INSTITUTIONS OF JESUS.
That Jesus was never entirely absorbed in his apocalyptic ideas is
proved, moreover, by the fact that at the very time he was most
preoccupied with them, he laid with rare forethought the foundation of
a church destined to endure. It is scarcely possible to doubt that he
himself chose from among his disciples those who were pre-eminently
called the "apostles," or the "twelve," since on the day after his
death we find them forming a distinct body, and filling up by election
the vacancies that had arisen in their midst.[1] They were the two
sons of Jonas; the two sons of Zebedee; James, son of Cleophas;
Philip; Nathaniel bar-Tolmai; Thomas; Levi, or Matthew, the son of
Alphæus; Simon Zelotes; Thaddeus or Lebbæus; and Judas of Kerioth.[2]
It is probable that the idea of the twelve tribes of Israel had had
some share in the choice of this number.[3]
[Footnote 1: _Acts_ i. 15, and following; 1 _Cor._ xv. 5; Gal. i. 10.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. x. 2 and following; Mark iii. 16, and following;
Luke vi. 14, and following; _Acts_ i. 13; Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist.
Eccl._, iii. 39.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30.]
The "twelve," at all events, formed a group of privileged disciples,
among whom Peter maintained a fraternal priority,[1] and to them Jesus
confided the propagation of his work. There was nothing, however,
which presented the appearance of a regularly organized sacerdotal
school. The lists of the "twelve," which have been preserved, contain
many uncertainties and contradictions; two or three of those who
figure in them have remained completely obscure. Two, at least, Peter
and Philip,[2] were married and had children.
[Footnote 1: _Acts_ i. 15, ii. 14, v. 2, 3, 29, viii. 19, xv. 7; Gal.
i. 18.]
[Footnote 2: For Peter, see ante, p. 174; for Philip, see Papias,
Polycrates, and Clement of Alexandria, quoted by Eusebius, _Hist.
Eccl._, iii. 30, 31, 39, v. 24.]
Jesus evidently confided secrets to the twelve, which he forbade them
to communicate to the world.[1] It seems as if his plan at times was
to surround himself with a degree of mystery, to postpone the most
important testimony respecting himself till after his death, and to
reveal himself completely only to his disciples, confiding to them the
care of demonstrating him afterward to the world.[2] "What I tell you
in darkness, that speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that
preach ye upon the housetops." This spared him the necessity of too
precise declarations, and created a kind of medium between the public
and himself. It is clear that there were certain teachings confined to
the apostles, and that he explained many parables to them, the meaning
of which was ambiguous to the multitude.[3] An enigmatical form and a
degree of oddness in connecting ideas were customary in the teachings
of the doctors, as may be seen in the sentences of the _Pirké Aboth_.
Jesus explained to his intimate friends whatever was peculiar in his
apothegms or in his apologues, and showed them his meaning stripped of
the wealth of illustration which sometimes obscured it.[4] Many of
these explanations appear to have been carefully preserved.[5]
[Footnote 1: Matt. xvi. 20, xvii. 9; Mark viii. 30, ix. 8.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. x. 26, 27; Mark iv. 21, and following; Luke viii.
17, xii. 2, and following; John xiv. 22.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xiii. 10, and following, 34 and following; Mark iv.
10, and following, 33, and following; Luke viii. 9, and following;
xii. 41.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. xvi. 6, and following; Mark vii. 17-23.]
[Footnote 5: Matt. xiii. 18, and following; Mark vii. 18, and
following.]
During the lifetime of Jesus, the apostles preached,[1] but without
ever departing far from him. Their preaching, moreover, was limited to
the announcement of the speedy coming of the kingdom of God.[2] They
went from town to town, receiving hospitality, or rather taking it
themselves, according to the custom of the country. The guest in the
East has much authority; he is superior to the master of the house,
who has the greatest confidence in him. This fireside preaching is
admirably adapted to the propagation of new doctrines. The hidden
treasure is communicated, and payment is thus made for what is
received; politeness and good feeling lend their aid; the household is
touched and converted. Remove Oriental hospitality, and it would be
impossible to explain the propagation of Christianity. Jesus, who
adhered greatly to good old customs, encouraged his disciples to make
no scruple of profiting by this ancient public right, probably already
abolished in the great towns where there were hostelries.[3] "The
laborer," said he, "is worthy of his hire!" Once installed in any
house, they were to remain there, eating and drinking what was offered
them, as long as their mission lasted.
[Footnote 1: Luke ix. 6.]
[Footnote 2: Luke x. 11.]
[Footnote 3: The Greek word [Greek: pandokeion], in all the languages
of the Semitic East, designates an hostelry.]
Jesus desired that, in imitation of his example, the messengers of the
glad tidings should render their preaching agreeable by kindly and
polished manners. He directed that, on entering into a house, they
should give the salaam or greeting. Some hesitated; the salaam being
then, as now, in the East, a sign of religious communion, which is not
risked with persons of a doubtful faith. "Fear nothing," said Jesus;
"if no one in the house is worthy of your salute, it will return unto
you."[1] Sometimes, in fact, the apostles of the kingdom of God were
badly received, and came to complain to Jesus, who generally sought to
soothe them. Some of them, persuaded of the omnipotence of their
master, were hurt at this forbearance. The sons of Zebedee wanted him
to call down fire from heaven upon the inhospitable towns.[2] Jesus
received these outbursts with a subtle irony, and stopped them by
saying: "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to
save them."
[Footnote 1: Matt. x. 11, and following; Mark vi. 10, and following;
Luke x. 5, and following. Comp. 2 Epistle of John, 10, 11.]
[Footnote 2: Luke ix. 52, and following.]
He sought in every way to establish as a principle that his apostles
were as himself.[1] It was believed that he had communicated his
marvellous virtues to them. They cast out demons, prophesied, and
formed a school of renowned exorcists,[2] although certain cases were
beyond their power.[3] They also wrought cures, either by the
imposition of hands, or by the anointing with oil,[4] one of the
fundamental processes of Oriental medicine. Lastly, like the Psylli,
they could handle serpents and could drink deadly potions with
impunity.[5] The further we get from Jesus--the more offensive does
this theurgy become. But there is no doubt that it was generally
received by the primitive Church, and that it held an important place
in the estimation of the world around.[6] Charlatans, as generally
happens, took advantage of this movement of popular credulity. Even
in the lifetime of Jesus, many, without being his disciples, cast out
demons in his name. The true disciples were much displeased at this,
and sought to prevent them. Jesus, who saw that this was really an
homage paid to his renown, was not very severe toward them.[7] It must
be observed, moreover, that the exercise of these gifts had to some
degree become a trade. Carrying the logic of absurdity to the extreme,
certain men cast out demons by Beelzebub,[8] the prince of demons.
They imagined that this sovereign of the infernal regions must have
entire authority over his subordinates, and that in acting through him
they were certain to make the intruding spirit depart.[9] Some even
sought to buy from the disciples of Jesus the secret of the miraculous
powers which had been conferred upon them.[10] The germ of a church
from this time began to appear. This fertile idea of the power of men
in association (_ecclesia_) was doubtless derived from Jesus. Full of
the purely idealistic doctrine that it is the union of love which
brings souls together, he declared that whenever men assembled in his
name, he would be in their midst. He confided to the Church the right
to bind and to unbind (that is to say, to render certain things lawful
or unlawful), to remit sins, to reprimand, to warn with authority, and
to pray with the certainty of being heard favorably.[11] It is
possible that many of these words may have been attributed to the
master, in order to give a warrant to the collective authority which
was afterward sought to be substituted for that of Jesus. At all
events, it was only after his death that particular churches were
established, and even this first constitution was made purely and
simply on the model of the synagogue. Many personages who had loved
Jesus much, and had founded great hopes upon him, as Joseph of
Arimathea, Lazarus, Mary Magdalen, and Nicodemus, did not, it seems,
join these churches, but clung to the tender or respectful memory
which they had preserved of him.
[Footnote 1: Matt. x. 40, 42, xxv. 35, and following; Mark ix. 40;
Luke x. 16; John xiii. 20.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. vii. 22, x. 1; Mark iii. 15, vi. 13; Luke x. 17.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xvii. 18, 19.]
[Footnote 4: Mark vi. 13, xvi. 18; Epist. Jas. v. 14.]
[Footnote 5: Mark xvi. 18; Luke x. 19.]
[Footnote 6: Mark xvi. 20.]
[Footnote 7: Mark ix. 37, 38; Luke ix. 49, 50.]
[Footnote 8: An ancient god of the Philistines, transformed by the
Jews into a demon.]
[Footnote 9: Matt. xii. 24, and following.]
[Footnote 10: _Acts_ viii. 18, and following.]
[Footnote 11: Matt. xviii. 17, and following; John xx. 23.]
Moreover, there is no trace, in the teaching of Jesus, of an applied
morality or of a canonical law, ever so slightly defined. Once only,
respecting marriage, he spoke decidedly, and forbade divorce.[1]
Neither was there any theology or creed. There were indefinite views
respecting the Father, the Son, and the Spirit,[2] from which,
afterward, were drawn the Trinity and the Incarnation, but they were
then only in a state of indeterminate imagery. The later books of the
Jewish canon recognized the Holy Spirit, a sort of divine hypostasis,
sometimes identified with Wisdom or the Word.[3] Jesus insisted upon
this point,[4] and announced to his disciples a baptism by fire and by
the spirit,[5] as much preferable to that of John, a baptism which
they believed they had received, after the death of Jesus, in the form
of a great wind and tongues of fire.[6] The Holy Spirit thus sent by
the Father was to teach them all truth, and testify to that which
Jesus himself had promulgated.[7] In order to designate this Spirit,
Jesus made use of the word _Peraklit_, which the Syro-Chaldaic had
borrowed from the Greek ([Greek: paraklêtos]), and which appears to
have had in his mind the meaning of "advocate,"[8] "counsellor,"[9]
and sometimes that of "interpreter of celestial truths," and of
"teacher charged to reveal to men the hitherto hidden mysteries."[10]
He regarded himself as a _Peraklit_ to his disciples,[11] and the
Spirit which was to come after his death would only take his place.
This was an application of the process which the Jewish and Christian
theologies would follow during centuries, and which was to produce a
whole series of divine assessors, the _Metathronos_, the _Synadelphe_
or _Sandalphon_, and all the personifications of the Cabbala. But in
Judaism, these creations were to remain free and individual
speculations, whilst in Christianity, commencing with the fourth
century, they were to form the very essence of orthodoxy and of the
universal doctrine.
[Footnote 1: Matt. xix. 3, and following.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xxviii. 19. Comp. Matt. iii. 16, 17; John xv. 26.]
[Footnote 3: _Sap._ i. 7, vii. 7, ix. 17, xii. 1; _Eccles._ i. 9, xv.
5, xxiv. 27; xxxix. 8; _Judith_ xvi. 17.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. x. 20; Luke xii. 12, xxiv. 49; John xiv. 26, xv.
26.]
[Footnote 5: Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; John i. 26, iii.
5; _Acts_ i. 5, 8, x. 47.]
[Footnote 6: _Acts_ ii. 1-4, xi. 15, xix. 6. Cf. John vii. 39.]
[Footnote 7: John xv. 26, xvi. 13.]
[Footnote 8: To _Peraklit_ was opposed _Katigor_, ([Greek:
katêgoros]), the "accuser."]
[Footnote 9: John xiv. 16; 1st Epistle of John ii. 1.]
[Footnote 10: John xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, and following. Comp.
Philo, _De Mundi opificio_, § 6.]
[Footnote 11: John xiv. 16. Comp. the epistle before cited, _l.c._]
It is unnecessary to remark how remote from the thought of Jesus was
the idea of a religious book, containing a code and articles of faith.
Not only did he not write, but it was contrary to the spirit of the
infant sect to produce sacred books. They believed themselves on the
eve of the great final catastrophe. The Messiah came to put the seal
upon the Law and the Prophets, not to promulgate new Scriptures. With
the exception of the Apocalypse, which was in one sense the only
revealed book of the infant Christianity, all the other writings of
the apostolic age were works evoked by existing circumstances, making
no pretensions to furnish a completely dogmatic whole. The Gospels
had at first an entirely personal character, and much less authority
than tradition.[1]
[Footnote 1: Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 39.]
Had the sect, however, no sacrament, no rite, no sign of union? It had
one which all tradition ascribes to Jesus. One of the favorite ideas
of the master was that he was the new bread, bread very superior to
manna, and on which mankind was to live. This idea, the germ of the
Eucharist, was at times expressed by him in singularly concrete forms.
On one occasion especially, in the synagogue of Capernaum, he took a
decided step, which cost him several of his disciples. "Verily,
verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but
my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven."[1] And he added, "I
am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he
that believeth on me shall never thirst."[2] These words excited much
murmuring. "The Jews then murmured at him because he said, I am the
bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus
the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then
that he saith, I came down from heaven?" But Jesus insisting with
still more force, said, "I am that bread of life; your fathers did eat
manna in the wilderness and are dead. This is the bread which cometh
down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the
living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this
bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my
flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."[3] The offence
was now at its height: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Jesus going still further, said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you,
except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye
have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is
meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father
has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he
shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not
as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this
bread shall live for ever." Several of his disciples were offended at
such obstinacy in paradox, and ceased to follow him. Jesus did not
retract; he only added: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh
profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,
and they are life." The twelve remained faithful, notwithstanding this
strange preaching. It gave to Cephas, in particular, an opportunity of
showing his absolute devotion, and of proclaiming once more, "Thou art
that Christ, the Son of the living God."
[Footnote 1: John vi. 32, and following.]
[Footnote 2: We find an analogous form of expression provoking a
similar misunderstanding, in John iv. 10, and following.]
[Footnote 3: A11 these discourses bear too strongly the imprint of the
style peculiar to John, for them to be regarded as exact. The anecdote
related in chapter vi. of the fourth Gospel cannot, however, be
entirely stripped of historical reality.]
It is probable that from that time, in the common repasts of the sect,
there was established some custom which was derived from the discourse
so badly received by the men of Capernaum. But the apostolic
traditions on this subject are very diverse and probably intentionally
incomplete. The synoptical gospels suppose that a unique sacramental
act served as basis to the mysterious rite, and declare this to have
been "the last supper." John, who has preserved the incident at the
synagogue of Capernaum, does not speak of such an act, although he
describes the last supper at great length. Elsewhere we see Jesus
recognized in the breaking of bread,[1] as if this act had been to
those who associated with him the most characteristic of his person.
When he was dead, the form under which he appeared to the pious memory
of his disciples, was that of president of a mysterious banquet,
taking the bread, blessing it, breaking and presenting it to those
present.[2] It is probable that this was one of his habits, and that
at such times he was particularly loving and tender. One material
circumstance, the presence of fish upon the table (a striking
indication, which proves that the rite had its birth on the shore of
Lake Tiberias[3]), was itself almost sacramental, and became a
necessary part of the conceptions of the sacred feast.[4]
[Footnote 1: Luke xxiv. 30, 35.]
[Footnote 2: Luke _l.c._; John xxi. 13.]
[Footnote 3: Comp. Matt. vii. 10, xiv. 17, and following, xv. 34, and
following; Mark vi. 38, and following; Luke ix. 13, and following, xi.
11, xxiv. 42; John vi. 9, and following, xxi. 9, and following. The
district round Lake Tiberias is the only place in Palestine where fish
forms a considerable portion of the diet.]
[Footnote 4: John xxi. 13; Luke xxiv. 42, 43. Compare the oldest
representations of the Lord's Supper, related or corrected by M. de
Rossi, in his dissertation on the [Greek: ICHTHYS] (_Spicilegium
Solesmense_ de dom Pitra, v. iii., p. 568, and following). The meaning
of the anagram which the word [Greek: ICHTHYS] contains, was probably
combined with a more ancient tradition on the place of fish in the
Gospel repasts.]
Their repasts were among the sweetest moments of the infant community.
At these times they all assembled; the master spoke to each one, and
kept up a charming and lively conversation. Jesus loved these seasons,
and was pleased to see his spiritual family thus grouped around
him.[1] The participation of the same bread was considered as a kind
of communion, a reciprocal bond. The master used, in this respect,
extremely strong terms, which were afterward taken in a very literal
sense. Jesus was, at the same time, very idealistic in his
conceptions, and very materialistic in his expression of them. Wishing
to express the thought that the believer only lives by him, that
altogether (body, blood, and soul) he was the life of the truly
faithful, he said to his disciples, "I am your nourishment"--a phrase
which, turned in figurative style, became, "My flesh is your bread, my
blood your drink." Added to this, the modes of speech employed by
Jesus, always strongly subjective, carried him still further. At
table, pointing to the food, he said, "I am here"--holding the
bread--"this is my body;" and of the wine, "This is my blood"--all
modes of speech which were equivalent to, "I am your nourishment."
[Footnote 1: Luke xxii. 15.]
This mysterious rite obtained great importance in the lifetime of
Jesus. It was probably established some time before the last journey
to Jerusalem, and it was the result of a general doctrine much more
than a determinate act. After the death of Jesus, it became the great
symbol of Christian communion,[1] and it is to the most solemn moment
of the life of the Saviour that its establishment is referred. It was
wished to see, in the consecration of bread and wine, a farewell
memorial which Jesus, at the moment of quitting life, had left to his
disciples.[2] They recognized Jesus himself in this sacrament. The
wholly spiritual idea of the presence of souls, which was one of the
most familiar to the Master, which made him say, for instance, that he
was personally with his disciples[3] when they were assembled in his
name, rendered this easily admissible. Jesus, we have already said,
never had a very defined notion of that which constitutes
individuality. In the degree of exaltation to which he had attained,
the ideal surpassed everything to such an extent that the body counted
for nothing. We are one when we love one another, when we live in
dependence on each other; it was thus that he and his disciples were
one.[4] His disciples adopted the same language. Those who for years
had lived with him, had seen him constantly take the bread and the cup
"between his holy and venerable hands,"[5] and thus offer himself to
them. It was he whom they ate and drank; he became the true passover,
the former one having been abrogated by his blood. It is impossible to
translate into our essentially determined idiom, in which a rigorous
distinction between the material and the metaphorical must always be
observed, habits of style the essential character of which is to
attribute to metaphor, or rather to the idea it represents, a complete
reality.
[Footnote 1: _Acts_ ii. 42, 46.]
[Footnote 2: 1 _Cor._ xi. 20, and following.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xviii. 20.]
[Footnote 4: John xii. entirely.]
[Footnote 5: Canon of the Greek Masses and the Latin Mass (very
ancient).]