CHAPTER VIII

THE SECRET OF MESSIAHSHIP

1. From the Mount of Transfiguration to Cæsarea Philippi

COMING after Cæsarea Philippi the Transfiguration is an obscure episode devoid of historical significance. The Three learn no more about Jesus than Peter had already confessed in the presence of the Twelve and Jesus himself had confirmed. Thus the whole section is plainly an intrusion: the apotheosis and obscure dialogue have no historical significance.

If, however, as has been proved above by literary evidence, this scene was enacted some weeks after the mission of the Twelve and _before_ Cæsarea Philippi—not upon the mountain of the legend, but on the mountain in the lonely region by the seashore near Bethsaida,—then we behold an idle addendum transformed at one stroke into a Galilean occurrence of far reaching historical importance, which explains the scene at Cæsarea Philippi, and not vice versa. What we call [pg 181] the Transfiguration is in reality nothing else but the revelation of the secret of messiahship to the Three. A few weeks later comes then its disclosure to the Twelve.

This revelation to the Three is handed down to us in the form of a miracle-tale. It has undergone the same transformation as have all the incidents of that voyage along the north coast. The scene on the mountain, like the feeding of the multitude and the encounter of Jesus with his disciples at dusk, bears evident marks of the intense eschatological excitement of the moment. For this reason the historical facts are no longer clear in detail. There appear unto them Moses and Elijah, the two characters most prominently associated with the expectation of the last times. To what extent may ecstatic conditions, and perhaps glossolalia, have contributed to this experience? The present form of the story permits us to infer something of the sort (Mk 9:2-6). Does the voice out of the cloud (Mk 9:7, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye him”) repeat in some sort Jesus’ experience at his baptism?

There is in fact an inward connection between the Baptism and the Transfiguration. In both cases a condition of ecstasy accompanies the revelation of the secret of Jesus’ [pg 182] person. The first time the revelation was for him alone; here the Disciples also share it. It is not clear to what extent they themselves were transported by the experience. So much is sure, that in a dazed condition, out of which they awake only at the end of the scene (Mk 9:8), the figure of Jesus appears to them illuminated by a supernatural light and glory, and a voice intimates that he is the Son of God. The occurrence can be explained only as the outcome of great eschatological excitement.

It is remarkable that the revelation of the secret of Jesus’ messiahship appears always to be connected with such conditions. At Pentecost, when Peter openly proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, we have an example of glossolalia. Peter, to be sure, had already had a taste of such an experience as the revelation was made to him on the mountain near Bethsaida. Paul also was in a state of ecstasy when he heard the voice before the Damascus gate.

It has been shown above that no one could conclude from Jesus’ speech or behaviour that he regards himself as the Messiah. Properly the question is not, how the people could remain ignorant of Jesus’ messianic claim, but how Peter at Cæsarea Philippi [pg 183] and the High Priest at the trial could come into possession of this secret.

The Transfiguration answers the first question. Peter knew that Jesus is the “Son of God” through the revelation which he in common with the two other Disciples received on the mountain near Bethsaida. For this reason he answered the question with such confidence (Mk 8:29). The text of St. Matthew’s Gospel records an additional saying of Jesus which seems to allude to the very experience in which this knowledge was supernaturally imparted to Peter: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Mt 16:17).

Moreover, the scene which follows upon Peter’s answer clearly has to do with a secret common to him and to Jesus. When Jesus disclosed that he must die in Jerusalem Peter turns upon him impetuously, takes him apart, and speaks to him in excited tones. As Jesus sees that the other Disciples are attentive he abruptly turns away from Peter with a sharp word, calling him the Tempter, who minds not the things of God but the things of men (Mk 8:32 and 8:33).

Why this agitation of Peter over Jesus’ disclosure about the fatal journey to Jerusalem? [pg 184] Because it comes as a new factor, above and beyond what was disclosed on the mountain near Bethsaida. About that experience he dare not speak in the presence of the other Disciples, because Jesus had forbidden it. For this reason he takes Jesus apart. Jesus, however, seeing that the other Disciples are listening, cannot explain matters to him, and so with passionate abruptness enjoins silence.

Only the connection with the foregoing Transfiguration explains the characteristic traits of the scene at Cæsarea Philippi. Psychological observations about the quick apprehension and lively temperament of Peter—the common expedients of modern interpretation—do not in fact begin to explain why he alone should arrive with such confidence at the knowledge of Jesus’ messiahship, only to fall a moment later into such misunderstanding that he gets into an excited dispute with Jesus. Why do they both go apart together? Why, instead of instructing him, does Jesus leave him there with a hard word of rebuke?

Taken by itself the whole scene at Cæsarea Philippi is an enigma. If, however, we assume that the Transfiguration preceded it, the enigma is solved and the scene is illuminated [pg 185] down to the smallest details. The revelation to the Twelve was preceded by the disclosure to the Three of the secret of Jesus’ messiahship.

2. The Futuristic Character of Jesus’ Messiahship.

Meanwhile the revelation of the secret of his messiahship alters nothing in the behaviour of the Disciples to Jesus. They do not sink before him in the dust as if now the man whom they had known was become a superhuman being. They only manifest in consequence of this revelation a certain awe. They dare not interrogate him when they fail to understand his words (Mk 9:32), and as they company with him they appear to be aware that he carries within him a great secret.

Are we to imagine then that after this revelation of his secret Jesus was henceforth regarded by his disciples as the Messiah? No, _not yet_ was he the Messiah. It must constantly be kept in mind that the Kingdom and the Messiah are correlative terms which belong inseparably together. Now if the Kingdom was not yet come, neither was the Messiah. Jesus’ disclosure had reference to the time of the dawning of the Kingdom. When [pg 186] that hour shall strike, then shall he appear as Messiah, then shall his messiahship be revealed in glory. Such was the secret which he solemnly made known to his disciples.

Jesus’ messiahship was a secret, not merely because he had forbidden it to be spoken, but in its very nature it was a secret, inasmuch as it could be realised only at a definite time in the future. It was a conception which could be formulated fully only in his own consciousness. Wherefore the people could not understand it—and need not know anything about it. It was enough if by his word and his signs he might convert them to faith in the nearness of the kingdom, for with the coming of the Kingdom his messiahship would be manifest.

It is almost impossible to express in modern terms the consciousness of messiahship which Jesus imparted as a secret to his Disciples. Whether we describe it as an identity between him and the Son of Man who is to appear, whether we express it as a continuity which unites both personalities, or think of it as virtually a pre-existent messiahship,—none of these modern conceptions can render the consciousness of Jesus as the Disciples understood it.

What we lack is the “Now and Then” [pg 187] which dominated their thinking and which explains a curious duality of consciousness that was characteristic of them. What we might call identity, continuity, and potentiality was in their mind confounded in a conception which quite eludes our grasp. Every person figured himself in two entirely different states, according as he thought of himself now, in the pre-messianic age, or then in the messianic. Expressions which we interpret only in accordance with our unity of consciousness, they referred as a matter of course to the double consciousness familiar to them. Therefore when Jesus revealed to them the secret of his messiahship, that did not mean to them that he is the Messiah, as we moderns must understand it; rather it signified for them that their Lord and Master was the one who in the messianic age would be revealed as Messiah.

They think of themselves also in terms of this double consciousness. As often as Jesus made known to them the necessity of his suffering before entering upon his rule they questioned within themselves what manner of persons they should be in the coming age. Wherefore, following upon the prophecies of the Passion we find rivalry among the Disciples as to which shall be the greatest in the [pg 188] Kingdom, or to whom shall be accorded the seats of honour on either side of the throne. In the meanwhile, however, they remain what they are, and Jesus remains what he is, their Teacher and Master. The sons of Zebedee address him as “Master” (Mk 10:35). As Teacher they expect him to give promise and assurance of what shall come to pass when the Kingdom dawns and his messiahship is revealed.

In this sense, then, Jesus’ messianic consciousness is futuristic. There was nothing strange in this either for him or for his Disciples. On the contrary, it corresponded exactly to the Jewish conception of the hidden life and labour of the Messiah. (Cf. Weber: _System der altsynagogalen Theologie,_ 1880, pp. 342-446). The course of Jesus’ earthly life preceded his messiahship in glory. The Messiah in his earthly estate must live and labour unrecognised, he must teach, and through deed and suffering he must be made perfect in righteousness. Not till then shall the messianic age dawn with the Last Judgment and the establishment of the Kingdom. The Messiah must come from the north. Jesus’ march from Cæsarea Philippi to Jerusalem was the progress of the unrecognised Messiah to his triumph in glory.

[pg 189]

Thus in the midst of the messianic expectation of his people stood Jesus as the Messiah that is to be. He dare not reveal himself to them, for the season of his hidden labour was not yet over. Hence he preached the near approach of the Kingdom of God.

It was this futuristic consciousness of messiahship which prompted Jesus in the Temple to touch upon the messianic dogma of the Scribes, as though he would call their attention to the secret which lurks behind it. The Pharisees say, “The Messiah is David’s Son;” but David calls him his Lord. How can he still be his Son (Mk 12:35-37)?

The Messiah is David’s Son—that is, subordinate to him—since in this era he is born of human parentage and lives and labours in obscurity. David’s Lord, because at the dawn of the coming era he will be revealed as Christ in glory. Jesus has no notion of impeaching the pharisaic dogma. It is correct, the Scripture so teaches. Only, the Pharisees themselves cannot properly interpret their dogma, and so cannot explain how the Messiah can be in one instance David’s Son and in another, David’s Lord.

This saying of Jesus to the people in the Temple—(only Matthew has made of [pg 190] it an embarrassing polemic)—is on a line with his utterance about the Baptist. Whoever could apprehend with what authority John baptised—that is, with the power and authority of Elijah,—whoever could understand how the Messiah could be in one instance David’s son, in another David’s Lord,—he must know also who _he_ is that so speaks. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear!

3. The Son of Man and the Futuristic Character of Jesus’ Messiahship.

The expression “Son of David” contains an enigma. Therefore Jesus never used it in speaking of his messiahship, but always refers to himself as the “Son of Man.” Consequently this designation must have been peculiarly apt as a rendering of his messianic consciousness.

It is evident that he chose this term deliberately. Every other messianic designation that is applied to him he corrects and interprets by “Son of Man.”

As they descend from the mountain where the Disciples had come to recognise him as the Son of God he speaks of himself as the “Son of Man” (Mk 9:7-9).

Peter proclaimed him before the others as “the Anointed one” (Mk 8:29). Jesus immediately [pg 191] proceeds to instruct them about the fate of the “Son of Man” (Mk 8:31).

“Art thou the Christ the Son of the Blessed?” the High Priest asked him (Mk 14:61). “Ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven,” is Jesus’ answer. That signifies, Yes. The same expression occurs in the second and in the third prophecy of the Passion (Mk 9:30-32 and Mk 10:32-34) and in the saying about serving (Mk 10:45).

The messianic title “Son of Man” is futuristic in character. It refers to the moment in which the Messiah shall come upon the clouds of heaven for judgment. From the beginning this was the sense in which Jesus had used the expression, whether in speaking to the people or to the Disciples. In sending out his Apostles he warned them of the impending approach of the day of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23). He spoke to the people of the coming of the Son of Man as an exhortation to be faithful to him, Jesus (Mk 8:38).

Withal, he and the Son of Man remain for the people and for the Disciples two entirely distinct personalities. The one is a terrestrial, the other a celestial figure; the one belongs to the age that now is, the other to the messianic period. Between the two there exists [pg 192] solidarity, inasmuch as the Son of Man will intervene in behalf of such as have ranged themselves on the side of Jesus, the herald of his coming.

These are the passages one must take as the point of departure in order to understand the significance of this expression in Jesus’ mouth. Jesus and the Son of Man are different persons for such as do not know his secret. They, however, to whom he has revealed his secret are aware of a personal connection between the two. Jesus it is who at the messianic day shall appear as the Son of Man. The revelation at Cæsarea Philippi consists in this, that Jesus reveals to his Disciples in what personal relationship he stands to the coming Son of Man. As the one who is to be the Son of Man he can confirm Peter’s confession of him as the Messiah. His reply to the High Priest is affirmative in the same sense. He is the Messiah—that they will see when he appears as the Son of Man upon the clouds of heaven.

“Son of Man” is accordingly the adequate expression of his messiahship, so long as he, in this earthly æon as Jesus of Nazareth, has occasion to refer to his future dignity. Hence when he speaks to the Disciples about himself as the Son of Man he assumes this [pg 193] duality of consciousness. “The Son of Man must suffer and will then rise from the dead:” that is to say, “As the one who is to be Son of Man at the resurrection of the dead I must suffer.” To the same effect we must understand the word about serving: As the one who in the character of the Son of Man is destined to the highest rule I must now humble myself to the lowliest service (Mk 10:45). Therefore he says when they come to arrest him: The hour is come in the which he who is to be the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinners (Mk 14:21, 41).

The problem about the Son of Man is herewith elucidated. It was not an expression which Jesus commonly used to describe himself, but a solemn title which he adopted when in the great moments of his life he spoke about himself to the initiated as the future Messiah, while before the others he spoke of the Son of Man as a personality distinct from himself. In all cases, however, the context shows that he is speaking of one who is yet to come, for in all these passages mention is made either of the Resurrection or of the appearing upon the clouds of heaven. The philological objections do not therefore apply here. Initiated and uninitiated must understand from the situation that he is speaking [pg 194] of a definite personality of the future,—and not of man in general, even though the expression in both cases would be the same.

The case is entirely different with another set of passages where the expression occurs arbitrarily as a pure self-designation, a roundabout way of saying “I.” Here all critical and philological objections are thoroughly in place.

Mt 8:20,—The Son of Man hath not where to lay his head. Mt 11:19,—The Son of Man is come eating and drinking (in contrast to the Baptist). Mt 12:32,—Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a worse crime than speaking evil of the Son of Man. Mt 12:40,—The Son of Man will be three days in the earth, like Jonah in the belly of the fish. Mt 13:37, 41,—The Son of Man is the Sower; the Son of Man is the lord of the reapers. Mt 16:13,—Who do the people say that the Son of Man is?

Here the expression is philologically impossible. For if Jesus had so used it, his hearers must simply have understood him to [pg 195] mean “man.” There is nothing here to indicate that the word is meant to express a future messianic dignity! Here in fact he designates by it his actual present condition! But “Son of Man” is a messianic title of futuristic character, since it always suggests a coming upon the clouds, according to Daniel 7:13-14. Furthermore, in all of these passages the Disciples are as yet ignorant of Jesus’ secret. For them the Son of Man is still an entirely distinct person. The unity of the subject is still completely unknown to them. Therefore they were not in a position to understand that by this term he refers to himself, but they must refer everything to that Son of Man of whose coming he also spoke elsewhere. Therewith, however, the passages would be meaningless, for they imply that Jesus is thus speaking of himself.

Historically and philologically it is therefore impossible that Jesus could have employed the expression as a purposeless and matter of course self-designation. Even as a self-designation referable to the future messianic dignity that was to be his, only they could understand it who knew his secret. Hence all the passages are unhistorical in which, _previous to Cæsarea Philippi_ (or, for the Three, previous to the Transfiguration), [pg 196] he designates _himself_ as Son of Man. Only those in that period are historical in which he speaks of the Son of Man as a figure yet to come, not identical with himself (Mt 10:23 and Mk 8:38). The passages cited above, in which the expression is used without its proper significance as a mere self-designation, are therefore not historical, but are comprehensible only as the result of a literary process. How does it come about that a later period of Gospel composition regarded this expression as “Jesus’ self-designation”?

This was due to a shifting of the perspective. It is observable from the moment when men began to write the history of Jesus upon the assumption that on earth he was already the Messiah. From that time on men lost consciousness of the fact that for the earthly existence of Jesus his very messiahship was something future, and that by the very expression Son of Man he designated himself as the future Messiah. Since, then, it was an historic fact that he spoke of himself as the Son of Man, the writers appropriated this emphatic term and without suspecting that it was appropriate only in certain sayings and in definite situations, they employed it indifferently in any passage where Jesus spoke of himself,—and thereby [pg 197] created these philological and historical impossibilities.

This erroneous use was due therefore to a literary development of markedly secondary character. In this respect it was like the unhistorical use of the expression “Son of David” by Matthew. It agrees thereto that the “Son of Man” passages here in question belong likewise to a secondary stratum of St. Matthew’s Gospel.

What chiefly reveals their secondary character is: the transformation of the simple question asked at Cæsarea Philippi (Mt 16:13); the application of the parable of the sower (Mt 13:37, 41); and the false interpretation of the saying about Jonah (Mt 12:40).

No less secondary is the formulation of the speech about the sin against the Holy Ghost, where a contrast is drawn between blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and against the Son of Man (Mt 12:32), whereas in Jesus’ thought both came to the same thing, since it was a question of conscious hardening against the power of the coming Kingdom which worked in him. In the passages Mt 8:20 and Mt 11:19 the expression is arbitrarily used, for Jesus merely wishes to say: _I_ have nowhere to lay my head; and, _I_ eat and drink, in contrast to the ascetic practice of the Baptist.

[pg 198]

It is quite a different case which is presented by the two unhistorical “Son of Man” passages in St. Mark’s Gospel.

Mk 2:10—The Son of Man hath authority to forgive sins upon earth. Mk 2:28—The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.

The secondary character appears in the fact that Jesus is supposed to have used the expression here as a self-designation. The historical fact is that he used it in that connection in the third person, referring either to the Son of Man as an eschatological figure, or to man in general. In either case it makes sense.

1. Man as such can by works of healing declare the forgiveness of sins upon earth.

Man as man is lord of the Sabbath.

2. In view of the coming of the Son of Man forgiveness of sins is already available, as the works of healing show.

In view of the coming of the Son of Man a higher factor already emerges to modify the legalistic observance of the Sabbath.

The Law yields to something higher. The case of David shows it.

However one may explain these passages, [pg 199] one thing is clear: the expression did actually occur here and did somehow modify Jesus’ statement. The only secondary trait appears in the use of the expression as a self-designation, whereas in fact Jesus spoke of man in general or of the Son of Man. These passages, therefore, are on the threshold between the historical and the literary-unhistorical use of the name “Son of Man.”

We can now understand the peculiar difficulty of the “Son of Man” problem. Hitherto, the deeper the investigation went, so much the further the solution seemed to recede. This was due to the fact that no amount of reflection could effect the separation of passages of such unequal worth. Thus the literary and historical sides of the problem remained confounded with one another. The moment, however, the discovery is made, from the study of Jesus’ messianic consciousness, that the expression Son of Man is the only one by which he could utter the secret of his future dignity, the separation is given. All those passages are historical which show the influence of the apocalyptic reference to the Son of Man in Daniel: all are unhistorical in which such is not the case. At the same time the shifting of the perspective explains why for writers of a later generation this [pg 200] expression in Jesus’ mouth could have only the significance of an arbitrary self-designation, appropriate in all situations where he spoke of himself.

Finally, the last enigma is also solved. Why does the expression disappear from the language of the primitive Church? Why does no one (with exception of Acts 7:56) designate the Messiah by the title Son of Man, notwithstanding that Jesus had used it exclusively to indicate his dignity? This is due to the fact that “Son of Man” was the messianic expression for a clearly defined episode of the messianic drama. The Messiah was the Son of Man in the moment of his manifestation upon the clouds of heaven to reign in judgment over the world. Jesus thought exclusively of that moment, since only from that moment on was he for men the Messiah. The primitive Church, however, seeing that a transitional period intervened, beheld Jesus as the Messiah in heaven above at the right hand of God. He was already the Messiah and did not have to become such at the moment of the appearing of the Son of Man. Because the perspective was shifted here also, one used the general expression “Messiah” instead of the title “Son of Man” which pointed to a particular scene.

[pg 201]

Jesus would have expressed himself inaccurately had he said, I am the Messiah,—for that he was to be only when he appeared in glory as the Son of Man.

The primitive Church would have expressed itself inaccurately had it said, Jesus is the Son of Man,—for after the Resurrection he was the Messiah at the right hand of God, whose coming as Son of Man the Church expected.

4. The Resurrection of the Dead and the Futuristic Character of Jesus’ Messiahship.

What is the significance of the resurrection-prophecies? It seems to us hard to admit that Jesus could have foretold so precisely an event of that sort. It seems much more plausible to suppose that general utterances of his about a glory that awaited him were editorially transformed _ex eventu_ into predictions of the Resurrection.

Such criticism is in place so long as one holds the view that the prophecy of the Resurrection referred to an isolated event in the personal history of Jesus. So it appears, however, only to our modern consciousness, because we think uneschatologically even in the matter of the Resurrection. For Jesus and his Disciples, on the other hand, the [pg 202] Resurrection which he spoke about had an entirely different significance. It was a messianic event which signified the dawn of the full glory that was to come. We must eliminate from the Resurrection predicted by Jesus all modern notions suggestive of an apotheosis. The contemporary consciousness understood this “Restoration” (Acts 3:21) as a revelation of Jesus’ messiahship at the dawn of the Kingdom. Therefore when Jesus spoke of his resurrection the Disciples thought of the great messianic Resurrection in which he as the Messiah would be raised from the dead.

The conversation during the descent from the mountain of Transfiguration is decisive on this point. Jesus spoke then for the first time to his most intimate disciples of “the resurrection of the Son of Man from the dead” (Mk 9:9). They, however, were quite unable to think of “the resurrection of the Son of man” apart from the messianic Resurrection. Their attention was entirely occupied with the messianic event which Jesus’ words suggested to them. They question therefore among themselves about the Resurrection of the dead. What should that mean (Mk 9:10)? That is to say, the conditions thereof, so far as they can see, are not yet [pg 203] fulfilled. Elijah is not yet come (Mk 9:11). Jesus puts their minds at rest with the hint that Elijah had already appeared though men did not recognise him. He means the Baptist (Mk 9:12-13).

This conversation, in which otherwise it is impossible to detect at all any reasonable sequence of thought, becomes perfectly transparent and natural the moment it is noticed how the Disciples are unable to think of the resurrection which Jesus’ words suggest except in the same thought with the general messianic Resurrection. Therefore this talk during the descent from the mountain throws a clear light upon Jesus’ later prophecies of his Passion and Resurrection, because we are here in a position to observe the thoughts and questions which these words awaken in the hearts of the Disciples. Moreover this “resurrection prophecy” lacks the mention of the three days which furnishes precisely the occasion for the critical attitude toward the subsequent prophecies of the Passion. In this respect the prediction during the descent agrees thoroughly with the last utterance before the High Priest. Both lack the definite indication of the time when the Resurrection or the appearing upon the clouds of heaven shall take place. In the [pg 204] messianic event both correspond chronologically: resurrection and coming on the clouds signify only the revelation of Jesus’ messiahship on the great Resurrection Day.

This expectation of the eschatological Resurrection of the dead ruled the consciousness of Jesus and his contemporaries. He assumes it in his discourses at Jerusalem. Expectation of the Kingdom and belief in the approaching Resurrection of the dead belong together. It is, as we have already observed, an error in perspective to represent Jesus’ thought in regard to the coming Kingdom as directed toward the future as if it had to do with subsequent generations. So the modern mind thinks. It was just the opposite with Jesus. The Kingdom had to do with the past generations. They rise up to meet the Judgment which inaugurates the Kingdom.

The Resurrection of the dead is the condition precedent to the establishment of the Kingdom. Through it all generations of the world are lifted out of their temporal sequence and placed before God’s judgment as contemporaries. For example, such a parable even as that of the Lord’s Vineyard requires the assumption of the Resurrection of the dead (Mk 12:1-12). The whole history of [pg 205] Israel is there described in the conduct of the husbandmen. Jesus speaks of the generations of Israel from the days of the Prophets unto the people then present to whom his warning is addressed. The parable, however, pictures only one generation, because when it is a question of the Judgment, the whole people in its consecutive generations appears before God as one collective whole,—which means that it is raised up as a whole from the dead.

In the same way it is to be explained that the people of Sodom of a generation long gone by are assured of a more tolerable fate than the present inhabitants of Capernaum (Mt 11:23-24).

Those who believed in the coming of the Kingdom believed also in the approaching Resurrection of the dead. Wherefore the attack of the Sadducees was directed precisely against this point. Jesus’ reply to them, that “when they shall rise from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven” (Mk 12:25), is to be understood as descriptive of conditions in the Kingdom of heaven, into which they enter through the Resurrection from the dead.

The “Resurrection of the dead” was, in [pg 206] fine, only the mode in which the transformation of the whole form of existence was accomplished upon those who had already succumbed to death. By the coming of the Kingdom of God, however, the earthly form of existence in general must be raised to another and an incomparably higher estate. From this point of view, those also are to experience a “resurrection” who before the great Event have not succumbed to death; for by a higher power their mode of existence, too, will suddenly be transformed into another, which they will then share with those that have been awakened from death. In comparison with this new form of existence the foregoing condition is a matter of indifference. It is all one whether from our earthly existence or from the sleep of death we pass into the messianic mode of being. In comparison with the latter all being is “death.” It alone is “life.”

Wherefore, to the living, Jesus speaks of the way that leadeth unto “life” (Mt 7:14). He counsels men rather to part with a member of the body, when “life” is in question, than to fail of gaining through the Resurrection a part in the messianic existence (Mt 18:8, 9). The rich young man asks what he must do “to inherit eternal life.” Jesus [pg 207] is very sorrowful when he will not follow the counsel given him, because it is so hard for a rich man “to enter into the Kingdom of heaven” (Mk 10:17, 25).

This disparagement of the earthly form of existence goes to the length of sacrificing altogether the earthly life for the sake of full assurance of life in the coming age. Hence, with the exhortation to follow him in suffering and reproach, Jesus declares that “whosoever would save his life shall lose it.” That is to say, Whosoever, through anxiety about his earthly existence, makes himself unworthy that the Son of Man intervene for him before God, forfeits thereby the messianic life which commences with the Resurrection (Mk 8:35).

When the Kingdom dawns it is all one whether we exist in a living or in a dead body. It is only with this persuasion that a man can meet persecution boldly. Wherefore Jesus says to the Apostles as he sends them forth: Be not afraid of them which kill the body but are not able to kill the “soul,” but fear him who hath power to destroy both “soul” and body in hell (Mt 10:28).

St. Paul furnishes a classical instance of this same connection between the eschatological expectation of the early Church and [pg 208] the Resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15:50-54). What we have here is not a specifically Pauline thought, but a primitive Christian conception to which Jesus had already given utterance. Flesh and blood, whether quick or dead, can in no wise have part in the Kingdom. Therefore when the hour strikes and the dead are raised incorruptible, the living also shall be changed, putting on incorruption and immortality.

The Resurrection of the dead is the bridge from the “Now” to the “Then.” It accounts for the duality of consciousness. Hence when Jesus spoke of his resurrection the Disciples correlated this word with the great context. It signified for them the general Resurrection in which they too would arise in the form of existence appropriate to the Kingdom of God. True, they expected his resurrection,—not, however, as the “Easter event,” but as the dawn of the messianic Kingdom. Jesus was to be revealed as the risen Christ when he should come as Son of Man upon the clouds of heaven to usher in the messianic day.

For our feeling, the death of Jesus is related to the Resurrection as a discord in music to its resolution. Owing to the disparagement of every form of existence prior [pg 209] to the messianic age, a much weaker accent, for the Disciples lay upon the death. What they conceived was an endless, eternal accord following upon a brief earthly prelude.

Where we see a juxtaposition of messianic claim, Passion prediction, and Resurrection prophecy, the Disciples perceived a much stricter connection of thought. They beheld all in a messianic light. Hence they did not draw from Jesus’ words three separate conclusions: (1) that he was the Messiah; (2) that he must suffer and die; (3) that he would rise from the dead. Rather, the impression they received was this: Our master will after his death, at the Resurrection, be revealed as the Son of Man. At the same time they question within themselves what sort of persons they then will be and what office and dignity will fall to their lot in the new existence.

It can thus be explained why their messianic conception was not completely overthrown by the notion of “the suffering and dying Messiah.” Jesus had revealed to them neither the suffering, nor the dying, nor the risen Christ; but he spoke to them of the Son of Man who was due to appear, and revealed to them that it was he who should come in that character when he had perfected himself by suffering here below.

[pg 210]

It can never be emphasised enough that in this respect Jesus’ messiahship was completely in line with the popular conception. The tragedy of his life is not to be accounted for by the incompatibility of his notion of messiahship and the general expectation, so that only conflicts could ensue which must bring about his death. This conception first appears in the Fourth Gospel. The historical Jesus laid claim to messiahship only from the moment of the Resurrection.

This view of Jesus’ messianic disclosures in the early Synoptic tradition is absolutely required by the conception of the primitive Church. The primitive Church assumes that Jesus’ messianic consciousness was futuristic when he talked to the Disciples and even when he gave answer to the High Priest. Even Peter’s discourse in the Acts dates his messiahship from the moment of the Resurrection. Until then he was Jesus of Nazareth. Only, the provisional condition of sitting on the right hand of God takes the place of the coming upon the clouds of heaven. “Jesus the Nazarene, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you (Acts 2:22), him did God raise up (Acts 2:32) and hath made him both Lord and [pg 211] Messiah, this Jesus whom ye crucified” (Acts 2:36).

This testimony to the primitive conception of Jesus’ messiahship is of itself so weighty that it would put to silence the whole Synoptical tradition if that were of a different tenor. How is it conceivable that the Disciples proclaimed that Jesus had entered upon his messianic existence through the Resurrection, if already upon earth he had spoken of his messiahship as a dignity then actually possessed? As a matter of fact the early Synoptic tradition and the view of the primitive Church agree together completely. Both affirm with one voice that Jesus’ messianic consciousness was futuristic.

If we had not this witness, the knowledge of Jesus’ historical character and personality would be forever closed to us. For after his death all sorts of presumptions arose to obscure the consciousness of the futuristic character of his messiahship. His resurrection as Messiah coincided with the general Resurrection which should usher in the messianic age—such was the perspective of the Disciples before his death. After his death his resurrection as Messiah constituted a fact for itself. Jesus was the Messiah _before_ the messianic age! That is the fateful shifting [pg 212] of the perspective. Therein lies the tragical element—but the magnificent as well—in the whole phenomenon of Christianity.

The primitive Christian consciousness made the most strenuous efforts to fill the breach, trying in spite of it to conceive of Jesus’ resurrection as the dawn of the messianic era in the general rising of the dead. There was an effort to make it intelligible as analogous to a somewhat protracted interval between two scenes of the first act of a drama. Properly, however, they already stood within the messianic Resurrection. Thus for Paul, Jesus Christ, proved to be the Messiah through the Resurrection of the dead, “is the first fruits of them that sleep” (1 Cor. 15:20). The whole structure of Pauline theology and ethics rests upon this thought. Because they find themselves within this period, believers are in reality buried with Christ and with him raised again through baptism. They are “new” creatures, they are the “righteous,” whose citizenship is in heaven. Until we grasp this fundamental notion we cannot perceive the unity in the manifold complications of St. Paul’s world of thought.

The Christian historical tradition sought another way out. It assumed a sort of preresurrection which coincided with the resurrection [pg 213] of Jesus. It lent to this the colouring of the messianic Day. Mt 27:50-53 furnishes an example in legendary form of such a method of reconciling fact and theory. With Jesus’ death upon the cross a new world era dawned. When he yielded up his spirit the veil of the Temple was rent from the top to the bottom and earthquakes, the signs of the end of the world, shook the earth; the rocks were rent; the graves opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection they go forth out of the tombs into the holy city and appear unto many. So this narrative clings to the conception that the general Resurrection of the dead under the omens of the messianic Day comes in conjunction with Jesus’ death and consequent resurrection,—but still only as a sort of prelude.

Time, indeed, proved mightier than the original conceptions. Inexorably it thrust itself like a splitting wedge between Jesus’ resurrection and the expected general Resurrection of the messianic Day, and with the temporal coincidence it destroyed also the casual [causal] connection in the original sense. The messiahship of Jesus stood up solidly out of the past. Those who confessed it and at the same time expected the Kingdom as a future [pg 214] event lost all consciousness of the fact that in the preaching of Jesus his messiahship and the Kingdom were both of them future and coincident events. They began to regard the Gospel history from the point of view that _Jesus was the Messiah._ The title for this new view of the Gospel history was written by St. Paul. It reads: _“Jesus Christ,”_—the office and dignity of the risen Lord is combined with the historical personality in one idea. The Fourth Gospel has drawn the logical consequence therefrom and has so depicted the history of Jesus as if he had come upon earth as the Messiah.

It is the task of the historical investigator to emancipate himself for a moment from the unhistorical perspective and place the Synoptic accounts in the right light. Only then, when one has grasped the futuristic element in Jesus’ messianic consciousness, can one understand why he revealed his dignity to the Disciples as a “secret,” why he designated himself thereby as the Son of Man, and in what sense he spoke of his resurrection.

5. The Betrayal by Judas—the Last Disclosure of the Secret of Messiahship.

What did Judas actually betray? According to the accounts of our Gospels it [pg 215] looks as if he had informed the Sanhedrin where at a particular hour they could apprehend Jesus. But, even if this indication of the place did play some part in the betrayal of Judas, it could only have been incidental. Where Jesus abode they could at any time find out, since he did nothing to make his coming and going secret. If then they desired to seize him, they had only to send a spy after him as he left Jerusalem in the evening, and they could have got all the information they wanted. For this purpose they did not need one of the inner circle.

As a matter of fact, however, the principal difficulty lay in an entirely different direction. Not to _arrest_ him but to _convict_ him was what they could not accomplish, for they could bring nothing against him. With respect to him and his following they found themselves in the embarrassing fix into which every conscientious church discipline must necessarily fall some time or another: these people were too pious for them, pious beyond proper limits, inasmuch as they with too great enthusiasm believed what the others with seemly moderation of feeling confessed in their creed,—namely, that the Kingdom is near. They could not get a conviction on the ground of the title of Forerunner [pg 216] which the people attributed to him, for he had justified this attribution by signs. Moreover he had never openly claimed for himself such a dignity. Nevertheless the manner of his behaviour was for them dangerous in the highest degree. At the head of the pious populace he terrorised them. For this reason they would gladly have made away with him—and could not.

One can understand the attitude of the Sanhedrin and their difficulties if one steadily keeps in mind that, in view of Jesus’ whole activity, the thought had not occurred to anybody that he could take himself to be the Messiah. Thus they knew no charge to bring against him, and had nothing for it but to try to catch him in his speech and discredit him with the people—and in this they were not successful.

Then Judas appeared before them and put the deadly weapon into their hand. As they heard what he told them “they were glad,” for now was he delivered into their power. Judas now seeks a favourable moment to deliver the betrayed into their hands (Mk 14:11).

What he had betrayed to them we can see from the process of the trial. The witnesses of the Pharisees can adduce nothing that would justify his conviction. When, however, [pg 217] the witnesses have withdrawn, the High Priest puts the question to Jesus directly, whether He is the Messiah. To prove such a claim on Jesus’ part they could not adduce the necessary witnesses,—for there were none. The High Priest is here in possession of Jesus’ secret. That was the betrayal of Judas! Through him the Sanhedrin knew that Jesus claimed to be something different from what the people held him to be, though he raised no protest against it.

They got the decisive charge through the betrayed secret of Cæsarea Philippi. To be Elijah, the prophet of the last times, was no religious crime. But to claim to be Messiah, that was blasphemy! The perfidy of the charge lay in the High Priest’s insinuation that Jesus held himself then to be the Messiah, just as he stood there before him. This Jesus repudiated with a proud word about his coming as Son of Man. Nevertheless he was condemned for blasphemy.

We have therefore three revelations of the secret of messiahship, which so hang together that each subsequent one implies the foregoing. On the mountain near Bethsaida was revealed to the Three the secret which was disclosed to Jesus at his baptism. That was after the harvest. A few weeks later it was [pg 218] known to the Twelve, by the fact that Peter at Cæsarea Philippi answered Jesus’ question out of the knowledge which he had attained upon the mountain. One of the Twelve betrayed the secret to the High Priest. This last revelation of the secret was fatal, for it brought about the death of Jesus. _He was condemned as Messiah although he had never appeared in that rôle._

[pg 219]