JESUS
CHRIST
The
epic
treatment
of
the
Galilcean
ministry.
—
In
the
treat-ment
of
this
period
many
modem
'Livea*
proceed
on
the
footing
that
the
Galilsean
ministry
has
the
tragic
interest
of
a
splendid
failure
following
on
the
brightest
hopes.
It
has
been
common
enough
in
public
life
for
great
men
to
sink
from
popularity,
through
conflict,
to
neglect
and
impotence;
and
there
ia
not
a
little
to
suggest
that
it
was
so
with
Jesus
in
Galilee,
The
usual
representation
ia
that,
after
being
borne
along
on
a
tide
of
popular
enthusiasm,
the
opposition
grew
more
persistent
and
envenomed,
He
was
forsaken
by
the
multitude,
and
was
forced
to
move
from
place
to
place
with
a
handful
of
faithful
followers.
The
dramatic
effect
is
sedulously
laboured
by
Keim.who
represents
Him
as
becom-ing
a
homeless
fugitive,
seeking
safety
from
His
enemies
in
distant
journeys
or
in
obscure
places.
Graphic
pictures
are
drawn
of
the
change
in
the
popular
attitude.
'Formerly
the
multitude
of
hearers
thronged
Jesus,
so
that
He
could
not
eat
in
the
house
in
peace,
and
had
to
betake
Himself
from
the
shore
to
the
lake.
Now
He
sita
alone
in
the
house
with
the
disciples,
and
the
collectors
of
the
Temple-tax
know
not
whetner
they
are
to
assess
Him
as
still
a
member
of
their
community'
(O.
Holtzmann.
CArisius,
1907,
p-
71).
In
explanation
of
His
desertion
by
the
multitude,
use
la
made
of
the
incident
recorded
inMk
7^-
^hich,
it
is
thought,
was
popularly
regarded
as
meaning
that
He
had
been
defimtely
repudiated
by
the
highest
religious
tribunal.
The
latter,
it
is
supposed,
moved
the
Galil£ean'authorities[to
action
which
menaced
the
liberty
of
Jesus,
and
even
His
life.
This
dramatic
treatment
is
not
wholly
justified
by
the
records,
and
is
to
some
extent
dependent
on
inherent
probability
In
the
idyllic
early
days,
when
we
are
told
that
only
the
first
murmurs
of
opposition
were
heard,
Mk.
Bays
that
the
cry
of
blasphemy
and
of
Sabbath-break-ing
was
already
raised
against
Jesus,
and
that
there
was
a
conspiracy
to
murder
Him
(3^).
At
the
close
of
the
period,
again,
when
He
is
pictured
as
a
discredited
popular
hero,
the
verdict
of
GaUlee
still
is
that
He
is
a
Divine
messenger
(S^s),
while
at
the
Transfiguration,
which
falls
in
the
darkest
days,
a
great
multitude
still
attends
upon
His
steps
(9-*).^
The
truth
would
seem
to
be
that
the
Synoptics,
especially
Mk.,
have
given
insufficient
expression
to
the
element
of
movement
and
to
the
proportion
of
failure,
and
that
modem
biographers
have
striven
too
much
after
strong
effects.
At
the
same
time
the
modem
work
has
certainly
brought
into
clearer
relief
certain
points.
It
aeema
certain
that
the-e
was
a
growing
bitterness
and
violence
on
the
part
of
the
religious
authorities,
as
seen
in
the
fact
that
Jesus
ceased
to
preach
in
the
sjmagogues.
There
was
also
a
measure
of
popular
disappointment,
which
was
the
in-evitable
result
of
the
absence
of
the
patriotic
note
from
the
teaching
of
Jesus,
and
of
the
high-pitched
spirituality
of
His
demanc^.
Jesus,
moreover,
regarded
the
response
of
Galilee
to
His
preaching
as
having
been
representatively
given,
and
as
tantamount
to
a
refusal
to
repent
and
beUeve
the
gospel.
As
to
the
motive
of
the
journeys
of
the
last
months,
there
are
various
considerations
to
be
taken
into
account.
That
one
motive
was
to
avoid
the
machinations
of
His
enemies
is
quite
possible,
as
this
would
have
been
in
accordance
with
a
counsel
given
by
Him
to
His
disciples
(Mt
10^).
But
this
was
quite
consonant
with
a
purpose
to
proclaim
the
gospel
in
regions
hitherto
unevan^elized.
And
if
,
as
is
true,
there
is
little
evidence
that
these
journeys
had
a
missionary
aim,
it
may
well
be
that
for
Jesus
the
most
pressing
necessity
now
was
to
devote
Himself
to
the
training
of
the
disciples,
and
in
their
society
to
prepare
them,
along
with
Himself,
for
the
trials
and
the
tasks
that
awaited
them
at
Jerusalem.
rAco7T.es
of
development.—
It
is
characteristic
of
the
modem
writing
of
history
to
postulate
a
process
of
evolution
and
to
try
to
explain
its
causes;
and
reference
may
here
be
made
to
the
treatment
from
this
point
of
view
of
the
central
theme
of
the
period—
the
Messianic
conaciouaness
of
Jesus.
The
Gospels
know
of
development
only
in
the
form
of
a
growth
in
the
faith
of
the
disciples,
and
of
a
modification
of
the
educa-tive
method
of
Jesus;
but
the
question
is
raised
whether
the
original
plan
of
Jesus,
and
the
means
by
which
He
pro-posed
to
accomplish
it,
were
not
also
altered
during
its
course.
The
theories
which
may
be
noticed
are
those
of
(1)
a
modi-fication
of
His
earlier
ideas
under
the
influence
of
John
the
Baptist;
(2)
the
substitution
of
the|idea
of
a
purely
spiritual
Kingdomf
or
that
of
a
theocratic
State.under
the
impression
which
had
been
made
upon
Him
by
the
providential
course
of
events;
(3;His
more
complete
adoption,
also
as
theoutcome
of
experience,
of
the
Apocalyptic
conception
of
a
heavenly
Kingdom
to
be
founded
on
the
ruins
of
the
earthly
world.
(IJ
The
Gaiilaean
ministry
which
has
been
described
is
supposed
by
Kenan
to
represent
a
declension
from
an
earlier
stage.
He
supposes
that
for
some
months,
perhaps
a
year,
previously,
Jesus
had
laboured
in
Galilee
as
the
teacher
of
a
simple
gospel
of
Divine
and
human
love.
On
joining
JESUS
CHRIST
John
the
Baptist
He
absorbed
his
ideas
and
his
apirit,
and
after
the
arrest
of
the
latter
began
to
publish
a
new
message
■
Jesus
is
no
longer
simply
a
delightful
moralist,
aspiring
to
express
simple
lessons
m
short
and
lively
aphorisms,
He
Is
the
transcendent
revolutionary
who
essays
to
revolutionize
the
world
from
its
very
basis,
and
to
establish
on
earth
an
idealwhichHehadconceived
(Z/i^elojFyesus.Eng
tr
p
106).
It
is
clear,
as
already
said,
that
a
time
came
when
Jesus
became
certain
of
His
Messianic
vocation;
but
that
He
was
already
engaged
in
teaching
before
He
came
into
con-tact
with
the
Baptist,
there
is
no
evidence
whatever.
And
'the
Galilsean
spring-tide,'
as
Keim
calls
it.
certainly
does
not
bear
out
the
idea
that
the
influence
of
the
Baptist
had
tinged
the
apirit
of
Jesus
with
gloom.
(2)
According
to
Hase,
the
experiences
of
the
Galilsean
ministry
led
to
a
modification
of
the
hopes
and
plans
of
Jesus.
At
the
outset
He
expected
to
found
a
Kingdom,
such
as
the
OT
prophets
had
foretold,
viz.
a
Kingdom
which,
while
distinguished
by
piety
and
righteousness,
would
be
in
form
a
glorious
revival
of
the
Kingdom
of
David.
He
also
hoped
that
the
people
as
a
whole
would
repent
and
believe
the
gospel,
and
accept
Him
as
the
great
emancipator.
'
Down
to
the
time
when
His
earthly
career
was
approaching
the
catastrophe.
we
never
hear
a
rebuke
of
the
worldly
hopes
which
the
Messianic
idea
everywhere
called
forth;
and.
on
the
other
hand.Hespoke
of
the
Apostles
as
sitting
on
thrones,
judging
the
twelve
tribes
of
Israel,
and
answered
questions
of
the
disciples
about
places'of
supreme
honour
and
power.
'
'But
when,
in
view
of
the
falling
away
of
the
people.
His
earthly
destruction
seemed
impending,
He
recognized
it
to
be
the
purpose
of
God,
and
made
it
His
own
purpose
to
establish
only
a
spiritual
Kingdom
in
loyal
hearts,
and
left
it
to
the
wonder-working
energy
of
His
Heavenly
Father
to
make
it
grow
into
a
world-power'
(Gesch.
Jesu\
617
ff,).
This
construction
derives
a
certain
plausibility
from
the
fact
that
it
seems
to
be
a
general
law
of
Providence
that
God
only
gradually
reveals
His
purpose
to
His
chosen
instruments,
and
that
the
founding
and
reformation
of
religions
has
seldom
been
carried
out
in
accordance
with
apredetermined
plan.
But
apart
from
the
doctrinal
difficulty
of
supposing
that
Jesus
was
i^orant
of
a
matter
so
vital,
the
weight
of
the
historical
evidence
is
against
the
hypothesis.
The
story
of
the
Temptation
makes
it
clear
that
Jesus
from
the
be-ginning
rejected
the
idea
of
a
Messiahship
resting
on
a
basis
ofpolitical
power.
He
was,
moreover,
too
deeply
versed
in
OT
history
not
to
know
the
usual
fate
of
the
prophets.
An
early
sayingis
preserved,
in
which
He
coniparea
the
Galilsean
spring-
tide
X)
a
wedding
which
would
be
followed
by
bereave-ment
and
mourning
(Mk
2^^-
^o).
(3)
A
more
recent
phase
of
the
discussion
was
initiated
by
Baldensperger
(Z>as
SelhstbewussUeinJesu,
1888).
who
made
use
of
the
ideas
of
the
Jewish
Apocalyptic
literature
to
ex-plain
the
later
teaching
of
Jesus.
He
differs
from
Hase
in
that
he
holds
that
the
politicalideal
was
completely
rejected
in
the
wilderness,
and
that
during
the
Galilsean
period
Jesus
made
prominent
the
spiritual
nature
of
the
Kingdom
—
although
not
knowing
when
and
how
it
was
to
be
realized.
At
the
later
date,
when
the
fatal
issue
became
probable.
He
would
welcome
the
thought
of
His
death
as
solving
many
difficulties,
while
He
more
fully
appropriated
the
current
Apocalyptic
ideas
of
the
Kingdom,
and
promised
to
return
in
the
clouds
to
establish
by
supernatural
means
a
King-dom
of
a
heavenly
pattern.
The
interesting
fact
brought
out
by
this
line
of
mvestigation
is-
that
in
His
Messianic
utterances
Jesus
applied
to
Himself,
to
a
much
greater
extent
than
wasformerly
supposed,
the
contemporary
Jewish
conceptions
about
the
Messiah,
the
manner
of
His
advent,
and
the
exercise
of
His
power.
But
the
attempt
so
to
enter
into
His
consciousness
as
to
trace
a
development
in
His
attitude
towards
these
ideas
is
too
speculative
to
be
readily
endorsed.
At
the
opposite
pole
is
the
theory
of
Wrede
(J)as
Messias-geheimmss,
1901),
who
denies
that
Jesus
ever
claimed
to
be
the
Messiah,
and
regards
the
relative
passages,
and
also
the
Injunctions
to
secrecy,
as
fiction.
_
But
even
the
Resurrection
would
nothave
createdtheibelief
in
the
Messiahship
had
Jesus
not
made
the
claim
in
life
(Julicher,iVei/«
Limen,
1906,
p.
23).
(B)
The
JuD.ffiAN
Ministry,
—
In
seeking
to
follow
the
footsteps
of
Jesus
after
His
departure
from
Galilee,
we
have
to
choose
between
the
Synoptics
and
the
Fourth
Gospel.
All
that
the
former
directly
tell
us
is
that
He
next
entered
upon
a
mission
in
Judaea
and
beyond
Jordan,
Mk
10^
('
Judaea
beyond
Jordan,'
Mt
190,
and
that
after
an
undefined
Interval
He
travelled
by
way
of
Jericho,
with
a
company,
to
keep
the
last
Passover
in
Jerusalem.
According
to
the
Fourth
Gospel,
the
Peraean
sojourn
was
only
an
episode
in
a
Southern
