By these difficulties modern exegetists have felt constrained to

renounce John’s explanation of the words of Jesus, as erroneous and

made ex eventu, and to attempt to penetrate, independently of the

Evangelist’s explanation, into the sense of the enigmatical saying

which he attributes to Jesus. [1653] The construction put upon it by

the Jews, who refer the words of Jesus to a real destruction and

rebuilding of the national sanctuary, cannot be approved without

imputing to Jesus an extravagant example of vain-glorious boasting, at

variance with the character which he elsewhere exhibits. If on this

account search be made for some figurative meaning which may possibly

be assigned to the declaration, there presents itself first a passage

in the same gospel (iv. 21 ff.) where Jesus announces to the woman of

Samaria, that the time is immediately coming, in which the Father will

no longer be worshipped exclusively in Jerusalem (ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις), but

will, as a Spirit, receive spiritual worship. Now in the present

passage also, the destruction of the temple might, it is said, have

signified the abolition of the temple-service at Jerusalem, supposed to

be the only valid mode of worship. This interpretation is confirmed by

a narrative in the Acts (vi. 14). Stephen, who, as it appears, had

adopted the above expressions of Jesus, was taxed by his accusers with

declaring, that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall

change the customs which Moses delivered, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος οὖτος

καταλύσει τὸν τόπον τοῦτον, καὶ ἀλλάξει τὰ ἔθη, ἃ παρέδωκε Μωϋσῆς: in

which words a change of the Mosaic religious institutions, without

doubt a spiritualization of them, is described as a sequel to the

destruction of the temple. To this may be added a passage in the

synoptical gospels. Nearly the same words which in John are uttered by

Jesus himself, appear in the two first gospels (Matt. xxvi. 60 f.; Mark

xiv. 57 f.) as the accusation of false witnesses against him; and here

Mark, in addition, designates the temple which is to be destroyed, as

one made with hands, χειροποίητος, and the new one which is to be

built, as another, made without hands, ἄλλος, ἀχειροποίητος, whereby he

appears to indicate the same contrast between a ceremonial and a

spiritual religious system. By the aid of these passages, it is

thought, the declaration in John may be explained thus: the sign of my

authority to purify the temple, is my ability in a short time to

introduce in the place of the Jewish ceremonial worship, a spiritual

service of God; i.e. I am authorized to reform the old system, in so

far as I am qualified to found a new one. It is certainly a trivial

objection to this explanation, that in John the object is not changed,

as in Mark, where the temple which is to be built is spoken of as

another (ἄλλος), but instead of this, is indicated by the word αὐτὸς,

as the same with the one destroyed; [1654] since, indeed, the Christian

system of religion in relation to the Jewish, may, just as the risen

body of Jesus in relation to the dead one, be conceived as at once

identical and different, inasmuch as in both cases the substance is the

same, while the transitory accidents only are supposed to be removed.

But it is a more formidable objection which attaches itself to the

determination of time, ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις. That this expression is also

used indefinitely and proverbially, in the sense of a short interval of

time in general, is not adequately proved by the two passages which are

usually appealed to with this view; for in them the third day, by being

placed in connexion with the second and first (Hos. vi. 2: ‏מִיֹמָיִם בַּיוֹם

הַשְּׁלִישִׁי‎; Luke xiii. 32: σήμερον καὶ αὔριον καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ) is announced

as a merely relative and proximate statement, whereas in our passage it

stands alone, and thus presents itself as an absolute and precise

determination of time. [1655]

Thus alike invited and repelled by both explanations, [1656]

theologians take refuge in a double sense, which holds the middle place

either between the interpretation of John and the symbolical one last

stated, [1657] or between the interpretation of John and that of the

Jews; [1658] so that Jesus either spoke at once of his body which was

to be killed and again restored to life, and of the modification of the

Jewish religion which was to be effected, chiefly by means of that

death and resurrection; or, in order to repel the Jews, he challenged

them to destroy their real temple, and on this condition, never to be

fulfilled, promised to build another, still, however, combining with

this ostensible sense for the multitude, an esoteric sense, which was

only understood by the disciples after the resurrection, and according

to which ναὸς denoted his body. But such a challenge addressed to the

Jews, together with the engagement appended to it, would have been an

unbecoming manifestation of petulance, and the latent intimation to the

disciples, a useless play on words; besides that, in general, a double

meaning either of the one or the other kind is unheard of in the

discourse of a judicious man. [1659] As, in this manner, the

possibility of explaining the passage in John might be entirely

despaired of, the author of the Probabilia appeals to the fact that the

synoptists call the witnesses, who allege before the judgment seat that

Jesus had uttered that declaration, ψευδομάρτυρας, false witnesses;

whence he concludes, that Jesus never said what John here attributes to

him, and thus gains an exemption from the explanation of the passage,

since he regards it as a figment of the fourth Evangelist, whose object

was both to explain the calumniations of the accusers, and also to

nullify them by a mystical interpretation of his words. [1660] But, on

the one hand, it does not follow, from the fact that the synoptists

call the witnesses false, that, in the opinion of the Evangelists,

Jesus had never said anything whatever of that whereof they accused

him; for he might only have said it somewhat differently (λύσατε, not

λύσω), or have intended it in a different sense (figuratively instead

of literally): on the other hand, if he said nothing at all of this

kind, it is difficult to explain how the false witnesses should come to

choose that declaration, and especially the remarkable phrase, ἐν

τρισὶν ἡμέραις.

If, according to this, on every interpretation of the expression,

except the inadmissible one relative to the body of Jesus, the words ἐν

τρισὶν ἡμέραις form a difficulty: a resource might be found in the

narrative of the Acts, as being free from that determination of time.

For here Stephen is only accused of saying, ὅτι Ἰ. ὁ Ναζ. οὗτος

καταλύσει τὸν τόπον τοῦτον (τὸν ἅγιον), καὶ ἀλλάξει τὰ ἔθη ἃ παρέδωκε

Μωϋσῇς. What is false in this allegation (for the witnesses against

Stephen also are described as μάρτυρες ψευδεῖς), might be the second

proposition, which speaks in literal terms of a changing of the

institutes of Moses, and instead of this, Stephen, and before him

Jesus, may very probably have said in the figurative signification

above developed, καὶ πάλιν οἰκοδομήσει (—σω) αὐτὸν, or καὶ ἄλλον

(ἀχειροποίητον) οἰκοδομήσει (—σω).

Meanwhile, this expedient is not at all needful, so far as any

insurmountable difficulty in the words ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις, is concerned.

As the number 3 is used proverbially, not only in connexion with 2 or 4

(Prov. xxx. 15, 18, 21, 29; Wis. xxiii. 21, xxvi. 25), but also by

itself (Wis. xxv. 1, 3); so the expression, in three days, if it were

once, in combination with the second and first day, become common as an

indefinite statement of time, might probably at length be applied in

the same sense when standing alone. Whether the expression should

signify a long or a short period would then depend on the connexion:

here, in opposition to the construction of a great and elaborate

building, to the real, natural erection of which, as the Jews directly

remark, a long series of years was required, the expression can only be

understood as denoting the shortest time. [1661] A prediction, or even

a mere intimation of the resurrection, is therefore not contained in

these words.

As, here, Jesus is said to have intimated his resurrection beforehand,

by the image of the destroying and rebuilding of the temple, so, on

another occasion, he is supposed to have quoted the type of the prophet

Jonah with the same intention (Matt. xii. 39 ff., comp. xvi. 4; Luke

xi. 29 ff.). When the scribes and Pharisees desired to see a sign from

him, Jesus is said to have repulsed their demand by the reply, that to

so evil a generation γενεὰ no sign shall be given, but the sign of the

prophet Jonah, τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ τοῦ προφήτου, which, in the first

passage of Matthew, Jesus himself explains thus: as Jonah was three

days and three nights in the belly of the whale, ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ

κήτους, so also the Son of man will pass three days and three nights in

the heart of the earth, ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς. In the second passage, in

which Matthew attributes this declaration to Jesus, he does not repeat

the above interpretation; while Luke, in the parallel passage, explains

it simply thus: For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so shall also

the Son of man be to this generation. Now against the possibility of

Jesus having himself given the interpretation of the sign of Jonah

which Matthew puts into his mouth, v. 40, a variety of objections may

be urged. It is indeed scarcely a tenable argument, that Jesus cannot

have spoken of three days and three nights, which he would pass in the

heart of the earth, because he only lay in the grave one day and two

nights: [1662] since the phraseology of the New Testament decidedly has

the peculiarity of designating the abode of Jesus in the grave as of

three days’ duration, because it touched upon the evening of the day

before the Sabbath, and the morning of the day after it; and if this

one day, together with two nights, were once taken for three whole

days, it would only be a round way of expressing this completeness, to

add to the days the nights also, which, besides, would naturally follow

in the comparison with the three days and three nights of Jonah. [1663]

But if Jesus gave the explanation of the sign of Jonah which Matthew

attributes to him, this would have been so clear a prediction of his

resurrection, that for the same reasons which, according to the above

observations, are opposed to the literal predictions of that event, we

must conclude that Jesus cannot have given this explanation. At all

events it must have led the disciples who, according to v. 49, were

present, to question Jesus, and in that case it is not to be understood

why he did not make the subject perfectly clear, and thus announce his

resurrection in plain words. But if he cannot have done this, because

then the disciples could not have acted after his death as they are

said to have done in the evangelical accounts: neither can he, by that

comparison of the fate which awaited him with that of Jonah, have

called forth from his disciples a question, which, if proposed to him,

he must have answered; but which, judging from the sequel, he cannot

have answered.

On these grounds, modern critics have pronounced the explanation of the

σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ in Matthew to be an interpretation made post eventum by

the Evangelist, and by him falsely attributed to Jesus. [1664]

According to them, Jesus indeed directed the attention of the Pharisees

to the sign of Jonah, but only in the sense in which Luke makes him

explain it: namely, that as Jonah himself, by his mere appearance and

preaching of repentance, without miracles, had sufficed as a sign from

God to the Ninevites; so his own cotemporaries, instead of craving for

miracles, should be satisfied with his person and preaching. This

interpretation is the only one which accords with the tenor of the

discourse of Jesus—even in Matthew, and more particularly with the

parallel between the relation of the Ninevites to Jonah, and that of

the queen of the south to Solomon. As it was the wisdom of Solomon,

σοφία Σολομῶνος, by which the latter felt herself attracted from the

ends of the earth: so, in Jonah, even according to the expression of

Matthew, it was solely his preaching, κήρυγμα, which brought the

Ninevites to repentance. It might be supposed that the future tense in

Luke: οὕτως ἔσται καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀ. τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ (σημεῖον), So shall

also the Son of Man be to this generation (a sign), cannot be referred

to Jesus and his preaching as manifested at that moment, but only to

something future, as his resurrection: but this in reality points

either to the future judgment κρίσις, in which it will be made

manifest, that as Jonah was reckoned a sign to the Ninevites, so was

the Son of Man to the Jews then living; or to the fact that when Jesus

spoke these words, his appearance had not yet attained its

consummation, and many of its stages lay yet in futurity. Nevertheless,

it must have been at an early period, as we see from the first gospel,

that the fate of Jonah was placed in a typical relation to the death

and resurrection of Jesus, since the primitive church anxiously

searched through the Old Testament for types and prophecies of the

offensive catastrophe which befel their Messiah.

There are still some expressions of Jesus in the fourth gospel, which

have been understood as latent prophecies of the resurrection. The

discourse on the corn of wheat, xii. 24, it is true, too obviously

relates to the work of Jesus as likely to be furthered by his death, to

be here taken into further consideration. But in the farewell

discourses in John there are some declarations, which many are still

inclined to refer to the resurrection. When Jesus says: I will not

leave you comfortless, I will come unto you; yet a little time, and the

world sees me no more, but ye see me; a little while, and ye shall not

see me, and again a little while and ye shall see me, etc. (xiv. 18

ff., xvi. 16 ff.); many believe that these expressions—with the

relation between μικρὸν καὶ πάλιν μικρὸν, a little while, and again a

little while; the opposition between ἐμφανίζειν ἡμῖν (τοῖς μαθηταῖς)

καὶ οὐχὶ τῷ κόσμῳ, manifest to you (the disciples) and not to the

world; the words πάλιν ὄψομαι and ὄψεσθε, I shall see you again, and ye

shall see, which appear to indicate a strictly personal interview—can

be referred to nothing else than the resurrection, which was precisely

such a reappearance after a short removal, and moreover a personal

reappearance granted to the friends of Jesus alone. [1665] But this

promised reappearance is at the same time described by Jesus in a

manner which will not suit the days of the resurrection. If the words

because I live, ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ (xiv. 19), denote his resurrection, we are

at a loss to know what can be meant by the succeeding clause, ye shall

live also, καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσεσθε. Again, Jesus says that on that

reappearance his disciples will know his relation to the Father, and

will no more need to ask anything of him (xiv. 20, xvi. 23): yet even

on the very last day of their intercourse with him after the

resurrection, they ask a question of him (Acts i. 6), and one which

from the point of view of the fourth gospel is altogether senseless.

Lastly, when he promises that to him who loves him, he and the Father

will come, and make their abode with him, it is perfectly clear that

Jesus here speaks not of a corporeal return, but of his spiritual

return, through the παράκλητος. [1666] Nevertheless, even this

explanation has its difficulties, since, on the other hand, the

expressions ye shall see me, ὄψεσθέ με, and I shall see you, ὄψομαι

ὑμᾶς, will not entirely suit that purely spiritual return: hence we

must defer the solution of this apparent contradiction until we can

give a more complete elucidation of the discourses in which these

expressions occur. In the meantime we merely observe, that the farewell

discourses in John, being admitted, even by the friends of the fourth

gospel, to contain an intermixture of the Evangelist’s own thoughts,

are the last source from which to obtain a proof on this subject.

After all, there might seem to be a resource in the supposition, that

though Jesus did not indeed speak of his future resurrection, it was

not the less foreknown by him. Now if he had a foreknowledge of his

resurrection, either he obtained it in a supernatural manner, by means

of the prophetic spirit, the higher principle that dwelt within him—by

means of his divine nature, if that be preferred: or he knew it in a

natural manner, by the exercise of his human reason. But a supernatural

foreknowledge of that event, as well as of his death, is inconceivable,

owing to the relation in which Jesus places it to the Old Testament.

Not merely in passages such as Luke xviii. 31 (which, as prophecies,

can no longer have an historical value for us after the result of our

last inquiry), does Jesus represent his resurrection, together with his

passion and death, as a fulfilment of all things that are written by

the prophets concerning the Son of man, πάντων τῶν γεγραμμένων διὰ τῶν

προφητῶν τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; but even after the issue, he admonishes

his disciples that they ought to believe all that the prophets have

spoken, ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται, namely, that Christ ought

to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory, ταῦτα ἔδει

παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν, καὶ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὑτοῦ (Luke xxiv. 25

f.). According to the sequel of the narrative, Jesus forthwith

expounded to these disciples (going to Emmaus) all the passages of

scripture relating to himself, beginning at Moses and all the prophets,

ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ Μωσέως καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν προφητῶν, to which farther on

(v. 44) the psalms are added; but no single passage is given us as

having been interpreted by Jesus of his resurrection, except that it

would follow from Matt. xii. 39 f., that he regarded the fate of the

prophet Jonah as a type of his own; and regarding the subsequent

apostolic interpretation as an echo of that of Jesus, it might be

concluded, that he, as afterwards the apostles, found such prophecies

chiefly in Ps. xvi. 8 ff. (Acts ii. 25 ff., xiii. 35); Isa. liii. (Acts

viii. 32 ff.); Isa. lv. 3 (Acts xiii. 34), and possibly also in Hos.

vi. 2. But the fate of Jonah has not even an external similarity to

that of Jesus; and the book which narrates his history carries its

object so completely in itself, that whoever may ascribe to it or to

one of its particulars, a typical relation to events in futurity,

assuredly mistakes its true sense and the design of its author. Isa.

lv. 3 is so obviously irrelevant that one can scarcely conceive how the

passage could be brought into special connexion with the resurrection

of Jesus. Isa. liii. refers decidedly to a collective subject

perpetually restored to life in new members. Hosea vi. has a figurative

reference, not to be mistaken, to the people and state of Israel.

Lastly, the principal passage, Ps. xvi. can only be interpreted of a

pious man, who by the help of Jehovah hopes to escape from the danger

of death, not in the sense that he, like Jesus, would rise again from

the grave, but that he would not be laid there—that is, obviously, not

for the present, and with the understanding, that when his time should

come, he must pay the tribute of nature: [1667] which, again, will not

apply to Jesus. Thus if a supernatural principle in Jesus—a prophetic

spirit—caused him to discover a pre-intimation of his resurrection in

these Old Testament histories and passages; then, as no one of them

really contained such a pre-intimation, the spirit in him cannot have

been the spirit of truth, but must have been a lying spirit, the

supernatural principle in him, not a divine, but a demoniacal

principle. If, in order to avoid this consequence, supranaturalists who

are accessible to a rational interpretation of the Old Testament,

resort to their only remaining expedient, of regarding the

foreknowledge of Jesus concerning his resurrection as purely natural

and human: we must reply, that the resurrection, conceived as a

miracle, was a secret of the divine counsels, to penetrate into which,

prior to the issue, was an impossibility to a human intelligence; while

viewed as a natural result, it was a chance the last to be calculated

upon, apart from the supposition of an apparent death planned by Jesus

and his colleagues.

Thus the foreknowledge, as well as the prediction of the resurrection,

was attributed to Jesus only after the issue; and in fact, it was an

easy matter, with the groundless arbitrariness of Jewish exegesis, for

the disciples and the authors of the New Testament to discover in the

Old, types and prophecies of the resurrection. Not that they did this

with crafty design, according to the accusation of the Wolfenbüttel

Fragmentist, and others of his class: but as he who has looked at the

sun, long sees its image wherever he may turn his gaze; so they,

blinded by their enthusiasm for the new Messiah, saw him on every page

of the only book they read, the Old Testament, and in the conviction

that Jesus was the Messiah, founded in the genuine feeling that he had

satisfied their deepest need—a conviction and a feeling which we also

still honour—they laid hold on supports which have long been broken,

and which can no longer be made tenable by the most zealous efforts of

an exegesis which is behind the age.

§ 115.

THE DISCOURSES OF JESUS ON HIS SECOND ADVENT. CRITICISM OF THE

DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS.

Not only did Jesus, according to the evangelical accounts, predict that

he should return to life three days after his death; but also that at a

later period, in the midst of the calamities which would issue in the

destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, he should come in the clouds of

heaven, to close the present period of the world, and by a general

judgment, open the future age (Matt. xxiv. and xxv.; Mark. xiii.; Luke

xvii. 22–37, xxi. 5–36).

As Jesus for the last time went out of the temple (Luke has not this

circumstance), and his disciples (Luke says indefinitely, some)

admiringly drew his attention to the magnificent building, he assured

them that all which they then looked on, would be destroyed from its

foundations (Matt. xxiv. 1, 2, parall.). On the question of the

disciples, when this would happen, and what would be the sign of the

Messiah’s coming, which in their idea was associated with such a crisis

(v. 3), Jesus warns them not to be deceived by persons falsely giving

themselves out to be the Messiah, and by the notion that the expected

catastrophe must follow immediately on the first prognostics; for wars

and rumours of war, risings of nation against nation and kingdom

against kingdom, famine, pestilence, and earthquakes in divers places,

would be only the beginning of the sorrows which were to precede the

advent of the Messiah (v. 4–8). They themselves, his adherents, must

first suffer hatred, persecution, and the sword; perfidy, treachery,

deception by false prophets, lukewarmness and general corruption of

morals, would prevail among men; but at the same time the news of the

Messiah’s kingdom must be promulgated through the whole world. Only

after all this, could the end of the present period of the world

arrive, until when, he who would partake of the blessedness of the

future must endure with constancy (v. 9–14). A nearer presage of this

catastrophe would be the fulfilment of the oracle of Daniel (ix. 27),

the standing of the abomination of desolation in the holy place

(according to Luke xxi. 20, the encompassing of Jerusalem with armies).

When this should take place, it would be high time for the most

precipitate flight (according to Luke, because the devastation of

Jerusalem would be at hand, an event which he more nearly

particularizes in the address of Jesus to the city, xix. 43 f.: thine

enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and

keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground,

and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one

stone upon another). At this juncture, all who should have hindrances

to rapid departure would be deserving of compassion, and it would be in

the highest degree desirable that the recommended flight should not

fall in an unfavourable season; for then would commence unexampled

tribulation (according to Luke, v. 24, consisting chiefly in many of

the people of Israel perishing by the sword, in others being carried

away captive, and in Jerusalem being trodden down of the Gentiles for a

predetermined period): a tribulation which only the merciful abridgment

of its duration by God, for the sake of the elect, could render

supportable (v. 15–22). At this time would arise false prophets and

Messiahs, seeking to delude by miracles and signs, and promising to

show the Messiah in this or that place: whereas a Messiah who was

concealed anywhere, and must be sought out, could not be the true one;

for his advent would be like the lightning, a sudden and universal

revelation, of which the central point would be Jerusalem, the object

of punishment on account of its sin (v. 23–28). Immediately after this

time of tribulation, the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of

the stars, and the shaking of all the powers of heaven would usher in

the appearance of the Messiah, who, to the dismay of the dwellers on

the earth, would come with great glory in the clouds of heaven, and

immediately send forth his angels to gather together his elect from all

the corners of the earth (v. 29–31). By the fore-named signs the

approach of the described catastrophe would be as certainly discernible

as the approach of summer by the budding of the fig-tree; the existing

generation would, by all that was true, live to witness it, though its

more precise period was known to God only (v. 32–36). But, after the

usual manner of mankind (what follows, Mark and Luke partly have not at

all, partly not in this connexion), they would allow the advent of the

Messiah, as formerly the deluge, to overtake them in thoughtless

security (v. 37–39): and yet it would be an extremely critical period,

in which those who stood in the closest relation to each other, would

be delivered over to entirely opposite destinies (v. 40, 41). Hence

watchfulness would be requisite, as in all cases where the period of a

decisive issue is uncertain: an admonition which is then illustrated by

the image of the master of the house and the thief (v. 43, 44); of the

servant to whom his lord, when about to travel, entrusted the rule of

his house (v. 45–51); of the wise and foolish virgins (xxv. 1–13): and

lastly, of the talents (v. 14–30). Hereupon follows a description of

the solemn judgment, which the Messiah would hold over all nations, and

in which, according as the duties of humanity were observed or

neglected, he would award blessedness or misery (v. 31–46). [1668]

Thus in these discourses Jesus announces that shortly (εὐθέως, xxiv.

29), after that calamity, which (especially according to the

representation in Luke’s gospel) we must identify with the destruction

of Jerusalem and its temple, and within the term of the cotemporary

generation (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη, v. 34), he would visibly make his second

advent in the clouds, and terminate the existing dispensation. Now as

it will soon be eighteen centuries since the destruction of Jerusalem,

and an equally long period since the generation cotemporary with Jesus

disappeared from the earth, while his visible return and the end of the

world which he associated with it, have not taken place: the

announcement of Jesus appears so far to have been erroneous. Already in

the first age of Christianity, when the return of Christ was delayed

longer than had been anticipated, there arose, according to 2 Peter

iii. 3 f., scoffers, asking: where is the promise of his coming? for

since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from

the beginning of the creation. In modern times, the inference which may

apparently be drawn from the above consideration, to the disadvantage

of Jesus and the apostles, has been by no one more pointedly expressed

than by the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist. No promise throughout the whole

scriptures, he thinks, is on the one hand more definitely expressed,

and on the other, has turned out more flagrantly false, than this,

which yet forms one of the main pillars of Christianity. And he does

not see in this a mere error, but a premeditated deception on the part

of the apostles (to whom, and not to Jesus himself, he attributes that

promise, and the discourses in which it is contained); a deception

induced by the necessity of alluring the people on whose contributions

they wished to subsist, by the promise of a speedy reward: and

discernible by the boldness of their attempts to evade the doubts

springing from the protracted delay of the return of Christ: Paul, for

example, in the second epistle to the Thessalonians, sheltering himself

in obscure phrases; and Peter, in his second epistle, resorting to the

preposterous expedient of appealing to the divine mode of reckoning

time, in which a thousand years are equal to one day. [1669]

Such inferences from the discourse before us would inflict a fatal

wound on Christianity; hence it is natural that exegetists should

endeavour by all means to obviate them. And as the whole difficulty

consists in Jesus having apparently placed an event now long past, in

immediate chronological connexion with one still future, three

expedients are possible: either to deny that Jesus in part spoke of

something now past, and to allege that he spoke solely of what is still

future; or to deny that a part of his discourse relates to something

still future, and thus to refer the entire prediction to what is

already lying in the past; or lastly, to admit that the discourse of

Jesus does indeed partly refer to something which is still future to

us, but either to deny that he places the two series of events in

immediate chronological succession, or to maintain that he has also

noticed what is intermediate.

Some of the Fathers of the Church, as Irenæus and Hilary—yet living in

the primitive expectation of the return of Christ, and at the same time

not so practised in regular exegesis, as to be incapable of overlooking

certain difficulties attendant on a desirable interpretation—referred

the entire prediction, from its commencement in Matt. xxiv. to its end

in Matt. xxv., to the still future return of Christ to judgment. [1670]

But as this interpretation admits that Jesus in the commencement of his

discourse uses the destruction of Jerusalem as a type of the final

catastrophe, it virtually nullifies itself. For what does that

admission signify, but that the discourse of Jesus, in the first

instance, produces the impression that he spoke of the destruction of

Jerusalem, i.e. of something now past, and that only more extended

reflection and combination can give it a relation to something still

lying in futurity?

To modern rationalism, based as it was on naturalistic principles, the

hope of the second advent of Christ was in every form annihilated.

Hence, not scrupling at any exegetical violence for the sake of

removing from scripture what was discordant with its preconceived

system, it threw itself on the opposite side, and hazarded the attempt

to refer the discourses in question, in their entire tenor, solely to

the destruction of Jerusalem, and the events which immediately preceded

and followed it. [1671] According to this interpretation, the end

spoken of is only the cessation of the Judeo-Gentile economy of the

world; what is said of the advent of Christ in the clouds, is only a

figurative description of the promulgation and triumph of his doctrine;

the assembling of the nations to judgment, and the sending of some into

blessedness, and others into condemnation, is an image of the happy

consequences which would result from embracing the doctrine and cause

of Jesus, and the evil consequences attendant on indifference or

hostility to them. But in this explanation there is a want of

similarity between the symbols and the ideas represented, which is not

only unprecedented in itself, but particularly inconceivable in this

case; since Jesus is here addressing minds of Jewish culture, and must

therefore be aware that what he said of the Messiah’s advent in the

clouds, of the judgment, and the end of the existing period of the

world, would be understood in the most literal sense.

It thus appears that the discourse of Jesus will not as a whole, admit

of being referred either to the destruction of the Jewish state, or to

the events at the end of the world; it would therefore be necessarily

referred to something distinct from both, if this twofold impossibility

adhered alike to all its parts. But the case is not so; for while, on

the one hand, what is said Matt. xxiv. 2, 3, 15 ff. of the devastation

of the temple, cannot be referred to the end of the world: on the other

hand, what is predicted xxv. 31 ff. of the judgment to be held by the

Son of Man, will not suit the destruction of Jerusalem. As, according

to this, in the earlier part of the discourse of Jesus, the destruction

of Jerusalem is the predominant subject, but in the subsequent part,

the end of all things: it is possible to make a division, so as to

refer the former to the more proximate event, the latter to the more

remote one. This is the middle path which has been taken by the

majority of modern exegetists, and here the only question is: where is

the partition to be made? As it must present a space of time within

which the whole period from the destruction of Jerusalem to the last

day may be supposed to fall, and which therefore would include many

centuries, it must, one would think, be plainly indicated, so as to be

easily and unanimously found. It is no good augury for the plan, that

this unanimity does not exist,—that, on the contrary, the required

division is made in widely different parts of the discourse of Jesus.

Thus much on the one hand appeared to be decided: that at least the

close of the 25th chapter, from v. 31, with its description of the

solemn tribunal which the Messiah, surrounded by his angels, would hold

over all nations, cannot be referred to the time of the destruction of

Jerusalem. Hence many theologians believed that they could fix the

boundary here, retaining the relation to the end of the Jewish state

until xxv. 30, and at this point making the transition to the end of

the world. [1672] On the very first glance at this explanation, it must

appear strange that the great chasm which it supposes to exist between

v. 30 and 31, is marked simply by a δὲ. Moreover, not only are the

darkening of the sun and moon, earthquakes, and falling of the stars,

understood as a mere image of the subversion of the Jewish state and

worship; but when xxiv. 31, it is said of the Messiah, that he will

come in the clouds, this is supposed to mean, invisibly; with

power—only observable by the effects he produces; with great glory—with

such as consists in the conclusions which may be drawn from those

effects; while the angels who gather together the nations by the sound

of the trumpet, are supposed to represent the apostles preaching the

gospel. [1673] Quite erroneously, appeal is made, in support of this

merely figurative meaning, to the prophetic pictures of the divine day

of judgment, Isa. xiii. 9 ff., xxiv. 18 ff.; Jer. iv. 23 f.; Ezek.

xxxii. 7 ff.; Joel iii. 3 ff.; Amos viii. 9; farther, to descriptions

[1674] such as Judges v. 20; Acts ii., xvii. ff. In those prophetic

passages, real eclipses of the sun and moon, earthquakes, and the like,

are intended, and are described as prodigies which will accompany the

predicted catastrophe; the song of Deborah, again, celebrates a real

participation of heaven in the battle against Sisera, a participation

which in the narrative, iv. 15, is ascribed to God himself, in the

song, to his heavenly hosts; lastly, Peter expects, that the outpouring

of the spirit will be succeeded by the appearances in the heavens,

promised among the signs of the great day of the Lord.

The attempt to effect a division near the end of the discourse, at xxv.

30, failing, from its rendering much that goes before incapable of

explanation; the next expedient is to retreat as far towards the

commencement as possible, by considering how far it is inevitable to

recognise a relation to the immediate future. The first resting place

is after xxiv. 28; for what is said, up to this point, of war and other

calamities, of the abomination in the temple, of the necessity for

speedy flight, in order to escape unprecedented misery, cannot be

divested of a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem without the

greatest violence: while what follows concerning the appearance of the

Son of Man in the clouds, etc., just as imperatively demands an

application to the last day. [1675] But in the first place, it appears

incomprehensible how the enormous interval, which on this explanation

also is supposed to fall between the one portion of the discourse and

the other, can be introduced between two verses, of all others, which

Matthew connects by an adverb expressive of the shortest possible time

(εὐθέως). It has been sought to remove this inconvenience by the

assertion that εὐθέως does not here signify the quick succession of the

one incident on the other, but only the unexpected occurrence of an

event, and that consequently, what is here said amounts merely to this:

suddenly, at some period (how distant is undetermined) after the

calamities attendant on the destruction of Jerusalem, the Messiah will

visibly appear. Such an interpretation of εὐθέως is, as Olshausen

correctly perceives, merely a desperate resource: but even were it

otherwise, it would afford no real aid, since not only does Mark in his

parallel passage, v. 24, by the words, in those days, after that

tribulation, ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις μετὰ τὴν θλίψιν ἐκείνην, place

the events which he proceeds to mention in uninterrupted chronological

succession with those which he had before detailed; but also, shortly

after this point in each of the narratives (Matt. v. 34 parall.), we

find the assurance that all this will be witnessed by the existing

generation. As thus the opinion, that from v. 29, everything relates to

the return of Christ to judge the world, was threatened with

annihilation by v. 34; the word γενεὰ, as the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist

[1676] complains, was put to the torture, that it might cease to bear

witness against this mode of division. At one time it is made to

signify the Jewish nation; [1677] at another the adherents of Jesus;

[1678] and of both the one and the other Jesus is supposed to say that

it will (how many generations hence being left uncertain) be still in

existence on the arrival of that catastrophe. So to explain the verse

in question, that it may not contain a determination of time, is even

maintained to be necessary on a consideration of the context, v. 35:

for as in this Jesus declares it impossible to determine the period of

that catastrophe, he cannot immediately before have given such a

determination, in the assurance that his cotemporaries would yet live

to see all of which he had been speaking. But this alleged necessity so

to interpret the word γενεὰ, has long been dissipated by the

distinction between an inexact indication of the space of time, beyond

which the event will not be deferred (γενεὰ), and the precise

determination of the epoch (ἡμέρα καὶ ὥρα) at which it will occur; the

former Jesus gives, the latter he declares himself unable to give.

[1679] But the very possibility of interpreting γενεὰ in the above

manner vanishes, when it is considered, that in connexion with a verb

of time, and without anything to imply a special application, γενεὰ

cannot have any other than its original sense: i.e. generation, age;

that in a passage aiming to determine the signs of the Messiah’s

advent, it would be very unsuitable to introduce a declaration which,

instead of giving any information concerning the arrival of that

catastrophe, should rather treat of the duration of the Jewish nation,

or of the Christian community, of which nothing had previously been

said; that, moreover, already at v. 33, in the words ὑμεῖς ὅταν ἴδητε

πάντα ταῦτα, γινώσκετε κ.τ.λ., Ye, when ye shall SEE all these things,

know, etc., it is presupposed that the parties addressed would witness

the approach of the event in question; and lastly, that in another

passage (Matt. xvi. 28 parall.) the certainty of living to see the

coming of the Son of man is asserted not simply of this generation,

γενεὰ αὕτη, but of some standing here, τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων, whereby

it is shown in the most decisive manner, that in the present passage

also, Jesus intended by the above expression the race of his

cotemporaries, who were not to have become extinct before that

catastrophe should occur. [1680] Unable to deny this, and yet anxious

to separate as widely as possible the end of the world here announced,

and the age of Jesus, others would find in the declaration before us

nothing more than this: the events hitherto described will begin to be

fulfilled in the present age, though their complete fulfilment may yet

be deferred many centuries. [1681] But when already at v. 8 the subject

is said to be the beginning of the tribulation, while from v. 14 we

have a description of the end of the present period of the world, which

that tribulation would introduce, and it is here (v. 34) said, the

existing generation shall not pass away, ἕως ἂν πάντα ταῦτα γένηται,

until all these things be fulfilled: we must inevitably understand by

πάντα ταῦτα, all these things, not merely the beginning, but also the

last-mentioned events at the end of the world.

Thus there is still at v. 34 something which must be referred to an

event very near to the time of Jesus: hence the discourse of Jesus

cannot from so early a point as v. 29, refer to the end of the world,

an epoch so far distant; and the division must be made somewhat farther

on, after v. 35 or 42. [1682] But on this plan, expressions are thrown

into the first part of the discourse, which resist the assigned

application to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem;—the glorious

advent of Christ in the clouds, and the assembling of all nations by

angels (v. 30 f.) must be regarded as the same extravagant figures,

which formerly forbade our acceptance of another mode of division.

Thus the declaration v. 34 which, together with the preceding

symbolical discourse on the fig tree (v. 32 f.), and the appended

asseveration (v. 35), must refer to a very near event, has, both before

and after it, expressions which can only relate to the more distant

catastrophe: hence it has appeared to some as a sort of oasis in the

discourse, having a sense isolated from the immediate context. Schott,

for instance, supposes that, up to v. 26, Jesus had been speaking of

the destruction of Jerusalem; that at v. 27 he does indeed make a

transition to the events at the end of the present period of the world;

but that at v. 32, he reverts to the original subject, the destruction

of Jerusalem; and only at v. 36 proceeds again to speak of the end of

the world. [1683] But this is to hew the text in pieces, out of

desperation. Jesus cannot possibly have spoken with so little order and

coherence; still less can he have so linked his sentences together as

to give no intimation of such abrupt transitions.

Nor is this imputed to him by the most recent critics. According to

them, it is the Evangelist who has joined together, not in the best

order, distinct and heterogeneous declarations of Jesus. Matthew,

indeed, admits Schulz, imagined that these discourses were spoken

without intermission, and only arbitrariness and violence can in this

respect sever them from each other; but hardly did Jesus himself

deliver them in this consecutive manner, and with this imprint of

unity. [1684] The various phases of his coming, thinks Sieffert, his

figurative appearance at the destruction of Jerusalem, and his literal

appearance at the last day, though they may not have been expressly

discriminated, were certainly not positively connected by Jesus; but

subjects which he spoke of in succession were, from their obscurity,

confused together by the Evangelist. [1685] And as in this instance

there recurs the difference between Matthew and Luke, that what Matthew

represents as being spoken on a single occasion, Luke distributes into

separate discourses; to which it is also to be added, that much of what

Matthew gives, Luke either has not, or has it in a different form:

therefore Schleiermacher [1686] believed himself warranted to rectify

the composition of Matthew by that of Luke, and to maintain that while

in Luke the two separate discourses, xvii. 22 ff. and xxi. 5 ff., have

each their appropriate connexion and their indubitable application, in

Matthew (chap. xxiv. and xxv.), by the blending of those two

discourses, and the introduction of portions of other discourses, the

connexion is destroyed, and the application obscured. According to

this, the discourse, Luke xxi., taken alone, contains nothing which

outsteps the reference to the capture of Jerusalem and the accompanying

events. Yet here also (v. 27) we find the declaration, Then shall they

see the Son of Man coming in a cloud, τότε ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ

ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλη; and when Schleiermacher explains this as

a mere image representing the revelation of the religious significance

of the political and natural events before described, he falls into a

violence of interpretation which overturns his entire opinion as to the

mutual relation of these accounts. If, then, in the connexion of the

end of all things with the destruction of Jerusalem, Matthew by no

means stands alone, but is countenanced by Luke—to say nothing of Mark,

whose account in this instance is an extract from Matthew: we may, it

is true, conclude, that as in other discourses of Jesus, so perhaps in

this also, many things which were uttered at different times are

associated; but there is nothing to warrant the supposition, that

precisely what relates to the two events, which in our idea are so

remote from each other, is the foreign matter, especially since we see,

from the unanimous representation of the remaining New Testament

writings, that the primitive church expected, as a speedy issue, the

return of Christ, together with the end of the present period of the

world (1 Cor. x. 11, xv. 51; Phil. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ff.; James v.

8; 1 Pet. iv. 7; 1 John ii. 18; Rev. i. 1, 3, iii. 11, xxii. 7, 10, 12,

20).

Thus it is impossible to evade the acknowledgment, that in this

discourse, if we do not mutilate it to suit our own views, Jesus at

first speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem, and farther on and until

the close, of his return at the end of all things, and that he places

the two events in immediate connexion. There remains, therefore, but

one expedient for vindicating the correctness of his announcement,

namely, on the one hand, to assign the coming of which he speaks to the

future, but, on the other hand, to bring it at the same time into the

present—instead of a merely future, to make it a perpetual coming. The

whole history of the world, it is said, since the first appearance of

Christ, is an invisible return on his part, a spiritual judgment which

he holds over mankind. Of this, the destruction of Jerusalem (in our

passage until v. 28) is only the first act; in immediate succession

(εὐθέως, v. 29 ff.) comes the revolution effected among mankind by the

publication of the gospel; a revolution which is to be carried on in a

series of acts and epochs, until the end of all things, when the

judgment gradually effected in the history of the world, will be made

known by an all-comprehending, final revelation. [1687] But the famous

utterance of the poet, [1688] spoken from the inmost depth of modern

conviction, is ill-adapted to become the key of a discourse, which more

than any other has its root in the point of view proper to the ancient

world. To regard the judgment of the world, the coming of Christ, as

something successive, is a mode of conception in the most direct

opposition to that of the New Testament. The very expressions by which

it designates that catastrophe, as that day or the last day, ἐκείνη or

ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα, show that it is to be thought of as momentary; the

συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος, end of the age (v. 3), concerning the signs of

which the apostles inquire, and which Jesus elsewhere (Matt. xiii. 39)

represents under the image of the harvest, can only be the final close

of the course of the world, not something which is gradually effected

during this course; when Jesus compares his coming to lightning (xxiv.

27), and to the entrance of the thief in the night (v. 43), he

represents it as one sudden event, and not as a series of events.

[1689] If we consider in addition to this the extravagant figures,

which it is not less necessary to suppose on this interpretation, than

on the above-mentioned reference of the 24th chapter to the destruction

of Jerusalem, [1690] it will appear necessary to abstain from this

expedient, as from all the previous ones.

Thus the last attempt to discover in the discourse before us the

immense interval which, looking from our position in the present day,

is fixed between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of all

things, having failed; we are taught practically that that interval

lies only in our own conception, which we are not justified in

introducing into the text. And when we consider that we owe our idea of

that interval only to the experience of many centuries, which have

elapsed since the destruction of Jerusalem: it cannot be difficult to

us to imagine how the author of this discourse, who had not had this

experience, might entertain the belief that shortly after the fall of

the Jewish sanctuary, the world itself, of which, in the Jewish idea,

that sanctuary was the centre, would also come to an end, and the

Messiah appear in judgment.

§ 116.

ORIGIN OF THE DISCOURSES ON THE SECOND ADVENT.

The result just obtained involves a consequence, to avoid which has

been the object of all the futile attempts at explanation hitherto

examined: if, namely, Jesus conceived and declared that the fall of the

Jewish sanctuary would be shortly followed by his visible return and

the end of the world, while it is now nearly 1800 years since the one

catastrophe, and yet the other has not arrived; it follows that in this

particular he was mistaken. Hence expositors, who so far yield to

exegetical evidence, as to agree with us in the above conclusion

concerning the meaning of the discourse before us, seek from dogmatical

considerations to evade this legitimate consequence.

Hengstenberg, as is well known, has advanced, in relation to the

history of the Hebrew prophets, the following theory, which has met

with approval from other expositors. To the spiritual vision of these

men, he says, future things presented themselves not so much through

the medium of time as of space—as it were, in great pictures; and thus,

as is the case in paintings or perspective views, the most distant

object often appeared to them to stand immediately behind the nearest,

foreground and background being intermingled with each other: and this

theory of a perspective vision we are to apply to Jesus, especially in

regard to the discourse in question. [1691] But we may here cite the

appropriate remark of Paulus, [1692] that as one, who in a perspective

externally presented, does not know how to distinguish distances,

labours under an optical delusion, i.e. errs: so likewise in an

internal perspective of ideas, if such there be, the disregard of

distances must be pronounced an error; consequently this theory does

not show that the above men did not err, but rather explains how they

easily might err.

Even Olshausen considers this theory, which he elsewhere adopts,

insufficient in the present case to remove all appearance of error on

the part of Jesus; and he therefore seeks to derive special grounds of

justification, from the particular nature of the event predicted.

[1693] In the first place he regards it as indispensable to the full

moral influence of the doctrine of Christ’s return, that this

catastrophe should be regarded as possible, nay probable, at any

moment. This consideration may indeed justify such enunciations as

Matt. xxiv. 37 ff., where Jesus admonishes to watchfulness, because no

one can know how soon the decisive moment may arrive; but by no means

such as xxiv. 34, where he declares that within the term of the

existing generation, all will be fulfilled. For one whose mind is in a

healthy state, conceives the possible as possible, the probable as

probable; and if he wishes to abide by the truth, he so exhibits them

to others: he, on the contrary, by whom the merely possible or probable

is conceived as the real, is under a mistake; and he who, without so

conceiving it himself, yet for a moral or religious object, so

represents it to others, permits himself to use a pious fraud.

Olshausen further avails himself of a position already noticed, namely,

that the opinion that the advent of Christ is at hand, is a true one,

inasmuch as the entire history of the world is a coming of Christ;

though not so as to exclude his final coming at the end of all things.

But if it is proved that Jesus represented his literal, final coming as

near at hand, while, in fact, only his figurative perpetual coming

occurred in the period indicated: he has confused these two modes of

his coming. The last argument which Olshausen adduces—that because the

acceleration or delay of the return of Christ depends on the conduct of

men, consequently on their free-will, his prophecy is only to be

understood conditionally—stands or falls with the first; for to

represent something conditional as unconditional is to create a false

impression.

Sieffert, likewise, regards the grounds on which Olshausen seeks to

free the assertions of Jesus concerning his return from the imputation

of error, as inadequate; nevertheless he holds it an impossibility to

the Christian consciousness, to ascribe an erroneous expectation to

Jesus. [1694] In no case would this furnish a warrant, arbitrarily to

sever from each other those elements in the discourse of Jesus which

refer to the nearer event, from those which in our view refer to the

more remote one: rather, if we had reasons for holding such an error on

the part of Jesus inconceivable, we must deny in general that the

discourses on the second advent, in which those two sets of materials

are so inextricably interwoven, originated with him. But, looking from

the orthodox point of view, the question is not: what will it satisfy

the Christian consciousness of the present day to believe or not to

believe concerning Christ? but, what stands written concerning Christ?

and to this the above consciousness must accommodate itself as it best

may. Considering the subject rationally, however, a feeling resting on

presuppositions, such as the so-called Christian consciousness, has no

voice in matters of science; and as often as it seeks to intermeddle

with them, is to be reduced to order by the simple reprimand: mulier

taceat in ecclesiâ! [1695]

But have we no other grounds for questioning that Jesus really uttered

the predictions contained in Matt xxiv. and xxv. parall.? In pursuing

this inquiry, we may first take our stand on the assertion of

supranaturalistic theologians, that what Jesus here predicts, he could

not know in the natural way of reasonable calculation, but only in a

supernatural manner. [1696] Even the main fact, that the temple would

be destroyed and Jerusalem laid waste, could not, according to this

opinion, be so certainly foreknown. Who could conjecture, it is asked,

that the Jews would carry their frantic obstinacy so far as to render

such an issue inevitable? Who could calculate, that precisely such

emperors, would send such procurators, as would provoke insurrection by

their baseness and pusillanimity? Still more remarkable is it, that

many particular incidents which Jesus foretold actually occurred. The

wars, pestilence, earthquakes, famines, which he prophesied, may be

shown in the history of the succeeding times; the persecution of his

followers really took place; the prediction that there would be false

prophets, and even such as would, by promises of miracles, allure the

people into the wilderness (Matt. xxiv. 11, 24 ff. parall.), may be

compared with a strikingly similar passage from Josephus, describing

the last times of the Jewish state; [1697] the encompassing of

Jerusalem with armies, mentioned by Luke, with the trench, χάραξ, which

he elsewhere (xix. 43 f.) speaks of as being cast about the city, may

be recognized in the circumstance recorded by Josephus, that Titus

caused Jerusalem to be enclosed by a wall; [1698] lastly it may also

excite astonishment that the declarations, there shall not be left one

stone upon another, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ, in relation to the

temple, and they shall lay thee even with the ground, ἐδαφιοῦσί σε,

(Luke xix. 44), in relation to the city, were fulfilled to the letter.

[1699]

When on the orthodox point of view, from the impossibility of

foreseeing such particulars in a natural manner, it is concluded that

Jesus had a supernatural insight into the future; this conclusion is

here attended not only with the same difficulty as above, in connection

with the announcement of his death and resurrection, but with another

also. In the first place, according to Matthew (xxiv. 15), and Mark

(xiii. 14), Jesus represented the first stage of the catastrophe as a

fulfilment of the prophecy of Daniel concerning an abomination of

desolation, and consequently referred Dan. ix. 27 (comp. xi. 31, xii.

11) to an event at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. For what

Paulus maintains,—namely, that Jesus here only borrows an expression

from Daniel, without regarding that declaration of the prophet as a

prophecy concerning something which in his time (the time of Jesus) was

still future—is here rendered especially inconceivable by the addition:

let him that readeth understand. Now it may be regarded as an

established point in the modern criticism and explanation of the Old

Testament, that the above passages in Daniel have reference to the

desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes; [1700] consequently,

the interpretation of them which the Evangelists here lend to Jesus is

a false one. But to proceed to the difficulty which is peculiar to the

prophecy in Matt. xxiv., xxv.: only one side of it, that relating to

Jerusalem, has been fulfilled; the other, that relating to the return

of Jesus and the end of the world, remains unfulfilled. Such a

half-true prophecy as this cannot have been drawn by Jesus from his

higher nature, and he must have been left in this matter to his human

faculties. But that he should be able, by means of these, to foresee a

result, dependent on so many fortuities as was the destruction of

Jerusalem, with its particular circumstances, appears inconceivable;

and hence the conjecture arises, that these discourses, in the

definiteness which they now possess, were not uttered prior to the

issue, consequently not by Jesus, but that they may have been put into

his mouth as prophecies after the issue. Thus Kaiser, for example, is

of opinion that Jesus threatened a terrible fate to the temple and the

nation by means of the Romans, conditionally, in case the nation did

not accept salvation from the Messiah, and described this fate in

prophetic types; but that the unconditional form and the more precise

delineations were given to his discourse post eventum. Credner also

infers, from the circumstances, that incidents accompanying the

destruction of Jerusalem are put into the mouth of Jesus as prophecies,

that the three first gospels cannot have been composed before this

event. [1701] It must certainly be supposed that the prophecy, as we

have it in the two first gospels, was formed immediately after or even

during the issue, since here the appearance of the Messiah is predicted

as an event that would immediately succeed the fall of Jerusalem, which

in later years could no longer be the expectation. As this immediate

chronological connexion of the two catastrophes is not so expressly

made by Luke, it has been supposed that this Evangelist gives the

prophecy as it was modified by experience, that the Messiah’s advent

and the end of the world had in nowise followed close on the

destruction of Jerusalem. [1702]

In opposition to these two opinions, that the prophecy in question had

a supernatural source, and that it was only made after the issue; it is

sought, in a third quarter, to show that what is here predicted, Jesus

might really have known in a natural way. [1703] While, on the one

hand, it is held in the highest degree astonishing that the result

should have so closely corresponded with the most minute features of

the prophecy of Jesus; on the other hand, there are expositors by whom

this correspondence is called in question. The encompassing of

Jerusalem with armies, say they, is precisely what Titus, according to

Josephus, pronounces impossible to be effected; [1704] it is predicted

that a trench χάραξ would be cast about the city, while Josephus

informs us, that after the first attempt at forming an embankment χῶμα

had been rendered useless, by an act of incendiarism on the part of the

besieged, [1705] Titus desisted from his scheme; of false Messiahs,

arising in the interval between the death of Jesus and the destruction

of Jerusalem, history says nothing; the commotions among nations, and

the natural phenomena, in that period, are far from being so important

as they are here represented; but above all, in these prophecies,

especially as they are given in Matthew and Mark, it is not the

destruction of Jerusalem which is predicted, but solely that of the

temple: plain divergencies of the prophecy from the result, which would

not exist, if either a supernatural glance into the future, or a

vaticinium post eventum were concerned.

According to these theologians, we are on the wrong track in seeking

the counterpart of these prophecies forwards, in the result; since it

was backwards, on types presented in the past, that the authors looked.

A mass of such types was furnished by the Jewish conception of the

circumstances which would precede the advent of the Messiah. False

prophets and Messiahs, war, famine and pestilence, earthquakes and

commotions in the heavens, prevalent corruption of manners, persecution

of the faithful servants of Jehovah, were held to be the immediate

harbingers of the messianic kingdom. Moreover, in the prophets there

are descriptions of the tribulation which would presage and accompany

the day of the coming of Jehovah (Isa. xiii. 9 ff.; Joel i. 15, ii. 1

ff., 10 ff., iii. 3 ff., iv. 15 f.; Zeph. i. 14 ff.; Hagg. ii. 7; Zech.

xiv. 1 ff.; Mal. iii. 1 ff.), or which would precede the messianic

kingdom of the saints (Dan. vii.–xii.), as also expressions in later

Jewish writings, [1706] so analogous with our evangelical prediction,

as to put it beyond question, that the description which it gives of

the time of the Messiah’s advent is drawn from a circle of ideas which

had long been current among the Jews.

Another question is, whether the principal feature in the picture

before us, the destruction of the temple and the devastation of

Jerusalem, as introductory to the coming of the Messiah, may also be

shown to have made part of the popular conception in the time of Jesus.

In Jewish writings we find the notion, that the birth of the Messiah

would coincide with the destruction of the sanctuary: [1707] but this

idea was obviously first formed after the fall of the temple, in order

that a fountain of consolation might spring out of the lowest depth of

misery. Josephus finds in Daniel, together with what relates to

Antiochus, a prophecy of the annihilation of the Jewish state by the

Romans: [1708] but as this is not the primary object in any of the

visions in Daniel, Josephus might first make this interpretation after

the issue, in which case it would prove nothing as to the time of

Jesus. Nevertheless, it is conceivable, that already in the time of

Jesus, the Jews might attribute to the prophecies of Daniel a reference

to events yet future, although these prophecies in fact related to a

far earlier period; and they might do so on the same grounds as those

on which the Christians of the present age still look forward to the

full realization of Matt. xxiv. and xxv. As immediately after the fall

of the kingdom made of iron mixed with clay, and of the horn that

speaks blasphemies and makes war against the saints, the coming of the

Son of man in the clouds, and the commencement of the everlasting

kingdom of the saints, is prophesied, while this result had not by any

means succeeded the defeat of Antiochus: there was an inducement still

to look to the future, not only for the heavenly kingdom, but also,

since they were made immediately to precede it, for the calamities

caused by the kingdom of iron and clay; among which calamities, by

analogy with what was predicted of the horn, the desecration of the

temple was conspicuous. But while the prophecy in Daniel includes only

the desecration of the temple and the interruption of the worship,

together with (the partial [1709]) destruction of the city: in the

discourse before us complete destruction is predicted to the temple—and

likewise to the city, not merely in Luke, where the expressions are

very marked, but undoubtedly in the two other Evangelists also, as

appears to be indicated by the exhortation to hasty flight from the

city;—which prediction of total destruction, as it is not contained in

the type, can apparently have been gathered only from the result. But

in the first place, the description in Daniel with the expressions

‏שָׁמֵם‎ and ‏הִשְׁחִית‎ (ix. 26 f., xii. 11), which the LXX. translates by

ἐρήμωσις, desolation, and διαφθείρω, I destroy, may easily be also

understood of a total destruction; and secondly, if once, in connexion

with the sins of the nation, the temple and city had been destroyed and

the people carried away captive, every enthusiastic Israelite, to whom

the religious and moral condition of his fellow-countrymen appeared

corrupt and irremediable, might thenceforth expect and predict a

repetition of that former judgment. According to this, even those

particulars in which, as we have seen in the foregoing section, Luke

surpasses his fellow-narrators in definiteness, are not of a kind to

oblige us to suppose, either a supernatural foreknowledge, or a

vaticinium post eventum: on the contrary, all may be explained by a

close consideration of what is narrated concerning the first

destruction of Jerusalem in 2 Kings xxv.; 2 Chron. xxxvi.; and Jer.

xxxix. 52.

There is only one point which Jesus, as the author of this discourse,

could not have gathered from any types, but must have drawn entirely

from himself: namely, the declaration that the catastrophe which he

described would arrive within the present generation. This prediction

we must hesitate to derive from a supernatural knowledge, for the

reason, already noticed, that it is only half fulfilled: while the

other side of the fact, the striking fulfilment of at least the one

half of the prophecy, might incline us to distrust the supposition of a

merely natural calculation, and to regard this determination of time as

a feature introduced into the discourse of Jesus after the issue.

Meanwhile, it is clear from the passages cited at the conclusion of the

last section, that the apostles themselves expected the return of

Christ to take place within their lifetime; and it is not improbable

that Jesus also believed that this event, together with the ruin of the

city and temple, which according to Daniel was to precede it, was very

near at hand. The more general part of the expectation, namely, the

appearing at some future time in the clouds of heaven, to awake the

dead, to sit in judgment, and to found an everlasting kingdom, would

necessarily, from a consideration of Daniel, where such a coming is

ascribed to the Son of man, be contemplated by Jesus as a part of his

own destiny, so soon as he held himself to be the Messiah; while, with

regard to the time, it was natural that he should not conceive a very

long interval as destined to elapse between his first messianic coming

in humiliation, and his second, in glory.

One objection to the genuineness of the synoptical discourses on the

second advent, is yet in reserve; it has, however, less weight in our

point of view than in that of the prevalent criticism of the gospels.

This objection is derived from the absence of any detailed description

of the second advent of Jesus in the Gospel of John. [1710] It is true

that the fundamental elements of the doctrine of Christ’s return are

plainly discoverable in the fourth gospel also. [1711] Jesus therein

ascribes to himself the offices of the future judgment, and the awaking

of the dead (John v. 21–30); which last is not indeed numbered among

the concomitants of the advent of Christ in the synoptical gospels, but

not seldom appears in that connexion elsewhere in the New Testament

(e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. iv. 16). When Jesus, in the fourth

gospel, sometimes denies that he is come into the world for judgment

(iii. 17, viii. 15, xii. 47), this refers only to his first presence on

earth, and is limited by opposite declarations, in which he asserts

that he is come into the world for judgment (ix. 39, comp. viii. 16),

to the sense that the object of his mission is not to condemn but to

save, and that his judgment is not individual or partial; that it

consists, not in an authoritative sentence proceeding subjectively from

himself, but in an objective act proceeding from the intrinsic tendency

of things, a doctrine which is significantly expressed in the

declaration, that him who hears his word without believing he judges

not, but the word, which he has spoken, shall judge him in the last day

(ὁ λόγος, ὂν ἐλάλησα, κρινεῖ αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, xii. 48).

Further, when the Jesus of John’s gospel says of the believer: οὐ

κρίνεται, he is not judged, εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται, he shall not come

into judgment (iii. 18, v. 24), this is to be understood of a judgment

with a condemnatory issue; when on the contrary, it is said of the

unbeliever: ἤδη κέκριται, he is judged already (iii. 18), this only

means that the assigning of the merited lot to each is not reserved

until the future judgment at the end of all things, since each one in

his inward disposition bears within himself the fate which is his due.

This does not exclude a future solemn act of judgment, wherein that

which has at present only a latent existence will be made matter of

awful revelation; for in the very passage last quoted we find the

consignment to condemnation, and elsewhere the awarding of future

blessedness (v. 28 f., vi. 39 f., 54), associated with the last day and

the resurrection. In like manner, Jesus says in Luke also, in the same

connexion in which he describes his return as a still future, external

catastrophe, xvii. 20 f.: The kingdom of God cometh not with

observation; neither shall they say, lo here! or, lo there! for behold

the kingdom of God is within you. A certain interpretation of the words

uttered by the Jesus of John’s gospel, supposes him even to intimate

that his return was not far distant. The expressions already mentioned

in the farewell discourses, in which Jesus promises his disciples not

to leave them comfortless, but, after having gone to the Father,

shortly (xvi. 16) to come again to them (xiv. 3, 18), are not seldom

understood of the return of Christ at the last day; [1712] but when we

hear Jesus say of this same return, that he will therein reveal himself

only to his disciples, and not to the world (xiv. 19, comp. 22), it is

impossible to think of it as the return to judgment, in which Jesus

conceived that he should reveal himself to good and bad without

distinction. There is a particularly enigmatical allusion to the coming

of Christ in the appendix to the fourth gospel, chap. xxi.. On the

question of Peter as to what will become of the apostle John, Jesus

here replies, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to

thee? (v. 22) whence, as it is added, the Christians inferred that John

would not die, since they supposed the coming (ἔρχεσθαι) here spoken

of, to be the final return of Christ, in which those who witnessed it

were to be changed, without tasting death (1 Cor. xv. 51 f.). But, adds

the author correctively, Jesus did not say, the disciple would not die,

but only, if he willed that he should tarry till he came, what was that

to Peter? Hereby the Evangelist may have intended to rectify the

inference in two ways. Either it appeared to him erroneous to identify

the remaining until Jesus came, with not dying, i.e. to take the coming

of which Jesus here spoke for the last, which would put an end to

death; and in that case he must have understood by it an invisible

coming of Christ, possibly in the destruction of Jerusalem: [1713] or,

he held it erroneous that what Jesus had only said hypothetically—even

if he willed the given case, that was no concern of Peter’s—should be

understood categorically, as if such had really been the will of Jesus;

in which case the ἔρχομαι would retain its customary sense. [1714]

If, according to this, all the main features of the doctrine of the

second advent are put into the mouth of Jesus in the fourth gospel

also, still we nowhere find anything of the detailed, graphic

description of the external event, which we read in the synoptical

gospels. This relation between the two representations, creates no

slight difficulty on the ordinary view of the origin of the gospels,

and especially that of the fourth. If Jesus really spoke of his return

so fully and solemnly as the synoptists represent him to have done, and

treated of the right knowledge and observation of the signs as

something of the highest importance; it is inconceivable that the

author of the fourth gospel could pass over all this, if he were an

immediate disciple of Jesus. The usual mode of accounting for such an

omission, by the supposition that he believed this part of the teaching

of Jesus to be sufficiently known from the synoptical gospels, or from

oral tradition, is the more inadequate here in proportion as all which

bears a prophetic character, especially when relating to events at once

so much longed for and dreaded, is exposed to misinterpretation; as we

may see from the rectification just noticed, which the author of John

xxi. found it necessary to apply to the opinion of his contemporaries

concerning the promise given by Jesus to John. Thus, in the present

case, an explanatory word would have been highly seasonable and useful,

especially as the representation of the first gospel, which made the

end of all things follow immediately on the destruction of Jerusalem,

must be the more an occasion of doubt and offence the nearer the latter

event came, and in a still greater degree when it was past. And who was

more capable of affording such enlightenment than the favourite

disciple, particularly if, according to Mark xiii. 3, he was the only

Evangelist who had been present at the discourse of Jesus on this

subject? Hence, here again, a special reason for his silence is sought

in the alleged destination of his gospel for non-judaical, idealizing

Gnostics, whose point of view those descriptions would not have suited,

and were therefore omitted. [1715] But precisely in relation to such

readers, it would have been a culpable compliance, a confirmation in

their idealizing tendency, had John, out of deference to them,

suppressed the real side of the return of Christ. The apostle must

rather have withstood the propensity of these people to evaporate the

external, historical part of Christianity, by giving due prominence to

it; as, in his epistle, in opposition to their Docetism, he lays stress

on the corporeality of Jesus: so, in opposition ta their idealism, he

must have been especially assiduous to exhibit in the return of Christ

the external facts by which it would be signalized. Instead of this, he

himself speaks nearly like a Gnostic, and constantly aims, in relation

to the return of Christ, to resolve the external and the future into

the internal and the present. Hence there is not so much exaggeration,

as Olshausen supposes, in the opinion of Fleck, that the representation

of the doctrine of Jesus concerning his return in the synoptical

gospels, and that given in the fourth, exclude each other; [1716] for

if the author of the fourth gospel be an apostle, the discourses on the

second advent which the three first Evangelists attribute to Jesus,

cannot have been so delivered by him, and vice versâ. We, however, as

we have said, cannot avail ourselves of this argument, having long

renounced the pre-supposition that the fourth gospel had an apostolic

origin. But, on our point of view, we can fully explain the relation

which the representation of the fourth gospel bears to that of the

synoptists. In Palestine, where the tradition recorded by the three

first gospels was formed, the doctrine of a solemn advent of the

Messiah which was there prevalent, and which Jesus embraced, was

received in its whole breadth into the Christian belief: whereas in the

Hellenistic-theosophic circle in which the fourth gospel arose, this

idea was divested of its material envelopment, and the return of Christ

became the ambiguous medium between a real and an ideal, a present and

a future event, which it appears in the fourth gospel.

CHAPTER II.

MACHINATIONS OF THE ENEMIES OF JESUS; TREACHERY OF JUDAS; LAST SUPPER

WITH HIS DISCIPLES.

§ 117.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE RELATION OF JESUS TO HIS ENEMIES.

In the three first gospels the principal enemies of Jesus are the

Pharisees and scribes, [1717] who saw in him the most ruinous opponent

of their institutions; together with the chief priests and elders, who,

as the heads of the external temple-worship and the hierarchy founded

upon it, could have no friendly feeling towards one who on every

opportunity represented as the main point, the internal service of God

with the devotion of the mind. Elsewhere we find among the enemies of

Jesus the Sadducees (Matt. xvi. 1, xxii. 23 ff. parall. comp. Matt.

xvi. 6 ff. parall.), to whose materialism much in his opinions must

have been repugnant; and the Herodian party (Mark iii. 6; Matt. xxii.

16 parall.) who, having been unfavourable to the Baptist, were

naturally so to his successor. The fourth gospel, though it sometimes

mentions the chief priests and Pharisees, the most frequently

designates the enemies of Jesus by the general expression: οἱ Ἱουδαῖοι,

the Jews; an expression which proceeds from a later, Christian point of

view.

The four Evangelists unanimously relate, that the more defined

machinations of the Pharisaic-hierarchical party against Jesus, took

their rise from an offence committed by the latter against the

prevalent rules concerning the observation of the sabbath. When Jesus

had cured the man with the withered hand, it is said in Matthew: the

Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might

destroy him (xii. 14, comp. Mark iii. 6; Luke vi. 11); and in like

manner John observes, on the occasion of the Sabbath cure at the pool

of Bethesda: therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and after

mentioning a declaration of Jesus, proceeds thus: therefore the Jews

sought the more to kill him (v. 16, 18).

But immediately after this commencing point, the synoptical account of

the relation in question diverges from that of John. In the synoptists,

the next offence is given by the neglect of washing before meals on the

part of Jesus and his disciples, with the sharp invectives which, when

called to account on the subject, he launched forth against the spirit

of petty observance, and the hypocrisy and spirit of persecution with

which it was united in the Pharisees and lawyers; after all which it is

said, that the latter conceived a deep animosity against him, and tried

to sift him and entrap him by dangerous questions, in order to obtain

grounds of accusation against him (Luke xi. 37–54, comp. Matt. xv. 1

ff.; Mark vii. 1 ff.). On his last journey to Jerusalem, the Pharisees

gave Jesus a warning against Herod (Luke xiii. 31), which apparently

had no other object than to induce him to leave the country. The next

important cause of offence to the hierarchical party, was the striking

homage paid to Jesus by the people on his entrance into Jerusalem, and

the purification of the temple which he immediately undertook: but they

were still withheld from any violent measures towards him by the

strength of his interest with the people (Matt. xxi. 15 f.; Mark ix.

18; Luke xix. 39, 47 f.), which was the sole reason why they did not

possess themselves of his person, after the severe manner in which he

had characterized them, in the parable of the husbandmen of the

vineyard (Matt. xxi. 45 f. parall.). After these events, it scarcely

needed the anti-Pharisaic discourse Matt. xxiii. to make the chief

priests, the scribes and elders, i.e. the Sanhedrim, assemble in the

palace of the high priest, shortly before the passover, for a

consultation, that they might take Jesus by subtlety and kill him

(Matt. xxvi. 3 ff. parall.).

In the fourth gospel, also, the great number of the adherents of Jesus

among the people is sometimes, it is true, described as the reason why

his enemies desired to seize him (vii. 32, 44, comp. iv. 1 ff.), and

his solemn entrance into Jerusalem embitters them here also (xii. 19);

sometimes their murderous designs are mentioned without any motive

being stated (vii. 1, 19, 25, viii. 40): but the main cause of offence

in this gospel, lies in the declarations of Jesus concerning his

exalted dignity. Even on the occasion of the cure of the lame man on

the Sabbath, what chiefly irritated the Jews was that Jesus justified

it by appealing to the uninterrupted agency of God as his Father, which

in their opinion was a blasphemous making of himself equal with God,

ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιεῖν τῷ θεῷ (v. 18); when he spoke of his divine mission,

they sought to lay hold on him (vii. 30, comp. viii. 20); on his

asserting that he was before Abraham, they took up stones to cast at

him (viii. 59); they did the same when he declared that he and the

Father were one (x. 31), and when he asserted that the Father was in

him and he in the Father, they again attempted to seize him (x. 39).

But that which, according to the fourth gospel, turns the scale, and

causes the hostile party to take a formal resolution against Jesus, is

the resuscitation of Lazarus. When this act was reported to the

Pharisees, they and the chief priests convened a council of the

Sanhedrim, in which the subject of deliberation was, that if Jesus

continued to perform so many signs, σημεῖα, all would at length adhere

to him, and then the Roman power would be exerted to the destruction of

the Jewish nation; whereupon the high priest Caiaphas pronounced the

momentous decision, that it was better for one man to die for the

people than for the whole nation to perish. His death was now

determined upon, and it was enjoined on every one to point out his

abode, that he might be arrested (xi. 46 ff.).

With regard to this difference modern criticism observes, that we

should not at all comprehend the tragical turn of the fate of Jesus

from the synoptical accounts, and that John alone opens to us a glance

into the manner in which, step by step, the breach between the

hierarchical party and Jesus was widened; in short, that in this point

also the representation of the fourth gospel shows itself a pragmatical

one, which that of the other gospels is not. [1718] But what it is in

which the Gospel of John exhibits superiority in gradation and

progress, it is difficult to see, since the very first definite

statement concerning the incipient enmity (v. 18) contains the extreme

of the offence (ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ, making himself equal with

God) and the extreme of the enmity (ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι, they

sought to kill him); so that all which is narrated further concerning

the hostility of the Jews is mere repetition, and the only fact which

presents itself as a step towards more decided measures is the

resolution of the Sanhedrim, chap. xi.. This species of gradation,

however, is not wanting in the synoptical account also: here we have

the transition from the indefinite laying wait for Jesus, and the

communing what might be done to him (Luke xi. 54, vi. 11), or as it is

more precisely given in Matthew (xii. 14), and in Mark (iii. 6), the

taking counsel how they might destroy him, to the definite resolve as

to the manner (δόλῳ) and the time (μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ Matt. xxvi. 4 f.

parall).—But it is especially made a reproach to three first

Evangelists, that in passing over the resurrection of Lazarus, they

have omitted that incident which gave the final impulse to the fate of

Jesus. [1719] If we, on the contrary, in virtue of the above result of

our criticism of this miraculous narrative, must rather praise the

synoptists, that they do not represent as the turning point in the fate

of Jesus, an incident which never really happened: so the fourth

Evangelist, by the manner in which he relates the murderous resolve to

which it was the immediate inducement, by no means manifests himself as

one whose authority can be held by us a sufficient warrant for the

truth of his narrative. The circumstance that he ascribes to the high

priest the gift of prophecy (without doubt in accordance with a

superstitious idea of his age [1720]), and regards his speech as a

prediction of the death of Jesus, would certainly not by itself prove

that he could not have been an apostle and eye-witness. [1721] But it

has with justice been held a difficulty, that our Evangelist designates

Caiaphas as the high priest of that year, ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ

ἐκείνου (xi. 49), and thus appears to suppose that this dignity, like

many Roman magistracies, was an annual one; whereas it was originally

held for life, and even in that period of Roman ascendancy, was not a

regular annual office, but was transferred as often as it pleased the

arbitrariness of the Romans. To conclude on the authority of the fourth

gospel, in opposition to the general custom, and notwithstanding the

silence of Josephus, that Annas and Caiaphas, by a private agreement,

held the office for a year by turns, [1722] is an expedient to which

those may resort whom it pleases; to take ἐνιαυτοῦ indefinitely for

χρόνου, [1723] is, from the twofold repetition of the same expression,

v. 51 and xviii. 13, inadmissible; that at that period the high

priesthood was frequently transferred from one to another, and some

high priests were not allowed to remain in their office longer than a

year, [1724] did not justify our author in designating Caiaphas as the

high priest of a particular year, when in fact he filled that post for

a series of years, and certainly throughout the duration of the public

agency of Jesus; lastly, that John intended to say that Caiaphas was

high priest in the year in which Jesus died, without thereby excluding

earlier and later years, in which he also held the office, [1725] is an

equally untenable position. For if the time in which an incident occurs

is described as a certain year, this mode of expression must imply,

that either the incident the date of which is to be determined, or the

fact by which that date is to be determined, is connected with the term

of a year. Thus either the author of the fourth gospel must have been

of the opinion, that from the death of Jesus, to which this decision of

Caiaphas was the initiative step, a plenitude of spiritual gifts,

including the gift of prophecy to the high priest of that period, was

dispensed throughout that particular year, [1726] and no longer; or, if

this be a far-fetched explanation, he must have imagined that Caiaphas

was high priest for the term of that year only. Lücke concludes that

as, according to Josephus, the high priest of that period held his

office for ten years successively, therefore John cannot have meant, by

the expression ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου, that the office of high

priest was an annual one; whereas the author of the Probabilia, on the

ground that the evidence of this meaning in the words of the gospel, is

far more certain than that John is its author, reverses this

proposition, and concludes, that as the fourth gospel here presents an

idea concerning the duration of the office of high priest which could

not be entertained in Palestine, therefore its author cannot have been

a native of Palestine. [1727]

Of the further statements also, as to the points in which Jesus gave

offence to the hierarchy of his nation, those which the synoptists have

alone, or in common with John, are credible; those which are peculiar

to the latter, not so. Among those which are common to both sides, the

solemn entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, and the strong attachment of

the people to him, were equally natural causes of offence with his

discourses and actions in opposition to the sabbatical institutions, in

whatever the latter may have consisted: on the contrary, the manner in

which, according to the fourth gospel, the Jews take offence at the

declarations of Jesus concerning himself as the Son of God, is,

according to our earlier analysis, [1728] as inconceivable, as it is

consistent with the common order of things that the polemical tone

towards the Pharisees which the first Evangelists all lend to Jesus,

should irritate the party attacked. Thus no new or more profound

insight into the causes and motives of the reaction against Jesus, is

to be obtained from the fourth gospel: but the information which the

synoptists have preserved to us fully suffices to make that fact

intelligible.

§ 118.

JESUS AND HIS BETRAYER.

Although it had been resolved in the council of the chief priests and

elders, that the feast time should be allowed to pass over before any

measures were taken against Jesus, because any act of violence against

him in these days might easily excite an insurrection, on the part of

his numerous adherents among the visitants to the feast (Matt. xxvi. 5;

Mark xiv. 2): yet this consideration was superseded by the facility

with which one of his disciples offered to deliver him into their

hands. Judas, surnamed Ἰσκαριώτης, doubtless on account of his origin

from the Jewish city of Kerioth [1729] (Josh. xv. 25), went, according

to the synoptists, a few days before the passover, to the heads of the

priesthood, and volunteered to deliver Jesus quietly into their hands,

for which service they promised him money, according to Matthew, thirty

pieces of silver (ἀργύρια, Matt xxvi. 14 ff. parall.). Of such an

antecedent transaction between Judas and the enemies of Jesus, the

fourth gospel not only says nothing, but appears moreover to represent

the matter as if Judas had not formed the determination of betraying

Jesus to the priesthood, until the last supper, and had then promptly

put it into execution. The same entering (εἰσελθεῖν) of Satan into

Judas, which Luke (xxii. 3) places before his first interview with the

chief priests, and before any preparation had been made for Jesus and

his disciples to eat the passover together, is represented by the

author of the fourth gospel as occurring at this meal, before Judas

left the company (xiii. 27): a proof, as it appears, that in the

opinion of this Evangelist, Judas now made his first traitorous visit.

He does indeed observe, before the meal (xiii. 2), that the devil had

put it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus, and this τοῦ διαβόλον

βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν is commonly regarded as the parallel of

Luke’s εἰσηλθε σατανᾶς (Satan entered into him), being understood to

imply the formation of the treacherous resolve, in consequence of which

Judas went to the chief priests: but if he had previously been in

treaty with them, the betrayal was already completed, and it is then

not easy to perceive what can be meant by the words εἰσῆλθεν εἰς αὐτὸν

ὁ σατανᾶς on the occasion of the last meal, since the summoning of

those who were to seize Jesus was no new diabolical resolution, but

only the execution of that which had already been embraced. The

expression in John v. 27 only obtains an entirely consistent sense in

distinction from v. 2, when the βα’λλειν εἰς τὴν καρδίαν in the latter,

is understood of the rising of the thought, the εἰσελθεῖν in the

former, of the ripening of this thought into resolution, the

supposition that Judas had pledged himself to the chief priests before

the meal being thus excluded. [1730] In this manner, however, the

statement of the synoptists that Judas, some time before the

perpetration of his treacherous act, made a bargain with the enemies of

Jesus, stands in contradiction with that of John, that he only put

himself in league with them immediately before the deed; and here Lücke

decides in favour of John, maintaining it to be after his departure

from the last supper (xiii. 30), that Judas made that application to

the chief priests which the synoptists (Matt. xxvi. 14 f. parall.)

place before the meal. [1731] But this decision of Lücke’s is founded

solely on deference to the presupposed authority of John; for even if,

as he remarks, Judas could very well obtain an interview with the

priests when night had commenced: still, regarding the matter apart

from any presuppositions, the probability is beyond comparison stronger

on the side of the synoptists, who allow some time for the affair, than

on that of John, according to whom it is altogether sudden, and Judas,

truly as if he were possessed, rushes out when it is already night to

treat with the priests, and immediately hurry to the deed.

Concerning the motives which induced Judas to league himself with the

enemies of Jesus, we learn from the three first gospels no more than

that he received money from the chief priests. This would indicate that

he was actuated by covetousness, especially according to the narrative

in Matthew, where Judas, before he promises to betray Jesus, puts the

question, What will ye give me? Clearer light is thrown on this subject

by the statement of the fourth gospel (xii. 4 ff.), that on the

occasion of the meal in Bethany, Judas was indignant at the anointing,

as an unnecessary expenditure,—that he carried the purse, and acted the

thief in that office; whence it might be supposed that the avarice of

Judas, no longer satisfied by his peculations on the funds of the

society, hoped to reap a more considerable harvest by betraying Jesus

to the rich and powerful sacerdotal party. We must hold ourselves under

obligation to the author of the fourth gospel, that by the preservation

of these particulars, which are wanting in the other Evangelists, he

has made the act of Judas somewhat more comprehensible,—so soon as his

statements are shown to have an historical foundation. We have shown

above, however, how improbable it is that, had that censure really

proceeded from Judas, the legend should have lost this trait; [1732]

how probable, on the other hand, a legendary origin of it, it is easy

to discern. The meal at Bethany stood in the evangelical tradition near

to the end of the life of Jesus, an end brought about by the treachery

of Judas;—how easily might the thought arise in some one, that the

narrow-minded censure of a noble prodigality could only come from the

covetous Judas? That the censure at the same time turned upon the

propriety of selling the ointment for the benefit of the poor, could in

the mouth of Judas be only a pretext, behind which he concealed his

selfishness: but advantage to himself from the sale of the ointment

could not be expected by him, unless he allowed himself to purloin some

of the money saved; and this again he could not do unless he were the

purse-bearer. If it thus appear possible for the statement that Judas

was a thief and had the bag, to have had an unhistorical origin: we

have next to inquire whether there are any reasons for supposing that

such was actually the case.

Here we must take into consideration another point on which the

synoptists and John differ, namely, the foreknowledge of Jesus that

Judas would betray him. In the synoptical gospels, Jesus first

manifests this knowledge at the last supper, consequently at a time in

which the deed of Judas had virtually been perpetrated; and apparently

but a short time before, Jesus had so little presentiment that one of

the twelve would be lost to him, that he promised them all, without

exception, the honour of sitting on twelve thrones of judgment in the

palingenesia (Matt. xix. 28). According to John, on the contrary, Jesus

declares shortly before the time of the last passover but one,

consequently a year before the result, that one of the twelve is a

devil, διάβολος, meaning, according to the observation of the

Evangelist, Judas, as his future betrayer (vi. 70); for, as it had been

observed shortly before (v. 64), Jesus knew from the beginning,—who

should betray him. According to this, Jesus knew from the commencement

of his acquaintance with Judas, that this disciple would prove a

traitor; and not merely did he foresee this external issue, but also,

since he knew what was in man (John ii. 25), he must have penetrated

the motives of Judas, namely, covetousness and love of money. And, if

so, would he have made him purse-bearer, i.e. placed him in a position

in which his propensity to seek gain by any means, even though

dishonest, must have had the most abundant nourishment? Would he have

made him a thief by giving him opportunity, and thus, as if designedly,

have brought up in him a betrayer for himself? Considered simply in an

economical point of view, who entrusts a purse to one of whom he knows

that he robs it? Then, in relation to the idea of Jesus as a moral

teacher, who places the weak in a situation which so constantly appeals

to his weak point, as to render it certain that he will sooner or later

give way to the temptation? No truly: Jesus assuredly did not so play

with the souls immediately entrusted to him, did not exhibit to them so

completely the opposite of what he taught them to pray for, lead us not

into temptation (Matt. vi. 13), as to have made Judas, of whom he

foreknew that he would become his betrayer out of covetousness, the

purse-bearer of his society; or, if he gave him this office, he cannot

have had such a foreknowledge.

In order to arrive at a decision in this alternative, we must consider

that foreknowledge separately, and inquire whether, apart from the

treasurership of Judas, it be probable or not? We shall not enter on

the question of the psychological possibility, because there is always

freedom of appeal to the divine nature of Jesus; but with regard to the

moral possibility it is to be asked, whether presupposing that

foreknowledge, it be justifiable in Jesus to have chosen Judas among

the twelve, and to have retained him within this circle? As it was only

by this vocation that his treachery as such could be rendered possible;

so Jesus appears, if he foresaw this treachery, to have designedly

drawn him into the sin. It is urged that intercourse with Jesus

afforded Judas the possibility of escaping that abyss: [1733] but Jesus

is supposed to have foreseen that this possibility would not be

realized. It is further said that even in other circles the evil

implanted in Judas would not the less have developed itself in a

different form: a proposition which has a strong tinge of fatalism.

Again, when it is said to be of no avail to a man that the evil, the

germ of which lies within him, should not be developed, this appears to

lead to consequences which are repudiated by the apostle Paul, Rom.

iii. 8, vi. 1 f. And regarding the subject in relation to feeling

merely,—how could Jesus endure to have a man, of whom he knew that he

would be his betrayer, and that all instruction would be fruitless to

him, as his constant attendant throughout the whole period of his

public life? Must not the presence of such a person have every hour

interfered with his confidential intercourse with the rest of the

twelve? Assuredly they must have been weighty motives, for the sake of

which Jesus imposed on himself anything so repugnant and difficult.

Such motives or objects must either have had relation to Judas, and

thus have consisted in the design to make him better—which however was

precluded by the decided foreknowledge of his crime; or they must have

had relation to Jesus himself and his work, i.e. Jesus had the

conviction that if the work of redemption by means of his death were to

be effected, there must be one to betray him. [1734] But for the

purpose of redemption, according to the Christian theory, the death of

Jesus was the only indispensable means: whether this should be brought

about by a betrayal, or in any other way, was of no moment, and that

the enemies of Jesus must, earlier or later, have succeeded in getting

him into their power without the aid of Judas, is undeniable. That the

betrayer was indispensable in order to bring about the death of Jesus

exactly at the passover, which was a type of himself [1735]—with such

trivialities it will scarcely be attempted to put us off in these days.

If then we are unable to discover any adequate motive which could

induce Jesus advertently to receive and retain in his society his

betrayer in the person of Judas: it appears decided that he cannot

beforehand have known him to be such. Schleiermacher, in order that he

may not infringe on the authority of John by denying this

foreknowledge, prefers doubting that Jesus chose the twelve purely by

his own act, and supposes that this circle was rather formed by the

voluntary adherence of the disciples: since it would be more easy to

justify the conduct of Jesus, if he merely refrained from rejecting

Judas when he spontaneously offered himself than if he drew him to

himself by free choice. [1736] But hereby the authority of John is

still endangered, for it is he who makes Jesus say to the twelve: Ye

have not chosen me, but I have chosen you (xv. 16, comp. vi. 76);

moreover, even dismissing the idea of a decided act of election, still

for any one to remain constantly with Jesus there needed his permission

and sanction, and even these he could not, acting humanly, give to a

man of whom he knew that, by means of this relation to himself, he

would be enabled to mature the blackest crime. It is said, however,

that Jesus put himself entirely into the Divine point of view, and

admitted Judas into his society, for the sake of the possibility of

reformation which he yet foreknew would never be realised; but this

would be a Divine inhumanity,—not the conduct of the God-man. If,

according to this, it is extremely difficult to maintain as historical

the statement of the fourth gospel, that Jesus from the beginning knew

Judas to be his betrayer: so it is equally easy to discern what even

without historical foundation might lead to such a representation.

It would be natural to suppose, that the fact of Jesus being betrayed

by one of his own disciples, would be injurious to him in the eyes of

his enemies, even if we did not know that Celsus, in the character of a

Jew, reproached Jesus that he was betrayed by one of those whom he

called his disciples, ὅτι ὑφ’ ὦ ὠνόμαζε μαθητῶν προὐδόθη, as a proof

that he was less able to attach his followers to himself than every

robber-chief. [1737] Now as the injurious consequences to be drawn from

the ignominious death of Jesus, appeared to be most completely obviated

by the assertion that he had long foreknown his death: so, the

arguments against Jesus derived from the treachery of Judas, might seem

to be most effectually repelled by the statement, that he had

penetrated into the character of the traitor from the first, and could

have escaped what his treason prepared for him; since this would

involve the inference that he had exposed himself to the effects of his

faithlessness by his own free will, and out of higher considerations.

[1738] This method included a second advantage, which attaches to the

enunciator of every prediction alleged to be fulfilled, and which the

fourth Evangelist naively makes his Jesus express, when, after the

exposure of the betrayer, he puts into his mouth the words: Now I tell

you before it come, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I

am he (xiii. 19)—In fact, the best motto for every vaticinium post

eventum. These two objects were the more completely attained, the

earlier the period in the life of Jesus to which this foreknowledge was

referred; whence it is to be explained why the author of the fourth

gospel, not satisfied with the ordinary representation, that Jesus

predicted his betrayal by Judas at the last supper, placed his

knowledge on this subject in the commencement of the connexion between

him and Judas. [1739]

This early knowledge on the part of Jesus concerning the treachery of

Judas being dismissed as unhistorical, there would be room for the

statement that Judas carried the purse of the society; since this

particular only appeared incompatible with the above foreknowledge,

while, if Jesus was in general mistaken in Judas, he might, under this

error, have entrusted the funds to him. But by the proof that the

representation of John, in relation to the knowledge of Jesus

concerning his betrayer, is a fictitious one, its credibility in this

matter is so shaken, that no confidence can be placed in the other

statement. If the author of the fourth gospel has embellished the

relation between Jesus and Judas on the side connected with Jesus, he

can scarcely have left the side of Judas unadorned; if he has

introduced the fact, that Jesus was betrayed, by making Jesus foresee

this part of his destiny, his other statement, that Judas had

beforehand exhibited his avarice by a dishonest use of the common

purse, may easily be only an introduction to the fact, that Jesus was

betrayed by Judas.

But even though we renounce the information given by John concerning

the character and motives of Judas: we still retain, in the

forementioned statement of the synoptists, the most decided intimation

that the chief motive of his deed was covetousness.

§ 119.

DIFFERENT OPINIONS CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF JUDAS, AND THE MOTIVES

OF HIS TREACHERY.

From the earliest to the latest times there have been persons, who have

held opinions at issue with this view of the New Testament writers

concerning the motives of Judas, and with their entirely reprobatory

judgment upon them (comp. Acts i. 16 ff.); and this divergency has

arisen partly out of an exaggerated supranaturalism, and partly out of

a rationalistic bias.

An over-strained supranaturalism, proceeding from the point of view

presented in the New Testament itself, namely, that the death of Jesus,

decreed in the Divine plan of the world for the salvation of mankind,

might even regard Judas, by whose treachery the death of Jesus was

brought about, as a blameless instrument in the hand of Providence, a

co-operator in the redemption of mankind. He might be placed in this

light by the supposition that he had knowledge of that Divine decree,

and that its fulfilment was the object at which he aimed in betraying

Jesus. We actually find this mode of viewing the subject on the part of

the gnostic sect of the Cainites, who, according to the ancient writers

on heresies, held that Judas had liberated himself from the narrow

Jewish opinions of the other disciples and attained to the gnosis, and

accordingly betrayed Jesus because he knew that by his death the

kingdom of the inferior spirits who ruled the world would be

overthrown. [1740] Others in the early church admitted that Judas

betrayed Jesus out of covetousness; maintaining, however, that he did

not anticipate the death of Jesus as a consequence of his betrayal, but

supposed that he would, as he had often previously done, escape from

his enemies by an exertion of his supernatural power: [1741] an opinion

which forms the transition to the modern methods of justifying the

traitor.

As the above mentioned supranaturalistic exaltation of Judas by the

Cainites immediately proceeded from their antagonistic position with

respect to Judaism, in virtue of which they had made it a principle to

honour all who were blamed by the Jewish authors of the Old Testament,

and the judaizing authors of the New, and vice versâ: so Rationalism

especially in its first indignation at the long subjection of the

reason to the fetters of authority, felt a certain delight both in

divesting of their nimbus those biblical personages who according to

its views had been too zealously deified by orthodoxy, and also in

defending and elevating those who were condemned or depreciated by the

latter. Hence, in the Old Testament, the exaltation of Esau over Jacob,

of Saul over Samuel; in the New, of Martha over Mary, the eulogiums on

the doubting Thomas, and now the apology even for the traitor Judas.

According to some, he became a criminal out of injured honour: the

manner in which Jesus reproved him at the meal at Bethany, and, in

general, the inferior degree of regard which he experienced in

comparison with other disciples, converted his love for his teacher

into hatred and revenge. [1742] Others have preferred the conjecture

preserved by Theophylact, that Judas may have hoped to see Jesus this

time also escape from his enemies. Some have taken up this idea in the

supranaturalistic sense, supposing it to be the expectation of Judas

that Jesus would set himself at liberty by an exertion of his

miraculous power; [1743] others consistently with their point of view

have supposed that Judas may probably have expected that if Jesus were

taken prisoner the people would raise an insurrection in his favour and

set him at liberty. [1744] These opinions represent Judas as one who,

in common with the other disciples, conceived the messianic kingdom as

an earthly and political one, and hence was discontented that Jesus so

long abstained from availing himself of the popular favour, in order to

assume the character of the messianic ruler. Instigated either by

attempts at bribery on the part of the Sanhedrim, or by the rumour of

their plan to seize Jesus in secret after the feast, Judas sought to

forestall this project, which must have been fatal to Jesus, and to

bring about his arrest before the expiration of the feast time, in

which he might certainly hope to see Jesus liberated by an

insurrection, by which means he would be compelled at last to throw

himself into the arms of the people, and thus take the decisive step

towards the establishment of his dominion. When he heard Jesus speak of

the necessity of his being captured, and of his rising again in three

days, he understood these expressions as an intimation of the

concurrence of Jesus in his plan; under this mistake, he partly failed

to hear, and partly misinterpreted, his additional admonitory

discourse; and especially understood the words: What thou doest, do

quickly, as an actual encouragement to the execution of his design. He

took the thirty pieces of silver from the priests either to conceal his

real intentions under the appearance of covetousness, and thus to lull

every suspicion on their part; or, because, while he expected an

exaltation to one of the first places in the kingdom of his master, he

was not unwilling to combine with it even that small advantage. But

Judas had miscalculated in two points: first, in not considering that

after the feasting of the paschal night, the people would not be early

on the alert for an insurrection; secondly, in overlooking the

probability, that the Sanhedrim would hasten to deliver Jesus into the

hands of the Romans, from whom a popular insurrection would hardly

suffice to deliver him. Thus Judas is supposed to be either an honest

man misunderstood, [1745] or a deluded one, who however was of no

common character, but exhibited even in his despair the wreck of

apostolic greatness; [1746] or, he is supposed, by evil means, indeed,

to have sought the attainment of an object, which was nevertheless

good. [1747] Neander imagines the two opposite opinions concerning

Jesus, the supernatural and the natural, to have presented themselves

to the mind of Judas in the form of a dilemma, so that he reasoned

thus: if Jesus is the Messiah, a delivery into the hands of his enemies

will, owing to his supernatural power, in no way injure him, but will,

on the contrary, serve to accelerate his glorification: if, on the

other hand, he is not the Messiah, he deserves destruction. According

to this, the betrayal was merely a test, by which the doubting disciple

meant to try the messiahship of his master. [1748]

Among these views, that which derives the treachery of Judas from

wounded ambition, is the only one which can adduce a positive

indication in its favour: namely, the repulse which the traitor drew on

himself from Jesus at the meal in Bethany. But against such an appeal

to this reproof we have already, on another occasion, applied the

remark of the most recent criticism, that its mildness, especially as

compared with the far more severe rebuke administered to Peter, Matt.

xvi. 23, must forbid our attributing to it such an effect as the

rancour which it is supposed to have engendered in Judas; [1749] while

that in other instances he was less considered than his

fellow-disciples, we have nowhere any trace.

All the other conjectures as to what was properly the motive of the

deed of Judas, can only be supported by negative grounds, i.e. grounds

which make it improbable in general that his project had a bad aim, and

in particular, that his motive was covetousness; a positive proof, that

he intended to further the work of Jesus, and especially that he was

actuated by violent political views of the Messiah’s kingdom, is not to

be discovered.—That Judas had in general no evil designs against Jesus

is argued chiefly from the fact, that after the delivery of Jesus to

the Romans, and the inevitableness of his death had come to his

knowledge, he fell into despair; this being regarded as a proof that he

had expected an opposite result. But not only does the unfortunate

result of crime, as Paulus thinks, but also its fortunate result, that

is, its success, “exhibit that which had before been veiled under a

thousand extenuating pretexts, in all the blackness of its real form.”

Crime once become real, once passed into act, throws off the mask which

it might wear while it remained merely ideal, and existed in thought

alone; hence, as little as the repentance of many a murderer, when he

sees his victim lie before him, proves that he did not really intend to

commit the murder; so little can the anguish of Judas, when he saw

Jesus beyond rescue, prove that he had not beforehand contemplated the

death of Jesus as the issue of his deed.

But, it is further said, covetousness cannot have been the motive of

Judas; for if gain had been his object, he could not be blind to the

fact that the continued charge of the purse in the society of Jesus,

would yield him more than the miserable thirty pieces of silver (from

20 to 25 thalers, [1750] of our money), a sum which among the Jews

formed the compensation for a wounded slave, being four months’ wages.

But these thirty pieces of silver are in vain sought for in any other

narrator than Matthew. John is entirely silent as to any reward offered

to Judas by the priests; Mark and Luke speak indefinitely of money

ἀργύριον, which they had promised him; and Peter in the Acts (i. 18)

merely mentions a reward, μισθὸς, which Judas obtained. Matthew,

however, who alone has that definite sum, leaves us at the same time in

no doubt as to the historical value of his statement. After relating

the end of Judas (xxvii. 9 f.), he cites a passage from Zechariah (xi.

12 f.; he ascribes it by mistake to Jeremiah), wherein likewise thirty

pieces of silver appear as a price at which some one is valued. It is

true that in the prophetic passage the thirty pieces of silver are not

given as purchase money, but as hire; he to whom they are paid is the

prophet, the representative of Jehovah, and the smallness of the sum is

an emblem of the slight value which the Jews set upon the divine

benefits so plentifully bestowed on them. [1751] But how easily might

this passage, where there was mention of a shamefully low price

(ironically a goodly price ‏אֶדֶר הַיְקָר‎), at which the Israelites had

rated the speaker in the prophecy, remind a Christian reader of his

Messiah, who, in any case, had been sold for a paltry price compared

with his value, and hence be led to determine by this passage, the

price which was paid to Judas for betraying Jesus. [1752] Thus the

thirty pieces of silver, τριάκοντα ἀργύρια, present no support to those

who would prove that it could not be the reward which made Judas a

traitor; for they leave us as ignorant as ever how great or how small

was the reward which Judas received. Neither can we, with Neander,

conclude that the sum was trifling from Matt xxvii. 6 ff.; Acts i. 18,

where it is said that a field, ἀγρὸς or χωρίον, was purchased with the

reward assigned to the treachery of Judas; since, even apart from the

historical value of that statement, hereafter to be examined, the two

expressions adduced may denote a larger or a smaller piece of land, and

the additional observations of Matthew, that it was destined to bury

strangers in, εἰς ταφὴν τοῖς ξένοις will not allow us to think of a

very small extent. How the same theologian can discover in the

statement of the two intermediate Evangelists, that the Jewish rulers

had promised Judas money, ἀργύριον, an intimation that the sum was

small, it is impossible to conceive.—Far more weighty is the

observation above made with a different aim, that Jesus would scarcely

have appointed and retained as purse-bearer one whom he knew to be

covetous even to dishonesty; whence Neander directly infers that the

fourth Evangelist, when he derived the remark of Judas at the meal in

Bethany from his covetousness, put a false construction upon it, in

consequence of the idea which ultimately prevailed respecting Judas,

and especially added the accusation, that Judas robbed the common fund,

out of his own imagination. [1753] But in opposition to this it is to

be asked, whether in Neander’s point of view it be admissible to impute

to the apostle John, who is here understood to be the author of the

fourth gospel, so groundless a calumny—for such it would be according

to Neander’s supposition; and, in our point of view, it would at least

be more natural to conclude, that Jesus indeed knew Judas to be fond of

money, but did not until the last believe him to be dishonest, and

hence did not consider him unfit for the post in question. Neander

observes in conclusion: if Judas could be induced by money to betray

Jesus, he must have long lost all true faith in him. This indeed

follows of necessity, and must be supposed in every view of the

subject; but this extinction of faith could of itself only lead him to

go back, ἀπελθειν εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω (John vi. 66); in order to prompt him to

meditate treachery there must be a further, special incitement, which,

intrinsically, might just as well be covetousness, as the views which

are attributed to him by Neander and others.

That covetousness, considered as such an immediate motive, suffices to

explain the deed of Judas, I will not maintain; I only contend that any

other motives are neither stated nor anywhere intimated in the gospels,

and that consequently every hypothesis as to their existence is built

on the air. [1754]

§ 120.

PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER.

On the first day of unleavened bread, in the evening of which the

paschal lamb was to be slain, consequently, the day before the feast

properly speaking, which however commenced on that evening, i.e. the

14th of Nisan, Jesus, according to the two first Evangelists, in

compliance with a question addressed to Him by the disciples,

sent—Matthew leaves it undecided which and how many, Mark says, two

disciples, whom Luke designates as Peter and John—to Jerusalem (perhaps

from Bethany), to bespeak a place in which he might partake of the

passover with them, and to make the further arrangements (Matt. xxvi.

17 ff. parall.). The three narrators do not altogether agree as to the

directions which Jesus gave to these disciples. According to all, he

sends them to a man of whom they had only to desire, in the name of

their master διδάσκαλος, a place in which to celebrate the passover, in

order at once to have their want supplied: but first, this locality is

more particularly described by the two intermediate Evangelists than by

Matthew, namely as a large upper room, which was already furnished and

prepared for the reception of guests; and secondly, the manner in which

they were to find the owner, is described by the former otherwise than

by the latter. Matthew makes Jesus merely say to the disciples, that

they were to go to such a man, πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα: the others, that, being

come into the city, they would meet a man bearing a pitcher of water,

whom they were to follow into the house which he should enter, and

there make their application to the owner.

In this narrative there have been found a multitude of difficulties,

which Gabler has assembled in a special treatise. [1755] At the very

threshold of the narrative it occasions surprise, that Jesus should not

have thought of any preparation for the passover until the last day,

nay, that he should even then have needed to be reminded of it by the

disciples, as the two first Evangelists tell us: for owing to the great

influx of people at the time of the passover (2,700,000, according to

Josephus), [1756] the accommodations in the city were soon disposed of,

and the majority of the strangers were obliged to encamp in tents

before the city. It is the more remarkable, then, that, notwithstanding

all this the messengers of Jesus find the desired chamber disengaged,

and not only so, but actually kept in reserve by the owner and prepared

for a repast, as if he had had a presentiment that it would be bespoken

by Jesus. And so confidently is this reckoned on by Jesus that he

directs his disciples to ask the owner of the house,—not whether he can

obtain from him a room in which to eat the passover, but merely—where

the guest-chamber appropriated to this purpose may be? or, if we take

Matthew’s account, he directs them to say to him that he will eat the

passover at his house; to which it must be added that, according to

Mark and Luke, Jesus even knows what kind of chamber will be assigned

him, and in what part of the house it is situated. But the way in

which, according to these two Evangelists, the two disciples were to

find their way to the right house, is especially remarkable. The words

ὑπάγετε εἰς τὴν πόλιν πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα in Matthew (v. 18), sound as if

Jesus had named the person to whom the disciples were to go, but that

the narrator either would not or could not repeat it: whereas in the

two other Evangelists, Jesus indicates the house into which they were

to enter, by means of a person whom they would meet carrying a vessel

of water. Now how could Jesus in Bethany, or wherever else he might be,

foreknow this accidental circumstance, unless, indeed, it had been

pre-concerted that at this particular time a servant from the house

should appear with a vessel of water, and thus await the messengers of

Jesus? To the rationalistic expositors everything in our narrative

appeared to point to a preconcerted arrangement; and this being

presupposed, they believed that all its difficulties would at once be

solved. The disciples, dispatched so late, could only find a room

disengaged if it had been previously bespoken by Jesus; he could only

direct them to address the owner of the house so categorically, if he

had already previously made an arrangement with him; this would explain

the precise knowledge of Jesus as to the locality, and, lastly, (the

point from which this explanation sets out), his certainty that the

disciples would meet a man carrying water from that particular house.

This circumlocutory manner of indicating the house, which might have

been avoided by the simple mention of the owner’s name, is supposed to

have been adopted by Jesus, that the place where he intended to keep

the passover might not be known before the time to the betrayer, who

would otherwise perhaps have surprised him there, and thus have

disturbed the repast. [1757]

But such is not at all the impression produced by the evangelical

narrative. Of a preconcerted arrangement, of a previous bespeaking of

the apartment, it says nothing; on the contrary, the words, they found

as he had said unto them, in Mark and Luke, seem intended to convey the

idea that Jesus was able to predict everything as they afterwards

actually found it; a solicitous foresight is nowhere indicated, but

rather a miraculous foreknowledge. Here, in fact, as above in the

procuring of the animal for the entrance into Jerusalem, we have a

twofold miracle: first, the fact that everything stands ready to supply

the wants of Jesus, and that no one is able to withstand the power of

his name; secondly, the ability of Jesus to take cognizance of distant

circumstances, and to predict the merest fortuities. [1758] It must

create surprise that, forcibly as this supranaturalistic conception of

the narrative before us urges itself upon the reader, Olshausen himself

seeks to elude it, by arguments which would nullify most of the

histories of miracles, and which we are accustomed to hear only from

rationalists. To the impartial expositor, he says, [1759] the narrative

does not present the slightest warrant for a miraculous interpretation

(we almost fancy ourselves transported into the commentary of Paulus);

if the narrators intended to recount a miracle, they must have

expressly observed that no previous arrangement had been made

(precisely the rationalistic demand—if a cure were meant to be

recognised as a miracle, the application of natural means must have

been expressly denied); moreover the object of such a miracle is not to

be discerned, a strengthening of the faith of the disciples was not

then necessary, nor was it to be effected by this unimportant miracle,

after the more exalted ones which had preceded it:—grounds on which the

thoroughly similar narrative of the procuring of the ass for the

entrance, which Olshausen upholds as a miracle, would be equally

excluded from the sphere of the supernatural.

The present narrative, indeed, is so strikingly allied to the earlier

one just mentioned, that in relation to their historical reality, the

same judgment must be passed on both. In the one as in the other, Jesus

has a want, the speedy supply of which is so cared for by God, that

Jesus foreknows to the minutest particular the manner in which it is to

be supplied; in the one he needs a guest chamber, as in the other an

animal on which to ride; in the one as in the other, he sends out two

disciples, to bespeak the thing required; in the one he gives them as a

sign by which to find the right house—a man carrying water whom they

are to meet, as in the other they have a sign in the circumstance of

the ass being tied where two roads meet; in the one as in the other, he

directs his disciples simply to mention him to the owner, in the one

case as the master, διδάσκαλος, in the other, as the lord, κύριος, in

order to ensure unhesitating compliance with his demand; in both

instances the result closely corresponds to his prediction. In the

narrative more immediately under our consideration, as in the earlier

one, there is wanting an adequate object, for the sake of which so

manifold a miracle should have been ordained; while the motive which

might occasion the development of the miraculous narrative in the

primitive Christian legend is obvious. An Old Testament narrative, to

which we have already had occasion to refer in connexion with the

earlier miracle, is still more strikingly recalled by the one before

us. After disclosing to Saul that he was destined to be King of Israel,

Samuel, as a sign of the truth of this more remote announcement,

foretells whom Saul will meet on his return homewards: namely, first

two men with the information that his father’s asses are found; then

three others, who will be carrying animals for sacrifice, bread and

wine, and will offer him some of the bread, etc. (1 Sam. x. 1 ff.):

whence we see by what kind of predictions the Hebrew legend made its

prophets attest their inspiration.

As regards the relation of the gospels to each other, the narrative of

Matthew is commonly placed far below that of the two other synoptists,

and regarded as the later and more traditional. [1760] The circumstance

of the man carrying water, especially, is held to have belonged to the

original fact, but to have been lost in tradition before the narrative

reached Matthew, who inserted in its place the enigmatical ὑπάγετε πρὸς

τὸν δεῖνα, go to such a man. But we have seen, on the contrary, that

the δεῖνα presents no difficulty; while the circumstance of the

water-bearer is in the highest degree enigmatical. [1761] Still less is

the omission of Matthew to designate the two commissioned disciples as

Peter and John, an indication that the narrative of the third gospel is

the more original one. For when Schleiermacher says that this trait

might easily be lost in the course of transmission through several

hands, but that it could scarcely have been added by a later hand,—the

latter half of his proposition, at least, is without foundation. There

is little probability that Jesus should have assigned so purely

economical an office to the two most eminent disciples; whereas it is

easy to conceive that in the first instance it was simply narrated, as

by Matthew, that Jesus sent the disciples or some disciples, that

hereupon the number was fixed at two, perhaps from the narrative of the

procuring of the ass, and that at length, as the appointment had

relation to a task which was ultimately of high importance,—the

preparing of the last meal of Jesus,—these places were filled by the

two chief apostles, so that in this instance even Mark appears to have

kept nearer to the original fact, since he has not adopted into his

narrative the names of the two disciples, which are presented by Luke.

§ 121.

DIVERGENT STATEMENTS RESPECTING THE TIME OF THE LAST SUPPER.

Not only does the fourth Evangelist omit all mention of the above

arrangements for the paschal meal; he also widely diverges from the

synoptists in relation to the meal itself. Independently of the

difference which runs throughout the description of the scene, and

which can only be hereafter considered, he appears, in regard to the

time of the meal, to represent it as occurring before the passover, as

decidedly as it is represented by the synoptists to be the paschal meal

itself.