spirit, he only intensifies, without limiting, the operation of the law; he merely spiritualises it. He does no more than this in his lessons regarding the observance of the Sabbath. He did not in point of fact attack the genuine Mosaic inst.i.tution of the day of rest at all, but merely the intolerable literalism by which its observance had been made a burden instead of "a delight." He justified his variation from the traditional teaching and practice of his time, however, by appeals to Scriptural precedent.(1)
As a recent writer has said: "....the observance of the Sabbath, which had been intended to secure for weary men a rest full of love and peace and mercy, had become a mere national Fetish--a barren custom fenced in with the most frivolous and senseless restrictions."(2) Jesus restored its original significance. In restricting some of the permissive clauses of the Law, on the other hand, he acted precisely in the same spirit.
He dealt with the Law not with the temper of a revolutionist, but of a reformer, and his reforms, so far from affecting its permanence, are a virtual confirmation of the rest of the code.(3) Ritschl, whose views on this point will have some weight with apologists, combats the idea that Jesus merely confirmed the Mosaic moral law, and abolished the ceremonial law. Referring to one particular point of importance, he says:--"He certainly contests the duty of the Sabbath rest, the value of purifications and sacrifices, and the validity of divorce; on the other hand, he leaves unattacked the value of circ.u.mcision, whose regulation is generally reckoned as part of the
{126}
ceremonial law; and nothing justifies the conclusion that Jesus estimated it in the same way as Justin Martyr, and the other Gentile Christian Church teachers, who place it on the same line as the ceremonies. The only pa.s.sage in which Jesus touches upon circ.u.mcision (John vii. 22) rather proves that, as an inst.i.tution of the patriarchs, he attributes to it peculiar sanct.i.ty. Moreover, when Jesus, with unmistakable intention, confines his own personal ministry to the Israelitish people (Mk. vii. 27, Mt. x. 5, 6), he thereby recognises their prior right of partic.i.p.ation in the Kingdom of G.o.d, and also, indirectly, circ.u.mcision as the sign of the preference of this people.
The distinction of circ.u.mcision from ceremonies, besides, is perfectly intelligible from the Old Testament. Through circ.u.mcision, to wit, is the Israelite, sprung from the people of the Covenant, indicated as sanctified by G.o.d; through purification, sacrifice, Sabbath-rest must he continually sanctify himself for G.o.d. So long, therefore, as the conception of the people of the Covenant is maintained, circ.u.mcision cannot be abandoned, whilst even the prophets have pointed to the merely relative importance of the Mosaic worship."(1)
Jesus everywhere in the Gospels recognises the divine origin of the law,(2) and he quotes the predictions of the prophets as absolute evidence of his own pretensions. To those who ask him the way to eternal life he indicates its commandments,(3) and he even enjoins the observance of its ceremonial rites.(4) Jesus did not abrogate the
{127}
Mosaic law; but, on the contrary, by his example as well as his precepts, he practically confirmed it.(1)
According to the statements of the Gospels, Jesus himself observed the prescriptions of the Mosaic law.(2) From his birth he had been brought up in its worship.(3) He was circ.u.mcised on the eighth day.(4) "And when the days of their purification were accomplished, according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, even as it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male, &c, &c, and to give a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord," &c, &c.(5) Every year his parents went to Jerusalem at the feast of the Pa.s.sover,(6) and this practice he continued till the close of his life. "As his custom was, he went into the Synagogue (at Nazareth) and stood up to read."(7) According to the fourth Gospel, Jesus goes up to Jerusalem for the various festivals of the Jews,(8) and the feast of the Pa.s.sover, according to the Synoptics, was the last memorable supper eaten
{128}
with his disciples,(1) the third Synoptic representing him as saying: "With desire I desired to eat this Pa.s.sover with you before I suffer; for I say unto you that I shall not any more eat it until it be fulfilled hi the kingdom of G.o.d."(2) However exceptional the character of Jesus, and however elevated his views, it is undeniable that he lived and died a Jew, conforming to the ordinances of the Mosaic law in all essential points, and not holding himself aloof from the worship of the Temple which he purified. The influence which his adherence to the forms of Judaism must have exerted over his followers(3) can scarcely be exaggerated, and the fact must ever be carefully borne in mind in estimating the conduct of the Apostles and of the primitive Christian community after his death.
As befitted the character of the Jewish Messiah, the sphere of the ministry of Jesus and the arrangements for the proclamation of the Gospel were strictly and even intensely, Judaic. Jesus attached to his person twelve disciples, a number clearly typical of the twelve tribes of the people of Israel;(4) and this reference is distinctly adopted when Jesus is represented, in the Synoptics, as promising that, in the Messianic kingdom, "when the Son
{129}
of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory," the Twelve also "shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel;"(1) a promise which, according to the third Synoptist, is actually made during the last supper.(2) In the Apocalypse, which, "of all the writings of the New Testament is most thoroughly Jewish in its language and imagery,"(3) the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb are written upon the twelve foundations of the wall of the heavenly Jerusalem, upon the twelve gates of which, through which alone access to the city can be obtained, are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.(4) Jesus himself limited his teaching to the Jews, and was strictly "a minister of the circ.u.mcision for the truth of G.o.d, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers."(5) To the prayer of the Canaanitish woman: "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David," unlike his gracious demeanour to her of the b.l.o.o.d.y issue,(6) Jesus, at first, it is said, "answered her not a word;" and even when besought by the disciples--not to heal her daughter, but--to "send her away," he makes the emphatic declaration: "I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."(7) To her continued appeals he lays
{130}
down the principle: "It is not lawful to take the children"s bread and cast it to the dogs." If after these exclusive sentences the boon is finally granted, it is as of the crumbs(1) which fall from the master"s table.(2) The modified expression(3) in the second Gospel: "Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children"s bread and cast it to the dogs;" does not affect the case, for it equally represents exclusion from the privileges of Israel, and the Messianic idea fully contemplated a certain grace to the heathen when the children were filled. The expression regarding casting, the children"s bread "to the dogs" is clearly in reference to the Gentiles, who were so called by the Jews.(4) A similar, though still stronger use of such expressions, might be pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount in the first
{131}
Gospel (vii. 6): "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine." It is certain that the Jews were in the habit of speaking of the heathen both as dogs and swine--unclean animals,--and Hilgenfeld,(1) and some other critics, see in this verse a reference to the Gentiles. We do not, however, press this application which is, and may be, disputed, but merely mention it and pa.s.s on. There can be no doubt, however, of the exclusive references to the Gentiles in the same sermon, and other pa.s.sages, where the disciples are enjoined to practise a higher righteousness than the Gentiles. "Do not even the publicans... do not even the Gentiles or sinners the same things."(2) "Take no thought, &c, for after all these things do the Gentiles seek; but seek ye, &c, &c."(3) The contrast is precisely that put with some irony by Paul, making use of the common Jewish expression "sinner" as almost equivalent for "Gentile;"(4) In another place the first Synoptic represents Jesus as teaching his disciples how to deal with a brother who sins against them, and as the final resource, when every effort at reconciliation and justice has failed, he says: "Let him be unto thee as the Gentile [------] and the publican." (Mt. xviii. 17.) He could not express in a stronger way to a Jewish mind the idea of social and religious excommunication.
The instructions which Jesus gives in sending out the Twelve, however, express the exclusiveness of the
{132}
Messianic mission, in the first instance at least, to the Jews, in a very marked manner. Jesus commands his disciples: "Go not into a way of the Gentiles [------] and into a city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand."(1) As if more emphatically to mark the limitation of the mission, the a.s.surance is seriously added: "For verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man come."(2) It will be observed that Jesus here charges the Twelve to go rather "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" in the same words that he employs to the Canaanitish woman to describe the exclusive destination of his own ministry.(3) In coupling the Samaritans with the Gentiles there is merely an expression of the intense antipathy of the Jews against them, as a mixed and, we may say, renegade race, excluded from the Jewish worship although circ.u.mcised, intercourse with whom is to this day almost regarded as pollution.(4) The third Gospel, which omits the restrictive instructions of Jesus to the Twelve given by the first Synoptist, introduces another episode of the same description: the appointment and mission of Seventy disciples,(6) to which we must very briefly refer. No mention whatever is made of this incident in the other Gospels, and these disciples are not referred to in any other part of the New Testament.(6) Even Eusebius remarks that no
{133}
catalogue of them is anywhere given,(1) and, after naming a few persons, who were said by tradition to have been of their number, he points out that more than seventy disciples appear, for instance, according to the testimony of Paul.(2) It will be observed that the instructions, at least in considerable part, supposed to be given to the Seventy in the third. Synoptic are, in the first, the very instructions given to the Twelve. There has been much discussion regarding the whole episode, which need not here be minutely referred to. For various reasons the majority of critics impugn its historical character.(3) A large number of these, as well as other writers, consider that the narrative of this appointment of seventy disciples, the number of the nations of the earth according to Jewish ideas, was introduced in Pauline universalistic interest,(4) or, at least, that the number is
{134}
typical of Gentile conversion, in contrast with that of the Twelve who represent the more strictly Judaic limitation of the Messianic mission; and they seem to hold that the preaching of the seventy is represented as not confined to Judaea, but as extending to Samaria, and that it thus denoted the destination of the Gospel also to the Gentiles. On the other hand, other critics, many, though by no means all, of whom do not question the authenticity of the pa.s.sage, are disposed to deny the Pauline tendency, and any special connection with a mission to the Gentiles, and rather to see in the number seventy a reference to well-known Judaistic inst.i.tutions.(1) It is true that the number of the nations was set down at seventy by Jewish tradition,(2) but, on the other hand, it was the number of the elders chosen by Moses from amongst the children of Israel by G.o.d"s command to help him, and to whom G.o.d gave of his spirit(3)s and also of the national
{135}
Sanhedrin, which, according to the Mischna,(1) still represented the Mosaic council. This view receives confirmation from the Clementine Recognitions in the following pa.s.sage: "He therefore chose us twelve who first believed in him, whom he named Apostles; afterwards seventy-two other disciples of most approved goodness, that even in this way recognising the similitude of Moses the mult.i.tude might believe that this is the prophet to come whom Moses foretold."(2) The pa.s.sage here referred to is twice quoted in the Acts: "Moses indeed said: A prophet will the Lord our G.o.d raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me," &c.(3) On examination, we do not find that there is any ground for the a.s.sertion that the seventy disciples were sent to the Samaritans or Gentiles, or were in any way connected with universalistic ideas.
Jesus had "stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem," and sent messengers before him who "went and entered into a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him," but they repulsed him, "because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem."(4) There is a decided break, however, before the appointment of the seventy. "After these things [------] the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was about to come."(5) There is not a single word in the instructions
(136}
given to them which justifies the conclusion that they were sent to Samaria, and only the inference from the number seventy, taken as typical of the nations, suggests it. That inference is not sufficiently attested, and the slightness of the use made of the seventy disciples in the third Gospel--this occasion being the only one on which they are mentioned, and no specific intimation of any mission to all people being here given--does not favour the theory of Pauline tendency. So far as we are concerned, however, the point is unimportant. Those who a.s.sert the universalistic character of the episode generally deny its authenticity; most of those who accept it as historical deny its universalism.
The order to go and teach all nations, however, by no means carries us beyond strictly Messianic limits. Whilst the Jews expected the Messiah to restore the people of Israel to their own Holy Land and crown them with unexampled prosperity and peace, revenging their past sorrows upon their enemies, and granting them supremacy over all the earth, they likewise held that one of the Messianic glories was to be the conversion of the Gentiles to the worship of Jahveh. This is the burden of the prophets, and it requires no proof. The Jews, as the people with whom G.o.d had entered into Covenant, were first to be received into the kingdom. "Let the children first be filled,"(1) and then the heathen might partake of the bread. Regarding the ultimate conversion of the Gentiles, therefore, there was no doubt; the only questions were as to the time and the conditions of admission into the national fellowship.
As to the time, there never had been any expectation that the heathen could be turned to Jahveh in numbers before the appearance of the
{137}
Messiah, but converts to Judaism had been made in all ages, and after the dispersion, especially, the influence of the Jews upon the professors of the effete and expiring religions of Rome, of Greece, and of Egypt was very great, and numerous proselytes adopted the faith of Israel,(1) and were eagerly sought for(2) in spite of the abusive terms in which the Talmudists spoke of them.(3) The conditions on the other hand were perfectly definite. The case of converts had been early foreseen and provided for in the Mosaic code. Without referring to minor points, we may at once say that circ.u.mcision was indispensable to admission into the number of the children of Israel.(4) Partic.i.p.ation in the privileges of the Covenant could only be secured by accepting the mark of that Covenant. Very many, however, had adopted Judaism to a great extent, who were not willing to undergo the rite requisite to full admission into the nation, and a certain modification had gradually been introduced by which, without it, strangers might be admitted into partial communion with Israel. There were, therefore, two cla.s.ses of proselytes,(5) the first called Proselytes of the Covenant or of Righteousness, who were circ.u.mcised, obeyed the whole Mosaic law, and
{138}
were fully incorporated with Israel, and the other called Proselytes of the Gate,(1) or worshippers of Jahveh, who in the New Testament are commonly called [------].
These had not undergone the rite of circ.u.mcision, and therefore were not partic.i.p.ators in the Covenant, but merely worshipped the G.o.d of Israel,(4) and were only compelled to observe the seven Noachian prescriptions. These Proselytes of the Gate, however, were little more than on sufferance. They were excluded from the Temple, and even the Acts of the Apostles represent it to be pollution for a Jew to have intercourse with them: it requires direct Divine intervention to induce Peter to go to Cornelius, and to excuse his doing so in the eyes of the primitive Church.(3) Nothing short of circ.u.mcision and full observance of the Mosaic law could secure the privileges of the Covenant with Israel to a stranger, and in ill.u.s.tration of this we may again point to the Acts, where certain who came from Judaea, members of the primitive church, teach the Christians of Antioch: "Except ye have been circ.u.mcised after the custom of Moses ye cannot be saved."(4)
1 We need not discuss the chronology of this cla.s.s.
2 It is scarcely necessary to speak of the well-known case of Lzates, King of Adiabene, related by Josephus. The Jewish merchant Ananias, who teaches him to worship G.o.d according to the religion of the Jews, is willing, evidently from the special emergency of the case and the danger of forcing Izates fully to embrace Judaism in the face of his people, to let him remain a mere Jahveh worshipper, only partially conforming to the Law, and remaining uncirc.u.mcised"; but another Jew from Galilee, Eleazer, versed in Jewish learning, points out to him that, in neglecting circ.u.mcision, he breaks the princ.i.p.al point of the Law.
Izates then has himself circ.u.mcised. Josephus, Antiq. xx.
2, -- 3 f.
3 Acts x. 2 ff, xi. 2 ft. Dr. Lightfoot says: "The Apostles of the circ.u.mcision, even St. Peter himself, had failed hitherto to comprehend the wide purpose of G.o.d. With their fellow-countrymen they still held it unlawful for a Jew to keep company with an alien" (Acts x. 28)." Galatians, p.
290.
{139}
This will be more fully shown as we proceed. The conversion of the Gentiles was not, therefore, in the least degree an idea foreign to Judaism, but, on the contrary, formed an intimate part of the Messianic expectation of the later prophets. The conditions of admission to the privileges and promises of the Covenant, however, were full acceptance of the Mosaic law, and submission to the initiatory rite.(1) That small and comparatively insignificant people, with an arrogance that would have been ridiculous if, in the influence which they have actually exerted over the world, it had not been almost sublime, not only supposed themselves the sole and privileged recipients of the oracles of G.o.d, as his chosen and peculiar people, but they contemplated nothing short of universal submission to the Mosaic code, and the supremacy of Israel over all the earth.
We are now better able to estimate the position of the Twelve when the death of their Master threw them on their own resources, and left them to propagate his Gospel as they themselves understood it. Born a Jew of the race of David, accepting during his life the character of the promised Messiah, and dying with the mocking t.i.tle "King of the Jews"
written upon his cross, Jesus had left his disciples in close communion with the Mosaism which he had spiritualized and enn.o.bled, but had not abolished. He himself had taught them that "it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness," and, from his youth upwards, had set them the example of
{140}
enlightened observance of the Mosaic law. His precept had not belied his example, and whilst in strong terms we find him inculcating the permanence of the Law, it is certain that he left no order to disregard it. He confined his own preaching to the Jews; the first ministers of the Messiah represented the twelve tribes of the people of Israel;.and the first Christians were of that nation, with no distinctive worship, but practising as before the whole Mosaic ritual. What Neander savs of "many," may, we think, be referred to all: "That Jesus faithfully observed the form of the Jewish law served to them as evidence that this form should ever preserve its value."(1) As a fact, the Apostles and the early Christians continued as before a.s.siduously to practise all the observances of the Mosaic law, to frequent the Temple(2) and adhere to the usual strict forms of Judaism.(3) In addition to the influence of the example of Jesus and the powerful effect of national habit, there were many strong reasons which obviously must to Jews have rendered abandonment of the law as difficult as submission to its full requirements must have been to Gentiles. Holding as they did the Divine origin of the Old Testament, in which the observance of the Law was inculcated on almost every page,
{141}
it would have been impossible, without counter-teaching of the most peremptory and convincing character, to have shaken its supremacy; but beyond this, in that theocratic community Mosaism was not only the condition of the Covenant, and the key of the Temple, but it was also the diploma of citizenship, and the bond of social and political life. To abandon the observance of the Law was not only to resign the privilege and the distinctive characteristic of Israel, to relinquish the faith of the Patriarchs who were the glory of the nation, and to forsake a divinely appointed form of worship, without any recognized or even indicated subst.i.tute, but it severed the only link between the individual and the people of Israel, and left him in despised isolation, an outcast from the community. They had no idea, however, that any such sacrifice was required of them. They were simply Jews believing in the Jewish Messiah, and they held that all things else were to proceed as before, until the glorious second coining of the Christ.(1)
The Apostles and primitive Christians continued to hold the national belief that the way to Christianity lay through Judaism, and that the observance of the law was obligatory and circ.u.mcision necessary to complete communion.(2) Paul describes with unappeased
{142}