Sivut kuvina



Church itself is at heart Ebionitic; so that it is a great mystery how the Ebionitic Church could have come to distinguish Church Ebionitism from her own, and brand it as heretical. The author thinks he has discovered that the Gospel of Luke puts into special prominence, in the life of Jesus, the expulsion of demons. Doubtless the joyful announcement of the seventy disciples on their return, that the devils also were subject to them, is emphatically recorded ; and if one regard the seventy as representatives of the Pauline free proclamation of the Gospel among the heathen, one must be reminded of the declaration of the Apostle Paul, “ The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils' (1 Cor. x. 20). So also was the spread of the Gospel in the Gentile world, according to Paul, a continuous triumph over devils. But it is surely to be reckoned amongst the most curious specialties, that, according to Ritschl and Baur (p. 494), in the Marcionite—thus presumptively the original Gospel—the demon (Luke iv. 33) served the purpose of announcing Jesus to be what He was, and of introducing Him into His work, in the same manner as in the other Gospels this was done by John the Baptist.' In this case, Jesus should have certainly commended the demon as He commended John, or, on the contrary, should have commanded the latter, as he commanded the other, to hold his peace. Rather, we should say, such parallels show how much violence can be offered to common sense on the bye-road of chasing after false analogies. As a master in this hunt after the most volatile fancies, we have already on several occasions met with the author of the work die Evang., etc., designated by v. Baur as the Saxon Anonyme. Von Baur, in his concluding critical remarks, has said many things appropriate and to the point concerning this critic. In substance, however, he finds the head and front of his offending only to be, that the anonymous writer has represented the presumed antagonisms of the Gospel of Luke, without grounds or proof, as exhibitions of personal animosity on the part of Paul against Peter, instead of descrying in them the contrast of opposite tendencies of mind. The mistake only lies in the anonymous writer · fully acknowledging the authorship of Luke, whilst he himself repudiates the historical character of Luke's Gospel' “Let only that barrier, which still retains its ground merely in the subjectivity of the critic, be removed out of the


way, and that unnatural tension of the contrasts immediately loses itself in the free and unobstructed stream of the history,– all that is uncouth, hard, and offensive disappears : it is not any longer the two apostles, Paul and Peter, who contradict each other to the face, and as it were grasp each other by the hair; it is only the Christian parties which have arisen on the basis of these two forms of Christianity, in whose interest the two Gospels, more or less, were written, without one on that account being obliged in each and every point to assume so decidedly polemical a reference. Therefore, forwards on his adopted course must the Saxon Anonyme, according to v. Baur, seek his salvation, not backwards. How strongly, however, he has influenced the reviewer who tenders him this admonition, is shown in the circumstance, that v. Baur (p. 526) imitates his sleightof-hand in the passage Luke viii. 51, by placing among those who laughed the Lord to scorn, and whom He put out, also the three chosen disciples.

As regards the passages in which Ritschl looks in vain for a connection, he does not meet everywhere with the approval of v. Baur. Such a passage is chap. xi. 29–32. Here, through the omission by Marcion of 29–32, he thinks a good connection is gained. V. Baur finds this example doubtful.

Still more chap. xi. 49–51. On the other hand, Baur also finds the connection destroyed in the passage chap. xii. 6, 7. In like manner the omission, chap. xii. 29–35, commends itself to him, with a view to the connection, together with the reading, ver. 28, őtav όψησθε πάντας τους δικαίους εν τη βασιλεία του Θεού, instead of όταν όψησθε 'Αβραάμ, etc. He is also in favour of the omis

' sion, chap. xvi. 16–18, with the various reading, twv Nórywv mov, in spite of the rare expression thereby arising, tậv Nórywv pov kepaia, etc. Further, in chap. xx. 8–19, he thinks ver. 19 must be connected with ver. 8. Thus also in chap. xxi. must ver. 18 be omitted, because it directly contradicts vers. 16 and 17. In the passages

referred to, has thus v. Baur also not been able to find the connection. On the other hand, he justifies the inward fitness of the sentence, xix. 9, with reference to xiii. 16. Likewise also the passage, chap. xx. 37, 38.-We have thus, by the art of the critic, a twofold Gospel of Matthew, Luke, and John: how much does Mark, with the exigencies of his concluding chapter, invite these masters in dialectics to complete the number!

5. When, in the parable of the prodigal son, the Tübingen school sees a representation in the two sons of the Jews and . heathen, according to their respective relations to the Messianic kingdom, this view is controverted not only by the reference to the Pharisees and publicans, which is given to the parable by the narrator himself, but also by the fact that, according to the conception of the New Testament, not only the unbelieving Jews, but, above all, Christ, with those who believed on Him, belonged to the manifestation of Judaism regarded as a whole, and in fact, constituted its kernel. This is also the conception of the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. No doubt, that contrast of Pharisees and publicans, generally and incidentally, is again reflected in the contrast between Judaism and Heathenism.




(Chap. xviii. 31-xix. 48.)

Thus had the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem been prepared, not only outwardly by His journey, but also inwardly, by His works, His experiences and acts, and especially also by the instructions and directions which He had given to the disciples. He had done all to make their procession into Jerusalem a procession into the kingdom of God, according to its inward spiritual character. But His labours had not yet borne the desired fruit.

He now made to them a more distinct avowal than before : · Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accom

plished. For He shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and reviled, and spitted on: and they shall scourge Him, and put Him to death; and the third day He shall rise again.

But these preparatory intimations of His death found the minds of the disciples still in the same state at the close, as when they were first imparted. The Evangelist had remarked of the first communication which the Lord had made to them of His approaching end (chap. ix. 45), They understood not this saying; and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask Him of that saying. Quite in the same tone must he here again say, They understood none of these things : and this saying was hid from them, and they knew not the things which were spoken (what He meant to say).

It must be remarked, that Luke also in this place brings out in strong relief the circumstance, that the sufferings of Christ had to be accomplished, according to the prophecies concerning the Son of man in the writings of the prophets.

The want of understanding on the part of the disciples may be thus explained. The minds of the followers of Jesus were full of expectation regarding the great things which were to happen. They expected the manifestation of the kingdom of God. Even the beggar on the wayside saluted Him as the Son of David. The atmosphere was filled with chiliastic dreams and anticipations. This frame of mind was still shared by the disciples themselves, although in its nobler form. Therefore it was that they could not understand Him.

The festive procession had now been formed, with which Jesus meant to proceed to Jerusalem. Even beyond Jericho His pilgrim's journey had become a triumphal procession. In this form they approached the city. A blind man sat by the wayside begging, as Jesus came nigh. He heard that a great company of people passed by, and asked what that meant (the tumultuary noise). They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth passeth by. And he began to cry, “Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me!'

But those who were at the head of the procession rebuked him, and commanded him to hold his peace. He, however, cried so much the more, Thou Son of David, have

See above, sec. 14.


[ocr errors]

mercy on me!' Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be brought unto Him. And when he was come near, He asked him,

What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?' He answered, ' * Lord, that I may receive my sight.' And Jesus said unto him, ' Receive thy sight; thy faith hath saved thee.? And immediately he received his sight, and followed Him, glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God.

The train entered and passed through Jericho. The Lord, however, tarried for a time, accepting the hospitality of Zaccheus, a chief among the publicans. This fact is again narrated alone by that Evangelist, who has specially magnified the grace with which Christ received publicans and sinners. Zaccheus was rich: thus not only his occupation, but his position in life, might have alienated him from the kingdom of God. Nevertheless his mind was turned to that which is eternal. He had therefore an intense desire to see Jesus, who He was—to find out Jesus Himself amidst the press of the people. Being small of stature, he could not succeed in this. He resolved therefore on an extraordinary measure to attain his end. Neither allowing himself to be restrained by the religious contempt in which, as a publican, he was held, nor by the respect procured for him by his wealth, he climbed up into a sycamore-tree, at a place where the train had to pass. Jesus approached, looked up, saw him, and called unto him, “Zaccheus, make haste, and come down ; for to-day I must abide at thy house.' And he came down in haste, and received Him with joy. When they saw it, they all murmured, saying, “He is gone to be a guest with a man that is a sinner.' But what was meanwhile transacted inside the house served to rebuke the hard pharisaical temper of the multitude. Zaccheus came near to the Lord, and said, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any man, I restore him fourfold.' And Jesus said unto him, • This day is salvation come to this house.' He then added, with reference to the harsh judgment of His attendants, Forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.'

The pharisaical spirit, which had just before found renewed utterance, stood in close connection with the sensual, impure chiliastic expectations concerning the kingdom which moved the

[ocr errors]
« EdellinenJatka »