Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

considered as definitively perfect, as placed on the same relative footing to Jesus as that in which Jesus stood to his Father, i.e., of intimate union as "sons of God" (i. 12). This is the important object of the concluding addresses; in the final prayer of hierarchical consecration, the whole work is supposed to be virtually finished, and Jesus looks beyond his immediate disciples to the whole body of future believers, constituting the Christian church of after times as theoretically conceived (xvii. 20, 21), to whom, by anticipation, he has already communicated the "glory" or saving power received from his Father.1

Circumstances and Import of the Crucifixion.

After the series of discourses detailing the theory of glorification-such as the resurrection and return to the Father, the giving of the Spirit, and the initiation of a new spiritual life or religion, the last events required for its external realisation are briefly recorded. Here, although the accounts agree more closely than elsewhere, there are several variances connected with the peculiar theory of the gospel. It is clear from the synoptics that Pilate thought Jesus innocent, and wished to have released him; in the fourth gospel this feeling is expressed more decidedly; Pilate's expostulation is more earnest ; and when it proves unavailing, he is more obviously made to appear a passive instrument in the hands of Jewish hate, so as to cast the whole odium of the crucifixion upon the Jews. The counter question of Jesus to Pilate's interrogatory, and Pilate's hasty interjection "What is truth?" have the same probable object. The object is expressed in the re

2

1 Ch. xvii. 22, the glory I "have given," ie. "the power over all flesh," namely, that of giving eternal life to the elect (ver. 2), faith having its final and full accomplishment in the annihilation of the opposition between light and darkness, and the perfect union of subject and object.

2 From comparing xviii. 20 with xix. 14 it appears that Pilate strove against the Jews for six hours.

--

spective answers, "The chief priests of thine own nation have delivered thee to me;" and the question about truth implies neither curiosity nor sarcasm, but only the irrelevancy of a speculative discussion about the nature of truth in a criminal accusation, and as it were Pilate's mental ejaculation, "How ridiculous to bring here a mere philosophical enthusiast on a capital charge!" followed by the inference spoken aloud, “I find no fault in him." Yet all this, including the difference as to the scourging,— making the alternative scourging proposed in Luke into a fact, although after all not allowed to be a substitute, might possibly be accounted for on the common hypothesis of a fuller recapitulation of details; but there are other circumstances which cannot be so explained; for instance, the extreme importance attached to the flow of blood and water, and the difference as to the day of the execution. Both of these circumstances are very strongly insisted on. Nowhere are the attestations more earnest and emphatic than in regard to the lance-thrust and consequent issue of blood and water, which seems as if intended to be the climax of the whole narrative (xix. 35); and in regard to the day of execution the Evangelist incessantly warns us1 to reserve our thoughts of the Passover for the ultimate catastrophe by mentioning various circumstances as occurring "before" that event; by expressly distinguishing from the Passover the last supper in xiii. 2; and by the gratuitous information that Judas, when he rose from table to fulfil his treason, was supposed by those remaining to have gone to buy something "for the Passover" (xiii. 29). It is very remarkable that the Evangelist should be nowhere more emphatic than when contradicting the other gospels;2 and this circumstance strongly impels us to look carefully for his motive. The issue of blood and water in distinguishable streams from a corpse is perhaps physically impossible;

1 See xi. 55; xii. 1; xiii. 1; xviii. 28; xix. 14, 31.

2 See Baur, Evangelien, p. 215.

as to its being mentioned as proof of death, this had been already assumed as a fact (xix. 30, 33), and needed no additional confirmation. That the synoptical account as to the day of execution is contradicted by the fourth evangelist has been admitted almost universally;1 and attempts have been vainly made to substantiate the accuracy of the latter at the expense of the others. And even supposing the account in the fourth gospel to be the true one, there still remains the contradiction between its reputed authorship and the general Asiatic tradition embodied in the solemn declaration of Polycrates, assuming John to have been the great champion of the oriental Passover observance on the 14th distinct from the commemoration of Christ's death; whereas the gospel distinctly makes Christ the Passover, and treats the last supper as an ordinary repast independent of the Passover. It appears that a large party existed in the second century both in the East and West, who building on the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. v. 7) “ το πασχα ἡμων ὑπερ ἡμων ετυθη, Χριςος,” made Christ the true Passover, and treated as renegades and deicides all who were of a different way of thinking. Clemens of Alexandria, Apollinaris, and Hippolytus were of the number; they considered the Passover as a type which had been fulfilled by Jesus in his own person, and consequently abolished. The difference was most important; it implied the end of the old œconomy, and

3

Except, it seems, by Wieseler, whose manoeuvres to bring about agreement are described as pitiable.

2 On the gratuitous hypothesis that the synoptical account is at variance with Jewish customs. Were Jewish customs then so soon forgotten, especially by writers like Matthew who seem, on the contrary, to be particularly well acquainted with them? Comp. Dr. Jost's Geschichte des Judenthums, 1st Part, p. 278.

3 Δείπνου γινομενον, not του δείπνου” but simply " δειπνου.”

4 Thus Ignatius to the Philippians, ch. xiv. "If any one observes the Passover with the Jews he is an accomplice of those who killed the Lord and his apostles." Canon. Apos. 5, "If any bishop observes the day of the Passover of the Jews, let him be dismissed," etc. See Schwegler, Mont. p. 197. 5 “ Το αληθινον του κυριου πασχα δ αντι του αμνου δεθεις,” 2nd Eragment of Apollinaris. See Schwegler ib. p. 198. Hilgenfeld, Paschastreit, p. 258.

its replacement by a new one; and it was of the utmost consequence to shew historically that Christ did not eat the Passover before his death, but, in accordance with the idea of the absoluteness of Christianity, transferred, by dying on the Passover day, the significancy of the Jewish rite to his own person. The latter was the view of the party alluded to,1 and that espoused by the author of the gospel. In all probability the words of the Baptist at the commencement about the "Lamb of God," convey this meaning; and unquestionably the two incidents mentioned ch. xix. 33, 34, as special fulfilments of Scripture, can have no other. The opponents of the Asiatic observance held that the latter had lost its import by fulfilment; the type had become a reality, and no longer had a substantive meaning. Judaism ceased to be, and Christianity, as the absolute and perfect religion, took its place. It is this great change, with all its implied advantages of union with God through the diffusion of the Spirit,3 to which the emphatic words of the evangelist apply; namely, the critical moment of transition between two religious dispensations-the final word of Jesus, "TETEMEσTαι," implying that the whole of prophecy was fulfilled, and the destiny of Judaism accomplished. It is not so much the death which he is anxious to attest, as the momentous import of the death, already prefigured as the outpouring of living water in the discourse at the feast of tabernacles. Here we have the actualisation of what was there supposed; and as each believer is there described as a body overflowing with living water, so here the evangelist sees in the inanimate body on the cross the fountain of the spiritual stream,

[ocr errors]

1 In the Paschal Chronicle, xii. 16— Περας απειληφε το τυπικον πασχα, του αληθινού πασχα παραγενομενου.”

2 See above, p. 267.

3 The water may signify the Spirit; see iii. 5. But the Spirit could not be given before the death (vii. 39); hence the blood, the symbol of death, precedes the mention of the water, though both issue forth "forthwith," or instantaneously.

which, disappointing the malevolent intent of the Jews, suddenly issues forth to replenish and revivify the world. To actualize the idea it was only wanting that the body should be pierced; the Roman "crucifragium," which had been inconsistent with the contemplated typology, was therefore replaced by a lance-thrust, and the assumed fact was thus made to appear as a Scripture fulfilment.1

Explanation of the Inconsistencies, etc.

The impression of an all-absorbing purpose which results from the above analysis, is obviously unfavourable to the credit of the narrative considered as a history; and that not only on the general ground that strong partiality and bias must always more or less influence descriptions of fact, but because it is especially in deliberate modifications of the facts reported in the other gospels that the writer's design is here manifested. And when taking the book in this sense we treat it as a grand theological drama freely composed by some unknown hand in the interests of an advanced theory of Christianity, how readily are the anomalies and discrepancies accounted for by that all mastering purpose in the writer which to himself seemed as a divine overruling necessity !2 Differences vanish when we change the point of view, and desist from vain attempts to unite what was never intended as identical. The striking difference as to locality in making Jerusalem, not Galilee, the native country of Jesus3 and the chief scene of his labours, ceases to surprise when we reflect that Jerusalem was typically the native country of the prophet, the immemorial theatre of his sufferings; and

1 See Exod. xii. 46; Numb. ix. 12; Zech. xii. 10. Rev. i. 7.
2 Comp. ch. ii. 4; iii. 30; vii. 30; xii. 39; xiii. 1, 11; xvii. 1.

3 John iv. 43, 44; Matt. xiii. 54.

4 See John vii. 52; Luke xiii. 33; and Origen (vol. xiii. p. 54) says:แ πατρις των προφητων εν τη Ιουδαία ην, και φανερόν εστι τιμην αυτους παρα Ιουδαίους μη εσχηκεναι.” Strauss, in an article before referred to in the

« AnteriorContinuar »