Jesus' idea; a study of the real Jesus

Front matter

FORDYCE HUBBARD ARGO

Class JELS2j1__ Book__ T _Aj? .

CCBRIGHT DEPasjE

Preface

The attention of thoughtful minds is riveted to-day upon Jesus of Nazareth as never before. While the world at large, and even the Christian World, is witnessing an ever-increasing questioning and disregard of apparently outworn religious systems, both doctrinal and ecclesiastical, the minds and hearts of men are turning with ever-freshening interest and homage to the Galilean Peasant. One of the most singular and salient phenomena of the day, indeed, is the fearless challenge to which the Faith of Christendom and the Authority of the Christian Church is being subjected. Men are asking whether the accepted faith can be justified, and whether the church is representative or misrepresentative of Jesus. The question is usually charged with tremendous seriousness, and men are more and more seeking to understand the source of both faith and church. What is Jesus' real relationship to these? What is the idea back of these phenomena ? Can Jesus be directly and intimately associated with them, or is the relationship unreal and far removed? Such are the questionings. Current religious literature witnesses abundantly to this fact. In consequence Jesus is finding many and able interpreters. What was Jesus Idea? then becomes a matter of paramount importance. Yet, so far as the writer knows, there have been but slight attempts to treat systematically and popularly of "Jesus' Idea." That this is an important subject few will deny. Many, indeed, are prepared to admit that it is the most important subject in connection with Christianity. The writer, sharing this feeling and attracted by the importance and interest of this subject, has sought in the following pages to disclose "Jesus' Idea" as it is expressed and embodied in the teaching and acts of the Master recorded in the Four Gospels. Further, the aim has been to present the Idea of Jesus and its development in such a way that even the casual and comparatively non-theological reader may understand. This purpose will explain the ample quotations from the Bible, and the endeavor to compress much information within a small compass. 1

Attempts of this character, unless the writer is grievously mistaken, are ever becoming more necessary in an age of analytical rather than synthetical criticism; in an age when men are being fed frequently upon the chaff of critical studies rather than upon the wheat of Christianity. In fact, amidst the intricate maze of interesting detail which now holds the attention of Biblical students and which inclines the mind even of the average person more easily to negation than to affirmation, men are likely to forget what essential Christianity is. A temporary paralysis has indeed already resulted to true Christian faith and practice. That Biblical Criticism should contribute to this result is due in part, we believe, to the fact that there has not been the careful, consistent, and persistent setting forth on the part of the Christian Church, of the basic truth of Christianity, as it is disclosed in Jesus' Idea. Emphasis is usually placed upon the subordinate details in the Christian View of God and of the World, and not upon the View itself. Had the emphasis been placed upon the View itself, so august, convincing, and self-sufficient is that View, that much of the evil which we deplore would have been avoided. Hence there is a great need of positive and definite teaching, for Christianity, as it is interpreted by Jesus, is its own best proof.

The writer, however, does not share the fear of many that substantial loss will ensue to Christianity as the result of the modern scientific spirit of inquiry, of Biblical Criticism, of the Study of Comparative Religion, and of the present general method of Historical Investigation. He looks for substantial gain, rather than loss. Yet there will be profound modification of earlier opinion about many subjects; especially marked will be the change produced in the conception of faith, and of the claims and nature of the Christian Church. This, indeed, is already noticeable in the life of our time. While the various denominations are endeavoring usually to hold fast to the old, sometimes opposing resolutely the new, and occasionally ex-

J The Biblical quotations are usually taken from the Authorized Version, in spite of its inaccuracies and inadequacy, because it is the version generally used by the majority of English-speaking Christians, however we may deplore the fact.

Preface 7

hibiting a decidedly reactionary tendency, there is everywhere a gradual but increasing undermining of the old. Thoughtful minds outside the Church, and thousands of nominal adherents of the Church, are ceasing to care greatly for denominational systems and doctrinal formularies. They do not war upon them, but treat them with studied indifference, easy-going tolerance, or sometimes with open contempt. They may remain within the lines of their former allegiance, but the spirit of their allegiance is changing. They are quietly emphasizing the commandments of God, while the traditions of men are lapsing into "innocuous desuetude." "Modernism," indeed, is everywhere apparent, and is steadily growing in influence. It is, in fact, becoming all-pervasive. One effect of this spirit, we believe, will be the fuller appreciation of Jesus and His Idea.

In endeavoring to ascertain "Jesus' Idea," use has been made of the Four Gospels. Christ Himself left no writings. We have simply reports of His words; indeed, speaking exactly, we have only translations of reports of His teaching. Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, and not in Greek. St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke alike, for the most part, translate into Greek a report of what Christ said. Just how accurately they translated the report, and how accurately the first-hand report represented the teaching of Jesus are interesting questions. That they tell us truly what they believe Christ taught cannot be denied; the writings themselves bear the intrinsic stamp of truthfulness. Yet, after all, reports are often inaccurate, and translations of reports may sometimes be doubly misleading. This fact would seem to throw all of Christ's teaching into the realm of conjecture. This, however, is not to be believed. The trend and the essential substance of Jesus' teaching is evident enough from the substantial agreement of the various reporters ; and from the clear-cut, definite impression which they convey — and the very nature of the teaching, too, precludes the possibility of invention. Hence, we have no difficulty in determining approximately what Jesus taught. In using the Fourth Gospel, the writer believes that he is using the production of one who may have known Jesus intimately, and that the author was probably St. John, the Apostle. If St. John was not the author of the Gospel, it is at least the production of one who had meditated long and intimately upon the teaching of Jesus and had grown to appreciate its beauty and its power. Hence in this sense at least, this source is as authoritative for the teaching of Jesus as the Synoptic Gospels. The writer, indeed, displays a more marked spiritual insight than the Synoptists, and this seemingly guarantees a fairer and fuller appreciation of the mind of Christ. If he does not report the form of Jesus' teaching, he at least gives us insight into its content.

It is a significant fact of our day that the Gospels are only now coming into their own. This may seem very strange, but it is undeniably true. With the Reformation, the Bible may be said to have come into its own; especially the Pauline writings. Unfortunately, the exigency of the situation necessitated a certain obscuration of the Gospels and their message at that time. This, our age is happily ending, and the effect upon the life and the thought of the world will be, we believe, as marked and lasting ultimately as that of the earlier Reformation; for "Jesus' Idea" will be seen to be the very essence of Christianity, and this will compel a thorough-going readjustment along many lines — intellectual, ecclesiastical, social, industrial and economic.

In conclusion, the writer would acknowledge his great obligation to the two treasuries of scholarly opinion and research : Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, and the Encyclopedia Biblica, and especially to the articles, "The Kingdom of God," by the late Dr. Orr; "Jesus Christ," by Dr. Sanday, and "The Sermon on the Mount," by Dr. Votaw, in the former work. "The Theology of the New Testament," by the late Professor Stevens, and "The Kingdom of God," by the late Professor Bruce, have also proven useful. While various authorities have been drawn upon in the course of the work, and no claim of originality is made, the writer trusts that he has made, at least, some contribution to a better understanding of the spirit and the aim of Jesus. The subject matter of the volume, in fact, was presented from time to time in extemporaneous sermons and addresses to a Christian congregation, where it found appreciative listeners. Because of this, the volume was written, and it is now presented, to the public in the hope that it may prove useful and suggestive. The writer's hearty thanks are due to Miss Mary C. Haley, who kindly prepared the manuscript for the press. Fordyce Hubbard Argo.

The Rectory, Rockledge, Pa.

October i, 191 6.

• 245

Chapter I

The measure of a man's dissatisfaction with himself is the measure of the man. A nation's self-dissatisfaction is the prophecy of what it may become. Our aspirations and ambitions are, as a rule, indicative of our capabilities.

Viewing life as disinterestedly as one can, there is great difficulty in understanding the problem of the world and of human existence. There is so much darkness mingled with the light, falsehood with truth, sin with goodness, sorrow with happiness, that any rational solution of the problem seems unlikely, if not impossible.

One thing, however, attracts and rivets the attention: — Men, individually and collectively, are not satisfied, and have never been satisfied with themselves or their condition. There has been, to a greater or less extent, dissatisfaction with things as they are ; it is this divine discontent, indeed, that has always turned the wheels of progress. Rightly does the poet sing:

"Progress, man's distinctive mark alone, Not God's, and not the beasts : God is, they are ; Man partly is, and wholly hopes to be."

"Progress is

The Law of Life : Man is not Man as yet."

This dissatisfaction with himself affects, very noticeably, man's attitude toward the material and the intellectual world of his time; unfortunately, this spirit of discontent is not so manifest in the religious world. As to the former, there is ever and always a restlessness indicative of great results. Men palpably think life "out of joint," and seek to remedy its ills by new triumphs over material resources; or they fancy that progress along intellectual lines, the dispelling of ignorance, the enlightening of the human mind, and the attendant results in better laws, better institutions, and a more righteous and equitable government, will prove the desired and needed remedy. Thus we achieve splendid and ever-increasing results along these lines, which are to-day, however, but weakly and poorly prophetic of those surpassing achievements which the future now conceals.

There are those, however, who, while they agree with their brethren in an ardent desire for better conditions, find that neither complete mastery over the material world, nor exhaustive triumphs in the intellectual realm, will prove the elixir of life. In their view, the wound of humanity lies deeper than matter or mind. Man, they declare, is more than body or matter, more than intellect or mind. Man is also spiritual and religious; character is his greatest endowment. And just here lies their dissatisfaction. Man is not, spiritually and religiously, what he ought to be. In the view of this class of malcontents, man is vitally affected in the spiritual part of his nature; therefore, the patent need of the world and of the individual, is character. "Give us," they say, "all possible material and intellectual progress; but above all, and crowning all, give us greater progress toward God!" A closer relationship to the Deity is demanded; new triumphs are craved here. And so, a boundless dream — albeit called by some, iridescent — haunts their thoughts: they have a vision of the Kingdom of God. A Kingdom of God they desire, in which God's law shall be understood and known of all men, and in which God's will shall prevail, and God's will, not the will of man, be done.

This was the vision of Jesus of Nazareth; just here Jesus had His starting point. He was the chief exponent of the Kingdom of God, — the leader of those who would remedy the individual and the social ills of the world by the redemption of man's moral nature. Speaking in a general way, those who seek the betterment of human conditions may be classified as materialistic reformers, intellectual reformers, and spiritual reformers; that is, in each instance, the reformer places the emphasis upon the material, or the intellectual, or the spiritual things of life. Usually men are controlled in their efforts at reform by one of these principles, often to the exclusion, or sad neglect, of the others. Hence, their efforts are unsuccessful, and often vapid and inane, because partial and divisive, in that they deal with man, not as man, but as body, or intellect, or spirit. Man is, however, a living soul, and the strength of Christianity, so far as man is concerned, lies in the fact that Jesus Christ in His attempt at reform, took into account man's three-fold nature — body, mind, and spirit — and made adequate provision therefor. While the foundation of His reformation lay in the redemption of man's moral nature, Jesus was in no way deaf to the appeal either of the body or the mind, as His numerous miracles, and His strenuous endeavors to instruct, amply attest. His vision, as we have said, was of the Kingdom of God; a Kingdom large enough to include all the needs of man while based upon man's moral needs. 1

The unique position held by Jesus of Nazareth in the history of the world for well-nigh two thousand years, is admitted by all; nor is it going beyond the bounds of truth to say that, great as has been the homage paid to the Carpenter of Nazareth in the past, greater is the reverence felt toward Him in the present; and more intelligent and enduring is the homage paid, because it is founded upon a more just appreciation of His worth as a man, and not merely upon an easy and unquestioning acceptance of Him as the supernatural Son of God.

1 The reader of the Synoptic Gospels does not proceed far before he is convinced that Jesus' remedy for the ills of the world was "the Kingdom of God." He may be at a loss to know just what Jesus meant by the expression — "Kingdom of God" — which was so often upon His lips; but he is fully aware that Jesus laid great stress upon the importance of the Kingdom to the world. For example, he is at once confronted by so remarkable an announcement as this : "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matthew 6:33). This absolute direction is given to mankind by Jesus without any qualification whatsoever. If one reads further, he finds Jesus always placing great emphasis upon the Kingdom ; an emphasis which soon, warrants the belief that, in the view of the Master, the great need of the world and of man is the Kingdom of God. However, more of this anon. See Appendix A, "The Theme of Jesus' Preaching."

Remarkable testimony to the innate grandeur of the Christ can be adduced from many sources : orthodoxy and heterodoxy, believer and unbeliever, radical and conservative, Jew and Christian alike, unite in chanting the praises and acknowledging the unique greatness of Him who is, more and more, being crowned King of Men. Mr. Lecky, in his "History of European Morals," does not pay too high encomium to the Founder of Christianity, when he remarks: "It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character, which, through all the changes of eighteen centuries has filled the hearts of men with an impassioned love and has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, conditions; has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the highest incentive to its practice." The testimony of a noted Rabbi also is no less emphatic in praise of Jesus than the customary Christian eulogy. Delivering an address before the Epworth League of St. James' Methodist Church, Chicago, Dr. Emil G. Hirsch declared: "If Jesus Christ should return to the earth to-morrow, He would be welcomed in every Jewish synagogue in the land, and every Jew would say with David, 'Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lifted up ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in.' " While this very cordial welcome may well be doubted in view of the singularly inhospitable reception extended centuries ago, the purport of the declaration is evident, in that it voices the admiration felt by many Jews for the Christ life and the Christ character.

Nor can we forbear to quote here the very eloquent tribute of Monsieur Renan, in the closing paragraph of his Vie de Jesus: "As for us, eternal children, condemned to weakness, we who labor without harvesting, and shall never see the fruit of what we have sown, let us bow before these demi-gods. They knew what we do not know : to create, to affirm, to act. Shall originality be born anew, or shall the world henceforth be content to follow the paths opened by the bold creators of the ancient ages? We know not. But whatever may be the surprises of the future, Jesus will never be surpassed. His worship will grow young without ceasing; His legend will call forth tears without end; His sufferings will melt the noblest hearts; all ages will proclaim that among the sons of men there is none born greater than Jesus."

Similar testimony, from most dissimilar sources, might be multiplied at will; but, not to weary the reader, we will pass to the point in view: The growing conviction of our age that the truest and best appreciation of Jesus of Nazareth is gained along the line of a study of the Man Himself, and His teachings and acts; and not primarily from a study of what others have taught about Him. "He stood the more a King when bared to man." His message to the world, indeed, is best heard from His own lips; and His ideas are best gained by a close study of His own words as we find them reported by his faithful followers. We cannot but feel that the world has suffered an immeasurable loss, in that the teaching of the Master has been somewhat obscured by the teaching of the Church about the Master. Against the teaching of the Church we have no word to utter ; at the same time, what is eternally and logically and chronologically of chiefest importance, is the Teaching of Jesus Himself.

We have indicated briefly that the engrossing theme of Jesus was the Kingdom of God, and that this seemed to the Preeminent Man of the human race, the world's great need. We think, therefore, that if this solution of the evils of human life was offered by Him whom millions of men acknowledge to be the Son of God, and whom all acknowledge to be the ideal man, it becomes the duty, and it is the privilege of every thoughtful mind to inquire, "What is meant by 'The Kingdom of God'? What is this Kingdom which men are to seek?" For the conviction, so aptly expressed by Richard Watson Gilder, is deepening universally and steadily:

"If Jesus Christ is a man,

And only a man, I say

That of all mankind I cleave to Him,

And to Him will I cleave alway.

If Jesus Christ is a God,

And the only God, I swear . I will follow Him through Heaven and Hell,

The earth, the sea, and the air."

It is, therefore, our purpose to consider the Kingdom of God in its essential characteristics, as it is revealed in the Teaching of Jesus. Preparatory, however, to the more detailed investigation, we will consider:

1. The meaning of the phrase, "The Kingdom of God" or "The Kingdom of Heaven."

2. The origin and pre-Christian development of the idea which the phrase embodies.

3. The significance attached to the expression when used by Jesus.

Now first let us consider the phrase itself and its meaning. 1 The expressions, "The Kingdom of God" and "The Kingdom of Heaven," are apparently unequivocal and definite. This definiteness, however, soon begins to recede when one endeavors to define the meaning of the phrase. What is the significance ? Can the reader give any ready answer? And yet this expression stands prominently on many pages of the New Testament, and is written large on almost every page of the Synoptic Gospels. Surely we have a right to expect that those who would read their Bible intelligently, should determine at the earliest possible moment the meaning of an expression which is certainly among the most important in the Sacred Book, and which furnishes the key without which very many passages are most effectually sealed.

Now, as to the significance of the phrase, first let us consider the word "Kingdom." We are inclined to believe that we know the force of this word: it seems simple and easily intelligible, but a little reflection proves the word ambiguous. In our common speech, "kingdom" is used in different senses. For instance, we speak of the Kingdom of England, and a moment or two later perhaps, of the Vegetable or the Mineral Kingdom. Is the sense of the word the same in both expressions? Manifestly, it is not; and we recognize the difference at once. The word may be used, indeed, to define the territory or the country that is subject to a king; when it is used in this sense, the foreign possessions of the country are not commonly included in the idea. We speak, for instance, of the Kingdom of England without including Canada or Australia. So in this way the word has a definite, concrete, territorial sense: it is synonymous with "realm." But there is another sense almost as popular as this territorial one, in which the word is used. We refer to the inhabitants of a country, or to the popula-

1 See Appendix B, "The Phrases, 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'Kingdom of God.' "

tion subject to a king, as the "Kingdom." We say that the kingdom was disturbed, or that the entire kingdom was alarmed. Here^ of course, the population of the country is referred to, and here "kingdom" is identical with the subjects of the realm. But there is another interesting sense to be considered. This word is also used in a more indefinite and abstract sense; at times it possesses a larger, wider, and apparently a more intangible meaning. For intance, men speak of the Animal, the Vegetable and the Mineral Kingdoms; by these they mean those divisions or spheres in which a certain law prevails and holds sway; as in the Animal Kingdom, the law of sentient life. Or again, in referring to the Kingdom of George V, we may mean, not merely the limited territorial Kingdom of England, but rather, wherever the authority of the King is acknowledged and obeyed, whether in Canada, Australia, India, or the distant Islands of the Sea. Here "kingdom" is synonymous with, and equivalent to "sovereignty" or "rule." Thus we find that we have quite different, yet not wholly unrelated, senses of the word "kingdom" in our English tongue. It becomes therefore, a question of prime importance to determine which of these interpretations shall be applied to the Biblical expression — "The Kingdom of God." Are we to interpret the watchword of Jesus in terms of the abstract or of the concrete? Is it to be understood of a definite organization, an ecclesiastical "realm," or shall we understand it as applying to the people, or persons, who are subject to Heaven or to God?

Or, lastly, Is it to be understood of that division, sphere or domain — whatever and wherever it may be — in which the authority of God and the Law of Heaven prevail and are supreme? Is it a rule or sovereignty? Surely these are important and imperative questions ; they ought to be answered by every intelligent Christian ; and they are of the gravest importance to every minister of Christ, who would understand his Master's aim and teaching. In the Talmud, and in later Jewish literature, the expression is more commonly used in the latter sense — that of sovereignty or "rule." The Old Testament itself, no less than subsequent Jewish literature, bears testimony to this usage, as we shall find later on. Yet it would be very unwise in our interpretation of "The Kingdom of God," to reject wholly any of the senses or interpretations of the word "kingdom" which have been given above ; for in so doing, we would seriously curtail a term, which is at once most expressive and most elusive. Indeed, it ought to be borne in mind constantly that it is extremely difficult to define adequately — i. e., in any succinct or concise way, — the meaning of this phrase : not because the sense is hazy, and the term inconclusive, and meaning nothing in reality, but because the expression is so pregnant with meaning. However, in defining "The Kingdom of God," usually one of the interpretations mentioned above is adopted, and often to the exclusion of all others, the most common, and apparently the simplest, being to identify the Kingdom of Heaven with the Christian Church. This too common and superficial view is the bane of much of our Christianity, and the effectual means by which many are deterred from gaining any true and adequate insight into the august conception of Jesus of Nazareth. Nothing has been more harmful throughout the centuries; nothing is more harmful to-day. While this interpretation should not be rigorously excluded from the possible and allowable interpretations of the phrase, it should be rigorously placed in, and be made to abide in, a secondary and subordinate position; for it teems with error. Yet withal there is one sense of the expression which indicates its basic and fundamental idea; of this one must be the possessor and the ever-conscious possessor, if he would wend his way successfully and satisfactorily through the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. "The Kingdom of God" suggests and denotes the "sovereignty" or "rule" of God, or of Heaven. Whether this rule be over a realm, or a people, or an individual, is a secondary and a subsidiary matter. "The sovereignty of God" is the fundamental conception of the phrase: all else is, indeed, secondary.

The most concise and the most explicit indication of the phrase's meaning is that given by Jesus Himself in the Lord's Prayer, in the words "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" (St. Matthew 6:10). Or again, the meaning of the expression may be gathered from Our Lord's emphatic declaration: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in Heaven." The inherent and essentially inward and spiritual character of the Kingdom may also be seen from such a passage as St. Luke 17:20, 21. Jesus is replying to the Pharisees, who were inquiring anxiously as to the time when the Kingdom of God should come. His words are: "The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation; neither shall they say, Lo here, lo there! for, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you." The words "within you" may also be translated "in the midst of you"; but whichever translation is accepted, the emphasis is placed upon the inward and spiritual aspect of the Kingdom. Many additional passages might be cited in substantiation of our contention ; in fact, as the reader proceeds through these pages, numerous quotations from both the New Testament and the Old Testament will be met with, all of which will be found to bear upon this interpretation. 1

Enough has now been said, however, to indicate that the essential thought of the phrase, "The Kingdom of God," is the sovereignty of God; or, if we choose to view it from its manward side, it is obedience to God's will. The phrase may be defined, therefore, as "the domain in which God's Holy Will is done in and among men."

Valuable testimony to the validity of this interpretation is furnished by Professor Dalman in his "Words of Jesus," when he says, — "No doubt can be entertained that both in the Old Testament and in Jewish literature malekoth (kingdom), when applied to God, means always the 'kingly rule,' never the 'kingdom' as if it were meant to suggest the territory governed by Him. For the Old Testament see Psalms 103:19; 145:11, 12, 13, cf. Obad. 21, Ps. 29:29. For the Jewish literature, the instances to be cited later on. To-day, as in antiquity, an Oriental 'kingdom' is not a body politic in our sense, a people or land under some form of constitution, but merely a 'sovereignty' which embraces a particular territory. We shall be justified, therefore, in starting from this signification of malekoth as employed by Jesus" (p. 94). Passages from later Jewish writings might be cited here, but, inasmuch as several of the most important of these will be quoted in a later