|
New Testament Theology
Or, Historical Account of the Teaching of
Jesus and of Primitive Christianity According to the New Testament Sources
Willibald
Beyschlag
trans. Neil
Buchanan
(Edinburgh: 1895)
CLICK HERE FOR PDF FILES OF BOTH VOLUMES:
VOLUME ONE |
VOLUME TWO
Great Example of German Preterist-Idealism:
"The common error.. of
conceiving the parousia as a single historical event instead of the whole
course of Christ's victory and triumph over the historical world, dominates
also the writer of the Apocalypse. But this error marks simply the necessary
limits of prophecy, which Paul describes in the words (1 Cor. xiii. 12):
"Now we see (in our prophecy) through a glass in a riddle, but then face to
face." To see the things of the future face to face is granted only to the
after life ; to him who looks forward the future appears only in the mirror
of the present ; the symbol of the future hovers before him in the signs of
his time. Hence the conflict of Christian history and the hope of eternal
victory were to the writer of the Apocalypse symbolically reflected in the
confusions of his time ; and if he saw close at hand the eternal triumph of
the kingdom of God, he simply erred in the same way as Isaiah or his greater
post-Exilic successor, the former of whom expected that the Assyrian
oppression and deliverance from it, and the latter that the Babylonian
captivity and deliverance, alone separated them from the Messianic
salvation."
"But the
Pauline view gave way to the Jewish Christian expectation when the tolerant
policy of fifty years was changed into a fierce hostility against the Church
of Christ, and so there was revealed in Rome the beast with the iron teeth "
of the Book of Daniel. This change appeared in the Neronic persecution of
the year 64. The monster who sat upon the throne of the Roman world, the
murderer of his brother, his mother, and his legal wife, the incendiary of
his own capital, in order to turn away popular indignation from himself,
inflicted on the Christians in Rome the most frightful tortures, which
surpassed the horrors of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the news of which
convulsed Christian circles everywhere. Now they recognised the last enemy,
that final fruit of hostility to God which must call down from heaven the
Judge of the world. And thenceforth the signs of the times were crowded
together in a remarkable way. Three years after the beginning of that
persecution, insurrection broke out in the East and West at the same time,
in Gaul and in Judea, and its flames laid hold of Rome also ; Nero perished
forsaken by all, and with him ended the Julian race ; the framework of the
Roman Empire cracked at every joint. And at the same time the iron Vespasian
encompassed rebellious Jerusalem ; the judgment of God which Jesus had
predicted for the city in which the prophets were murdered, and which the
Christians viewed as the beginning of the judgment of the world, was in
sight. How could Christian prophecy at such a moment doubt that the coming
of the Lord was at the door ? All the signs of it seemed to be present. And
the story which ran through the excited East, that the monster Nero was not
dead ; that he had fled to Parthia, and would soon return with an immense
army, and take vengeance on apostate Rome (Tacitus, Hist. ii. 8),
furnished the prophetic fancy with the most expressive figure for the
personal Antichrist, in whom one looked for the concentration of Rome's
opposition to Christ. Nero redivivus in his dying and his miraculous
revival, the distorted, dœmonic counterpart of the dead and risen Son of
God, must be the Prince of the world, who as Satan's instrument would bring
about the final conflict between the divine and its opponents, and call down
from heaven the judgment of the world. These are the facts and feelings of
the time from which the Apocalypse of John
proceeded, and by which it is to be explained." (pp. 349,350)
"It is not
hard to reckon which Roman king, that is, emperor (for the East called the
Roman emperor king), is meant ; five, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula,
Claudius, Nero, have been, the sixth is, that is, Galba, under whose rule,
therefore, the seer writes ; a seventh is to come, and continue for a short
space, presumably Vespasian, in whom the author, writing in the East, might
already perceive the next ruler. But the " beast" is the eighth as well as
one of the seven, that is, one who was, and is to come again, the Nero
redivivus of current expectation, whose march of vengeance from the
Euphrates, in covenant with the ten kings against the revolted Rome, is
fancifully described in chap. xvi . 12-21. It may be said that the clearness
of this explanation leaves nothing to be desired, and that all other
attempts at explanation as contrasted with it are arbitrary, feeble, and
lifeless. Even in chap. xiii., where it first appears, we have the same
twofold meaning of the beast as an emblem of the Roman Empire and of Nero."
(p. 351)
§ 4.
The Final Picture Of The Judgment Of
The World (Vol 2, 193)
A gloomy picture of the history of the world in its closing stage forms the
foreground to this promise of the parousia. A distress unequalled will
immediately precede the second coming of Messiah (Matt. xxiv. 21). The
disciples of Jesus will be hated by all the world for His name's sake ; the
unrighteousness of the world and the oppression of believers will reach
their climax (Matt. xxiv. 9, 12). The love of many disciples will wax cold;
they will go astray, and hate and betray one another (Matt. xxiv. 10, 12).
Others will fall into fanatical errors; false prophets and saviours will
appear, seeking to win faith for themselves by signs and wonders, and will
declare the return of Christ the end of time, so that if it were possible
even the elect must be deceived. But they are not to believe these fanatical
assurances, not even regard as signs of the end of the world the universal
convulsions in the history of the world, wars, earthquakes, and pestilence.
One sign alone is sure, that the gospel must be preached in the whole world
for a witness to all nations, that the message of salvation must do its work
in the world of history (Matt. xxiv. 4, 7, 14). In those days will God's
attitude towards His Church appear like that of an unrighteous judge who
refuses to do justice to a poor, shamefully persecuted widow. But the
Church, like that widow, should not desist from importuning the eternal
Judge, who will at last be moved to procure her help suddenly (Luke xviii.
1-8).
So will the
day of the Lord be delayed for the waiting and persecuted; but at length it
will come suddenly, for the days of the great affliction will suddenly be
shortened for the elect's sake (Matt. xxiv. 22). It will come when it is
least looked for, as a thief in the night (Matt. xxiv. 29, 43 ; Luke xii .
39, 40). It will break upon the Jewish people while they are in the hottest
persecution of the disciples of Jesus (Matt. x. 23). All at once, the
abomination of desolation will appear in the holy city, as predicted in the
Book of Daniel (Matt. xxiv. 15), and will announce the fall of the
desecrated Jerusalem; for " wheresoever the carcase is, there will the
eagles be gathered together," the vultures who tear it to pieces (Matt.
xxiv. 15, 28). [We
are reminded of the events in Palestine which followed one another in the
years between sixty and seventy, the persecution in which James the Just and
others fell a sacrifice, the scenes of uproar and party slaughter in
Jerusalem and the temple, and the Roman eagles which completed the judgment
on the nation which had morally become a corpse.]
It will break upon the world at the very moment when it feels
most secure, as the Flood came in the days of Noah, and as the rain of fire
in the days of Lot. Men will be planting and building, buying and selling,
marrying and giving in marriage, when all at once the judgment will fall on
them (Matt. xxiv. 37, 39 ; Luke xvii. 26 f.). And so the second coming of
the Lord appears as a sudden catastrophe in the world and in history, which
redeems those who are ready but devours those who are not ready, even though
they belong to the Church (Luke xvii. 32 f.; Matt. xxiv. 40-42),—a
catastrophe in which those only stand who with singleness of heart seek for
the salvation of their souls, and who do not look back like Lot's wife on
the earthly things which they have to leave (Luke xvii. 31,33; cf. Matt.
xxiv. 16). [The
exhortations which Matthew interprets literally, and refers to the flight of
the Christians in the siege of Jerusalem, were probably at first meant in
the symbolic sense in which Luke xvii. has strikingly repeated them.]
But however sudden this catastrophe may be, it will be quite manifest and
unmistakable. The Church should not therefore put any faith in fanatical
assurances that Christ is here or there, in the desert or in an inner
chamber (that is, in a corner), because His actual coming to judgment will
be as powerful and startling as when " the lightning flashes from one end of
heaven to the other" (Matt. xxiv. 25-27). The sun and moon will pale before
" the sign of the Son of Man " appearing in the heavens; the stars will fall
from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken (Matt. xxiv. 29,
30); the sea and the waves will roar, and an unspeakable suspense will seize
men regarding the things that are coming (Luke xxi. 25, 26). And then will
they all see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, attended by His
holy angels, in His power and glory, and will beat their breasts in the
consciousness of their guilt as they recognise in Him their Judge (Matt.
xxiv. 30 ; Mark xiii. 26 ; Luke xxi. 27). But He will send forth His angels
with loud sounding trumpets to gather His elect from the four winds, not
merely the living, but— as the trumpet with its awakening call
signifies—those also who sleep in the bosom of the earth (cf. 1 Thess. iv.
16); for then shall be gathered the whole Church of the elect to share in
His kingly glory, and be united with Him in judging the world (cf. Matt.
xix. 28 ; Luke xxii. 30 ; 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3).
§ 5. The Destruction Of Jerusalem
The thoroughly poetical character of this picture of the. end of the world
is clear as day. It is not history such as ever has or will take place in
bare fact; it is ideal history evolved from the idea that the contrasts of
good and evil, wheat and tares, must ripen in the world, and that when the
opposition to God in the world has reached its climax, the judgment of God
must break out over it. And yet this conception, which alone is true to the
nature of all genuine prophecy, gives rise to doubt, for in Christ's
discourses the epic of ideal prophecy is mixed up with the Jewish wars and
the destruction of Jerusalem. Have we not here the prediction of a definite
historical event, and must we not regard the whole as a foretelling of
actual history. [Mark
has indeed (ix. 1) changed the words—offence manifestly being given by them
; but even John xxi. 22, 23 must be taken as an echo of them.]
And if we are compelled to take it thus, is not the whole prediction false,
as the destruction of Jerusalem took place without involving such a
universal disturbance of the history of the world, and especially without
bringing with it the judgment of the world ?
It cannot
honestly be denied that the first evangelist has identified the catastrophe
breaking upon Israel in the years between sixty and seventy, with the last
affliction and the crisis of the crisis of the history of the world, and has
attached the immediate signs of Christ's return to judge the world with a
evdea>s fierd to the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv. 16, 21, 29);
and if Mark and Luke strive to relax somewhat this connection, they only
show how embarrassed they were by the picture furnished in their common
source. Moreover, Jesus also (Matt. x. 23) incontestably makes the return of
the Son of Man coincide with the historical catastrophe of the Jewish
nation; in Matt. xvi. 28 there is likewise given a saying of Jesus, which in
its natural sense directly assures some of the listening disciples that they
will live to see His coming again to judgment (ver. 27);
and, finally, in. the three repetitions of that great
eschatological discourse, the words appear: ...genea... (Matt. xxiv.
3 4 ; Mark xiii . 30 ; Luke xxi. 32). In accordance with this, as we may see
from the whole New Testament, the early Church expected the Lord's return
within a generation, and even hoped themselves to see it (cf. Jas. v. 3, 9 ;
1 Pet. iv. 7 ; Rom. xiii. 11; 1 Cor. vii. 29 f., xv. 51, 52 ; Rev. i. 1,
xxii. 12, etc.). At this point, then, the seemingly invincible difficulties
of the eschatological discourses of Jesus become acute, and appearances
strongly favour the view that Jesus, seeing the judgment of God coming upon
Israel and Jerusalem, and having reason to expect it within a generation,
conformed to the Jewish view of the world, and contemplated the catastrophe
of Judaism in immediate connection with the catastrophe of the world. But
though such a view would be conceivable in a national Jewish prophet who
considered Israel and Jerusalem the pivot of the history of the world, there
are very weighty reasons against it in the case of Jesus, apart from
dogmatic considerations. First, that well-attested saying, which as a
confession of Messianic ignorance is proof against suspicion of later
falsification : " The day and the hour knoweth no man, not even the Son"
(Mark xiii. 32 and parallels). This saying cannot be reconciled with the
other which stands naively beside it, "This generation shall not pass away
till all these things shall be fulfilled," by making it mean that Jesus
disclaimed only the power of fixing the year or the day, but approximately
placed it within a generation. Though the editor of the prophetic sayings in
Matt. xxiv., Mark xiii., may have in this way quieted himself about the
contradiction, an interpretation of day and hour so insipid and so alien to
the prophetic style is inconceivable in the mind of Jesus. The conjecture
rather forces itself upon us that the two declarations, which exclude each
other, referred originally to two different objects of prophecy, the words,
" day and hour knoweth no man " to the time of the judgment of the world,
the words " this generation will not pass away " to the time of the
destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus elsewhere deals very differently with the
two future events. He says most decidedly of the judgment of God on
Jerusalem, " it will come upon this generation" (Matt. xxiii. 36). It is to
Him essential that the generation which will fill up the measure of the sins
of the fathers, will also have to taste the full measure of the divine wrath
(cf. Matt. xxiii. 34-39; Luke xi. 50, 51, xiii. 1-9, xxiii. 28-31). But He
Himself speaks quite differently of the end of the world in Matt. xxiv. He
warns against hasty expectations; He insists that wars and rumours of wars,
and the rising of one people against another, by no means signify that the
end is near, and He only allows one fact to be seriously regarded as a sign
of the end, viz. that the gospel has been preached to all nations. Did He
confine the accomplishment of that world-wide task to one generation ? We
have express evidence of the contrary. In the Parable of the Vineyard (Mark
xii. 1-12; Matt. xxi. 33-46; Luke xx. 9-18) it is said in conclusion, "The
lord of the vineyard will miserably destroy those wicked men, and commit his
vineyard to others who will render him the fruits in their season," that is,
to the Gentiles, or the Christian Church detached from the Jewish
commonwealth. And in the Parable of the Marriage Supper of the King's Son,
which immediately follows in Matthew, the rejection of the gospel on the
part of the Jewish authorities passing into open hostility, and the divine
judgment which that calls forth, are described in words which unmistakably
allude to the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxii. 7). But after the
punishment of the " city of murderers " the end, the judgment of the world
does not follow, but messengers are sent forth anew to call in the people
from the streets and lanes, that is, the Gentiles, instead of the unworthy
guests ; and only after this has been done, and the house is full, does the
king come in to see his guests and expel the unworthy; that is, only then
does the judgment of the world begin. According to this, the spirit of Jesus
clearly saw beyond the near judgment of God on Judaism, not the immediate
end of the world, but a growing history both of the world and the Church,
the greatest fact of which should be the calling of the nations of the world
to the kingdom of God. But if that is so, how are we to explain the
traditional form of His utterances about the parousia as set forth above,
which fix His second coming within one generation ? and how are we to
explain the view held by the whole apostolic age ?
§ 6. The Parousia As A Historical
Process
The consideration of this question may perhaps lead us deeper into the
understanding of the thoughts of Jesus about His second coming. The synoptic
tradition has preserved to us a remarkable saying of Jesus before the
Sanhedrim which does not fit into the conception of His second coming as
following close upon the destruction of Jerusalem:
(Matt. xxvi.
64 ; cf. Mark xiv. 62; Luke xxii. 69). In the first place, these
words put beyond doubt what we might have supposed from their prophetic
style and their derivation from Dan. vii. 13, that the second coming of
Jesus in the clouds of heaven is not a visible coming from the visible
heavens. The coming in the clouds of heaven would no more be seen with the
bodily eye than His sitting at the right hand of power. But as the ...
(whose meaning is also confirmed by Luke) refers assuredly to both the
participles dependent on ..., Jesus here describes His coming in the
clouds of heaven as something of which His deadly enemies are to become
sensible, "henceforth," that is, immediately after His apparent defeat, as
something that from the time of His death is to affect the whole history of
the world. When His judges and murderers, the authorities of Israel, are
compelled to note a few weeks after His death that their victory was but a
seeming one, that He who was ignominiously slain by them lives and rules
from heaven, and that He has returned with spiritual power to the world from
which they fondly imagined they had expelled Him for ever, then would they
see Him coming in the clouds of heaven, and sitting at the right hand of
power. This idea of His second coming, so startlingly prominent in this
passage, the thought of it as a triumphant return to the world which had
expelled Him—a return beginning from His death and advancing from victory to
victory—may not, perhaps, have been so clearly and distinctly before the
soul of Jesus from the first. The thought of His second coming in glory was
called up in His soul by the other thought of His shameful death, and so it
may have appeared to Him as belonging to an indefinite but not a remote
future, and embracing, though under a veil, all that should come after His
death to perfect His work on earth; and many of His prophetic words above
alluded to may have been conceived and spoken before this new thought had
fully taken shape. But as He revolved this idea in His mind, and the
historical fulfilment of it came nearer, it became more fully developed and
more distinct, so far as that is possible in a prophetic view; the
indefinite point extends into a line in which a beginning and an end with
something lying between may be distinguished. In other words, Jesus
comprehended the realisation of the kingdom of God, which is generally
represented by the prophets as momentary, like a flash of lightning, rather
as a process of growth, a historical development; and according to the same
law He consciously viewed also the future completion of His work as a course
of history, achieved not in a single act, but in an advancing series of
acts. Testimonies to this may be found also in addresses to the disciples
only inferior in importance to those last words before the Sanhedrim. The
repeated proverbial statement, " Wheresoever the carcass is, there will the
eagles be gathered together," manifestly expresses a general law which is
fulfilled in the history of the world, not once but again and again ; and
the way in which Jesus (Luke xvii. 37) answers the question of the
disciples, irot), Kvpie, that is, where will Thy coming to judgment
be ? with this general law, gives the meaning, wherever there is anything
ripe for judgment. With that agrees, further, His speaking of the days of
the Son of Man in the plural (Luke xvii. 22). The rjfiepai
Tov viov
Tov dvdpa>irov,
of which the disciples in their future applications would fain see even one,
cannot, according to grammar and context, be the past days of the Messiah on
earth, but must be the future judicial rjfiepa in the plural. And
this attests the presentiment of Jesus, that more than one judgment day of
God and of His anointed is coming ; that the future history of the world
will be filled with such epochs, in which the triumphant glory of the Son of
Man, and the impotence and nothingness of all world-powers coming into
conflict with Him, will be made clear. Certain main elements of that future
course of history must now have stood out prominently in the consciousness
of Jesus; the triumphant issuing of His life from death, and its immediate
entrance into the life of His Church; further, His triumph in the world,
Judaism breaking down before Him on the one hand, and heathendom opening
itself to Him on the other; lastly, the final overcoming of all powers
opposed to God, of evil and death, and the setting up of God's eternal
kingdom. All these essential elements of His triumphant progress, in which,
stage after stage, the world opposed to God is judged, were wrapped up as in
a seed in Jesus' simplest view of His coming; all could be conceived and
predicted under this one name. But, under the conditions of all prophecy,
each stage was not seen as something apart, they were felt and described as
so many phases of the whole according to the suggestion of the moment. And
this made the description necessarily imperfect, and even the sense of words
was not always the same." (201)
The Apocalypse of the Gospels
1.
Authenticity And Difficulties
These very difficulties have recently driven men to the declaration that a
great part of these eschatological discourses of Jesus is not genuine. It
has become a favourite assumption among critical theologians that especially
the prophetic discourse in Matt. xxiv. and its parallels did not in large
measure originate with Jesus Himself; it is a short
apocalypse, which, arising in the troubles before the Jewish war, was
attributed to the divine (Luke xi. 49), and so to Jesus Himself, and thus
came to find a place in the Gospels which were then taking shape.1
This hypothesis has really nothing to support it; that short
apocalypse is a mere production of the
critical imagination; no evidence of its existence can be found. But even if
it had existed it would still be inconceivable how in a circle possessed of
a first-hand tradition of Jesus' words Jewish predictions of quite recent
origin could at once have been accepted for genuine sayings of Jesus, and
been incorporated into the Christian Gospels then being formed. The
essential contents of the great prophetic discourse, Matt. xxiv., Mark
xiii., Luke xxi., belong to the original document common to our Gospels,
which must have been composed about the beginning of the Jewish war (cf.
Mark xiii. 14; Matt. xxiv. 25). Other prophetic sayings, contained in the
first and third Gospels, manifestly sprang from the apostolic collection of
sayings, and therefore the descent of the synoptic prophetic addresses from
Jesus' own lips is certified on as good authority as the Parables of the
Kingdom or the Sermon on the Mount. The difficulties which they present to
us in their traditional form must be solved in another manner and by other
means than by cutting the knot, which, besides, would not remove all
difficulties. They must be solved, above
all, by
remembering the peculiarity of all prophecy, and by considering how
imperfect must be the prophet's own view and expression, and how imperfect
also must be the hearers' comprehension and report of it. We must apply to
the predictions of Jesus what Paul says of the necessary limits of all
prophecy (1 Cor. xiii. 9-12); it is not a seeing face to face, but a seeing
in a glass; from it, therefore, no perfect knowledge can spring, nothing but
a child's thought in comparison with a man's. Even He was, in regard to the
future, a prophet looking in order to learn, not God who knows all; and this
He Himself expressly acknowledged in the words, too little considered, " The
day and the hour knoweth no man, not even the Son, but the Father only "
(Mark xiii. 32 ; Matt. xxiv. 36). The prophet does not see the shape of the
future development, but only its idea and ideal truth; and even this he does
not see as an abstract thinker, but as an inspired poet; he sees it in
emblem and image, or rather, in a changing series of images, always in a
riddle, as Paul says. An artist who paints the resurrection of the dead and
the last judgment knows that his form is unreal, but takes it as the only
form in which he can represent an idea which he believes to be true; and the
prophet is subject to the same law. And if he does not write his visions
down, but tells them, as Jesus did, on various occasions, and using
different images, to disciples who are children in apprehension, it is
evident that, however faithful the disciples are, the repetition will lead
to new imperfections and errors. These errors may be corrected to-day, and
the ideas contained in the images may be known, but the actual facts of the
future we can no more describe than Jesus Himself could.
"In the same way may be solved the riddle of the number 666, which the
author propounded, at the close of chap. xiii., as the " number of a man,"
that is, a number whose letters yield a man's name. The two interpretations
most worthy of notice are \aтeîvoч and nerón caesar, according
as we take the number as written in Greek or Hebrew letters ; and presumably
both are right. The author undoubtedly sought a double allusion in the
number, which in itself was symbolical, for six is the antithesis to the
sacred number seven, and 666 is therefore the intensified opposition to the
Holy One ; there is an allusion to the universal dominion of Róme, and to
the person of the Emperor Nero, just as in chap. xvii . Now, if this be the
key to the riddle of the Apocalypse, it is
manifest that the author has erred in his interpretation of the signs of the
time. The crisis of the years 68-70 passed without issuing in the judgment
of the world, as the seer imagined : Nero did not return from hell, and
Jesus did not come down visibly from heaven." (Vol.
2, p. 352)
Train Of Thought From
Chap. i.-ix.
The marvellous structure of the book unfolds itself from this standpoint.
First of all, we now understand the " speedily," which runs through the book
from its first sentence to its last (i. 1, xxii. 20), and which it is the
grossest perversion to interpret into " within a thousand years." Further,
the seer writes of things which he expects as near at hand, not, of course,
to gratify curiosity, but to prepare Christendom for the last and hardest
conflict. Hence the introductory vision and the Epistjes to the seven
Churches. The seer dedicates his book to the seven Churches which are in "
Asia " ; that is, in Western Asia Minor, near to which he himself
undoubtedly dwelt, and in which, as representative of the whole of
Christendom, he sees its condition as in seven different colours. The
exalted Christ, " who walks among the seven golden candlesticks, and holds
the seven stars in His right hand," the Lord of the Church (i. 16), has
given him this revelation for the seven Churches, and impresses it on each
of them in a special Epistle (i. 1—3, 22). After this introduction the seer
translates his readers to the higher world, which, in spite of contrary
appearances, has in its power the destiny of the earthly and historical ; he
shows us the glory of the eternal God in heaven throned above the cherubim,
the symbol of creation praising God, surrounded by the four and twenty
elders, presumably the representatives of the Old and New Testament Churches
of God, and celebrated by the united songs of both (chap. iv.). In the right
hand of God lies a book with seven seals, the final course of the world's
history not yet unfolded ; no one can open it but the Lamb, which, as slain
and yet alive, and endowed with the symbols of spiritual omnipresence and
royal power, stands midway between the throne of God and the worshipping
creatures ; the Saviour of the world slain in sacrifice and raised to divine
glory, who, as Saviour of the world is also its Judge, can alone open the
seals of the future, that is, carry out the decrees of God to the end (chap.
v.). The Lamb opens the first six seals, and each time at His call its
meaning in history appears. The preliminary signs of the world's judgment,
which have already begun, appear in these six seals ; and of them it is said
(Matt. xxiv. 6-8) : " All these are the beginning of sorrows." First, we
have a vision of riders copied from the sixth chapter of Zechariah. The
first rider on a white horse, with bow that can send its arrows far, is
perhaps the symbol of the universal mission of the gospel in its course of
victory (Matt. xxiv. 14). The others on a red, a black, and a pale horse,
signify war, famine, and pestilence, mournful signs of the government of
Caligula and Claudius, of which also Matt. xxiv. 6, 7 reminds us. As the
contents of the fifth seal appear a multitude of martyrs, who cry to heaven
for vengeance, without doubt the symbol of the Neronic persecution ; as the
contents of the sixth a mighty earthquake appears, the natural image of the
political earthquake of the year 68, when, with the death of Nero and
revolution everywhere, the Roman Empire seemed to be falling in pieces
(chap. vi.). This brings us to the time of the seer, and his seventh seal
contains the last things, which were still future for him. But before it is
opened, the storms of the end, desiring to break loose, are restrained for a
moment, in order to comfort the elect of God on earth about all the fearful
things that are coming ; the twelve times twelve thousand servants of God,
that is, the full number of the people of the New Testament covenant, are
sealed. A second picture immediately added shows what that means; an
innumerable company of conquerors stand triumphantly around the throne of
God singing praises ; "they have passed through great tribulation, and have
washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb " ; that is,
sanctified by Christ's blood, they have passed victoriously from the last
conflict to eternal glory. This, and not an outward preservation in the
coming great tribulation, is the meaning of the sealing ; it is the
symbolical presentation of the thought of Jesus (Matt. xxiv. 22), that the
elect cannot possibly be overwhelmed by the terrors of the last day. And now
the seventh seal is opened : it again unfolds in seven trumpets, the
signals, the immediate signs of the judgment of the world. The prayers of
the saints on earth are in heaven converted into fire of the divine wrath
against their oppressors (viii. 3-5), and so a series of penal judgments
break over the impenitent world at the trumpet blasts of judgment,
which—still in the future even for the seer— could only be described in a
purely fanciful form as monstrous events of nature and of history. The first
four trumpets bring terrible phenomena of nature ; the fifth, after the Old
Testament example (Joel ii.), a plague of locusts ; the sixth, an inroad of
barbarians fierce as fiends, a Scythian invasion of the cultivated world
(chap. ix.). Before the seventh and last trumpet, the seer again pauses. It
again should be divided into seven thunders, into the seven thunderbolts of
the world's judgment ; but these thunders are " sealed up and not
described." Instead of that there is given to the seer a little book opened
to devour ; that is (cf. Ezek. iii. 1-3), a new summary of revelation is
given for him to appropriate, pleasant to receive, but hard to master. In
this remarkable and obscure phrase the seer probably means to mark his
passage from the prophecy, with its numerical symbols, to another and a
freer form. He must leave that scheme of symbolic seven, because he could
not in that form clearly and suitably express the circumstances and events
of the immediate future which he had at heart, and so he makes a new start.
§ 4. TRAIN OF THOUGHT FROM CHAP. X.-XXH.
He begins by introducing the parties concerned in the final history. In the
first place, he is careful to announce the special fate of Israel in the
approaching catastrophe of the world's history. The Roman legions were
already treading the Holy Land, and surrounding Jerusalem ; the eyes of
Christendom were turned to the fortunes of the city. Hence the seer in the
eleventh chapter anticipated the future of Israel from the siege of
Jerusalem up to the catastrophe of the world's judgment. The outer court
will be given up to the heathen, not the sanctuary ; that is, probably, the
outer form and constitution of the Jewish nationality will be broken up, but
not the kernel of the nation and its religious character. On the contrary,
God will send two great preachers of repentance, another Moses and Elias, to
call the people to repentance. These will indeed fall a sacrifice to the
"beast," the Antichrist, who is to appear ; but God will gloriously raise
them from death, and then, in a second penal judgment (the " second woe,"
the first was under Vespasian and Titus), the greater part of the nation
will be converted immediately before the last trump, that is, before the
appearance of the catastrophe of the world's judgment, and with it the "
third woe " (xi. 14-19). The seer applies his thought to the world only
after this separate prophecy about Israel, in which, of course, he
anticipates in a measure his universal revelation of the future. In the
first place, he sketches the two main powers opposed, between whom must fall
the final decision of the world's history : the kingdom of God, and the
kingdom of the old dragon, the prince of this world. The first, conceived in
forms taken both from Old and New Testament, is presented in the image of
that star-crowned woman, who is clothed with the sun of divine revelation.
She has given birth to the Messiah, against whom the old dragon has risen to
devour Him : he has not succeeded, the child of God has been caught up into
heaven, and Satan cast down from heaven. Hence the decision between God and
Satan has already in principle been reached ; Satan has been hurled from his
heavenly throne by that which Messiah has done on earth, especially by His
suffering and death (xii. 11); the dark power which accuses man day and
night before God, the power of evil that rules the world, is essentially
conquered. But on earth the power of him who has been cast out of heaven is
still, for я short time, great, and he gives vent to his rage at his
ejection in persecuting the kingdom of God and its members, the brethren of
Jesus (chap. xii.). As instrument of this rage he calls forth from the abyss
the counterpart of the woman clothed with the sun and her divine Son, the "
beast," which means at once the Roman Empire in its complete hostility to
Christ, íind its wicked head, the returning Nero. The thirteenth chapter
pictures the time of terror that is at hand under this Antichrist ; his
world-wide power, his blasphemous self-deification, his cruel persecution of
the children of God, his union with the lying prophets, that is, the
seductive arts of heathen wisdom and magic ; finally, the enforcing of His
divine worship aud its emblem, the mark in forehead and hand. But—the
fourteenth chapter continues—the Church of the chosen hundred and forty and
four thousand stand on the mount of salvation closely gathered round their
Saviour, the name of their Lord and their heavenly Father in their forehead,
and sing a song of victory which none but the elect can learn. They come
forth from the last tribulation spotless, with virgin purity, amid all the
temptations of the world, victorious over all its terrors in following the
Lamb of God. When antichristian wickedness and the oppression of the Church
reach their height, the judgment comes. In the remainder of the fourteenth
chapter this thought is impressed upon the readers in every way both for
warning and comfort ; by calling on the whole world to repent, by announcing
the first act of judgment to be executed on Babylon or Rome, by a sharp
warning against following the tyranny of the Antichrist, and by extolling
those who resist unto blood. Whereupon the judgment of the world itself, the
return of the Son of Man with sickle and pruning knife, is announced in
figures taken from the corn and wine harvest; and in connection with Isa.
Ixiii., the wine-press in particular, with its crimson juice, is employed as
the emblem of the slaughter that is to be expected. But all these are merely
incidental hints ; the real picture of the world's judgment begins with
chap. xv., and with it the prophetic poet turns back to his solemn scheme of
seven. The history of Israel's deliverance from Egypt serves him for a
poetic example. While Christians stand on the shore of this new Red Sea, the
sea of the revelation of divine wrath, and sing the triumphant song of
victory, " the song of Moses " translated into that of the New Testament,
the streams of divine wrath in seven vials are poured over the kingdom of
the antitypical Pharaoh, the Antichrist. The first five vials repeat the
plagues of Egypt in an intensified form. But the sixth bears a new and
peculiar character; it represents the enormous military expedition from
beyond the Euphrates, which was undertaken by the kings of the East in the
service of the Antichrist of Nero redivivus, against apostate Rome ;
and the seventh vial of wrath under the image of a fearful earthquake, with
lightnings,—the emblem of a world-wide catastrophe, already employed in vi.
12 f.,—brings the expected destruction by burning of the capital, which is
the revenge of the incendiary Nero. The seventeenth chapter dwells on the
execution of this first act of the world's judgment, and shows the full
reason of it in the shameless image of the great courtesan, and at the same
time gives the readers hints for understanding it; and the eighteenth,
following Old Testament examples, pictures the lamentations of the world
over Rome's perished glory. With the nineteenth chapter these lamentations
give place to a song of jubilation over the victory of the kingdom of God on
earth ; for now the kingly Christ on a white horse comes forth from the
opened heaven with His heavenly hosts against the Antichrist triumphing over
Rome, and in the decisive slaughter already announced (xiv. 19, 20), the
hosts of Antichrist are annihilated, but he himself with his lying prophets
are taken captive and thrown into the hell of condemnation. That is the
second act of the world's judgment : in place of the world-kingdom which was
opposed to God appears the victorious kingdom of Christ, the Messianic
dominion of the world, which is to endure a thousand years, and to
comprehend all faithful members of the militant Church, both those who are
alive and those who are to be raised from death. But even this thousand
years' kingdom of Christ is not the completion. The evil one is bound during
these thousand years, but is not yet annihilated ; the elements of a final
attack of the old dragon on the kingdom of God still exist. At the end of
the thousand years Satan is loosed, and leads the mythical nations, "Gog and
Magog," from the ends of the earth (Ezek. xxxviii.-xxxix.) against the
kingdom of Christ, the " holy city." Therefore a third and last act of the
world's judgment is required ; God Himself enters the arena against the old
dragon and annihilates him, together with his accomplice death. Then follows
the general resurrection of the dead and the final judgment of men, which is
again followed by the transformation of heaven and earth, the setting up of
the ideally perfect world. The seer hastens rapidly over the thousand years'
kingdom of Christ to this eternal kingdom of the Father (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 28),
for the delineation of which he has reserved his brightest colours and his
sweetest tones. What has ever been the ideal of faith and hope comes down
from heaven to earth, the tabernacle of God among the children of men, the "
heavenly Jerusalem," and the wonderful book closes with the sublime
delineation of this symbol of the blessed fellowship of the redeemed with
God." (Vol. 2, pp. 356-359)
"Some recent critics, who suppose that the best way of removing obscurities
in Scripture is by dismemberment, have sought to change this masterpiece of
early Christian prophetic poetry into a patchwork from different hands and
times. In one case we have two fragments from the years 66 and 68, which
were afterwards supplemented on three distinct occasions, under Trajan,
Hadrian, and Antoninus ; another views it as entirely a Jewish book, to
which a Christian writer supplied the seven Epistles, and which he revised
with small interpolations; again, a Christian
Apocalypse of the year 70, and two Jewish Apocalypses of the time of
Pompey and Caligula, have been brought together in one work by a redactor at
the end of the century, etc. We may fairly disregard these so-called
discoveries of a bewildered ingenuity, because each of the critics in
question refutes his predecessor, in order to be immediately again convicted
of an illusion by discoveries entirely different. [Cf.
the instructive analysis of the Apocalypse in
Pfeiderer's Urchristenthum, pp. 318-355, which rests upon what was at
that time the most recent hypothesis of dismemberment, viz. Vischer's
and my Essay against the treatise of Vischer (Stud. Krit.
1888, 1).] Even apart from this, a
critical hypothesis which makes a book historically meaningless — and every
Apocalypse which mixes up different
conditions and times is meaningless—is not a solution of any difficulties ;
on the other hand, the exhibition of a uniform artistic formation of our
book proves the unity of its origin and authorship. No doubt the author of
the Apocalypse had his models and
predecessors both among the Old Testament prophets whom we know and the New
Testament prophets whom we do not know. Both thoughts and forms were at his
disposal when an exalted hour of prophetic conception suggested to him,
under the influence of the awful condition of the world, the main features
of his book. But from this uniform conception he has shaped everything with
an independent mind, and with marvellous artistic skill. If the only date
which explains all its difficulties is the year of Nero's death, the year
68, as we think we have proved, then its genuineness is beyond question ;
and the only question that remains is as to who the John was who, living in
the circle of the seven Churches of Asia Minor, and well known to them,
composed it. There is nothing to favour John Marcus (Acts xii. 25), whom
some moderns have adopted ; for there is no proof that he was a prophet, or
that he had relations with the Churches of Asia Minor, and antiquity knows
nothing of his having written anything except the reminiscences of Peter
described by Papias. Far more likely is the conjecture of Dionysius of
Alexandria, that the author is John, who is mentioned in a fragment
of Papias alongside of the Apostle John as a personal disciple of Jesus, and
who is likewise said to have lived at Ephesus. It may be urged in favour of
this that the writer of the Apocalypse does
not describe himself as an apostle, but rather seems to count himself among
the " prophets," and to distinguish himself from the apostles whose names he
makes the foundation-stones of the heavenly Jerusalem (cf. xviii. 20, xix.
10, xxi. 14, xxii. 9). All, therefore, who are convinced of the apostolic
composition of the Gospel of John, and yet regard it as impossible to
ascribe both writings to the same author, gladly fall back on this
conjecture of John the Presbyter. Yet it cannot be denied that it has a very
weak foundation. It is a hypothesis, and not a tradition ; it conjectures a
man of whom, apart from his existence, we know next to nothing ; while the
sojourn of the Apostle John in Ephesus belongs to the best attested facts of
Christian antiquity, and it is opposed by the unanimous tradition, which,
even in its Patmos legend, describes this apostle as the author of the
Apocalypse. It is particularly difficult to
accuse of error and misunderstanding the testimony of Justin, who lived so
near the time, and of Iremeus, who was so well instructed by his teacher
Polycarp about the apostle. It cannot be maintained аs impossible that the
Apostle John, when he spoke as a prophet, should reckon himself among the "
prophets," and yet that he should be so proud of the immortal privilege
which the Lord had bestowed upon him in receiving him into the number of the
Twelve, as to see in spirit his name written on one of the twelve
foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem. The difference, both in language and
mode of thought (the latter especially in prophetic things), which
undeniably exists between the two writings has more weight with one who
cannot gainsay the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel. Yet a man of such
historical and literary taste as Karl Hase regarded it as possible to
conceive both as productions of the same man at different stages of his life
; and even Baur has insisted on a certain affinity between the
Apocalypse and the Gospel of John. The
difference of language is to some extent explained by the difference of the
poetic and the historical style, and especially by the effort of the writer
of the Apocalypse to imitate many solemn
Hebrew formulas in Hebraic and incorrect Greek ; besides, it is easy to
understand that a native of Palestine, transferred from Jerusalem to
Ephesus, would write a purer Greek after twenty years' sojourn among the
Greeks than in the first years of his settlement. But as to the different
mode of thought about prophetic things, it may be asked whether the
destruction of Jerusalem and the period which followed, disappointing the
early notion of the parousia, might not have urged such a man as the Apostle
John to a reconstruction of his prophetic ideas, to a new and more spiritual
understanding of the Lord's words about His second coming, such as we have
in the farewell discourses of the Gospel and in the first Epistle, as
compared with the Apocalypse. Yet the
contrast between the Apocalypse and the
Fourth Gospel is hardly so great as that, for example, between Goethe's
first drama and his Iphigenia, and yet the same man wrote both at
different stages of his life. The Apostle John, whether judged by the
Apocalypse or by the Gospel, was, at any
rate, one of the profoundest minds of early Christianity, and the meagreness
of our knowledge of this extraordinary personality must restrain us
from questioning his ability on this or that side. For all that, the
difference between the Apocalypse and the
rest of the Johannine writings is so great, and the question of authorship
so unsettled, that we must consider them for biblical theology separately,
as even though the author should be the same, they give expression to a
different view of the world. And this makes the question of authorship of
little importance for our present task.
The poetic and prophetic character of the book involves that we are not to
seek in it developed doctrinal ideas, but only intuitions—for the most part
symbolical. For that very reason it is impossible for anyone to expound the
Apocalypse aright without some poetic feeling
and taste. For the true prophet is a true poet, only he is not moved by his
own ;esthetic ideas, but by religious ideas sent to him from God : and the
writer of the Apocalypse in particular, as
the whole arrangement and execution of his work shows, is a poet of the most
magnificent and conscious kind. But exegesis has sinned against him to an
incredible extent, and at the same time has accumulated unanswerable riddles
in his book by always taking in sober earnest the forms of poetry.
Nevertheless, important and peculiar doctrinal ideas are implied in the
symbolico-poetic views of the book, and still more in its occasional
dogmatic indications. " (Vol. 2, pp. 359-362)
WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID
William Rainey Harper
"New Testament Theology. Historical Account of the Teaching of
Jesus and of Primitive Christianity according to the New Testament
Sources. By DR. WILLIBALD BEYSCHLAG, Professor of Theology at Halle.
Translated by REV. NEIL BUCHANAN. T. & T. Clark, 1895.
Professor Beyschlag in this, as he
tells us, his life-work, treats of the teaching of Jesus according to
the synoptists and according to the Gospel of John ; the views of the
first apostle, according to the Acts, the epistles of James and Peter ;
the Pauline system (flesh and spirit, Adam and Christ, God and the
world, the establishment of salvation, the way of salvation, the life in
the spirit, the Christian church, the consummation of the kingdom); the
theology of Hebrews ; and Johannine conceptions. In this review we are
concerned only with the author's presentation of the teaching of Jesus.
The contemporaneous Judaistic didactic ideas are in no way
"indispensable to the understanding of the teaching of Jesus .... quite
apart from the fact that we have not sufficient sources at our command
to gain a clear conception of the state of pre-Christian ideas of the
time." Is the teaching of Jesus, or the doctrine about Christ,
Christianity? The author occupies a mediating position as to this
question, maintaining that the teaching has for its background a unique
self-consciousness, the incomparable significance of his person, the
latter rather than the teaching as such, accomplishing the founding of
the kingdom of God. Jesus did not come into the world to preach the
kingdom of God simply, but that there might be a kingdom of God to
preach.
But what is meant by the kingdom of
God, or of heaven? "The kingdom of God in the perfect original order of
things which has its home in heaven, in order to come down thence and
realize itself on earth, — that ideal condition which humanity and
history are to reach, that God may in his inmost essence, as eternal
spirit and holy love, fill all and condition all that is in the world,"
p. 43. Its historical root was theocracy imperfectly realized in the
land of promise, more vividly in the view of the prophets as the ideal
picture of the future, but a theocracy the hope of whose realization on
earth sank lower and lower, till Israel's eyes were raised to heaven in
the hope of seeing what they longed for coming thence. There is a
striking contrast between the conceptions of the kingdom held even by
John and Jesus. John makes the kingdom act immediately in the way of
blessing or condemning; "his preaching demands conversion, but only
demands it, and therefore drowns the sweet sounds of promise by the
thunders of approaching judgment."
Jesus regards it from the first as his
mission not to condemn but to save. Not the axe and the fire and the
winnowing fan, but the condescending love of God, in virtue of which the
spiritually poor may become divinely rich, is, rather, the
characteristic trend in the Master's thought. The apparent contradiction
between the view of the kingdom as at hand and as yet to be, Beyschlag
resolves at length by reference to progressiveness and growth. As to the
personal relation of Jesus to the idea of the' kingdom, he was conscious
of bearing in himself personally that very thing which he desired to set
up in the world. What, then, was Jesus' thought of himself ? From the
beginning of his public ministry he was conscious that he was the
Messiah.
This was the presupposition of all his
preaching, but he did not utter the name, nor allow others to do so,
till a late period. The motive for this remarkable procedure is to be
found in the gulf that lay between the popular idea of the Messiah and
his own Messianic consciousnesses well as between the popular idea of
the kingdom and his own. " If Jesus from the first had thrown the
exciting name among the people, he would have called forth the most
fatal misunderstandings and excitements." He must first beget a purer,
higher, more spiritual idea of the Messiah, in the mirror of which he
might be recognized as the Coming One. But, avoiding the name Messiah,
he gave in lieu thereof the name Son of Man. How is this to be
interpreted ?
By this term Jesus did not mean to
describe his human nature, nor to declare thereby that his human
existence is miraculous, a form of existence not original to him
(against Meyer), nor to set himself forth as the ideal man (against
Schleiermacher, Neander, Reuss), nor to show that nothing human was
foreign to himself (against Baur), nor to emphasize thereby his being a
son — referring to the seed of the woman — the protevangel (against
Cremer); but he meant by this expression, furnished him by the
well-known passage in Daniel, that he was "the God-invested bearer of
the kingdom that descends from above," l., p. 67. But not this name, but
the name Son of God leads us into the heart of the self-consciousness of
Jesus.
As the name Son of Man designated his
office and calling, so the name Son of God designated his personal
consciousness. He is God's beloved and God's likeness. He was conscious
that he was Son of God before he knew himself to be the Messiah.
Jesus regarded the divine sonship as
resting on inner moral likeness to God, but in his case unique because
absolute. Yet, inasmuch as the Son of God cannot be God Himself, we
should not in any way confuse the name Son of God with the later name "
God the Son," uttered in the doctrine of the church, —
a name which sprang from an entirely different world of ideas. Jesus had
no feeling of consubstantiality with God. His was a purely human
consciousness, — yet sinless. What was Jesus' thought of God ? Beyschlag
controverts the position of Weiss (N. T. Theol. l., p. 64) that Jesus
had no new idea of God to announce, as his God was simply the God of the
Old Testament.
One of his apostles made his whole
gospel consist in the revelation of a new and perfect idea of God (i
John 1:5). Jesus first stamped the name Father as one proper to God, and
meant to express thereby a purely personal relation that has no equal, —
holy love. What was Jesus' conception of man ? Recognizing the two
factors, body and soul, flesh and spirit, Jesus saw in ethical
personality man's capacity for immortality. Jesus presupposes the
universality of sin. The best need to be converted. Continuance in sin
means the irrevocable ruin of the inner man. What was Jesus' doctrine of
righteousness ? Here the author's thought is rich indeed, and one
despairs of adequately expressing it. God is rAtios in the ethical
sense, hence the preaching of the kingdom is a preaching of the way of
righteousness. In the teaching of Jesus this exacting side is fuller
than even the announcement of grace. He even amended the law of Moses,
repudiating parts of it. His " fulfilment " of law was didactic. His
religious ethics rest on love to God and love to man. In reference to
the latter, while the duty of rebuke goes with that of placability and
forgiveness, the duty of love to forgive remains even where there is no
apology or change of mind. Jesus does not make so much of the former,
yet it is the background of all his teaching here. What is Jesus'
doctrine of salvation ? " Rationalism, in turning back from the doctrine
of the church, which was based essentially on Paul, to Jesus' own
plainer gospel, received the impression that this gospel is essentially
a system of ethics." This is not the case, else we had therein, not
gospel, but law more penetrating, more cheerless, more exacting than
ever. Jesus presented the kingdom of heaven as salvation. The doctrine
of righteousness merges into a doctrine of salvation. The way of
salvation through calling and election, conversion and forgiveness,
sonship and sanctification, is worked out at length.
As to the saving significance of
Christ's death, Beyschlag has no comfort for the traditional dogmatists.
On Matthew 22:28, he remarks: .... "The traditional doctrine of
vicarious satisfaction, as may be readily conceived, is imported into
these words the more confidently, that it for once finds here the
indispensable drrl peculiarto it, which is wanting in almost all the
rest of the New Testament." This is best explained by the image of
redemption from slavery,- in this passage slavery to sin. Jesus cannot
have thought of paying the debt of death due by others, by enduring
death for them, because by the presupposition that God neither can nor
will be gracious or forgive without a Xtfr-fov, he would have destroyed
everything he had up till then taught of the free grace of God, and the
forgiveness which depends only on the sinner's return," pp. 152 ff. The
author's chapters on the church are of deep interest, but we refrain
from remark, save to note that Jesus came not simply to redeem the
individual, but society.
Space will not permit our following the author farther. We return in
conclusion to his point of view. He properly expects New Testament
theology to rejuvenate dogmatics. But it seems to us that, while his own
contribution is masterful and real indeed, his treatment of the subject
is colored by his own dogmatic preconceptions. To this criticism he
replies, however, in his preface. " History is not chronicles," he says,
" but living reproduction of the past, and therefore must be to some
extent subjective." This is of course true ; and his biblical theology
does not merge into biblical dogmatics, as has been charged. But at
times his allusions to systems of doctrine are more than incidental, —
so much so that "the scientific impartiality and objectivity of his
historical account" is disturbed by them. Apparently, e.g. he goes out
of his way to oppose the Ritschlians, pp. 6-8. G. B. F." (The Biblical
World)
|