Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

which Jesus already enjoyed as a boy (Luke ii. 40, 47, 52), and which characterized him as the promised Messiah (Is. xi. 2), that his future was not unknown to him; and we must not wonder, if he, who must have known the Scripture and its promises and their interpretation (comp. e. g. Ps. xvi. 10; cx. 4; Ís. liii. 8, 10), who undeniably applied many passages to himself (Luke iv. 21; John v. 39), or allowed them to be applied to himself by his disciples, by Peter chiefly (Acts ii. 31; 1 Pet. ii. 23-25), if he foresaw and foretold his death and his resurrection. But we must now examine the passages themselves which contain such predictions of Jesus.

Among these has usually been reckoned, but unnecessarily, the so-called onμsov 'Iava (Matt. xii. 39). I must freely own, that neither the reasons for this opinion, which Olshausen, nor the reasons against, which De Wette has best collected from earlier exegetes, are satisfactory to me; but I am still less able to understand how Olshausen could say at the close of his exposition: 'The lately attempted exposition of this passage, by which the σημεῖον ̓Ιωνᾶ is his preaching to the Ninevites (according to which v. 40 is made a misunderstanding by Matthew of the words of Jesus), has arisen from a total mistaking of the entire previous connection, and sufficiently refutes itself." Truly a remarkable assertion! For precisely the entire interior connection, and the relation of the single sentences in this passage, speak most plainly against the mention of the resurrection of Christ, but at the same time not for a misunderstanding by Matthew of the words of Jesus, but for the spuriousness of the 40th verse. It is in my opinion a later gloss from the hand of one who did not understand the σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ. Of course it is always a delicate thing to evade the difficulties of a passage by taking its spuriousness for granted, but there seems to me to be here no alternative. For that Jesus cannot have mentioned his resurrection here is clear, (1) from the parallel passage in Luke xi. 32, where what stands here in v. 40, is quite wanting; (2) from Matt. xvi. 4, where again onμov 'Iava occurs, but without reference to the whale's belly, and with no conceivable reason for thinking that Christ could have intended his resurrection; and lastly, (3) particularly from the double parallel between Jonas and Solomon, and between the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba, which parallel would be very poor and halting in the second half, if in the first there were mention of the resurrection of Christ.

But other and plain passages are not wanting. When Jesus

Lately? The interpretation is tolerably old, and particularly was propounded as early as by Eckermann in his 'Theol. Beitragen,' and in the 'Interpretation of all Difficult Passages of the New Testament.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

had once openly spoken to his disciples concerning his Messianic dignity and destination, and had asked them, Whom say the people, and whom say ye that I am?' (Matt. xvi. 13, &c.) and Peter, as spokesman of the other Apostles, had confessed in the joy of faith, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!' (v. 16; comp. John vi. 68, 69), from that time forth he announced also to them his nearly approaching lot; and indeed not his death only, but almost always at the same time his resurrection, sometimes with, sometimes without denoting the third day. This first happened exactly on this occasion; for Jesus explained very freely to the disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer much from the elders and high priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day rise again (v. 21; comp. Mark viii. 31; Luke ix. 22). We afterwards hear this more frequently, as often as an opportunity offered to the Lord. Such a one was his transfiguration, at which Peter (2 Pet. i. 16-18), James, and John were present as witnesses, but of which they were to say nothing, until the Son of Man were risen from the dead (Matt. xvii. 9; comp. Mark ix. 9). In the parallel passage of Mark (v. 10) there is this remarkable addition, the disciples ask one another, What then is this his resurrection from the dead? For that this question related to his resurrection, and not to that of the dead in general, which certainly could not be unknown to them, cannot be doubted. After his arrival in Galilee, Jesus repeated this announcement, and excited grief by it in his disciples (Matt. xvii. 22, 23; Mark ix. 31). But as he was making with them his last journey to Jerusalem he charged all this upon them with particularly solemn earnestness, well knowing that he should not return thence. 'See,' said he, we go up to Jerusalem, and now all will be fulfilled which the prophets have foretold, and I myself have even oftener reminded you of' (Matt. xx. 17-19; Mark x. 32-34; Luke xviii. 31-33). The disciples were indeed so far still from this conception, that they understood none of these things, and this saying was hidden from them' (Luke xviii. 34), but the fulfilment of all foretold was soon to open their eyes. Here belongs also that short, but interesting similitude, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit' (John xii. 23, 24; comp. the related form of expression 1 Cor. xv. 36, 37). The application is plain-thus must I also resign my body to the grave, and apparently destroy my activity (comp. John ix. 3), but only in order, through my return to life, to effect so much the greater operations upon all times and generations of the earth. There is further to be alleged the whole series of glorious, living, and preparative sayings, at and after the institution of the Lord's Supper, as the

[ocr errors]

Were

disciple whom the Lord loved has preserved them for us. there merely contained therein the allusion to the death of Jesus, and the certain pre-announcement of its nearness-this might, even without the supposition of special Divine foresight, be easily explained from the whole situation at that season and the course of circumstances. But it is a different thing when we find allusions also to the resurrection; and these are unmistakeable, though sometimes in greater, sometimes in less clearness, and without the intimation of the third day, which nowhere (excepting in ii. 19, 20) appears in John. Jesus promises to the disciples, that, after his departure, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, shall abide with them for ever. But,' he adds, since I am unwilling to leave you orphans, I myself will come again to you. After a short space the world will see me no more, but ye shall see me again, for I live, and ye also shall live (John xiv. 18, 19), and to every one who loves me will I reveal myself (v. 21). Fear ye not! it should rather rejoice you that I said unto you, I go away and come again unto you (v. 28). The old interpretation, namely of the resurrection, which, on account of many difficulties, modern exegetes have almost unanimously abandoned, De Wette has rightly again adopted and defended, although in a certain double sense (of bodily seeing again the Risen Christ, and of the spiritual contemplation of the Living) which again renders us scrupulous. But it not only appears to me that this is required by the sense of the words, but also that Jesus certainly was not silent concerning it, just now, when the disciples so much needed comfort. The disciples meanwhile from these sayings of their Master understood this almost solely, that he was preparing them for his death, his departure; the distress occasioned by this veiled their vision, so that they could not recognize the comfortable reference to his return; he therefore began to speak anew and yet more clearly of this subject, which naturally quite filled his soul (xvi. 5, &c.), and concluded with the beautiful fragment, μικρόν—καὶ πάλιν μικρόν (v. 16, &c.). Again the disciples understand him not. • What is this that he says unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me; and again a little while, and ye shall see me?' But their prejudices weary not his patience. With the similitude of the woman that is near her hour, he expresses the condition of the disciples, and says, 'Ye also have now sorrow; but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and no one shall take your joy from you' (v. 22). The Lord could in no way have expressed himself more plainly; some have wished nevertheless to interpret this seeing again as the seeing again in eternal life; but how little suitable to that is the gov, and how empty would this consolation have been just now for the disciples !

Meanwhile these and other similar utterances of Jesus, spoken in confidence, had not remained in the circle of his disciples, but had been spread further, and misinterpreted, so that they even served in the mouth of false witnesses as accusations against him. 'He said,' spake they, ‘I can destroy the temple of God, and in three days build it up again' (Matt. xxvi. 61; comp. Mark xiv. 58). Wickedness adduced this again even for derision of the Dying One (Matt. xxvii. 40; comp. Mark xv. 29). Reference would appear to have been made by this to an expression of Christ's, which, in John's account, occurs at a much earlier time, in the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus, and appears on the occasion of the familiar purification of the temple; which, however, is by the first three evangelists related for the first time shortly before the history of the Passion, after the last, solemn entry into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 12, 13; Mark xi. 15-17; Luke xix. 45, 46; and John ii. 18-22). The act of the purification of the temple by Jesus, testifying his Messianic dignity and authority, had excited astonishment; therefore said the Jews, 'What sign showest thou to us, that thou doest such things? And Jesus answered, Destroy this temple, and on the third day will I raise it up. But he spake of the temple of his body. Now when he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this (John). This statement of the false witnesses could not possibly be used as evidence; even the High Priest was ashamed to go further into the matter; but his meaning was not indifferent to the Jewish rulers, whether they really boded the truth, or, as at least they pretended, feared a fraud. By their management, guards were set at the sepulchre of Christ, for they said to Pilate, We have remembered that this deceiver said while he yet lived, I will after three days rise again' (Matt. xxvii. 63, 64). And thus we have, even out of the mouth of his enemies, a witness for his prediction.

After so many plain passages from all four evangelists, no unprejudiced reader of the sacred history will venture to doubt, that Jesus foreknew and foretold, not only his death but also his return to life. The sequel must therefore have justified his pre-intimation, or it would have thrown suspicion on his credibility; and the disciples-without his return into the midst of them, however firmly convinced of the truth of his doctrine and of the holiness of his conduct-must have grown perplexed concerning him, and have doubted his Divine dignity, if, in so important a matter, he had erred himself, or had deceived them. With regard to this Schleiermacher says very truly (but it is all that he does remark),

g

Der christl. Glaube, p. 251.

'I see not how the resurrection of Christ can, as literal matter of fact, be denied, without denying at the same time the proper Dignity of Christ; since his most intimate and immediate disciples speak of it as of an external matter of fact. If now they were mistaken in this, then their whole testimony concerning Christ acquires such uncertainty, that Christ when he chose them could not have known what was in man. Or supposing Christ to have wished it and to have contrived that they should be obliged to take inner phenomena for outer perceptions, neither does this appear to me conformable to his higher Dignity, that he should have been necessitated to 'found an indispensable motive of faith upon a deception.'

The disciples had of course not rightly understood those sayings and intimations of Jesus before, and with the first sorrow for the loss of him, they probably thought not at all of them (John xx. 9); but with the return of quiet consideration, and after mutual interchange of judgments, the predicting words of Jesus would very soon be recalled. These actually did come again to mind, when they saw in the resurrection of Jesus the most glorious accomplishment; although surprised by an unforeseen happiness, they at first hardly dared to believe the too joyful intelligence (Luke xxiv. 11). Even the circumstance that they hastened to the grave, not the women only, but others with them (Matt. xxviii. 1; Luke xxiv. 1), especially Peter (Luke xxiv. 12) and John (John xx. 2, 3, &c.), is a proof that they were led by a boding, founded on before-received, little-considered hints, of what was to occur. When those foretellings were quite recalled to their recollection (Matt. xxviii. 6; Luke xxiv. 5), they returned so much the livelier in soul, and they remembered his words (Luke xxiv. 8, 21; John ii. 22); and Jesus himself also appealed thereto (Luke xxiv. 44, 46), and in a manner the most unsuspicious and that admitted of no doubt, convinced them that he was alive (Matt. xxviii. 9, 10, 16, &c.; Mark xvi. 9, 12; Luke xxiv. 13, &c., 36, &c.; John xx. 14, &c., 19, &c., 24, &c.; xxi. 1, &c.; Acts x. 41; 1 Cor. xv. 5, &c.). And as now the convinced disciples must have adhered with greater zeal, with double believing faithfulness to their risen Lord; so of course must his credibility be established, who could in so grand and wonderful a manner make true his word.

II. It already follows from this that the resurrection could not but be the most illustrious proof of the Messianic dignity of Jesus the Son of God; and this is especially and emphatically set forth in many passages of Holy Scripture. We must quote here the remarks which Schleiermacher makes, to prove that neither was this fact made necessary by the Divine in Christ, nor is it possible to see in it, or to prove from it, the presence of God in him.

« ForrigeFortsett »