The shining mystery of Jesus

Front matter

SSS ne ea ee

Sn one y <n OF PRINGE} > 4 16 1928 \Y S/

\2Locica, sews

Preface

DEFINITE religious convictions, it is said, seldom commend a book to a wide public. The opinion—once so fashionable—that the world is breathlessly eager for a “‘ message ”’ seems to have lost its vogue. It even appears possible that indecision has charms of its own. In such circumstances it is obvious that eagerness, if found at all, must be found in the bearers of the message. At the same time it is more than hinted that such eagerness may safely be trusted to defeat its own ends.

Yet reflection reassures the ardent. For it was through just this foolish eagerness—the foolishness of preaching— that the extraordinary thing called Christianity took root and grew. It is therefore possible to hope that this putting of that unchanging proclamation may penetrate into circles quite other than ecclesiastical, and even find its way into those individual fastnesses whose drawbridges seldom fall to admit the passage of the Christian enthusiast in person.

What makes such a hope reasonable is that the book rests its whole weight upon the Gospels ; for the Gospels are to-day almost an undiscovered country. Despite the countless books that have been written round them, and sometimes because of those books—for this particular circle is apt to wander into strange ellipses—the marvel of the Gospels themselves is often unremarked. It is the

Vv vi THEOSHINING MYSTERY OF JESUS sole aim of the present writer to direct attention to that standing wonder, and to ensure, if possible, the refusal of all substitutes.

To-day the number of such substitutes is legion: so that it would be invidious to mention any particular example. The perusal of one of them provoked these pages. ‘There was then left, upon one mind at least, a dreary impression as of some lovely-winged creature tarnished and mangled by the enthusiastic but destructive hand of a collector intent only upon acquiring another specimen for his cabinet.

If a rival account is here attempted it is strictly in the nature of a guide-book. And indeed it is a guide-book that is needed. No alert mind can rest content with another man’s Jesus, and still less with the Jesus of his own imaginings. ‘This book is therefore a frank appeal to the Gospels, and in no sense whatever a substitute for them. It is written in the tonfidence that the truth which is there so vividly presented will attest itself afresh to straightforward inquirers, more or less adrift, like all of us, upon this strange sea of human life on which we are nolens volens all embarked.

It would, of course, be possible to approach the Gospels from the opposite direction to the one adopted here. It would be possible to begin with our human situation, with its needs and hopes and fears, and to show how these needs are met, these hopes substantiated, and these fears allayed by the Christ of the Gospels and the Church.

As it 1s, one book cannot do everything; and for the moment it is proposed to start from the Christ of the Gospels and the Church, the author being confident that the Divine and Only Fair will meet needs and hopes and

PREFACE | vi fears of which he himself perhaps may never have been conscious.

It is, then, to the Gospels as they stand that, in the first instance, he here pins his faith. In his view the Gospels illuminate the Church, and the Church illuminates the Gospels. Many, however, who—for one reason or another—are prejudiced against the Church, are not prejudiced against the Gospels; though they often feel dimly that there must be in these three small pamphlets something more than has yet fully met their eye.

“These three small pamphlets” is said advisedly. Broadly speaking, the book deals only with the First Three Gospels. To give reasons for this restriction would be a waste of time. It is only asked that the book be tested by its fidelity to these three Gospels, and that a real effort be made to see those Gospels as they are, to read them as something fresh—their keen edge unblunted by familiarity, and their sublime unity unruffled by the blasts of critical controversies. So read, they may well attest themselves as the clue to the Life that alone is worthy of the name of Life.

D. A. EDWARDS.

ST. STEPHEN’s House, OXFORD, 13th June 1928.

7 é ‘1 . n , oe o » i Leia M8)

CuapTeR VIII. ‘THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.

IX. THE DIvINE ATONEMENT

PAGE

47 61

79 96

muy Bal ire

5 . aa Wied ie 4 - i

1 ¢ ty A sas

Introduction

By the Bishop oF MANCHESTER

ONE of the most significant facts of our time 1s the great demand, as evidenced by the supply, for books setting before their readers the Life and Character of Our Lord. There is a new turning of the mind of men towards Him. The very fact that many have discarded the use of timehonoured theological expressions concerning Him has enabled those who have so cleared their minds of presuppositions to see Him with a new vividness as a real historical figure. Moreover, the immense labours of New ‘Testament scholarship have reconstructed the original setting and the impression made on contemporaries in such a way as to bring fresh life to the old story.

This is a great gain, and in the end the gain will prove to be permanent, and any incidental losses to be temporary ; for the nett result of seeing Jesus as He was will be to lead men back to that same belief concerning Him to which the impact of His Personality led His own disciples and the early Church, and then the old convictions will be held with a new energy, because they will be the apprehensions of a personal experience.

At present there are many who suppose that to reach “the Jesus of History” is to dispense with all theology. It is often easy to detect the vicious circle implicit in the

X1 xii INTRODUCTION argument followed. First, it is assumed that the historic Jesus must have been not only Man, but a mere man; then, in deference to this assumption, all passages in the first three Gospels which involve the contrary are cut out as interpolations made under the influence of later theological belief ; finally, it is triumphantly pointed out that the Gospels so edited contain no evidence of supernatural claims.

Whatever else such a process may be, it is not scientific criticism. And the Jesus whom it presents to us could never have become the origin of the great historic enterprise called Christianity. It is not because Jesus had a new notion of God that men have found in Him their joy and their hope ; it is because in Him they have seen God Himself. Moreover, this is not a late discovery of the theologians : it is the record of the earliest witnesses. Listen to this: ‘‘ All things have been delivered unto me of my Father; and no one knoweth the Son save the Father ; neither doth any know the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him.” It sounds as if it came from the Fourth Gospel. But it does not ; it comes from that material which, the critics tell us, is probably the oldest and best of our sources— the material common to the First and Third Gospels which is not found in the Second (St. Matthew xi. 27 ; St. Luke x. 22). In St. Matthew’s Gospel it is followed at once by the words: ‘‘ Come unto me .. . and I will give you rest ”’ ; and, indeed, if the former and theological saying is not true, the second, the gracious invitation, could not be justified.

Now this book is admirably planned to bring its readers back from the superficial “ humanitarian” accounts of

INTRODUCTION Xlil

Our Lord to the stupendous fact to which the evidence, scientifically considered, really points. ‘The author is well acquainted with the course and results of Biblical scholarship, and his treatment of his material is everywhere guided by the principles of scientific criticism. But he does not obtrude any “learning”? upon the straightforward presentation of his theme. Anyone of reasonably alert intelligence can grasp his points and follow his argument, and will never be puzzled or baffled by technicalities. He helps us to look with the eyes and hear with the ears of the first disciples, so that we are led by our actual awareness of Christ’s uniqueness from the realisation that “never man spake as this man” to the conviction that as we watch Him “ we behold His glory, glory as of an only begotten Son from a Father.”’

The faith of Christians is not a superstructure based on historic facts which were complete without it ; it 1s the articulation of what is present in the only facts in question for which there is any historic evidence. Because Mr. Edwards sets this forth so clearly and so impressively I feel honoured at being allowed to add to his book these few words of my own, and to commend what he has written to the widest possible circle of readers.

W. MANCHESTER.

**T asked Fairly and frankly, what might be That History, that Faith, to me —Me there—not me in some domain Built up and peopled by my brain, Weighing its merits as one weighs Mere theortes for blame or praise.”

BROWNING, Easter Day, Canto xiv.

Part One The Unique Figure Chapter 1 His Character

“* Never man spake like this Man,’

. . . Despite occasional archaisms the words of the Gospels remain astonishingly fresh. ‘There is no knowing when—annihilating centuries—they may not change a man’s world to-day just as they did for many when they were first uttered. What is the secret of this perennial youth ? Babble as we may of originality such a term seems adequate only when given the fullest content that it is capable of holding. Its real force is best appreciated in the simple verdict passed by contemporaries of Jesus who heard Him for themselves.

There are some, indeed, who claim to find in the simple yet penetrating comment with whose quotation this chapter begins nothing more than an expression of naive wonder that a religious teacher should speak so naturally of the things of God. The actual context of the phrase, however, makes it plain that there was far more than this in the minds of the original speakers. Emissaries of the chief priests had been sent to apprehend Jesus. They returned with their mission unaccomplished. And the only excuse that they had to offer for this dereliction was that they were overawed by the way in which He spoke.

If modern readers fail to experience that sense of awe It is because they so seldom allow His words to speak for themselves. They are already of opinion that there will be found in them nothing unique or mysterious—above all, no note of commanding and assured authority. And so they never ask themselves the question which most needs asking. ‘They never inquire whether it is possible to conceive of any Jew but One taking upon his lips such words as these.

Jesus, we are told, stood in the prophetic line. But who can imagine Isaiah inviting men to take his yoke upon them and to learn of him because he is meek and lowly of heart? ‘There are many other words of Jesus whose unique character will, if the same simple experiment be made, assail the intelligence (which familiarity has all but benumbed) with an illuminating, vivifying shock.

No one in human history has ever spoken with such assurance as the Carpenter of Galilee. We can go further, for this assurance does not admit even of comparison. No other teacher, no other prophet, ever subordinates his teaching to himself. Jesus did so constantly and indeed normally. The very quietness of His assumption of authority diverts attention from its daring.

How startling then, when we once perceive the boundless character of the claim implied, to find Him speaking in such easy, matter-of-fact tones. He does not strive nor cry, nor lift up His voice in the streets, but says simply, “but I say unto you.”! That imperious tranquillity, contrasted, for example, with the sonorous tones of Isaiah, recalls the ancient story of wind and fire and earthquake succeeded by a still small voice. When men hear it—and that requires a delicate, attentive ear—they are, like Elijah, struck with awe.

But at this point someone may protest that such an estimate is, after all, only the product of individual subjective fancy. In that case the appeal must lie to the reader. Every vital interpretation of great work must inevitably take the risk of such a challenge. In the long run the individual must make his own decision. Yet even in the light of what has been said already, it may appear not unlikely that the very simplicity of the Speaker’s language deceives those who look for argument and find conversation. For it is to conversation rather than to argument that these words belong. The “ Sermon on the Mount ”’ is a misnomer. Even to-day many people who value the Sermon on the Mount are apt to be misled by the word “sermon.” For them a sermon means an address whose aim is to encourage people to live better lives and to give them such teaching about God as will help them to do so. Such a description would clearly fit the Sermon on the Mount. The trouble is it does not cover it. ‘There is still something that makes this so-called ‘‘ Sermon ”’ unlike any other sermon—and it is this: where every other preacher appeals to some authority outside himself, Jesus does nothing of the kind. He speaks in His own name. It was this feature of the Sermon on the Mount which impressed the author of the First Gospel and led him to insert as a postscript to his record of it the astonished comment of the people who had heard in the synagogue at Capernaum the words of power with which the public ministry began. “ For He taught them as one having authority and not as the Seribes.;*

Were the scribes, then, who sat in Moses’ seat not authoritative teachers? Indeed, they were. So much so that it has been the fashion in certain circles to contrast the religion of the Jews with the new religion of Jesus as a religion of authority with a religion of the spirit. The real contrast which inspired the ambiguous aphorism is the contrast between an authority claimed, inherited, derived ; and an authority taken for granted, personal, underived. In short, it is a contrast between a relative and an absolute authority.

But once more, even here, in the case of the Sermon on the Mount, we are not left at the mercy of a mere subjective impression, however powerful and subduing. Nor is this recognition of the unique authority of Jesus the result of a simple inference from the pregnant, purely self-supported ‘Tsay unto you.” For is it not asserted in the “ Sermon ” itself that beatitude is the ineffable endowment of those who are “for My sake” ill-spoken of ?2 Prophetic authority does not speak thus. And, again, to what other teacher does it belong, not only to demand obedience to his teaching, but to predict the coming of a day when faithless disciples will claim his indulgence because they had once eaten and drunk in his presence and he had taught in their streets? What other teacher ever warned his disciples that the penalty of faithlessness to the teaching given would be to hear their final doom pronounced by his own lips, and that that dreadful final sentence would be

1 Matt. vii. 28 f.; see Markji. 22. 2 Matt. v. 11; Luke vi. 22 f.

to depart from him, the teacher ?1 This incomparable note of absolute personal authority is sustained to the very end of the Sermon on the Mount, where the alternative between ruin and salvation for every individual is declared, in a vivid parable, to depend entirely upon whether that individual has done or has not done “ these words of Mine.” 2

Two of the most recent studies of the Gospel record, extremely divergent in their methods of approach and in the conclusions which they draw, are at least united in their recognition that the words of Jesus in themselves stamp Him with the mark not merely of originality but of strict uniqueness. Thus Mr. Middleton Murry, commenting on a famous passage from the Gospel of the Hebrews, observes that none other than Jesus can have had that thought or framed those words. Canon Streeter uses similar language. ‘‘ Christ is individually Himself and no one else . . . There is hardly a saying . . . in the first three Gospels which is not in some subtle way ‘ characteristic >; of which, if we found it in some other book, we should not at once say, ‘ That might have come from the Gospels.’’’? Now the point to which these writers call attention is the znherently original character of Christ’s words. It is not merely that there are bursts of originality in His teaching, but that every word of Jesus, uttered in the most diverse contexts and evoked by the most various circumstances, bears in each case the signature, as it were, self-authenticating and beyond mistake, of a single hand. This teacher is immeasurably more than a retailer of admirable maxims ; indeed, even prophetic insight is left halting far behind.

? Luke xiii. 26 £; Matt. vii. 22 f. * Matt. vii. 24; Luke vi. 47.

It is true that so far we seem still to be left within the region of subjective impressions. And within that region it is impossible to demonstrate that He who spoke such words ipso facto merits a title more exalted than that of “‘ the greatest of the prophets.” So much indeed we might have expected. It is to those who “ have ears to hear 1 that Jesus appealed in the first instance. In the last resort much depends upon the nature of the ground into which the good seed falls. And in this field no man may judge his neighbour. ‘The words of Jesus themselves will one day judge us all.

Nevertheless it is possible to prepare the ground. It has often been pointed out that a problem which seems completely solved causes no more perplexity, with the result that men may settle down to live their lives in what is actually a fool’s paradise. In much the same way the conception of Jesus as the greatest of the prophets satisfies many people, with the result that they become blinded to His full significance. ‘That is to say, His words are no longer free, so far as such people are concerned, to make their own impression. Any words of His which do not fit into the prophetic category will be quietly ignored. A premature decision, based on only part of the available evidence, develops a blind spot in the mind. ‘To minds so darkened Jesus becomes merely a law-giver or merely a noble idealist. Honest and faithful may be such a disciple’s attempt to obey the law or to realise the ideal, but for him the unique personal prestige of Jesus vanishes. The teaching of Jesus being secure, set down in black and white in the pages of the Gospels, the actual Jesus can go His way, and we neither know nor need to know

1 Mark iv. 9g.

what is become of Him. ‘Thus an opaque veil is only too frequently hung between human souls and the Christ of the Gospel.

To those who feel the spell of His great words and yet refuse to look beyond them it will, then, be a service of the first magnitude if it can be shown from those words themselves that a greater than Jonah is here, and not only so, but that to tits Person even the spacious category of prophet is totally and utterly inadequate. Now [I think that this can be done, even from the angle of literary appreciation, in at least two ways. ‘There are other ways, but from this _ particular point of view these two seem to be central and convincing.

In the first place, then, Jesus does something that no other prophet has ever done, and, what is more, something that no other prophet can even be conceived as doing. He makes His own character the standard of the godly life.

The undoubted fact that Jesus set before His disciples, as a practical aim capable of actual attainment, an ideal than which no greater can be conceived, bidding them to become perfect as their Father in Heaven is perfect, gives us pause at the very threshold of our inquiry.t His own question, recorded by St. Luke in the same ‘‘ Sermon,” rises unbidden to our lips. “‘ Can the blind lead the blind ?”’? If the disciple may expect to reach a height ~ so sight-outrunning, what of the Master? For that Master Himself reminds us that the disciple is not greater than his teacher; although, when he has reached the final term of his development, he may hope to be as his teacher is.2 Can it be, then, that this Man is already perfect as the Father in Heaven ?

1 Matt. v. 48. 2 Luke vi. 39 f. SMatty xr Sort, B

Imagine, if you can, Isaiah proposing such a celestial aim to poor humanity, claiming, too, to be the Master of any disciples who may volunteer to follow, and as such to be the norm and pattern of an achievement so exalted. Already the sides of our “ prophetic’? mould begin to crack and shiver. When we turn to the words, “Come unto Me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest,”’! it may be said that the ““ prophetic ”? mould is shattered beyond all repair. The prophets proclaimed an authoritative message “ in the voice of a herald, using the name of God and giving no reasons.” This Man gives no reasons, but neither does He use the name of God. Indeed, He points men here not to God in the first instance but to Himself. It is an outstanding example of what is massively characteristic of the Gospel asawhole. ‘Teacher and prophet though He be, the Jesus of the Synoptists subordinates His teaching to Himself. He is the Master and not the servant of His ‘‘ message.”’ And in so doing He differs toto coelo from any prophet the world has ever seen.

A few familiar examples of His utterances will serve to make this point even clearer. Men are to take His yoke upon them and learn of Him. He is meek and lowly of heart, and that is reason enough for men to make such meekness their own ideal. The Son of Man comes, not to be ministered unto, but to minister. ‘That is a final argument against ambition.”

No prophet ever spoke like this. No prophet ever made his own character the standard of the godly life. No prophet invited men to put their trust in him as a guide to perfection. No prophet bade men to make him their

1 Matt. x1. 28 f. 2 Mark x. 45; Luke xxii. 27.

HIS CHARACTER II example and to learn of him. No prophet proclaimed that he would give men rest. Nor do we expect such a prophet to appear. Jesus, in short, not only did something that no prophet had ever before done, but something which no prophet as such is conceivably capable of doing.

All this lies on the surface for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Further, Jesus was Himself clearly quite conscious of the fact, and said so plainly. Prophets and kings had desired to hear the words which fell upon the favoured ears of His disciples.1 ‘The Baptist, for the precise reason that he is His own forerunner, is himself declared to be greater than a prophet.2, And in His own person the prophets are fulfilled?

Such, then, is the first of the two main indications afforded by the words of Jesus as they stand, that to describe Him as the greatest of the prophets is to do Him less than justice. A prophet speaks in the name of God, Jesus in His own.

The second indication is one which, like the first, gains in impressiveness with every re-reading of the Gospels. Both are things which, in the vivid language of Jesus Himself, sink down into our ears. Both require extremely careful statement if we are to draw out their full evident implications, without at the same time moving an inch beyond the evidence. And this is perhaps especially true of the point which it still remains to make. For the question now to be considered concerns the whole attitude of Jesus towards sin.

In this connection what will most forcibly strike any careful reader of the Synoptic Gospels is the fact that Jesus simply takes for granted the universality of sin. He

Uke x i24. 2 Luke vii. 26 f. s vLatter veh 7 «

12 THE SHINING’ MYSTERY@Omi }Ha ls assumes as beyond the possibility of question that man as such is sinful. It is the presupposition of His whole message and mission. His public ministry begins with a call to repentance ! and ends with a prayer for our forgiveness who know not what we do.?

And if sin is universal it is also deadly. Both these assumptions underlie His answer to those who asked Him whether a fatal accident was to be regarded as God’s judgment on men more wicked than the ordinary run. “I tell you, nay; but except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.”’* All are to strive to enter the way— the narrow way—that leadeth unto life; they are to strive precisely because there is another way—leading to destruction—which is both broad and crowded.*

Now, if this is so—if repentance is the narrow way— then repentance is more than a good-natured turning towards God. Nor is it to be accomplished in a moment. It is an affair of lifelong striving and there are many who will strive to enter in and shall not be able. The first step, and indeed the one continuously necessary, human contribution towards the attainment of eternal life, is the recognition of one’s personal sinfulness.

Once more, then, Jesus assumes as beyond question that men as such are sinful. Even when He refers to their good deeds, His comment is, “ If ye then, bezng evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him.” °® And the pattern prayer on which all prayers of the Heavenly Father’s children are to be fashioned contains a petition for forgiveness.

1 Mark i. 15. 2 Luke xxili. 34. 3 Luke xiii. 4 f. 4 Matt. vii. 13 f. Luke: segs.

Only in the light of our knowledge of this unswerving conviction of man’s inherent and culpable sinfulness does the attitude of Jesus towards both Pharisees and harlots become vividly clear. ‘The Pharisees were not wrong in condemning prostitutes for being prostitutes. It was not even their chief fault that they were content with loveless condemnation and were without compassion. ‘Their chief fault was that they never condemned themselves. The Pharisee went down to his house less justified than the publican simply because he was incapable of selfabasement.t_ And he needed to abase himself in the presence of God. All men need to do so. For all are sinners, and the first step towards eternal life is to recognise the fact.

We are thus enabled to appreciate the massive irony of the reply to certain Pharisees who looked askance -at Jesus for the company He kept. “‘ They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I am come not to call the righteous, but sinners.” ? ‘There are no righteous. Again, “ ‘There is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine just persons that need no repentance.” ‘T’hey do need it; but unhappily they don’t desire it. And salvation is for those who desire salvation and are conscious that they need it. ‘There remains one incident which, with the possible exception of that of the penitent thief, is the most beautiful and moving of all those recorded in the Gospels.*

Jesus had accepted from a Pharisee an invitation to a meal. On His arrival His host, with a rudeness which only extraordinary patience could have borne, omitted all the

1 Luke xviii. 14. 2 Mark ii. 16 f.

S Luke xv..7. 4 Luke vii. 36-50.

customary attentions due to a guest. But a woman of the city, branded as belonging to the harlot class, intruded herself into the house and stood weeping behind the feet of Jesus as He lay reclining on the couch. Presently she began to fondle those dust-stained feet, washing them with her fast-falling tears, drying them with her hair, and kissing them repeatedly. Finally, breaking the alabaster box which she had brought, she anointed His feet with fragrant nard. ‘The Pharisee’s already low opinion of his guest fell even lower. Men had spoken of this fellow as a prophet, and he could not even see that the creature to whose caresses He submitted was “‘ that sort of woman ”’ !

Then Jesus turns to him with an irrelevant question. A certain lender had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, the other fifty. And when they were penniless and had nothing to pay he freely forgave them both. Which of the two, therefore, will love him most ? “I suppose,”’ replies Simon—a little impatiently perhaps —‘“ he to whom he forgave most.” Jesus approves the answer, and then drives the parable home with the piercing vigour of which He was a master. Turning to the woman, still standing as she was behind His couch, He draws Simon’s attention to her. But with what a purpose ! It is to contrast her favourably with the Pharisee, His host. She has fulfilled with an extravagant devotion those duties of courtesy which Simon had pointedly omitted to perform. ‘“ Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, have been forgiven; for she showed such great love: and to whom little has been forgiven the same loveth little.”