CHAPTER VII GOOD AND EVIL SPIRITS It would be a matter of great interest, if it were practicable, to construct in thought the world as Jesus conceived it. But we have only scanty materials for so doing. He did not discourse upon nature or history. The fields of philosophy and science lay outside the scope of his teaching and work. His references to subjects which lie within these fields are quite incidental. They are made in popular language and embody the popular conceptions which were prevalent in his time. He spoke very often of natural phenomena of the sun rising, the clouds threatening rain, the seed sprouting; of the lily's beauty, the care of vines and trees, the culture of the soil, the habits of animals, the qualities of salt and leaven-but without intending to add anything to the popular knowledge of meteorology, botany, or agriculture. The facts of nature and of human life he used simply as means to illustrate the moral and spiritual truths which constitute the peculiar province of his life-work. It is a fair question whether Jesus meant to commit himself to any doctrines concerning the universe or life which are not an essential part of his positive teaching as the founder and head of the Kingdom of God. Would it have been consistent with his Messianic vocation for him to have assumed the rôle of an expert in literary or historical criticism, any more than in astronomy or metaphysics? If Jesus in teaching a lesson concerning his own work, referred to Jonah as having been swallowed by a sea-monster (Mt. xii. 40), did he thereby mean to authenticate that narrative in the Old Testament as literal his tory?1 When he spoke of the "law of Moses," and the "book of Moses," or of what "Moses wrote," did he mean to say that Moses composed the Pentateuch in its present form? Did he pronounce upon the authorship of certain Psalms by the way in which he quoted them as what "David said "? To answer these questions in the affirmative is to suppose that it was the intention of Jesus to assert the correctness of the popular ideas of his time respecting the character of Old Testament stories and the authorship of Old Testament books. On this view we must suppose that in his incidental references to such subjects, Jesus is not merely speaking the popular language and using the current conceptions of his time for the ends of his teaching, but that he is committing his authority to the scientific accuracy of the common expressions and ideas which he uses. On this supposition his allusions to Old Testament books and narratives are sometimes made a touchstone for determining critical and historical questions which were as foreign to the thought of his time as were the researches and problems of anthropology or physical science. If his assertion, "Moses wrote," discredits modern criticism, does not his affirmation that the sun rises destroy modern astronomy?? 1 It should here be noticed that Matthew alone connects the Jonah-sign with Jesus' resurrection. Luke in the parallel passage (xi. 29, 30; cf. 32) seems to regard the “sign of Jonah" as consisting of Jonah's preaching. This interpretation of the "sign" Matthew has also preserved from the Logia (xii. 41). The additional explanation of Jonah's sign to the Ninevites as consisting in his deliverance from the belly of the monster finds no warrant in the Book of Jonah itself, nor in the context of our passage. Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites in that he was a preacher of righteousness (Jon. iii. 4). With this idea Luke agrees, and also Matthew in xii. 41, 42. The additional explanation given in verse 40 is probably the author's own, suggested by the point of likeness between the experience of Jonah and that of Jesus, mentioned in verse 40-a three-days burial. So Holtzmann and Wendt; per contra, Meyer and Weiss. 2 "If indeed the question had ever been put to our Lord, was such a passage written by such a man? then he would either have refused to answer such a question, or he would have resolved the difficulty. Had he pronounced his decision, I would have believed him. Judging, however, from his ordinary method of teaching, I should have expected that, just as he said to the man who desired him to interfere in a question of inheritance, Who made me a judge or a divider between you?' He would have said in reply to the question about the age or author of a pas We must conclude that Jesus did not regard it as falling within his province to criticise the popular beliefs of his time regarding the order of the world, or as any part of his mission to extend human information in the fields of historical fact, literary criticism, or philosophical inquiry. When, for example, he spoke of the heart, the spirit, the soul, or life of man, he spoke the language of popular speech, and his purpose was to impress religious truth, not to impart psychological knowledge. His life-work belonged to a realm which is immeasurably higher than that of human science. He saw the inner meaning of the world and of life, with whose details science is occupied. He penetrated to the heart of Old Testament truth and was oblivious of such questions as those of time, place, and date. Nature he looked upon as the revelation of the divine order and beneficence; he spoke often of her powers and processes, which were for his mind instinct with God; but he was not at all concerned to extend men's observation of natural phenomena, much less to correct the popular impressions concerning them. For him it was quite enough to teach men to see God in nature, as it was enough to show them the imperishable religious truths which formed the essential substance of Old Testament revelation. The question now arises: Can we safely commit ourselves to the guidance of principles like these in seeking to distinguish the positive and explicit teaching of Jesus from those incidental references which he often makes to various ideas and conclusions current in popular thought? Can we, for example, derive a positive doctrine of the location of heaven or of the nature of Hades, of angels and evil spirits and Satan, from the way in which he speaks of these subjects? Or should we conclude that he did not intend to embrace such themes within the range of his positive instruction? He speaks of heaven, as men have always done, in terms of space. It is a name for the seat sage in the Old Testament, Who commissioned me to resolve difficulties in historical criticism?'" Bishop Moorhouse, The Teaching of Christ (1892), pp. 41, 42. of the divine majesty, where God's will is perfectly done. But at most we can call this but the form of his thought. Its essence does not consist in any local conception. If God is in heaven, he is also in earth. Heaven is often a name for divinity, or God's holy order. The prodigal son sins against heaven (Lk. xv. 18). The baptism of John was from heaven (Mk. xi. 30), that is, providentially appointed and divinely sanctioned. His faithful disciples are to receive the rewards which are stored up for them in heaven (Mt. v. 12; Lk. xii. 33), but these terms are most naturally understood as referring to spiritual benefits and blessings, not to external gifts which are hoarded up for men like earthly treasures. The real thought of Jesus concerning heaven clearly transcends the popular form of which he most naturally makes use and rises into the world of the spirit. Heaven is the ideal world; it is the perfect life, the perfect society, as God conceives and designs it; it is the true goal of this present imperfect order. A severe literalism might insist that Jesus represents heaven as a place above the earth where God sits on a throne (Mt. v. 34); a more discerning search into the aim and import of Jesus' teaching discloses his deep spiritual purpose, - to kindle in men a living sense of God, of whose perfections, holy laws, and order "heaven" is a convenient and popular symbol. In this case there is no great difficulty in distinguishing what is incidental to the popular speech of Jesus from what is central and essential in his thought when he speaks about heaven. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk. xvi. 19 sq.) he makes use of the popular idea of Hades as the general abode of the dead, but with this modification of the Old Testament idea of Sheol as a dark and distinctionless realm, that it is composed of two parts separated by a great gulf, across which, however, men converse. It is obvious that no doctrine concerning Hades is meant to be taught in this parabolic use of current ideas. Paradise (Lk. xxii. 43) is apparently the place of happiness in Hades. The other references to Hades are purely figurative. Capernaum shall be cast down to Hades (Lk. x. 16), HEAVEN -a symbol of abasement in contrast to heaven, a symbol of exaltation. Against the Church the "gates of Hades," the greatest opposing powers, so called because the portals of the realm of death so securely hold all who dwell within it, shall not prevail (Mt. xvi. 18). Does Jesus, then, sanction the Jewish views of Sheol? He is neither HELL concerned to sanction nor to deny them. He uses them as convenient forms for teaching moral truth. His revelation of God gives him no occasion either to confirm or to reject them. The subject is not within the field of his mission. We will next observe his language concerning angels. The Old Testament was filled with references to superhuman beings and their agency. The later Judaism greatly increased their number and functions. God was withdrawn from the world, and angels were conceived of as the mediating agents by which he accomplished his purposes among men. In this particular, Jesus did not altogether follow the thought of his time. He represented God as being in Ty living contact with the world, and as directly operative in human affairs. He accordingly spoke less frequently of angel-mediation. ENTLY MEDIATION In several places, however, he seems to refer to angels in such a way as to show that he believed in their real existence. He will come "in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mk. viii. 38; Mt. xvi. 27; xxv. 31); "angels in heaven" neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mk. xii. 25); of the hour of his advent not even "the angels in heaven" know (Mk. xiii. 32). Beyschlag holds that "the holy angels of the Son of man, with whom he will come again in his glory, are the rays of the divine majesty which are then to surround him with splendor; they are the divine powers with which he is to awaken the dead, to dissolve the present order of the world, and set up a new and higher order." Even if the references to angels in connection with the parousia be regarded as poetical, I see no sufficient ground for understanding the other references, just cited, in this way; and it is notice 1 N. T. Theol. I. 87 (Bk. I. ch. iv. § 5). |