Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (741 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
10.55Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
* Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 309. comp. 352. Olshausen, S. 263.
 
^ Fritzache, p. 352.
who thinks the pro
JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.
 
apprehension that the Messiah, at least such an one as Jesus, would
be at once proscribed by the Jewish hierarchy.
 
From all tills it might appear tliat Jesus was restrained merely by external motives, from the open declaration of his messiahship, and that Ins own conviction of it existed from the first in equal strength; but tills conclusion cannot be maintained in tlie face of tlie consideration above mentioned, that Jesus began his career with the same announcement as tlie Baptist, an announcement which can scarcely have more than one import-an exhortation to prepare for a coming Messiah. Tlie most natural supposition is that Jesus, first the disciple of tlie Baptist, and afterwards his successor, in preacliino’ repentance and tlie approach of the kingdom of lieaven, took originally tlie same position as his former master in relation to the messianic kingdom, nothwithstanding tlie greater reach and liberality of his mind, and only gradually attained the elevation of thinking himself tlie Messiah. This supposition explains in the simplest manner tlie prohibition we have been considering, especially that annexed to the confession of Peter. For as often as tlie thought that he might be tlie Messiah suggested itself to others, and was presented to him from witliout, Jesus must have shrunk, as if appalled, to hear confidently uttered that which lie scarcely ventured to surmise, or which had but recently become clear to himself. As, however, tlie evangelists often put such prohibitions into tlie mouth of Jesus unseasonably, (witness the occasion mentioned, Matt. viii.
4, when after a cure effected before a crowd of spectators, it was of little avail to enjoin secrecy on the cured,*) it is probable that evangelical tradition, enamoured of tlie mysteriousness that lay in this
incognito of Jesus,f unhistorically multiplied the instances of its adoption.
 
§ 63. JESUS, THE SON OF GOD.
 
IN Luke i. 35, we find the narrowest and most literal interpretation of tlie expression, 6 v’t’oc TOV 6eov; namely, as derived from Ins conception by means of the Holy Ghost. On tlie contrary, the widest moral and metaphorical sense is given to the expression in Matt. v. 45, where tliose who imitate tlie love of God towards his enemies are called tlie sons of tlie Father in heaven. There is an intermediate sense which we may term the metaphysical, because while it includes more than mere conformity of will, it is distinct irom tlie notion of actual paternity, and implies a spiritual community of being. In this sense it is profusely employed and referred to in tlie fourth gospel; as when Jesus says tliat lie speaks and docs nothing of himself, but only what as a son he has learned from tlie Father (v. 19 ; xii. 49, and elsewhere), who, moreover, is in him (xvn. 21), and nothwithstanding his exaltation over him (xiv. 28), la yet one with him (x. 30). There is yet a fourth sense in which
THE LIFE OP JESU8.
 
the expression is presented. When (Matt. iv. 3) the devil challenges Jesus to change the stones into bread, making the supposition, If thou be the Son. of God; when Nathanael says to Jesus, Thou art the Son of God, the King of Israel (John i. 49); when Peter confesses, Tlwu art the Christ, the Son, of the living God (Matt. xvi.
16; conip. John vl. 69); when Martha tlius expresses lier faith in Jesus, I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God (Jolm xi.
27); when the high priest adjures Jesus to tell him if he Lc the Christ, the Son of God (Matt. xxvi. 63): it is obvious tliat the devil means nothing more than, If thou be the Messiali; and that in the Other passages tlie vi’oc; TOV Oeov, united as it is with XptOTbg and
fSaoi^ev^, is but an appellation of tlie Messiah.
 
In Hos. xi. 1, Exod. iv. 22, the people of Israel, and in 2 Sam.
vii. 14, Ps. ii. 7, (comp. Ixxxix. 28) tlie king of that people, arc called tlie son and tlie tirst-born of God.. The kings (as also the people) of Israel had tills appellation, in virtue of the love which Jehovah bore them, and tlie tutelary care which lie exercised over them (2 Sam vii. 14): and from tlie second psalm we gather the farther reason, tliat as earthly kings choose their sons to reign with or under them, so tlie Israelitish kings were invested by Jehovah, tlie sunrcme ruler, with the government of his favourite province.
Thus the designation was originally applicable to every Israelitish king who adhered to the principle of the theocracy; but when tlie messianic idea was developed, it was pre-eminently assigned to the Messiah, as tlie best-beloved Son, and the most powerful vicegerent
of God on earth.*
 
If, then, such was tlie original historical signification of tlie epithet, Son of God, as applied to the Messiali, we liave to ask: is it possible that Jesus used it of himself in this signification only, or did lie use it also in cither of the three senses previously adduced ?
Tlie narrowest, the merely phvsical import of tlie term is not put into tlie mouth of Jesus, but into tliat of the annunciating angel, Luke i. 35; and for this the evangelist alone is responsible. In the intermediate, metaphysical sense, implying unity of essence and community of existence with God, it might possibly have been understood by Jesus, supposing him to liavc remodelled in his own conceptions tlie theocratic interpretation current among his compatriots.
It is true that tlie abundant expressions having tills tendency in the gospel of John, appear to contradict those of Jesus on an occasion recorded by tlie synoptical writers (Mark x. 17 f.; Luke xviii. 18 t.), when to a disciple who accosts him as Good Master, lie replies :
 
Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God. Here Jesus so tenaciously maintains tlie distinction between himself and God, that ho. renounces the predicate of (perfect) goodness, and insists on its appropriation to God alonc.f Olsliausen
* Comp. the excellent treatise of Paulas on the following question in the Eiiil. zum
Tniion .Ipsu. 1. a.. 2a f. •I- Even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage ‘ -
JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 303
 
supposes that this rejection related solely to the particular circumstances of the disciple addressed, who regarding Jesus as a merely human teacher, ought not from his point of view to have given him a divine epithet, and that it was net intended by Jesus as a denial that lie was, according to a just estimate of his character, actually the cya0oc in whom the one good Being was reflected as in a mirror;
 
but this is to take for granted what is first to be proved, namely, tliat the declarations of Jesus concerning himself in the fourth gospel are on a level as to credibility with those recorded by the synoptical writers. Two of these writers cite some words of Jesus which have an important bearing on our present subject: All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoiceth the Son but the father : neither knoiceth any man the Fattier, but the Son, and he to v:homsoever the Son will reveal him, Matt. xi. 27.
 
Taking this passage in connexion with the one before quoted, we must infer that Jesus liad indeed an intimate communion of thouglit and will with God, but under such limitations, that tlie attribute of perfect goodness, as well as of absolute knowledge (e. g. of tlie day and hour of tlie last day, Mark xiii. 32 parall.) belonged exclusively to God, and hence the boundary line between divine and human was strictly preserved. Even in tlie fourth gospel Jesus declares, .Sly Father is greater than, I, b na-rjp y-ov y,dS,w pov ea-l, (xiv. 28), but this slight eclio of tlie synoptical statement does not remove the difficulty of conciliating the numerous discourses of a totally different tenor in the former, witli the rejection of the epithet dya6^ in the latter. It is surprising, too, that Jesus in the fourth gospel appears altogether ignorant of the theocratic sense of the expression vlog -ov OEOV, and can only vindicate his use of it in the metaphysical sense, by retreating to its vague and metaphorical application. When, namely, (John x. 34 ft.) to justify his assumption of this title, lie adduces the scriptural application of the term Osol to other men, such as princes and magistrates, we are at a loss to understand why Jesus should resort to this remote and precarious argument, when close at hand lay the far more cogent one, that in the Old Testament, a theocratic king of Israel, or according to the customary interpretation of the most striking passages, the Messiah, is called the Son of Jehovah, and that therefore lie, having declared himself to be tlie Messiah (v. 25), might consistently claim this appellation.
 
With respect to the light in which Jesus was viewed as the Son of God by others, we may remark tliat in the addresses of well-affected persons tlie title is often so associated, as to be obviously a mere synonym of Xpior&c, and this even in the fourth gospel; while on the other hand tlie contentious ‘lov6aw( of this gospel seem in their objections as ignorant as Jesus in his defence, of the theocratic, and only notice tlie metaphysical meaning of the expression.
it is true that, even in tlie synoptical gospels, when Jesus answers affirmatively tlie question whether he be the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. xxvi. 65 uar.’t, the hiah uriest taxes him witli blas
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
pliemy; but lie refers merely to what he considers the unwarranted arrogation of the theocratic dignity of the Messiah, whereas in the fourth gospel, when Jesus represents liimself as the Son of God (v.
17 f. x. 30 ff.) tlie Jews seek to kill him for the express reason that lie thereby makes himself ‘iaov TU Oeu, nay even eav-bv 6ebv. According to the synoptical writers, tlie high priest so unhesitatingly considers the idea of tlie Son of God to pertain to that of the Messiah, tliat he associates the two titles as if they were interchangeable, in tlie question he addresses to Jesus: on tlie contrary the Jews in tlie Gospel of John regard the one idea as so far transcending the other, that they listen patiently to tlie declaration of Jesus that he is tlie Messiah (x. 25), but as soon as he begins to claim to be the Son of God, they take zip stones to stone him. In tlie synoptical gospels tlie reproach cast on Jesus is, that being a common man, he gives liimself out for the Mcssiali •; in the fourth gospel, that being a mere man, lie gives liimself out for a divine being. Hence Olshausen and others have justly insisted that in those passages of the latter gospel to which our remarks have reference, tlie vl’o^ rov Oeov is not synonymous with Messiah, but is a name far transcending tlie ordinary idea of the Messiah ;* they are not, however, warranted in concluding that therefore in the first three evangelists alsof the same expression imports more than the Messiah, For the only legitimate interpretation of the high priest’s question in Matthew makes 6 vibf rov 6eov a synonym of 6 Xpicn-bc, and though in the parallel passage of Luke, tlie judges first ask Jesus if he be tlie Christ (xx. 67.) ?
and when he declines a direct answer,-predicting that they will behold the Son of Man seated at the. right hand of God,-hastily interrupt him with the question, Art thou the, Son of God? (v. 70);
 
yet, after receiving what they, consider an affirmative answer, they accuse him before Pilate as one who pretends to be Christ, a king (xxiii. 2), tlius clearly sliowing that Son of Man, Son of God, and Messiah, must have been regarded as interchangeable terms. It must therefore be conceded that there is a discrepancy on this point between tlie synoptical writers and John, and perhaps also an inconsistency of the latter with himself; for in several addresses to Jesus he retains the customary form, which associated Son of God with Christ or King of Israel, without being conscious of the distinction between the signification which vibi; T. 0. must have in such a connexion, and that in which he used it elsewhere-a want of perception which habitual forms of expression are calculated to induce.
We have-before cited examples of this oversight in the fourth evangelist (John i. 49. vi. 69. xii 27).

Other books

Dark Daze by Ava Delany
The Portuguese Affair by Ann Swinfen
Leather Maiden by Joe R. Lansdale
Before by Jessie Harrell
Walking in the Midst of Fire by Thomas E. Sniegoski
Through Time-Pursuit by Conn, Claudy
The Chemistry of Death by Simon Beckett