THE SECRET OF THE PASSION
1. The Pre-Messianic Affliction.
THE reference to the Passion belonged as a matter of course to the
eschatological prediction. A time of unheard of affliction must
precede the coming of the Kingdom. Out of these woes the Messiah will
be brought to birth. That was a view prevalent far and wide: in no
other wise could the events of the last times be imagined.
According to this view Jesus’ words must be interpreted. It will
appear then that in his preaching of the Kingdom he brought into sharp
prominence the thought of the Affliction of the last times. We always
assume that when he speaks of persecutions which his Disciples shall
encounter he means to predict what they must go through when they are
left alone and orphaned on earth after his death. That is totally
false. After his death Jesus will be Messiah through the Resurrection,
and therewith the glory of the Kingdom dawns. Not what they must
withstand after his death, but what they are to be in the Kingdom [pg
220] is the thought which concerns the Disciples on the way to
Jerusalem.
When Jesus speaks of suffering and persecution it is a question of the
afflictions which his followers must bear with him before the dawn of
the Kingdom. What is meant is the last desperate attack of the powers
of this world at enmity with God, which shall sweep like a flood over
those who in expectation of the Kingdom represent the divine power in
the godless world. Hence Jesus constitutes the focus upon which the
Affliction concentrates. He is the rock upon which the waves dash
themselves to pieces. Whosoever would not be torn away by the flood
must cling stedfastly to him.
When he says that his mission is not to bring peace upon earth but a
sword, when he speaks of the uprising which he brings about, in which
the most sacred earthly ties shall be broken, in which one must follow
him laden with the cross and count one’s earthly life for naught (Mt
10:34-42), he means by this the great persecution of the last times.
He who hastens the coming of the Kingdom brings also this Affliction
to pass, for it is out of this travail indeed that the Kingdom and the
Messiah are born.
Hence the harsh accord heard throughout [pg 221] the messianic
harmonies! Jesus concludes the Beatitudes with the intimation that his
Disciples are blessed if they are hated and persecuted and all manner
of evil is spoken against them for his sake. Then have they indeed
reason to rejoice and be exceeding glad, for in what they must endure
is revealed their right to membership in the Kingdom of God. While
they are still afflicted by the power of this world their reward is
already prepared in heaven (Mt 5:11, 12).
“Preach, saying, the Kingdom of God is at hand,” was Jesus’ injunction
to the Apostles when sending them out. Therewith, however, he prepared
them impressively for the Affliction of the last times, for the hand
of the world-clock approaches the great hour. They must know it, in
order that they may not think that something strange has befallen them
when they are brought to trial by the world-power, when uprising and
persecution threaten them and bring their life into danger. They must
know it, in order that they may not doubt and deny him and be offended
in him when he is delivered into the hands of men, for he himself as
the mighty preacher of the Kingdom has incited this uprising. When,
however, the world-power appears to conquer, then God in his
omnipotence [pg 222] stands above. Not those that kill the body must
they fear, but the almighty Lord who in the Judgment can destroy both
soul and body in hell. In this last uprising the world-power judges
itself: after the Judgment comes the Kingdom. That is the fundamental
thought of the charge to the Apostles.
Likewise the embassage to the Baptist concludes with a similar
intimation. The Kingdom is near, he would have them say to him; my
preaching, signs, and wonders confirm it; and he attains blessedness
whosoever is not offended in me, i. e. whosoever is faithful to me in
the pre-messianic Affliction.
His warning of the heavy time to come is directed most impressively,
however, to those whom the Apostles’ preaching has drawn about him in
trustful expectation of the Kingdom. In the gathering dusk of evening
he had celebrated with them the great Supper beside the sea. As one
who knew himself to be the Messiah he had distributed to them sacred
food, and thereby, without their suspecting it, had consecrated them
to be partakers of the messianic feast. The following morning,
however, he called them about him at Bethsaida and exhorted them to be
ready to sacrifice their life in the Affliction. Whosoever [pg 223]
shall be ashamed of him and of his words in the humiliation which must
overtake him in this adulterous and sinful world, him will the Son of
Man refuse to recognise when he shall appear in the glory of his
Father surrounded by his angels (Mk 8:35-38).
2. The Idea of the Passion in the First Period.
The Passion therefore belonged to Jesus’ preaching from the beginning.
In the Affliction of the last times his followers must pass with him
through suffering to glory—so his hearers understood him. Only, they
did not know that he with whom they must suffer would be revealed as
Messiah.
In Jesus’ messianic consciousness the thought of suffering acquired
now, as applied to himself, a mysterious significance. The messiahship
which he became aware of at his baptism was not a possession, nor a
mere object of expectation; but in the eschatological conception it
was implied as a matter of course that through the trial of suffering
he must become what God had destined him to be. His messianic
consciousness was never without the thought of the Passion. Suffering
is the way to the revelation of messiahship!
[pg 224]
What he experienced in this age represented the hidden life and labour
of the Messiah. Suffering, however, was allotted to this rôle. It was
Jewish doctrine that the Messiah must be full of chastisement, for the
sufferings are necessary to the making of the perfectly righteous man
(Weber, p. 343).
This messianic consciousness of Jesus shows the same deepening of
moral tone as does his eschatology. According to the customary
modernising conception, it is assumed that during the greater part of
his ministry Jesus did not think of the Passion, but was first obliged
to entertain that thought by the malicious enmity of the Scribes. Thus
his messiahship receives in the first period an ethical-idyllic cast,
in the second, a modern hue of resignation. The
historic-eschatological picture is at once livelier, deeper, and more
moral. Jesus’ character did not undergo an “evolution” through the
acceptance of the idea of the Passion. From the beginning he knew
himself as Messiah only in so far as he was resolved through suffering
to be purified unto perfection. As the one who is destined to bear
rule in the new age he must beforehand be delivered into the power of
ungodliness in order that he may there approve [pg 225] himself for
the divine lordship he is to exercise. Out of such a messianic
consciousness as this he adjures those about him to remain true so
that he can recognise them as his own when the glory dawns. Thus the
active ethical trait which constituted the depth of the secret of the
Kingdom is a controlling factor also in the secret of messiahship.
The historical problem presents itself now in this form: In the first
period Jesus expressed the thought of the Passion much more frequently
than in the second, and he uttered it openly. Every discourse of some
length concludes with such an intimation. His own Disciples were
familiar with the thought of seeing him humiliated in the Affliction.
In spite of this, however, the disclosure at Cæsarea Philippi appeared
to the Disciples a new thing, and so it was in fact. For it was no
longer a question simply of the suffering which the great herald of
the Kingdom must undergo in company with his own in the final
Affliction; but now he suffers who is to be the Messiah. This
suffering, moreover, does not any longer occur in the general
Affliction of the last times, but Jesus suffers alone, and his
suffering is now represented as a purely earthly, historical event! He
will [pg 226] be delivered to the Council and by it condemned to
death! That was the new thing which remained a secret for the
Disciples.
3. The “Temptation” and the Divine Omnipotence.
A peculiar note of hesitancy appears in the thought of the Passion. At
one time death seems an absolute necessity; then again—for example, in
Gethsemane—Jesus recognises once more the possibility that the Passion
may still be spared him. But as a matter of fact the idea of the
Passion subsisted without respect to earthly success or failure.
Therefore the hesitancy ought not to be brought into connection with
this. As Jesus journeyed towards Jerusalem to die he did not in a
corner of his heart indulge the thought that God in his omnipotence
might perhaps be able nevertheless to make his way a triumphal march
and show himself through him victorious over the Pharisees and the
Council. That, according to his feeling, would have been a “human” way
of thinking, such as he had reproved in Peter (Mk 8:33). For in the
affairs of God’s Kingdom he cannot oppose to one another the
opposition of the Scribes and the divine omnipotence; it is a question
of a divine drama [pg 227] in which they were mere subordinate actors
with a prescribed rôle, like the minions that arrested him at their
behest. The hesitancy must therefore have its ground in the divine
will itself.
It is the specific characteristic of Jesus’ view, that the divine will
has indeed, on the one hand, designedly preordained the messianic
drama in the well known form; yet, on the other hand again, God
remains sovereignly free with respect to his plan. By a messianic
programme established once and for all the divine omnipotence behind
it is in no wise bound! It knows no determinism at all.
Jesus expected of this omnipotence that it could still receive into
the estate of blessedness even such as by their behaviour had
forfeited membership in the Kingdom. According to the accepted
standards it is indeed impossible that the rich can enter into life.
But with God all things are possible (Mk 10:27).
It was a maxim that whosoever would reign with the coming Messiah must
suffer with Jesus. But yet he dared not promise his two intimate
Disciples, James and John, the seats upon the throne, although he
expected that they would share his Passion. [pg 228] He might by this
infringe upon God’s omnipotence (Mk 10:35-40).
Thus the Affliction also of the last times had its place indeed in the
divinely ordained course of the messianic drama. But yet it lay in
God’s unrestricted omnipotence that he might eliminate it and permit
the Kingdom to dawn without this season of trial. Therefore men might
pray God that he would suffer that heavy hour of probation to pass by.
Jesus enjoined this upon his Disciples in the same prayer in which he
taught them to make petition for the coming Kingdom. He teaches them
to implore God for the final state of blessedness, in which his name
will be hallowed and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven; but
at the same time they are to beg him not to lead them into the
“Temptation,” not to give them into the power of the Evil, not to
oblige them to make satisfaction for their sins by the endurance of
the Affliction of the last times; but to deliver them by his
omnipotence from the power of the Evil when the ungodly world for the
last time asserts itself at the coming of the Kingdom for which they
pray. That is the inner connection of the last three petitions of the
Lord’s Prayer.
The Lord’s Prayer thus exhibits in the [pg 229] first three and the
last three petitions a purely eschatological character. We have the
same contrast as in the Beatitudes, the charge to the Apostles, the
embassage to the Baptist, and the discourse at Bethsaida. First it is
a question of the coming of the Kingdom, then of the Affliction of the
last times. We perceive from the Lord’s Prayer, however, that there is
no absolute necessity for this Affliction, but that it is only
relatively determined in God’s almighty will.
The Affliction, in fact, represents in its extremest form the
repentance requisite for the Kingdom. Whosoever comes through that
test approved makes satisfaction for his transgressions in the godless
æon. Through conflict and suffering men wrest themselves free from
this power to become instruments of the divine will in the Kingdom of
God. That is to be conceived collectively. The faithful adherents of
the Kingdom as a community make the satisfaction. The individual
thereby perfects and approves himself. Such is God’s will. Jesus,
however, prays with them to God that he may be pleased in his
omnipotence to forgive them the debt without satisfaction, as they
forgive their debtors. That means remission pure and simple, without
atonement. May it please [pg 230] God not to lead them through the
“Temptation,” but straightway to release them from the power of the
world.
Only so can one understand how Jesus throughout his ministry can
assume forgiveness of sins and yet here expressly prays for it; and
how he can speak of a temptation which comes from God. It is a
question in fact of the general messianic remission of debts and the
Temptation of the messianic Affliction. Therefore these petitions
constitute the conclusion of the Kingdom-prayer.
What Jesus here in common prayer petitions for the community, that he
implores for himself when his hour is come. In Gethsemane he
prostrates himself before God. In moving prayer he appeals to God’s
omnipotence: Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee (Mk
14:36). He would that the cup of suffering might pass his lips without
his needing to taste it. Also he rouses the three Disciples, bidding
them to watch and pray God that he may spare them the Temptation, for
the flesh is weak.
4. The Idea of the Passion in the Second Period.
With the revelation at Cæsarea Philippi cease all intimations that the
believers must [pg 231] pass with Jesus through the Affliction.
According to the secret which he imparts to the Disciples he alone
suffers. In Jerusalem he addressed not one urgent word, either to the
people or to the Disciples, about following him in suffering. Indeed
he actually takes back what he before had said. The morning after the
Supper by the seashore, addressing those whom he had consecrated unto
the messianic banquet, he makes their blessedness dependent upon
following him in suffering. To the partakers of the Last Supper at
Jerusalem he calmly stated beforehand that they would all be
“offended” in him that night! He coupled this with no condemnation—for
it is so determined in the Scripture! Is it not written, “I will smite
the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered”? Therefore, even if
they are offended in him, if even they forsake him, in his glory he
will still gather them again, and as Messiah—for that he is as the
risen one—he will go before them unto Galilee (Mk 14:26-28).
What at an earlier period he had required of all, that he now does not
expect even of him who boasted that he alone would stand by him.
“Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice,” said he to
Peter (Mk 14:29, 31).
[pg 232]
This change must be connected with the form which the idea of the
Passion assumed in the second period. There must have occurred an
alteration in the conception of the Affliction of the last times. The
others are freed from the trial of suffering, Jesus suffers alone;—and
in fact the humiliation consists in the death to which the scribes
consign him. It is by this means that the final affliction now
accomplishes itself. His faithful followers are spared. _He suffers in
their stead, for he gives his life a ransom for many._
Jesus has not disclosed in what way this secret was made known to him
in the days of solitude after the mission of the Twelve. The form of
the secret of the Passion shows, however, that two experiences had
influence upon him.
First, the death of the Baptist. The Baptist for him was Elijah. If he
was slain by the hand of man before the messianic Day, such was God’s
will, and so it was foreordained in the messianic drama. This occurred
while the Disciples were away. His embassage to the Baptist perhaps
never reached him. He must come now to an understanding of this
matter. For this cause he wishes to withdraw into solitude with his
companions.
[pg 233]
How much he was preoccupied with the thought of the Baptist’s death is
shown by the conversation which followed the revelation to the Three
on the mountain. It was ordained in the Scripture that Elijah must
meet such a fate at the hands of men. So also it is written of the Son
of Man that he must suffer many things and be set at naught (Mk
9:12-13).
Hitherto he had spoken only in general terms of the final Affliction
as an event of the last times. Now, however, it has been fulfilled
upon the Baptist as an _historical event._ That is a sign, which
indicates how it will be fulfilled upon himself.
This indication came precisely at the time when he was compelled by
the course of events to reflect upon the final Affliction. After the
return of the Twelve he had expected it as an impending event. But it
failed to occur. What is more, the Kingdom failed therewith to appear!
In sending out the Twelve he had told them that they would be
surprised by the overflowing woes ere they had gone through all the
cities of Israel,—and they had returned without witnessing the
beginning of the woes or the dawn of the Kingdom.
The report with which they returned [pg 234] showed, however, that all
was ready. Already the power of ungodliness was broken, for else the
unclean spirits would not have been subject to them. The Kingdom was
compellingly hastened by the repentance practised since the days of
the Baptist. In this respect also the measure was full,—that was
proved by the multitudes which thronged about him in faithful
expectation. So all was ready—and still the Kingdom did not come! The
delay of the eschatological coming of the Kingdom,—that was the great
fact which drove Jesus at that time once and again into solitude to
seek light upon the mystery.
Before the Kingdom could come the Affliction must arrive. But it
failed to arrive. It must be brought about in order that the Kingdom
may thus be constrained to come. Repentance and the subjugation of the
power of ungodliness did not avail by themselves; but the violent
stormers of the Kingdom must be reinforced by one stronger still, the
future Messiah, who brings down upon himself the final Affliction in
the form in which it had already been accomplished upon Elijah. Thus
the secret of the Kingdom merges in the secret of the Passion.
The conception of the final Affliction contains [pg 235] the thought
of atonement and purification. All they who are destined for the
Kingdom must win forgiveness for the guilt contracted in the earthly
æon by encountering stedfastly the world-power as it collects itself
for a last attack. For through this guilt they were still subject to
the power of ungodliness. This guilt constitutes a counter weight
which holds back the coming of the Kingdom.
But now God does not bring the Affliction to pass. And yet the
atonement must be made. Then it occurred to Jesus that he as the
coming Son of Man must accomplish the atonement in his own person. He
who one day shall reign over the believers as Messiah now humbles
himself under them and serves them by giving his life a ransom for
many, in order that the Kingdom may dawn upon them. That is his
mission in the estate which precedes his celestial glory. “For this he
is come” (Mk 10:45). He must suffer for the sins of those who are
ordained for his Kingdom. In order to carry this out, he journeys up
to Jerusalem, that there he may be put to death by the secular
authority, just as Elijah who went before him suffered at the hand of
Herod. That is the secret of the Passion. Jesus did actually die for
the sins of men, [pg 236] even though it was in another sense than
that which Anselm’s theory assumes.
5. Isaiah 40[-66]: The Secret of the Passion Foretold in the
Scripture.
“How is it written of the Son of Man? That he must suffer many things
and be set at naught” (Mk 9:12). The new form of the secret of the
Passion is derived from the Scripture. In the picture of the suffering
servant of God Jesus recognised himself. There he found his vocation
of suffering depicted in advance.
In order, however, to understand how his secret came to him from out
the Scripture, the picture of the suffering servant of God must be set
in the great framework in which it belongs. The modern-historical
solution cannot do this. It confines itself to the notion of a meek
self-surrender. As soon, however, as it is once perceived that Jesus’
idea of the Passion was eschatological, it is evident also in what a
great context he must view the figure of the suffering servant of God.
Accordingly, Isa. 40-66 was nothing else but the prophetic
representation of the events of the last time in the midst of which he
knew himself to be.
The passage commences with the proclamation [pg 237] that God’s reign
is about to begin. The preparer of the way comes upon the scene. He
cries that the earthly passes away when the Lord, dealing reward and
recompense, appears in his glory. The hour dawns in which he gathers
his flock and brings in the era of peace.
The Elect is there. He proclaims righteousness in truth. God has put
his spirit upon him (Isai. 42:1 ff.). He shall establish judgment upon
the earth; the cities wait upon his teaching. But before the glory
dawns and the bearer of the divine spirit rules with power and
righteousness over the peoples he must pass through an estate of
humiliation. Others do not understand why he is put to shame. They
think God has rejected him, and know not that he bears their
infirmities, is pierced for their transgressions, and smitten for
their offences. The oppressed servant is meek and openeth not his
mouth. For the transgression of the people he is stricken to death.
Then, however, will the Lord glorify him. He hath called him to this
from his mother’s womb. He is ordained to bring again Jacob and to
save Israel. He shall be for a light to the Gentiles, that God’s
salvation may extend unto the ends of the earth (Isai. 49:1 ff.; Isai.
52:1 ff.; Isai. 53:1 ff.).
[pg 238]
Upon the delineation of the suffering of the servant of God there
follows a description of the judgment upon the whole world and upon
Israel (Isa. 54-65). In the end, however, the glory of God breaks
forth. He is enthroned above the new heaven and the new earth (Isa. 65
and 66). When the Judgment is accomplished, then the rejoicing breaks
out, for the blessed out of the whole world, out of every tribe and
nation, will gather unto him and do him reverence.
One must grasp the dramatic unity in these chapters in order to enter
into sympathy with one who sought here mysterious intimation about the
things of the last time. Jesus’ idea of the Passion is in the end
completely absorbed in that of the Deutero-Isaiah. Like the servant of
God, he too is destined to reign in glory. But first he appears, meek
and unrecognised, in the rôle of a preacher who works righteousness.
He must pass also through suffering and humiliation ere God permit the
glorious consummation to dawn. What he endures is an atonement for the
iniquity of others. This is a secret between himself and God. The
others cannot and need not understand it, for when the glory dawns
they will recognise that he has suffered for them. Wherefore Jesus did
not need to explain [pg 239] his Passion to the people and to the
Disciples, and ought not to do so. It must remain a secret,—so it is
written in the Scripture. Even to those to whom he foretold what was
coming he uttered it as a secret. At his appearing as Son of Man the
scales must fall from their eyes. In the glory of the Kingdom they
then shall recognise that he has suffered in order that they may be
spared and have peace. The secret is intelligible only
retrospectively, from the point of view of the glory that shall be
revealed.
Therefore it makes no difference if his own followers turn away from
him in his humiliation and men are offended in him as though he were
chastised of God. The Scripture does not reckon it against them as
sacrilege, but has so ordained it. The moment therefore the secret of
the Passion is made clear to him by the Scripture he no more says,
Whosoever is ashamed of me in my humiliation, the same is condemned;
but, Ye shall all be offended in me,—knowing at the same time that
they all shall be gathered about him at the Resurrection.
Under the influence, therefore, of the Deutero-Isaiah the idea of the
general Affliction of the last times was transformed into the personal
secret of Jesus’ Passion.
[pg 240]
6. The “Human” Element in the Secret of the Passion.
The innermost nature of the idea of suffering underwent no change in
consequence of the secret of the Passion of the second epoch. For
Jesus, suffering, even in this form, remained pre-eminently the moral
condition of the dignity ordained to him.
Now, however, the Affliction exhibits the concrete traits of a
determinate event. Jesus brings it down from the vague heights of
apocalyptic drama to the level of human history. Therein lies
something prophetic of the future of Christianity. After Jesus’ death
the whole messianic drama of the last times is dissolved in human
history. This development began with the secret of the Passion.
Thus it is, too, that the secret of the Passion, as compared with the
idea of suffering of the first period, exhibits more human traits.
There is a quality of compassionate consideration for others in the
thought that he makes satisfaction in the Passion for the adherents of
the Kingdom, in order that they may be exempted from the trial in
which perchance they might prove weak. The petition, “Lead us not into
the Temptation, but [pg 241] deliver us from the Evil,” is now
fulfilled in his Passion.
This deeply human trait is especially evident in Gethsemane. Only over
the three intimate Disciples still hovers the possibility that they
may be obliged to pass with him through suffering and temptation. The
sons of Zebedee, to secure their claim that they sit with him upon the
throne, boasted that they could drink with him his cup and undergo
with him the baptism of suffering—and this prospect he held out to
them (Mk 10:38-40). Peter, however, swore that he would not deny him;
even if all others should forsake him, he desired to die with him (Mk
14:31). These three Jesus had taken with him to the place where he
prayed. While he implored God that the cup might pass him by, there
overcame him a sorrowful anxiety for the Three. If God does now
actually send them with him through the Passion, will they hold out as
they are bold to believe? Wherefore he is mindful of them in that sad
hour. Twice he arouses himself and wakes them out of sleep, bidding
them watch and pray to God that he lead them not into the Temptation,
even if he will not spare him this cup; for the spirit is willing, but
the flesh is weak. That is perhaps [pg 242] the most touching moment
in Jesus’ life. Some have dared to call Gethsemane Jesus’ weak hour;
but in reality it is precisely the hour in which his supernatural
greatness is revealed in his deeply human compassion.
7. The Idea of the Passion in the Primitive Church. The Shifting of
the Perspective.
Jesus carried with him to the grave the secret of the Passion which
was to be revealed to the inheritors of the Kingdom at its coming. But
the Kingdom did not come. Thus it is to be explained that though he
indeed had given intimation of his Passion to the Disciples, yet they,
when the event came to pass, knew no interpretation of it.
Nevertheless, in some way they had to explain it, by the help of such
intimations as they could recall. This accounts for the fact that the
theory of the early Church regarding the Passion of Jesus was far
poorer than his Secret. The explanation of the Church focussed
principally upon one fact: In consequence of the Passion and the
Resurrection from the dead he is the Messiah. In this sense the
Passion and the Exaltation are foreordained in the Scripture.
While Jesus’ secret brought his death and the dawning of the Kingdom
into the closest [pg 243] temporal and causal connection, for the
primitive Church, on the other hand, a past event, as such,
constituted the object to be explained, since the Kingdom had not
arrived and the original causal connection was dissolved along with
the temporal.
Now with reference to his death Jesus had spoken also of atonement and
forgiveness of sins. But the thoughts which he associated therewith
the events had rendered entirely impossible. The indefinite “many,”
who were to apply the ransom to themselves in the knowledge that he
had suffered for them, simply did not exist; for the Kingdom had not
yet appeared. Only from that point of vantage, however, could one
apprehend that he had performed the Atonement of Affliction for the
inheritors of the Kingdom.
In the meantime the situation was entirely different: “the believers”
had taken the place of the “many.” Those who believe in the
messiahship of Jesus have the forgiveness of sins,—this sentence, as
the sermon at Pentecost shows, was a constituent of the earlier
Apostolic preaching (Acts 2:38). But to what extent one had thereby
forgiveness of sins,—in that consisted the problem. This, however, was
historically insoluble, for according to Jesus’ secret of the Passion
[pg 244] the forgiveness of sins applied not to those who believe in
Jesus-Christ, but to the inheritors of the Kingdom. Therefore, however
profound they may be, and however true to the religious consciousness
of their time, none of the attempts to explain the significance of the
Passion, from Paul to Ritschl, apprehend the thought of Jesus, because
they proceed upon an entirely different assumption.
As all of these theories sought nevertheless to legitimate themselves
historically, we witness the astonishing spectacle, that the most
diverse interpretations of his Passion are put into the mouth of
Jesus,—of which, however, not one can even remotely explain how out of
such a conception the primitive Apostolic estimate of the Death could
have been derived. The same is true of the modern-historical solution.
If Jesus taught the Disciples to understand the ethical significance
of his death, why did the primitive Christian explanation of the
Passion confine itself to the notion of conformity with Scripture and
the “forgiveness of sins”?
To this question the modern-historical solution furnishes no answer.
The eschatologico-historical, on the other hand, is able to take
account perspectively of the necessary distortion which Jesus’ idea of
the Passion [pg 245] underwent in the primitive Church. It indicates
which elements alone of the Passion secret could still subsist after
his death. Because it grasps the connection between the early
Christian interpretation and the thought of Jesus the
eschatologico-historical solution is the right one.
The abolition of the causal connection between the death of Jesus and
the realisation of the Kingdom was fatal to the early Christian
eschatology. With the secret of the Passion, the secret of the Kingdom
likewise perished. This, however, meant nothing less than that
eschatology lost precisely that specific “Christian” character which
Jesus had imparted to it. The active ethical element which served to
moralise it dropped out. Thus the eschatology of the early Church was
“dechristianised” by Jesus’ death. Therewith it sank back again to the
level of contemporary Jewish thought. The Kingdom is again an object
of expectation merely. That moral conversion is effective actively to
hasten its coming,—this secret was buried with Jesus. Now men repented
and strove after moral renewal _as in the days of the Baptist._
This dechristianising was manifest especially in the matter of the
final Affliction. [pg 246] According to the Passion idea of the first
period, the believers must suffer along with the Messiah; according to
that of the second, he was resolved to endure the Affliction for them.
In the early Church the believers expected the Affliction _before_ the
appearing of the Messiah, as was the case in the contemporary Jewish
conception; for the Passion secret of Jesus was not known to them.
Therefore the Jewish apocalypses belonged to them just as much as to
the other Jews, only with the difference that the crucified Jesus was
to be the coming Messiah. Early Christian eschatology was therefore
still “Christian” only through the _person_ of Jesus, no longer
through his _spirit,_ as was the case in the secret of the Kingdom of
God and in the secret of the Passion.
This furnishes a criterion for judging “the Synoptic apocalypse” (Mark
13). Even though it may contain single eschatological sayings
attributable to Jesus, the discourse as such is necessarily
unhistorical. It betrays the perspective of the time after Jesus’
death. During the days at Jerusalem Jesus could speak of no general
Affliction before the coming of the Son of Man. The Synoptic
apocalypse stands in direct contradiction to the secret of the
Passion, since this indeed simply [pg 247] abolishes the general
Affliction of the last times. Therefore it is unhistorical.
Apocalyptic discourses with intimation of the final Affliction belong
to the Galilean period at the time of the mission of the Twelve. The
discourse to the Apostles on that occasion is the historical Synoptic
apocalypse. About a time of affliction after his death Jesus never
uttered a word to his Disciples, for it lay beyond his field of
vision.
Therefore with the death of Jesus, and precisely by reason of it,
eschatology—notwithstanding that the primitive Christian community
still completely lived in it—was virtually done away with. It was
destined to be forced out of the Christian “Weltanschauung,” for it
was “dechristianised” by the fact that in parting with the secret of
the Kingdom of God and the idea of the Passion it had forfeited also
the inner ethical life which was breathed into it by Jesus. A tree in
full bloom stricken at the root,—such was the fate of eschatology, to
wilt and wither, although no one at first suspected it was doomed. In
the fact that subsequent history compulsorily created in the Church an
uneschatological view of the world, it only accomplished what in the
nature of things was already determined by Jesus’ death.
[pg 248]
The death of Jesus the end of eschatology! The Messiah who upon earth
was not such—the end of the messianic expectation! The view of the
world in which Jesus lived and preached was eschatological: the
“Christian view of the world” which he founded by his death carries
mankind forever beyond eschatology! That is the great secret of the
Christian “scheme of salvation.”
For Jesus and his Disciples his death was, according to the
eschatological view, merely a _transitional_ event. As soon, however,
as the event occurred it became the _central fact_ upon which the new,
uneschatological view was built up. In primitive Christianity the old
and new were still side by side.
The adherents of Jesus believed in the coming of the Kingdom because
his imposing personality accredited the message. The Church after his
death believed in his messiahship and expected the coming of the
Kingdom. We believe that in his ethical-religious personality, as
revealed in his ministry and suffering, the Messiah and the Kingdom
are come.
The situation may be likened to the course of the sun. Its brightness
breaks forth while it is still behind the mountains. The dark clouds
take colour from its rays, and the conflict [pg 249] of light and
darkness produces a play of fantastic imagery. The sun itself is not
yet visible: it is there only in the sense that the light issues from
it. As the sun behind the morning glow,—so appeared the personality of
Jesus of Nazareth to his contemporaries in the pre-messianic age.
At the moment when the heaven glows with intensest colouring the sun
itself rises above the horizon. But with this the wealth of colour
begins gradually to diminish. The fantastic images pale and vanish
because the sun itself dissolves the clouds upon which they are
formed. As the rising sun above the horizon,—so appeared Jesus Christ
to the primitive Church in its eschatological expectation.
As the sun at midday,—so he appears to us. We know nothing of morning
and evening glow; we see only the white brilliance which pervades all.
But the fact that the sun now shines for us in such a light does not
justify us in conceiving the sunrise also as if it were a brilliant
disk of midday brightness emerging above the horizon. Our modern view
of Jesus’ death is true, true in its inmost nature, because it
reflects his ethical-religious personality in the thoughts of our
time. But when we import this into the history [pg 250] of Jesus and
of primitive Christianity we commit the same blunder as were we to
paint the sunrise without the morning glow.
In genuine historical knowledge there is liberating and helping power.
Our faith is built upon the personality of Jesus. But between our
world-view and that in which he lived and laboured there lies a deep
and seemingly unbridgeable gulf. Men therefore saw themselves obliged
to detach as it were his personality from his world-view and touch it
up with modern colours.
This produced a picture of Jesus which was strangely lifeless and
vague. One got a hybrid figure, half modern, half antique. With much
else that is modern, men transferred to him our modern psychology,
without always recognising clearly that it is not applicable to him
and necessarily belittles him. For it is derived from mediocre minds
which are a patchwork of opinions and apprehend and observe themselves
only in a constant flux of development. Jesus, however, is a
superhuman personality moulded in one piece.
Thus modern theology does violence to history and psychology, inasmuch
as it cannot prove what right we have to segregate Jesus from his age,
to translate his personality into the terms of our modern thought, and
to conceive [pg 251] of him as “Messiah” and “Son of God” outside of
the Jewish framework.
Genuine historical knowledge, however, restores to theology full
freedom of movement! It presents to it the personality of Jesus in an
eschatological world-view, yet one which is modern through and through
because _His_ mighty spirit pervades it.
This Jesus is far greater than the one conceived in modern terms: he
is really a superhuman personality. With his death he destroyed the
form of his “Weltanschauung,” rendering his own eschatology
impossible. Thereby he gives to all peoples and to all times the right
to apprehend him in terms of their thoughts and conceptions, in order
that his spirit may pervade their “Weltanschauung” as it quickened and
transfigured the Jewish eschatology.
Therefore may modern theology, just by reason of a genuine historical
knowledge, claim freedom of movement, without being hampered
continually by petty historical expedients which nowadays are often
resorted to at the expense of historical veracity. Theology is not
bound to graze in a paddock. It is free, for its task is to found our
Christian view of the world solely upon the personality of Jesus
Christ, irrespective of the [pg 252] form in which it expressed itself
in his time. He himself has destroyed this form with his death.
History prompts theology to this unhistorical step.
As Jesus gave up the ghost, the Roman centurion said, “Truly this man
was the Son of God” (Mk 15:39). Thus at the moment of his death the
lofty dignity of Jesus was set free for expression in all tongues,
among all nations, and for all philosophies.
[pg 253]