Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (742 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
3.12Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
The author of the Probabilia reasonably considers it suspicious
that, in the fourth gospel, Jesus and his opponents should appear entirely ignorant of the theocratic sense which is elsewhere attached to the expression 6 vlb(; TOV 6eov, and which must have been more (‘•imilLnr to the Jews than any other, unless we suppose some of
JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.
 
them to have partaken of Alexandrian culture. To such, we grant, as well as to the fourth evangelist, judging from his prologue, the metaphysical relation of the /loyoc y,ovoysvfi<; to God would be the
most cherished association.
 
§ 64. THE DIVINE MISSION AND AUTHORITY OF JESIJS-HIS FEEEXISTENCE.
 
THE four evangelists are in unison as to the declaration of Jesus
concerning Ills divine mission and authority. Like every prophet, lie is sent by God (Matt. x. 40. John v. 23 f. 56 f.), acts and speaks by the authority, and under tlie immediate guidance of God (John v.
19 ff.), and exclusively possesses an adequate knowledge of God, which it is Ills office to impart to men (Matt. xi. 27. John iii. 13).
To him, as the Messiah, all power is given (Matt. xi. 27); first, over the kingdom wliich he is appointed to found and to rule with all its members (Jolm x. 29. xvii. 6); next, over mankind in general (Jolm xvii. 2), and even external nature (Matt. xxviii. 18); consequently, should the interests of the messianic kingdom demand it, power to effect a thorough revolution in the whole world. At the future commencement of Ills reign, Jesus, as Messiah, is authorized to awake the dead (John v. 28:), and to sit as a judge, separating those worthy to partake of the lieavenly kingdom from tlie unworthy (Matt. xxv.
31 ff. John v. 22. 29.); offices which Jewish opinion attributed to the Messiah,* and which Jesus, once convinced of his messlahship, would necessarily transfer to himself.
 
Tlie evangelists are not equally unanimous on another point.
According to the synoptical writers, Jesus claims, it is true, the highest human dignity, and tlie most exalted relation with God, for the present and future, but he never refers to an existence anterior to his eartlily career: in the fourth gospel, on the contrary, we find several discourses of Jesus wliich contain tlie repeated assertion of such a pre-existcnce. We grant that when Jesus describes himself as coining down from heaven (John iii. 13. xvi. 28.), the expression, taken alone, may be understood as a merely figurative intimation of his superhuman origin. It is more difficult, but perhaps admissible, to interpret, with the Socinian Grell, the declaration of Jesus Before Abraham was, I am, ‘nplv ‘Appaap yewdOo.i, eyu dpi, (John viii.
58.), as referring to a purely ideal existence in tlie pre-determination of God; but scarcely possible to consider the prayer to the -Father (John xvii. 5.) to confirm the 66^a (glory) wliicli Jesus had with Him before the world was, Trpb TOV TOV noay.av elai., as an entreaty for the communication of a glory predestined for Jesus from eternity.
But the language of Jesus, Jolin vi. 62., where he speaks of tlie Son of Man reascending dvaftaiveiv where he was before OTTOV fjv TO •n’poTEpov, ig^ in itg intrinsic meaning, as well as in that which is re
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
fleeted on it from other passages, unequivocally significative of actual, not merely ideal, pro-existence.
 
It lias been already conjectured* that tliesc expressiona, or at least tlic adaptation of them to a real prc-cxistencc, are derived, not from Jesus, but from tlie author of tlie fourth gospel, with whose opinions, as propounded in his introduction, they specifically agree;
 
for if tfie Word was in ths beginning iclth God (KV ap^y -rpuc; rbv flew), Jesus, in whom it was made flesh, might attribute to himself an existence before Abraham, and a participation of glory witli the Father before tlie foundation of tlie world. Nevertheless, we are not warranted in adopting tins view, unless it can be shown, that neither was tlie idea of the pre-existcnce of tlie Messiah extant among the Jews of Palestine before tlie time of Jesus, nor is it probable that Jesus attained such a notion, independently of tlie ideas peculiar to his age and nation.
 
Tlie latter supposition, that Jesus spoke from his own memory of Ills pre-human and pre-mundane existence, is liable to comparison with dangerous parallels in the history of Pythagoras, Ennius, and Anollonlus of Tyana, wliosc alleged reminiscenses of individual states which they had experienced prior to their birth,f are now generally regarded either as subsequent fables, or as enthusiastic self-delusions of tlio3C celebrated men. For tlie other alternative, that the idea in question was common to tlie Jewish nation, a presumption may be found in the description, already quoted from Daniel, of tlic Son of Man coming in tlie clouds of heaven, since the author, possibly, and, at all events, many readers, imagined that personage to be a superhuman being, dwelling beforehand with God, like the angels. But tliat every one who referred tills passage to tlie Messiah, or tliat Jesus in particular, associated witli it the notion of a pre-existcnce, is not to be proved ; for, if we exclude tlic representation of John, Jesus depicts his coming in tlic clouds of heaven, not as if he liad come as a visitant to eartli from his home in heaven, but, according to Matt. xxvi. 65. (comp. xxiv. 25), as if he, the earth-born, after the completion of his earthly course, would be received into heaven, and from thence would return to establisli his kingdom : thus making tlie coming from heaven not necessarily include tlic idea of prc-cxistence. We tind in the Proverbs, in Sirach, and tlic Book of Wisdom, the idea of a personified and even liypostasized Wisdom of God, and in tlie Psalms and Prophets, strongly marked personifications of tlie Divine word ;f and it is especially worthy of note, tliat tlie later Jews, in their horror of anthropomorphism in tlic idea of tlie Divine being, attributed his speech, appearance, and immediate agency, to the Word (^”T3^73) or the dwelling place (i^FiS’O’o) of Jehovah, as may be seen in tlic venerable;?
 
* Bretschneulcr, Proliab. p. :>9.f Porphyr.
Vita fythag-. 2G {. Jaiiililiuh. 14, (S3
Diog. Larrt, viii. 4 f. 14. Baurr, Apolloniua vou Tyana, p. Ut 1’. 98 f. 1S.’> f.t Sec a nfttiii.-.ntnm .•ni,l rvitosition of tile pa-sau\’s ill Lucke, Coitiin. zuln Ev. Joh. 1, S. 211. 1^
 
JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 307
 
TaroTim of Onkelos.* TIiese expressions, at first mere paraphrases of tlie name of God, soon received the mystical signification of a veritable hypostasis, of a being, at once distinct from, and one witli God. As most of the revelations and interpositions of God, whose oi-o’an tills personified Word was considered to be, were designed in f.ivour of tlie Israelltish people, it was natural for them to assign to tlic manifestation, wliicli was still awaited from Him, and whicli was to be tlic crowning benefit of Israel,-tlic manifestation, namely, of tlic Messiah,-a peculiar relation witli tlie W^ord or Shechina.t From tills germ sprang tlic opinion tliat witli tlie Messiali tlie Shechina would appear, and tliat wliat was ascribed to tlic Shechina pertained equally to the Messiah: an opinion not confined to the Rabbins, but sanctioned by the Apostle Paul. According to it, tlic Messiah was, even in tlie wilderness, tlic invisible guide and benefactor of God’s people (1 Cor. x. 4, 9.);:{: lie was witli our first parents in Paradise ;§ lie was the agent in creation (Col. i. 16.);
 
lie even existed before tlie creation,|| and prior to his incarnation in Jesus, was in a glorious fellowship with God (Phil. ii. 6.).
 
As it is tlius evident that, immediately after tlic time of Jesus, tlic idea of a prc-cxistencc of tlic Messiali was incorporated in the higher Jewish theology, it is no far-fetched conjecture, tliat tlie same idea was afloat when tlic mind of Jesus was maturing, and tliat in his conception of himself as the Messiali, this attribute was included.
But whether Jesus were as deeply initiated in tlic speculations of tlie Jewish schools as Paul, is yet a question, and as the author of the fourth gospel, versed in the Alexandrian doctrine of tlic /’-oyof, stands alone in ascribing to Jesus the assertion of a prc-cxistence, we are unable to decide whether we arc to put tlie dogma to tlie account of Jesus, or of his biographer.
 
§ 65. THE MESSIANIC PLAN OF JESVS--INDICATIONS OF A
POLITICAL ELEMENT.
 
THE Baptist pointed io a future individual, and Jesus to himself, as tlic founder of tlic kingdom of heaven. Tlie idea of tliat messianic kingdom belonged to the Israelltish nation ; did Jesus hold it in tlic form in wliicli it. existed among his cotcmporarics, or under modifications of his own ?
 
Tlie idea of tlie Messiah grew up amongst tlie Jews in soil half religious, half political: it was nurtured by national adversity, and in tlic tune cf Jesus, according to tlie testimony of tlie gospels, it was
* Bcrtholdt, Cliristol. Jndicor. § § as-?,-;. Comp.
Luckc ut sup. S. 244, note.
T Sehott^’en. ii. S. <1 f.
 
^ Tar^r. Jes. xvi. 1 : Isie ^Af^sftris} in d^serto fuit nipes ecclf^iw Zumis.
 
In Hertholdt, lit sup. p. 14;’;.g Soliar ehadaseh f. Ixxxii. 4, ap. SclnittRcn, ii, S. 440.
 
I| Nezarh Israel c. xxxv. f. xlviii. 1. Silmiidt, liilil. fiir Kritik u. Exrgese, 1,
S. 38, -IfT^ •^272 fPSTS- suha1’ Lt!vit- f- xiv- •ric-
 
Schottgen, ii. S. 43G: Septcm \iinnina covuli/a .sy/;/, ‘iiii<-qn
 
llvtc we have tlie pn’-existnu’e of the Messiah represented as a real one ; for a more ideal
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
embodied in the expectation that the Messiah would ascend the throne of his ancestor David, free tlie Jewish people from tlie Roman yoke, and found, a kingdom which would last for ever (Luke i. 32 f. 68 ff. Acts i. 6.). Hence our first question must be this:
 
Did Jesus include this political element in his messianic plan ?
 
That Jesus aspired to be a temporal ruler, has at all times been an allegation of tlie adversaries of Christianity, but has been maintained by none with so much exegetical acumen as by the author of the Wolfenbiittel Fragments,’1’ who, be it observed, by no meana denies to Jesus tlie praise of aiming at tlie moral reformation of his nation. According to this writer, tlie first indication of a political plan on the part, of Jesus is, tliat he unambiguously announced tlie approaching messianic kingdom, and laid down the conditions on which it was to be entered, without explaining what tills kingdom was, and wherein it consisted,* as if lie supposed the current idea of its nature to be correct. Now tlie fact is, that tlie prevalent conception of tlie messianic reign had a strong political bias; hence, when Jesus spoke of the Messiah’s kingdom without a definition, the Jews could only think of an earthly dominion, and as Jesus could not have presupposed any other interpretation of Ills words, he must have wished to be so understood. But in opposition to tills it may be remarked, tliat in the parables by which Jesus sliadowed forth the kingdom of heaven; in tlie Sermon on tlie Mount, in which, he illustrates tlie duties of its citizens; and lastly, in his whole demeanour and course of action, we liavc sufficient evidence, that his idea of the messianic kingdom was peculiar to himself. There is not so ready a counterpoise for the difficulty, that Jesus sent the apostles, with wliose conceptions lie could not be unacquainted, to announce tlie Messiali’s kingdom throughout the land (Matt. x.). These, who disputed wliicli of them should be greatest in tlie kingdom of their master (Matt. xviii. 1, Luke xvii. 24); of whom two petitioned for the seats at the right and left of the messianic king (Mark x. 35 ff.);

Other books

Quicksand by Iris Johansen
Riley by Susan Hughes
Steamed by Katie Macalister
Crow Bait by Robert J. Randisi
Killing Commendatore: A novel by Haruki Murakami, Philip Gabriel, Ted Goossen
Eden by Keary Taylor
The Profilers by Suzanne Steele