shown himself more. harsh and narrow at the later period than at tlie earlier one. Meanwhile, tlus single act of benevolence to a Gentile, standing as it docs in inexplicable contradiction to tlie narrative above examined, cannot prove, in opposition to tlie command expressly given to the disciples, not to go to the Gentiles, tliat Jesus contemplated their admission as such into the messianic kingdom. Even the prediction of Jesus tliat tlie kingdom of heaven would. be taken from tlie Jews and given to tlie Gentiles, does not prove this. In tlic above interview with tlie centurion of Capernaum, Jesus de- clares tliat many shall come from the east and t/ie u'est, and sit down with tlie patriarchs in the kingdom of heaven, while tlie children of the kingdom, (obviously the Jews,) for whom it was originally designed, will be cast out (Matt. viii. 11 f.). Yet more decidedly, when applying tlie parable of tlic husbandmen in the vineyard, lie warns his countrymen tliat the kingdom of God shall be taken from them, and given, to a nation bringing forth the fmiifs f.hp.rp.of (^,\alt. xxi. 43.'). All this may be understood in the JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 319 sense intended by the prophets, in their promises tliat tlie messianic kingdom would extend to all nations; namely, tliat tlie Gentiles would turn to tlie worship of Jehovah, embrace tlie Mosaic religion in its entire form, and afterwards be received into the Messiah's kingdom. It would accord very well with tills expectation, tliat, prior to sucli a conversion, Jesus sliould forbid his disciples to direct their announcement of his kingdom to tlie Gentiles. But in tlic discourses concerning, his re-appearance, Jesus re- gards tlie publication of tlie Gospel to all nations as one of the circumstances tliat must precede that event: (Matt. xxiv, 14. Mark xiii. 10.), and after his resurreciion, according to the synop- tists, he gave his disciples the command, Go ye, and teach all na- tions, baptizing them, &c. (Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; Luke xxiv. 47.); i. e. go to them witli the offer of tlie Messiah's kingdom, even though they may not beforehand have become Jews. Not only, however, do the disciples, after tlie first Pentecost, neglect to execute, tins command, but when a case is thrust on them which offers them an opportunity for compliance with it, they act as if they were altogether ignorant that such a direction had been given, by Jesus (Acts x. xi.). The heathen centurion Cornelius, worthy, from Ins devout life, of a reception into tlic messianic community is pointed out by an angel to tlic apostle Peter. But because it was not hidden from God, with what difficulty tlie apostle would be induced to re- ceive a heathen, witliout further preliminary, into the Messiah's kingdom, he saw it needful to prepare him for such a step by a sym- bolical vision. In consequence of sucli an admonition Peter goes to Cornelius; but to impel him to baptize liirn and his family, lie needs a second sign, the pouring out of tlie Holy Gliost on these uncircumcised. When, subsequently, tlie Jewish Christians- in Je- rusalem call him to account for tills reception of Gentiles, Peter appeals in his justification solely to the recent vision, and to the Holy Gliost given to the centurion's family. Whatever judgment we may form of tlie. credibility of this liistory, it is a memorial of tlie many deliberations and contentions wliicli it cost the apostles after tlic departure of Jesus, to convince themselves of tlie eligibility of Gentiles for a participation in tlie kingdom of tlieir Christ, and tlic reasons which at last brought them to a decision. Now if Jesus had given so explicit a command as tliat above quoted, wliat need was tlicre of a vision to encourage Peter to its fulfilment? or, sup- posing tlie vision to be a legendary investiture of the natural delib- erations of tlie disciples, why did they go about in search of the reflection, that all men ought to be baptized, because before God all men and all animals, as his creatures, are clean, if they could have appealed to an express injunction of Jesus ? Here, then, is tlie al- ternative: if Jesus himself gave this command, the disciples cannot have been led to tlie admission of tlie Gentiles by the means narrated in Acts x. xl.; if, on tlie other hand, tliat narrative is authentic, the 320 THE LIFE OF JESUS. for the latter proposition. For that the subsequent practice and pre- eminent distinction of the Christian Church, its accessibility to all nations, and its indifference to circumcision or uncircumcision, should have lain in the mind of its founder, is the view best adapted to exalt and adorn Jesus; while, that, first after his death, and through the gradual development of relations, tlie church, which its Founder had designed for the Gentiles only in so far as they became Jews, should break through tliese limits, is in the simple, natural, and therefore the probable course of tilings. § 69. RELATION OP THE MESSIANIC PLAN OP JESUS TO THE SAMARI- TANS--HIS INTERVIEW WITH THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA. THERE is the same apparent contradiction in the position -which Jesu-s took, and prescribed to his disciples, towards the inhabitants of Samaria. While in his instructions to his disciples, (Matt. x. 5,) he forbids them to visit any city of the Samaritans, we read in John (iv.) lhat Jesus himself in his journey through Samaria laboured as the Messiah with great effect, and ultimately stayed two days in a Samaritan town; and in the Acts (i. 8), that before his ascension he charged the disciples to be his witnesses, not only in Jerusalem and in all Judea, but also in Samaria. That Jesus did not entirely shun Samaria, as that prohibition might appear to intimate, is evident from Luke ix. 52. (comp. xvii. 11.), where his disciples bespeak lodgings for him in a Samaritan village, when he has determined to go to Jerusalem; a circumstance which accords with the information of Josephus, tliat those Galileans who journeyed to the feasts usually went through Samaria.* That Jesus was not unfavourable to the Samaritans, nay, tliat in many respects lie acknowledged their su- periority to the Jews, is evident from his parable of tlie Good Sa- maritan (Luke x. 30 ff.); he also bestows a marked notice on the case of a Samaritan, who, among ten cleansed, was tlie only one that testified his gratitude (Luke xvii. 16); and, if we may venture on such a conclusion from John iv. 25, and subsequent records,! the inliabitants of Samaria themselves had some tincture of the messi- anic idea. However natural it may appear that Jesus should avail himself of this susceptible side of the Samaritans, by opportunely announc- ing to them tlie messianic kingdom ; the aspect which the four evangelists bear to each other on flits subject must excite surprise. Matthew has no occasion on which Jesus comes in contact with the Samaritans, or even mentions them, except in tlie prohibition above quoted; Mark is more neutral than Mattliew, and has not even that prohibition; Luke has two instances of contact, one of them unfa- vourable, the other favourable, together with the parable in wincli Jesus presents a Samaritan as a model, and his approving notice of * Antia. xx. vi. 1. For some rabbinical rules not quite in accordance with this, see JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 321 the gratitude of one whom he had healed ; John, finally, has a nar- rative in which Jesus appears in a very intimate and highly favour- able relation to the Samaritans. Are all tliese various accounts well-founded ? If so, how could Jesus at one time prohibit his dis- ciples from including tlie Samaritans in the messianic plan, and at another time, himself receive them witliout hesitation ? Moreover, if tlie chronological order of the evangelists deserve regard, the ministry of Jesus in Samaria must have preceded tlie prohibition contained in his instructions to his disciples on their first mission. For the scene of tliat mission being Galilee, and there being no space for its occurrence during the short stay which, according- to the fourth 0 */ ' o evangelist, Jesus made in tliat province before tlie first passover (ii. 1-13.), it must be placed after that passover ; and, as the visit to Samaria was made on Ills journey, after tliat visit also. How, then, could Jesus, after having with tlie most desirable issue, personally taught in Samaria, and presented himself as tlie Messiah, forbid his disciples to carry thither their messianic tidings ? On the other hand, if tlie scenes narrated bv John occurcd after the command re- corded by Mattliew, tlie disciples, instead of wondering tliat Jesus talked so earnestly with a woman (John iv, 27.), ought rather to have wondered that lie lield any converse with a Samaritan* Since then of tlie two extreme narratives at least, in Matthew and John, neither presupposes the other, we must eitlier doubt the autlienticity of the exclusive command of Jesus, or of his connexion with the inhabitants of Samaria. Li flits conflict between the gospels, we have again the advantage of appealing to tlie Book of Acts as an umpire. Before Peter, at the divine instigation, had received the first fruits of tlie Gentiles into tlie Messiah's kingdom, Philip tlie deacon, being driven from Jeru- salem by the persecution of which Stephen's deatli was tlie com- mencement, journeyed to the city of Samaria, wliere lie preached Christ, and by miracles of all kinds won tlie Samaritans to the faith, and to the reception of baptism (Acts viii. 5 ff.). This narrative is a complete contrast to tliat of the first admission of tlie Gentiles: while in the one tliere was need of a vision, and a special intima- tion from tlie Spirit, to bring Peter into communication with the heathens; in tlie other, Philip, witliout any precedent, unhesitat- ingly baptizes tlie Samaritans. And lest it should bo said that the deacon was perhaps of a more liberal spirit than tlie apostle, we have Peter himself coming forthwith to Samaria in company with Jolm,-an incident which forms another point of opposition between tlie two narratives ; for, wliile the 'first admission of tlie Gentiles makes a highly unfavourable impression on the mother church at Jerusalem, the report tliat Samaria had received the -word of God meets with so warm an approval there, tliat the two most dis- tinguished apostles are commissioned to confirm and consummate tlie work begun by Philip. The tenor of this proceeding makes it M. r> 322 THE LtFE OF JESUS. not improbable that there was a precedent for it in the conduct of Jesus, or at least a sanction in his expressions. The narrative in tlie fourth Gospel (iv.) would form a perfect precedent in the conduct of Jesus, but we have yet to examine whether it bear the stamp of historical credibility. We do not, with the author of tlie Probabilia, stumble at the designation of tlie locality, and tlie opening of tlie conversation between Jesus and tlie woman;* but from v. 16 inclusively, there are, as impartial exposi- tors confess,! many grave difficulties. Tlie woman had entreated Jesus to give lier of tlie water which was for ever to extinguish thirst, and Jesus immediately says, Go, call thy husband. Why so ? It has been said that Jesus, well knowing that tlie woman had no lawful husband, sought to shame her, and bring her to repcnt- ance.t Lucke, disapproving the imputation of dissimulation to Je- sus, conjectures tliat, perceiving the woman's dulness, lie hoped by summoning her husband, possibly her superior in intelligence, to create an opportunity for a more beneficial conversation. But if Je- sus, as it presently appears, knew tliat tlie woman had not at tlie time any proper husband, lie could not in earnest desire her to sum- mon him; and if, as Liicke allows, lie had tliat knowledge in a su- pernatural manner, it could not be liidden from him, wlio knew wliat was in man, tliat slie would be little inclined to comply with Ills injunction. If however, lie liad a prescience tliat what lie required would not be done, tlie injunction was a feint, and liad some latent object. But tliat this object was the penitence of the woman there is no indication in the text, for the ultimate effect on her is not shame and penitence, but faith in the prophetic insight of Jesus (v. 19). And this was doubtless what Jesus wislicd, for the narrative proceeds as if lie liad attained his purpose witli the woman, and the issue corresponded to the design. The difficulty here lies, not so much in wliat Lucke terms dissimulation,-since this comes under the category of blameless temptation (rretpa^ctv), elsewhere occur- ing,-as in tlie violence with wliicli Jesus wrests an opportunity for tlie display of his prophetic gifts. By a transition equally abrupt, the woman urges the conversa- tion to a point at which the Messiahship of Jesus may become fully evident. As soon as slie lias recognized Jesus to be a prophet, she hastens to consult him on the controversy pending between tlie Jews and Samaritans, as to tlie place appropriated to tlie true worship of God (v. 20.). That so vivid an interest in tins national and religious question is not consistent with tlie limited mental and circumstantial condition of the woman, the majority of modern commentators vir- tually confess, by their adoption of tlie opinion, tliat her drift in this remark was to turn away tlie conversation from her own affairs.f If then tlie implied query concerning tlie place for the true worship of God, had no serious interest for the woman, but was prompted by * Rr<.t^1,nn;rl»r nt «nn S 4.7 fl- 97 f. + Lueke. 1. S. 520 ffi t Tholuck, in loo. JESCS AS THE MESSIAH. 323 a false shame calculated to liinder confession and repentance, those expositors should remember wliat they elsewhere repeat to satiety,* that in tlie gospel of Jolin tlie answers of Jesus refer not so much to the ostensible meaning of questions, as to the under current of feeling of which they are tlie indications. In accordance witli this method, Jesus should not have answered the artificial question of tlie woman as if it had been one of deep seriousness; he ought rather to have evaded it, and recurred to tlie already detected stain on her conscience, which slie was now seeking to lilde, in order if possible to bring lier to a full conviction and open avowal of her guilt. But the fact is that the object of tlie evangelist was to show that Jesus liad been recognized, not merely as a prophet, but as the Messiah, and lie believed tliat to turn tlie conversation to the question of the legitimate place for the worship of God, the solution of which was expected from the Messiah,')" would best conduce to tliat end. Jesus evinces (v. 17.) an acquaintance witli the past history and present position of tlie woman. Tlie rationalists have endeav- oured to explain this by the supposition, tliat wliile Jesus sat at the well, and tlie woman was advancing from tlie city, some passer-by liinted to him that lie liad better not engage in conversation with her, as slie was on the watch to obtain a sixtli husband. { But not to insist on the improbability tliat a. passer-by sliould hold a colloquy witli Jesus on tlie character of an obscure woman, tlie friends as well as tlie enemies of the fourth gospel now agree, that every natu- ral explanation of that knowledge on tlie part of Jesus, directly counteracts tlie design of the evangelist.§ For according to him, the disclosure which Jesus makes of his privity to the woman's intimate concerns, is tlie immediate cause, not only for lier own faitli in him, but of that of many inhabitants of tlie city (v. 39.), and lie obviously intends to imply that they were not too precipitate in receiving him as a prophet, on tliat ground alone. Thus in tlie view of the evan- gelist, tlie knowledge in question was an effluence of tlie higher nat- ure of Jesus, and modern supranaturalists adhere to tills explanation, adducing in its support the power which John attributes to him (ii. 24 f.), of discerning wliat. is in man without tlie aid of external testi- mony. || But tills does not meet the case; for Jesus here not only knows wliat is in the woman,-lier present equivocal state of mind towards him wlio is not lier liusband,-he lias cognizance also of ' 0 the extrinsic fact tliat slie lias liad five husbands, of whom we can- not suppose that eacli liad left a distinct image in her mind traceable by the observation of Jesus. That by means of tlie ^.uietrative acu- men witli which he scrutinized the hearts of those with wliom lie had to do, Jesus sliould also have a prophetic insight into his own mes- sianic destiny, and tlie fortunes of his kingdom, may under a certain view of his person appear probable, and in any case must be deemed * E. g. Tholuck, iu may passages, •)• Comp. Scliiittgen, horae, i. S.970 f. Wetstein, S. 8G3. + Pauhis. Lphpn.Ipi.ii 1 a 1 ("? • f.^^^t i ;" l- 2 <-•„„,„ m.i,.,....,.. ;.. 324 THE LIFE OF JESUS. in the higliest degree dignified; but that he should be acquainted, even to the most trivial details, with the adventitious history of ob- scure individuals, is an idea that degrades him in proportion to the exaltation of his prophetic dignity. Sucli empirical knowing/ness (not omniscience) would moreover anniliilate the human consciousness which the orthodox view supposes to co-exist in Jesus.* But the possession of tills knowledge, however it may clash with our con- ception of dignity and wisdom, closely corresponds to the Jewish notion of a prophet, more especially of tlie Messiah; in the Old Tes- tament, Daniel recites a dream of Nebuchadnezzar, which that mon- arch himself had forgotten (Dan. ii.); in the Clementine Homilies, the true prophet is 6 TrdvrorE ndvra £(d(i»c- ra [IKV yeyovoTa (if sys- VSTO, -u. 6e yivopsva wg yive-ai,, ~a 6e iadfieva &)(,• 'Karat •^ and the rab- bins number such a knowledge of personal secrets among the signs of the Messiah, and observe that from tlie want of it, Bar-Cocheba was detected to be a pseudo-Messiah.^ Farther on (v. 23.) Jesus reveals to tlie woman what IIase terma the sublimest principle of his religion, namely, that tlie service of God consists in a life of piety; tells her that all ceremonial worship is about to be abolished; and tliat lie is tlie personage who will effect tills momentous cliange, tliat is, the Messiah. We have already shown it to be improbable that Jesus, wlio did not give his disciplea to understand that lie •vf&s tlie Messiali until a comparatively late period, should make an early and distinct disclosure on the subject to a Samaritan woman. In what respect was she worthy of a com- munication more explicit tlian ever fell to the lot of the disciples ? What could induce Jesus to send roaming into tlie futurity of re- ligious history, tlie contemplation of a woman, whom lie sliould rather have induced to examine herself, and to ponder on the cor- ruptions of her own heart ? Nothing but the wish to elicit from her, at any cost, and without regard to her moral benefit, an acknowl- edgement, not only of his prophetic gifts, but of his Messiahship; to which end it was necessary to give the conversation the above direction. But. so contracted a design can never be imputed to Je- sus, who on oilier occasions, exemplifies a more suitable mode of dealing with mankind: it is the design of the glorifying legend, or of an idealizing biographer. Meanwhile, continues the narrative (v. 27.), tlie disciples of Je- sus returned from the city with provisions, and marvelled that be talked with a woman, contrary to rabbinical rule.§ Wliile the woman, excited by the last disclosure of Jesus, hastens homeward to invite her fellow-citizens to come and behold the Messiali-like stranger, the disciples entreat him to partake of the food they liave procured; he answers, I have meat to eat that ye know not of (v. 32). They, misunderstanding his words, imagine that some person lias supplied him witli food in their absence: one of those carnal interpretations a JQ f 4- TT/i 12. + Schi'lttsen. JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 325 of expressions intended spiritually by Jesus, which arc of perpetual recurrence in tlie fourth gospel, and are therefore suspicious. Than follows a discourse on sowing and reaping (v. 35 ff.), which, com- pared witli v. 37., can only mean that what Jesus lias sown, tlie disciples will reap.* We admit that this is susceptible of the gen- eral interpretation, tliat the germ of tlie kingdom of God, which blossomed and bore fruit under tlie cultivation of the apostles, was first deposited in tlie world by Jesus: but it cannot be denied tliat a special application is also intended. Jesus foresees that tlie woman, wlio is hastening towards the city, will procure him an opportunity of sowing tlie seed of tlie gospel in Samaria, and lie promises the disciples tliat they at a future time sliall reap tlie fruits of his la- bours. Who is not here reminded of the propagation of Christianity in Samaria by Pliilip and tlie apostles, as narrated in the Acts Pf Tliat, even abstracting all supcriiaturalisni from our idea of tlie per- son of Jesus, lie might have foreseen tills progress of Ins cause in Samaria from his knowledge of its inhabitants, is not to be denied; but as tlie above figurative prediction forms part of a whole more than improbable in an historical point of view, it is equally liable to suspicion, especially as it is easy to show how it might originate without any foundation in fact. According to tlie prevalent tradition of the early church, as recorded in tlie synoptical gospels, Jesus la- boured personally in Galileo, Judea, and Perca only,-not in Sa- maria, which, however, as we learn from the Acts, embraced the gospel at no remote period from his death. How natural tlie ten- dency to perfect tlie agency of Jesus, by representing him to have sown tlie heavenly seed in Samaria, thus extending his ministry through all parts of Palestine ; to limit the glory of tlie apostles and other teachers to tliat of being tlie mere reapers of the harvest in Samaria; and to put this distinction, on a suitable occasion, into the mouth of Jesus! The result, tlien, of our examination of John's Samaritan nar- rative is, that we cannot receive it as a real history: and the im- pression wliicli it leaves as a whole tends to the same conclusion. Since IIeracleon and Origen,j: the more ancient commentators have seldom refrained from giving the interview of Jesus witli tlie woman of Samaria an allegorical interpretation, on tlie ground tliat tlie en- tire scene lias a legendary and poetic colouring. Jesus is seated at a well,-tliat idyllic locality with which tlie old Hebrew legend as- sociates so many critical incidents; at the identical well, moreover, which a tradition, founded on Gen. xxxiii. 19; xlviii. 22; Josli. xxiv. 32, reported to have been given by Jacob to his son Joseph; hence tlie spot, in addition to its idyllic interest, lias the more de- cided consecration of national and patriarchal recollections, and is all tlie more worthy of being trodden by the Messiali. At the well Jesus meets with a woman who has come out to draw water, just * liflche, 1, S. 543. + Lucke, S. 540. note. Bretschneidcr. S. B2. t Comin. in 326 THE LIFE OF JESUS. as, in the Old Testament, tlie expectant Eliezer encounters Rcbekah with her pitclicr, and as Jacob meets with Rachel, tlio destined an- cestress of Israel, or Moses with his future wife. Jesus begs of the woman to let him drink; so does Eliezer of Rebekah ; after Jesus has made himself known to the woman as the Messiah, slie runs back to tlie city, and fetches her neighbours : so Rebekah, after Eli- ezer has announced himself as Abraham's steward, and Racliel, after slic has discovered tliat Jacob is her kinsman, hasten homeward to call their friends to welcome the honoured guest. It is, certainly, not one blameless as those early mothers in Israel, whom Jesus here encounters ; for tins woman came forth as tlie representative of an impure people, who had been faithless to their marriage bond witli Jehovah, and were tlicn living in tlie practice of a false worship; while her good-will, her deficient moral strength, and her obtuseness in spiritual tilings, perfectly typify the actual state of tlie Samaritans. Thus, the interview of Jesus with tlie woman of Samaria, is only a poetical representation of his ministry among the Samaritans nar- rated in the sequel; and tills is itself a legendary prelude to tlie pro- pagation of tlie gospel in Samaria after the death of Jesus. Renouncing tlie event in question as unhistorical, we know noth- ing of any connexion formed by Jesus with tlie Samaritans, and there remain as indications of Ills views regarding them, only Ins fa- vourable notice of an individual from among them, (Luke xvii. 16.); his unpropitious reception in one of their villages (Luke ix. 53.); the prohibition with respect to them, addressed to his disciples (Matt. x. 5.); tlie eulogistic parable, (Luke x. 30. ft'.); and his valedictory command, that the gospel should be preached in Samaria (Acts i. 8). This express command being subsequent to tlie resurrection of Je- sus, its reality must remain problematical for us until we have ex- amined the evidence for that capital fact; and it is to be questioned whether without it, and notwithstanding the alleged prohibition, the unhesitating conduct of the apostles, Acts viii., can be explained. Are we then to suppose on tlie part of tlie apostolic history, a can- celling of hesitations and deliberations tliat really occurred; or on the part of Matthew, an unwarranted ascription of national bigotry to Jesus; or, finally, on tlie part of Jesus, a progressive enlarge- ment of view ?