Abbildungen der Seite

there is something greater than the temple here. In all these passages the words underlined are neuter: Jesus does not say directly, I am greater than the temple or Jonah or Solomon, but He declares that where He is a greater cause is represented, greater responsibilities are imposed, greater issues are at stake, than were involved by relation to the most sacred institutions or the most venerated personalities of former times. It is not necessary to ask how Jesus conceived the temple or Jonah or Solomon to be transcended in importance by Himself: the significant fact is that He did. It is in the same consciousness, though in a different tone, that He speaks in another passage preserved both in Matthew and Luke, and therefore going back to their source, though they give it in different connections: 'Happy are your eyes, for they see, and (your) ears, for they hear. (For verily) I say unto you that many prophets (and kings) desired to see what you see and saw not, and to hear what you hear and heard not.' ' The revelation made in Jesus not only brings great responsibilities, but rare blessedness. The look which Jesus here casts upon the past is one of the most vivid and beautiful things in the New Testament. He enters sympathetically into the yearnings of good men in distant ages, into the hopes that their eyes grew dim with waiting for; and He is conscious that their long-deferred fulfilment has come at last with Him. Matthew inserts the words just after the first parable of Jesus, or rather after the quotation from Isaiah, in which the judicial blindness of the unbelieving people is foretold: in Luke they stand in immediate connexion with the claim of Jesus to be the Son who alone knows and can alone reveal the Father. In any case, they discover the consciousness of Jesus This is Harnack's reconstruction of the passage: Sprüche u. Reden Jesu, 94.


that in Him the absolute revelation has come: those who know Him have the happiness which can never be transcended. All the hopes and longings of the good are consummated in it. He does not say, Blessed are our eyes, for they see, and our ears, for they hear, as if the blessedness were that of a new era in which He shared only as His contemporaries did; but blessed are your eyes and your ears; for what they saw and heard was seen and heard in Him. It is He Himself-His presence in the world, and the revelation of God He makes in word and deed-which is the ground of His felicitation of the disciples. And this, be it remarked once more, is only another way in which He assumes that the proper attitude of men to Himself is that which is everywhere exhibited in the New Testament Church. He has a place which is all His own as the Mediator of the supreme blessedness for men, and to deny Him such a place is not only to subvert historical Christianity, it is to ignore Jesus' presentation of Himself.

We may now proceed to consider another passage which certainly stood in the source common to Matthew and Luke, and possibly even in that source was a quotation, a passage therefore of high antiquity, yet in many respects hard to estimate. In Matthew it is given continuously in ch. 23 34-39, and forms the climax of the great denunciation of the Pharisees with which Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem closes; in Luke it occurs much earlier, and is broken into two. The first part (ch. 11 49-51), as in Matthew, closes a series of woes pronounced upon the Pharisees, though the scene is not the temple, but a Pharisee's table somewhere in Galilee or Peræa; the second (ch. 13 34 f.) is connected with the saying of Jesus that it is not possible that a prophet should perish out of Jerusalem, but is not spoken in the capital nor at the close of Jesus' ministry. More

remarkable even than differences like these, to which the gospels present many parallels, is the manner in which Luke introduces the words of Jesus: 'Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, I will send unto them prophets and apostles,' etc. There are only two things that can be said of this. Either the evangelist, for no reason we can see, identifies Jesus at this point with the Wisdom of God, and then goes on to report the words which Jesus spoke in this character; or Jesus Himself quotes from some book of Wisdom which has been lost to us, making (as the evangelist understood) the words of the Wisdom of God His own. To this we can certainly provide no parallel, yet we may not be justified in pronouncing it impossible. It is plausible, indeed, to argue with Loisy and others that Matthew is right in giving the passage unbroken, and Luke in representing it as a citation. The point of view is that of an apocalyptic writer, surveying God's providential dealings with Israel, and like all his kind renouncing hope. God has done everything to win them, appealed to them by messengers of every type-prophets, wise men, scribes; but from the beginning of the story to the end, from Genesis to Revelation in the Hebrew Bible,1 the stream of righteous blood has never ceased to flow; the Wisdom of God has been scorned and trampled on in all its representatives. At last the hour of vengeance is at hand, but ere it strikes, the heart of Wisdom and


The writer sees no need to depart from the old opinion that 'from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariah (the son of Barachiah)' is a way of saying 'from the beginning of history to the end'; the reference in the case of Zachariah being to 2 Chron. 24 20f-2 Chron. is the last book in the Hebrew canon. It is not certain that 'son of Barachiah' belonged originally to the text (it is wanting in Luke); but even if it did, it would only be a slip of a perfectly natural kind. As Loisy remarks, it is not easy to see what reason a Christian could have for putting the murder of Zachariah the son of Baruch by the Zealots at the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem on a level with that of Abel.

3 See Matt. 23 *, ἐκχυνόμενον.

of God, is revealed in the thrilling apostrophe, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the prophets and stoneth them that are sent unto her, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her brood under her wings, and ye would not.' This is not (it is argued) the voice of Jesus, referring to such visits to Jerusalem and to such attempts to win her people as we see in the fourth gospel: it is the voice of God; Jerusalem, in this high poetic key, is not material— the geographical city in which Jesus was crucified; she is the impersonation of Israel, the mother of the children to whom God appeals. All this may be granted-perhaps we should rather say, All this must be grantedyet the question remains, Is it incredible that the application of it to Jesus should have been due to Himself? It is not necessary to enter into the minor changes by which the evangelists adapt the tradition to their audience-Luke, for example, replacing the Jewish 'wise men and scribes' of Matthew by Christian 'apostles'the two main points are the same in both. These are that Jesus identifies Himself with all God's action towards Israel, finding it continued and indeed consummated in Himself, and that He declares the doom of Israel to be involved in the rejection of Himself and His messengers. Now it is not too much to say that these are constant elements in Jesus' consciousness of Himself and of His significance; the last, in particular, has come before us again and again (v. Matt. 105, 11 20 ff.), while the first is involved in the simple conception of Himself as the Messiah, the person through whom God's purpose towards Israel is to be accomplished. All that remains then is the question, which is rather of curious than of serious interest, whether Jesus would have borrowed from a book to express elements of His consciousness so moving and profound. Assuming that a book is

quoted, it also must have been moving and profound --wonderfully and divinely inspired in its apprehension of God's relations to Israel. Nothing but the spirit of Christ in the writer (1 Peter 1 ") could enable him to enter with such profound sympathy into God's dealings with Israel, and so to speak of them in words which Jesus could afterwards make His own. Is it not gratuitous to suppose that the authority lying behind Matthew and Luke-an authority which we have good reason to believe to be that of the apostle Matthew himself-put these words into the mouth of Jesus without ground? If they were incongruous with what we have already seen to be the mind of Jesus about Himself, we might accept this supposition to explain the incongruity; but when there is no inherent difficulty-when the selfrevelation of Jesus here is in thorough harmony with that which we have already seen, on the basis of Matt. x. and xi., with their parallels in Luke, to be truly historical-the supposition is at least not inevitable. It is easier to believe that whatever the circumstanceswhether in Galilee or in Jerusalem, whether with His death imminent or at a greater distance from it-Jesus took these wonderful words to Himself. They open to us the mind in which He lived and died. The presence in the world of a Person who was able to appropriate such words-to identify so absolutely the actions and the cause of God with His own cause and actions-is not confined to this passage; it is, as we have amply seen, the signature of the gospels as a whole. It is the token that we have passed from the Old Testament to the New, and that the New is founded not only on the faith of Christians but on the mind of Christ.'

The striking remark of Harnack on the discourse about the Baptist in Matt. xi. (Sprüche u. Reden Jesu, 167) is not inappropriate here: Dass aber der ganzen Rede das 'Ich bin es' zugrunde liegt, ist kein Grund zu Bedenken, oder man muss den Federstrich über ganzen Inhalt der Evan

« ZurückWeiter »