Kyrion - Die Apokalypse - Science-Fiction-Roman (German Edition)

---

Nor has any one document from the early periods evinced the entire so-called gnostic salvation myth. In fact, we lack any pre-Christian texts which evidence the kind of anticosmic, exclusivistic beliefs evident in the Nag Hammadi texts. Without some contemporary evidence we cannot be sure even of the major tenets of any possible gnosticism in Jesus' time. In order to point out this difficulty, a group of researchers, gathered at Messina, agreed to use "gnosticism" to refer exclusively both to the phenomena outlined by the church fathers and to the later developments of those phenomena, while using "gnosis" to refer to gnostic traits and themes occurring earlier.

Fnedlunder is also indebted to M. Bultmann, to mention the foremost scholar having held this view. For a short review of the evidence brought by scholars for the existence of a gnostic redeemer myth see Meeks, The Prophet-King Leiden: The history of scholarship on gnosticism is summarized at greater length by Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, pp.

Gilles Quispel has dealt specifically with the gnostic problem and "two powers" heretics in his essay on the significance of the Jung 30 Codex. His basic point is that, since Jewish sectarianism has lately been shown to be more extensive than previously thought, both our ideas of Christian and Jewish orthodoxy and the origin of gnosticism should be re-evaluated.

In a tack which anticipates some of the conclusions of this essay, he sees a relationship between "two powers" heresy and mystical traditions of the Merkabah type which hypostasize the "name of God" as a separate angelic being. At the same time, he sees a greater relationship than commonly recognized between these Jewish mystical traditions and Christian or apocalyptic works on the one hand and gnostic works on the other. Several other scholars have seen a relationship between gnosticism and heterodox Judaism. Grant ; u promoted the position that gnosticism is to be explained as a response to the failure of Jewish apocalyptic.

Hugo Odeberg and Nils Dahi have pointed out the relationship between gnosticism and early Jewish mysticism, with Christianity serving as an intermediary between earlier mysticism and the later gnosticism. Good summaries of this new perspective have been published during the last few years. Weiss 3 i has reviewed some of the "two powers in heaven" reports in rabbinic literature, together with the reports of early mysticism, in his study -!

Bianchi, Gnosticismo, Unfortunately much of the clarity ostensibly achieved is not carried into practice since the adjective derived from both gnosticism and gnosis is "gnostic". Van Unnik, translated and edited by F, L. Cross, London; , pp. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, X Leiden: See also, Dahl, "Christology Notes. He is especially interested in the parallels between the rabbinic reports and the impersonal kinds of mediation that parallel Greek philosophy.

Martin Hengel has recently published a summary of the material as part of an argument that the title "Son of God" developed within the Jewish milieu of early Christianity. Most of these works argue that extreme gnosticism cannot easily be shown to precede Christianity, Yet, some of the most difficult aspects of this thorny problem of the definition of gnosticism can be sidestepped in the study of "two powers. When the rabbis describe "two powers" in heretical beliefs which are antagonistic and other opposing dualisms can be ruled out extreme gnosticism is the indicated heresy.

But, when the "two powers" are complementary, some other kind of heresy is indicated. A variety of concepts generally thought to contribute to extreme gnosticism—apocalypticism, Merkabah mysticism or gnosis—may be considered when the texts suggest two corresponding powers in heaven, but not extreme gnosticism.

In other words, for rabbinic purposes, the key criterion separating extreme gnosticism from earlier phenomena —whether they be pre-gnostk or proto-gnostic—is the opposition between the two powers. All the configurations were heretical. The rabbinic texts about "two powers" can yield new evidence in the controversy over the origins of gnosticism and its relationship to Christianity, if they are treated with these sensitivities in mind.

For instance, sometimes it will be possible to isolate and date different strands of the rabbinic attack. In those cases, we will be able to tell whether opposing dualism or the moderate, corresponding "binitarianism" entered rabbinic purview first. On that basis, we will be able to sketch the outlines of a history of the heresy of "two powers," including an approximate date for the entrance of several different heretical groups into rabbinic scrutiny.

It has just been translated into English by John Bowden Philadelphia: Of course, this evidence by itself cannot be final. The rabbis may have missed some aspects of the phenomenon or have chosen not to record their earliest encounters. But the task of this paper is to explain what has been preserved, not speculate on what has not. The research into the heresy of "two powers in heaven" has been done by illustrious scholars, though it should be evident by now that the time is ripe for formulating some significant new conclusions.

New discoveries have brought to light important new information about the religious movements of that time.

The known variety of dualistic possibilities for the identity of the heretics should now be explored. It would be helpful to the search for ditheistic sects to review each possibility, noting briefly what has been learned recently about each. Twentieth-century scholarship has reversed these conclusions almost entirely. We have already seen the extent to which Christianity is implicated.

Furthermore, while Zoroastrianism remains a possible referent for the antiduahstic polemic of the rabbis, it cannot be considered the probable target any longer. For one thing, Zoroastrianism cannot be considered the classical case of dualism which it was once supposed to be. Zarathustra's supposed writing the oldest writing to survive in the Avesta is ambiguous enough on the subject of dualism to require clarification by strictly dualistic commentary of later texts. Unfortunately, while the younger Avestan texts develop the theme of moral and cosmological dualism, they also contain references to gods which are, at best, extraneous to Zarathustra's system and which appear logically to contradict most of his thought.

Hence, dating the emergence of dualistic thought in Persia is quite difficult. Apparently, Iranian religion was able to subsume a variety of differing theological tendencies. Hoffmann JE, V, 5 f. The result is that some scholars now place the emergence of clear dualism 4 as late as the end of the Sassanian Empire in the fifth century C.

On the other hand, dualism cannot be ruled out completely as a characteristic of early Persian religion. A fragment of Aristotle's peri philosophias cited by Diogenes Laertius reports that the Magi believed in two opposing moral principles. In the oracle concerning Cyrus Isa. This suggests that the writing is meant to describe YHWH with the grandeur reserved for Babylonian royalty, though adapted for Cyrus's political purposes.

These findings are important to us because they include the basic biblical polemic against dualism, for instance: Such insistence on God's authorship of ail creation even risking contradiction of other biblical traditions would implicate Zoroastrian dualism as the target of the prophet's polemic.

The prophet argues in the same passage that the gods and religions of all the other nations have no power. This kind of 40 E. Zaehner, Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism London: Clemen, fontes Historiae Religionis persicae Bonn: The conclusions about Persian thought relevant to our study can thus be summarized in the following way: Although Zoroastrianism can be pinpointed with some probability in Isaiah's writings and although Isaiah's writing serves as the basis of the rabbinic polemic, it is not necessarily true that Zoroastrians were the heretics who believe in "two powers in heaven.

A magi sic once said to Arnemar: From the middle of your body upwards you belong to Ormazd; from the middle downwards to Ahriman. Why then does Ahriman permit Ormazd to send water through his territory? There is no reason for the rabbis to use more obscure terms. The Dead Sea Scrolls, however, have given us significant evidence of dualism within Judaism. Some scholars even claim that Qumran was a case of Jewish sectarian absorption of Persian thought.

Gaster, for instance, sees Qumran as the Jewish form of Zoroastrianism. Even without raising the issue of their relationship to Zoroastrianism which, in any case, was unnoticed by their contemporaries the Qumranites can be seen as a contemporary source of dualism. They are the spirits of truth and of perversity.

In a dwelling of light are the generations of truth and from a well of darkness come the generations of perversity. In the hand of the prince of lights is the dominion of all the sons of righteousness; in the ways of light will they walk. In the hand of the angel of darkness is all the dominion of the sons of perversity and in the ways of darkness they will walk.

And by the angel of darkness are the errors of all the sons of righteousness; and all their sins and iniquities and guiltiness and deeds of transgression are in his dominion according to the secrets of God for his appointed time. All their afflictions and set times of their troubles are under the dominion of his hostility and all the spirits of his portion are set to trip up the sons of light, but the God of Israel and his angel of truth are the help of the sons of light. From the War Scroll, it becomes quite clear that the Qumraii group felt itself to be the elect which, though then few in numbers, would one day serve with the angels as God's divine army, vindicating their present outcast status with victory at the end of time.

Although the Dead Sea sectarians seem to be dualists, they also believed in one transcendent God above all the angels. For them, each of the moral forces, good and evil, had a captain. The angel of darkness and the angel of truth would correspond to the spirit of light and the spirit of darkness. Other apocalyptic documents contain similar dualistic statements. For more possible "Two natures" arguments see Apoc. See also Hermetic Writings I 18, This same legend also occurs in pagan writing. Plato, Phaedrus, , among the Stoics see Arnim, j.

Additional references provided by John Gager, unpublished paper on dualism. The rabbis developed their own theory of man's two impulses, the impulse toward good, and the impulse toward evil. Akiba is also supposed to have articulated a theory of extreme, ethical dualism: After his apostasy, Aher asked R. Meir [a question], saying to him: What is the meaning of the verse: God bath made even the one as -well as the other?

It means that for everything that God created He created [also] its counterpart. He created mountains, and created hills; He created seas, and created rivers. Said [Aher] to Him: Akiba, thy master, did not explain it thus, but [as follows]: He created righteous, and created wicked; He created the Garden of Eden, and created Gehinnom. Everyone has two portions, one in the Garden of Eden and one in Gehinnom. The wicked man, being guilty, takes his own portion and his fellow's portion in Gehinnom.

What is the Biblical proof for this? Therefore in their land they shall possess double. In the case of the wicked it is written: And destroy them with double destruction. Meir replied with an exegesis about God's plan for creation. Then Akiba is credited with a statement of ethical dualism which, while careful to preserve man's free will, nevertheless resembles many passages in apocalyptic and even some Qumranic literature.

We should probably assume that these duaiistic ideas were more commonly shared among all sects of Judaism than is evident from orthodox rabbinic texts. Since this passage also makes clear that aspects of op51 Testament of Judah However, the hypostasization of angels overseeing these impuises as a major theme indicates the presence of metaphysical existence of the two forces, whatever they may be considered within the heart of man.

In the course of the paper we will have to observe the specific criteria which made a dualistic system heretical. Since the Christian messiah may have been a target of the "two powers" polemic, other mediating or intermediary divine helpers in Jewish tradition may also have offended rabbinic sensibilities. The Aramaic terms Yeqara, Memra, and Shekbinah could be included in the heresy to the extent that they were not verbal subterfuges and point to a metaphysical or theological conception. In view of the lack of other evidence and because of his obvious genius, Philo has long been held to be the example par excellence of "Hellenistic Judaism" of the first century.

His use of the term logos points to Jewish familiarity with Hellenistic philosophical schools. Philo's concept of the logos is a combination of Platonic ideas of divine intermediation and the Stoic world spirit. Logos is equivalent with the intelligible world; but, because it can be hypostasized, the logos can also be viewed as a separate agent and called a god. Hence any Jew who shared Philo's ideas of the nature of divinity could be a prime candidate for the charge of "two powers in heaven.

We shall see that these traditions may also have some bearing on the problem of "two powers in heaven. Fischel has also pointed out many relationships between Jewish traditions and Epicurean, Stoic and Cynic thought. He feels that the traditions about the four who entered the pardes, which we discussed previously, are linked with Jewish epicureanism. It is possible that underlying Philo's philosophical language are exegetical traditions which he shares with many other Jews. Any angel who assumed a primary role in heterodox Jewish tradition might have been the subject of the rabbinic injunction.

This would include traditions about the angel Melchizedek, a heavenly Jacob, Michael, Gabriel, or the hero Enoch. The rabbis themselves associated "two powers in heaven" with Aher, who had travelled to heaven and seen the angel Metatron in a posture that suggested two powers.

The relevance of the "son of man" tradition reiterates what has already become obvious: Christianity must be considered as one of the prime candidates for the charge of "two powers in heaven," because the Christian community relied on many of the traditions of a principal r 8 angel for its exaltation christology.

The evidence has already been reviewed in discussing the work of Buechler and Marmorstein. We have few clear references to Christianity in the talmuds and midrash. Presumably this is partly due to censoring of texts by medieval Church authorities. Most references to Jesus are late, such as: Let him be stoned for he has committed sorcery and has deceived Israel and led it astray. Notice the later rabbinic attention to halakhic procedure.

Jesus should have been stoned for "sorcery" and "leading astray," not crucified, which was improper execution in rabbinic law. See also Lauterbach, Jesus esp. See also Winston, Iranian Component, pp. Where a demiurge and transcendent god are described, the rabbinic charge of "two powers in heaven" becomes plausible; where a complex system of archons and spheres is described, the closely associated charge of "many powers in heaven" becomes possible as well.

Marcion must be mentioned as an example of Christian dualism. He is often classified as a gnostic, but his gnosticism is of such an individual kind that he would be better defined as a radical, Pauline Christian with gnostic affinities. Almost all our information about Marcion is derived from the church fathers, who were hardly complementary, but not necessarily totally inaccurate. When the rabbinic description of "two powers" heresy warrants it, Marcion's thought will have to be investigated. If growing knowledge of the Hellenistic world has widened the field of candidates for the identification of "two powers" heretics, the passage of time has also brought more sophisticated tools for study of the primary texts themselves.

Methodological advances in the study of religion have had ramifications for the traditions about "two powers. Though the technical issues cannot be discussed in detail, the methods must be described. Source criticism tried to isolate the separate documents or traditions within the literature. Based on these results, form criticism presupposes and concentrates on the oral stage of development of folklore. It assumes that the sources of the traditional literature can be found in an oral genre which can be identified and whose properties can be studied in reference to the specific historical or social institution Shz-hn-Leben which produced it.

The genre produced, however, is usually maintained even after the social institution 2 ' Jacob Neusner, Traditions of the Pharisees pp. Also see some of his longer works, as, From Politics to Piety: Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: In the study of the New Testament they have been massively employed to distinguish between the traditions which go back to Jesus himself and those which are probably products of the early church. For instance, in the search for the Jesus-layer of the gospel traditions, the overriding criterion for authenticity has had to be that of dissimilarity.

Only those traditions essentially dissimilar from the general ideological milieu and later tendencies of the church can be firmly allowed as authentic to Jesus. It asks the question—a cut bono—to whose advantage is the preservation of the statement under discussion. As such, it often isolates the Tendenz characteristic not just of the literary redactor as was originally hoped , but also of a long period of editing.

Form criticism and redaction criticism, then, are complementary ways to study any tradition—the first emphasizing the context out of which the tradition arose, the second stressing the perspectives and biases of the people who preserved it. Some rules of tradition formation, of course, hold for all folklore. Others are particular to specific cultures and must be examined individually. In the study of rabbinic literature, adoption of form and tradition criticism has not been quick.

A Study in Historical Methodology sharply distinguishes between oral traditions in proliferate and literate societies. Oral tradition in literate societies is limited to exchanges which take place in every day conversation and are handed down randomly, without special institutions. Rabbinic traditions are evidently an exception to these observations, as J, Gager points out, "The Gospels and Jesus: Some Doubts about Method," JR , McKnight, What is Form Criticism? Obviously, the criteria for authenticity are not applicable to rabbinic traditions without adaptation. Probably, the criterion of dissimilarity can be used most fruitfully only with the traditions attributed to the most pre-eminent rabbis.

The real work on establishing criteria for authenticity in rabbinic writing has yet to be done. See Neusner, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, The Tradition and the Man Leiden: Basically we shall only be able to use the method to distinguish between various levels of the traditions in the same rabbinic text. Since consensus has not yet been reached about how to apply insights gained from other cultures' oral traditions to the study of rabbinic literature, scholars must make careful, cumbersome methodological suppositions concerning the date of rabbinic writings.

In most cases this means that the wording of a tradition cannot be proved earlier than the second century. Therefore, it would not be out of place now to anticipate a specific dating problem in the "two powers" materials in order to exemplify the constraints which form and redaction criticism must place upon us until a consensus is reached. Yohanan are credited with a principle for defeating heretics who based their belief on the plurality of divinities on scripture. Simlai simply observed that wherever God is described in plural terms, a singular form follows closely in scripture, disproving the heretical exegesis.

They are therefore credited with the principle that wherever the heretics base their arguments on scripture, their defeat is close at hand. The problem is not merely that the same principle is attributed to two different rabbis. They were close contemporaries and R. Yohanan was the teacher of R. The problem is even more complicated. Although the principle is attributed to the third century rabbis, the argument also occurs frequently in texts attributed to second century tannaim, without reference to R.

There are two basic ways to resolve this contradiction in attribution. Simlai's names are associated with an exegetical principle which is of greater antiquity, or the principle was added into the earlier traditions as a gloss because it dismissed the heresy in summary fashion. While pious Jews have always been disposed towards the former solution, careful historical methodology demands that we use the latter solution as the basis for inquiry.

Since we are dealing with a culture which distinguished various levels of antiquity of traditions in order to formulate legal precedents and valued older traditions more highly, we must rule out the earlier dating by methodological premise unless and until other evidence warrants it. In other words, when dating is in doubt, the onus of proof is on the scholar who wants to maintain an early dating.

So whether or not the argument was more antique than the third century, R. Yohanan and his pupil impressed a datable form upon it. Though this limitation on dating in rabbinic literature is strict, any attempt to reconstruct a first century form of the "two powers" traditions is not automatically precluded. When there are hints for the existence of an earlier form of the tradition than can be provided from the rabbinic evidence alone, as will be true for the "two powers" traditions there are warrants for searching other first century, nonrabbinic literatures for further evidence of it.

The different varieties of early dualism have already been discussed, so both the magnitude and the possibilities inherent in such a task must already be evident. However, if we postpone that task until after the rabbinic material is surveyed, we can look through the extra-rabbinic documents for evidence of the specific beliefs which the rabbis opposed. In other words, even if the rabbinic evidence alone cannot demonstrate the existence of a heresy in the first century and before, it may yet give us hints about the earlier forms of the thought which were in the process of becoming heretical.

It may not give us all the evidence, but we may only properly discuss phenomena indicated by rabbinic texts. Though the limitations of such a methodological attack must be evident, they will provide us with some important new information. In some ways, the study of tradition formation in rabbinic Judaism is easier than the comparable and older study of tradition in the New Testament. In New Testament scholarship, one has to begin with complete skepticism of every statement attributed to Jesus because the positive benefits of attributing a church doctrine to its original, supernatural author were immeasurable.

In rabbinic tradition not every thought needed to be attributed to an early sage, because the deliberations of every rabbi were considered divinely inspired. One must be alert to the specific gain in authority for instance, in legal precedent when an amoraic tradition is elsewhere attributed to a tanna. Then too, it is far sounder method to use the New Testament to corroborate a first century date for a rabbinic tradition than to use rabbinic literature to illuminate and date New Testament traditions, as is now often done.

Unfortunately, not until one places the results of the analysis of rabbinic text in the context of extra-rabbinic, Jewish-sectarian, and Christian writing does the great antiquity and significance of the "two powers" traditions become manifest. The proper procedure for this study, then, is to collect, collate, and consider all the evidence about "two powers in heaven," both in the tannaitic and amoraic periods.

This corpus will itself be important because the collation has never been accomplished before. Close analysis will be necessary to isolate the various generic and formal characteristics of the traditions, to separate the stages in the development of the argument itself and to reveal clues about the identities of the heretics. Sometimes it will be necessary to distinguish many different layers of tradition in one passage.

Often no firm dating will be possible. Particular attention will have to be paid to the scriptural passages from which the heretics derive their doctrines. But only after these considerations have been weighed can we discover whether the biblical passages were actually used by some contemporary dualistic group or were only biblical stylizations of heresy, invented by the rabbis themselves. When the rabbinic evidence has been sifted, we will be in a better position to judge which of the dualistic communities reviewed earlier in this chapter were the likely targets for the rabbinic polemic at any isolatable time and place.

With the extra-rabbinic evidence we will also be able to solve some of the ambiguities of the rabbinic texts. For this reason, many of the final conclusions about the significance of the rabbinic reports will necessarily be found in the chapters of Section III dealing with extra-rabbinic evidence. This is, admittedly, an inconvenient place to look for the conclusions about the rabbinic corpus, but this complex problem necessitates such a difficult form. I think the task worth the effort because a new clarity about the rabbinic view of the rise of Christianity and gnosticism can be gained by the end.

But it becomes essential information when one realizes that the rabbis were among the closest, most expert, and most concerned contemporary observers of Christianity and gnosticism. The Mekhilta of R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5, Shirta 4. Because, when the Holy One Blessed be He was revealed at the sea, He appeared to them as a young man making war. YHWH is His name. He appeared to them at Sinai like an old man, full of mercy: YHWH fought at the Sea. And He is at the Jordan, He is at the Arnon streams. And He is in this world, And He is in the world to come.

He is an the past and He is in the future to come. Why is this said? Because When He was revealed at the sea, He appeared to them as a mighty hero making war. As it is said, YHWH is a man of war. He appeared at Sinai like an old man, full of mercy, as it is said: And they saw the God of Israel. And the like of the very heaven for clearness. I was in the past, I will be in the future to come. I am in this world, I am in the world to come. Behold now, that I, even, I, am He, etc. Even unto old age I am the same Is, I, the Lord who am the first, and to the end I am He.

PR Piska 21 b l Another comment: Face after face R. God faced them in many guises. To one He appeared standing, and to one seated; See Gen. At the time the Holy One, blessed be He, appeared on the Red Sea to wage war for His children and to requite the Egyptians, He faced them as a young man, since war is waged best by a young man, as is said The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is His name Ex.

And when the Holy One, blessed be He, appeared on Mount Sinai to give the Torah to Israel, He faced them as an old man, for Torah is at its best when it comes from the mouth of an old man. What is the proof? The verse With aged men is wisdom, and understanding in length of days Job In regard to God's guises R. Hiyya bar Abba said: If a whoreson should say to you, "They are two gods," quote God as saying in reply: Levi taught at Sinai the Holy One, blessed be He, appeared to them with many faces, with a threatening face, with a severe face, with an angry face, with a joyous face, with a laughing face, with a friendly face.

In regard to God's many faces, R. Hiyya bar Abba taught: Should a whoreson say to you, "They are two gods," reply to him, Scripture does not say "The gods have spoken Passage 1 may be found in several places in midrashic literature and is alluded to in many more. The primary reference is m MRI where the passage occurs in two places Bahodesh 5 and Shirta 4 in virtually identical form. The later midrashim tend to fill in the gaps in reasoning in the earlier ones.

For a description of the rabbis ambiguous style, see Goldin, Song, ad loc. A second, simpler form of the tradition which will be the first text to be scrutinized is found in MRSbY Bashalah. Finally the tradition was known and discussed in PR, but, there, it has undergone considerable secondary clarification. Hence, it is important for the Israelites to realize that the same God is speaking in both cases, though the manifestations look different.

When the whole biblical passage is seen, the passage seems to describe more a danger than a solution. As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that ail peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. More than one throne is revealed and scripture describes two divine figures to fill them. One sits and the other seems to be invested with power, possibly enthroned. That this "son of man" is young or that his dominion is to be merciful, ostensibly the point of the reference, is hardly evident in the text. All of this makes it more likely that Dan. Its use here presumes that some orthodox counter-interpretation of this dangerous scripture has already developed and is well known.

That the two descriptions of God's appearance may imply a contradiction in scripture is not specifically mentioned. It is no longer an important problem. Rather the midrash immediately follows the exegesis with a warning that no doctrine of "two powers in heaven" should be derived from the passage. This text, then, must be a fairly late summation of a considerable amount of argumentation. Then the text continues with an elaboration, introduced as a separate midrash DBR D HR , which emphasizes that but one God is revealed in the history of Israel and, indeed, that there is only one God for all the universe, for all time.

Further proof-texts of Dt. Although the MRSbY contains the shortest version of the story, it cannot of itself be the earliest version of the tradition. Rather it seems to be an epitome of an already sophisticated argument. Where it agrees with the version in MRI it is sometimes slightly longer, implying that MRSbY has gone through a certain, perhaps short period of independent elaboration. By isolating the themes, we may come one step closer to separating the various sources and identifying the earliest form.

First, one has to notice that the exegetical root of the tradition is the repetition of the name of God, YHWH, and the problems which arise from that. In this case, the dangerous doctrine is the idea that there are two different manifestations of God—one, a young man, appearing at the Sea; the other, an old man, appearing at Sinai. Of course, the rabbis objected to this tradition, saying that the repetition of the divine name was not to identify "two powers" but to emphasize God's unity, since the Israelites would also have to recognize God in another form.

In attempting to identify the heretics, we should look for a doctrine which did associate "two powers" with the names for God in the Exodus theophany and in Dan. Obviously, from the rabbinic perspective, but not necessarily at the earliest stage of the tradition itself, this dangerous exegesis became subsumed under the unfavorable category of "two powers in heaven.

At the end of the section there is a peroration which articulates implications present already in the designation "two powers in heaven," by directly stating that the doctrine is a threat to monotheism and condemning it roundly with the appropriate biblical texts from Isaiah and Deuteronomy. In fact the verses are so useful as a defense against the heresy as to characterize the opposition to "two powers" throughout its entire history and will be important in the attempt to identify the heretics.

The midrash is saying that, though scripture allows for the interpretation that God may be viewed in various aspects, there is a limit to how far one may go in ascribing independent motives to the different hypostases. Not only is there only one God, but there is no possibility of ever deriving a second deity.

It was the same God in Egypt who was at the Sea; the same in this world as He will be in the world to come; the same in the past who will be in the future. These descriptions are later rhetorical fluorishes, embellishing and emphasizing an argument whose assumption has been laid down previously. MRSbY even introduces the thoughts as "another interpretation. In view of the importance of the name of God in this midrash it is not unlikely that the midrash is relying on the mysterious name of God which was revealed to Moses at the burning bush. The text in MRI is even more complex and obviously the result of a long history of redaction.

Rather the most ancient layer, which will iater appear to be tannakic, must be carefully uncovered in comparing them. The basic structure is similar to the argument in MRSbY and appears to be based on an exegesis of the name of God as well. At least one possible conclusion based on the two different names of the deity—namely, that two different divinities, God and Lord, were being described—is condemned as dangerous.

Instead, the rabbis suggest that the solution to the paradox will be found at Ex. Hence, the editor of MRI, by introducing the orthodox solution based on Ex. He has also added Ex. Though the major thrust of the passage seems evident, it contains many elaborations missing from the MRSbY version, while some parts of its argument remain obscure.

For one thing, a new theme of justice and mercy, corresponding to young and old manifestations of God, has been emphasized. This Is facilitated by bringing in more prooftexts. While the text says that they saw Him, it tells nothing of what they saw. The implication of Ex. The verse states that God did not lay His hand upon the nobles of the children of Israel. Since the nobles saw God, and since it says elsewhere in Scriptures that no man may see God and live Ex. God's supererogatory behavior is further evidenced by the fact that, far from punishing the elders, He provides them with food and drink Ex.

See Goldin, Song, cid loc. The complete argument allows that God can appear in different manifestations—either as a just or as a merciful God or as both—but that it is always the same God and that He was present in both His manifestations when He gave the Torah to Israel. Although this elaboration is quite sophisticated, there are some difficult aspects to it. For one thing, the two locations adduced in scripture for the doctrine of God's two attributes are puzzling. They imply that YHWH should be seen as the just attribute, while Eiohim should be the merciful attribute, which is exactly the opposite of the standard rabbinic identification.

That problem will be addressed later, but one point can be clarified now. The argument that two figures or manifestations of God are possible one ostensibly old, the other young is separable from the argument that God has two attributes, one just and the other merciful. Of course, they are related ideas.

But what they share is a dependence on exegesis either of the repetition of the name of God or the different names of God in the scripture. Other variations in MRJ should be noted. Scriptures known as the Baraita of Rabbi Lshmael and found in the introduction to the Sifra, a tannaitic midrash on Leviticus. Ein altes hermeneutisches Problem," Studu Theologien, 25 , This seems correct to me. The point of bringing in Ex.

If any problem can be said to be more basic I suspect it is the very idea of God portrayed as a man. That is what all the passages have in common. W e shall see that many of these are implicated in other descriptions of the heresy as well. In the apocalyptic vision ascribed to Daniel, two thrones appear in heaven, which imply two different figures to fill them. After referring to this dangerous idea, the midrashist has also inserted a specific remedy to the misconception that "two powers in heaven" are being described by Daniel.

However, the midrash also makes a special point of quoting Ex. However, this biblical verse contains an anthropomorphic description of Y H W H , probably understood to describe a glorious enthronement. I 0 That it contains another merkabah chariot-throne description similar to Dan. However, in this case, the midrashist must also be alluding to other rabbinic traditions which explain how God's throne could be both constructed of brick-work and be "the like of the very heaven for clearness.

The argument of the rabbis is not completely convincing for the text may only be referring to one of the two figures at this point. In fact, the rabbinic argument is characteristic of the method for combatting the heresy developed in the third century by R. In chapter I we decided that it must be considered a gloss. The detail could have been supplied from Dan. It comprises a list of biblical passages which combat the idea that two deities rule the cosmos, together with an elaboration of the many aspects of God which, nevertheless, remain descriptions of only one deity.

Although God may be viewed in various aspects, there is a limit to how far one may go in ascribing independent motives to His different hypostases. Notice that the midrash is occasioned by Moses' vision of God "face to face," confirming that theophany and anthropomorphism are basic issues in the tradition. Moses' special gift in somehow seeing God or His angel, though it may contradict Ex.

Interestingly enough, he seems at first not to be interested in Ex. Rather, he emphasizes the youth-age contrast by quoting Job Hence, it was appropriate for God to have appeared in aged form on Sinai. This exegesis effectively splits the tradition into its two logical aspects—the first only concerning the forms in which God appeared; the second, which follows, concerning His attitude of grace or anger at each manifestation.

To each of the separate strands of the tradition, R. Abba answers in Aramaic, rather than Hebrew, that if a heretic says that there are "two gods" based on Dan. In the second midrash, R. Abba refers to the same theophany given to Moses, as it is reported in Deuteronomy instead of Exodus. He also deals with the same troublesome report that the elders saw God. All of this leads to the conclusion that this version of the tradition is quite late. The themes of God's appearance and human form have been divided into separate issues in order to deal with each more conveniently and fully, but the relationship to the name of God has grown more obscure.

In just three passages, then, we have become aware of the development of a tradition over a vast period of time. Traditions with so many different layers present immense dating problems. Each layer can only be dated by approximation. Later, I will show that extrai: Hiyya is referring to an earlier midrash which resembled the text in MRSbY or Mill or even to targumic exegesis of Ex. Hiyya quotes in Aramaic. Note that the term "two gods" ditheism can be equated with "two powers" binitarianism m this passage. To anticipate only a fraction of the evidence, Philo attests to the pervasiveness and antiquity of the problem 14 of God's apearance and His different aspects.

Since Philo states that he relies on ancient Jewish tradition, his writings, including those pertaining to the exegesis of the names of God, may indicate the antiquity of the tradition. That Philo knows the issue suggests a possible origin well before the birth of Jesus. But Philo's writing suggests more than a continuing issue. He employs very similar scriptures and suggests the existence of widespread scriptural traditions, since the rabbis, a century later, know nothing of him directly and are not indebted to him for their exegesis.

Yet Philo and the rabbis independently interpret the different names of God both as signifying different figures and as symbolizing His attributes. Preliminary indications are, therefore, that many parts of the Jewish community in various places and periods used the traditions which the rabbis claim is an heretical conception of the deity.

Although we shall see that Philo uses both traditions about different manifestations of God and traditions about His contrasting attributes in his exegetical discussions, the rabbis emphasize the latter and warn against the former. We can see how the two different manifestations of God present in Daniel's vision might trouble the rabbis.

It is not too much to suppose that some kind of argument about contrasting manifestations of God in different theophany texts was known to Philo and used by him but that it was later opposed by the rabbis who called other people who espoused that kind of argument "two powers" heretics. It is not possible to decide exactly when rabbinic opposition to such doctrines started. For one thing, it is nearly impossible to be sure of the wording of rabbinic traditions before CE.

Most rabbinic traditions, at least as we have them, were written subsequently, is So we cannot blithely assume that the rabbinic reports date from the Second Commonwealth. However, with Philo's evidence, we have reason to suppose their ]i See p. This argument has much merit and even if there are exceptions to his rule, it is best to earn them, instead of conveniently assuming that any passage is early.

Furthermore some attempts at dating are possible. We can be sure that the root argument is quite ancient. This is because the doctrine of the two attributes M D W T of God is important to the rabbinic defense against the argument that God has two manifestations. Yet, the doctrine about the two attributes of God in the text under consideration is not quite consonant with the orthodox version.

The tradition must have preceded the firm fixing of the rabbinic doctrine of the two attributes M D W T of God.

After the tradition was fixed, no rabbi would have considered the consequences of this alternative identification of divine names, without noting that he knew what his forebearers had believed. It is, therefore, probable that the doctrine was characteristic of the heretics themselves. Since no one believes the rabbis knew of Philo, these heretics must have known of an exegetical tradition like Philo's. The date of the origin for the rabbinic doctrine of the two attributes M D W T of God has been the subject of some controversy.

Marmorstein w tried to maintain that R. Yohai ui There is evidence that other kinds of Jews identified traditions in different ways. Philo identified the names and attributes in ways opposing to the accepted rabbinic doctrine. A, Dahl and A. Gamaliel II and R. They are also used once by R. In some of the sayings of R. Meir ARN 30 and R. Halafta and R. This much has been widely accepted. He also suggested that the surviving rabbinic doctrine was not antique and had been deliberately altered from an earlier one, out of polemical and apologetic motives.

He even tried to prove that traces of an eariier, Philonic correlation of divine names and attributes were still to be found in some rabbinic texts. For instance, he tried to show that R. Akiba was unaware that "Elohim" could have the implication of "judge. The same passage may be interpreted to indicate that R. Akiba was aware of the standard H doctrine. What is more important, the orthodox doctrine was massively developed by rabbis like R. Meir only a few years after Akiba's death.

Now, since Marmorstein's time we have had to become more skeptical of attributions to tannaitic sages. Though they are not necessarily later, the attributions themselves cannot be the final proof of a tannaitic date. So far, we know only that rabbinic use of "justice still can use the old designations for the two attributes, but the new terms are also reputed to be in use by the same masters. From this Marmorstein deduced that the terms "attribute of mercy" and "attribute of justice" are no older than the middle of the second century and are probably younger than that.

But he would have had to be aware of the issue En order to have made such a ruling. So the opposite is the case. Furthermore, the origin of the current vocabulary is even attributed to earlier sages than Marmorstein thought. It can be seen in the sayings of R. In fact, some aspects of the tradition linking God's names and His attributes are biblical. However the scripture is ambiguous enough to be used equally by the rabbis or by Philo as a demonstration of their respective systems of interpreting the names of God. We shall see that some of the attributions are likely to be accurate.

The heated debates about mercy and justice are entirely appropriate to the gnostic menace of the early and middle second century. We will have to wait for the extra-rabbinic evidence to see that some Jews discussed such doctrines as early as Philo. Marmorstein has been severely criticized and largely dismissed because he maintained that the rabbis actually used the Philonic identification of divine names, only changing to the received tradition in the face of gnostic opposition of the second century. As I tried to indicate above, his critics were right to question his arguments in several places.

There is not sufficient evidence to reach his conclusion. But, having dismissed his arguments about a prior rabbinic formulation of the doctrine of God's two attributes, Marmorstein's critics failed to come 19 to terms with the larger questions which he raised —the relationship between the Philonic and rabbinic tradition of the names of God. The ancient terms for the attributes—attribute of goodness and attribute of punishment—do parallel Phiio's normal vocabulary to discuss God's powers. Both would say that God does mercifully even when He is administering strict justice. It is the mixture that is important.

That is certainly the moral of the passage in the Mekhilta as well. Furthermore, that is exactly the issue over which the received terminology of the rabbinic doctrine was formulated. This would suggest that "Hellenistic" and "Palestinian" Judaism were not separated by as wide a gap as is usually maintained. But for now, it is not germane to discuss how the similarity came about. Our problem is the date of the traditions. We have already seen that the "justice and mercy" traditions were added onto the basic Mekhilta argument about a manlike hypostasis of God in order to defeat the heretical implication that there is more than one God.

Rabbinic literature attributes the debate over mercy and justice to R. Akiba and his successors of the mid-second century. The received vocabulary for discussing such questions did not develop 1! For more detail see N. Dahl and Alan F. Furthermore, the tradition now under scrutiny in the Mekhilta seems to be part of the earlier stage of that discussion since it does not use the standard vocabulary.

The next serious question which must be answered is: Can the midrashic attribution to the great rabbis of the second century be trusted? This can only be answered by comparing these traditions with others of thatperiod. First, traditions can be compared with others attributed to R. Akiba and his circle.

That exercise can increase our confidence that a mid-second century dating is possible. Finally, we must look for evidence outside of the midrash that the date can be maintained. Then we can reach some confidence that the two strands of the tradition—the appearances of God and the attributes of God—were joined in the mid-second century.

Some rabbinic traditions ascribed to R. Akiba make it possible that the period of his lifetime and immediately afterward was the beginning of the written record of such battles. They even suggest why the issue of "mercy" and "justice" became so important; One passage says: His throne ivas fiery flames Dan. Until thrones were placed; and One that was ancient of days did sit—there is no contradiction; One throne for Him, and one for David: Yosi the Galilean to him: Akiba, how long will you treat the divine presence as profane!

At any rate, shortly afterwards Jesus is mostly actively engaged in Capharnaum in teaching and healing the sick, restoring among others Peter's mother-in-law and a demoniac. Then followed a missionary tour through Galilee during which Jesus cured a leper; soon he again taught in Capharnaum, and was surrounded by such a multitude that a man sick of the palsy had to be let down through the roof in order to reach the Sacred Presence. After calling Matthew to the Apostleship, He went to Jerusalem for the second pasch occurring during His public life, it was on this occasion that He healed the man who been sick for thirty-eight years near the pool at Jerusalem.

The charge of violating the Sabbath and Christ's answer were the natural effects of the miracle. The same charge is repeated shortly after the pasch; Jesus had returned to Galilee, and the disciples plucked some ripe ears in the corn fields. The question became more acute in the immediate future; Jesus had returned to Capharnaum, and there healed on the Sabbath day a man who had a withered hand. The Pharisees now make common cause with the Herodians in order to "destroy him".

Jesus withdraws first to the Sea of Galilee, where He teaches and performs numerous miracles; then retires to the Mountain of Beatitudes, where He prays during the night, chooses His Twelve Apostles in the morning, and preaches the Sermon on the Mount. He is brought back to Capharnaum by the prayers of the centurion who asks and obtains the of his servant. Luke, vii, viii; Mark, iii, iv; Matt. Jesus makes another missionary tour through Galilee; He resuscitates the son of the widow at Naim, and shortly afterwards receives the messengers sent by John from his prison in Machaerus.

Then follows the scene of the merciful reception of the sinful woman who anoints the feet of the Lord while He rests at table in Magdala or perhaps in Capharnaum; for the rest of His missionary tour Jesus is followed by a band of pious women who minister to the wants of the Apostles. After returning to Capharnaum, Jesus expels the mute devil, is charged by the Pharisees with casting out devils by the prince of devils, and encounters the remonstrances of His kinsmen.

Withdrawing to the sea, He preaches what may be called the "Lake Sermon", consisting of seven parables. Luke, viii, ix; Mark, iv-vi; Matt. After a laborious day of ministry in the city of Capharnaum and on the lake, Jesus with His Apostles crosses the waters. As a great storm overtakes them, the frightened Apostles awaken their sleeping Master, Who commands the winds and the waves. Towards morning they meet in the country of the Gerasens, on the east of the lake, two demoniacs. Jesus expels the evil spirits, but allows them to enter into a herd of swine.

The beasts destroy themselves in the waters of the lake, and frightened inhabitants beg Jesus not to remain among them. After returning to Capharnaum he heals the woman who had touched the hem of His garment, resuscitates the daughter of Jairus, and gives sight to two blind men. The second Gospel places here Christ's last visit to and rejection by the people of Nazareth. Then follows the ministry of the Apostles who are sent two by two, while Jesus Himself makes another missionary tour through Galilee.

It seems to have been the martyrdom of John the Baptist that occasioned the return of the Apostles and their gathering around the Master in Capharnaum. But, however depressing this event may have been, it did not damp the enthusiasm of the Apostles over their success. John, vi; Luke, ix; Mark, vi; and Matt. Jesus invites the Apostles, tired out from their missionary labours, to rest awhile. They cross the northern part of the Sea of Galilee, but, instead of finding the desired solitude, they are met by multitudes of people who had preceded them by land or by boat, and who were eager for instruction.

Jesus taught them throughout the day, and towards evening did not wish to dismiss them hungry. On the other hand, there were only five loaves and two fishes at the disposal of Jesus; after His blessing, these scanty supplies satisfied the hunger of five thousand men, besides women and children, and remnants filled twelve baskets of fragments. Jesus sent the Apostles back to their boats, and escaped from the enthusiastic multitudes, who wished to make Him king, into the mountain where He prayed till far into the night.

Meanwhile the Apostles were facing a contrary wind till the fourth watch in the morning, when they saw Jesus walking upon the waters. The Apostles first fear, and then recognize Jesus; Peter walks upon the water as long as his confidence lasts; the storm ceases when Jesus has entered the boat. The next day brings Jesus and His Apostles to Capharnaum, where He speaks to the assembly about the Bread of Life and promises the Holy Eucharist, with the result that some of His followers leave Him, while the faith of His true disciples is strenghened.

It may be owing to the enmity stirred up against Jesus by His Eucharistic discourse in Capharnaum that He began now a more extensive missionary tour than He had made in the preceding years of His life. Passing through the country of Genesar, He expressed His disapproval of the Pharisaic practices of legal purity. Within the boarders of Tyre and Sidon He exorcized the daughter of the Syrophenician woman.

From here Jesus travelled first towards the north, then towards the east, then south-eastward through the northern part of Decapolis, probably along the foot of the Labanon, till He came to the eastern part of Galilee. While in Decapolis Jesus healed a deaf-mute, employing a ceremonial more elaborate than He had used at any of His previous miracles; in the eastern part of Galilee, probably not far from Dalmanutha and Magedan, He fed four thousand men, besides children and women, with seven loaves and a few little fishes, the remaining fragments filling seven baskets.

The multitudes had listened for three days to the teaching of Jesus, previously to the miracle. In spite of the many cures performed by Jesus, during this journey, on the blind, the dumb, the lame, the maimed, and on many others, the Pharisees and Sadduces asked Him for a sign from heaven, tempting Him. He promised them the sign of Jonas the Prophet. After Jesus and the Apostles had crossed the lake, He warned them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees; then they passed through Bethsaida Julias where Jesus gave sight to a blind man. Next we find Jesus in the confines of Caesarea Philippi, where Peter professes his faith in Christ, the Son of the living God, and in his turn receives from Jesus the promise of the power of the keys.

Jesus here predicts His passion, and about a week later is transfigured before Peter, James, and John, probably on the top of Mt. On descending from the mountain, Jesus exorcizes the mute devil whom His disciples had not been able to expel.

Bending his way towards Capharnaum, Jesus predicts His Passion for the second time, and in the city pays the tribute-money for Himself and Peter. This occasions the discussion as to the greater in the kingdom of heaven, and the allied discourses. Finally, Jesus refuses His brethren's invitation to go publicly to the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem. Luke, ix-xiii; Mark, x; Matt. Jesus now "steadfastly set His face to go Jerusalem", and as the Samaritans refused Him hospitality, He had to take the east of the Jordan.

While still in Galilee, He refused the discipleship of several half-hearted candidates, and about the same time He sent other seventy-two, two by two, before His face into every city and place whither He Himself was to come. Probably in the lower part of Peraea, the seventy-two returned with joy, rejoicing in the miraculous power that had been exercised by them.

It must have been in the vicinity of Jericho that Jesus answered the lawer's question, "Who is my neighbour? Next Jesus was received in the hospitable home of Mary and Martha, where He declares Mary to have chosen the better part. From Bethania went to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles, where he became involved in discussions with the Jews.

The Scribes and Pharisees endeavoured to catch Him in the sentence which they asked Him to pronounce in the case of the woman taken in adultary. When Jesus had avoided this snare, He continued His discussions with the hostile Jews. Their enmity was intensified because Jesus restored sight to a blind man on the Sabbath day. Jesus appears to have His stay in Jerusalem with the beautiful discourse on the Good Shepherd. On a subsequent missionary tour through Judea and Peraea He defends Himself against the charges of Pharisees, and reproves their hypocrisy.

On the same journey Jesus warned against hypocrisy, covetousness, worldly care; He exhorted to watchfulness, patience under contradictions, and to penance. About this time, too, He healed the woman who had the spirit of infirmity Eighth Journey. Luke, xiii-xvii; John, x, xi. The Feast of Dedication brought Jesus again to Jerusalem, and occasioned another discussion with the Jews.

This is followed by another missionary tour through Peraea, during which Jesus explained a number of important points of doctrine: During this period, too, the Pharisees attempted to frighten Jesus with the menance of Herod's persecution; on his part, Jesus healed a man who had drospy, on a Sabbath day, while at table in the house of a certain prince of the Pharisees. Finally Mary and Martha send messengers to Jesus, asking Him to come and cure their brother Lazarus; Jesus went after two days, and resuscitated His friend who had been several days in the grave.

The Jews are exasperated over this miracle, and they decree Jesus must die for the people. Hence He withdrew "into a country near the desert, unto a city that is called Ephrem". This last journey took Jesus from Ephrem northward through Samaria, then eastward along the border of Galilee into Peraea, then southward through Peraea, westward across the Jordan, through Jericho, Bethania on Mt.

Olivet, Bethphage, and finally to Jerusalem. While in the most northern part of the journey, He cured ten lepers; a little later, He answered the questions raised by the Pharisees concerning the kingdom of God. Then He urged the need of incessant prayer by proposing the parable of the unjust judge; here too belong the parable of the Pharisee and Publican, the discourse on marriage, on the attitude of the Church towards the children, on the right use of riches as illustrated by the story of the rich young ruler, and the parable of the labourers in the vineyard.

After beginning His route towards Jerusalem, He predicted His Passion for the third time; James and John betray their ambition, but they are taught the true standard of greatness in the Church. At Jericho Jesus heals two blind men, and receives the repentance of Zacheus the publican; here He proposed also the parable of the pounds entrusted to the servants by the master.

Six days before the pasch we find Jesus at Bethania on Mt. Olivet, as the guest of Simon the leper; Mary anoints His feet, and the disciples at the instigation of Judas are indignant at this seeming waste of ointment. A great multitude assembles at Bethania, not to see Jesus only but also Lazarus; hence the chief priests think of killing Lazarus too. On the following day Jesus solemnly entered Jerusalem and was received by the Hosanna cries of all classes of people.

Trinity and Incarnation: The Faith of the Early Church (Theology)

In the afternoon He met a delegation of Gentiles in the court of the Temple. On Monday Jesus curses the barren fig tree, and during the morning He drives the buyers and sellers from the Temple. On Tuesday the wonder of the disciples at the sudden withering of the fig tree provokes their Master's instruction on the efficacy of faith.

Jesus answers the enemies' questions as to His authority; then He proposes the parable of the two sons, of the wicked husbandmen, and of the marriage feast. Next follows a triple snare: Which is the first commandment, the great commandment of the law? Then Jesus proposes His last question to the Jews: The last words of Christ in the Temple were expressions of praise for the poor widow who had made an offering of two mites in spite of her poverty.

Jesus ended this day by uttering the prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, His second coming, and the future judgement; these predictions are interrupted by the parable of the ten virgins and the talents. On Wednesday Jesus again predicted His Passion; probably it was on the same day that Judas made his agreement with the Jews to betray Jesus.

The Passion of Jesus: Its Preparation Jesus prepares His disciples for the Passion, He prepares Himself for the ordeal and His enemies prepare themselves for the destruction of Jesus. Preparation of the Apostles. Jesus prepares His Apostles for the Passion by the eating of the paschal lamb, the institution of the Holy Eucharist, the concomitant ceremonies, and His lengthy discourses held during and after the Last Supper.

Special mention should be made of the prediction of the Passion, and of the betrayal one of the Apostles and the denial by another. Peter, james, and John are prepared in a more particular manner by witnessing the sorrow of Jesus on Mt. Jesus must have found an indirect preparation in all He did and said to strengthen His Apostles. But the preparation that was pecularly His own consisted in His prayer in the grotto of His Agony where the angel came to strengthen Him.

The sleep of His favoured Apostles during the hours of His bitter struggle must have prepared Him too for the complete abandonment He was soon to experience. Preparation of the Enemies. Judas leaves the Master during the Last Supper. The chief priests and Pharisees hastily collect a detachment of the Roman cohort stationed in the castle of Antonia, of the Jewish temple-watch, and of the officials of the Temple.

To these are added a number of the servants and dependents of the high-priest, and a miscellaneous multitude of fanatics with lanterns and torches, with swords and clubs, who were to follow the leadership of Judas. They took Christ, bound Him, and led Him to the high-priest's house. The Trial Jesus was tried first before an ecclesiastical and then before a civil tribunal. The ecclesiastical trial includes Christ's appearance before Annas, before Caiphas, and again before Caiphas, who appears to have acted in each case as head of the Sanhedrin.

The Jewish court found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, and condemned Him to death, though its proceedings were illegal from more than one point of view. During the trial took place Peter's triple denial of Jesus; Jesus is insulted and mocked, especially between the second and third session; and after His final condemnation Judas despaired and met his tragic death. Before the Civil Court. The civil trial, too, comprised three sessions, the first before Pilate, the second before Herod, the third again before Pilate. Jesus is not charged with blasphemy before the court of Pilate, but with stirring up the people, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and claiming to be Christ the king.

Pilate ignores the first two charges; the third he finds harmless when he sees that Jesus does not claim royalty in the Roman sense of the word. But in order not to incur the odium of the Jewish leaders, the Roman governor sends his prisoner to Herod. As Jesus did not humour the curiosity of Herod, He was mocked and set at naught by the Tetrarch of Galilee and his court, and sent back to Pilate.

The Roman procurator declares the prisoner innocent for the second time, but, instead of setting Him free, gives the people the alternative to choose either Jesus or Barabbas for their paschal freedman. Pilate pronounced Jesus innocent for the third time with the more solemn ceremony of washing his hands; he had recourse to a third scheme of ridding himself of the burden of pronouncing an unjust sentence against his prisoner.

He had the prisoner scourged, thus annihilating, as far as human means could do so, any hope that Jesus could ever attain to the royal dignity. But even this device miscarried, and Pilate allowed his political ambition to prevail over his sense of evident justice; he condemned Jesus to be crucified. His Death Jesus carried His Cross to the place of execution. Simon of Cyrene is forced to assist Him in bearing the heavy burden.

On the way Jesus addresses his last words to the weeping women who sympathized with His suffering. He is nailed to the Cross, his garments are divided, and an inscription is placed over His head. Of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, one was converted, and the other died impenitent. The sun was darkened, and Jesus surrendered His soul into the hands of His Father.

The veil of the Temple was rent into two, the earth quaked, the rocks were riven, and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose and appeared to many. The Roman centurion testified that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. The Heart of Jesus was pierced so as to make sure of His death. The Sacred Body was taken from the Cross by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, and was buried in the new sepulchre of Joseph, and the Sabbath drew near.

The Glory of Jesus After the burial of Jesus, the Holy women returned and prepared spices and ointments. The next day, the chief priests and Pharisees made the sepulchre secure with guards, sealing the stone. When the Sabbath was passed, the Holy women brought sweet spices that they might anoint Jesus. But Jesus rose early the first day of the week, and there was a great earthquake, and an angel descended from heaven, and rolled back the stone.

The guards were struck with terror, and became as dead men. On arriving at the sepulchre the holy women found the grave empty; Mary Magdalen ran to tell the Apostles Peter and John, while the other women were told by an angel that the Lord had arisen from the dead. Peter and John hasten to the sepulchre, and find everything as Magdalen has reported. Magdalen too returns, and, while weeping at the sepulchre, is approached by the arisen Saviour Who appears to her and speaks with her. On the same day Jesus appeared to the other Holy Women, to Peter, to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, and to all the Apostles excepting Thomas.

A week later He appeared to all the Apostles, Thomas included; later still He appeared in Galilee near the Lake of Genesareth to seven disciples, on a mountain in Galilee to a multitude of disciples, to James, and finally to His disciples on the Mount Olivet whence He ascended into heaven. But these apparitions do not exhaust the record of the Gospels, according to which Jesus showed Himself alive after His Passion by many proofs, for forty days appearing to the disciples and speaking of the kingdom of God.

Kant testifies to His ideal perfection; Hegel sees in Him the union of the human and the Divine; the most advanced sceptics do Him homage; Spinoza speaks of Him as the truest symbol of heavenly wisdom; the beauty and grandeur of His life overawe Voltaire; Napoleon I, at St. To Renan "The Christ of the Gospels is the most beautiful incarnation of God in the most beautiful of forms.

His beauty is eternal; his reign will never end. Not that the views of the foregoing witnesses are of any great importance for the theological student of the life of Jesus; but they show at least the impression made on the most different classes of men by the history of Christ. In the following paragraphs we shall consider the character of Jesus as manifested first in His relation to men, then in His relation to God. Jesus In His Relation To Men In His relation to men Jesus manifested certain qualities which were perceived by all, being subject to the light of reason; but other qualities were reserved for those who viewed Him in the light of faith.

Both deserve a brief study. It is true that at first sight the conduct of Jesus is so many-sided that His character seems to elude all description. Command and sympathy, power and charm, authority and affection, cheerfulness and gravity, are the some of the qualities that make the analysis impossible. The make-up of the Gospels does not facilitate the work. At first they appear to us a bewildering forest of dogmatic statements and moral principles; there is no system, no method, everything is occassional, everything fragmentary.

The Gospels are neither a manual of dogma nor a treatise on casuistry, though they are the fountain of both. No wonder then the various investgators have arrived at entirely different conclusion at the study of Jesus. Some call Him a fanatic, others make Him a socialist, others again an anarchist, while many call Him a dreamer, a mystic, an Essene. But in this variety of views there are two main concepts under which the others may be summarized: Some consider Jesus an ascetic, others an aesthete; some emphasize His suffering, others His joyfulness; some identify Him with ecclesiasticism, others with humanism; some recognize in Him the prophetic picture of the Old Testament and the monastic of the New, others see in Him only gladness and poetry.

There may be solid ground for both views; but they do not exhaust the character of Jesus. Both are only by-products which really existed in Jesus, but were not primarily intended; they are only enjoyed and suffered in passing, while Jesus strove to attain an end wholly different from either joy or sorrow. His strength shows itself in His manner of life, His decision, His authority.

In His rugged, nomadic, homeless life there is no room for weakness or sentimentality. Indecision is rejected by Jesus on several occasions: Of Himself He said: Mathew testifies, "The multitude Mark adds, "the kingdom of God comes to power"; St. Luke says, "Thou hast given him power over all flesh"; the Book of the Acts reads, "God anointed him Paul too is impressed with "the power of our Lord Jesus ".

In His teaching Jesus does not argue, or prove, or threaten, like the Phrarisees, but He speaks like one having authority. Nowhere is Jesus merely a long-faced ascetic or a joyous comrade, we find Him everywhere to be leader of men, whose principles are built on a rock. Reason is like the sails of the boat, the will is its rudder, and the feelings are the waves thrown upon either side of the ship as it passes through the waters. The will-power of Jesus is strong enough to keep a perfect equilibrium between His feelings and His reason; His body is the perfect instrument in the performance of His duty; His emotions are wholly subservient to the Will of His Father; it is the call of complying with His higher duties that prevents His austerity from becoming excessive.

There is therefore a perfect balance or equilibrium in Jesus between the life of His body, of His mind, and of His emotions. His character is so rounded off that, at first sight, there remains nothing which could make it characteristic. This poise in the character of Jesus produces a simplicity which pervades every one of His actions.

As the old Roman roads led stright ahead in spite of mountains and valleys, ascents and declivities, so does the life of Jesus flow quietly onward in accordance with the call of duty, in spite of pleasure or pain, honour or ignominy. Another trait in Jesus which may be considered as flowing from the poise of His character is His unalterable peace, a peace which may be ruffled but cannot be destroyed either by His inward feelings or outward encounters.

And these personal qualities in Jesus are reflected in his teaching. He establishes an equilibrium between the rightousness of the Old Testament and the justice of the New, between the love and life of the former and those of the latter. He lops off indeed the Pharisaic conventionalism and externalism, but they were merely degenerated outgrowths; He urges the law of love, but shows that it embraces the whole Law and the Prophets; He promises life, but it consists not so much in our possession as in our capacity to use our possession.

Nor can it be urged that the poise of Christ's teachhing is destroyed by His three paradoxes of self-reliance, of service, and of idealism. The law of self- sacrifice inculcates that we shall find life by losing it; but the law of biological organisms, of physiological tissues, of intellectual achivements, and of economic processes shows that self-sacrifice is self-realization in the end. The second paradox is that of service: Thirdly, the idealism of Jesus is expressed in such words as "The life is more than the meat", and "Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

The character of Jesus therefore is the embodiment of both strength and poise. It thus verifies the definition given by such an involved writer as Emerson: The natural measure of this power is the resistence of circumstances. Even saints are at times bad neighbours; we may like them, but sometimes we like them only at a distance.

The character of Christ carries with it the trait of grace, doing away with all harshness and want of amiability. Grace is the unconstrained expression of the self-forgetting and kindly mind. It is a beautiful way of doing the right thing, in the right way, at the right time, therefore opens all hearts to its possessor.

Sympathy is the widst channel through which grace flows, and the abundance of the stream testifies to the reserve of grace. Now Jesus sympathizes with all classes, with the rich and the poor, the learned and the ignorant, the happy and the sad; He moves with the same sense of familiarity among all classes of society. For the self-righteous Pharisees He has only the words, "Woe to you, hypocrites"; he disciples, "Unless you become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus treats the publicans as His friends; He encourages the most tentative beginnings of moral growth. He chooses common fishermen for the corner -stones of His kingdom, and by His kindliness trains them to become the light of the world and the salt of the earth; He bends down to St. Peter whose character was a heap of sand rather than a solid "foundation, but He graciously forms Peter into the rock upon which to build his Church.

After two of the Apostles had fallen, Jesus was gracious to both, though He saved only one, while the other destroyed himself. Women in need are not excluded from the general graciousness of Jesus; He receives the homage of the sinful woman, He consolves the sorrowing sisters Martha and Mary, He cures the mother-in-law of St. Peter and restores the health of numerous other women of Galilee, He has words of sympathy for the women of Jerusalem who bewailed His sufferings, He was subject to His mother till He reached man's estate, and when dying on the Cross commanded her to the care of His beloved disciple.

The grace of the Master is also evident in the form of His teaching: He lays under contribution the simple phases of nature, the hen with her chickens, the gnat in the cup, the camel in the narrow street, the fig tree and its fruit, the fishermen sorting the catch. He meets with the lightest touch, approaching sometimes the play of humour and sometimes the thrust of irony, the simple doubts of His disciples, the selfish questions of His hearers, and the subtlest snares of his enemies.

He feels no need of thrift in His benefits on the few as abundantly as the vastest multitudes. He flings out His parables into the world that those who have ears may hear. There is a prodigality in this manifestation of Christ's grace that can only be symbolized, but not equalled, by the waste of seed in the realm of nature. It was love that impelled the Son of God to take on human nature, though He did so with the full consent of His Father: For thirty years Jesus shows His love by a life of poverty, labour, and hardship in the fulfillment of the duties of a common trademan.

When His public ministry began, He simply spent Himself for the good of His neighbour, "doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil" Acts, x, He shows a boundless compassion for all the infirmities of the body; He uses His miraculous power to heal the sick, to free the possessed, to resuscitate the dead. The moral weaknesses of man move His heart still more effectively; the woman at Jacob's well, Mathew the publican, Mary Magdalen the public sinner, Zacheus the unjust administrator, are only a few instances of sinners who received encouragement from the lips of Jesus.

He is ready with forgiveness for all; the parable of the Prodigal Son illustrates His love for the sinner. In His work of teaching He is at the service of the poorest outcast of Galilee as well as of the theological celebrities of Jerusalem. His bitterest enemies are not excluded from the manifestations of His love; even while He is being crucified He prays for their pardon. The Scribes and Pharisees are treated severely, only because they stand in the way of His love. After laying down the rule, "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" John, xv, 13 , He surpasses as it were His own standard by dying for His enemies.

Fulfilling the unconscious prophecy of the godless high-priest, "It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people" John, xi, 50 , He freely meets His sufferings which He could have easily avoided Matt. But the love of Jesus embraced not only the spiritual welfare of men, it extended also to their temporal happiness: He can defy His enemies by asking, "Which of you shall convince me of sin? His enemies charge Him with being a Samaritan, and having a devil John, viii, 48 , with being a sinner John, ix, 24 , a blasphemer Matt.

But pilate finds and declares Jesus innocent, and, when pressed by the enemies of Jesus to condemn Him, he washes his hands and exclaims before the assembled people, "I am innocent of the blood of this just man" Matt. The Jewish authorities practically admit that they cannot prove any wrong against Jesus; they only insist, "We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" John, xix, 7.

The positive side of the sanctity of Jesus is well attested by His constant zeal in the service of God.

At the age of twelve He asks His mother, "Did you not know, that I must be about my father's business? He urges on His hearers the true adoration in spirit and in truth John, iv, 23 required by His Father. Even the hardest sacrifices do not prevent Jesus from complying with His Father's Will: Jesus honours His Father John, ii, 17 , and proclaims at the end of His life, "I have glorified thee on the earth" John, xvii, 4. He prays almost incessantly to His Father Mark, i, 35; vi, 46; etc. He always thanks His Father for His bounties Matt. But, though Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament to the letter, He Himself appears to appeal to them mainly in proof of His Divine mission; He shows the Jews that He fulfills in His Person and His work all that had been foretold of the Messias.

The prophecies uttered by Jesus Himself differ from the predictions of the Old Testament in that Jesus does not speak in the name of the Lord, like the seers of old, but in His own name. If it could be strictly proved that they were made in virtue of His own knowledge of the future, and of His own power to dispose of the current of events, the prophecies would prove His Divinity; as it is they prove at least that Jesus is a messenger of God, a friend of God, inspired by God. This is not the place to discuss the historical and philosophical truth of the miracles of Jesus, but we know that Jesus appeals to His works as bearing witness to the general truth of His mission John, x, 25, 33, 38 , and also for the verity of some particulr claims Matt.

They show, therefore, at least that Jesus is a Divine legate and that His teaching is infallibly true. Did Jesus teach that He is God? He certainly claimed to be the Messias John, iv, 26 , to fulfill the Messianic descriptions of the Old Testament Matt. He forgives sin in answer to the observation that God alone can forgive sin Mark, ii, 7, 10; Luke, v, 21, 24; etc. He acts as the Lord of the Sabbath Matt. Peter that as "Son" He is free from the duty of paying temple-tribute Matt.

Four distinct times does He proclaim Himself the Son of God; to the man born blind John, x, 30, 36 ; before the two assemblies of the Jewish Sanhedrin on the night before His death Matt. Jesus does not wish to teach the evil spirit the mystery of His Divinity; to the Jews He gives a greater sign than they are asking for.

Jesus, therefore, applies to Himself, and allows others to apply to Him, the title "Son of God" in its full meaning. If there had been a misunderstanding He would have corrected it, even as Paul and Barnabas corrected those who took them for gods Acts, xiv, Nor can it be said that the title "Son of God" denotes a merely adoptive sonship. The foregoing texts do not admit of such an interpretation. Again, the Angel Gabriel declares that the Child to be born will be "the Son of the most High" and "Son of God" Luke, i, 32, 35 , in such a way that He will be without an earthly father.

Mere adoption presupposes the existence of the child to be adopted; but St. Moreover, the Divine Sonship claimed by Jesus is such that he and the Father are one John, x, 30, 36 ; a merely adopted sonship does not constitute a physical unity between the son and his adoptive father. Finally if Jesus had claimed only an adoptive sonship, He would have deceived His judges; they could not have condemned Him for claiming a prerogative common to all pious Israelites.

Harnack Wesen des Christentums, 81 contends that the Divine Sonship claimed by Jesus is an intellectual relation to the Father, springing from special knowledge of God. This knowledge constitutes "the sphere of the Divine Sonship", and is implied in the words of Matt. But if the Divine Sonship of Christ is a mere intellectual relation, and if Christ is God in a most figurative sense, the Paternity of the Father and the Divinity of the Son will be reduced to a figure of speech.

The Latin incarnatio in: These two terms were in use by the Greek Fathers from the time of St. The verb sarkousthai , to be made flesh, occurs in the creed of the Council of Nicaea cf. In the language of Holy Writ, flesh means, by synecdoche, human nature or man cf. Luke, iii, 6; Rom. Suarez deems the choice of the word incarnation to have been very apt. Man is called flesh to emphasize the weaker part of his nature. When the Word is said to have been incarnate, to have been made Flesh, the Divine goodness is better expressed whereby God "emptied Himself.

Suarez, "De Incarnatione", Praef. The Fathers now and then use the word henanthropesis , the act of becoming man, to which correspond the terms inhumanatio , used by some Latin Fathers, and "Menschwerdung", current in German. The mystery of the Incarnation is expressed in Scripture by other terms: In this article, we shall treat of the fact, nature and effects of the Incarnation.

Moreover, we assume that the Divine nature and Divine personality are one and inseparable. The aim here is to prove that the historical person, Jesus Christ, is really and truly God, --i. Assuming then, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messias promised in the Old Testament, from the terms of the promise it is certain that the One promised is God, is a Divine Person in the strictest sense of the word, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of the Father, One in nature with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Our argument is cumulative. The texts from the Old Testament have weight by themselves; taken together with their fulfilment in the New Testament, and with the testimony of Jesus and His apostles and His Church, they make up a cumulative argument in favour of the Divinity of Jesus Christ that is overwhelming in its force.

Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Paul interprets the text Heb. The objection is raised that St. Paul is here not interpreting but only accommodating Scripture. He applies the very same words of Ps. We answer that St. Paul speaks figuratively and accommodates Scripture in the matter of the priesthood and resurrection but not in the matter of the eternal generation of Jesus. The entire context of this chapter shows there is a question of real sonship and real Divinity of Jesus.

In the same verse, St. Paul applies to Christ the words of Jahweh to David, the type of Christ: II Kings, vii, In the following verse, Christ is spoken of as the first-born of the Father, and as the object of the adoration of the angels; but only God is adored: Thy God, O God, hath anointed thee " Ps. Paul refers these words to Christ as to the Son of God Heb. Hence, the Christ is here called God twice; and his throne, or reign, is said to have been from eternity.

Sit thou at my right hand". Christ cites this text to prove that He is Adonai a Hebrew term used only for Deity , seated at the right hand of Jahweh, who is invariably the great God of Israel Matt. In the same psalm, Jahweh says to Christ: Hence Christ is the begotten of God; was begotten before the world was, and sits at the right hand of the heavenly Father. Other Messianic psalms might be cited to show the clear testimony of these inspired poems to the Divinity of the promised Messias.

It is to be noted that in the pre-sapiential books of the Old Testament, the uncreated Logos, or hrema , is the active and creative principle of Jahweh see Ps. Later the logos became sophia , the uncreated Word became uncreated Wisdom. To Wisdom were attributed all the works of creation and Divine Providence see Job, xxviii, This identification of the pre-Mosaic Logos with the Sapiential Wisdom and the Johannine Logos is proof that the rationalistic subterfuge is not effective. Now for the Sapiential proofs: So universal was the identification of Wisdom with the Christ, that even the Arians concurred with the Fathers therein; and strove to prove by the word ektise, made or created , of verse 14, that incarnate Wisdom was created.

The Fathers did not make answer that the word Wisdom was not to be understood of the Christ, but explained that the word ektise had here to be interpreted in keeping with other passages of Holy Writ and not according to its usual meaning,--that of the Septuagint version of Gen. We do not know the original Hebrew or Aramaic word; it may have been the same word that occurs in Prov.

Hence the Fathers were quite right in explaining ektise not to mean made or created in any strict sense of the terms see St. Athanasius, "Sermo ii contra Arianos", n. The Book of Wisdom, also, speaks clearly of Wisdom as "the worker of all things. Paul paraphrases this beautiful passage and refers it to Jesus Christ Heb. It is clear, then, from the text-study of the books themselves, from the interpretation of these books by St. Paul, and especially, from the admitted interpretation of the Fathers and the liturgical uses of the Church, that the personified wisdom of the Sapiential Books is the uncreated Wisdom, the incarnate Logos of St.

The Sapiential Books prove that Jesus was really and truly God. That Jahweh here is Jesus Christ is clear from the use of the passage by St.

Working...

This new Divine name St. Matthew refers to as fulfilled in Jesus, and interprets to mean the Divinity of Jesus. Also in ix, 6, Isaias calls the Messias God: Theodotion translates literally theos ischyros ; the Septuagint has "messenger". Our interpretation is that commonly received by Catholics and by Protestants of the stamp of Delitzsch "Messianic Prophecies", p. Isaias also calls the Messias the "sprout of Jahweh" iv, 2 , i. The Messias is "God our King" Is. The other prophets are as clear as Isaias, though not so detailed, in their foretelling of the Godship of the Messias.

Micheas speaks of the twofold coming of the Child, His birth in time at Bethlehem and His procession in eternity from the Father v, 2. The Messianic value of this text is proved by its interpretation in Matthew ii, 6. Zacharias makes Jahweh to speak of the Messias as "my Companion"; but a companion is on an equal footing with Jahweh xiii, 7. The messenger spoken of here is certainly St. But the Baptist prepared the way before the face of Jesus Christ. Hence the Christ was the spokesman of the words of Malachias. But the words of Malachias are uttered by Jahweh the great God of Israel.

The argument is rendered even more forcible by the fact that not only is the speaker, Jahweh the God of hosts, here one and the same with the Messias before Whose face the Baptist went: That name occurs seven times Ex. The last of the prophets of Israel gives clear testimony that the Messias is the very God of Israel Himself. This argument from the prophets in favour of the Divinity of the Messias is most convincing if received in the light of Christian revelation, in which light we present it.

The cumulative force of the argument is well worked out in "Christ in Type and Prophecy", by Maas. The argument from the New Testament has a cumulative weight that is overwhelming in its effectiveness, once the inspiration of the New Testament and the Divine ambassadorship of Jesus are proved. The process of the Catholic apologetic and dogmatic upbuilding is logical and never-failing. The Catholic theologian first establishes the teaching body to which Christ gave His deposit of revealed truth, to have and to keep and to hand down that deposit without error or failure.

This teaching body gives us the Bible; and gives us the dogma of the Divinity of Christ in the unwritten and the written Word of God, i. When contrasted with the Protestant position upon "the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible"--no, not even anything to tell us what is the Bible and what is not the Bible--the Catholic position upon the Christ-established, never-failing, never-erring teaching body is impregnable. The weakness of the Protestant position is evidenced in the matter of this very question of the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The Bible is the one and only rule of faith of Unitarians, who deny the Divinity of Jesus; of Modernistic Protestants, who make out His Divinity to be an evolution of His inner consciousness; of all other Protestants, be their thoughts of Christ whatsoever they may. The strength of the Catholic position will be clear to any one who has followed the trend of Modernism outside the Church and the suppression thereof within the pale. We waive the question of the dependence of Matthew upon the Logia, the origin of Mark from "Q", the literary or other dependence of Luke upon Mark; all these questions are treated in their proper places and do not belong here in the process of Catholic apologetic and dogmatic theology.

We here argue from the Four Gospels as from the inspired Word of God. The witness of the Gospels to the Divinity of Christ is varied in kind. As Divine Ambassador He can not have borne false witness. This name Son of man was commonly used by the Saviour in regard to Himself; it bore testimony to His human nature and oneness with us. The disciples made answer that others said He was one of the prophets. Peter, as spokesman, replied: Jesus was satisfied with this answer; it set Him above all the prophets who were the adopted sons of God; it made Him the natural Son of God.

The adopted Divine sonship of all the prophets Peter had no need of special revelation to know. This natural Divine Sonship was made known to the leader of the Apostles only by a special revelation. Jesus clearly assumes this important title in the specially revealed and altogether new sense.

He admits that He is the Son of God in the real sense of the word. Secondly, we find that He allowed others to give Him this title and to show by the act of real adoration that they meant real Sonship. The possessed fell down and adored Him, and the unclean spirits cried out: After the stilling of the storm at sea, His disciples adored Him and said: Nor did He suggest that they erred in that they gave Him the homage due to God alone.

The centurion on Calvary Matt. Mark i, 1 , the hypothetical testimony of Satan Matt. Jesus Himself clearly assumed the title. He constantly spoke of God as "My Father" Matt. Thirdly, the witness of Jesus to His Divine Sonship is clear enough in the Synoptics, as we see from the foregoing argument and shall see by the exegesis of other texts; but is perhaps even more evident in John. Jesus indirectly but clearly assumes the title when He says: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?

An even clearer witness is given in the narrative of the cure of the blind man in Jerusalem. And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee. And falling down, he adored him. Here as elsewhere, the act of adoration is allowed, and the implicit assent is in this wise given to the assertion of the Divine Sonship of Jesus. Fourthly, likewise to His enemies, Jesus made undoubted profession of His Divine Sonship in the real and not the figurative sense of the word; and the Jews understood Him to say that He was really God. His way of speaking had been somewhat esoteric.

He spoke often in parables. He willed then, as He wills now, that faith be "the evidence of things that appear not" Heb. The Jews tried to catch Him, to make Him speak openly. They met Him in the portico of Solomon and said: If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly" John, x, The answer of Jesus is typical. He puts them off for a while; and in the end tells them the tremendous truth: They take up stones to kill Him. He makes them admit that they have understood Him aright. These same enemies had clear statement of the claim of Jesus on the last night that He spent on earth.

Twice He appeared before the Sanhedrim, the highest authority of the enslaved Jewish nation. The first times the high priest, Caiphas, stood up and demanded: Jesus had before held His peace. Now His mission calls for a reply. The answer was likely--in Semitic fashion--a repetition of the question with a tone of affirmation rather than of interrogation. Matthew reports that answer in a way that might leave some doubt in our minds, had we not St. Mark's report of the very same answer. Mark, Jesus replies simply and clearly: The context of St.

Matthew clears up the difficulty as to the meaning of the reply of Jesus. The Jews understood Him to make Himself the equal of God. They probably laughed and jeered at His claim. Caiphas rent his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy. All joined in condemning Him to death for the blasphemy whereof they accused Him. They clearly understood Him to make claim to be the real Son of God; and He allowed them so to understand Him, and to put Him to death for this understanding and rejection of His claim.

It were to blind one's self to evident truth to deny the force of this testimony in favour of the thesis that Jesus made claim to be the real Son of God. The second appearance of Jesus before the Sanhedrim was like to the first; a second time He was asked to say clearly: This twofold witness is especially important, in that it is made before the great Sanhedrim, and in that it is the cause of the sentence of death. Before Pilate, the Jews put forward a mere pretext at first. What was the result? Pilate found no cause of death in Him! The Jews seek another pretext. Pilate refers the case of sedition to Herod.

Herod finds the charge of sedition not worth his serious consideration. Over and again the Jews come to the front with a new subterfuge. Over and again Pilate finds no cause in Him. At last the Jews give their real cause against Jesus. In that they said He made Himself a king and stirred up sedition and refused tribute to Caesar, they strove to make it out that he violated Roman law.

Their real cause of complaint was not that Jesus violated Roman law; but that they branded Him as a violator of the Jewish law. The charge was most serious; it caused even the Roman governor "to fear the more. There can be no doubt. It is the dread law of Leviticus: He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord dying let him die " Lev. By virtue of this law, the Jews were often on the very point of stoning Jesus; by virtue of this law, they often took Him to task for blasphemy whensoever He made Himself the Son of God; by virtue of this same law, they now call for His death.

It is simply out of the question that these Jews had any intention of accusing Jesus of the assumption of that adopted sonship of God which every Jew had by blood and every prophet had had by special free gift of God's grace. Fifthly, we may only give a summary of the other uses of thee title Son of God in regard to Jesus. John speaks of Him as "the only begotten of the Father" John, i, 14 ; at the Baptism of Jesus and at His Transfiguration, a voice from heaven cries: John gives it as his very set purpose, in his Gospel, "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" John, xx, According to John, Jesus says: Athanasius links this clear testimony to the other witness of John "I and the Father are one" ibid.

John Chrysostom interprets the text in the same sense. A last proof from John is in the words that bring his first Epistle to a close: This is the true God and life eternal" I John, v,

• How to Use the I CHING as an Oracle for Wealth (An Introduction to the I CHING Divination)
• key words for usmle step 1 exan
• The Book of Jubilees
• The Era of the Thirty Years’ War, 1618-1648
• The Cambridge Companion to Chopin (Cambridge Companions to Music)
• Purgatory Pit
• Where you from, mister? (Italian Edition)