Imagini ale paginilor

surmise that the latter always has existed rather as an independent factor, a conjecture sustained by the unity and separate completeness of the thought in the paragraph, completeness except in that it assumes a previous reference to the coming of the Son of man. It reads like a sustained homiletic deduction from certain authentic sayings of Jesus.

In the absence of satisfactory external tests of a documentary kind, the attention may be directed to the principal thoughts of the paragraph, in the endeavor to relate them to similar or dissimilar ideas as recorded elsewhere in the gospels. It is held in advance as possible (1) that this paragraph may be the genuine utterance of Jesus, and, as such, the apostolic source of similar ideas elsewhere when those ideas are not supported in their context by comparative study; (2) that it may be from Jesus, but may not be the source of similar ideas elsewhere, those other expressions being also directly from Jesus, the evidence having been wrongly interpreted in preceding studies; (3) that it may not be from Jesus, but may be the product of the same tendency which added similar ideas elsewhere. The thought of the paragraph falls naturally into two general divisions:

A. Features of the Judgment Scene.
B. The Basis of Destiny in the Judgment.


1. The Son of man shall come in his glory and all the angels with

him.This initial feature of the judgment is portrayed at three other points in the Synoptic Gospels, namely: (1) MK 13:26, 27; (2) MK 14:62=Matt. 26:64= Luke 22:69; (3) MK 8:38. But as to (1), the original words of Jesus on this occasion seem to be preserved in document P $ 60, and as there recorded are without this feature." As for (2), the evidence seems to indicate that the original document MK is preserved by Luke 22:69, which does not contain this feature.? Concerning (3), the saying of Jesus on the subject of denial appears to be found in more primitive form in document P$20 end.3 Ought it to be held that the present paragraph is the source of all these accretions? Or is the saying at this point to be attributed to the same

1 See pp. 170–79.

2 See pp. 83-85.

3 See pp. 79-81.

tendency which apparently produced those accretions, the eschatological impulse of the apostolic age ? 2. He shall sit on the throne of his glory.

In addition to its appearance at this point, this phase of the Judg. ment Scene occurs as a part of the Matthaean record of the promise of judicial functions to the Twelve, but not elsewhere. Thus Matthew reports, “when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones” (Matt. 19:28). Though the Lukan enlargement carries in it the latter phrase, “ye shall sit on thrones” (Luke 22:30), it does not so represent the Son of man as judge of men. Since that portion of the Matthaean record is not supported by document MK 10:28–30,one naturally raises the question whether it may have been drawn from our present paragraph. Or are the phenomena better explained by tracing both of these Matthaean statements to some body of ideas held in common by the apostolic community, but assignable to Jesus only through misinterpretation of the much less personal and much more general portrayal in document P $60 ? 3. “Before him shall be gathered all the nations."

Of the references to judgment in the gospels, this is the only one which indicates that the day takes account of other peoples than Israel. By implication, the judicial activities of that dread occasion are fully covered in the assignment by gospel MT and gospel LK, "ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Does the larger outlook indicate a later origin for this paragraph ? 4. “He shall se parate them one from another .... he shall set the

sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.Apart from any difference of opinion as to the relation between figure and reality in these words, and regarding them simply as a mode of conveying some significant fact as to ultimate destiny, whether is the idea of divergent destiny through a separation better brought to the human consciousness by these words or by those of the same intent credited to Jesus in the second half of document P $60? Is it probable that both modes of portrayal originated in the

* See pp. 221–25.

same mind? And does the present sketch show a development beyond even that Old Testament idea of the method of separation which has found a place in MK 13:27 and in Matt. 13:41, 49-separation through the office of the angels? If so, is this higher articulation another evidence of the later date of this paragraph ? 5. Then shall the King say unto them . . . . And the King shall

answer and say."

By these words Jesus is represented as designating himself as "the King." Shall it be held that it is from the self-definition here recorded that there have grown those references to the kingdom of the Son of man which previous studies have shown to be found only in passages under question on wholly other grounds, namely, Matt. 16:28; Luke 22:29, 30; Matt. 13:41 ? Nowhere else than in the present paragraph does Jesus refer to himself as “the King.” Such self-estimate, expressed by word, is opposed to the otherwise consistent and intelligible policy of Jesus throughout his ministry. Is the evidence strong enough to convince one that he departed from his method in the present case? Or is the term here, like the assignment of the kingdom to him in the above passages, to be referred to his interpreters of a later day? 6. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the


When there is made a study of the references of Jesus to the kingdom of God, from the standpoint of the phraseology used in defining the mode of its acquisition by the individual, it is found that three passages fall into a group which is sharply differentiated from all others. These sayings are: (1) “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32); (2) “I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me” (Luke 22:29); (3) “Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34). As to (1), the comparison of the Matthaean P with the Lukan P has shown that the Lukan form of report, P $825, 26, is due to a modification of the original cast of the document, probably under the influence of the contiguity of the eschatological parables in P$$27-30.3 In the case 1 See pp. 176, 177.

See pp. 233, 234.

3 See pp. 61-63.

of (2), the words are a part of the promise of judicial functions to the Twelve. In the face of these facts, ought it to be held with conviction that the instance belonging to this paragraph, despite its departure from the customary terminology of Jesus, is nevertheless to be credited to Jesus? 7. Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared

for the devil and his angels.The notion of an eschatological fate of the type portrayed in these words has been found in six passages in the Gospel of Matthew which, in one connection or another, have been under examination in preceding studies, namely, Matt. 8:12; 13:42; 13:50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30. For wholly independent reasons in each case, the conclusion was reached that no one of these passages can justifiably be regarded as spoken by Jesus. Ought it to be held that, though not directly assignable to him, they are indirectly the product of his thought, being the outgrowth of the passage now under consideration? If so, this single statement in the portrayal has wielded an immense influence upon the sayings of Jesus about the future, as may be seen even more strikingly by a comparison of document MK 9:43-49 with document M $5. To bring under review all the traces in the Synoptic Gospels of that mode of thought about the eschatological fate of the wicked which finds its most vivid expression in the present paragraph would be too large a digression at this point. The results of subsequent investigation may be anticipated, however, to the extent of affirming that the application of external tests to the reputed sayings brings the conviction that, if Jesus taught the fate here described, this is the only passage by which he did so teach. 8. “And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous

into eternal life.

For an impressive and significant exhibit of the accretion of this conception of “eternal punishment” upon the original words of

i See pp. 221–25.

2 On Matt. 8:12 =Luke 13:28, see pp. 56, 57; on Matt. 13:42, 50, see pp. 226–35; on Matt. 22:13, see pp. 29, 30; on Matt. 24:51, see p. 55, 56; on Matt. 25:30, see pp 27-29.

3 See pp. 256–67.

Jesus, there should be set in detailed parallelism with the report handed down by document M$5 that transmitted by document MK 9:43–49.' Shall it be said that the additions in the latter are the resultant of these words in our present section? Or are those accretions and this section to be traced to the same influence, namely, to beliefs not expressed by Jesus? The study of Jesus' use of the phrase "e

“eternal life" is made subsequently.”


It seems a reasonable statement to affirm that all these features of the Judgment Scene are subsidiary to the purpose of defining the basis of destiny in the judgment so vividly as definitely to affect conduct, as effectively to fashion it according to that basis. To this eminently practical end there is brought into service that framework of future outlook which has engaged our attention to the present. It is of equal if not of greater importance to determine whether the ultimate basis of differentiation between men as here outlined is the product of the mind of Jesus. For, if it is, we have here in small compass the thought of Jesus as to what constitutes true discipleship to himself. No word of his can have higher importance than his definition of the conditions of fellowship with him. Do the demands made here accord with those elsewhere attributed to Jesus ?

It will probably be agreed by those who have made an independent study of the teaching of Jesus, a study not swayed by preconceptions, that the way to discipleship and ultimate destiny outlined by this paragraph falls, in scope of requirement, far short of the conditions of discipleship as uniformly laid down elsewhere by Jesus. It may not be replied that we have here nothing more than partial illustrations of certain phases of the fruit of discipleship, for these actions are made the sole basis of destiny; the representation is that nothing else is taken into account. To set forth the requirements for discipleship as defined by Jesus in other connections is outside the limits of this work. When it is contended that this paragraph does not adequately cover them, it is not meant that the conduct here sketched is of trivial significance, or so wholly secondary for Jesus as to be unworthy of high recognition. What is advanced is that, while the

[blocks in formation]
« ÎnapoiContinuați »