Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (723 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
2.07Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
nal (^}(-)V7/ i^’kVKTO K. T. A. K(U ei’i3vc Trfc-ptE’/a^’e TOV TOTTOV ^(JC p-Eya’ ov Mail’, i^jaiv. u ‘l^uz’wjt;
 
^yyt arnJ ov Tit; u. Kvpie ; K(U •Ku\,iv f^wrJ a. r. ^.. Kal Tore, ^rjaiv, o ‘\ua.vv’f]c 7rffpan”£(Tti)V
avT^ ^sys &£0^ai aov KvfW, ai’ ^s /5a7rncw. And vhen he came J’roin the water, the heavens u’ere opened, and Ac --saw the holy spirit (if God in the form of a doi’e,  
And then, John fulling (it his feet, said to him, I beseech thee. Lord, baptize me.^ Schneckeuburger, liber den Ursprung des er’sten kanonischen Evangeliums, S. 121 f.; Lucke, Comm. z. Ev. Joli., 1, S. 3G1. Usteri,
EELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST.
 
Baptist appeared too weak; he must at, least fall at the feet of Jesas; and a more suitable occasion could not be given than that of the sign from heaven, which accordingly must be placed beforehand.
This Hebrew Gospel, therefore, will not help us to understand how Matthew was led into contradiction with John; still less will it avail for the explanation of Luke’s narrative.
 
All is naturally explained by the consideration, that the important relation between John and Jesus must have been regarded as existing at all times, by reason of that ascription of pre-existence to the essential which is a characteristic of the popular mind. Just as the soul, when considered as an essence, is conceived more or less clearly as pre-existent; so in tlie popular mind, every relation pregnant with consequences is endowed with pre-existence. Hence the Baptist, who eventually held so significant a relation to Je’sus, must have known him from the first, as is indistinctly intimated by Matthew, and more minutely detailed by Luke; according to whom, their motliers knew each other, and the sons themselves were brought together wliile yet unborn. All this is wanting in the fourth Gospel, the writer of which attributes an opposite assertion to John, simply because in his mind an opposite interest preponderated; for the less Jesus was known to Jolin by whom lie was afterwards so extolled, the more weight was thrown on the miraculous scene which arrested the regards of the Baptist-the more clearly was his whole position with respect to Jesus demonstrated to be the effect, not of the natural order of events, but of the immediate agency of God.
 
§. 46. WAS JESUS ACKNOWLEDGED BY JOHN AS THE MESSIAH? AND
IN WHAT SENSE ?
 
TO the foregoing question whether Jesus was known to John before the baptism, is attached another, namely, What did John think of Jesus and his Messiahship ? The evangelical narratives are unanimous in stating, that before Jesus had ‘presented himself for baptism, John had announced the immediate coming of One to whom he stood in a subordinate relation; and the scene at the baptism of Jesus marked him, beyond mistake, as the personage of whom John was the forerunner. According to Mark and Luke, we must presume that the Baptist gave credence to this sign; according to the fourth Gospel, he expressly attested his belief (i. 34.), and moreover uttered words which evince the deepest insight into the higher nature and office of Jesus (i. 29 ff. 36; iii. 27 ff.); according to the first Gospel, he was already convinced of these before the baptism of Jesus. On the other hand, Matthew (xi. 2 ff.) and Luke (vii. 18.) tell us that at a later period, the Baptist, on hearing of the ministry of Jesus, despatched some of his disciples to him with the inquiry, whether he (Jesus) was the promised Messiah, or whether another musi be expected.
 
222 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
The first impression from this is, that the question denoted an uncertainty on tlie part of the Baptist whether Jesus were really the Messiah ; and so it was early understood.* But such a doubt is in direct- contradiction with all the other circumstances reported by tlie evangelists. It is justly regarded as psychologically impossible that lie whose belief was originated or confirmed by the baptismal sign, which he held to be a divine revelation, and who afterwards pronounced so decidedly on tlie Messianic call and tlie superior nature of Jesu.?, should all at once have become unsieady in his conviction ; lie must then indeed have been like a reed sliaken by the wind, a comparison which Jesus abnegates on this very occasion (Matt. xi. 7.). A cause for such vacillation is in vain souglit in the conduct or fortunes of Jesus at the time; for the rumor of the, works of Christ, t’pya rov Xptff-ov, which in Luke’s idea were miracles, could not awaken doubt in tlie Baptist, and it was on tills rumour that he sent Ins message. Lastly, how could Jesus subsequently (John v. 33. ft.) so confidently appeal to the testimony of tlie Baptist concerning liirn, wlien it was known that John liimself was at last perplexed about his Messiahship ?f
Hence it lias been attempted to give a different turn to tlie facts, and to show tliat Jolin’s inquiry was not made on his own account, but for tlie sake of his disciples, to overcome in them tlie doubt with which lie was himself untainted. ^ Hereby it. is true, tlie abovenamed difficulties are removed; in particular it is explained why the Baptist should contrive to send this message precisely on hearing of the miracles of Jesus: he plainly hoping that his disciples, who had not believed his testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus, would be convinced of its truth by beholding tlie-marvellous works of the latter. But how could John hope that his envoys would chance to find Jesus in tlie act of working miracles ? According to Matthew, indeed, they did not so find him, and Jesus appeals (v. 4.) only to his former works, many of wliich they liad seen, and of which they might hear wherever lie liad presented himself. Luke alone, in giving his evidently second-hand narrative,§ misconstrues the words of Jesus to require tliat tlie. disciples of Jolm should have found him in the exercise of his supernatural power. Further, if it had been tlie object of tlie Baptist to persuade his disciples by a sight of the works of Jesus, he would not have charged them with a question wliich could be answered by the mere words, the authentic declaration of Jesus. For he could not hope by the assertion of tlie person whose Messiahship was the very point in debate, to convince the disciples wnom his own declaration, in other cases, au
* Tertull. adv. Marcion, iv. 18. Comp. Bengel, historico-exegetical remarks in Matt.
xi. 2-19, in his Archiv. 1, iii. p. 754 ff. ^ See Paulus, Kuinol. in loc. Bimgel, ut sup.
p 763. ^ Calvin, Comm. in harm. ex. Matth., Marc. et Luc. in loc.
 
§ We agree with Schleiermacher, (uher den Lukas, S. 106 f) in thus designating the narrative of the third evangelist, first, on account of tile idle repetition of tlie Baptist’s words, ver. 20 ; secondly on account of the mistake in ver. 18 and 21, of which we shall presently treat, and to which ver. 29. 30. seem to betrav a similar one.
 
RELATIONS BETWEEN JE8US AND JOHN THE BAPTIST.223
 
thoritative, had failed to satisfy.On the whole, it would have been a singular course in the Baptist to lend his own words to tlie doubts of others, and thereby, as Schleiermacher well observes, to compromise his early and repeated testimony in favour of Jesus.
It is clear tliat Jesus understood tlie question proposed to him by the messengers as proceeding from Jolin himself; (a^ayyei,Xars ‘luawy, Matt. xi. 4;) and he indirectly complained of the want of faith in the latter by pronouncing those blessed who were not offended in him (ver. 6).*
 
If then it must be granted tliat John made his inquiry on his own behalf, and not on tliat of his disciples, and if nevertheless we cannot impute to him a sudden lapse into doubt after his previous confidence ; notliing remains but to take the positive, instead of tlie negative side of the question, and to consider its scepticism as tlie mere garb of substantial encouragement, f On this interpretation, the time which Jesus allowed to escape without publicly manifesting himself as tlie Messiah, seemed too tedious to John in his imprisonment; lie sent therefore to inquire how long Jesus would allow himself to be waited for, how long lie would delay winning to himself the better part of tlie people by a declaration of his Messiahship, and striking a decisive blow against the enemies of his cause, a blow that might even liberate the Baptist from his prison. But if the Baptist, on tlie strength of his belief that Jesus was tlie Messiah, hoped and sued for a deliverance, perhaps miraculous, by him from prison, he would not clothe in tlie language of doubt an entreaty which sprang out of his faith. Now the inquiry in our evangelical text is one of unmixed doubt, and encouragement must be foisted in, before it can be found there. How great a violence must be done to tlie words is seen by tlie way in which Schleiermacher handles them in accordance with this interpretation. Tlie dubitative question, ov el b Ep^6^evo(; ; he changes into tlie positive assumption, thou art he who was to come; the other still more. embarrassing interrogatory, -y Srepov rrpoffSoKQjzev; he completely transfigures tlius: wherefore {seeing that thou per forrnest so great works)
do we yet await thee t/-shall not John wit/i all his authority command, through us, all those who have partaken of his baptism to obey thee as the Messiah, and be attentive to thy signs?
 
Even if we allow, with Neander, the possibility of truth to tills interpretation, a mere summons to action will not accord witli tlie earlier representation of Jesus given by tlie Baptist. Tlie two enunciations are at issue as to form; for if John doubted not the Messiahship of Jesus, neither could he doubt his better knowledge of tlie fitting time and manner of his appearance : still farther are they at issue as to matter; for tlie Baptist could not take offence at what is termed tlie delay of Jesus in manifesting himself as tlie Messiah, or wish to animate him to bolder conduct, if he retained his early view
• Compare Calvin in loc. and Bsn^el ut sun. S. 7fi3 flf * Th,..
 
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
of the destination of Jesus. If he still, as formerly, conceived Jesus to be the Lamb of God that ‘tatseth away the. sins of the zoorld, b afwov; rov Qsov, b a’tpuv rfjv ay-apnav rov noopov, no thought could occur to him of a blow to be struck by Jesus against his enemies, or in general, of a violent procedure to be crowned by external conquest ; rather, the quiet path which Jesus trod must appear to him the right one-the path befitting the destination of the Lamb of God. Thus if the question of John conveyed a mere summons to
action, it contradicted his previous views.
 
These expedients failing, the original explanation returns upon us; namely, that the inquiry was an expression of uncertainty respecting the messianic dignity of Jesus, which had arisen in the Baptist’s own mind; an explanation which even Neander allows to be the most natural. This writer seeks to account for the transient apostacy of the Baptist from the strong faith in which he gave his earlier testimony, by the supposition that a dark hour of doubt had overtaken the man of God in his dismal prison; and he cites instances of men who, persecuted for their Christian faith or other convictions, after having long borne witness to the truth in the face of death, at length yielded to human weakness and recanted. But on a closer examination, he has given a false analogy. Persecuted Christians of the first centuries, and, later, a Berengarius or a Galileo, were false to the convictions for which they were imprisoned, and by abjuring which they hoped to save themselves: the Baptist, to be compared with them, should have retracted his censure of Herod, and not have shaken his testimony in favour of Christ, which had no relation to his imprisonment. However that may be, it is evident here that these doubts cannot have been preceded by a
state of certainty.
 
We come again to tlie difficulty arising from the statement of
Matthew that John sent his two disciples on hearing of the works of Christ, duowac; rd ‘epya TOV Xpiffi-ov, or as Luke lias it, because his disciples showed him of all these things, dm;y-yei/lav -n-spi -ndvruv rovrwv. The latter evangelist has narrated, immediately before, the raising of the widow’s son, and the healing of the centurion’s servant. Could John, then, believe Jesus to be the Messiah before he had performed any messianic works, and be seized with doubt when he began to legitimatize his claim by miracles such as were expected from the Messiah ?* This is so opposed to all psychological probability, that I wonder Dr. Paulus, or some other expositor versed in psychology and not timid in verbal criticism, has not started the conjecture that a negative has slipped out of Matt. xi. 2, and that its proper reading is, 6 6e ‘luiavvi](; OVK duov.aat; ev TU 6ea{iUT’i]pl(f>

Other books

Denouement by Kenyan, M. O.
A Child's War by Mike Brown
Playing with Fire by Desiree Holt
Lead Me Home by Stacy Hawkins Adams
Dresden 5 by Death Masks
Take Three, Please by Anwen Stiles