The teaching of Jesus

Front matter

CORNIiLL

UNI VI' RSI I ^

LIBRARY t;iF|- OF

Author's Preface To The English Edition

It affords me great pleasure to see my work on the teaching of Jesus thus appearing in an EngHsh translation ; and I have to tender my warmest thanks to the publishers and the translator for the care and pains they have bestowed upon this edition of my work. At the same time, I wish briefly to indicate, for the English reader, the interest which prompted me in the prosecution of my task, and which, I hope, this work may awaken, and in some measure satisfy, in the minds of others.

My interest in the historical treatment of the teaching of Jesus arises from the conviction that the historical Jesus Christ, in His annunciation, by word and deed, of the kingdom of God, was the perfect revelation of God for men ; and from the desire that this conviction may, more than ever heretofore, have practical sway in the scientific study and the popular dissemination of Christian truth. The teaching of the Founder of the Christian religion must, with entire consistency, be employed as the standard for testing all Church doctrine and tradition ; the highest authority must be accorded to it in regulating our own practical Christian life as well as Christian doctrine.

VOL. I. A

I am firmly persuaded that a resolute return to the teaching of Jesus Himself will be the most powerful and efficient means of promoting and strengthening the Christian religion in our time, and making it clear and intelligible.

The view that the historical teaching of Jesus Christ was the perfect revelation of God for men, has been always theoretically recognised in the Christian Church, and has had its place assigned it in dogmatic teaching in regard to the prophetic office of Christ. The necessary practical application of this view, however, has been cramped on the part of Catholicism by the theory of the infallible authority of Church teaching, and of Protestantism by the theory of the normative authority of the Holy Scriptures for Christian doctrine. Where the Holy Scriptures, as a whole, are regarded as expressing the immediate revelation of God, the sayings and discourses of Jesus are indeed viewed as part of the contents of Scripture ; but there is no definite reason for emphasising their specific pre-eminence over the other contents of Scripture. Even Paul has in reality had a much greater Influence in moulding the form of Christian doctrine in Protestantism than Jesus Himself. I will not here speak of the difficulties with which the old orthodox theory of the mechanical inspiration of Holy Scriptures is attended. Every one who really knows Scripture, will recognise that historical human factors were concerned In the production of Its particular parts, and that there are gradations of religious value in the different parts. Such a one will, accordingly, judge that, in setting up Holy Scripture as the standard for Christian doctrine, a distinction must be made between the different parts or sides of the contents of Scripture. But where shall we find the sure principle for making such a distinction ? If, passing from particulars, we sought to distinguish between the essential and non-essential, the "spirit" and the " letter," an open door would be offered for subjective caprice. Also, no ecclesiastical formula of doctrine, of greater or less extent, and of older or more modern date, could furnish us wath a sure principle of distinction, since the question, whether such a regula fidei represented in a full and authentic way the contents of Christian doctrine, would require to be ever anew tested by an independent examination of Scripture. The one sure authorised principle of such a distinction is furnished by Jesus Christ Himself, if we recognise in His teaching concerning the kingdom of God the highest and perfect revelation of God. The question, how much of the component elements of the Old Testament revelation has permanent value for the Christian Church, must ever be decided by the agreement or disagreement of the Old Testament ideas with the teaching of Jesus. But even the judgment, that the ideas of Paul and James or any other New Testament writer are of standard authority for Christian doctrine, must, in the last instance, be justified by indicating their agreement with the teaching of Jesus. So far as it may be found opposed to this teaching, the authority of Paul must yield to the higher of Jesus Christ, whose servant and apostle he was.

By such a mode of view, the evangelical recognition of the unique significance of Holy Scripture will not be impaired, but rather, firmly established. For Scripture, both in the Old and New Testament, contains a collection of documents from which alone we learn to recognise as authentic, and historically to understand, the revelation given in Jesus Christ. But the Holy Scriptures are not directly and indiscriminately the highest standard for our Christian doctrine ; but the real touchstone is the teaching of Jesus which is borne witness to in the Holy Scriptures. This norm really combines in Itself the excellences which traditional evangelical dogmatics ascribe to the Scriptures, but which cannot be shown to belong to the whole contents of Scripture indiscriminately. The teaching of Jesus is a unity, definite and complete, giving incomparable instruction in all that pertains to our saving intercourse with God ; it is of transparent simplicity even for an unlettered and childlike intelligence ; and it attests Its own Divine truth and value immediately to our consciousness without needing to be accredited by an external authority.

If we are In earnest, however, in taking the teaching of Jesus as the highest standard for our own Christianity and our own Christian preaching, we have the highest interest In learning it with historical accuracy. We must endeavour to attain a knowledge of its authentic contents, not according to later tradition, but according to the oldest and best sources. We must seek to know Its complete contents, not merely in its main outlines, but also in its organic connection and its particular details. We must seek to know Its pure form, not only as unmixed with the dogmatic and ethical teaching of later Christian times, but even with the apostolic system of doctrine. This is what the present work aims at giving : an authentic, complete, unmixed knowledge of the historical elements of the teaching of Jesus.

I beg the reader to approach my work with the inclination to believe that I have honestly striven to my utmost to present the teaching of Jesus just as it was historically formed, and that I have neither set aside nor intentionally obscured anything that might be inconvenient to myself, nor have added anything in order to favour my own opinions. I know well that one who has deeply settled convictions of Christian truth, and who holds a certain form of systematic treatment and defence of Christian doctrine as the right one, finds it difficult to keep himself quite free from prejudice in regard to the historical treatment of the mode of view of Jesus. I also may have fallen short in my task in many ways. But I have not failed at least in the honest attempt at a historical understanding of the subject.

But I must beg the reader on his side to place himself from the outset at the purely historical standpoint, and not merely seek, with traditional dogmatic formulas, to answer the problems laid down by the development of later ecclesiastical dogmas. This request I make expressly with reference to the section in which I give an account of the Messianic self-consciousness of Jesus. It might be shown with little trouble that many selected expressions of Jesus, especially in the Johannine discourses, if considered apart by themselves, can, according to the tenor of the words, be accommodated to the positions of dogmatic Christology. But if we are in earnest in taking the teaching of Jesus as our authoritative standard for dogmatics, we must not deal so lightly with the task. We must seek to understand the particular sayings of Jesus according to the connection in which they occur, and according to His whole mode of view. We must resolve, after having in this way attained the true sense in which Jesus estimated Himself as Messiah, to make this the touchstone of the traditional dogmatic Christology. Therefore we must set out with the assurance that, at all events, Jesus thought in the truest, worthiest and highest way of Himself, and that we cannot estimate Him too low if we adopt the mode of view which He Himself sought to impart to His disciples. I am convinced that whoever will consider in an attentive, unbiassed way the statements of Jesus concerning Himself as I have set them forth, and will ponder them in an unprejudiced way, will perceive that the estimate of the truly Divine character and unique significance for salvation of Jesus Christ which the Church strives to maintain, will not In this way be subverted, but the better and more deeply established.

Whoever will deal historically with the teaching of Jesus must first answer the preliminary question, if our Gospels are without distinction of equal value as sources for that teaching, or if a discrimination must be made among their component parts between what is of earlier and later tradition, of which only the former can be made the groundwork of the historical treatment. As I could, in answering this question, not simply appeal to the results of Gospel Criticism arrived at by others, I have given in the first part of my work an independent critical investigation of the sources of the Gospel narratives, in order to present to the reader the precise grounds of my use of the Gospels. I greatly regret that this independent critical part of my work has not been included in the English translation. Certainly for many readers the brief summary of the results of my critical examination, which I have given in the introductory section of this book, will be sufficient. But I would very urgently press upon theologians, who would arrive at and pronounce an independent judgment upon my treatment of the contents of the teaching of Jesus, not to fail to consider the first part of my German work. Only there will they find explained why, in regard to sayings of Jesus recorded in the parallel Gospel narratives, I have used the form of words or the connection of one account rather than another, and why I have left out of account certain sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, and especially why I have used the fourth Gospel to the extent I have done. Much that may appear arbitrary would, I hope, appear well founded to one who knows my critical views in their connection.

May the loving enthusiasm for this incomparably great and beautiful subject, which has animated me throughout the whole course of my work, be experienced by the reader, and may this book help to contribute somewhat to further on English soil the understanding of the teaching of Jesus.

Hans Wendt,

Heidelbero, 1892.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

This book, which a competent German scholar has pronounced " an important and permanent contribution to the study of the h'fe of Christ and to bibhcal theology," is the second part of Dr. Wendt's work on the teaching of Jesus, and, in the German original, it bears the more special title of " The Contents of the Teaching of Jesus." The first part, which is as yet untranslated, is occupied with an independent critical examination of the Gospel sources, a brief summary of its results being given on pp. 20-28 of this book.

Dr. Wendt's name is already known to English scholars ; but, at this first appearance of his work in an English dress, it has been deemed well to give an outline of the facts of his life. Born in Hamburg in 1853, the son of an Evangelical pastor, he was at first taught in the Gymnasium of his native city. In 1872 he began his university course, studying first at Leipzig, then at Gottingen and Tubingen. At Tubingen he took his degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 1875. Thereafter, returning to Gottingen, he took a further course under the celebrated professors, Lotze in philosophy and Ritschl in theology, and there in 1877 attained the grade of Licentiate in Theology. After exercising the office of " privat-docent " for New Testament exegesis, he was appointed professor extraordinarius in 1881. Two years afterwards he was called as ordinary professor to the Northern University of Kiel. In November of that year he received the degree of Doctor of Theology honoris causd from the University of Gottingen. After a sojourn of two years at Kiel, he accepted, in the autumn of 1885, a call to Heidelberg as Professor of System-

TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 9

atic Theology, and at that beautiful university town on the Neckar he at present exercises his functions, lecturing partly in theology and partly in New Testament exegesis.

Still a comparatively young man, Professor Wendt is well known to the German theological world by his published writings, of which the most important is The Teaching of Jesus, of which the first part was published in 1886 and the second in 1890. From the perennial interest of the subject, the fundamental character of its design, and the freshness of its mode of treatment, which even a glance over the table of contents will suffice to indicate, this work is fitted to command the attention of British scholars. Appearing at a moment when the controvery in regard to the results of Biblical Criticism has reached an acute stage with us, a few remarks on the general bearing of this work may not be out of place.

The historical method followed by the author is one which will be universally admitted as being not only warranted, but indispensable, in the case of the secular historian. No competent modern historian can dispense with the critical examination of facts and documents, unless his work is to take rank as mere legend. Christianity, as a religion of facts and documents, demands and welcomes legitimate research ; and in this sense Biblical Criticism is not a wayward phase of modern thought, but a weighty task which has been, in a peculiar sense, committed to our age. Thus far intelligent Christians are agreed, however doubtful some may be as to many of the results put forth in the name of criticism. Certainly the time has not yet come for claiming finality for the results of criticism, or for taking a final consensus of critics. For example. Dr. Wendt's original hypothesis of a "third main source" underlying the Gospel of John, which may prove an important point de depart in the critical study of the fourth Gospel, shows that the last word has not been said on that important department of New Testament criticism. The hopefulness of criticism lies, not so much in individual results, as in the progressive unity of a process of which the present generation will not see the termination — a process wherein the results of one inquirer are being checked and modified by those of another, and

TO TRANSLATORS PREFACE.

wherein even individual mistakes contribute in the end to the clearer knowledge of details.

It will be seen that, throughout the construction of the present work, our author stands on the scaffolding of his earlier work, in which he has devoted patient and independent study to the examination of the Gospel sources. Here we have, not a process of destructive criticism, but a process of positive reconstruction on the basis of criticism. Many are inclined to ask, in regard to a criticism which seems only to achieve greater confusion and unsettlement of the grounds of Christian faith, " What, then, shall we have left after this devastating flood has passed ? " In the present work we have Dr. Wendt's answer to that question, so far as the teaching of Jesus is concerned. Here, he might say, is so much terra firma, more or less perfectly reclaimed by historical research from the chaos into which the Zeitgeist of modern criticism had thrown the whole territory. Briefly, it may be said that, so far as criticism, apart from exegesis, is concej-ned, all fundamental Christian doctrine remains ; for though some will take exception to the author's soteriology as being too subjective, in accordance with the theology of Ritschl, this too arises, not from the critical elimination of essential elements of the Gospel reports, but mainly from the fact that it is the teaching of Jesus, not also that of Paul, that is under discussion. In connection with this, the reader will not fail to bestow attention upon the highly-suggestive preface which the author has written for this translation.

It is almost inevitable, in applying the method of historical criticism to this great subject, that many readers should at first be unpleasantly impressed with a certain naturalistic tone and tendency. The Christian scientific historian proceeds on the presupposition that there is a higher and supernatural explanation of the facts ; but his task would be impossible and unwarranted, if God, in bringing His supernatural ends to pass, had not largely carried them onwards through the centuries by long processes of natural sequence. Instead of usually revealing Himself in historically isolated ways which admit of no intelligible explanation, He has generally worked in ways which have a psychological and historical intelligibility. We may instance the growth of the Messianic idea in rela-

TRANSLATORS PREFACE. II

tion to the national experiences of Israel. When, however, we come into the domain of Gospel history, however frankly we admit the idea of the kenosis, we are yet face to face with a Divine mystery which appeared phenomenally in the sphere of humanity, and is, no doubt, to a large extent humanly intelligible and conformable to the laws of nature and human life. Yet it is an important question, how far we can take as a safe guide the scientific maxim that, in the investigation of what belongs to a different age and order of things, only those causes must be taken into account of which we have present experience. The scientific investigator, in the sphere alike of geology and history, must sometimes question if certain phenomena are not unique and unaccountable on the ground of modern experience. Jesus Christ was such a historical phenomenon — unique as to His blissful unbroken fellowship with His Father, in the character of His consciousness of Sonship, in the clearness of His intuition and firmness of tread in a high region where others only grope. In regard to those suggestive portions of his work which treat of the development of religious ideas in the mind of Jesus, Dr. Wendt will be the first to admit their necessary incompleteness. He must carry the torch of historical inquiry as far as the historical method will permit him to go ; but there is a region beyond, into which historical science cannot pass, and where historical processes fail.

The author has not treated the branches of the teaching of Jesus merely in separate detail, but in their organic connection ; and his full, sympathetic treatment of the ethical side of his subject — take, for example, the great theme of universal love as taught by Christ — proves that the historical method, though it may not expressly, can yet really and powerfully, conduce to the setting forth of the practical value of the subject. Not the least important and interesting department of the work will be found to be, the continuous comparative examination of the teaching of the fourth Gospel along with that of the synoptical Gospels, from which the conclusion is drawn that the substance of the former was given by " a disciple of Jesus who was more deeply penetrated than the rest with the original spirit and the inward form of the teaching of his Master."

12 TRANSLATORS PREFACE.

Something may yet remain for discussion in regard to the amount of significance to be accorded to other departments of the work of Christ as distinguished from the teaching ; but the translator gladly concurs with the author in the hope that, also among British readers, the publication of the work may contribute towards a better knowledge of this great theme, and the furtherance of New Testament scholarship generally.

The present translation has had the benefit of Professor Wendt's careful revision.

The numerous references in the footnotes to Lehre Jesu, vol. i., will be understood as applying to the first and as yet untranslated part of the work.

J. W.

MONTREUX, 1892.

Introduction

THE PROBLEM.

PAGE

1. Historical aim of the work, . . . , , .17

3. Account to be necessarily taken of other apostolic literature, . . 28

4. Necessity of taking account of Jewish religious conceptions, , , 30

FIRST SECTION.

THE HISTORICAL FOUNDATION OF THE TEACHING OF JESUS.

Chap. I. Religious Conceptions of the Jews in the Time of Jesus

1. Clinging to traditional religion, and reverence for the Old Testa-

ment Scriptures, . . .... 33

2. Legal view of man's relation to God, . . . -39

3. Prevalent attitude of legalism in regard to ceremonies and forms

4. Holiness the dominant feature in the idea of God, . . 48

5. Progressive Judaism of the Essenes and Philo, ... 51

Chap. II. Religious Hopes of the Jews in the Time of Jesus

1. Relation of the religious hopes of the Jews to the general

religious view, . . .... 56

3. Accommodation of the personal hope of future welfare (resur-

rection hope) with the national hope, .... 70

4. Variety of emphasis laid on the moral-religious character of the

coming dispensation, ...... 75

5. John the Baptist, ....... 84

CONTENTS.

Chap. III. Development of Jesus' Religious Mode of View

1. Religious development of Jesus before His baptism,

2. The revelation experienced at His baptism,

3. The period of temptation, ....

SECOND SECTION.

EXTERNAL ASPECTS OF THE TEACHING OF JESUS.

Chap. I. External Form of His Teaching

1. Significance of the form of His teaching, . .

2. Absence of a scientific and systematic character,

3. Employment of examples, .....

4. Employment of comparisons ; different kind of parables,

5. Inapplicability of the allegorising interpretation of the parables,

6. Double parables, .......

7. Principle of the greatest clearness in the briefest compass in

using examples and parables, .....

8. Sententious sayings, ......

9. Figurative modes of expression, ..... ID. Geniality of Jesus' mode of teaching in general, . . .

Chap. II. Ideas in regard to the Natural World

1. Relation of these ideas to the teaching of Jesus in regard to the

kingdom of God,

2. Ideas in natural history, .

3. Anthropological ideas, .

4. Ideas in regard to supernatural beings, good and bad,

5. Ideas in regard to Scheol, ,

6. Historical ideas, . . ■ ■

"5 121 125

129 139 143 148

153 156 161 168 170

THIRD SECTION.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN GENERAL. Chap. I. Theme of Jesus' Preaching:

1. Instruction and exhortation as to the kingdom of God ; tradi-

tional conception of the kingdom of God, . . . 173

2. Relation of the personal Messianic conviction of Jesus to His

announcement of the kingdom of God, , . . 176

3. Organic branches of the teaching of Jesus, , , . 181

CONTENTS, 15

PAGE

Chap. II. God as the Father :

1. How far the ideas of Jesus on the kingdom of God have an Old

Testament foundation, ...... 184

2. The sense in which Jesus viewed God as the Father, . . 191

3. Holiness and universal activity of God, . . . .199

4. Conception of God in the Johannine discourses, . . . 203

5. Advance in the religious mode of view implied in Jesus' ideas of

Chap. III. Saving Benefits of the Kingdom of God

1. Bestowal of forgiveness of sins and of the kingdom of God in

2. Heavenly blessings in opposition to earthly, . . . 212

3. The heavenly resurrection life, ..... 219

4. Preservation from all evils and granting of all prayers in the

earthly life, ....... 225

5. Material and spiritual blessings of the earthly life, . . 234

6. The advance beyond the Old Testament Jewish view implied in

Jesus' conception of salvation, ..... 240

7. Eternal life in the Johannine discourses, .... 242

8. Relation of the Johannine idea of salvation to that of the '

Chap. IV. Righteousness of the Members of the Kingdom of God

I. The idea of "righteousness" and the Johannine idea aXr;tf£/a, . 256 V)^ 2. Duty of perfect righteousness, ..... 261

A. Righteousness as seated in the Heart.

3. Reality and value of righteousness made to depend on the heart

alone, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, . . 265

4. Opposition to the external righteousness of the Pharisees, 277

5. Attitude of Jesus to the Levitical laws of purification, . . 281

6. Spiritual worship of God according to John iv. 23 f., . . 285

B. Righteous Conduct towards Ccd.

7. Love and trust towards God, ..... 2S7

8. Trust in God taught by Jesus in opposition to the Jewish ideas

of angels and demons, ...... 295

9. The advance beyond the Old Testament Jewish position involved

in Jesus' teaching of unlimited trust in God, . . . 297

10. Prayer as the expression of trust in God ; the model prayer of

11. Ceremonial and ritual manifestations of piety, . . 309

1 6 CONTENTS,

PAGE

12. Trust in God, and worship according to the Johannine discourses, 317

13. Influence of the teaching of Jesus in regard to the right mode of

worship in the Apostolic period, .... 323

C. Right Conduct towards Mm.

14. Love to men in relation to ritual observance, . . . 325

15. The duty of love founded on the love of God and the advance

herein implied beyond the Old Testament Jewish view, . 329

16. Neighbourly and brotherly love, ..... 334

17. Helpful, gratuitously kind, ameliorating, forgiving love, . 339 1/ 18. Fidelity to duty in human circles of relationship, . . 351

19. Admonition to love in the Johannine farewell discourse, . . 357

20. Influence of this point of the teaching of Jesus on Apostolic

Chap. V, Nature and Advent of the Kingdom of God

1. The kingdom not of an external political kind, . . . 364

2. Heavenly and earthly realisation of the kingdom of God, . 369

3. Development of Jesus' idea of the nature and advent of the

kingdom of God, ...... 377

4. Advent and existence of the kingdom according to the Johannine

discourses, ...... 403

5. Future and present state of the kingdom according to Paul, . 405

INTRODUCTION.

THE PROBLEM.

I. The task of giving an historical account of the teaching of Jesus requires a special word of explanation. From the unique significance in regard to revelation which the Christian Church recognises in the person of Jesus Christ, His teaching has been made a subject of special systematic treatment as a part of Christian theology. But, from that systematic method, our purely historical mode of treatment must be distinguished. No doubt the systematic method can be prosecuted with a full view to keeping in as strict conformity as possible to the historical signification of His teaching ; and thereby the systematised doctrine will have its character all the more established as authentic Christian truth. But, at the same time, the systematic theologian must keep expressly in view the practical and scientific value of Christian doctrine for the present age. Hence arises for him the special task of conceiving, under the intellectual forms and ideas of the present, that whole religious view of things which was historically introduced by Jesus, and of showing its relation to the scientific ideas and practical circumstances of the time. He

VOL. I. B must also develop, in symmetrical completeness, its presuppositions and consequences ; and, finally, he must strive to present the evidence of the truth of this systematised teaching as a whole.

On the other hand, our historical method of treating the subject aims at presenting the teaching of Jesus in the form given to it by Himself during His lifetime. It has only to convey, in a reliable and orderly way, the material which must form the groundwork of the systematic treatment ; and it will conserve its peculiar value all the more certainly, just by confining itself strictly to its historical purpose, and by allowing no consideration of its present value for Christian instruction to modify the historical exposition. No doubt, even in our historical method, the teaching of Jesus must be elucidated by the help of ideas and modes of view current at present. For that range of ideas which originated at an epoch long bygone, and under conditions so very different from those of our day, requires to be made intelligible to us moderns ; and this cannot be done merely by conveying the words. But any intentional explication of our subject, by means of contemporary theological and scientific ideas and modes of view, beyond what is needed for the purpose of intelligibility, falls outside the scope of our historical method. Likewise we must forego any attempt to prove the truth and perennial value of the teaching either as a whole or in detail. We shall aim at making the teaching intelligible through just such explication by means of other ideas and modes of view, along with such application to practical circumstances, and such assertion and vindication of its

HISTORICAL AIM OF THE WORK. 1 9

truth, as Jesus Himself used and intended. And 1 shall seek to estimate its historical significance only in relation to that religious teaching which lies historically nearest it, I mean the Old Testament Jewish doctrine.

But though we thus emphatically distinguish our purely historical treatment of the teaching of Jesus from the systematic method, this does not prevent our seeking to set forth the historical contents of that teaching in systematic order as an organic unity. Our task is not to arrange the sayings of Jesus in strict chronological sequence. Apart from the fact that our sources do not furnish the means for it, such a chronological order does not correspond to the idea of our historical method. We have rather to aim at constructing, from the recorded words and acts of Jesus, the general religious conception which He held, which underlay all His self-manifestations in word and deed, and which, in the course of His instructions, He sought to impart to His disciples. Since there has come down to us from His own lips no systematic exposition, not even a brief one, of His general religious view, our proposed construction of that view, like the attempt of the historian to compose, out of the separate facts reported in his sources, a complete picture of pragmatical development, must be regarded as a hypothesis. But it is necessary to advance such a hypothesis, since a knowledge of the character of the whole helps us to know the original significance of the particular parts. We may certainly regard this hypothesis (as to the central conceptions underlying the teaching of Jesus) as being historically confirmed, if it not only supplies a framework in which all the various sayings of Jesus find appropriate setting, but also if it exhibits those particular utterances as members of a uniform organic structure, such that even the degree of prominence, greater in some cases and in others less, which Jesus has given to particular parts of His teaching, is accounted for by their position as members' of that organic whole. Also the methodical progress which Jesus has observed in the impartation of His teaching to the common people, as well as to His immediate followers, must be seen to be founded on the essential relation of the different parts of His teaching to one another. Moreover, by setting up this ideal for our historical examination of the subject, we do not prejudge the question as to whether the teaching of Jesus does not comprise some heterogeneous and mutually contradictory elements, and if there is not an internal development and transformation of His teaching advancing step by step with its external progress. In a historical exposition, such shades of difference, if they exist, must, of course, be clearly exhibited ; for the organic unity of the teaching must not be artistically presented in greater completeness than we find historically warranted by our sources.