THE RELIGION OF JESUS SHIRLEY JACKSON CASE The personal religious life of Jesus has not always received the consideration it deserves. Attention has been centered on other things. His miracle-working career, the theological implications of his teaching, metaphysical speculation about his unique personality, these things have too often been made the chief items of interest while his significance as a religious individual has been overlooked. Believers have been wont to look upon him so exclusively as the object of their own religious reverence, and consequently have sometimes removed him so far from the normal relations of a historical person, that they have been in danger of missing the inspiration to be derived from spiritual sympathy with him in his own deep religious experience. This tendency dominated Christian thinking at an early date. In the earliest extant Christian literature, the epistles of Paul, reference to the earthly life and experiences of Jesus is conspicuously scanty. True, Paul had not been a personal disciple, but his opportunities for obtaining full information on the subject were abundant. Incidentally, too, he shows a closer acquaintance with certain phases of the early history than might at first sight be supposed; nevertheless interest in the heaven-exalted Messiah is paramount. As Paul saw it, it was primarily important to interpret Jesus' life as one of the last acts in a divine drama which was being worked out on the stage of human history within the narrow limits of the ancients' world-view. Paul's own belief in Jesus' resurrection, and the tes.. mony of others who entertained a similar belief, seemed a sufficient guarantee of the correctness of this interpretation. Under these circumstances the thought of Jesus as a religious personage was a wholly unnatural, if not indeed an impossible, conception. While Paul did not go back of his resurrection faith for his proof II Cor. 15:1 f. of Jesus' messiahship, and so for the substantiation of his gospel, there were other Christian missionaries who did. The narrative of Mark is the earliest known literary example of this change of method. The same general type of interpretation, which places the formal and external elements in the foreground, is preserved, but additional evidence for the new faith is drawn from the pre-resurrection period. Paul was content to note that Jesus had been declared to be the Son of God through his resurrection; Mark is able to recall incidents in Jesus' life anticipating both the resurrection glory and the divine authentication of the Son. For example, at baptism a voice from above reveals to Jesus his divine sonship,3 and a similar declaration for the disciples' benefit is made at the time of the transfiguration, where certain favored followers are given a foretaste of the glory of Jesus' approaching resurrection. Mark however clearly intimates that the disciples did not appreciate the significance of this incident until they interpreted it in the light of their later faith.4 Paul attached considerable importance to the working of "powers" in the early church, seeing in it the Spirit's witness to Jesus' present supremacy. Mark is able to recount a whole series of events in Jesus' own activity which bear similar testimony to his supremacy. To be sure, Mark admits that the miraculous deeds of Jesus had not at the time produced any general belief in his messiahship; yet this failure was not due to the inadequacy of the attestation but to other causes such as the people's marvelous lack of faith," Jesus' refusal to permit the demons to make him known," or God's deliberate blinding of men that they might surely see and yet not perceive.3 Moreover, failure to recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit with Jesus in his capacity of miracle-worker is presented by Mark as the unpardonable sin,' while Paul merely calls attention to the certainty of the divine spiritual presence with the believer who recognizes - Jesus' lordship.10 2 Rom. 1:4; cf. Acts 2:36. 3 Mark 1:11. 4 Mark 9:2-10. 5 Gal. 3:2-5; I Cor. 12:9 f., 28 f.; II Cor. 12:12; Rom. 15:19. 6 Mark 6:6. 7 Mark 1:34; etc. 9 Mark 3:29 f. 8 Mark. 4:12; 6:52; 8:17 ff. 10 I Cor. 12:3. The Spirit's activity was fundamental to the primitive Christian's new life. It is so represented by Paul as well as by the writer of Acts. Some such manifestation of the divine activity seems to have been regarded as a necessary mark of the genuineness of one's membership in the messianic community. This special experience probably came to the new convert about the time of his baptism.12 While Paul spoke especially of the believer's condition, Mark shows how a similar relationship existed between the Spirit and the Messiah himself. It stamped divine approval upon him at the beginning of his ministry, just as it attested the genuineness of one's claim to membership in the messianic community.13 16 In respect to faith in Jesus' messianic power, Paul had demanded only that the members of the apostolic church should acknowledge Jesus as Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead.14 Mark is inclined to carry even these primal items of early theology back to the period of Jesus' activity. When the disciples are fearful in the storm they are rebuked for lack of faith.'s Jesus' healing ministrations are often conditioned by the measure of the applicants' faith, and only a miraculous hardening of the heart can excuse the disciples for their dulness of belief when Jesus' power is so remarkably displayed as in the miracles of feeding," where the giving of thanks and the breaking of bread anticipated a privilege enjoyed by the apostolic church in its observance of the Lord's Supper. 18 Even the fundamental tenet of apostolic theology, belief in Jesus' resurrection, is open to his followers prior to his death, but their dulness of understanding prevents them from attaining this height of faith. 19 And the return of Jesus as judge in messianic glory, accepted by Paul as a corollary of the resurrection faith, is shown in Mark to be a matter 11 E.g., I Cor. 12:4-11; Acts 2:38. 12 Gal. 3:2; cf. Acts 2:38; 10:47. 13 The gift of the Spirit in connection with baptism seems to have been emphasized by the Christians in contrast with the lack of any such phenomenon in the case of those who knew only the baptism of John the Baptist, or were perpetuating his movement in opposition to that of Jesus (Acts 19:1-6). 14 Rom. 10:8 f. 15 Mark 4:40. 16 Mark 2:5; 5:34, 36; 6:6; 7:29; 9:19, 23; 10:52. 17 Mark 6:52; 8:17-21. 18 Mark 6:41; 8:6. 19 Mark 9:10, 32. of definite instruction on Jesus' part to help his disciples to believe.a° Here the element of immediateness may not be so vivid as in the earlier thought of Paul—a natural consequence of Mark's later date, but the element of certainty remains in full force. Thus "faith" in Jesus was required during his lifetime. 21 Paul and Mark represent a type of interpretation designed to reach those outside the circle in which Jesus had moved. In Paul's case this is self-evident, and Mark's gospel is clearly intended for gentile readers. All nations are brought within the legitimate range of the gospel, and Semitic expressions are carefully explained.22 In the controversy about clean and unclean meats Jesus is placed on Paul's side, though it is admitted that the disciples themselves were dull in comprehending this teaching, 23 just as the Palestinian Christians of Paul's day failed to understand it. The writer's gentile interest also seems to have determined the form of the narrative. In the experience of the gentile convert baptism marked the beginning of vital interest in the new religion, as it marks for the second gospel the first significant incident in Jesus' career. On the other hand, in Jewish circles, where believers were not so conscious of any break with their past life but felt that they were carrying their old religion on to its proper fulfilment, earlier events in Jesus' career were given some prominence. Mark also has little to say of Jesus' teaching as a rule of life-his readers had no hereditary interest in the law of Moses so Jesus is not presented to them as a lawgiver. Of course his authority is superior to that of Moses24 as all gentiles must believe, having been taught freedom from the bondage of the law. Another form of tradition, suited to the needs of those believers who interpreted Jesus to his Jewish kinsmen, probably took shape at an early date. No pure example of this has been preserved, but its general character is fairly clear from certain features in the two great composite gospels, Matthew and Luke. Each of these evangelists aimed at comprehensiveness in his composition, hence these writings have become the repository of both gentile and Palestinian 20 Mark, chap. 13; also 8:38; 9:1; 14:62. 21 E.g., Mark 13:10. 22 Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:2 ff., 34; 10:46; 12:42; 15:42. 23 Mark 7:1-23. 24 E.g., Mark 2:27 f.; 7:19b; 10:3-9. types of tradition, from earlier as well as from later times. The Palestinian elements in the tradition make it clear that also in this branch of the church stress fell upon Jesus' official significance. His messiahship was proved by (1) his teaching and by (2) his fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy-appropriate arguments for a Jewish setting. He also worked miracles but he is less distinctive in this rôle. His ability in this respect is not essentially different from that of other righteous men in Israel. 25 As a new lawgiver, a second Moses, 26 he was especially significant. The Jewish Christians could not feel that the new faith, when logically interpreted, implied the abrogation of the law; and they regarded as least in the kingdom of heaven all who, like Paul, taught men to discard certain Mosaic injunctions.27 Jesus was the messianic lawgiver who, by way of fulfilling rather than abrogating the law, placed his word above that which they of old had spoken.28 He was also the one toward whom all messianic predictions had been directed.29 He met the expectations of both the older prophets and the later apocalyptic seers. in his speedy return to claim his own and pronounce judgment on his opponents was shared alike by gentile and Jewish Christians, but in the case of the latter, with their narrower range of vision, the return may have seemed nearer at hand,3° the gentiles were not included in the future outlook,31 and the condemnation of the Jews who disbelieved was made more emphatic.32 Belief The writer of the Fourth Gospel is also primarily interested to 25 Matt. 12:27 - Luke 11:19; cf. Luke 10: 18-20. 26 Matt. 5:17 ff., cf. Acts 3:22; 7:37. 27 Matt. 5:18 f. 29 Matt. 1:22; 2:15, etc.; Luke 4:21. 30 Matt. 10:23. 28 Matt. 5:21-48. 31 Matt. 10:5 f., 23; 19:28. Such passages in Matthew are often put side by side with universal ideas, e.g., 10:18b; 20:1-16. 32 E.g., Matt. 12:38-45. It is very true that judgment on unbelieving Jews became a favorite doctrine in many gentile circles. The first Gospel is written from this point of view; while Luke is primarily interested in the reception of the gentiles, and only secondarily in the casting-out of Jews. With Paul approval at the day of judgment is not a matter of favoritism for either Jew or gentile, but a question of spiritual attainment through faith (Gal. 5:19-24: cf. Mark 7:20-23); nor can Paul reconcile himself to the thought that his Jewish kinsmen will ultimately be cast out (Rom. 11:23 f.). |