Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (699 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
4.38Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Many theologians of tlic present day are sufficiently impartial to admit, witli regard to tlic Old Testament, in opposition to tlic ancient orthodox interpretation, tliat many of tlie prophecies originally referred to near events; but they are not sufficiently rash, with regard to the New Testament, to side witli tlie rationalistic commentators, and to deny the decidedly Messianic application which the New Testament writers make of these prophecies ; they are still too prejudiced to allow, tliat here and there the New Testament hag falsely interpreted the Old.
Consequently, they have recourse to the expedient of distinguishing a double sense in tlic prophecy ; tlie one relating to a near and minor occurrence, the other to a future and more important event; and thus they neither offend against the plain grammatical and historical sense of tlie Old Testament passage on the one hand, nor distort or deny the signification of the New Testament passage on tlie other. ^ Tims, in tlie prophecy of Isaiah
Consequently, they have recourse to the expedient of distinguishing a double sense in tlic prophecy ; tlie one relating to a near and minor occurrence, the other to a future and more important event; and thus they neither offend against the plain grammatical and historical sense of tlie Old Testament passage on the one hand, nor distort or deny the signification of the New Testament passage on tlie other. ^ Tims, in tlie prophecy of Isaiah
* Sec Wincr, Grammatik des neutest. Sprachidioms, 3te Aufl. S. 382 ff. Fritzsche, Conim. in Matth. p. 49. 317 und Excurs. 1, pi 83(i ff. •j’ See the Introduction, § 14.
CONCEPTION OF JESL’S-ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. 117
•under consideration, tlie spirit of prophecy, they contend, had a double intention : to announce a near occurrence, the delivery of the affianced bride of tlic prophet, and also a distinct event in the far
distant future, namely tlic birth of tlie Messiah of a vira-in.
But a
But a
‘*/ ‘“i
double sense so monstrous owes its origin to dogmatic perplexity alone.
It lias been adopted, as Olshausen himself remarks, in order to avoid tlie offensive admission that tlie New Testament writers, and Jesus himself, did not interpret tlic Old Testament rightly, or, more properly speaking, according to modern principles of exegesis, but explained it after tlic manner of their own age, which was not tlic most correct. But so little does this offence exist for the unprejudiced, that tlie reverse would be the greater difficulty, that is, if. contrary to all tlic laws of historical and national development, tlie New Testament writers liad elevated themselves completely above the modes of interpretation common to their ago and nation.
It lias been adopted, as Olshausen himself remarks, in order to avoid tlie offensive admission that tlie New Testament writers, and Jesus himself, did not interpret tlic Old Testament rightly, or, more properly speaking, according to modern principles of exegesis, but explained it after tlic manner of their own age, which was not tlic most correct. But so little does this offence exist for the unprejudiced, that tlie reverse would be the greater difficulty, that is, if. contrary to all tlic laws of historical and national development, tlie New Testament writers liad elevated themselves completely above the modes of interpretation common to their ago and nation.
Consequently, witli regard to tlio prophecies brought forward in the New Testament, we may admit, according to circumstances, without further argument, that they arc frequently interpreted and applied by tlie evangelists, in a sense which is totally different from tliat they originally bore.
We have, here in fact a complete table of all tlie four possible views on tills point: two extreme and two conciliatory; one false and’one, it is to be liopcd, correct.
1. Oi’thodox view (IIengstcnbcrg and others): Such Old Testament passages liad in their very origin an exclusive prophetic reference to Christ, for the New Testament writers so understand them;
and tlicy must be in tlie right even should human reason be confounded.
2.
nationalistic view (Paulus and others): Tlic New Testament writers do not assign a strictly Messianic sense to tlie Old Testament prophecies, for this reference to Christ is foreign to tlie original signification of tlicsc prophecies viewed by the liglit of reason ; and tlie New Testament writinn’s must accord witli reason, whatever ancient beliefs may say to tlic contrary.
nationalistic view (Paulus and others): Tlic New Testament writers do not assign a strictly Messianic sense to tlie Old Testament prophecies, for this reference to Christ is foreign to tlie original signification of tlicsc prophecies viewed by the liglit of reason ; and tlie New Testament writinn’s must accord witli reason, whatever ancient beliefs may say to tlic contrary.
3. J\fystical conciliatory view (Olshausen and others): Tlie Old Testament passages originally embody both the deeper signification ascribed to them bv tlie New Testament writers, and that more proximate meaning which common sense obliges us to recognize:
thus sound reason and tlic ancient faith are reconcileable.
4. Decision of criticism: Very many of the Old Testament prophecies liad, originally, only an immediate reference to events belonging to tlie time: but they came to be regarded by tlie men oi’
the New Testament as actual predictions of Jesus as tlic Messiah, .because tlie intelligence of tlicsc men was limited, by the manner of thinking of their nation, a fact recognized neither by Rationalism nor tlic ancient faith.*
‘s The wliole rationalistic interpretation of Scripture rests upon a sufficiently palpable
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
Accordingly we shall not hesitate for a moment to allow, in relation to tlie prophecy in question, that the reference to Jesus is obtruded upon it by tlie Evangelists. Whether tlie actual birth of Jesus of a virgin gave rise to this application of the prophecy, or whether tins prophecy, interpreted beforehand as referring to tlie Messiah, originated the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, remains to be determined.
§. 2G. JESUS BEGOTTEN OF THE HOLY GHOST--CRISTICISM OF THE
ORTHODOX OPINION.
THE statement of Matthew and of Luke concerning tlie mode of Jesus’s conception lias, in every age, received the following interpretation by tlie church; that Jesus was conceived in Mary not by a human father, but by the Holy Ghost, And fc-uly tlie gospel expressions seem, at first siglit, to justify this interpretation ; since the words ~^fiv 2) avveX-SKlv ai-ovf (Matth. i. 18.) and KTK’I a’rdpffl ov Jt.vuoiid) (Luke i. 34.) preclude tlie participation of Joscpli or any other man in tlie conception of tlie cliild in question. Nevertheless the terms •nvEv^ia aylov and Svvafuc v-ip’ia-ov do not represent tlie Holy Ghost in tlie sense of the Church, as tlie third person in the Godhead, but rather the t”^ ““‘“i Spii’iias J)id as used in the Old Testament: God in his agency upon tlie world, and especially upon man.
In short tlie words t’r yao-pi ‘K^ovoa EK TTVSV^CI,-O<; ayiov in Matthew, and wm\ia aywv i-ne/.evae-cn ml OK K. -. t. in Luke, express with sufficient clearness that tlie absence of human agency was supplied-not physically after tlie manner of heathen representations-but by tlie divine creative energy.
In short tlie words t’r yao-pi ‘K^ovoa EK TTVSV^CI,-O<; ayiov in Matthew, and wm\ia aywv i-ne/.evae-cn ml OK K. -. t. in Luke, express with sufficient clearness that tlie absence of human agency was supplied-not physically after tlie manner of heathen representations-but by tlie divine creative energy.
Though tills seems to be tlie representation intended by the evangelists in tlie passages referred to concerning tlie origin of the life of Jesus, still it cannot be completed witliout considerable difficulties.
We may separate what we may term tlie physico-theological from tlie liistorical^cxeyetlval difficulties.
We may separate what we may term tlie physico-theological from tlie liistorical^cxeyetlval difficulties.
The physiological difficulties amount to this, that such a conception would be, a most remarkable deviation from all natural laws.
However obscure tlie physiology of the tact, it is proved by an exceptionless experience that only by the concurrence of tlie two scxea is a new human being generated; on which account, Plutarch’s remark, “mudtov ovSefzia TTO-K yvvff ^e-ye-at •rroiTjaat 6l^a KotvuvicK;
Tlie New Testament authors are not to be interpreted as if they saiil something irrational (certainly not something contrary to their own modes of thinking),
Now according to a particular interpretation their assertions are irrational (tliat is,
contrary to our modus of thinking).
Consequently tlie interpretation cannot give the original sense, and a dinerent interpretation must be given,
Wlio does not here perceive tile quateraio termiwrum and tlie fatiil inconsequence,
when nationalism takes its stand upon tlie same ground with s-upcrnatiiralisiii; that, namely, whilst with regard to all other men tile lirst point to be examined is wlietlier they «ne;il; or write what is .iust’and true, to tlie New Testament “writers the prerogative ia
CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPEENATUEAL CIIAEACTEB. 119
ttvdpoc,”* and Cerinthus’s “impossihile” become applicable, f It is only among tlie lowest species of tlie animal kingdom that generation takes place without tlie union of sexes :^ so tliat regarding tlie matter purely physiologically, what Origen says, in tlie supranaturalistic sense, would indeed be true of a man of the like origin; namely, that tlie words in Ps. xxii, 7, I am a worm and no rnan is a prophecy of Jesus in tlie above respect.§ But to tlie merely physical consideration a tlieological one is subjoined by tlie angel (Luke i. 37.), when he appeals to the divine omnipotence to which nothing is impossible.
But since the divine omnipotence, bv virtue of its unity witli divine wisdom, is never exerted in the absence of an adequate motive, tlie existence of sucli, in the present instance, must be demonstrated. But nothing less than an object worthy of the Deity, and at tlie same time necessarily unattainable except by a deviation from tlie ordinary course of nature, could constitute a sufficient cause for tlie suspension by God of a natural law which he had established.
Only here, it is said, the end, tlie redemption of mankind required impeccability on the part of Jesus; and in order to render him exempt frcin sin, a divinely wrought conception, which excluded tlie participation of a sinful father, and severed Jesus from all connexion with original sin, was necessary. || To wliicli it lias been answered by others,®! (and Schlciermacher has recently most decisively argued this side of tlie question,**) that the exclusion of the paternal participation is insufficient, unless, indeed, the inheritance of original sin, on the maternal side, be obviated by tlie adoption of tlie Valentinian assertion, tliat Jesus only passed through the body of Mary.
But that tlie gospel histories represent an actual maternal participation is undeniable; consequently a divine intervention which should sanctify tlie participation of tlie sinful human mother in tlie conception of Jesus must be supposed in order to maintain Ills assumed necessary impeccability.
But if God determined on such a purification of tlie maternal participation, it had been easier to do tlie same witli respect to tliat of tlie father, than by his total exclusion, to violate tlie natural law in so unprecedented a manner;
But since the divine omnipotence, bv virtue of its unity witli divine wisdom, is never exerted in the absence of an adequate motive, tlie existence of sucli, in the present instance, must be demonstrated. But nothing less than an object worthy of the Deity, and at tlie same time necessarily unattainable except by a deviation from tlie ordinary course of nature, could constitute a sufficient cause for tlie suspension by God of a natural law which he had established.
Only here, it is said, the end, tlie redemption of mankind required impeccability on the part of Jesus; and in order to render him exempt frcin sin, a divinely wrought conception, which excluded tlie participation of a sinful father, and severed Jesus from all connexion with original sin, was necessary. || To wliicli it lias been answered by others,®! (and Schlciermacher has recently most decisively argued this side of tlie question,**) that the exclusion of the paternal participation is insufficient, unless, indeed, the inheritance of original sin, on the maternal side, be obviated by tlie adoption of tlie Valentinian assertion, tliat Jesus only passed through the body of Mary.
But that tlie gospel histories represent an actual maternal participation is undeniable; consequently a divine intervention which should sanctify tlie participation of tlie sinful human mother in tlie conception of Jesus must be supposed in order to maintain Ills assumed necessary impeccability.
But if God determined on such a purification of tlie maternal participation, it had been easier to do tlie same witli respect to tliat of tlie father, than by his total exclusion, to violate tlie natural law in so unprecedented a manner;
and consequently, a fatherless conception cannot be insisted upon as the necessary means of compassing tlie impeccability of Jesus.
;EVCH lie who thinks to escape the difficulties already specified, by enveloping himself in a supranaturalism, inaccessible to arguments based on reason 01 the laws of nature, must nevertheless admit tlie force of tlie exegetwal-Jwtorical difficulties meeting him upon his own ground, which likewise beset tlie view of tlie supernatural conception of Jesus. Nowhere in the New Testament is such an origin
* Conjugial, prascept. Opp. ed. Hiitten, Vol. 7. S. 428.
\ Irenaus adv. haer, 1, 26:
\ Irenaus adv. haer, 1, 26:
Cerintlius Jesmn suujecit non ex virgine natum, impossibile enim hoc ei visum est.
^ In Hcrike’s neuem Magazin iii. 3, S. 3(;’J. § Homil. in Lucam xiv. Comp. my StreitBchrit’ten i. 2, S. 72 i.
^ In Hcrike’s neuem Magazin iii. 3, S. 3(;’J. § Homil. in Lucam xiv. Comp. my StreitBchrit’ten i. 2, S. 72 i.
|| Ulshausen liiiil, Comm. S, 49. Neander, L. J. Ch,, S. 1G f.
*\ e. g. by Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N. T. 1. Bd. S. 407.
120 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
ascribed to Jesus, or even distinctly alluded to, except in these two accounts of Ills infancy in Matthew and in Luke.* The history of the conccprion is omitted not only by Mark, but also by John, tlie supposed author of tlie fourth gospel and an alleged inmate with tlic mother of Jesus subsequent to Ilia death, wlio therefore would liave been the most accurately informed concerning tliese occurences.
It is said that John sought rather to record tlie heavenly than tlie earthly origin of Jcsua ; but tlie question arises, whether tlie doctrine which he sets forth in his prologue, of a divine hypostasis actually becoming flesh and remaining immanent in Jesus, is rcconcilcable witli the view given in the passages before us, of a simple divine operation determining the conception of Jesus; whether therefore John could have presupposed the history of the conception contained in Matthew and Luke ? This objection, however, loses its conclusive force, if in tlie progress of our investigation the apostolic origin of tlic fourth gospel is not established.
The most important consideration therefore is, that no retrospective allusion to this mode of conception occurs throughout tlie four gospels; not only neither in John nor in Mark, but also neither in “Matthew nor in Luke. Not only does Mary herself designate Joscpli simply as tlie fatlicr of Jesus (Luke ii. 48.), and the Evangelist speak of both as his parents, yoveic; (Luke ii.
It is said that John sought rather to record tlie heavenly than tlie earthly origin of Jcsua ; but tlie question arises, whether tlie doctrine which he sets forth in his prologue, of a divine hypostasis actually becoming flesh and remaining immanent in Jesus, is rcconcilcable witli the view given in the passages before us, of a simple divine operation determining the conception of Jesus; whether therefore John could have presupposed the history of the conception contained in Matthew and Luke ? This objection, however, loses its conclusive force, if in tlie progress of our investigation the apostolic origin of tlic fourth gospel is not established.
The most important consideration therefore is, that no retrospective allusion to this mode of conception occurs throughout tlie four gospels; not only neither in John nor in Mark, but also neither in “Matthew nor in Luke. Not only does Mary herself designate Joscpli simply as tlie fatlicr of Jesus (Luke ii. 48.), and the Evangelist speak of both as his parents, yoveic; (Luke ii.
Other books
The Potluck Club by Linda Evans Shepherd and Eva Marie Everson
Christmas with Billy and Me: A Short Story by Giovanna Fletcher
Blindsided by Emma Hart
Gay Place by Billy Lee Brammer
Hideaway by Alers, Rochelle
Kisses After Dark by Marie Force
On the Brink by Henry M. Paulson
Shades of Atlantis by Carol Oates
Bad Girl by Roberta Kray
The Maverick's Bride by Catherine Palmer