The ethical teaching of Jesus

Front matter

f'A'

Class Zi^^^M

Book

Preface

This book originated from a course of lectures, which were prepared for the students of the Union Theological Seminary, in the fulfilment of my duty as Professor of Biblical Theology. The field of Biblical Theology may be divided into three divisions. Biblical Religion, Biblical Faith, and Biblical Ethics (see General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture pp. 604 sq). After the completion of the courses on Biblical Eeligion and Biblical Faith I undertook an inductive study of Biblical Ethics. This I found to be a comparatively unexplored field ; for most scholars have devoted their attention to the central theme, the Biblical Faith: many to the Religion of the Old Testament; but few to the Ethics, either of the Old Testament, or the New Testament ; and these few have for the most part considered the subject on the basis of selected passages for homiletical or practical purposes from the point of view of the ethical Philosophy, which they held. My attention was first given to the ethics of the Old Testament, after which I made a complete inductive study of the Ethics of Jesus. This study was revised several times as the lectures were repeated to different classes.

Two additional revisions have been made since, in

vii viii PREFACE.

the preparation of this volume ; the first based on the separation of the material of each of the four Gospels by itself; the second on the basis of my more recent views as to the development of the life and teaching of Jesus as set forth in the volume entitled: New Light on the Life of Jesus,

The greater portion of the Ethical Teaching of Jesus was given by him in the form of Hebrew Wisdom, in accordance with the method of the rabbis and wise men of his people. This method was poetic in form, with measured lines and occasionally strophical organization. The Gospels which recorded this Teaching were, as I think, originally written in the Hebrew language. When these were translated into Greek and incorporated in the canonical Gospels, the Hebrew form was to some extent obscured by condensation, by explanatory additions, and by the neglect of the parallelisms of thought and statement. But one familiar with the form and methods of Hebrew Wisdom, does not find it difficult to discern the original form, in all essential particulars, underlying the several versions in the Gospels. This volume undertakes to give these sayings of Jesus in their original forms. These doubtless vary in some respects from Jesus' exact sayings, but not in any very important degree. It has been impracticable in most cases to give the evidence for these originals without making the volume too technical, and so defeating the purpose I have in view, to set forth plainly the ethical Teaching of Jesus. I have however given

PREFACE. IX

the evidence in a sufficient number of cases to exhibit the processes by which I arrived at the results.

This inductive study of the ethical Teaching of Jesus brought a great surprise to me. Ethical opinions which I had held for the greater portion of my life vanished when I saw clearly what Jesus himself taught. His teaching as to Holy Love came upon me like a new revelation from God. It gave for the first time, unity to his teachings, and cleared up the difficulties, apparently irreconcilable before, which enveloped his sayings in the Sermon on the Mount. Furthermore Jesus' teaching as to the liberty of Love enables us to reconcile Jesus with his most able and brilliant disciple St. Paul, whose principle of the liberty of Faith has been made so much of in modem times ; but whose principle of the liberty of Love has been so commonly overlooked. (See I Cor. XIII.) It also enables us to reconcile the principle and practice of Holy Love in the primitive Church, with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. (See article on Sanctification by Love, the Churchman, May, 1903; and article on Catholic, the name and the thing, The American Journal of Theology, July, 1903.)

Jesus' teaching as to holy Love, I did not understand until a few years ago ; and not to the full extent that is set forth in this book, until I made my final revision of the subject. I cannot therefore anticipate that these teachings will at once be accepted by all my readers. Many of them doubtless have prejudices to overcome due to their previous ethical

X PREFACE,

training and long-cherished opinions. However the interpretations of the Ethics of Jesus, as given in this book, are not novel. They are in fact in all essential particulars, in harmony with the interpretations of the Fathers of the Christian Church, and with the general opinion of the Christian World for the greater part of its history. I am fully convinced that Jesus' principle of voluntary love is the great transforming principle of Christianity, the material principle of sanctification, and the principle specially adapted to this modern ethical period of the world. "When it once lays hold of Christian people, as it surely will ere long, the Christian Church will enter into a new and more fruitful age.

Contents

Page.

I. The Sources of the Teaching of Jesus. . . 1 II. The Form and Method of the Teaching

of Jesus 14

I. The Soukces of the Teaching of Jesus

The Teaching of Jesus is given chiefly in the four Gospels. But we may also find specimens in the Book of Acts, the Epistles,^ and early Christian writings f and also in the recently discovered fragments of the Logia of Jesus. ^

The four Gospels give the Teaching of Jesus in varied proportions and in varied forms. They are not independent sources, and, in their present form, none of them are primary. They are all secondary to earlier gospels which underlie them and which they used as sources.

1. The Gospel of Mark is nearest to its original. It was probably written in the Hebrew language for Jewish Christians. It was certainly written under the influence of St. Peter, as early Christian tradition coming from the second Christian century reports. It was subsequently translated into Greek for the use of the Eoman Christians in general; its Hebraisms

^Sayings of Our Lord, discovered and edited by R. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, 1897.

1 1 and Aramaisms were explained for their benefit ; and sundry additions were made from other sources of information. It is probable that the Gospel was a first volume, and that it was continued in a second volume giving the narrative of the Jerusalem Church, which is the chief source of the early chapters of the Book of Acts ; and that the story of the Resurrection was given in the second narrative.^ Later this story was condensed and added to the text of the Gospel by another hand to give it a better ending when separated from its second part.

The Gospel of Mark is one of the sources of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Whether it was used by the author of the Gospel of John is disputed, though most critics hold that opinion. The Teaching given in this Gospel is limited in amount. It aimed to give chiefly facts and events in the ministry of Jesus that would show that he was the Son of God.

2. The Gospel of Matthew was not written by the apostle Matthew; but it used two earlier gospels, whose material it arranged chiefly in topical order. It depends on the Gospel of Mark for the facts and events of the ministry of Jesus. But it also uses a gospel, written by St. Matthew the apostle, under the title of Logia, in the Hebrew language, according to the testimony of Papias of the early second century.2 The material derived from this Logia of St.

2 EuseLins' Church Bistory, translated and edited by A. C. Mc- Giffert, 1890, pp. 170-173.

SOURCES OF TEACHING OF JESUS. 3

Matthew constitutes its most characteristic feature. It was not unnatural therefore that the Gospel of Matthew should take the name and authority of its chief source, especially after that source had been long lost. It is in dispute among scholars whether the original Logia of St. Matthew contained incidents as well as teaching, and also as to the extent of the teaching. The view that I have long advocated^ and still maintain is that the Logia of St. Matthew contained incidents, only to a very limited extent, as introductory to sayings of Jesus. The Logia consisted essentially of the Teaching of Jesus. But even this was limited to that teaching which was in the form of Hebrew Wisdom, such as that which this Gospel gives in three groups— (a) The Sermon on the Mount, (b) the Commission of the Twelve, (c) the Woes upon the Pharisees. It did not contain the parables, with the exception of a few in the form of Hebrew Wisdom, which may be called germs of parables, in the gnomic form. It did not contain the eschatological discourse. It did not contain conversations with the disciples or the Pharisees, except so far as these assumed the forms of Hebrew Wisdom. Some of this material derived from the Logia is also found in the Gospel of Mark, and often in this case it appears twice in Matthew and Luke, once in correspondence with Mark and again as derived from the Logia.

iSee New Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 128 sq.

The question therefore arises whether the Gospel of Mark used the Logia,^ or whether it derived these sayings of Jesus from the teaching of St. Peter. The former is favoured,— (1) by the fact that these sayings in Mark are attached to incidents as in Luke, and (2) they are often introduced by the formula— Jesus said. The latter of these features appears in the recently discovered collection of the logia of Jesus. Therefore it would seem that the Gospel of Mark cites the Logia more closely than the other Gospels. The difficulty with this supposition is, that it is hard to explain why this Gospel uses so few of these sayings of the Logia^ if the author had them all in written form before him. It is also difficult to explain the place of some of them. For it may be shown that they are not always given in their original place, but sometimes in a topical place. On the whole, therefore, it is most probable that the original Mark did not use the Logia of St. Matthew. The most of the logia given by it were appended for topical reasons to the Greek translation. The few remaining ones are closely attached to narratives, and came from the memory of St. Peter.

The Gospel of Matthew also used for its story of the infancy of Jesus a poetic Hebrew source. The parables were probably derived from an oral source and grouped : (a) The parables of the kingdom at the seaside, (&) the parables of the last journey to Jeru-

1 The Use of the Logia of Matthew in the Gospel of Mark in Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1904.

S0UB0E8 OF TEACHING OF JESUS. 5

salem, (c) the parables of the kingdom, attached to the conflict with the Pharisees in Passion week; (4) the parables attached to the eschatological discourse. The story of the Resurrection was probably derived from the Jerusalem source of Acts.^ The Logia of St. Matthew was written in the Hebrew language and gave the Wisdom of Jesus for the use of Jewish Christians of Palestine and the Eastern Dispersion. It was written some time before the destruction of Jerusalem, either in Jerusalem, Galilee, or Perea. In the present Gospel of Matthew all its sources were translated from Hebrew into Greek for a wider use especially in Syria.

3. The Gospel of Luke, as its author tells us, was composed by the use of several sources, oral as well as written.^ St. Luke the beloved physician,^ the disciple of St. Paul, was undoubtedly the author of the Gospel and probably also of the Book of Acts. His chief source for both was Mark's Gospel and story of the Church of Jerusalem. But he also uses the Logia of the apostle Matthew. He uses the Logia however differently from its use in the Gospel of Matthew. He gives the sayings of Jesus, which Matthew groups topically, chiefly in connection with incidents, a large proportion of which latter are unknown to Matthew and Mark. Luke gives the material derived from Mark, and attaches some of the

'^New Light on the Life of Jesus, p. 114.

logia of Matthew to that material. Then he gives a number of incidents from another source to which he attaches many other of the logia.

These logia, as we know, were derived from the Logia of the apostle Matthew, and it is probable that Luke adheres closer to the original in his arrangement than our Gospel of Matthew does. The same must be said of several of the parables, which Luke gives here, that Matthew attaches to groups. These parables, while substantially the same as those of Matthew, are yet so different in form and language that one cannot think of a written source. This section of Luke also contains a large number of parables of a different type altogether from those given in Mark and Matthew. It is possible that these were derived from a written source, but not probable. If there was a written source for the Perean ministry of this section of Luke, it is difficult to explain the few incidents and the large amount of teaching. It seems most probable that, in this section, Luke followed, in the main, the Logia of Matthew, in his arrangement of the material, and gave the other material derived from oral testimony as best he could, in connection with these logia. It is possible that he derived this information from Thomas or Matthew, or both, who were probably with Jesus during the Perean ministry.^

The gospel of the infancy of Jesus was derived from two Hebrew poetical sources. The story of

1 ISlew Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 7G sq.

SOURCES OF TEACHING OF JESUS. 7

Luke is chiefly composed of prose seams to these poetic extracts.^ It is altogether probable that Luke made a journey from Rome to Palestine to prepare for his Gospel and the Book of Acts, and it may be that there was a Syrian as well as a Eoman edition, with the variants which appear in the Oriental and Western texts.^ It is quite certain that St. Luke did not use the present Gospel of Matthew, and it is probable that some of the material of the present Gospel of Mark was unknown to him. He seems to have used the Greek Mark of the second hand, but not the final Mark. These three Gospels are named the Synoptic Gospels over against the Fourth Gospel which is of a different character.

The Gospel of Mark, having been used by the two others, its presentation of the Teaching of Jesus is of primary importance. The others give it with certain modifications which are either condensations or explanatory amplifications.

The Logia of St. Matthew underlies the three Gospels, therefore the originals of the words of Jesus can be determined only by the use of the principles of Textual Criticism to determine the parent of two, three, or more variant readings. So far as the Teaching of Jesus is peculiar to one of these Gospels we must accept that teaching as it is given, except so far as we may be guided by the form and method of Jesus, and the method of use of the original in other

1 'New Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 159 ^ * Blass, Philology of the Gospels, 1898, pp.

passages of that Gospel, to find the original underlying that use.

4. The Fourth Gospel bears the name of John and it is attached traditionally to the apostle John, although the name of a presbyter John is mixed with that of the apostle in early Christian tradition, and some moderns attribute to him the Fourth Gospel. The Fourth Gospel has little to say of the Galilean ministry— the theme of Mark, and of the Gospel of Matthew which depends upon it. It agrees with Luke in recognizing a Perean ministry, although it abstains from giving material relating to it. The ministry of Jesus, according to the Fourth Gospel, was chiefly in Jerusalem. The author abstains from giving the ministry in Galilee and Perea for certain reasons. What were these reasons'? Was it because he knew of the synoptic Gospels and did not care to narrate what they had given so well? Was the Fourth Gospel supplementary as ancient tradition has it? Was it because the author had a special interest in the Jerusalem ministry and a special reason therefore to tell of it, and did he regard the other ministry as comparatively unimportant?

There are few events common to the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists except the introductory ministry of the Baptist, the Healing of the nobleman's son in Galilee, the Feeding of the multitudes, and the story of the Passion; and in all these there is additional material to that given in the Synoptists. May we trace the hand of a supplementer here also ? The

SOUECES OF TEACHING OF JESUS. 9

events of the ministry prior to the Passion are few; the chief material is teaching.

When we examine these incidents, which are the basis of the teaching, we do not find snch a disproportionate presentation of the ministry in Jerusalem as first appears. If one starts with the presupposition, based upon St. Mark's Gospel, that the Galilean ministry was the principal ministry of Jesus, then the Gospel of John gives disproportionate space to the ministry in Jerusalem. But if on the other hand we take the statements of the four Gospels as essentially historical ; that there were ministries in Galilee, Perea, Jerusalem and Samaria,— then in fact it is just the Gospel of John which is most comprehensive in its statements, for it alone gives important events and teaching in all these parts of the Holy Land. And it is a priori most probable that the most important events and teaching would be in Jerusalem, leading on by inevitable development to the crisis in Jerusalem. The Gospel of John gives an earlier ministry in Galilee than the Synoptists, mentions the chief miracle of the second ministry in Galilee, and the crisis in Galilee connected with the Feeding of the Multitudes and Jesus ' recognition as Messiah by St. Peter and the Twelve. Four miracles are mentioned in Galilee to three in Jerusalem. Indeed the proportions of John are more comprehensive than those of any of the Synoptists, even Luke. When now we examine the teaching of the Fourth Gospel, it is verv different in form and context. The Wisdom of Jesus, as derived from the Logia, is only given in a few specimens. There are no real parables bnt instead of them a few beautiful allegories. The chief feature of the instruction that is common to the Synoptists, is that given especially by Markconversations with the disciples and the Pharisees, and even these are transformed.

This omission of the wisdom of Jesus and his parables must have had a reason. This reason could hardly have been that of a supplementer, else he would have given other specimens of Jesus' wisdom and parables than those given by the Synoptists. But in fact he does not,— he omits this kind of teaching and limits himself to another kind. This was evidently intentional,— it was to concentrate the attention upon that kind of teaching which revealed most clearly the Messiahship and divine Sonship of Jesus. It was not the teaching of the people, but the higher teaching of his chosen disciples, and the challenge of the teachers of Israel to accept him as the Messiah. This kind of teaching, in the very nature of the case, could not come in the Galilean ministry except at its close. It must appear rather in the Jerusalem ministry. And it was for this didactic purpose that the story of the Jerusalem ministry was so much more important to this evangelist than the others. If, as we have elsewhere suggested, St. John and St. James,^ alone of the Twelve, accompanied Jesus during the greater part of this Jerusalem ministry, and

SOURCES OF TEACHING OF JESUS. H

if Jerusalem was the region of their missionary working,— then there was a special reason also for their interest in the Jerusalem ministry, and a special reason why St. John should tell of it. Inevitably the Galilean ministry which preceded it would not appear so important, and would be treated in the summary manner in which it is treated in the Fourth Gospel.

When we examine this Gospel closely and compare the few incidents common to it and the Synoptists, it is evident that these incidents are not given in the Fourth Gospel in chronological order. A criticism of the discourses yields the same result. The Fourth Gospel is dominated by a topical interest, still more than the first Gospel; and a later dogmatic purpose is still more evident.

If the materials of incident and discourse have been arranged by the present author for topical and dogmatic reasons, and critics can detect the seams and irregularities, it is evident that the material came from the author's sources and not from himself. It is possible that some of this material came from the Synoptists ; but it is evident that the most of it came from an independent source. It is thus probable that the Fourth Gospel was named the Gospel of John because a gospel of the apostle underlies it, just as the Logia of the apostle Matthew underlies the Gospel of Matthew.

The question now arises whether this material was the oral teaching of the apostle John, as the oral teaching of the apostle Peter underlies Mark ; or whether there was a written gospel of St. John underlying John as a written Logia of St. Matthew underlies the Gospel of Matthew. Wendt favours the former supposition.^ The latter seems to me more probable. It is possible to suppose that the apostle in his teaching told of certain events in the ministry of Jesus, and gave Jesus' teaching at different times, without regard to chronological arrangement, or even topical arrangement, except so far as it may have suited his purpose at the time. But the difficulty with this supposition is that the present arrangement of the material cannot be explained in that way. As Wendt shows in several instances, which may be largely increased, there has been a change from an original and better order. These changes imply a written original where the material was in a more natural order. Were these changes intentional or unintentional? The latter supposition may explain a few of these cases. But the greater number of them can only be explained by the intention of the author to give them an order more in accordance with his dogmatic purpose.

A criticism of the material shows that there have been two hands, and in some cases three, at work upon this Gospel. There are differences of language, style, historical situation and conception between these writers. The original John was doubtless written in the Hebrew language. That

1 Das Johannesevangelium, 1900, s. 217 sq.

SOURCES OF TEACHING OF JESUS. 13

explains best the Hebraisms of this Gospel. It was translated, and its material was rearranged and recomposed, for dogmatic purposes, by the second author, who was doubtless a pupil of the great apostle.

In the study of the teaching of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel we must first distinguish between that which came from the original gospel, and the dogmatic amplification of the author of the present Gospel. We must then endeavor to find the original thought, which underlies the material derived from the original gospel, by seeking the Hebrew thought which has been not only translated, but also transformed by the writer. Great help in this is given so soon as the material is readjusted to its chronological order in harmony with the Synoptic Gospels. This process is not so difficult or uncertain in its results as some may think. For, as we shall show in our next chapter, the form and method of the Teaching of Jesus may be accurately defined. The essentials of His teaching may be clearly stated. The order of development in his teaching may be seen, at least in some measure. And we may say, with confidence, that the additions of the evangelists, their condensations, amplifications, and variations, are normal and correct. They do not change the substance, but only the forms and relations of the Teaching of Jesus.

II

The Foem and Method of the Teaching of Jesus.

The TeacMng of Jesus as it appears in the four Gospels and in early Christian Literature, has certain forms and methods which it is necessary to consider before we can understand its substance. These forms and methods were those of his own time, used by the religious teachers among the Jews. Jesus appears as a rabbi among rabbis. The two chief methods of teaching in the time of Jesus were distinguished as Halacha and Haggada} The Halacha was exposition and application of the Law, usually in the form of dialogue between the master and his pupils, with questions and answer. This method and form appear in the Mishna and the Beraitha and also in later strata of the Talmuds. It was also essentially the method of Socrates, the prince of the philosophers of Greece. The Haggada was the more popular method, embracing the illustrative teaching of historic fiction as well as stories of the imagination, both in a prose form; and similes, allegories, enigmas, and shrewd sayings, in the poetic forms of Hebrew Wisdom. The earliest tract of the Mishna, the Sayings of the Fathers, contains fine specimens of the latter, which had however more ample representation

1 General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, pp. 430 sq., 437 sq.

in the apocryphal Wisdom of Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon, and in the canonical Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes. The former appears in the Old Testament in the stories of Ruth, Jonah, Esther, and Daniel; and in the Apocrypha, in Tobit, IV Maccabees, Judith, and in the Greek additions to Daniel, Esther and Ezra. It also appears in many beautiful stories in the Talmud and early Jewish Literature.

Jesus, in his instruction, uses all these methods and all these forms. In all the Gospels he appears as rabbi, teacher and master. He is compared with other rabbis of the people. The distinctive feature in his teaching was not in form and method, but in this one thing. He spake with authority. Instead of appealing to Rabbinical authorities, he did not hesitate to oppose those authorities and the authority of the traditional Law.^ Thus he came into conflict with the rabbis of his time, and one of the most characteristic features of his life was his continual discussions with them.

The most striking feature of the Teaching of Jesus, and that which has received the most consideration, is his parables.

I. The parables of Jesus are the choicest specimens of parabolic teaching in the world's literature. They are easily superior to all that Jewish literature contains, in the form and method in which they are told. These parables are of two kinds,

16 SOURCES OF TEACHING OF JESUS.

(A) The parables of the Kingdom. Some of these are given by Mark on different occasions. In this Luke agrees with Mark. But Matthew gathers them in four groups.

(I.) By the Sea}

(1) The Sower.

(2) The Tares.

(3) The Mustard-seed.

(4) The Leaven.

(5) The Hidden Treasure.

(6) The Pearl of Great Price.

(7) The Drag-net.

(8) The Householder.

Only one of these, that of the Sower, is given by Luke here.2 Mark gives also the parable of the Mustard-seed,^ which is used by Luke with the parable of the Leaven in connection with the Perean ministry.'* Mark^ also gives in this connection one peculiar to himself: the parable of the Seed Growing Secretly. It is probable that the parable of the Sower was the only one spoken by Jesus on this occasion. The others were added by the evangelists here for topical reasons. The parable of the Sower is explained by Jesus, in Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, as having the purpose of concealing a mystery, to be revealed only to the initiated. ''Unto you is given the mystery of the Kingdom of God; hut unto them that are ivithout, all things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand.'''^ These parables all belong to the class of enigmas; they need a clue, a key which Jesus gave to his disciples, but to no others. This is true of all the parables of the kingdom, for the reason that the kingdom was for the most part future and even eschatological. Three other groups are given in Matthew.

(II.) On the last Journey to Jerusalem.

(1) The parable germ of the lost Sheep.^

(2) The unmerciful Servant.^

(3) The Labourers in the vineyard.^

Two of these are peculiar to Matthew and are parables of the kingdom. The parable germ is of a different character, and as it is given more completely in Luke,^ we shall consider it there.

(III.) Parables of Warning in Passion-week,

(1) TheTwoSons.^

(2) The Wicked Husbandmen.'^

(3) The Marriage Feast. ^

Only one of these, the Wicked Husbandmen, common to the three Synoptists, really belongs here.^

The parable of the Two Sons is peculiar to Matthew ; that of the Marriage Feast is given by Luke elsewhere.^