THE CHARACTER ASCRIBED TO JESUS ON THE
GROUND OF HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY
1. The Problem and the Facts.
THE experience at the Baptism signified the inception of Jesus’
messianic consciousness. In the neighbourhood of Cæsarea Philippi he
revealed his secret to the Disciples. It was before the High Priest
that he first openly made profession of his messianic office.
Therefore the messianic consciousness underlay all the while his
preaching of the Kingdom of God. But he does not assume on the part of
his hearers any knowledge of the position which belonged to him. The
faith which he required had nothing to do with his person, but it was
due only to the message of the nearness of the Kingdom. It was the
Fourth Evangelist who first presented the history of Jesus as if it
concerned itself chiefly with his personality.
We cannot estimate how far his real character may have shone through
his message, for such as had an awakened understanding. One thing is
certain: up to the time of the [pg 128] mission of the Twelve no one
had the faintest idea of recognising in him the Messiah. At Cæsarea
Philippi the Disciples could only reply that the people took him for a
prophet or for Elijah the Forerunner, and they themselves knew no
better, for Peter, as Jesus himself said, did not derive his knowledge
from the Master’s ministry in work and word, but owed it to a
supernatural revelation.
The Synoptical notices must be judged in accordance with this
fundamental fact. In the first place, there is a series of Matthean
passages which stand at variance with it.
Mt 9:27-31: In the Galilean parallel to the healing of the blind man
at Jericho it is related that two blind men pursued him through the
whole village with the cry, “Son of David.” What Jesus means by the
warning, “See that no man knows it,” remains indeed obscure.
Mt 12:23: After a miraculous healing the people whisper to themselves
whether this is not the Son of David.
Mt 14:33: After their experience at sea in the boat the Disciples fall
down before him saying, “Truly thou art the Son of God.”
Mt 15:22: The Canaanitish woman addresses him as the Son of
David,—whereas [pg 129] according to Mark she simply falls at his feet
and cries for help.
All of these passages are peculiar to Matthew and belong to a
secondary literary stratum. For the history of Jesus they have no
importance, but a great deal for the history of the history of Jesus.
They show us, that is, how the later time was inclined even more and
more to depict his life in harmony with the presumption that he not
only knew himself to be the Messiah but that others also had this
impression of him.
In the second place, it is a question of the speeches of the
demoniacs. According to Mk 3:11 the unclean spirits, as often as they
saw him, threw themselves at his feet and addressed him as the Son of
God (cf. also Mk 1:24, Mk 5:7). It is true, he rebuked this cry and
commanded silence. But if we did not have the incontestably sure
information that during the whole of his Galilean ministry the people
knew no more than that he was a prophet or Elijah, we should be forced
to assume that these cries of the demoniacs made the people somehow
aware of his true character. As it is, however, we may discern with
precision, from the fact that the demon-cries were ignored, how very
far men were from suspecting him to be the Messiah. [pg 130] Who
believed the devil and the wild speech of the possessed?
In the third place, it is a question of the expression “Son of Man.”
If Jesus used it as a self-designation before Cæsarea Philippi, that
would constitute in each case a messianic suggestion, for every one
must refer this expression of the book of Daniel to the person who was
to characterise the last time.
According to Mark, Jesus twice employed this expression as a
self-designation _before_ Cæsarea Philippi (Mk 2:10 and 2:28), and it
occurs in the same sense in a series of passages peculiar to Matthew
(Mt 8:20, 11:19, Mt 12:32, 40, 13:37, 41 and 16:13). In judging these
passages also one must proceed from the sure ground which is furnished
by the reply of the Disciples at Cæsarea Philippi.
Either Jesus had not used this expression up to that time, in which
case these Son of Man passages are chronologically anticipated, and
constitute a mere literary phenomena.
Or else he had used the expression. Then he must have done so in such
a way that no man could suppose that he assumed for himself the
dignity of the Son of Man of Daniel.
The problem in the second period is still harder. The Disciples knew
his secret, but they dared reveal it to no one. But how [pg 131] about
the people? Did they now have a presentiment of the messianic dignity
of Jesus?
The problem has to do therefore with three facts:
1. The whole discussion in the Jerusalem days turns in no wise upon
the messianic dignity of Jesus, but has to do rather with legal
propositions and with questions of the day. Far too little weight has
been attached hitherto to the fact that neither the people nor the
scribes took up a position towards him as the messianic personality.
How different the Jerusalem days would have been if the question which
agitated them was: Is he the Messiah—is he not? can he be—can he not?
In reality he is merely the unofficial authority of the Galilean
people, before whom the scholars of the capital bring their questions
of the school, whether with a sincere mind, or with the perfidious
intention of destroying his authority.
2. In the second period Jesus had the people about him only for a few
days,—from the crossing of the Jordan until his death. During this
time he made to them no disclosure about his messiahship, and gave
them also no hint which they could and must understand in this sense.
The bribed witnesses know nothing of the sort to allege. What is [pg
132] remarkable in their evidence—upon which too little weight has
been laid—consists precisely in the fact that _they in no wise charge
him with wishing to be the Messiah._ For them his impious pretention
exhausts itself in a disrespectful word about the Temple. Let one
picture to himself what the procedure of the trial would have been if
the hired accusers had of themselves discovered messianic hints in
Jesus’ speeches!
3. From this point one arrives necessarily at the conclusion that up
to the last moment he was for the people in Jerusalem just what he was
in Galilee,—the great Prophet or the Forerunner, but in no wise the
Messiah! There are two facts, however, which do not comport with this.
The entrance into Jerusalem was—according to the common
apprehension—_a messianic ovation._ Therefore the people must have had
a presentiment of Jesus’ dignity.
The High Priest put to him the question, whether he were the Messiah.
Therefore he knew of Jesus’ claim.
We have here a clear question to deal with: was Jesus regarded in the
Jerusalem days as a messianic pretendant or no? One should not obscure
this question by speaking of a more or less clear “presentment” in [pg
133] this matter. The “presentiment of the messiahship of Jesus” is a
modern invention. The populace would hardly be swayed hither and yon
by a dark mysterious presentiment, but rather it must have been a
question of belief or unbelief. Whosoever held that he was the Messiah
must accompany him through fire and death—to glory. Whosoever held no
such faith, but had only a presentiment of such a pretention on his
part, must give the signal to stone the blasphemer. There was no third
course.
The facts in general speak in favour of the opinion that the people
and the Pharisees in the Jerusalem days ascribed to Jesus no messianic
pretention,—no more indeed than they did at an earlier period. Only in
this case the entrance into Jerusalem, understood as a messianic
ovation, remains an enigma, and it is likewise unaccountable how it
occurred to the High Priest to question him about his messiahship.
On the one hand the situation must be understood in the way which is
commonly assumed. Then one must renounce every hope of an historical
understanding of the last public period of Jesus. It will not do to
suppose that at the beginning of this period (entrance into Jerusalem)
and at the [pg 134] end of it (question of the High Priest at the
trial) he was taken for the Messiah, while the Jerusalem days which
lay in the interval knew nothing of this claim whatever.
Or else—the entrance into Jerusalem and the question of the High
Priest have not been rightly and historically understood. Was the
ovation offered to the messianic pretendant? Did the High Priest in
his question give utterance to something which all knew? Did he deduce
the claim of messiahship from Jesus’ life, activity, and speech?—or
did he perhaps learn through betrayal the innermost secret of Jesus,
which since Cæsarea Philippi was known only to his trusted intimates?
The problem of Jesus’ messiahship in all its difficulty may be
formulated as follows: How was it possible that Jesus knew himself as
the Messiah from the beginning, and yet to the very last moment did
not give in his public preaching any intimation of his messiahship?
How could it in the long run remain hidden from the people that these
speeches were uttered out of a messianic consciousness? _Jesus was a
Messiah who during his public ministry would not be one, did not need
to be, and might not be, for the sake [pg 135] of fulfilling his
mission! It is thus that history puts the problem._
2. Jesus Is Elijah through His Solidarity with the Son of Man.
_What character could and must the people ascribe to Jesus on the
ground of his public ministry?_ That is the question with which we
have now to do.
The Messiah and the messianic Kingdom belong inseparately together.
Hence if Jesus had preached a present messianic Kingdom, it would have
been at the same time incumbent upon him to indicate the Messiah,—he
would have had to begin by legitimating himself as the Messiah before
the people.
The fact is, however, that he preached a future kingdom. With this the
possibility was completely excluded that any one could suppose him to
be the Messiah. _If the Kingdom was future, so also was the Messiah._
If Jesus nevertheless had messianic pretensions, this thought was
thoroughly remote from the people, for his preaching of the Kingdom
excluded even the least conjecture of the sort. Hence even the cries
of the demons did not avail to put the people on the right track.
[pg 136]
Conjectures of that sort were rendered completely impossible by the
way in which Jesus spoke of the Messiah in the third person and as a
character of the future. He intimated to the Disciples as he sent them
upon their mission that the Son of Man would appear before they had
gone through all the cities of Israel (Mt 10:23). In Mk 8:38 he gave
promise to the people of the speedy appearing of the Son of Man for
judgment and the coming of the Kingdom of God with power. In the same
way at Jerusalem he still spoke of the judgment which the Son of Man
will hold when he appears in his glory surrounded by the angels (Mt
25:31).
Only the Disciples after the revelation of Cæsarea Philippi, and the
High Priest after the “Yes” of Jesus, could trace a personal relation
between him and the Son of Man of whose coming he spoke,—for they knew
his secret. For his other hearers, however, _Jesus of Nazareth_ and
the individual who was the subject of his discourse, the _Son of Man,_
remained two entirely distinct personalities.
Before the people Jesus merely suggested the _absolute solidarity_
between himself and the Son of Man whom he proclaimed.
It was only in this form that his own gigantic personality obtruded in
his preaching of [pg 137] the Kingdom of God. Only he who under all
conditions confesses him, the proclaimer of the coming of the Son of
Man, will be discovered as a member of the Kingdom at the Day of
Judgment. Jesus, in fact, will intervene before God and before the Son
of Man in his behalf (Mk 8:38- 9:1, Mt 10:32-33). One must be ready
to give up the dearest things to follow him, for only so can one show
one’s self _worthy of him_ (Mt 10:37, 38). Hence Jesus is grieved when
the rich young man cannot make up his mind to give up his riches in
order to follow him (Mk 10:22), for now he cannot appear for him at
the Day of Judgment to insure that he shall be accepted as a member of
the Kingdom of God. Still, in the measureless omnipotence of God he
finds reason to hope that this rich man will nevertheless find
entrance into the Kingdom (Mk 10:17-31). If this man, therefore,
because Jesus cannot intervene in his behalf, is not sure “to inherit
eternal life” (Mk 10:17), those, on the other hand who, confessing him
and his message, endure death are certain to save their life, _i. e._
to be found as members of the Kingdom at the resurrection of the dead
(Mk 8:37). Hence in the beginning of the sermon on the mount he
pronounces them blessed who [pg 138] for his sake suffer reviling and
persecution, because thereby, like the meek and the merciful, they are
designated as members of the Kingdom (Mt 5:11 f.).
From Jesus’ standpoint, this absolute solidarity between God and the
Son of Man on the one hand, and himself on the other presented no
enigma, for it was based upon his messianic selfconsciousness; he can
speak thus because he is conscious of being himself the Son of Man. It
was quite different for the people, and for the Disciples before the
revelation at Cæsarea Philippi. How can Jesus of Nazareth, in a manner
so sovereignly self-confident, proclaim his absolute solidarity with
the Son of Man? This assertion forced the people to reflect upon his
personality. Who was this whose manifestation mightily extended out of
the pre-messianic and into the messianic æon itself, so that God and
the Son of Man receive into the Kingdom such as had confessed him, if
this confession did not lose its value by reason of the defect of
moral worthiness, as he himself once expressly declared by way of
warning? Such importance as Jesus claimed for himself belonged to only
_one_ personality,—Elijah, the mighty Forerunner,—for his
manifestation stretched out of the present into the messianic [pg 139]
æon and bound both together. Hence the people held that Jesus was
Elijah. In this was expressed the highest estimate which Jesus’
personality could wring from the masses. In this case it is not a
question of one of the customary misunderstandings so beloved of the
secondary Gospel narrators, but the people _could not,_ from Jesus’
appearance and proclamation, come to any other conclusion about him.
3. Jesus Is Elijah through the Signs which Proceed from Him.
In order to render intelligible the attitude of Jesus’ contemporaries
towards himself and his work, we must rid ourselves of two false
presuppositions with which we constantly though unconsciously operate.
First, the expectation at that time was not fixed upon the Messiah but
upon the Forerunner promised by prophecy. Secondly, no one in any way
detected this Forerunner in the person of the Baptist. Both of our
presuppositions run precisely to the contrary effect, and thereby we
spoil our historical perspective.
The appearing of the Messiah in conjunction with the great crisis
which he brings about constitutes the supernatural drama which the
world awaits. But before the curtain [pg 140] rises there must arise
among the expectant sons of men the man who is to speak the prologue
of the piece; who then, so soon as the curtain is lifted, associates
himself with the celestial personages which conduct the action of the
drama. Hence men are in expectancy first of all not for the rising of
the curtain and the appearing of the Messiah but for the speaker of
the prologue. _It was important to signalise the entrance of the
Forerunner upon the stage in order to know to what hour the hand of
the world clock pointed._
Elijah, however, had not as yet appeared, for the Baptist had not
legitimated himself as such. He lacked to this end the display of
supernatural power. Signs and wonders, however, belonged necessarily
to the epoch which immediately preceded the Kingdom. A general pouring
out of the Spirit and prophesying, wonders in heaven and upon
earth,—all that was to occur before the Day of God comes. So it was
defined by the prophet Joel (3:28 [2:28] ff.). Peter in his
sermon at Pentecost appealed to this passage (Acts 2:17-22). One ought
to recognise from the supernatural ecstatic “tongues” that one is
approaching the end of the days. The crucified Jesus hath God raised
up to be the [pg 141] Messiah in the Resurrection, and the Kingdom
will soon dawn.
This passage in Joel was therefore applied to the time immediately
preceding the messianic age, the time of miracles, in which according
to the prophecy of Malachi the Forerunner should appear (Mal 4:5-6).
Moreover, the selfsame refrain unites these two fundamental passages
of pre-messianic expectation: Mal 4:5 is the same as Joel
2:31—“Before the coming of the great and terrible Day of the Lord.”
_The Forerunner without miracles in an unmiraculous age was therefore
unthinkable._
For the contemporaries the characteristic difference between John and
Jesus consisted precisely in the fact that the one simply pointed to
the nearness of the Kingdom of God while the other confirmed his
preaching by signs and wonders. Men had the consciousness of entering
with Jesus upon the age of miracles. He was the Baptist,—but the
Baptist, as it were, translated into the supernatural. After the
mission of the Twelve, as his emergence and his signs became known
abroad together with the news of the death of the Baptist, people
said: The Baptist is raised from the dead. Hence the Disciples
answered him at Cæsarea Philippi [pg 142] that men took him for Elijah
or for the Baptist (Mk 8:28). Herod as he heard of him would not give
up the notion that he was the Baptist: “The Baptist is risen from the
dead, and therefore do these powers work in him” (Mk 6:14).
Also the significance which Jesus ascribed to the signs must have led
his hearers to suppose that they were in the midst of the era of the
Forerunner. Their significance consisted, namely, in the fact that
they confirmed the nearness of the messianic Kingdom. The people ought
to believe him for the sake of the signs and repent unto the Kingdom
of God.
The signs are an act of God’s grace through which he would make men
aware what hour it is. Whosoever does not repent is damned. So it
comes to pass with the inhabitants of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and
Capernaum. But whosoever blasphemes against the Holy Ghost and
ascribes the signs to the power of ungodliness has no forgiveness in
eternity. The scribes from Jerusalem made themselves guilty in Galilee
of this offence (Mk 3:22 ff.). Those, however, who did not harden
themselves held that the Kingdom of God stands at the door and that
Jesus is the Forerunner, because they had evidently entered [pg 143]
the age of signs which the Scripture had prophesied.
4. The Victory over Demons and the Secret of the Kingdom of God.
For Jesus the signs signified the nearness of the Kingdom in a sense
still higher than the purely temporal, chronological nearness. By his
victory over the demons he was conscious of _influencing the coming of
it._ The secret of the Kingdom of God plays into this conception. The
thought is contained in the parable with which he repels the false
suspicions of the Jerusalem scribes (Mk 3:23-30).
The meaning of this parable is, in fact, not exhausted by the thought
that the argument that evil spirits do not undermine their own
dominion by rising up one against another. In the concluding word we
encounter unexpectedly the “now and then” which is characteristic of
the secret of the Kingdom of God: “No one can enter into the house of
the strong man and spoil his goods, except he _first_ bind the strong
man, and _then_ he will spoil his house.” The casting out of demons,
therefore, signified for Jesus the binding of the power of ungodliness
and rendering it harmless. Hence this activity, like the moral renewal
in the secret of the [pg 144] Kingdom, stands in causal relation with
the dawning of the Kingdom of God. Through his conquest of the demons
Jesus is the man of violence who compels the approach of the Kingdom.
For when the power of ungodliness is bound, then comes the moment when
the dominion shall be taken from it. In order that this may happen it
must first be rendered harmless. Hence in sending the Disciples upon
their mission Jesus not only commands them to proclaim the nearness of
the Kingdom, but he also gives them authority over the demons (Mt
10:1). In that moment of highest eschatological expectation he sends
them out as the men of violence who are to deal the last blow. The
repentance which is to be accomplished by their preaching, and the
overcoming of the power of ungodliness in the demoniacs, work together
for the hastening of the Kingdom.
Thus the parables of the secret of the Kingdom (Mark 4), the parable
in Jesus’ apology to the Pharisees (Mk 3:23-30), and the parable in
the eulogy of the Baptist (Mt 11:12-15) all express the same thought.
The two latter correspond even in the drastic image of violent action,
whence the notion of “robbery” is common to them both (Mk 3:27 = Mt
11:12).
[pg 145]
For Jesus’ consciousness the healing of the demoniacs was therefore a
part of the secret of the Kingdom of God. It sufficed for the people,
however, to grasp the purely chronological connection.
5. Jesus and the Baptist.
We have seen above that no one could recognise Elijah in the person of
the Baptist because his ministry and preaching without miracle did not
correspond with the Scriptural representation of the Forerunner’s
time. None thought of ascribing to him this office and dignity
except—for there was one exception—_Jesus!_ He it was that first gave
the people a mysterious hint that this man was the Forerunner: “If ye
are willing to receive it, he himself is Elijah, the coming-one” (Mt
11:14). He is aware, however, that with this he is giving utterance to
an incomprehensible secret which to his hearers remains just as
obscure as the word uttered in the same connection about the man of
violence who since the days of the Baptist compel the Kingdom (Mt
11:12). Hence he concludes both these sayings with the oracular
phrase: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear (Mt 11:15).
The people, however, were very far from [pg 146] comprehending that
this Baptist who had fallen into the hands of Herod could be the
prodigious personality who was to stand upon the threshold between the
pre-messianic and the messianic age. So the mysterious word of Jesus
died upon the air, and the people stuck to the opinion that John was
really a prophet (Mk 11:32).
The rulers also could reach no conclusion about the personality of the
Baptist. For this reason they were worsted in their colloquy with
Jesus when they would challenge him for his purifying of the Temple
(Mk 11:33).
The case was quite the same with the Disciples: they were incapable by
themselves of recognising in John the expected Elijah. On the descent
from the Mount of Transfiguration they were assailed by scruples about
the messiahship of Jesus and about the possibility of the resurrection
of the dead which Jesus had touched upon in his discourse. This
assumed, indeed, that the messianic era was already present, and this
could not yet have dawned, for “Elijah must first come, as the scribes
demonstrate” (Mk 9:9-11). Thereupon Jesus replied to them that John
was this Elijah, even though he was delivered into the power of men
(Mk 9:12, 13).
[pg 147]
How did Jesus arrive at the conviction that the Baptist was Elijah? It
was through a necessary inference from his own messiahship. Because he
knew himself to be the Messiah, the other must be Elijah. Between the
two ideas there was a necessary correspondence. No one could know that
the Baptist was Elijah except he derived this cognisance from the
messiahship of Jesus. No one could arrive at the thought that John was
Elijah without at the same time being obliged to see in Jesus the
Messiah. For after the Forerunner there remained no place for a second
manifestation of the kind. No one knew that Jesus took himself to be
the Messiah. Therefore in the Baptist men perceived a prophet and
raised the question whether Jesus were not Elijah. No one understood
in their full bearing the mysterious concluding sentences of the
eulogy over the Baptist. _Only for Jesus was John the promised
Elijah._
6. The Baptist and Jesus.
What was the Baptist’s attitude to Jesus? If he had been conscious of
being the Forerunner, he must have surmised that Jesus was the
Messiah. One generally assumes this and supposes that he as the
Forerunner [pg 148] put the question to Jesus whether he were the
Messiah (Mt 11:2-6). This supposition seems to us perfectly natural
because we always represent to ourselves the two characters in the
relation of Forerunner-Messiah.
In this connection, however, we forget a perfectly obvious question.
Did the Baptist feel himself to be Elijah, the Forerunner? In no
utterance before the people did he raise such a claim. They stubbornly
recognised in him only a prophet. Also during his imprisonment he can
have claimed no such thing, for in Jerusalem the people still held to
the same opinion, that he was a prophet.
If somehow or another the presentiment had prevailed that he
represented the character of Elijah, how then could men generally get
the notion that John was a prophet, Jesus the Elijah? That this was
the general view even after the death of the Baptist, is proved by the
reply of the Disciples at Cæsarea Philippi.
To view the Baptist’s query under the presumption that the Forerunner
is asking whether Jesus be the Messiah is to put the question in a
light which is completely unjustified; for whether John took himself
to be the Forerunner is not in the least to be proven. Therefore it is
also by no means [pg 149] made out that his question referred to the
messianic dignity. The people standing by, as they did not take John
to be the Forerunner, must have interpreted it in a very different
way,—namely, in the sense: Art thou Elias?
The fact is that the usual perspective hides a characteristic detail
in this very section, the fact, namely, that Jesus applies again to
the Baptist the same designation which the Baptist in his question had
applied to him! Art thou the Coming One? asked the Baptist. Jesus
replied: If ye are willing to receive it, _he himself_ is Elijah, the
Coming One! The designation of the “Coming One” is therefore common to
both speeches, only that we arbitrarily refer it to the Messiah in the
question of the Baptist. This proceeding, which appears so natural in
the naïve perspective, will show itself to be unjustified so soon as
one becomes aware that it is in fact only a question of perspective
and not of any real standard. For then the phrase “He himself” in
Jesus’ reply acquires suddenly an unsuspected significance: “_he
himself_ is Elijah,” the Coming One! This reference compels us to
understand by the Coming One in the Baptist’s question, not the
Messiah, but—as in Jesus’ reply—Elias.
[pg 150]
“Art thou the expected Forerunner?”—thus the Baptist through his
disciples makes inquiry of Jesus. “If ye are able to receive it, he
himself is this Forerunner,” said Jesus to the people after he had
spoken to them about the greatness of the Baptist.
By this reference the scene now receives a far more intense colouring.
First of all, it becomes clear why Jesus speaks about the Baptist
_after the departure of the messengers._ He feels himself obliged to
lead the people up climactically from the conception that John is a
prophet to the presentiment that he is the Forerunner, with whose
appearing the hand of the world clock nears the fateful hour to which
refers the word concerning “him who prepares the way,” and of whom the
scribes say “that he must first come” (Mk 9:11).
John, in fact, with his question was backward in his reckoning of the
Messianic time. His messengers seek information about the Forerunner
at the moment when Jesus’ confidence that the Kingdom is immediately
to dawn was at the highest pitch. He had just sent out his Disciples
and given them to expect that the appearing of the Son of Man might
surprise them on their way through the cities of Israel. The hour is
already far more advanced—that is what Jesus would [pg 151] give the
people to understand in his “eulogy over the Baptist,” if they can
receive it.
John reached this surmise about Jesus in the same way as did the
people. That is to say, as he heard _of the signs and deeds of Jesus_
(Mt 11:2), there occurred to him the thought that this might be
something more than a prophet with a call to repentance. So he sends
messengers to him in order to have assurance upon this point.
Herewith, however, the proclamation of the Baptist is put in an
entirely different light. He never pointed to the coming Messiah, _but
to the expected Forerunner._ So is to be explained the proclamation
about “him that is to come after him” (Mk 1:7, 8). As applied to the
Messiah, the expressions he uses remain obscure. They denote, that is,
only a difference of degree, not a total difference in kind, between
himself and the person whom he announces. If he were speaking of the
Messiah, it would have been impossible for him to employ these
expressions, in which, in spite of the mighty difference in rank, he
still compares the Coming One to himself. He thinks of the Forerunner
as like himself, baptising and preaching repentance unto the Kingdom,
only that he is incomparably greater and mightier. Instead of
baptising [pg 152] with water, he will baptise with the Holy Ghost (Mk
1:8).
This cannot apply to the Messiah. Since when does the Messiah baptise?
Then, too, the famous pouring out of the Spirit does not occur within
but _before_ the messianic era! Before the coming of the great Day of
the Lord he will pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, and signs and
wonders shall be showed in heaven and on earth (Joel 2:28 ff[.]).
Before the coming of the great Day of the Lord he will send Elijah the
Prophet (Mal 4:5). The Baptist combines these two chief indications of
the character of the great events that are to precede the Last Time,
and he arrives at the conception of the Forerunner who is to baptise
with the Holy Ghost! One sees from this what a supernatural light
surrounded the figure of the Forerunner in the current conception.
Hence it is that John felt himself so little before him.
Jesus was put by this question in a difficult position. The Baptist in
asking him, Art thou the Forerunner? or art thou not? had proposed a
false alternative to which Jesus could answer neither yes nor no. He
was not willing to entrust the secret of his messiahship to the
messengers. He therefore replied with a hint of the nearness of [pg
153] the Kingdom which was revealed in his deeds. At the same time he
thrust his own personality mightily into the foreground. He alone can
be blessed who stands by him and who finds no occasion of stumbling in
him. With this he would say the same as he said once also to the
people: membership in the Kingdom is dependent upon one’s attachment
to him (Mk 8:38).
Jesus’ remarkable evasive answer to the Baptist, in which exegesis has
always believed that it must discover a special finesse, is explained
therefore simply by the necessity of the situation. Jesus could not
answer directly. Hence he gave this obscure response. The Baptist was
to gather from it what he would and could. Besides, it was of no
importance how he understood it. Events would soon teach him, for the
time is already much further advanced than he supposes, and the hammer
is already lifted to strike the hour.
It is exceedingly difficult for us to get rid of the notion that the
Baptist and Jesus stood to one another in the relation of Forerunner
and Messiah. It is only through intense reflection that we can reach
the perception that the two characters stand in this relation in our
perspective only [pg 154] because we assume the messiahship of Jesus;
but that in order to discover the historical relationship we must
calculate and apply the right perspective.
So long as one is still prejudiced in any way by the old perspective,
one cannot do justice to the foregoing investigation. That is, one
will still have the notion that it is a question of “the forerunner of
the Forerunner” and the Forerunner—an ingenious multiplication of the
Forerunner by himself. That is falsely expressed. A prophet of
repentance, John the Baptist, directs men’s attention to the
prediction of the mighty figure of Elijah the Forerunner, and as he
hears in prison of the signs of Jesus he wonders if this may not be
Elijah—and does not dream that this man holds himself to be the
Messiah, and that for this reason he himself will henceforth be
designated in history as the Forerunner. That is the historical
situation.
The moment the conception of history was defined by the conviction
that Jesus was the Messiah the historical perspective was necessarily
shifted. The Gospels display this shifting in increasing measure. In
the introductory verses of Mark the quotation from Malachi about the
Forerunner who is to prepare the way (Mal 3:1) is already applied to
[pg 155] John. According to Matthew, the Baptist hears in prison of
“the works of the Messiah” (Mt 11:2). If here it is only a question of
the casual and unreflecting introduction of a new mode of conception,
the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, has made a principle of it and
consistently represents the history in line with the presumption that
because Jesus was the Messiah the Baptist was the Forerunner and must
have felt himself to be such. The historical Baptist says: I am not
the _Forerunner,_ for he is incomparably greater and mightier than I.
According to the Fourth Gospel the people could conjecture that he was
the Christ. He was obliged to say, therefore: I am not the _Christ_
(Jn 1:20)!
Thus has the relation been altered under the influence of the new
perspective. The person of the Baptist has become historically
unrecognisable. Finally they have made out of him the modern doubter,
who half believed in Jesus’ messiahship, and half disbelieved. In this
apprehensive indecision, this backing and filling, is supposed to lie,
in fact, the tragedy of his existence! Now, however, one may
confidently strike him from the list of those characters, so
interesting to us moderns, who come to ruin through a tragic [pg 156]
half-faith. Jesus spared him that. For so long as he lived he required
of no man faith in him as the Messiah—and yet that is what he was!
7. The Blind Man at Jericho and the Ovation at the Entrance to
Jerusalem.
Was the entrance into Jerusalem a messianic ovation? That depends, in
the first place, upon how one interprets the cry of the people; but
then also, upon one’s notion of the encounter between Jesus and the
blind man. If it was actually a question there of his being greeted as
the Son of David,—a greeting which he no longer repudiates, but
tacitly admits, so that the people learn to apprehend what he takes
himself to be,—the consequence is inevitable that it was a messianic
ovation.
For the exact understanding of the description of Jesus’ entrance into
Jerusalem, the differences in detail between Mark and the parallels
are of far reaching importance. In Mark we have two clearly
distinguishable acclamations. The first is directed to the person of
Jesus in their midst: “Hosanna! Blessed be ‘the Coming One’ in the
name of the Lord” (Mk 11:9). The second refers to the expected coming
of the Kingdom: [pg 157] “Blessed be the coming Kingdom of our father
David. Hosanna in the highest!” The Son of David is thus not mentioned
at all!
It is different in Matthew. There the people shout “Hosanna to the Son
of David! Blessed be the Coming One in the name of the Lord. Hosanna
in the highest!” (Mt 21:9). We have here therefore only the cry which
was directed to the person of Jesus; the Kingdom is not mentioned; men
acclaim instead the Son of David and, at the same time, the Coming
One.
Luke’s version does not come into account, for he deals with
reminiscences from the history of the infancy “Blessed be the king
that cometh in the name of the Lord. Peace in heaven and glory in the
highest” (Lk 19:38).
Thus Matthew in his account interprets the Coming One as the Son of
David. We possess no direct proof that this expression (the Coming
One), which is derived from Psalm 118:25 ff[.], was employed in Jesus’
time for the Messiah. It has been shown, however, that _the Baptist as
well as Jesus applied it rather to the Forerunner Elijah._ It is
therefore unhistorical when Matthew represents the people as
acclaiming in the same [pg 158] breath both the Coming One and the Son
of David.
Mark has here, too, preserved in his detail the original situation.
The people acclaimed Jesus as the “Coming One,” i. e. as the
Forerunner, and sings an “Hosanna in the highest” to the Kingdom which
is soon to descend upon earth. A fine distinction is made in the use
of _Hosanna_ and _Hosanna in the highest_ (“places” is to be
supplied). The former applies to the Forerunner present in their
midst; the latter, to the heavenly Kingdom. The secondary character of
the account in Matthew is evident in the fact that it applies to the
Son of David and to the Coming One not only an Hosanna but likewise an
Hosanna in the highest,—whereby the Messiah is first assumed to be on
earth and then, still in heaven! Here it becomes plain that the second
Hosanna belonged originally with the Kingdom.
_The entrance into Jerusalem, therefore, was an ovation not to the
Messiah but to the Forerunner._ But then it is impossible that the
people understood the scene with the blind man as indicating that
Jesus welcomed the address “Son of David.”
Here again it is a question of Synoptical detail by which the scene is
totally changed. [pg 159] The shout in the name of the Son of David is
incidental. The question is only whether the public could and must
conceive it as a form of address. This conception is evidently that of
Matthew and Luke, _but by Mark it is excluded._
According to the Matthean account, two blind men sit by the wayside
and cry, Have mercy upon us, Son of David (Mt 20:30).
In Luke the cry runs: Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy upon me (Lk
18:38). Thereupon Jesus comes to a stand before him, converses with
him, and heals him.
According to Mark, the blind beggar, son of Timæus, is sitting behind
the multitude at the edge of the road. _Jesus does not see him, cannot
address him, but hears only a voice, which reaches him as from the
ground out of the midst of the stir,_ of one calling upon the Son of
David for help. Jesus comes to a stand and sends _to have him
fetched!_ They follow the voice and find the man sitting upon the
ground. Rise, he calleth thee! they say to him. He throws away his
garment, springs up, and presses through the crowd to Jesus. As Jesus
sees the man approaching him thus he can have no idea that he is
blind! He has to ask him, therefore, what he wants. The distance, the
heat, [pg 160] the sending to fetch him, the nimble approach,—all this
Matthew has dropped. He has simplified the situation: Jesus encounters
the two blind men on the road and at once addresses them. Only he has
retained from the original situation the question, “what is
wanted?”—which in Mark is actually necessary, but in Matthew remains
unaccountable, for there Jesus must see that he has to do with two
blind men!
But if there lay such a distance between Jesus and the blind man, no
one could have an idea that he took the monotonous cry about the Son
of David as an address to himself! It was just simply an annoying cry,
which the bystanders sought in vain to silence. The people attached as
little importance to it as to the cries of the demons—if in fact they
understood it at all.
The _address_ of the beggar was of an entirely different tenor and
shows that he no more took Jesus for the Messiah than did the people:
“Rabbi, that I may receive my sight.” For him, therefore, Jesus was
the rabbi from Nazareth.
If one keep this situation in view, it will be seen that the
bystanders could in no way get the idea that Jesus here welcomes a
messianic [pg 161] acclaim. This, however, was the first sign which he
again performed after coming out of his retirement. Thereby he
legitimated himself before the Paschal caravan as the Forerunner, for
which his adherents in Galilee took him before he suddenly withdrew
into solitude in the north. Now the demonstration is let loose, and
they prepare for him as the Forerunner the ovation at the entrance
into Jerusalem.
In demonstrating the proper character of this occurrence one has to
deal with apparently insignificant detail to which not everyone may be
inclined to ascribe due importance. In view of this the following
points are to be kept in mind:
1. In the representation which assumes the messiahship of Jesus there
must come about as of itself a shifting of detail which has the effect
of describing a messianic entrance. This is the case with Matthew.
There is no evidence of a deliberate purpose on the part of the
writer.
2. Mark’s delineation shows such originality in comparison with the
parallels (one has but to think of the story of the Baptism and the
report of the Last Supper) that one cannot easily lay too great weight
upon the peculiarity [pg 162] of his account,—especially when it
results in so clear and consistent a picture as is here the case.
3. Nothing is accomplished by the assertion that proof has not been
brought that it was assuredly a question of an ovation to the
Forerunner. For then it remains to demonstrate how it was, that, on
the presumption that it was actually an ovation to the Messiah, the
transactions in the Jerusalem days make no allusion at all to the
presumed messianic pretension and the venal accusers do not appeal to
any such claims. What must the Roman procurator have done if a man had
marched into the city hailed by the populace as the Son of David?
4. The true historical apprehension is peculiarly difficult for us
here because of our notion that the signs and wonders were regarded by
the contemporaries as a confirmation of the messiahship of Jesus. In
that opinion we share the standpoint upon which the Johannine
representation is based. According to the conception of Jesus’
contemporaries, however, the Messiah needs no signs, but rather he
will be at once manifest in his power! The signs belong on the
contrary to the period of the Forerunner!
5. Our translation also has a prejudicial [pg 163] effect. The word
_ἐρχόμενοζ_ denotes in all passages a personality sharply defined for
that time. Hence one must in every case translate it in accord with
this perception,—not one time as a substantive [cf. the German Bible]
and again (in the story of the ovation) as a verb-form, just as
happens to be most convenient. “The Coming One” is the Forerunner,
because before the messianic judgment he is to come in the name of God
to put everything in order.
We arrive therefore at the conclusion: _Until the confession before
the council Jesus was publicly regarded as the Forerunner, as he had
been already in Galilee._
[pg 164]