Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (760 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
6.94Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Mark (v. 42) lias tlie same continuation, notwithstanding the interruption above noticed, probably because lie forsook Luke (wlio here breaks off tlie discourse, and docs not introduce the admonition against offences until later, xvii. 1. f., and apart from any occasion tliat might prompt it), and appealed to Matthew.§ Then follows in Matthew (v. 8 f.) and Mark (v. 43 f.) a passage which alone ought to open tlie eyes of commentators to tlie mode in wliicli tlie synoptists arrange tlie sayina’s of Jesus. To tlie warning against tlie offending, OKavSaXi^Eiv, of tlie little ones, and tlie woe pronounced on tliose by whom offences come, TO andv6a’A,ov Kp^e-ai, they annex the apothegm on tlie offending ana.vSaA.’i^uv, of the liand, eye, &c. Jesus could not proceed tlius,-for the injunctions: Mislead not the little ones! and, Let not your sensuality mislead you! have nothing in common but tlie word mislead.
It is easy, however, to account
It is easy, however, to account
* Ceber den Lukas, S. 1 aS f.
•i” Comp. De Wette, in loc.
+ v;.) frit.,....1.0
nrl Tlo Wntto
MSCOUESES OP JESUS IN THE THEEE FIEST GOSPELS.385
for their association by the writer of the first Gospel.* Tlie word anavSa^Eiv recalled to his mind all tlie discourses of Jesus containing a similar expression that liad come to his knowledge, and also he had previously presented the admonitions concerning seduction by the members, in a better connexion, as part of the sermon on tlie mount, he could not resist the temptation of reproducing them here, for tlie sake of this slight verbal affinity with the foregoing text.
But at v. 10 he resumes the thread which he had dropped at v. 7, and adds a further discourse on the little ones, fuapov^. Matthew makes Jesus confirm the value of the little ones bv tlie declaration, that the Son of Man was come to seek tlie lost, and by tlie parable of the lost sheep, (v. 11-14). It is not, however, evident wliy Jesus should class the [UKpovc with tlie drroXGi^bc; (lost) ; and botli ths declaration and tlie parable seem to be better placed by Luke, wlio introduces the former in tlie narrative of the calling of Zacclieus (xix.
10.), and tlie latter, in a reply to the objections of tlie Pharisees against the amity of Jesus with the publicans (xv. 3 ff.). Matthew seems to have placed them here, merely because tlie discourse on tlie little ones reminded him of tliat on the lost,-botli exemplifying the mildness and humility of Jesus.
Between tlie moral of tlie above parable (v. 14) and the following rules for tlie conduct of Christians under injuries (v. 15 ff.), there is again only a verbal connexion, which may be traced by means of the words, dm^fjTai, should perish, and sKspSrjaa^, thou hast gained;
for tlie proposition : God wills not tliat one of tliese little ones sliould perish, might recall tlie proposition: We sliould endeavour to win over our brother, by sliowing a readiness to forgive.
The direction to bring the offender before the church, kK.n’kqaia, is generally adduced as a proof tliat Jesus intended to found a church. But he here speaks of the KKK^Tjaia as an institution already existing: hence we must either refer the expression to the Jewisli synagogue, an interpretation which is favoured by tlie analogy of this direction with Jewish precepts ; or if, according to- the strict meaning of the word and its connexion, EKic^fjaia must be understood as tlie designation of the Christian community, which did not tlien exist, it must be admitted tliat we liave liere, at least in the form of expression, an anticipation of a subsequent state of things.f The writer certainly had in view tlie new church, eventually to be founded in the name of Jesus, when, in continuation, lie represented the latter as imparting to tlie body of the disciples the authority to bind and to loose, previously given to Peter, and thus to form a messianic religious constitution. Tlie declarations concerning the success of unanimous prayer, and tlie presence of Jesus among two or tliree gathered together in his name, accord with this prospective idea4
The direction to bring the offender before the church, kK.n’kqaia, is generally adduced as a proof tliat Jesus intended to found a church. But he here speaks of the KKK^Tjaia as an institution already existing: hence we must either refer the expression to the Jewisli synagogue, an interpretation which is favoured by tlie analogy of this direction with Jewish precepts ; or if, according to- the strict meaning of the word and its connexion, EKic^fjaia must be understood as tlie designation of the Christian community, which did not tlien exist, it must be admitted tliat we liave liere, at least in the form of expression, an anticipation of a subsequent state of things.f The writer certainly had in view tlie new church, eventually to be founded in the name of Jesus, when, in continuation, lie represented the latter as imparting to tlie body of the disciples the authority to bind and to loose, previously given to Peter, and thus to form a messianic religious constitution. Tlie declarations concerning the success of unanimous prayer, and tlie presence of Jesus among two or tliree gathered together in his name, accord with this prospective idea4
The next discourse that presents itself (Matt. xix. 3-12, Mark,
‘“ Comp. De Wette, in loc. Matt.+ Vid. De “Wette, exeg. Handlmch 1, .1, p. 155.
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
x. 2-12), though belonging, according to the evangelists, to the last journey of Jesus, is of the same stamp with tlie disputations which they, for tlie most part, assign to the last residence of Jesus in Jerusalem.
Some Pharisees propose to Jesus the question, at tliat time much discussed in the Jewish schools,* whether it be lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause. To avoid a contradiction between modern practice and tlie dictum of Jesus, it has been alleged that lie here censures tlie species of divorce, which was tlie only one known at that period, namely, the arbitrary dismissal of a wife; but not the 1’udicial separation resorted to in the present tiay.f But tills very argument involves the admission, tliat Jesus denounced all the forms of divorce known to him; hence tlie question still remains whether, if lie could have liad cognizance of the modern procedure in disolving matrimony, lie would have held it right to limit Ins general censure. Of the succeeding declaration, prompted by a question of tlie disciples,f namely, that celibacy may be practised for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, Jesus himself says, that it cannot be understood by all, but only by tliosc to zulwm it is given (v. 11). That tlie doctrine of Jesus may not run counter to modern opinion, it lias been eagerly suggested, tliat his panegyric on celibacy liad relation solely to tlie circumstances of tlie coming time, or to tlie nature of tlie apostolic mission, which would be impeded by family tics.§ But there is even less intimation of this special bearing in tlio text, than in the analogous passage 1 Cor.
Some Pharisees propose to Jesus the question, at tliat time much discussed in the Jewish schools,* whether it be lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause. To avoid a contradiction between modern practice and tlie dictum of Jesus, it has been alleged that lie here censures tlie species of divorce, which was tlie only one known at that period, namely, the arbitrary dismissal of a wife; but not the 1’udicial separation resorted to in the present tiay.f But tills very argument involves the admission, tliat Jesus denounced all the forms of divorce known to him; hence tlie question still remains whether, if lie could have liad cognizance of the modern procedure in disolving matrimony, lie would have held it right to limit Ins general censure. Of the succeeding declaration, prompted by a question of tlie disciples,f namely, that celibacy may be practised for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, Jesus himself says, that it cannot be understood by all, but only by tliosc to zulwm it is given (v. 11). That tlie doctrine of Jesus may not run counter to modern opinion, it lias been eagerly suggested, tliat his panegyric on celibacy liad relation solely to tlie circumstances of tlie coming time, or to tlie nature of tlie apostolic mission, which would be impeded by family tics.§ But there is even less intimation of this special bearing in tlio text, than in the analogous passage 1 Cor.
vii. 25 ft., || and, adhering to a simple interpretation, it must be granted that we have here one of tlie instances in which ascetic principles, such as were then prevalent, especially among tlie Es.senes,^ manifest themselves in the teaching of Jesus, as represented in tlie synoptical gospels.
The controversial discourses whicli Matthew, almost throuo’hout
‘ 0
in agreement with tlie other synoptists, places after tlie entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem (xxi. 23-27 ; xxii. 15-46),** are certainly pre-eminently genuine fragments, having precisely tlie spirit and tone of the rabbinical dialectics in tlie time of Jesus. The third and fifth among them are particularly worthy of note, because they exhibit Jesus as an interpreter of Scripture. With respect to tlie former, wherein Jesus endeavours to convince the Sadducees that there will be a resurrection of the dead, from the Mosaic designation of God
- 0
as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, maintaining tliat he is not tlie God of the dead, but of the living (Matt. xxii. 31-33
* Ber.ndbar R, ad. Num. v. 30, in Wetstein, p. 303.i- E. g. Paulas, L. J. 1. B.
S. 4G. ^ For probable doubts as to the correctness of the position given to this discourse of Jesus, vid. Neander, L. J. Chr. S. 525, Anm.
‘6 Paulus, ib. ri. 50, exeg. Handb. 2, S.
‘6 Paulus, ib. ri. 50, exeg. Handb. 2, S.
•SCO.i]| In tilis passage, it is true that celibacy is at first recommended as good for the present distress ; but tlie Apostle iloes not rest there ; for at v. 32 fl. lie adds, lie that is unmarried carhth fur fhc tiling n^’tke Lord--he that is murr’u-d j\n’ i/ie thim/s oJ’the world:
-a motive to celibacy which must lie equally valid undrr all circumstances, and which
-nffiir,^ in; ;i o-linnise into the fundamental asceticism of Paul’s views.
Comp. Kuckert’s
Comp. Kuckert’s
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE PIEST OOSPELS.387
parall.): Paulus admits that Jesus here argues subtilly, while lie contends tliat the conclusion is really involved in tlie premises. But in tlie expression tsiT^-’n^ the God of Abrahmn &c., which had become a mere formula, nothing more is implied than that Jehovah, as lie had been the protecting Deity of these men, would for ever continue such to their posterity. An individual relation subsisting between Jehovah and the patriarchs after their death, is nowhere else alluded to in the Old Testament, and could only be discovered in tlie above form by rabbinical interpreters, at a time when it was thought desirable, at any cost, to show tliat the idea of immortality, whicli liad become prevalent, was contained in the law; where, however, it is not to be met with by unprejudiced eyes. We find the relation of God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, adduced as a guarantee of immortality el-sewhcre in rabbinical argumentations, all of which could hardly have been modelled on this one of Jesus.* If we look into tlie most recent commentaries, we nowhere find a candid confession as to tlie real character of tlie argumentation in question.
Olshausen lias wonders to tell of the deep truth contained in it, and thinks that lie can deduce from it, in the shortest way, tlie authenticity and divinity of tlie Pentateuch. Paulus sees tlie validity of the proof between tlie lines of tlie text; Fritzsche is silent. Wherefore these evasions ? Why is the praise of having seen clearly, and spoken openly, in tills matter, abandoned to tlie Wolfenbiittel Fragmentist ?t Wliat spectres and doublesighted beings, must Moses and Jesus have been, if they mixed wdth their cotcmporaries without any real participation in their opinions and weaknesses, their joys and griefs; if, mentally dwelling apart from their age and nation, they conformed to tliese relations only externally and by accommodation, wdiile, internally and according to their nature, they stood among tlie foremost ranks of the enlightened in modern times ‘.
Far more noble were tliese men, nay, they would then only engage our sympathy and reverence, if, in a genuinely human manner, struggling with tlie limitations and prejudices of their age, they succumbed to them in a hundred secondary matters, and only attained perfect freedom, in relation to the one point by which each was destined to contribute to tlie advancement of mankind.
A controversial question concerning tlie Mcssiali is proposed (v.
51-46) to the Pharisees by Jesus, namely, How can tlie same personage be at once the Lord and tlie son of David ? Paulus maintains tliat tilis is a model of interpretation in conformity with the text;{
an assertion which is no good augury tliat his ov- possesses that qualification. According to him, Jesus, in asking how David could call tlie Mcssiali, .Lord, when in tlie general opinion he was his son, intended to apprise tlie Pharisees, that in tilis Psalm it is not David who is speaking of tlie Messiah, but another poet wdio is speaking
* Vid. Gemara Hieros. Berac. f. v. 4, in Liglitfoot, p. 423, and E. Manasse Ben Isr.
in Schottgen, i. p. 180.•}• See his 4th Fragment, Lessing’3 4tem Bcitrag, S, 434 ff.
388 THE LIFE OP JESUS.
of David as his lord, so that to suppose this warlike psalm a messianic one, is a mistake. Why, asks Paulus, should not Jesus have found out this interpretation, since it is the true one? But this is tlie grand error of his entire scheme of interpretation-to suppose that what is truth in itself, or more correctly, for us, must, even to tlie minutest details, liavc been truth for Jesus and the apostles.
The majority of ancient Jewish interpreters apply this psalm to the Messiah ;* tlie apostles use it as a prophecy concerning Christ (Acts ii. 34 f. ; 1 Cor. xv. 25); Jesus himself, according to Matthew and Mark, adds t’v Trvevfian to C^afUS ica^sl avr’ov K.vplov, thus plainly giving liis approval to tlie notion that it is David wlio there speaks, and that tlie Messiah is liis subject: how then can it be thought tliat he held tlie contrary opinion ? It is far more probable, as Olshausen has well shown, that Jesus believed the psalm to be a messianic one: while, on the oilier hand, Paulus is equally correct in maintaining tliat it originally referred, not to the Messiah, but to some Jewish ruler, whether David or another. Thus we find that Jesus here gives a model of interpretation, in conformity, not with tlie text, but with the spirit of liis time; a discovery whicli, if tlie above observations be just, ought to excite no surprise. The solution of the enigma which Jesus here proposes to the Pharisees, lay without doubt, according to liis idea, in tlie doctrine of the higher nature of tlie Mcssiali; whether he held that, in virtue of this, he might be styled the Lord of David, while, in virtue of liis human nature, he might also be regarded as his son ; or whether he wished to remove tlie latter notion as erroneous.f The result, however, and perhaps also tlie intention of Jesus with respect to tlie Pharisees, was merely to convince them that he was capable of retaliating on them, in their own way, by embarassing them with captious questions, and tliat with better success than they had obtained in their attempts to entrap liim. Hence the evangelists place this passage at the close of tlie disputations prompted by the Pharisees, and Matthew adds, Neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions: a concluding form which is more suitable here than after the lesson administered to tlie Sadducees, where it is placed by Luke (xx. 40), or than after tlie discussion on tlie greatest commandment, where it is introduced by Mark (xii. 34.);
Other books
Broken Heart 02 Don't Talk Back to Your Vampire by Michele Bardsley
Reboot with Joe Recipe Book by Cross, Joe
Hunting for Curves (BBW Erotic Romance) by Juliane Reyer
San Antonio Rose by Fran Baker
Beautiful Mess by Morgan, Lucy V.
Dangerous Seduction: A Nemesis Unlimited Novel by Archer, Zoë
Traitor by Nicole Conway
Tripp by Kristen Kehoe
Vietnam II: A War Novel Episode 3 (V2) by C.R. Ryder
The Billionaire's Sweet Surprise by Alexx Andria