Appendix A

In sections from “The Return of the Apostles” to “On Offenses” a series of questions was raised. AS proposed a change in the temporal sequence in Mark and Matthew as a way of addressing many of these questions. He never claimed to have proven that the changes were required. I include them in this appendix.

It is exceedingly difficult to gather from the Synoptic accounts a clear picture of the events which happened after the mission of the Twelve. When did the Disciples return? Where did Jesus betake himself during their absence? What sort of success did the Disciples have? What events happened between their return and the departure for the north? Were these events of a sort to account for Jesus’ determination to withdraw with them into solitude?

The accounts supply no answer to these questions. Moreover they confront us with another, a purely literary problem. The connection between the several scenes is here extraordinarily broken. It seems almost as if the thread of the narration were here completely lost. Only at the moment of departure for the journey to Jerusalem do the scenes begin to stand again in a clear and natural relationship.

First of all we have to do with two obvious doublettes: the feeding of the multitude and the subsequent journey on the lake (Mark 6:31-56 = Mark 8:1-21). In both instances Jesus is overtaken by the multitude as he lands on a lonely shore after a journey across the lake. Then he returns again to the Galilean village on the west shore. Here in his accustomed field of activity he encounters the Pharisaic emissaries from Jerusalem. They call him to account. In the series which contains the first account of the feeding of the multitude the question at issue is about hand-washing (Mark 7:1-23), in the second case it is the requirement of a sign (Mark 8:11-13). The first series concludes with the departure for the north, where in the neighbourhood of Tyre and Sidon he meets the Canaanitish woman (Mark 7:24-30). In the second series the journey to Cæsarea Philippi (Mark 8:27) follows upon his encounter with the Pharisees.

We have here therefore two independent accounts of the same epoch in Jesus’s life. In their plan they match one another perfectly, differing only in the choice of the events to be related. These two narrative series are as it were predestinated to be united instead of being placed side by side. It happens that each of the northern journeys, according to the narrative, begins and ends with a sojourn in Galilee. Mark 7:31: After leaving the region of Tyre he came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee. Mark 9:30, 9:33: And they went forth from thence (i. e. from Cæsarea  Philippi) and wandered through Galilee and came to Capernaum. At the end of one narrative series one finds oneself again at the beginning of the other. Hence if one connects the one return from the north with the beginning of the other narrative series, one has, superficially viewed, a perfectly natural continuation, only that Jesus must now, incomprehensibly enough, start back immediately for the north, instead of the return to Galilee being a stage on the journey to Jerusalem! This is the order that was finally followed, but it is only in the second return that the narrative finds a point of attachment for the journey to Jerusalem.

This return movement in both series accounts for the fact that the two narratives, though they are really parallel cycles, are yet attached to one another in chronological sequence. The present text has completed the process of harmonising them. It is not simply that the story of the second feeding of the multitude makes reference to the first in the word “again” (Mark 8:1): the reconciliation is in fact carried so far that Jesus in one word addressed to the Disciples assumes both miracles (Mark 8:19-21)! How far this process was already accomplished in the oral tradition, and how much is to be charged to the account of the final literary composition, is a question which we are no longer in a position to answer.

Only the first cycle is complete. Jesus and his Disciples travel by boat north-east along the coast and return then again to the country of Genezareth (Mark 6:32, 6:45, 6:53).

The second cycle is incomplete and fallen somewhat into disorder. Jesus is back on the west coast after his voyage. Mark 8:10 ff corresponds with Mark 6:53 ff and Mark 7:1 ff. Dalmanutha lies on the west coast. But instead of his departing now directly for the north, there comes first another voyage to the east coast (Mark 8:13). It is not till they reach Bethsaida that he starts with his Disciples northward (Mark 8:27). The first cycle on the other hand relates this voyage to Bethsaida as an episode of the famous coasting voyage and places it immediately after the feeding of the multitude (Mark 6:45 ff). And as a matter of fact the second narrative series also shows that this was the original connection. For here, too, as in the first series, the conversation upon landing deals with the foregoing miracle. Mark 6:52: “For they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened.” Mark 8:19-21: “When I brake the five loaves—when the seven—do ye not yet understand?” It is therefore impossible that between this voyage and the feeding of the multitude all the events were crowded which were enacted upon the west shore. The minds of all are still full of the great event. The new sea journey of the second cycle is nothing else but the original continuation of the voyage to Bethsaida from the scene of the feeding of the multitude.

Therewith the parallelism of the two series is proven. The events follow one another in this order: coasting voyage from the west shore, feeding of the multitude, continuation of the voyage to the north-east, “walking upon the sea” and conversation in the boat, arrival at Bethsaida, return to the region of Genezareth, discussion with the Pharisees, departure with the Disciples to the north. (Mystery p. 100-103)

AS also gives:

Some of the narratives contained in the passage Mark 6:31-9:30 take place in the Decapolis (the healing of the deaf and dumb man, Mark 7:32-37) and in Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26), i.e. on the eastern shore. And indeed Jesus is surrounded by people here as well. Thus it is possible that Mark 8:34-9:29, where there is no indication of place, also presupposes the eastern shore as a locality. Accordingly we should assume that when Jesus crossed the Jordan after the return of the disciples he spent some days in Bethsaida. The people would then have consisted of the inhabitants of this place, which was a town he had already visited, as he had cursed it at the time of John’s enquiry (Matt. 11:21), and possibly also of the crowd, which had meanwhile crossed over from the western shore. But there are also reasons for supposing that the ‘transfiguration’ and the scenes which frame it (Mark 8:34-9:29) took place on the western shore. In that case the mountain would not be near Bethsaida but identical with the one to which Jesus withdrew alone on the evening of the feeding (Mark 6:46) and the ‘house’ (Mark 9:28) his usual lodgings in Capernaum. Thus the reported events took place in the days after their return from the eastern shore, during which Jesus stayed in the region of Gennesaret (Mark 6:53-56) until, after the discussion about the washing of hands, he departed north (Mark 7:1-24). This assumption is probably the more likely. Those who do not wish to accept the theory that the same events must have been reported twice must picture what happened as follows. Jesus went from the western shore to the region of Tyre (Mark 7:24), from there to the Decapolis, returned to the eastern shore (Mark 7:31-8:8), from there went over to the western shore (Mark 8:10-13), returned again to the eastern shore (Mark 8:14), stayed in Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26), and from there set out for Caesarea Philippi. That he again visited the shores of the lake when he came from the north and then again tried to find solitude is not in itself impossible. Also the possibility of a second feeding, this time on the eastern shore (Mark 8:1-8), cannot be summarily dismissed, even though the nature of the narration—as if no such similar event had occurred before—makes for a strong prejudice against such an assumption and suggests positing a double account. Whether the riddle of the reporting of the events is solved one way or another is ultimately of secondary importance, for it has no bearing on the main question why Jesus is suddenly surrounded by people in Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:34) and then just as surprisingly is alone again (Mark 9:30). It must be conceded from both external and internal evidence that the passage Mark 8:34-9:29 belongs to another place and to an earlier period. Thus the ‘transfiguration’ precedes Jesus’ appearance at Caesarea Philippi. This is the most important thing to establish. To assume the existence of a second Bethsaida lying on the western shore would complicate rather than remove the difficulties raised by Mark 7:31-9:29. (QUESTv2 p. 345 c21n25)

AS never indicated how he would have combined the events in the corresponding parts of the two loops, so I have just presented them in parallel columns. Please note that the columns in the verse tables below are therefore different from that in the main body of this work. The two columns here represent the two cycles in Mark.

3.54a Return of the Apostles

Mark 6:30

 

30And the apostles gather themselves together unto Jesus; and they told him all things, whatsoever they had done, and whatsoever they had taught.

 

3.55a Coasting Voyage from the West Shore

Mark 6:31-46

 

31And he saith unto them, “Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while.” For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat. 32And they went away in the boat to a desert place apart.

 

3.56a Feeding of the Multitude

Mark 6:33-44

Mark 8:1-9

33And the people saw them going, and many knew them, and they ran there together on foot from all the cities, and outwent them. 34And he came forth and saw a great multitude, and he had compassion on them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things. 35And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came unto him, and said, “The place is desert, and the day is now far spent: 36send them away, that they may go into the country and villages round about, and buy themselves somewhat to eat.” 37But he answered and said unto them, “Give ye them to eat.” And they say unto him, “Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?” 38And he saith unto them, “How many loaves have ye? go and see.” And when they knew, they say, “Five, and two fishes.” 39And he commanded them that all should sit down by companies, upon the green grass. 40And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties. 41And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake the loaves; and he gave to the disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. 42And they did all eat, and were filled. 43And they took up broken pieces, twelve basketfuls, and also of the fishes. 44And they that ate the loaves were five thousand men.

1In those days, when there was again a great multitude, and they had nothing to eat, he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, 2“I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: 3and if I send them away fasting to their home, they will faint in the way; and some of them are come from far.” 4And his disciples answered him, “Whence shall one be able to fill these men with bread here in a desert place?” 5And he asked them, “How many loaves have ye?” And they said, “Seven.” 6And he commandeth the multitude to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks, he brake, and gave to his disciples, to set before them; and they set them before the multitude. 7And they had a few small fishes: and having blessed them, he commanded to set these also before them. 8And they did eat, and were filled: and they took up, of broken pieces that remained over, seven baskets. 9And they were about four thousand: and he sent them away.

This shows how AS linked the two cycles yielding only one feeding of the multitude.

3.57a Continuation of the Voyage to Bethsaida

Mark 6:45-46

Mark 8:10

45And straightway he constrained his disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before him unto the other side to Bethsaida, while he himself sendeth the multitude away. 46And after he had taken leave of them, he departed into the mountain to pray.

 

3.58a The Walking on the Sea and Conversation in the Boat

Mark 6:47-52

Mark 8:14-21

47And when even was come, the boat was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land. 48And seeing them distressed in rowing, for the wind was contrary unto them, about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea; and he would have passed by them: 49but they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was an apparition, and cried out: 50for they all saw him, and were troubled. But he straightway spake with them, and saith unto them, “Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.” 51And he went up unto them into the boat; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves; 52for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened.

14And they forgot to take bread; and they had not in the boat with them more than one loaf. 15And he charged them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” 16And they reasoned one with another, saying, “We have no bread.” 17And Jesus perceiving it saith unto them, “Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? do ye not yet perceive, neither understand? have ye your heart hardened? 18Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? 19When I brake the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces took ye up?” They say unto him, “Twelve.” 20“And when the seven among the four thousand, how many basketfuls of broken pieces took ye up?” And they say unto him, “Seven.” 21And he said unto them, “Do ye not yet understand?”

Clearly if we assume Mark created two separate loops where there should have only been one, he must have created the text about the two feedings. I have therefore taken the liberty of crossing it out.

3.59a Healings in Bethsaida

Mark 7:32-37

Mark 8:22-26

32And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to lay his hand upon him. 33And he took him aside from the multitude privately, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat, and touched his tongue; 34and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, “Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.” 35And his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain. 36And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it. 37And they were beyond measure astonished, saying, “He hath done all things well: he maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.”

22And they come unto Bethsaida. And they bring to him a blind man, and beseech him to touch him. 23And he took hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes, and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, “Seest thou aught?” 24And he looked up, and said, “I see men; for I behold them as trees, walking.” 25Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked stedfastly, and was restored, and saw all things clearly. 26And he sent him away to his home, saying, “Do not even enter into the village.”

3.60a Jesus Foretells his Death

 

Mark 8:34-9:1

 

34And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 35For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospels shall save it. 36For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? 37For what should a man give in exchange for his life? 38For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” 9:1And he said unto them, “Verily I say unto you, There be some here of them that stand by, which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.”

AS placed the actions in this section here:

There is a great temptation to put the healing of the blind man in Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26) and possibly also the passage Mark 8:34-9:29 in these days. (QUESTv2 p. 321 c21n6)

3.61a The Transfiguration

 

Mark 9:2-13

 

2And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them: 3and his garments became glistering, exceeding white; so as no fuller on earth can whiten them. 4And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. 5And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 6For he wist not what to answer; for they became sore afraid. 7And there came a cloud overshadowing them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son: hear ye him.” 8And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

 

9And as they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead. 10And they kept the saying, questioning among themselves what the rising again from the dead should mean. 11And they asked him, saying, “The scribes say that Elijah must first come.” 12And he said unto them, “Elijah indeed cometh first, and restoreth all things: and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be set at nought? 13But I say unto you, that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they listed, even as it is written of him.”

3.62a The Epileptic Boy

 

Mark 9:14-29

 

14And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great multitude about them, and scribes questioning with them. 15And straightway all the multitude, when they saw him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him. 16And he asked them, “What question ye with them?” 17And one of the multitude answered him, “Master, I brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; 18and wheresoever it taketh him, it dasheth him down: and he foameth, and grindeth his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast it out; and they were not able.” 19And he answereth them and saith, “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? bring him unto me.” 20And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him grievously; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. 21And he asked his father, “How long time is it since this hath come unto him?” And he said, “From a child. 22And oft-times it hath cast him both into the fire and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us.” 23And Jesus said unto him, “If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth.” 24Straightway the father of the child cried out, and said, “I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” 25And when Jesus saw that a multitude came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying unto him, “Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I command thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.” 26And having cried out, and torn him much, he came out: and the child became as one dead; insomuch that the more part said, He is dead. 27But Jesus took him by the hand, and raised him up; and he arose. 28And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, saying, “We could not cast it out.” 29And he said unto them. “This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer.”

AS remarked about the mental state of the disciples

We must continually make a fresh effort to realize that Jesus and his immediate followers were at that time in an enthusiastic state of intense eschatological expectation. We must picture them among the people, who were filled with penitence for their sins and with faith in the kingdom were expecting its coming hourly. The expectant multitude itself provided the certainty that the reckoning of time was right. This provided the psychological presuppositions for a shared visionary experience of the kind depicted in the transfiguration. It is interesting that primarily we have illusions on the part of the three disciples. Finally they see and hear and look on their Lord alone again and in his usual form and this brings the vision to an end. Jesus himself probably took part in the event only as an object. Peter played the active role.

In this ecstasy the ‘three’ heard the voice from heaven saying who he was. Therefore the Matthaean report [of Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi], in which Jesus praises Simon ‘because flesh and blood have not revealed it to him, but the Father who is in heaven’, is not really at variance with the briefer Markan account, since it rightly indicates the source of Peter’s knowledge. (QUESTv2 p. 345)

This accounts for the miracles of walking on the water as well as the transfiguration and the feeding of the multitude.

3.63a Return to the Region of Gennesaret

Mark 6:53-56

Mark 8:10

53And when they had crossed over, they came to the land unto Gennesaret, and moored to the shore. 54And when they were come out of the boat, straightway the people knew him, 55and ran round about that whole region, and began to carry about on their beds those that were sick, where they heard he was. 56And wheresoever he entered, into villages, or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched him were made whole.

10And straightway he entered into the boat with his disciples, and came into the parts of Dalmanutha.

3.64a Discussion with the Pharisees

Mark 7:1-23

Mark 8:11-26

1And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which had come from Jerusalem, 2and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands. 3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders: 4and when they come from the marketplace, except they wash themselves, they eat not: and many other things there be, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels. 5And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, “Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands?” 6And he said unto them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honoureth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. 7But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.’ 8Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” 9And he said unto them, “Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition. 10For Moses said, ‘Honour thy father and thy mother;’ and, ‘He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death:’ 11but ye say, ‘If a man shall say to his father or his mother, ‘That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given to God;’’ 12ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother; 13making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do.”

 

14And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, “Hear me all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him: but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.” 16[] 17And when he was entered into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked of him the parable. 18And he saith unto them, “Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught?” This he said, making all meats clean. 20And he said, “That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man. 21For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: 23all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man.”

11And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. 12And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, “Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.” 13And he left them, and again entering into the boat departed to the other side.

 

 

This is as far as the second cycle goes. The continuation of the first cycle proceeds with the trip to the North which now includes both the section at the borders of Tyre and Sidon as well as the section at Caesarea Philippi.

3.65a Departure with the Disciples to the North and the Syrophoenician Woman

Mark 7:24-30

 

24And from thence he arose, and went away into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered into a house, and would have no man know it: and he could not be hid. 25But straightway a woman, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, having heard of him, came and fell down at his feet. 26Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by race. And she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. 27And he said unto her, “Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.” 28But she answered and saith unto him, “Yea, Lord: even the dogs, under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.” 29And he said unto her, “For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.” 30And she went away unto her house, and found the child laid upon the bed, and the devil gone out.

 

3.66a Peter’s Confession at Caesarea Philippi

 

Mark 8:27-30

 

27And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Cæsarea Philippi: and in the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, “Who do men say that I am?” 28And they told him, saying, “John the Baptist: and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets.” 29And he asked them, “But who say ye that I am?” Peter answereth and saith unto him, “Thou art the Christ.” 30And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

3.67a Jesus Foretells his Death

 

Mark 8:31-33

 

31And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32And he spake the saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 33But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.”

The Transfiguration and Caesarea Philippi represent sections where the Messianic Secret is revealed.

Nevertheless Jesus was astonished [by Peter’s confession]. For Peter here disregarded the command given during the descent from the mount of transfiguration. He had ‘betrayed’ his Master’s messianic secret to the Twelve. It could be that Jesus did not put the question to the disciples in order to reveal himself to them as Messiah, and that by the impulsive speech of Peter, upon whose silence he had counted because of his command, and to whom he had not specially addressed the question, he was forced to take a different line of action in regard to the Twelve from what he had intended. Perhaps he had never intended to reveal the secret of his messiahship to the disciples. Otherwise he would not have kept it from them at the time of their mission, when he did not expect them to return before the Parousia. Even at the transfiguration the ‘three’ do not learn it from his lips, but in a state of ecstasy. At Caesarea Philippi it is not he, but Peter, who reveals his messiahship. We may say, therefore, that Jesus did not voluntarily give up his messianic secret; it was wrung from him by the pressure of events. (QUESTv2 p. 346)

Here is where the Transfiguration was originally.

3.68a The Return to the Sea of Galilee

Mark 7:31-37

 

31And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.

 

At this point, the sequence picks up with Mark 9:30 with Jesus’ trip through Galilee and on to Jerusalem.

Warschauer in The Historical Life of Christ (1927), with a fascinating preface by F.C. Burkitt, made his own attempt to straighten out the time sequence in this period. Although he was aware of AS ideas, he, however, did not follow AS in placing the Transfiguration in the Bethsaida period. Instead Warschauer placed it just before Peter’s Confession and moved the healing of the epileptic boy into the Bethsaida period. Warschauer also attempted to work in material from the third and fourth gospels and preserve the general two phase ministry theory popular with the liberal theologians of the period, a time of success followed by a time of failure.

One can look at Luke as the first attempt to straighten out the time sequence in this period. His solution was to replace the two loops with only one by omitting everything between the Feeding of the Five Thousand and Peter’s Confession except for Demanding a Sign from Heaven, which he moved to the Perean Ministry with much of the Q material, and the Parable of the Blind leading the Blind, which he moved to the Sermon on the Plain.

Notes

1. Introduction

He received the 1952 Nobel Peace prize, Universal Order of Human Merit at Geneva, Goethe Prize of Frankfurt, Paracelsus Medal of German Medical Society, Prince Carl Medal of Swedish Red Cross, Sonning Prize in Copenhagen, and Joseph Lemaire Prize in Brussels. He received honorary degrees from University of Zurich (1920), University of Prague (1927), University of Edinburgh (1929), Oxford (1932), St. Andrew’s (1932), University of Chicago (1949), University of Marburg (1952), University of Kapstadt (1953), Cambridge University (1955), University of Munster (1958), and Tubingen (1958). He was a member of the French Academy, the Swedish Royal Academy of Music, the Order of Merit, and the Order pour le Merite.

2. Introduction to Public Work

2.1 Prologue (Mark 1:1)

There is no discussion of this verse in AS. Since it would seem to be merely a faith statement by Mark, however true or important it may be, it is more an interpretation of the story of Jesus than a part of it.

2.2 The Ministry of the Baptist (Mark 1:2-8, Matthew 3:1-12)

The additional material in Matt. is an important addition to the shorter version in Mark, although the addition of baptism with “fire” as well as “the Holy Ghost” in Matt. 3:11 compared to Mark 1:7 may not be historical. The addition of fire brings in the possibility that the one “mightier than I” is actually the Messiah (see Davies & Allison, Vol. I, pp. 313-314) instead of Elijah as AS believed.

According to Matthew, the greater who is to come “shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire” (Matt. 3:11). Here too the simpler account of Mark is probably the older. (KOG p. 78)

The importance of John’s baptism is often underestimated. For AS it was an eschatological sacrament, the forerunner to Christian baptism.

It is a mistake to regard baptism with water as a ‘symbolic act’ in the modern sense, and make the Baptist decry his own wares by saying, ‘I baptize only with water, but the other can baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ He is not contrasting the two baptisms, but connecting them—whoever is baptized by him has the certainty that he will share in the outpouring of the Spirit which will precede the judgment, and at the judgment will receive forgiveness of sins, as one who is signed with the mark of repentance. (QUESTv2 p. 340)

The key question not normally asked in regards to this section is who the one “mightier than I” actually is. Mark and Matthew believe this refers to Jesus Christ, the Messiah. AS agreed that Jesus believed John was indeed pointing to him, but that John felt he was pointing to the mighty forerunner, Elijah, not the Messiah:

It has been naïvely assumed from early times that he was thinking of the Messiah, because Jesus, who did follow him, was the Messiah. ... But before the manifestation of the Messiah, Elijah must come. ... According to Mal. 4:5 f., God will send him back to earth before the Day of Judgement comes, to prepare men for it. Another sign of the imminence of the end of the world will be the outpouring of the Spirit and the occurrence of wonders (Joel 2:28-31). (KOG p. 78)

2.3 The Baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:9-11, Matthew 3:13-17)

AS believed:

We must again and again make it clear to ourselves that the Nazarene comes into the light of history for the first time on that day when he appears as a preacher in Galilee and that everything that comes before that belongs to dark and uncertain tradition. It is possible that Old Testament reasons account for the origin of the story of the baptism. The voice from heaven sounds remarkably like the seventh verse of the second Psalm which is usually interpreted in a Messianic sense. It is extraordinary also that Jesus when he makes known to his disciples his Messiahship (Mark 8:27-30) does not mention that he was called to this place of honor at the time of his baptism, and that Paul also does not refer to the baptism of Jesus at all. (PSYCH p. 67)

If forced to choose one of the two, AS preferred the version of Mark:

That Mark describes the event as seen and heard only by Jesus and not by the surrounding people indicates that it might well be historical. (QUESTv2 p. 316.)

According to Mark’s account (and this probably shows that it is the older), he received his baptism from John without any knowledge on the part of the latter of who he was or what had befallen him at this moment. In Matthew John refuses to baptize him because he knows that he is higher than himself, and Jesus pacifies him with the remark, “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness”, whereupon he performs it. (KOG p. 77.)

2.4 The Temptation (Mark 1:12-13, Matthew 4:1-11)

Here again, if forced to choose one, AS preferred Mark’s brief statement to Matthew’s elaborate expansion.

But the three temptations of which Matthew (Matt. 4:1-11) informs us are also unhistorical; they belong to the prehistoric legend as David Friedrich Strauss has already rightly remarked. The whole wilderness episode is to be evaluated on the whole as a literary product that grew out of reasoning based on the Old Testament. As Moses had spent forty days in solitude before the giving of the law (Ex. 24:18), so Jesus also must have done this before he took up his office. And as the wilderness is thought to be the residence of the evil spirits, he must have been tempted by them. ... The process which has led to the appearance of these stories can still be plainly followed. Mark makes the general statement that Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness, tempted by the devil and served by angels (Mark 1:12 f). Matthew fills in this framework with detailed stories. (PSYCH p. 66)

The ‘temptations’ described in Matt. 4:1-11 are not real visions but literary productions. There are no delusions which take their course in such logical dialogues, nor have there ever been. Whether Mark’s general note that Jesus lived in the wilderness with the wild beasts and the angels and was tested by Satan (Mark 1:12-13) in any way goes back to information from the Lord must remain questionable. Given the whole nature of Jesus there is no reason to suppose that he had a whole series of visionary experiences. In general it has to be said that the experiences at his baptism and in the wilderness belong more to the uncertain prehistory. (QUESTv2 note 2 Chapt. XXII)

3. The Galilean Ministry

3.1 The Departure into Galilee (Mark 1:14-15, Matthew 4:12-17)

According to AS, this is the point at which one can begin a reconstruction of the historical Jesus.

3.2 The Call of the Four (Mark 1:16-20, Matthew 4:18-22)

*

3.3 The Response to Jesus’ Work (Matthew 4:23-25)

At this point Matthew inserts a section that implies that Jesus preached in Galilee at quite a few places and then returned to Capernaum where the next section occurred. Matthew inserts the first and greatest of the six discourses, the Sermon on the Mount at this point. Following the sequence of Mark, Burton and Goodspeed insert the Sermon on the Mount after the day in Capernaum.

3.4 A Day in Capernaum (Mark 1:21-34, Matthew 8:14-17)

1. How do those possessed with demons [Mark 1:24, Mark 3:11, Mark 5:7] know that Jesus is the Son of God? 

3. How was it that these occurrences did not give a new direction to the thoughts of the people in regard to Jesus?

11. Why is his messiahship a secret and yet no secret, since it is known, not only to the disciples [Mark 8:27-30], but to those possessed by demons [Mark 1:24, Mark 3:11, Mark 5:7], the blind man at Jericho [Mark 10:47-48, Matt. 9:27], the multitude at Jerusalem—which must, as Bruno Bauer expresses it, ‘have fallen from heaven’ [Mark 11:7-10]—and to the high priest [Mark 14:60-61]?

The insertion of a scriptural reference in Matthew that is missing in Mark is common with Matthew. Although the encounter with the demon-possessed man in Mark 1:24-27 to us seems to be a simple case of exorcism, it is actually one of the most puzzling of all the incidents in the Gospels. It raises a series of questions that repeat continually. How did the demon-possessed man recognize Jesus as the “Holy one of God,” and why did Jesus silence the demon. Why did no one in the synagogue begin to suspect that Jesus was the Messiah? And after healing so many, why did no one recognize this powerful miracle worker as the Messiah?

This serves to introduce the theory of the Messianic Secret, that is, the question of whether Jesus’ identification with the Messiah, however that figured in Jesus’ thoughts, does not seem to occur to the people, not even to the disciples.

3.5 A Preaching Tour of Galilee (Mark 1:35-39)

28b. His first escape took place after the great day in Capernaum. [Mark 1:35]? (QUESTv2 p. 321)

This incident, not included in Matthew, also raises a recurring question: Was there something about the exorcisms and healings of the day in Capernaum that so disturbed Jesus that he fled in the night from Capernaum and would not return (1:35-38)?

When he tells Peter and his associates that the reason for his escape is that he wishes to preach the gospel elsewhere (Mark 1:38), he cannot in fact be voicing his real thoughts. Had that been so, there would have been no need to slip away secretly under cover of darkness. Nor is the usual interpretation, that he wanted to avoid the external fruits of success so that the people should learn to believe his word and not his works, or something of the kind, sufficient to explain his action. (QUESTv2 p. 320)

Thus the experience which Jesus underwent on that day must somehow have been the cause of his behaviour. The only new element in the day, which was additional to his message of the kingdom of God, and which could well have surprised even Jesus himself, was the healings and his confrontation with the man possessed by a demon. Hence the cause must lie in these. (QUESTv2 p. 321)

3.6 The Healing of a Leper (Mark 1:40-45, Matthew 8:1-4)

10. Why does Jesus forbid his miracles to be made known even in cases where there is no apparent purpose for the prohibition [Mark 1:44, Mark 5:43, Mark 7:36, Mark 8:26, ... ]

3.7 The Healing of a Paralytic (Mark 2:1-12, Matthew 9:1-8)

This is the first use of the phrase “Son of man” in Mark. It’s interpretation has been controversial since before AS’s day and remains so even now. AS proposed a solution that, although it may be true, has failed to resolve the controversy. Part of the problem is that the phrase seems to mean different things in different contexts. In the context of Mark 2:10 and below in Mark 2:28, it seems to mean simply “man in general”. In other contexts it seems to mean the supernatural being from Daniel 7.

The problem about the Son of Man is herewith elucidated. It was not an expression which Jesus commonly used to describe himself, but a solemn title which he adopted when in the great moments of his life he spoke about himself to the initiated as the future Messiah, while before the others he spoke of the Son of Man as a personality distinct from himself. (MYSTERY p. 120)

It is quite a different case which is presented by the two unhistorical “Son of Man” passages in St. Mark’s Gospel [Mark 2:10 and 2:28]. The secondary character appears in the fact that Jesus is supposed to have used the expression here as a self-designation. The historical fact is that he used it in that connection in the third person, referring either to the Son of Man as an eschatological figure, or to man in general. In either case it makes sense.

1. Man as such can by works of healing declare the forgiveness of sins upon earth. Man as man is lord of the Sabbath.

2. In view of the coming of the Son of Man forgiveness of sins is already available, as the works of healing show. (MYSTERY p. 123)

Broadly speaking, therefore, the Son of man problem is both historically solvable and has been solved. The authentic passages are those in which the expression is used in that apocalyptic sense which goes back to Daniel. But we have to distinguish two different uses of the term according to the degree of knowledge assumed in the hearers. If the secret of Jesus is unknown to them, then they understand simply that Jesus is preaching about the ‘Son of man’ and his coming without having any suspicion that he and the Son of man have any connection. ... Or, on the other hand, the secret is known to the hearers. In that case they understand that the term Son of man points to the position to which he himself is to be exalted when the present era passes into the age to come. (QUESTv2 p. 230)

In the saying about the sabbath in Mark 2:28, and perhaps also in the saying about the right to forgive sins in Mark 2:10, Son of man doubtless stood in the original in the general sense of ‘man’, but was later, at least by our evangelists, understood as referring to Jesus as the Son of man. (QUESTv2 p. 231)

But AS felt that the primary source of the controversy was the theological implication of how the phrase was interpreted. He favored the eschatological interpretation from Daniel for all occurrences in Mark except 2:10 and 2:28, which those who rejected eschatology could not accept.

Another part of the problem is the fact that in otherwise identical verses including “Son of man”, Mark and Matthew differ as to what words to use. We encounter this several times below.

3.8 The Call of Levi (Mark 2:13-17, Matthew 9:9-13)

It is not clear whether AS accepted the additional phrase taken from Hosea 6:6: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice” in Matthew 9:13 that is missing from Mark 2:17.

3.9 The Question about Fasting (Mark 2:18-22, Matthew 9:14-17)

The question about why Jesus’ disciples do not fast, and Jesus’ reply, are important because they reveal a side of Jesus’ worldview not always in the forefront: his rejection of asceticism:

There is also a special reason for his [Jesus’] rejection of asceticism. It is not this [asceticism], but only freedom from anxiety, that meets the need of the times. For this is a time of rejoicing. The message has gone forth that the Kingdom of God has been seen to be dawning. (KOG p. 101)

AS always stressed the fact that Jesus did not totally deny the world and life, but instead affirmed that life was worth living. This is also present in Jesus’ ethics. The phrase about taking away the bridegroom, however, refers to the time of tribulation before the Son of man comes. It could also refer to the Passion.

Jesus Himself assumes that the Law will come to an end at the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom. He is also conscious that when He, the future Son of Man, appears, the Law and the Ordinances of the Scribes which were based upon it, no longer apply. To those who reproach Him because His disciples do not fast, as did those of the Baptist, He replies in the mysterious saying that they have no need to do this so long as the bridegroom is with them, but when he is taken away from them they shall do it (Mark 2:18-20). In this He is alluding to the time of the Messianic tribulation in which He expects for Himself persecution and death. (MYSTIK p. 114-115)

If he familiarizes others with the thought that in the time of tribulation they may even lose their lives, he must have recognized that this possibility was still more strongly present in his own case. It is possible that there is a hint of what Jesus expected in the enigmatic saying about the disciples fasting ‘when the bridegroom is taken away from them’ (Mark 2:20). In that case suffering, death and resurrection must have been closely united in his messianic consciousness from the first. (QUESTv2 p. 333)

3.10 Plucking Grain on a Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28, Matthew 12:1-8)

Again we have the addition of Hosea 6:6 by Matthew to an account taken from Mark. Matthew has also added Jesus’ claim to be greater than the temple. AS does not comment on this difference.

3.11 The Withered Hand (Mark 3:1-6, Matthew 12:9-14)

AS does not comment on Matthew’s omission of “the Herodians” from Mark, although he does comment on the fact that the Herodians and Pharisees never bothered Jesus and his followers until Jesus presented himself in Jerusalem:

Despite Mark 3:6, Jesus and his followers were not persecuted in Galilee; (QUESTv2 p. 313)

3.12 The Fame of Jesus (Mark 3:7-12, Matthew 12:15-21)

1. How do those possessed with demons [Mark 1:24, Mark 3:11, Mark 5:7] know that Jesus is the Son of God?

11. Why is his messiahship a secret and yet no secret, since it is known, not only to the disciples [Mark 8:27-30], but to those possessed by demons [Mark 1:24, Mark 3:11, Mark 5:7], the blind man at Jericho [Mark 10:47-48, Matt. 9:27], the multitude at Jerusalem—which must, as Bruno Bauer expresses it, ‘have fallen from heaven’ [Mark 11:7-10]—and to the high priest [Mark 14:60-61]?

AS does not comment on Matthew’s addition of a scripture fulfillment to Mark.

3.13 The Choosing of the Twelve (Mark 3:13-19a)

The next section and the nine to follow constitute the famous Sermon on the Mount, which is not included in Mark. It has been placed here as one likely place to insert it into the temporal sequence of Mark to harmonize the two Gospels.

This sermon presents the core of Jesus’ preaching of the Kingdom of God. It presents his ethics.

The ethics of the Sermon on the Mount is therefore repentance. The new morality, which detects the spirit beneath the letter of the Law, makes one meet for the Kingdom of God. Only the righteous can enter into the Kingdom of God—in that conviction all were agreed. Whosoever, therefore, preached the nearness of the Kingdom must also teach the righteousness pertaining to the Kingdom. Hence Jesus proclaimed the new righteousness which is higher than the Law and the Prophets,—for they extend only up to the Baptist. Since the days of the Baptist, however, one stands immediately within the premessianic period. (MYSTERY p. 54)

In the Sermon on the Mount he explains in positive terms what this repentance supplementary to the Law, the interim ethic before the coming of the kingdom, is. (QUESTv2 p. 323)

In the Sermon on the Mount and other speeches Jesus expounds the nature of the righteousness which is higher than that of the scribes. (KOG p. 82)

AS always insisted on situating Jesus within the late Jewish context of his time. Although he was not an expert in Judaism, he never felt the need to defend the uniqueness of Jesus from Jewish ideas of the time:

It is intrinsically possible and probable that there were models for a series of Jesus’ sayings in scribal maxims and proverbs. However, this cannot be demonstrated. (QUESTv2 p. 234)

3.14 The Character and Duties of Disciples (Matthew 5:1-16)

45. What is the purpose of the 'Present quality' - 'Future State' form in the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-12)?

The Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-12) come under the same point of view. They define the moral disposition which justifies admission into the Kingdom. This is the explanation of the use of the present and the future tense in the same sentence. (MYSTERY p. 55)

In the Beatitudes ... predestination [to the Kingdom] is inferred from its outward manifestation. It may seem to us inconceivable, but they are predestinarian in form. Blessed are the poor in spirit! Blessed are the meek! Blessed are the peacemakers!—that does not mean that by virtue of their being poor in spirit, meek, peace-loving, they deserve the kingdom. Jesus does not intend the saying as an injunction or exhortation, but as a simple statement of fact: in their being poor in spirit, in their meekness, in their love of peace, it is made manifest that they are predestined to the kingdom. By the possession of these qualities they are marked as belonging to it. In the case of others (Matt. 5:10-12), the predestination to the kingdom is made manifest by the persecutions which befall them in this world. These are the light of the world, which already shines among men for the glory of God. (QUESTv2 p. 323)

In the Beatitudes he mentions the qualities which are an indication of inward membership of the Kingdom. (KOG p. 81)

3.15 The Righteousness of the Kingdom and the Law (Matthew 5:17-20)

The immediate ethic [of eschatology] ... does not supplant the Law, but it relegates it to a lower place. Accordingly both the Baptist and Jesus demand repentance and an absolute and inward ethic, instead of enjoining a meticulous observance of the last detail of the Law, as the most obvious line of conduct in view of the nearness of the coming of the Kingdom. They have no reason to attack the validity of the Law; it does not stand in their path. And with the coming of the Kingdom it will, in any case, pass away. Thus Jesus solemnly affirms (Matt. 5:17-19) that the Law continues to be binding in all its ordinances. At the same time He robs it of all significance by the ethic of unworldliness, and His demand of a righteousness which is better than that of the Scribes (Matt. 5:20). (MYSTIK p. 190)

3.16 The Righteousness of the Kingdom and the Teaching of the Synagogue (Matthew 5:21-48)

The Law is not, in his [Jesus’] view, concerned with this or that sinful act, but with the thoughts that lead to it. The prohibition of murder includes hatred and the implacable spirit (Matt. 5:21-26). That of adultery means that the entertainment of sinful lust is equivalent to the sinful act. In that of perjury we are shown how questionable all oaths are. A simple yes or no ought to be as dependable as any oath. “But let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one” (Matt. 5:33-37). (KOG p. 82)

3.17 The Righteousness of the Kingdom and the Ostentation of the Jews (Matthew 6:1-18)

On the Lord’s Prayer AS emphasizes the eschatological orientation of each petition, in particular, the fourth petition commonly translated as above: “Give us this day our daily bread,” implying that it is referring to the Messianic Feast.

In the Prayer which Jesus teaches the believers, what He causes them to ask for is, under various forms, nothing else than the content of the Kingdom—the hallowing of God’s name, the rule of His will upon earth, forgiveness of sins—with the addition of a petition for deliverance from “Temptation,” that is to say, from the pre-Messianic Tribulation. Is it suitable in this sequence of ideas that they should ask God at the same time for daily bread? This petition, coming in the midst of the others, seems entirely to break the connection. Moreover, it contradicts the immediately following direction of Jesus that the believers should take no thought for eating and drinking and the maintenance of life generally, but reject such thoughts as heathenish (Matt. 6:25-34), being convinced that God knows and will supply all their needs, without their asking (Matt. 6:8 and 6:22). Leaving all else to take care of itself, they are to concern themselves about nothing but the Kingdom of God (Matt. 6:33). That means that their prayers also should be directed only to these things. In order that they may not, like the heathen, ask for unnecessary things, Jesus teaches them this prayer for the Kingdom of God and its blessings (Matt. 6:7-9). How then is it conceivable that, amid these petitions for the one thing needful, He should bring in one which gives expression to the forbidden anxiety about earthly needs?

Moreover, the text of the fourth petition is recalcitrant to the attempt to refer it to earthly bread. It runs [Gk. τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον] (Matt. 6:11). What is the meaning of the word [Gk. επιούσιος], which occurs here and nowhere else in Greek? The only possible thing is to take it as an adjectival formation from [Gk. ἐπιέναι], and translate it by “at hand” or “coming,” as in Acts (7:26) [Gk. τῇ ἐπιούση ἡμέρᾳ] is translated by “on the coming—i.e. the following, day.” The fourth petition means “Our bread, the coming (future) bread, give us this day.” (MYSTIK p. 239-240)

AS also emphasizes Matt. 6:13:

With all the scribes and apocalyptists he expects tumult and tribulation before the appearance of the ruler of the kingdom (Matt. 10). Peculiar to him is the conviction that possibly they might not take place and that believers may ask God to be spared them (Matt. 6:13). (QUESTv2 p. 255)

3.18 Trusting and Serving God Alone (Matthew 6:19-34)

AS finds eschatology behind the importance of avoiding entanglements to the world.

Another entanglement in the things of this world which is incompatible with expectation of the Kingdom is attachment to one’s possessions. Jesus even considers that with the Kingdom so close at hand the earning of one’s living has lost its justification. Concern about the necessities of life should now be left entirely to God. (KOG p. 97)

But Jesus’ rejection of asceticism should not be forgotten.

Jesus, on the other hand, whose denial of life and the world is only partial, is in a position to call for active ethical behaviour towards our fellow-men, even if he too must renounce systematic ethical activity as being really meaningful. His ethics, like those of late Judaism, come from the life- and world-affirming ethics of the prophets. (KOG p. 100)

3.19 On Judging (Matthew 7:1-6)

This section is also eschatological:

All judging of other people must be renounced, in view of the coming Judgement to which everyone will be subject. The man who thinks he ought to judge another must always ask himself whether he is not seeing the splinter in his brother’s eye, while oblivious to the beam in his own eye (Matt. 7:1-5). There must be no contempt, even towards those for whom it is quite appropriate in the generally accepted view. When Jesus has called the tax-collector Matthew to be a disciple, he and his disciples sit at table with tax-collectors and sinners. (KOG p. 84)

3.20 On Asking of God (Matthew 7:7-11)

*

3.21 The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12)

*

3.22 On Doing Righteousness (Matthew 7:13-27)

The Day of Judgment puts this moral transformation to the proof: only he who has done the will of the heavenly Father can enter into the Kingdom (Matt. 7:21). The claim that one is a follower of Jesus, or has even wrought signs and wonders in his name, is of no avail as a substitute for this new righteousness (Matt. 7:22, 7:23). Hence the Sermon on the Mount concludes with the admonition to build, in expectation of the momentous event, a firmly founded structure capable of resisting storm and tempest (Matt. 7:24-27). (MYSTERY p. 54)

3.23 The Wonder of the Multitude (Matthew 7:28-29)

The next section, although not part of the Sermon on the Mount, is also missing from Mark and is inserted here as one likely place.

3.24 The Centurion’s Servant (Matthew 8:5-13)

AS commented on this section as containing a clue to Jesus’ conception of the Kingdom:

A point which is decisive as regards the character of Jesus’ conception of the Kingdom is that He represents men belonging to earlier generations as arisen again and taking part in it. Thus He thinks of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as being fellow-guests at the Messianic feast (Matt. 8:11).

AS also commented on the lack of hostility to non-Jews:

The preaching of the Kingdom of God is therefore particularistic [i.e. for the Jews only]; the Kingdom itself, however, is universalistic ... (MYSTERY p. 69)

There are many utterances of Jesus which seem to suggest that the Elect from among the heathen are destined to take the place of those among the Elect of Israel who have not obeyed the call.(MYSTIK p. 179)

Now the sequence of Mark is rejoined.

3.25 On Casting out Demons by Beelzebub (Mark 3:19b - 30, Matthew 12:22-45)

15b. “According to Mark, Jesus twice employed this expression [Son of man] as a self-designation before Cæsarea Philippi (Mark 2:10 and 2:28), and it occurs in the same sense in a series of passages peculiar to Matthew: Matt. 8:20, Matt. 11:19, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 13:37-41, Matt. 16:13 [and son of David in Matt. 12:23]” (MYSTERY p. 77)

In Matthew the signs and actions of Jesus have nothing to do with proof of messiahship but, as is evident from the saying about Chorazin and Bethsaida in Matt. 11:20-24, are meant to be only a display of mercy intended to awaken repentance or, according to Matt. 12:28, an indication of the nearness of the kingdom of God. They have as little to do with the messianic dignity as in the speeches in the Acts of the Apostles. In Mark, from first to last, there is not a single syllable to suggest that the miracles have a messianic significance. (QUESTv2 p. 311)

Mark’s use of “sons of men” in 3:28 and Matthew’s use of “men” in 12:31 and “Son of man” in 12:32 are interesting for the “Son of man” controversy:

In the statement that a man may be forgiven for blasphemy against the Son of man, but not for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, in Matt. 12:32 ‘Son of man’ may be authentic. But even if it were, of course it would not give any hint that ‘Son of man designates the Messiah in his humiliation’, as Dalman wished to infer from the passage, but would mean that Jesus was speaking of the Son of man, here as elsewhere, in the third person without reference to himself, and was thinking of a contemptuous denial of the parousia such as might have been uttered by a sceptical Sadducee. But if we take into account the parallel in Mark 3:28-29, where blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is spoken of without any mention of blasphemy against the Son of man, it seems more natural to take the mention of the Son of man as a secondary interpolation, derived from the same line of tradition, perhaps from the same hand, as the ‘Son of man’ in Jesus’ question to the disciples at Caesarea Philippi. (QUESTv2 p. 231)

If the material in Matt. 12:32-45 which is not also found in Mark seems to portray Jesus as referring to himself in front of the people as the “Son of man”, it shows evidence of a literary confusion, i.e., Matthew, but not Mark, believed that Jesus claimed to be the “Son of man” prior to his death and resurrection. This is the only Messiah-like title Jesus ever uses in Mark and Matthew. This is consistent with AS’s belief that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah during his ministry on earth.

3.26 The Kindred of Jesus (Mark 3:31-35, Matthew 12:46-50)

Many have used this section, and also Mark 3:21 as evidence of Jesus’ psychological problems. AS, in the thesis he wrote for his medical degree, specifically refuted this use:

Jesus takes a hostile attitude towards his family because his relatives wish to take him home and to obstruct his public ministry (Mark 3:21 ). When, moreover, he declares that the bonds knit between men by the common faith in the nearness of the Kingdom of God are holier than the ties of blood (Mark 3:31-35) and desires that men in the days of the coming persecution should not be led astray by looking back toward their relations, this is not a lack of family loyalty to be accounted for psychopathologically, but a special point of view to be explained by peculiar preconceptions contemporarily conditioned, as indeed everything is to be explained by those premises which the psychopathologists consider moral defects in the ethical conduct and teaching of Jesus. (PSYCH p. 69)

3.27 The Parable of the Soils (Mark 4:1-9, Matthew 13:1-9)

If Jesus was primarily a teacher/prophet sent to bring a message from God to Israel, why was this message here veiled in a parable about seeds and soils? That the message was intended to be hidden from some is reinforced by the mysterious closing phrase, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear”? Who were those “who hath ears to hear” for which the message was intended, and who were those from which it was to be hidden? Why is this message presented so differently from the message of Mark 1:15 which was delivered to all? The next three sections of Mark seem to have been included to address these questions.

3.28 The Reason for the Parables (Mark 4:10-12, Matthew 13:10-17)

8. Why does Jesus in Mark 4:10-12 [and Mark 4:33-34] speak of the parabolic form of discourse as designed to conceal the mystery of the kingdom of God, whereas the explanation which he proceeds to give to the disciples has nothing mysterious about it?

9. What is the mystery [or secret] of the kingdom of God?

This section makes explicit what was merely implicit in the previous section, i.e., that at least part of Jesus’ message involved a “mystery of the kingdom of God” to be hidden from “them that are without” so that they will not be saved. The hard saying which Matthew adds in Matt. 13:12 “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath,” does not seem to many to express proper Christian sentiment although it is consistent with the rest of the section. It is unclear why Matthew, if he based his section on Mark, has changed Mark’s “they that were about him with the twelve” to merely “the disciples”. The next section tries to reveal the content of that mystery.

3.29 The Explanation of the Parable of the Soils (Mark 4:13-20, Matthew 13:18-23)

AS, as well as many commentators, doubted the historical nature of this section. It is one of only two sections in Mark that AS doubted, the other was the Little Apocalypse (Mark 13).

The detailed interpretation of the description of this loss, and the application to particular classes of men, as it lies before us in Mark 4:13-20, is the product of a later view which perceived no longer any secret in the parable. (Mystery p. 62)

AS provides his own explanation of this parable which is similar to the explanations of the next two parables.

This attractive interpretation of the parables takes from them, however, the character of secrets, for the illustration of a steady unfolding through the processes of nature is no secret. Hence it is that we fail to understand what the secret is in these parables. We interpret them according to our scientific knowledge of nature which enables us to unite even such different stages as these by the conception of development.

By reason of the immediateness with which the unschooled spirit of olden time observed the world, nature had, however, still secrets to offer,—in the fact, namely, that she produced two utterly distinct conditions in a sequence, the connection of which was just as certain as it was inexplicable. This immediateness is the note of Jesus’ parables [in Mark 4]. The conception of development in nature which is contemplated in the modern explanation is not at all brought into prominence, but the exposition is rather devised to place the two conditions so immediately side by side that one is compelled to raise the question, How can the final stage proceed from the initial stage? (Mystery p. 61)

These parables are not at all devised to be interpreted and understood; rather they are calculated to make the hearers observant of the fact that in the affairs of the Kingdom of God a secret is preparing like that which they experience in nature. They are signals. As the harvest follows upon the seed-sowing, without it being possible for any one to say how it comes about; so, as the sequel to Jesus’ preaching, will the Kingdom of God come with power. (Mystery p. 63)

What is the mystery of the kingdom of God? It must consist of something more than just its nearness, and something of extreme importance; otherwise Jesus here would be indulging in mere mystery-mongering. The saying about the light which is put on the stand, so that what was hidden may be revealed to those who have ears to hear, implies that he is making a tremendous revelation in the parables about the seed and the harvest and the growth and the unfolding (Mark 4). The mystery must in some way express why the kingdom must come now, and how people see how near it is. For both the Baptist and Jesus had proclaimed why it is very near. The mystery, therefore, must consist of something more than that.

In these parables it is not the idea of development, but the immediacy which occupies the foremost place. The description aims at raising the question how, and by what power, incomparably great and glorious results can be infallibly produced by an insignificant act without human aid. A man sowed seed. Much of it was lost, but the little that fell into good ground brought forth a harvest—thirty-, sixty-, a hundredfold—which left no trace of the loss in the sowing. How did that come about? (QUESTv2 p. 324)

3.30 On the Use of Parables (Mark 4:21-25)

46. What is the meaning of the phrase "For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath" in Mark 4:25?

One significant reason for this limitation in teaching [e.g. using parables] is distinctly stated in Mark 4:10-12, viz. predestination! Jesus knows that the truth which he offers is exclusively for those who have been definitely chosen, that the general and public announcement of his message could only thwart the plan of God, since the chosen are already winning their salvation from God. Only the phrase ‘Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand’ and its variants belong to the public preaching. And this, therefore, is the only message which he commits to his disciples when sending them out. In the Sermon on the Mount he explains in positive terms what this repentance supplementary to the Law, the interim ethic before the coming of the kingdom, is. But whatever goes beyond that simple phrase must be publicly presented only in parables, in order that only those who are shown to possess predestination by having the initial knowledge which enables them to understand the parables may receive a more advanced knowledge, is imparted to them to a degree corresponding to their original degree of knowledge: ‘To him who has shall be given, and from him who does not have shall be taken away even what he has’ (Mark 4:24-25). (QUESTv2 p. 323)

3.31 The Tares (Matthew 13:24-30)

*

3.32 The Seed Growing of Itself (Mark 4:26-29)

A man sows seed and does not trouble any further about it—cannot indeed do anything to help it. But he knows that after a definite time the glorious harvest which arises out of the seed will stand before him. By what power? (QUESTv2 p. 324)

3.33 The Mustard Seed (Mark 4:30-32, Matthew 13:31-32)

An extremely minute grain of mustard seed is planted in the earth and there necessarily arises out of it a great bush, which certainly cannot have been contained in the grain of seed. How was that? (QUESTv2 p. 324)

What the parables emphasize is therefore, so to speak, the intrinsically negative, inadequate character of the initial fact which, as by a miracle, in the appointed time, through the power of God, is followed by the other. The parables do not stress the natural, but the miraculous character of such occurrences.

But what is the initial fact of the parables? It is the sowing.

It is not said that by the man who sows the seed Jesus means himself. The man has no importance. In the parable of the mustard seed he is not even mentioned. All that is asserted is that the initial fact is already present, as certainly present as the time of the sowing is past at the moment when Jesus speaks. That being so, the kingdom of God must follow as certainly as harvest follows sowing. As a man believes in the harvest without being able to explain how from one seed first tall grass and the hundreds of grains form but expectantly awaits them in their time, because they have been sown, so with the same necessity he may believe in the kingdom of God.

And the initial fact? Jesus can mean only one thing: the movement of repentance evoked by the Baptist and now intensified by his own preaching. That compels the bringing in of the kingdom by the power of God, as man’s sowing necessitates the giving of the harvest by the same infinite Power. Anyone who knows this sees with different eyes the corn growing in the fields and the harvest ripening, for he sees the one fact in the other, and awaits along with the earthly harvest the heavenly harvest, the revelation of the kingdom of God.

If we look into the thought more closely, we see that the coming of the kingdom of God is connected with the harvest not only symbolically or analogically, but also really and temporally. The harvest ripening upon earth is the last! With it comes the kingdom of God which brings in the new age. When the reapers are sent into the fields, the Lord in heaven will cause his harvest to be reaped by the holy angels.

If the parables of Mark 4 contain the mystery of the kingdom of God, and are therefore capable of being summed up in a single formula, this can be none other than the joyful invitation, ‘You who have eyes to see, read in the harvest which is ripening upon earth what is being prepared in heaven!’ The eager eschatological hope which believed the end to be so near inevitably regarded the natural process as the last of its kind, and gave it a special significance in view of the event which it was to set off. (QUESTv2 p. 325)

3.34 The Leaven (Matthew 13:33)

This parable from Matthew, unlike the others he has added to Mark in this section, does seem to agree in its message with the other three.

3.35 Jesus’ Custom of Speaking in Parables (Mark 4:33-34, Matthew 13:34-35)

8. Why does Jesus in Mark 4:10-12 [and Mark 4:33-34] speak of the parabolic form of discourse as designed to conceal the mystery of the kingdom of God, whereas the explanation which he proceeds to give to the disciples has nothing mysterious about it?

9. What is the mystery [or secret] of the kingdom of God?

He preaches in parables which, according to Mark 4:10-12, are not intended to reveal but rather to veil, and refrains from giving details in terms intelligible to all of how and when the kingdom of God would come (Mark 4:34). (QUESTv2 p. 322)

3.36 The Explanation of the Parable of the Tares (Matthew 13:36-43)

15b. “According to Mark, Jesus twice employed this expression [Son of man] as a self-designation before Cæsarea Philippi (Mark 2:10 and 2:28), and it occurs in the same sense in a series of passages peculiar to Matthew: Matt. 8:20, Matt. 11:19, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 13:37-41, Matt. 16:13 [and son of David in Matt. 12:23]” (MYSTERY p. 77)

AS rejected Matthew’s implication that Jesus referred to himself openly before Caesarea Philippi as “Son of man”. This section is one of many which Matthew adds to Mark that shows Jesus doing this.

The case is entirely different with another set of passages [including Matt. 13:37, 13:41] where the expression occurs arbitrarily as a pure self-designation, a roundabout way of saying “I.” Here all critical and philological objections are thoroughly in place. (Mystery p. 120)

Here the expression is philologically impossible. For if Jesus had so used it, his hearers must simply have understood him to mean “man.” There is nothing here to indicate that the word is meant to express a future messianic dignity! Here in fact he designates by it his actual present condition! But “Son of Man” is a messianic title of futuristic character, since it always suggests a coming upon the clouds, according to Daniel 7:13-14. Furthermore, in all of these passages the Disciples are as yet ignorant of Jesus’ secret. For them the Son of Man is still an entirely distinct person. The unity of the subject is still completely unknown to them. Therefore they were not in a position to understand that by this term he refers to himself, but they must refer everything to that Son of Man of whose coming he also spoke elsewhere. There with, however, the passages would be meaningless, for they imply that Jesus is thus speaking of himself. (Mystery p. 121)

The problem about the Son of Man is herewith elucidated. It was not an expression which Jesus commonly used to describe himself, but a solemn title which he adopted when in the great moments of his life he spoke about himself to the initiated as the future Messiah, while before the others he spoke of the Son of Man as a personality distinct from himself. In all cases, however, the context shows that he is speaking of one who is yet to come, for in all these passages mention is made either of the Resurrection or of the appearing upon the clouds of heaven.(Mystery p. 120)

AS did not reject the parable but rather the interpretation.

3.37 The Hidden Treasure (Matthew 13:44)

*

3.38 The Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13:45-46)

This and the previous parable make a different point from the parables taken from Mark 4.

A series of parables illustrates the same thought. Thus the parables of the treasure in the field and of the pearl of great price (Matt. 13:44-46) show how one must stake all upon the hope of the Kingdom when the prospect of it is held out to him, and must sacrifice all other goods for the sake of acquiring this highest good that is proposed to him. (Mystery p. 55)

3.39 The Drag Net (Matthew 13:47-50)

AS does not comment on this parable, although he accepts the eschatological nature of the final two verses and the insight it gives into the eschatology of Jesus, namely, that

The angels who follow the Son of man are active in separating the good from the evil. (QUESTv2 p. 257)

as with Matt. 13:41-42 above.

3.40 The Understanding and Use of Parables (Matthew 13:51-53)

AS does not comment on this section.

3.41 The Stilling of the Tempest (Mark 4:35-41, Matthew 8:18-27)

15b. “According to Mark, Jesus twice employed this expression [Son of man] as a self-designation before Cæsarea Philippi (Mark 2:10 and 2:28), and it occurs in the same sense in a series of passages peculiar to Matthew: Matt. 8:20, Matt. 11:19, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 13:37-41, Matt. 16:13 [and son of David in Matt. 12:23]” (MYSTERY p. 77)

Did AS accept this nature miracle as historical? In general he accepted the results of D. F. Strauss on miracles, namely, that they were what Strauss called “myths”. AS, unlike Strauss, stressed that many of the Synoptic miracles possessed an historical kernel, a real incident that was later developed along themes from the Old Testamemt. For this particular section AS wrote:

The story of his calming the storm on the lake (Mark 4:35-41) is not considered because it has already taken entirely the form of a great nature miracle, and the historical kernel is no longer clearly visible. (PSYCH. p. 70)

AS also wrote:

In particular we must be careful not to dismiss the inexplicable and the miraculous as later tradition. It is intrinsically possible that such an assumption is correct, but there is no way of proving it. It is also possible, and there could be a number of historical analogies for this, that the miraculous was already part of the tradition which came into circulation immediately after Jesus’ death. How far this element in the tradition can go back to real history, as we think of it today, cannot always be made out. (QUESTv2 p. 429 note 52)

The introduction to the miracle is another instance of Jesus fleeing crowds.

3.42 The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20, Matthew 8:28-34)

1. How do those possessed with demons [Mark 1:24, Mark 3:11, Mark 5:7] know that Jesus is the Son of God?

11. Why is his messiahship a secret and yet no secret, since it is known, not only to the disciples [Mark 8:27-30], but to those possessed by demons [Mark 1:24, Mark 3:11, Mark 5:7], the blind man at Jericho [Mark 10:47-48, Matt. 9:27], the multitude at Jerusalem—which must, as Bruno Bauer expresses it, ‘have fallen from heaven’ [Mark 11:7-10]—and to the high priest [Mark 14:60-61]?

AS had many comments on this story. First, the issue of how the demoniacs recognized Him and why this did not change the view of the people about Him.

According to Mark 3:11 the unclean spirits, as often as they saw him, threw themselves at his feet and addressed him as the Son of God (cf. also Mark 1:24, Mark 5:7). It is true, he rebuked this cry and commanded silence. But if we did not have the incontestably sure information that during the whole of his Galilean ministry the people knew no more than that he was a prophet or Elijah, we should be forced to assume that these cries of the demoniacs made the people somehow aware of his true character. As it is, however, we may discern with precision, from the fact that the demon-cries were ignored, how very far men were from suspecting him to be the Messiah. Who believed the devil and the wild speech of the possessed? (Mystery p. 76)

The only danger to Jesus’ Messianic secret comes from the demons. They address him as “Son of God”. In the synagogue at Capernaum one of them cries out: “What have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24). Similar outcries are heard from a demoniac in the land of the Gerasenes (Mark 5:1-8) and in other places. “And the unclean spirits, whensoever they beheld him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he charged them much that they should not make him known” (Mark 3:11 f.). Even their cries do not suggest to the people that he might be the future Messiah. (KOG p. 108)

Next, the issue of Jesus wanting to escape the crowds.

Later he tries to gain solitude by crossing the lake with his disciples to spend some time in Transjordan. But when he lands on the shore of the country of the Gerasenes he is met by a demon-possessed man who addresses him as the Son of God. He exorcizes him. Thereupon the inhabitants come to him and beg him to leave their land. The healed man wants to accompany him, but Jesus forbids it (Mark 4:35-5:20). (QUESTv2 p. 321)

Finally there is the issue that Mark has considerably more material on this section than Matthew. This certainly implies that Mark is the older.

3.43 The Raising of Jairus’ Daughter, and Other Acts of Healing (Mark 5:21-43, Matthew 9:18-34)

10. Why does Jesus forbid his miracles to be made known even in cases where there is no apparent purpose for the prohibition [Mark 1:44, Mark 5:43, Mark 7:36, Mark 8:26, ... ]

Nothing in Mark’s version of this section is so clearly miraculous that anyone would suspect that Jesus was the Messiah. For the cure of the woman with an issue:

In reality Jesus only asserts that someone has touched his clothes. It is a naïve conjecture of the Evangelist that he said this because of a feeling that power had gone out from him. (PSYCH. p. 39)

Matthew, on the other hand, changes the conditions and inserts other miraculous-seeming cures as well as people calling out “Son of David”. Again Jesus encounters a crowd and leaves quickly.

Scarcely has he landed on the western shore when he is again surrounded by the crowd (Mark 5:21-43). He sets off on a journey which later takes him to Nazareth. (QUESTv2 p. 321)

3.44 The Rejection at Nazareth (Mark 6:1-6a, Matthew 13:54-58)

AS commented about what this section told us about Nazareth and Jesus’ time there:

Concerning the early life of Jesus we know very little. He came from a carpenter’s family in Nazareth and himself plied that trade. He does not seem to have taken any studies leading to an appearance as a teacher. When later he appeared in his home town as a prophet, the inhabitants wondered at the wisdom of the man whom they used to know only as a carpenter (Mark 6:1-5). However, it is possible that before his public appearance he had already spent a longer time elsewhere. His knowledge of the Scriptures could have been gained from the Sabbath readings.

Four brothers and several sisters are mentioned (Mark 6:3, 3:31). We do not learn where his age placed him among the children. (PSYCH. p. 47)

We know very little about Jesus’ early life and upbringing. When he went back to Nazareth with the disciples, the people were amazed to see their carpenter as teacher and prophet (Mark 6:1-16), from which we can be fairly certain that they thought he lacked the education needed for such work, and thus had little in the way of learning. This comment also tells us he had never taught there before. (QUESTv2 p. 316)

That in the sending out of the disciples Jesus was activated by a dogmatic idea becomes clear when we notice that according to Mark the mission of the Twelve followed immediately on the rejection at Nazareth. The unreceptiveness of the Nazarenes had made no impression upon him; he was only astonished at their unbelief (Mark 6:6). This passage is often interpreted to mean that he was astonished to find his miracle-working power fail him. There is no hint of that in the text. But he may have been astonished that in his native town there were so few believers, that is, elect, knowing as he did that the kingdom of God could appear at any moment. But that hardening makes no difference whatever to the nearness of the coming of the kingdom. (QUESTv2 p. 327)

3.45 The Sending Forth of the Apostles (Mark 6:6b-7, Matthew 9:35-10:4)

In Matthew this is the first section of the second long discourse, which is only partly recorded in Mark. AS treated this discourse as critical to his understanding of what happened in Jesus’ ministry. It contains many hard sayings and raises many difficult questions.

3.46 Instructions for the Journey (Mark 6:8-11, Matthew 10:5-15)

AS pointed out that Jesus gives the disciples no guidance as to what to teach the people they are to visit. All He tells them to say is ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

The commission, however, is anything but a summary of the “teaching of Jesus.” It does not in the least contemplate instruction of a thoroughgoing kind, rather what is in question is a flying proclamation throughout Israel. The one errand of the Apostles as teachers is to cry out everywhere the warning of the nearness of the Kingdom of God—to the intent that all may be warned and given opportunity to repent. In this, however, no time is to be lost; therefore they are not to linger in a town where men are unsusceptible to their message, but to hasten on in order that they may pass through all the cities of Israel before the appearing of the Son of Man takes place. But “the coming of the Son of Man” signifies—the dawning of the Kingdom of God with power.

...

The one and only article of instruction that is required is the call to repentance. Whosoever believes in the nearness of the Kingdom, repents. (Mystery p. 49)

3.47 Persecution Predicted (Matthew 10:16-23)

12. Why does Jesus first reveal his messiahship to the disciples at Caesarea Philippi [Mark 8:27-30], not at the moment when he sends them forth to preach? [Matt. 10:23]

15. Why does Jesus indicate his messiahship only by the title Son of man? [Mark 8:31, Mark 8:38, Mark 9:9-12=Matt. 17:9-12, Mark 9:31=Matt. 17:22, Mark 10:33=Matt. 20:18, Mark 10:45=Matt. 20:28, Mark 14:21=Matt. 26:24, Mark 14:41=Matt. 26:45, Mark 14:62=Matt. 26:64, Matt. 10:23, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 16:27, Matt. 16:28, Matt. 19:28, Matt. 26:2]

16. And why is it that this title falls right into the background in primitive Christian theology?

26. Why is the discourse at the sending out of the Twelve a prophecy of persecutions which experience had given no reason to anticipate, and which did not, as a matter of fact, occur?

27. What is the meaning of the saying in Matt. 10.23 about the imminent coming of the Son of man, seeing that the disciples after all returned to Jesus without its being fulfilled?

41. In what relation do these predictions stand to the prospect offered at the time of the sending out of the Twelve, but not realized, of the immediate appearance of the Son of man [Matt. 10:23]?

This section contains two of the hardest verses in the New Testament: Matt. 10:17-22 and Matt. 10:23. What makes them so hard is that they contain predictions that did not come to pass, i.e. they imply that Jesus was mistaken. The first prediction is for persecution of the disciples on their journey, and not just the disciples but the whole world. The second prediction is the coming of the Son of man before they return. Instead they return without persecution and the Son of man does not arrive. The next three sections continue this discussion of the great tribulation to come.

Nearly every possible exegetical maneuver has been employed to save Jesus from appearing to have been mistaken. Many modern interpreters simply reject Matt. 10:23 as unhistorical and then ignore it. Even the fact that Matthew could have included these verses in his gospel is unacceptable to many.

AS is nearly unique among biblical interpreters in accepting this whole section as historical, and not just historical but absolutely essential to understanding the historical Jesus.

If one so understands the commission to the Twelve as to suppose that Jesus would say through his Disciples that the time is now come for the realisation of the Kingdom by a new moral behaviour, that eschatological saying lies like an erratic boulder in the midst of a flowery meadow. If, however, one conceives of the embassage eschatologically, the saying acquires a great context: it is a rock in the midst of a wild mountain landscape. One cannot affirm of this saying that it has been interpolated here by a later age; rather with compelling force it fixes the presence of eschatological conceptions in the days of the mission of the Twelve. (Mystery p. 49)

What is the meaning of the saying in Matt. 10:23 about the imminent coming of the Son of man, seeing that the disciples after all returned to Jesus without its being fulfilled? (QUESTv2 p. 300)

He tells them in plain words (Matt. 10:23) that he does not expect to see them back in the present age. The parousia of the Son of man, which is logically and temporally identical with the dawn of the kingdom, will take place before they have completed a hasty journey through the cities of Israel to announce it. That the words mean this and nothing else, that they ought not to be in any way toned down, should be sufficiently evident. This is the form in which Jesus reveals to the disciples the secret of the kingdom of God.

...

It is equally clear, and here the dogmatic considerations which guided the resolutions of Jesus become still more prominent, that this prediction was not fulfilled. The disciples returned to him and the appearing of the Son of man had not taken place. The actual history disavowed the dogmatic history on which the action of Jesus had been based. An event of supernatural history which had to take place, and to take place at that particular point of time, failed to come about. For Jesus, who lived wholly in the dogmatic history, that was the first ‘historical’ occurrence, the central event which closed the former period of his activity and gave the coming period a new forward orientation. (QUESTv2 p. 327)

3.48 Courage and Faith (Matthew 10:24-33)

When the Kingdom dawns it is all one whether we exist in a living or in a dead body. It is only with this persuasion that a man can meet persecution boldly. Wherefore Jesus says to the Apostles as he sends them forth: Be not afraid of them which kill the body but are not able to kill the “soul,” but fear him who hath power to destroy both “soul” and body in hell (Matt. 10:28). (Mystery p. 129)

So when Jesus promises in respect of the coming tribulation that those who lose their lives for his sake and the Gospel will save them (Mark 8:35-37) and in the discourse at the sending out of the disciples also reckons with the possibility of perishing in the tribulations which precede the Messiah (Matt. 10:21-22 and 10:28, Matt. 10:39), he is setting himself above the traditional notion and proclaiming a new teaching. (QUESTv2 p. 250)

Before the people Jesus merely suggested the absolute solidarity between himself and the Son of Man whom he proclaimed.

It was only in this form that his own gigantic personality obtruded in his preaching of the Kingdom of God. Only he who under all conditions confesses him, the proclaimer of the coming of the Son of Man, will be discovered as a member of the Kingdom at the Day of Judgment. Jesus, in fact, will intervene before God and before the Son of Man in his behalf (Mark 8:38-9:1, Matt. 10:32-33). (Mystery p. 81)

3.49 On Taking up One’s Cross (Matthew 10:34-39)

AS points out that this hard-seeming section does not mean that Jesus was not to be the bringer of peace, but rather that before peace his coming would first cause great strife.

When he says that his mission is not to bring peace upon earth but a sword, when he speaks of the uprising which he brings about, in which the most sacred earthly ties shall be broken, in which one must follow him laden with the cross and count one’s earthly life for naught (Matt. 10:34-42), he means by this the great persecution of the last times. He who hastens the coming of the Kingdom brings also this Affliction to pass, for it is out of this travail indeed that the Kingdom and the Messiah are born. (Mystery p. 138)

3.50 On Rewards (Matthew 10:40-42)

The disciples, too, by reason of the status they are to be given, can save people who have no notion of what is taking place. Whoever receives them is saved, as if he had received the Son of man himself (Matt. 10:40); their greeting is a real power for a house (Matt. 10:13); whoever gives a man a cup of water ‘in the name of a disciple’ will in no way lose his reward (Matt. 10:42). (QUESTv2 p. 335)

3.51 The Departure of Jesus and the Disciples (Mark 6:12-13, Matthew 11:1)

*

3.52 The Message from John the Baptist (Matthew 11:2-30)

15b. “According to Mark, Jesus twice employed this expression [Son of man] as a self-designation before Cæsarea Philippi (Mark 2:10 and 2:28), and it occurs in the same sense in a series of passages peculiar to Matthew: Matt. 8:20, Matt. 11:19, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 13:37-41, Matt. 16:13 [and son of David in Matt. 12:23]” (MYSTERY p. 77)

18. How are we to explain the fact that Jesus had to open the eyes of the people to the greatness of John the Baptist’s office [Matt. 11:10], after the mission of the Twelve, and to enlighten the disciples themselves in regard to it during the descent from the mount of transfiguration [Mark 9:13]?

19. Why should this be described in Matt. 11:14-15 as a mystery difficult to grasp (‘If you can receive it’. . . ‘He that has ears to hear, let him hear’)?

20. What is the meaning of the saying that he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than the Baptist [Matt. 11:11]? Does the Baptist, then, not enter into the kingdom of heaven?

21. How is the kingdom of heaven subjected to violence since the days of the Baptist [Matt. 11:12]?

22. Who are the violent?

23. What is the Baptist intended to understand from Jesus’ answer?

24. What importance was attached to the miracles by Jesus himself?

25. What office must they have caused the people to attribute to him?

This section, which is also missing from Mark is very important to AS. It reveals how John the Baptist viewed his relationship to Jesus, which is different from that held by all Christians, including Jesus himself.

How did Jesus arrive at the conviction that the Baptist was Elijah? It was through a necessary inference from his own messiahship. Because he knew himself to be the Messiah, the other must be Elijah. Between the two ideas there was a necessary correspondence. No one could know that the Baptist was Elijah except he derived this cognisance from the messiahship of Jesus. No one could arrive at the thought that John was Elijah without at the same time being obliged to see in Jesus the Messiah. For after the Forerunner there remained no place for a second manifestation of the kind. No one knew that Jesus took himself to be the Messiah. Therefore in the Baptist men perceived a prophet and raised the question whether Jesus were not Elijah. No one understood in their full bearing the mysterious concluding sentences of the eulogy over the Baptist. Only for Jesus was John the promised Elijah. 

What was the Baptist’s attitude to Jesus? If he had been conscious of being the Forerunner, he must have surmised that Jesus was the Messiah. One generally assumes this and supposes that he as the Forerunner put the question to Jesus whether he were the Messiah (Matt. 11:2-6). This supposition seems to us perfectly natural because we always represent to ourselves the two characters in the relation of Forerunner-Messiah.

In this connection, however, we forget a perfectly obvious question. Did the Baptist feel himself to be Elijah, the Forerunner? In no utterance before the people did he raise such a claim. They stubbornly recognised in him only a prophet. Also during his imprisonment he can have claimed no such thing, for in Jerusalem the people still held to the same opinion, that he was a prophet.

If somehow or another the presentiment had prevailed that he represented the character of Elijah, how then could men generally get the notion that John was a prophet, Jesus the Elijah? That this was the general view even after the death of the Baptist, is proved by the reply of the Disciples at Cæsarea Philippi.

To view the Baptist’s query under the presumption that the Forerunner is asking whether Jesus be the Messiah is to put the question in a light which is completely unjustified; for whether John took himself to be the Forerunner is not in the least to be proven. Therefore it is also by no means made out that his question referred to the messianic dignity. The people standing by, as they did not take John to be the Forerunner, must have interpreted it in a very different way,—namely, in the sense: Art thou Elias?

The fact is that the usual perspective hides a characteristic detail in this very section, the fact, namely, that Jesus applies again to the Baptist the same designation which the Baptist in his question had applied to him! Art thou the Coming One? asked the Baptist. Jesus replied: If ye are willing to receive it, he himself is Elijah, the Coming One! The designation of the “Coming One” is therefore common to both speeches, only that we arbitrarily refer it to the Messiah in the question of the Baptist. This proceeding, which appears so natural in the naive perspective, will show itself to be unjustified so soon as one becomes aware that it is in fact only a question of perspective and not of any real standard. For then the phrase “He himself” in Jesus’ reply acquires suddenly an unsuspected significance: “he himself is Elijah,” the Coming One! This reference compels us to understand by the Coming One in the Baptist’s question, not the Messiah, but—as in Jesus’ reply—Elias.

“Art thou the expected Forerunner?”—thus the Baptist through his disciples makes inquiry of Jesus. “If ye are able to receive it, he himself is this Forerunner,” said Jesus to the people after he had spoken to them about the greatness of the Baptist.

By this reference the scene now receives a far more intense colouring. First of all, it becomes clear why Jesus speaks about the Baptist after the departure of the messengers. He feels himself obliged to lead the people up climactically from the conception that John is a prophet [Matt. 11:9]to the presentiment that he is the Forerunner, with whose appearing the hand of the world clock nears the fateful hour to which refers the word concerning “him who prepares the way,” and of whom the scribes say “that he must first come” (Mark 9:11).

John, in fact, with his question was backward in his reckoning of the Messianic time. His messengers seek information about the Forerunner at the moment when Jesus’ confidence that the Kingdom is immediately to dawn was at the highest pitch. He had just sent out his Disciples and given them to expect that the appearing of the Son of Man might surprise them on their way through the cities of Israel. The hour is already far more advanced—that is what Jesus would give the people to understand in his “eulogy over the Baptist,” if they can receive it.

John reached this surmise about Jesus in the same way as did the people. That is to say, as he heard of the signs and deeds of Jesus (Matt. 11:2), there occurred to him the thought that this might be something more than a prophet with a call to repentance. So he sends messengers to him in order to have assurance upon this point.

Herewith, however, the proclamation of the Baptist is put in an entirely different light. He never pointed to the coming Messiah, but to the expected Forerunner. So is to be explained the proclamation about “him that is to come after him” (Mark 1:7, 1:8). As applied to the Messiah, the expressions he uses remain obscure. They denote, that is, only a difference of degree, not a total difference in kind, between himself and the person whom he announces. If he were speaking of the Messiah, it would have been impossible for him to employ these expressions, in which, in spite of the mighty difference in rank, he still compares the Coming One to himself. He thinks of the Forerunner as like himself, baptising and preaching repentance unto the Kingdom, only that he is incomparably greater and mightier. Instead of baptising with water, he will baptise with the Holy Ghost (Mark 1:8). (Mystery p. 88-91)

3.53 The Death of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14-29, Matthew 14:1-12)

It is also important to AS that Herod thought Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead.

Herod as he heard of him [Jesus] would not give up the notion that he was the Baptist: “The Baptist is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers work in him” (Mark 6:14). (Mystery p. 85)

In certain circles, according to Mark 6:14-16, extending to the very highest quarters, even the resurrection of John the Baptist was believed in; but that did not make John the Baptist the Messiah. (QUESTv2 p. 309)

At Caesarea Philippi, the disciples would confirm this.

It is at this point that AS believed the temporal sequence we find in Mark becomes quite confused with repeated trips back and forth across the lake and trips to the north and back. For one thing, Matthew, who reports the discourse at the sending out of the disciples never reports their return, although Mark and Luke do (Mark 6:30 and Luke 9:10). Why this strange omission on Matthew’s part? Other questions arise such as the two nearly identical feedings of the multitude, both reported in Mark and Matthew, but only one of which is reported in Luke (Luke 9:10-17) and John (John 6:1-15). The relationship between Caesarea Philippi and the Transfiguration contains several questions as well. For all these reasons AS proposed a change in the temporal sequence in Mark and Matthew. He never claimed to have proven that the changes were required. I include them as an appendix.

It is exceedingly difficult to gather from the Synoptic accounts a clear picture of the events which happened after the mission of the Twelve. When did the Disciples return? Where did Jesus betake himself during their absence? What sort of success did the Disciples have? What events happened between their return and the departure for the north? Were these events of a sort to account for Jesus’ determination to withdraw with them into solitude?

The accounts supply no answer to these questions. Moreover they confront us with another, a purely literary problem. The connection between the several scenes is here extraordinarily broken. It seems almost as if the thread of the narration were here completely lost. Only at the moment of departure for the journey to Jerusalem do the scenes begin to stand again in a clear and natural relationship. (Mystery p. 100)

3.54 Return of the Apostles (Mark 6:30)

*

3.55 Feeding of the Multitude (Mark 6:31-46, Matthew 14:13-23a)

29. Why, immediately after the sending out of the Twelve, had he manifested a desire to withdraw from the multitude who were longing for salvation [Mark 6:31]?

Is the feeding of the multitude a miracle or just a myth that developed from a real historical occurrence? AS believed that the mythical element was that the multitude was actually “filled” by the meal.

The story of this event has been distorted into a miracle: the cultus-meal which Jesus improvised by the seashore has been represented as a hearty and filling supper. That the scanty provision which was at hand, the food designed for himself and his Disciples, was solemnly distributed to the people is historic. That this meal took the place of the evening repast likewise corresponds with the fact. But that through a supernatural process the multitude was filled by it,—that belongs to the miraculous character which the later age ascribed to the celebration because its significance could not be apprehended. (Mystery p. 104)

3.56 The Walking on the Sea (Mark 6:47-56, Matthew 14:23b-36)

47. Matthew’s Cases of Jesus Revealing his Messiahship Matt. 9:27-31, Matt. 12:23, Matt. 14:33, Matt. 15:22

Was the “walking on the water” a miracle and why did it occur just after the feeding of the multitude?

They [the disciples], battling with wind and wave, had the illusion that a supernatural apparition approached them as they descried his figure on the beach. They still were so much under the influence of the impression lately made upon them by the mighty personality who with mysterious majesty had distributed to the multitude sacred food and then had suddenly broken off the ceremony (Mark 6:45-52).

The importance of the cultus-meal was lost on the disciples.

Neither the Disciples nor the multitude understand what goes on. As Jesus afterwards in the boat directs the conversation to the significance of the meal—this alone can be the historical meaning of the obscure intimations of Mark 6:52 and Mark 8:14-21—it appears that the Disciples have understood nothing.

He celebrated, therefore, a sacred cultus-meal the meaning of which was clear to him alone. He did not count it necessary to explain to them the meaning of the ceremony. The memory, however, of that mysterious supper on the lonely seashore lived on vividly in the tradition and grew to the account of the miraculous feeding. Wherein did the solemnity of this distribution consist for Jesus? The gathering at the feast is of an eschatological character. The people that gathered about him by the seaside were awaiting with him the dawn of the Kingdom. In replacing now the customary full meal with a sacred ceremonial meal, at which he distributed food with thanksgiving to God, he acted at the prompting of his messianic consciousness. As one who knew himself to be the Messiah, and would be manifested to them as such at the imminent dawn of the Kingdom, he distributes, to those whom he expects soon to join him at the messianic banquet, sacred food, as though he would give them therewith an earnest of their participation in that future solemnity. The time for earthly meals is passed: hence he celebrates with them a foretaste of the messianic banquet. They, however, understood it not, for they could not guess that he who distributed to them such consecrated eucharistic food was conscious of being the Messiah and acted as such. (Mystery p. 105)

3.57 Eating with Unwashen Hands (Mark 7:1-23, Matthew 15:1-20)

The Liberal interpretation of AS’s day assumed a period of defeat for Jesus starting at this point. AS, however, rejected this as unfounded.

The discussion about washing hands (Mark 7:1-23), which is always adduced to explain Jesus’ ‘flight’, in reality represents a defeat of the Pharisees. (QUESTv2 p. 328)

3.58 The Syrophoenician Woman (Mark 7:24-30, Matthew 15:21-28)

28. Why does Jesus leave the people just when his work among them is most successful, and journey northwards [Mark 7:24-30]?

3.59 The Return to the Sea of Galilee (Mark 7:31-37, Matthew 15:29-31)

10. Why does Jesus forbid his miracles to be made known even in cases where there is no apparent purpose for the prohibition [Mark 1:44, Mark 5:43, Mark 7:36, Mark 8:26, ... ]

Why is the same multitude present when Jesus returns?

3.60 The Feeding of the Four Thousand (Mark 8:1-10, Matthew 15:32-39)

Why do the disciples appear to be unaware that Jesus can feed a multitude of 4,000 in the desert when he has already fed 5,000?

3.61 Demanding a Sign from Heaven (Mark 8:11-21, Matthew 16:1-12)

Why is two feedings of the multitude not enough to show the disciples the nature of Jesus?

3.62 The Blind Man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26)

10. Why does Jesus forbid his miracles to be made known even in cases where there is no apparent purpose for the prohibition [Mark 1:44, Mark 5:43, Mark 7:36, Mark 8:26]

This healing contains the same elements of keeping Jesus’ healing miracle a secret as previous sections.

3.63 Peter’s Confession (Mark 8:27-30, Matthew 16:13-20)

11. Why is his messiahship a secret and yet no secret, since it is known, not only to the disciples [Mark 8:27-30], but to those possessed by demons [Mark 1:24, Mark 3:11, Mark 5:7], the blind man at Jericho [Mark 10:47-48, Matt. 9:27], the multitude at Jerusalem—which must, as Bruno Bauer expresses it, ‘have fallen from heaven’ [Mark 11:7-10]—and to the high priest [Mark 14:60-61]?

12. Why does Jesus first reveal his messiahship to the disciples at Caesarea Philippi [Mark 8:27-30], not at the moment when he sends them forth to preach? [Matt. 10:23]

13. How does Peter know without having been told by Jesus what dignity is due to his Master?

14. Why must it remain a secret until the ‘resurrection’?

15b. “According to Mark, Jesus twice employed this expression [Son of man] as a self-designation before Cæsarea Philippi (Mark 2:10 and 2:28), and it occurs in the same sense in a series of passages peculiar to Matthew: Matt. 8:20, Matt. 11:19, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 13:37-41, Matt. 16:13 [and son of David in Matt. 12:23]” (MYSTERY p. 77)

How did Peter know that Jesus was the Messiah? What does Jesus mean by stating that God revealed it to Peter?

AS accepted the authority of Peter from Matt. 16:17-19 although insisting on its eschatological nature:

It is wrong to doubt the historicity of Jesus’ words, ‘You art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven’ (Matt. 16:18-19). No one has yet been able to demonstrate why this comment should have been inserted by those who wished to trace Petrine or Roman claims back to the Gospels. It has absolutely nothing to do with the empirical church and does not mean that Peter should decide what is to be allowed or not allowed in the ‘community’ . . . for Jesus had not considered the existence of a community after his death. Nor is mythological material from Mithras worship and the Babylonian cults enough to explain it. The saying is about the very special authority which will be conferred upon the disciples in the imminent days of judgment when the Son of man comes to rule, because Peter was the first of men to address him by his title (with the man possessed of a demon it was the ‘spirits’ who spoke!). The ‘church’, moreover, is the pre-existent church which will appear at the end of time, and is synonymous with the kingdom. (QUESTv2 p. 334-5)

AS included this section as another example of the importance of having Matthew to fill in missing aspects of Mark’s narrative.

Mark’s account of the incident at Caesarea Philippi also depends on an abbreviation of the text of the common source. After Peter has replied, to the question of Jesus about whom the disciples think him to be, that he is the Messiah, in Matthew Jesus pronounces him blessed, in that God has revealed to him what he could not have learned from any man, and because of this accords him a special position. He then forbids the disciples to divulge to anyone that he is the Messiah (Matt. 16:13-20). In Mark he does not give Peter, who is in possession of this knowledge, a word of acknowledgement, but comes out immediately with the prohibition which in Matthew comes later, and then, like him, goes on to proclaim that he must suffer and die (Mark 8:29-33). (KOG p. 71)

3.64 Jesus Foretells his Death (Mark 8:31-9:1, Matthew 16:21-28)

15. Why does Jesus indicate his messiahship only by the title Son of man? [Mark 8:31, Mark 8:38, Mark 9:9-12=Matt. 17:9-12, Mark 9:31=Matt. 17:22, Mark 10:33=Matt. 20:18, Mark 10:45=Matt. 20:28, Mark 14:21=Matt. 26:24, Mark 14:41=Matt. 26:45, Mark 14:62=Matt. 26:64, Matt. 10:23, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 16:27, Matt. 16:28, Matt. 19:28, Matt. 26:2]

16. And why is it that this title falls right into the background in primitive Christian theology?

30. How does the multitude mentioned in Mark 8:34 suddenly appear at Caesarea Philippi and disappear just as unexpectedly in Mark 9:30?

Verse Mark 9:1 = Matt. 16:28 is now the second prediction by Jesus that the kingdom of God will come within the time of the current generation. One should not assume that Jesus expects the coming to be long delayed merely because he says that some will not taste of death before it comes. Jesus assumes that the kingdom of God is coming very soon and many will die in the Tribulation that precedes the kingdom.

3.65 The Transfiguation (Mark 9:2-13, Matthew 17:1-13)

15. Why does Jesus indicate his messiahship only by the title Son of man? [Mark 8:31, Mark 8:38, Mark 9:9-12=Matt. 17:9-12, Mark 9:31=Matt. 17:22, Mark 10:33=Matt. 20:18, Mark 10:45=Matt. 20:28, Mark 14:21=Matt. 26:24, Mark 14:41=Matt. 26:45, Mark 14:62=Matt. 26:64, Matt. 10:23, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 16:27, Matt. 16:28, Matt. 19:28, Matt. 26:2]

16. And why is it that this title falls right into the background in primitive Christian theology?

18. How are we to explain the fact that Jesus had to open the eyes of the people to the greatness of John the Baptist’s office [Matt. 11:10], after the mission of the Twelve, and to enlighten the disciples themselves in regard to it during the descent from the mount of transfiguration [Mark 9:13]?

There are many questions raised by the Transfiguration. Was it a miracle, and did it really happen? Was there an historical event underlying this section? Where did it happen? The sequence in Mark implies that it occurs in the North, but if that is so from where did the multitude come that they meet when they descend from the mountain? Perhaps most puzzling of all is the question of why, immediately after God revealed Jesus’ true identity, did the three ask about Elijah? Matthew, who has already recorded the words of Jesus about the true role of John the Baptist, here repeats this statement for the disciples.

The conversation during the descent from the mountain of Transfiguration is decisive on this point. Jesus spoke then for the first time to his most intimate disciples of “the resurrection of the Son of Man from the dead” (Mark 9:9). They, however, were quite unable to think of “the resurrection of the Son of man” apart from the messianic Resurrection. Their attention was entirely occupied with the messianic event which Jesus’ words suggested to them. They question therefore among themselves about the Resurrection of the dead. What should that mean (Mark 9:10)? That is to say, the conditions thereof, so far as they can see, are not yet fulfilled. Elijah is not yet come (Mark 9:11). Jesus puts their minds at rest with the hint that Elijah had already appeared though men did not recognise him. He means the Baptist (Mark 9:12-13). (Mystery p. 126)

3.66 The Epileptic Boy (Mark 9:14-29, Matthew 17:14-20)

Where did the “great multitude” come from in this scene?

Here is where the modified sequence in Appendix A rejoins the narrative.

3.67 Jesus Again Foretells his Death (Mark 9:30-32, Matthew 17:22-23)

15. Why does Jesus indicate his messiahship only by the title Son of man? [Mark 8:31, Mark 8:38, Mark 9:9-12=Matt. 17:9-12, Mark 9:31=Matt. 17:22, Mark 10:33=Matt. 20:18, Mark 10:45=Matt. 20:28, Mark 14:21=Matt. 26:24, Mark 14:41=Matt. 26:45, Mark 14:62=Matt. 26:64, Matt. 10:23, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 16:27, Matt. 16:28, Matt. 19:28, Matt. 26:2]

16. And why is it that this title falls right into the background in primitive Christian theology?

30. How does the multitude mentioned in Mark 8:34 suddenly appear at Caesarea Philippi and disappear just as unexpectedly in Mark 9:30?

32. What made him speak so suddenly to his disciples of his suffering and dying and rising again, without, moreover, explaining to them either the natural or the moral reason [Mark 9:31]?

Why did the disciples not understand this saying when it is only a repetition of what Jesus has just told them on the mount of transfiguration?

It is important to recall that when Jesus predicts his imminent resurrection, he is not predicting an isolated event. There is no need for miraculous foreknowledge. He believed that the kingdom of God was coming very soon, and when it did everyone would be resurrected, not just Him. What was unique about Him was what he believed would happen to Him after he was resurrected. There is also no need for miraculous foreknowledge to predict what would happen to Him in Jerusalem if He himself planned it that way.

He thought of himself as any one must who believes in the immediate coming of the last things, as living in two different conditions: the present, and the future condition into which he is to be transformed at the coming of the new supernatural world. (QUESTv2 p. 332)

3.68 The Temple Tax (Matthew 17:24-27)

*

3.69 Who is Greatest? (Mark 9:33-37, Matthew 18:1-5)

31. How could Jesus possibly have travelled unrecognized through Galilee, and how could he have avoided being thronged in Capernaum although he stayed in the ‘house’ [Mark 9:33]?

He is convinced that his death is an atonement (Mark 10:45), because of which mankind will be exempted by God from the general misery which is to precede the Messianic Kingdom, and expects that he, at the moment of his death or on the third day after his death, will enter into the supernatural life, achieve the Messianic honor, and usher in the end of the world, the judgment and the Messianic Kingdom. The disciples understand his allusions in this sense and on the way to Jerusalem quarrel over which of them will be called upon to occupy the place of highest honor beside him (Mark 9:33 f; Mark 10:35-45). (PSYCH p. 52)

To Jesus the young children of the final human generation are destined to enter the Kingdom as they are. They pass their existence in this world in innocence and freedom from anxiety, and will never know any other way of living here because the Kingdom will have come before they are grown up. They possess a unique privilege. (KOG p. 96)

3.70 The Man Casting out Demons (Mark 9:38-41)

*

3.71 On Offences (Mark 9:42-50, Matthew 18:6-10)

Wherefore, to the living, Jesus speaks of the way that leadeth unto “life” (Matt. 7:14). He counsels men rather to part with a member of the body, when “life” is in question, than to fail of gaining through the Resurrection a part in the messianic existence (Matt. 18:8, 18:9). (Mystery p. 128-9)

3.72 The Ninety and Nine (Matthew 18:12-14)

*

3.73 Concerning Reconciliation (Matthew 18:15-17)

*

3.74 Binding and Loosing (Matthew 18:18-20)

Their [the disciples] future role is also related to the power to bind and to loose which is promised first to Peter (Matt. 16:19), and then later to all twelve (Matt. 18:18). (QUESTv2 p. 334)

3.75 On Forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-35)

No limit is permitted to forgiveness. When Peter asks if it is sufficient to forgive his brother seven times, he receives the reply, “Not seven times, but seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:21 f.). In connexion with this question, Jesus goes on to relate the parable of the servant whose master let him off a debt of ten thousand talents. On the way home he meets a fellow-servant who owes him a hundred pence. In spite of his pleading and promise to pay in full, he has him thrown into the debtors’ prison, to stay there until the debt is repaid. On learning of this unforgiving procedure, his master treats him in the same way (Matt. 18:23-35). (KOG p. 84-85)

4. From Galilee to Jerusalem

4.1 The Departure from Galilee (Mark 10:1, Matthew 19:1-2)

33. Did Jesus journey to Jerusalem with the purpose of working there, or of dying there [Mark 10:1]?

Afterwards, where the road to Jerusalem, in order to avoid Samaria, runs on the east bank of the Jordan, he overtakes, or is overtaken by, the Galilean pilgrim caravan on its way to the feast. “And he arose from thence, and cometh into the borders of Judaea and beyond Jordan: and multitudes come together unto him again” (Mark 10:1). This ever-growing crowd then enters Jerusalem with him. (KOG p. 114)

4.2 Concerning Divorce (Mark 10:2-12, Matthew 19:3-12)

Even what the scripture permits cannot always, in the view of Jesus, be regarded as the best possible action. It allows a man to dismiss his wife with a letter of divorce. In his opinion it does so only because of the man’s hard-heartedness. For the higher form of righteousness the decisive text is: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). Only for the wife’s unfaithfulness may the husband divorce her and marry another. If he does it for any other reason, it is he who is committing adultery (Matt. 5:31 f.; 19:3-9). (KOG p. 83)

The opinion of Jesus moves in the same direction [as Isa. 56:3-5]. He sees in the eunuchs the despised ones who like the children are destined to honor in the Kingdom of God because formerly they had been among the rejected ones. In connection with this he makes the mysterious surmise that men have placed themselves in the class of these despised ones in order to participate in that special future honor. This case has nothing whatever to do with him as he cherishes a very special expectation of a high position in the Kingdom of God through his descent from David. The words, then, have nothing to do with sex feeling but are to be explained by the ideas found to be present in late Judaism. (PSYCH p. 70)

4.3 Blessing Little Children (Mark 10:13-16, Matthew 19:13-15)

To Jesus the young children of the final human generation are destined to enter the Kingdom as they are. They pass their existence in this world in innocence and freedom from anxiety, and will never know any other way of living here because the Kingdom will have come before they are grown up. They possess a unique privilege. (KOG 96)

4.4 The Rich Young Man (Mark 10:17-31, Matthew 19:16-30)

40. How does Jesus conceive the resurrection which he promises to his disciples [implied in Mark 10:37, explicit in Matt. 19:28] to be related to the coming on the clouds of heaven, to which he refers his judge [Mark 14:62]?

AS emphasized that although the rich young man turned away sorrowful, there was still hope for him:

Hence Jesus is grieved when the rich young man cannot make up his mind to give up his riches in order to follow him (Mark 10:22), for now he cannot appear for him at the Day of Judgment to insure that he shall be accepted as a member of the Kingdom of God. Still, in the measureless omnipotence of God he finds reason to hope that this rich man will nevertheless find entrance into the Kingdom (Mark 10:17-31). If this man, therefore, because Jesus cannot intervene in his behalf, is not sure “to inherit eternal life” (Mark 10:17), those, on the other hand who, confessing him and his message, endure death are certain to save their life, i.e. to be found as members of the Kingdom at the resurrection of the dead (Mark 8:37). (Mystery p. 82)

This ethical idea of salvation and the predestinarian limitation of acceptance to the elect are constantly in conflict in the mind of Jesus. In one case, however, he finds comfort in predestination. When the rich young man went away, not having had the strength to give up his possessions for the sake of following Jesus as he had been commanded to do, Jesus and his disciples were forced to draw the conclusion that like other rich men, he was lost, and could not enter into the kingdom of God. But immediately afterwards Jesus objects, ‘With men it is impossible, but not with God, for with God all things are possible’ (Mark 10:17-27). That is, he will not give up hope that the young man, in spite of appearances, which are against him, will be found to belong to the kingdom of God, solely by virtue of the secret all-powerful will of God. Of an expected ‘conversion’ of the young man there is no mention. (QUESTv2 p. 323)

4.5 The Vineyard and the Husbandmen (Matthew 20:1-16)

AS did not comment on this parable.

4.6 The Prediction of the Crucifixion (Mark 10:32-34, Matthew 20:17-19)

15. Why does Jesus indicate his messiahship only by the title Son of man? [Mark 8:31, Mark 8:38, Mark 9:9-12=Matt. 17:9-12, Mark 9:31=Matt. 17:22, Mark 10:33=Matt. 20:18, Mark 10:45=Matt. 20:28, Mark 14:21=Matt. 26:24, Mark 14:41=Matt. 26:45, Mark 14:62=Matt. 26:64, Matt. 10:23, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 16:27, Matt. 16:28, Matt. 19:28, Matt. 26:2]

16. And why is it that this title falls right into the background in primitive Christian theology?

AS pointed out that the expression “going before them” is also found after the resurrection Matt.26:32.

It is not necessary to claim miraculous foreknowledge to accept this section as historical. If Jesus was heading to Jerusalem with the intent of dying, the prediction is a simple statement of what He expected to encounter there.

The modern-historical solution eliminates the eschatological conception of the Kingdom of God from the Passion, reducing it to the notion of an apotheosis, “the coming again,” as it is called. This expression is entirely false. Jesus never spoke of his coming again but only of his coming or the advent of the Son of Man. We [modern Christians] use the expression “coming again” because we connect death and glory by contrast, as though the new situation were conditioned merely upon a victorious transfiguration of Jesus. Our view makes him say: “I shall die, but I shall be glorified through my coming again.” As a matter of fact, however, he said: “I must suffer and the Son of Man shall appear upon the clouds of heaven.” But that for his hearers meant much more than an apotheosis—for with the appearing of the Son of Man dawned the eschatological Kingdom. Jesus therefore sets his death in temporal-causal connection with the eschatological dawning of the Kingdom. The eschatological notion of the Kingdom, not the modern-ethical notion, dominates his idea of the Passion. (Mystery p. 43)

The messianic title “Son of Man” is futuristic in character. It refers to the moment in which the Messiah shall come upon the clouds of heaven for judgment. From the beginning this was the sense in which Jesus had used the expression, whether in speaking to the people or to the Disciples. (Mystery p. 118)

4.7 The Ambition of James and John (Mark 10:35-45, Matthew 20:20-28)

15. Why does Jesus indicate his messiahship only by the title Son of man? [Mark 8:31, Mark 8:38, Mark 9:9-12=Matt. 17:9-12, Mark 9:31=Matt. 17:22, Mark 10:33=Matt. 20:18, Mark 10:45=Matt. 20:28, Mark 14:21=Matt. 26:24, Mark 14:41=Matt. 26:45, Mark 14:62=Matt. 26:64, Matt. 10:23, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 16:27, Matt. 16:28, Matt. 19:28, Matt. 26:2]

16. And why is it that this title falls right into the background in primitive Christian theology?

34. How comes it that in Mark 10:39 he holds out to the sons of Zebedee the prospect of drinking his cup and being baptized with his baptism?

36. Who are the undefined ‘many’ for whom, according to Mark 10:45 and Mark 14:24, his death is to serve as a ransom?

40. How does Jesus conceive the resurrection which he promises to his disciples [implied in Mark 10:37, explicit in Matt. 19:28] to be related to the coming on the clouds of heaven, to which he refers his judge [Mark 14:62]?

AS considered this section important for several reasons.

It was a maxim that whosoever would reign with the coming Messiah must suffer with Jesus. But yet he dared not promise his two intimate Disciples, James and John, the seats upon the throne, although he expected that they would share his Passion. He might by this infringe upon God’s omnipotence (Mark 10:35-40). (Mystery p. 143-4)

What we lack is the “Now and Then” which dominated their [the Disciples] thinking and which explains a curious duality of consciousness that was characteristic of them. What we might call identity, continuity, and potentiality was in their mind confounded in a conception which quite eludes our grasp. Every person figured himself in two entirely different states, according as he thought of himself now, in the pre-messianic age, or then in the messianic. Expressions which we interpret only in accordance with our unity of consciousness, they referred as a matter of course to the double consciousness familiar to them. Therefore when Jesus revealed to them the secret of his messiahship, that did not mean to them that he is the Messiah, as we moderns must understand it; rather it signified for them that their Lord and Master was the one who in the messianic age would be revealed as Messiah.

They think of themselves also in terms of this double consciousness. As often as Jesus made known to them the necessity of his suffering before entering upon his rule they questioned within themselves what manner of persons they should be in the coming age. Wherefore, following upon the prophecies of the Passion we find rivalry among the Disciples as to which shall be the greatest in the Kingdom, or to whom shall be accorded the seats of honour on either side of the throne. In the meanwhile, however, they remain what they are, and Jesus remains what he is, their Teacher and Master. The sons of Zebedee address him as “Master” (Mark 10:35). As Teacher they expect him to give promise and assurance of what shall come to pass when the Kingdom dawns and his messiahship is revealed. (Mystery p. 115-6)

If Jesus as a man walking in a natural body on earth predicts to his disciples the parousia of the Son of man in the immediate future, with the secret conviction that he himself was to be revealed as the Son of man, he must have made precisely this assumption that he would first be supernaturally removed and transformed. He thought of himself as any one must who believes in the immediate coming of the last things, as living in two different conditions: the present, and the future condition into which he is to be transformed at the coming of the new supernatural world. We learn later that the disciples on the way up to Jerusalem were entirely possessed by the thought of what they should be when this transformation took place. They dispute over who shall have the highest position (Mark 9:33); James and John wish Jesus to promise them in advance the thrones on his right hand and on his left (Mark 10:35-37).

However, Jesus does not rebuke them for indulging such thoughts, but only tells them that much service, humiliation and suffering in the present age is necessary to constitute a claim to such places in the future age, and that in the last resort it is not for him to allot the places on his left and on his right. They are for those for whom they are prepared; and so perhaps not for any of the disciples (Mark 10:40). At this point, therefore, the knowledge and will of Jesus are thwarted and limited by the predestinarianism which is bound up with eschatology. (QUESTv2 p. 332)

He is convinced that his death is an atonement (Mark 10:45), because of which mankind will be exempted by God from the general misery which is to precede the Messianic Kingdom, and expects that he, at the moment of his death or on the third day after his death, will enter into the supernatural life, achieve the Messianic honor, and usher in the end of the world, the judgment and the Messianic Kingdom. The disciples understand his allusions in this sense and on the way to Jerusalem quarrel over which of them will be called upon to occupy the place of highest honor beside him (Mark 9:33 f; Mark 10:35-45) (KOG p. 52)

4.8 Bartimaeus Healed (Mark 10:46-52, Matthew 20:29-34)

2. Why does the blind man at Jericho [Mark 10:47-48, Matt. 9:27] address him as the son of David, when no one else knows his messianic dignity?

3. How was it that these occurrences did not give a new direction to the thoughts of the people in regard to Jesus?

11. Why is his messiahship a secret and yet no secret, since it is known, not only to the disciples [Mark 8:27-30], but to those possessed by demons [Mark 1:24, Mark 3:11, Mark 5:7], the blind man at Jericho [Mark 10:47-48, Matt. 9:27], the multitude at Jerusalem—which must, as Bruno Bauer expresses it, ‘have fallen from heaven’ [Mark 11:7-10]—and to the high priest [Mark 14:60-61]?

Many interpreters had taken this section as an example of Jesus acknowledging that he has the Messiah. AS pointed out that nothing of the sort was implied.

Modern theology should not be permitted to consider the title son of David given to Jesus in both the earliest Gospels to be intended as messianic and therefore to be a later insertion. In fact, the surprising thing about the title is that the evangelists in no way link it with the rank which is claimed for Jesus,  but merely present it as the much-honoured family name of the prophet of Nazareth.

According to Matt. 15:22, the Canaanite woman addresses him as ‘Lord, son of David’. When the blind beggar of Jericho hears that Jesus of Nazareth is coming, he cries out to the son of David to have mercy on him (Mark 10:47-48). Those around try to quiet him, not because they object to the title son of David, but because they find his clamour disagreeable. That the beggar does not know him as the Messiah can be seen by his later addressing him simply as rabbi (Mark 10:51). (QUESTv2 p. 317-8)

His knowledge that he is descended of David’s line is therefore a presupposition of Jesus’ Messianic consciousness. Others too know of this. The Canaanite woman addresses him as “O Lord, thou Son of David” (Matt. 15:22). The blind beggar at Jericho, who hears that Jesus of Nazareth is to pass through, cries to the Son of David in the hope of attracting his compassion (Mark 10:47 f.). This does not mean that he is consciously hailing him as Messiah. Afterwards, when he stands before him, he addresses him as Rabbi (Mark 10:51). (KOG p. 104)

5. Last Days in Jerusalem

5.1 The Triumphal Entry (Mark 11:1-11, Matthew 21:1-11)

4. How did the messianic entry come about?

5. How was it possible without provoking the interference of the Roman garrison of occupation?

6. Why is it as completely ignored in the subsequent controversies as if it had never taken place?

7. Why was it not brought up at the trial of Jesus?

11. Why is his messiahship a secret and yet no secret, since it is known, not only to the disciples [Mark 8:27-30], but to those possessed by demons [Mark 1:24, Mark 3:11, Mark 5:7], the blind man at Jericho [Mark 10:47-48, Matt. 9:27], the multitude at Jerusalem—which must, as Bruno Bauer expresses it, ‘have fallen from heaven’ [Mark 11:7-10]—and to the high priest [Mark 14:60-61]?

 

Was this a Messianic entry? According to AS it was and it was not. As in the previous section, the use of “son of David” does not necessarily imply the Messiah. Also:

For the exact understanding of the description of Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem, the differences in detail between Mark and the parallels are of far reaching importance. In Mark we have two clearly distinguishable acclamations. The first is directed to the person of Jesus in their midst: “Hosanna! Blessed be ‘the Coming One’ in the name of the Lord” (Mark 11:9). The second refers to the expected coming of the Kingdom: “Blessed be the coming Kingdom of our father David. Hosanna in the highest!” The Son of David is thus not mentioned at all!

It is different in Matthew. There the people shout “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed be the Coming One in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest!” (Matt. 21:9). We have here therefore only the cry which was directed to the person of Jesus; the Kingdom is not mentioned; men acclaim instead the Son of David and, at the same time, the Coming One. (Mystery p. 95)

Thus Matthew in his account interprets the Coming One as the Son of David. We possess no direct proof that this expression (the Coming One), which is derived from Psalm 118:25 ff, was employed in Jesus’ time for the Messiah. It has been shown, however, that the Baptist as well as Jesus applied it rather to the Forerunner Elijah. It is therefore unhistorical when Matthew represents the people as acclaiming in the same breath both the Coming One and the Son of David.

Mark has here, too, preserved in his detail the original situation. The people acclaimed Jesus as the “Coming One,” i.e. as the Forerunner, and sings an “Hosanna in the highest” to the Kingdom which is soon to descend upon earth. A fine distinction is made in the use of Hosanna and Hosanna in the highest (“places” is to be supplied). The former applies to the Forerunner present in their midst; the latter, to the heavenly Kingdom. The secondary character of the account in Matthew is evident in the fact that it applies to the Son of David and to the Coming One not only an Hosanna but likewise an Hosanna in the highest,—whereby the Messiah is first assumed to be on earth and then, still in heaven! Here it becomes plain that the second Hosanna belonged originally with the Kingdom.

The entrance into Jerusalem, therefore, was an ovation not to the Messiah but to the Forerunner. But then it is impossible that the people understood the scene with the blind man as indicating that Jesus welcomed the address “Son of David.” (Mystery p. 95-6)

At the entry into Jerusalem, according to Matt. 21:9, the crowd chant Hosannas to the son of David. But it is by no means their intention to accord him a messianic ovation. When the local inhabitants ask who the man they are honouring might be, they answer, ‘This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee’ (Matt. 21:11). (QUESTv2 p. 318)

Thus according to all the statements in late Judaism and among the rabbis—whether these may have made a synthesis between the views of the prophets and Daniel or not—the transcendence of the expectations is such that a human being in the natural state of the world could not appear and be active as Messiah. Far less could the people have such notions about any teacher or prophet, even if he performed miracles. The facts of the life of Jesus correspond very precisely to these considerations. Nowhere do the two earlier Gospels report that the prophet from Nazareth gave himself out to be the present Messiah; they indicate quite clearly that for the crowd, even after the entry into Jerusalem, he was none other than who he was before (Matt. 21:11). The question of his messianic dignity is not touched on in any way in the controversies of the last days.

It is high time for these most basic findings finally to be given general recognition. The impression is virtually that modern theology has put a premium on the best way of avoiding them. (QUESTv2 p. 245-6)

So, for the people this was not a Messianic entry. How about for Jesus?

Whatever Mark may have thought, the people did not offer Jesus a messianic ovation at all; it was he who, in the consciousness that they were simply unable to recognize it, played with his messianic self-awareness before their eyes, just as he did at the time after the sending out of the disciples, when he similarly thought that the end was at hand. (QUESTv2 p. 353)

5.2 The Cursing of the Fig Tree (Mark 11:12-14)

Jesus, too, already uses the power of judgment that he will later have. He pronounces judgment on the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum (Matt. 11:20-24), and proclaims that Jerusalem will be left desolate (Matt. 23:37-38). Even a fig-tree is condemned by him, so that it will have no part in the messianic fruitfulness (Mark 11:12-14). (QUESTv2 p. 335)

There still remains to be discussed the apparently senseless act of cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14). The story has come down to us in a later setting as is evident from the observation that on the following day the tree has already withered (Mark 11:20). We must, however, retain without question the historical kernel that Jesus pronounced the curse over a fig tree on which he had vainly sought to find nourishment that no one thereafter for all eternity should find fruit on it. He condemns it, therefore, not to withering but to unfruitfulness for all eternity.

The deed, however strange it may seem to us, is not at all senseless in the light of his preconceptions. The late Jewish apocalyptic literature expected that even nature would participate in the transformation and would become capable of a wonderful fertility. So the Apocalypse of Baruch tries to imagine the future yield of a single grapevine (Apoc. Bar. 29). As Jesus expected the Messianic kingdom as something very near, his words about the tree refer to its fate in the new era of the world. While all other vegetation will achieve a wondrous fertility this tree is to remain barren because it deceived by the richness of its foliage the unrecognized future Messiah in his earthly humility and hunger. Since after the end of the world the Messiah is the ruler of all the creation, Jesus simply pronounces a judgment here whose execution, he believes, lies within the scope of his future power. This is not, therefore, a question of senseless rage against the natural order but a kind of advance wielding of powers which he exercises in other respects. (PSYCH p. 70-71)

5.3 The Cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:15-19, Matthew 21:12-17)

The chief priests and the scribes object to Jesus allowing the children to offer him homage in the temple with cries of ‘Hosanna to the son of David’ (Matt. 21:15-16). But they have no notion of accusing him of claiming to be the Messiah. (QUESTv2 p. 318)

5.4 The Lesson of the Withered Fig Tree (Mark 11:20-25, Matthew 21:18-22)

*

5.5 Jesus’ Authority Challenged (Mark 11:27-33, Matthew 21:23-27)

AS wrote:

The rulers also could reach no conclusion about the personality of the Baptist. For this reason they were worsted in their colloquy with Jesus when they would challenge him for his purifying of the Temple (Mark 11:33). (Mystery p. 88)

That John had baptized in virtue of an authority conferred upon him is testified by Jesus too. On the day after his entry into Jerusalem the scribes ask him by what authority he is acting. They are thinking of how, on the day of his entry, accompanied by his adherents in the caravan from Galilee, he had appeared in the Temple as Lord, had driven the merchants and money-changers from it, and had taught the people that nothing should be done in it which was out of keeping with its purpose of providing a house of prayer for all nations. He promises them a reply to their question if they will first answer his, whether, namely, the baptism of John was from heaven or of men. They dare not deny John an authority proceeding from God, because the people regard him as a prophet. But they are also unwilling to concede it to him, because Jesus could then embarrass them with the counter-question, why had they not believed him? Accordingly they reply, “We do not know”. Jesus then considers himself justified in refusing to answer the question by what authority he has acted (Mark 11:15-19, 11:27-33). Jesus is assuming, therefore, that it was in virtue of the authority he possessed that the baptism of John was efficacious. (KOG p. 75)

5.6 The Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32)

*

5.7 The Unfaithful Husbandman (Mark 12:1-12, Matthew 21:33-46)

AS wrote:

In the last period of his life Jesus again uttered parables of the Kingdom of God: God’s vineyard (Matt. 21:33-46); the royal marriage (Matt. 22:1-14); the servant watching (Matt. 24:42-47); the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13); the talents (Matt. 25:14-30).

These parables, in contrast to those about the secret of the Kingdom, contain no secret, but rather they are teaching parables pure and simple, from which a moral is to be drawn. The Kingdom of God is near. Those only will be found to belong to it who by their moral conduct are prepared for it. (Mystery p. 73)

5.8 The Marriage Feast (Matthew 22:1-14)

AS wrote:

The predestinarian view goes along with the eschatology. It is pushed to its utmost consequences in the closing incident of the parable of the marriage of the king’s son (Matt. 22:1-14), where the man who in response to a publicly issued invitation sits down at the table of the king, but is recognized from his appearance not to have been invited, is thrown out into perdition. (QUESTv2 p. 323)

That the conception of the Messianic feast was present to the mind of Jesus is evident from the fact that He pictures the future blessedness as a sitting at meat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of God (Matt. 8:11-12), and as a being invited to the Marriage-Feast of the King’s Son (Matt. 22:1-14), and at the Last Supper with the disciples promises them that He will drink wine with them ‘new’ in the Kingdom of His Father (Mark 14:25). (MYSTIK p. 239)

5.9 Paying Tribute to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17, Matthew 22:15-22)

AS wrote:

The question which was put to him in the Jerusalem days had for him no practical importance. As he replied to the Pharisees’ question, whether one should give tribute to Caesar, he had no thought of defining his attitude towards the State or determining that of his followers. How could any one be concerned at all about such things! The State was simply earthly, therefore ungodly, domination. Its duration extended, therefore, only to the dawn of God’s dominion. As this was near at hand, what need had one to decide if one would be tributary to the world-power or no? One might as well submit to it, its end was in fact near. Give to Cæsar what is Cæsar’s and to God what is God’s (Mark 12:17)—this word is uttered with a sovereign irony against the Pharisees, who understood so little the signs of the time that this still appeared to them a question of importance. (Mystery p. 70)

The saying of Jesus that we are to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:13-17) is intended as irony. He slips out of the trap set by those who ask him whether taxes should be paid to Caesar with the answer that Caesar should be given what is Caesar’s, and God what is God’s. Its real meaning, which is not understood by its hearers, comes from the fact that, in the expectation of Jesus, very soon there will be only God and no Caesar as ruler. (KOG p. 170)

5.10 The Question about the Resurrection (Mark 12:18-27, Matthew 22:23-33)

This was a very important section for AS since it shows what Jesus believed would happen to those who would be resurrected.

In addition to this [modern idealism], when we think of the Kingdom, our thought stretches forward to the coming generations which are to realise it in ever increasing measure. Jesus’ glance is directed backward. For him the Kingdom is composed of the generations which have already gone down to the grave and which are now to be awakened unto a state of perfection. How should there be for him any ethics of sexual relations, when he explains to the Sadducees that in the Kingdom of God after the great Resurrection there will be no longer any sexual relations at all, “but they will be like the angels of heaven” (Mark 12:25)? (Mystery p. 58)

They [the Pharisees] are just as foolish in the matter of the Kingdom of God as the Sadducees with their catch-question to which husband the seven times married wife should belong at the resurrection; for they, too, leave one thing out of account—the power of God (Mark 12:24). (Mystery p. 70)

Those who believed in the coming of the Kingdom believed also in the approaching Resurrection of the dead. Wherefore the attack of the Sadducees was directed precisely against this point. Jesus’ reply to them, that “when they shall rise from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25), is to be understood as descriptive of conditions in the Kingdom of heaven, into which they enter through the Resurrection from the dead. (Mystery p. 128)

All in fact who have a part in the Kingdom will be in the resurrection form of existence, and be like the Angels of Heaven, as is clear from the replies of Jesus to the Sadducees’ question about the Resurrection (Mark 12:24-25). When, with allusion to passages of Daniel and Enoch, He promises the righteous that they shall shine as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father (Matt. 13:43), He means that they will then be supernatural beings. (Mystik p. 80)

That He would be resurrected as the Son of man was consistent with this view.

5.11 The Question about the Great Commandment (Mark 12:28-34, Matthew 22:34-40)

*

The preference of Mark over Matthew comes from the second sermon on Reverence for Life in A Place for Revelation, p. 25. Mark adopts a more neutral attitude towards the scribe asking the question. Matthew claims the scribe was a lawyer trying to trip up Jesus.

5.12 Jesus’ Question about the Son of David (Mark 12:35-37, Matthew 22:41-46)

17. What does it mean that Jesus in Jerusalem discovered a difficulty in the fact that the Messiah was described as at once David’s son and David’s Lord? [Mark 12:35-37]

Jesus, of course, was himself the answer to this question.

Thus in the midst of the messianic expectation of his people stood Jesus as the Messiah that is to be. He dare not reveal himself to them, for the season of his hidden labour was not yet over. Hence he preached the near approach of the Kingdom of God.

It was this futuristic consciousness of messiahship which prompted Jesus in the Temple to touch upon the messianic dogma of the Scribes, as though he would call their attention to the secret which lurks behind it. The Pharisees say, “The Messiah is David’s Son;” but David calls him his Lord. How can he still be his Son (Mark 12:35-37)?

The Messiah is David’s Son—that is, subordinate to him—since in this era he is born of human parentage and lives and labours in obscurity. David’s Lord, because at the dawn of the coming era he will be revealed as Christ in glory. Jesus has no notion of impeaching the pharisaic dogma. It is correct, the Scripture so teaches. Only, the Pharisees themselves cannot properly interpret their dogma, and so cannot explain how the Messiah can be in one instance David’s Son and in another, David’s Lord. (Mystery p. 117)

With the combining of the prophetic and Danielic eschatology, a great problem arose about the personality of the Messiah. How could he come from the house of David yet at the same time be the supernatural Son of man? The puzzle with which Jesus vexes the Pharisees (Mark 12:35-37) about the opening words of Psalm 110 shows that this problem had occurred to him. But once acknowledged, its only solution lay in making the Christ be born in the last generation of the house of David, letting him only later, at the dawn of the messianic period, be transformed into the supernatural Son of man. This solution accords in the best manner possible with all the other information we have of Jesus’ eschatology.

If he believed that the messianic event was about to take place, he must also have assumed that the descendant of David who was to be the coming Son of man had already been born. (QUESTv2 p. 317)

5.13 Ostentation (Mark 12:38-40, Matthew 23:1-12)

This section begins the next great discourse in Matthew, the Denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees. Mark does not include much of it. AS did not comment much on this discourse, but he did not reject it. He wrote:

Jesus even sees it as a requirement of the times that men who enjoy a position of respect in the spiritual sphere must decline the appropriate titles of honour customarily bestowed upon them. (KOG p. 97)

5.14 Various Sins (Matthew 23:13-36)

Of the vigorous missionary activity which the Pharisees developed in the light of this new universalism we are told by Jesus Himself. (KOG p. 178)

5.15 Lament over Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39)

*

5.16 The Widow’s Mite (Mark 12:41-44)

The next six sections make up the Discourse on the Last Things. AS rejected this as not historical, as did many others at that time.

The question which of the two Gospels gives us the account closest to the original cannot be answered. Neither of them has come down to us in its original form. In both, for instance, an apocalypse of the early Christian period, purporting to be a sermon of Jesus and dealing with the delay in the coming of the Kingdom and the Son of Man, has been interpolated into the text (Mark 13:1-37; Matt. 24:1-51). (KOG p. 68-9)

Next came a series of parables found only in Matthew.

In the last period of his life Jesus again uttered parables of the Kingdom of God: God’s vineyard (Matt. 21:33-46); the royal marriage (Matt. 22:1-14); the servant watching (Matt. 24:42-47); the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13); the talents (Matt. 25:14-30).

These parables, in contrast to those about the secret of the Kingdom, contain no secret, but rather they are teaching parables pure and simple, from which a moral is to be drawn. The Kingdom of God is near. Those only will be found to belong to it who by their moral conduct are prepared for it.

The second period contains instead the secret of the Passion. Jesus’ utterances, as we have seen, point to a mysterious causal connection between the Passion and the coming of the Kingdom, because the eschatology and the thought of the Passion always emerge side by side, and the Disciples’ expectation of the future is in every case roused to the highest pitch by the proclamation of his suffering.

The secret of the Passion takes up, therefore, the secret of the Kingdom of God and carries it further. To the moral renewal which, according to the secret of the Kingdom of God, exercises a compelling power upon the coming of the Kingdom, there is adjoined another factor—the redeeming death of Jesus. That completes the penitence of those who believe in the coming of the Kingdom. Therewith Jesus comes to the aid of the men of violence who are compelling the approach of the Kingdom. The power which he thereby exerts is the highest conceivable—he gives up his life.

The idea of the Passion is therefore the transformation of the secret of the Kingdom of God. Hence it is no more designed to be understood than are the parables of the secret of the Kingdom. In each case it is a question of a fact which can be probed no further.

The connection between the thought of the Passion and the secret of the Kingdom of God guarantees the continuity of Jesus’ world of thought. All constructions which have been devised with a view to establishing this continuity have proved insufficient to accomplish what was expected of them. The acceptance of the thought of the Passion means in all cases a complete change in his idea of the Kingdom and in his Weltanschauung. If, however, one places the thought of the Passion in the great context of the secret of the Kingdom of God, the continuity is furnished naturally. The thought of the supernatural introduction of the Kingdom of God runs through the whole of Jesus’ life: the idea of the Passion is merely the fashion in which it is formulated in the second period. (Mystery 73-74)

5.17 Prediction of the Destruction of the Temple (Mark 13:1-2, Matthew 24:1-2)

Although AS never gave his own views on this section specifically, always including it in the Synoptic apocalypse, the trial before the Jewish authorities, which AS did accept, includes this prediction as part of the charges. I have taken the liberty of not crossing it out as with Matt. 24:45-51. AS did mention that Colani separated this section from the rest of the Synoptic apocalypse:

[According to Colani] The apocalyptic discourses in Mark 13; Matt. 24; and Luke 21 are interpolated. A Jewish-Christian apocalypse of the first century, probably composed before the destruction of Jerusalem, has been interwoven with a short exhortation which Jesus gave on the occasion when he predicted the destruction of the temple. (QUESTv2 p. 192)

5.18 The Great Tribulation (Mark 13:3-13, Matthew 24:3-14)

AS rejected this and the three following sections:

Even though it [Mark 13] may contain single eschatological sayings attributable to Jesus, the discourse as such is necessarily unhistorical. It betrays the perspective of the time after Jesus’ death. During the days at Jerusalem Jesus could speak of no general Affliction before the coming of the Son of Man. The Synoptic apocalypse stands in direct contradiction to the secret of the Passion, since this indeed simply abolishes the general Affliction of the last times. Therefore it is unhistorical. Apocalyptic discourses with intimation of the final Affliction belong to the Galilean period at the time of the mission of the Twelve. The discourse to the Apostles on that occasion is the historical Synoptic apocalypse. About a time of affliction after his death Jesus never uttered a word to his Disciples, for it lay beyond his field of vision. (Mystery p. 145)

In both [Mark and Matthew], for instance, an apocalypse of the early Christian period, purporting to be a sermon of Jesus and dealing with the delay in the coming of the Kingdom and the Son of Man, has been interpolated into the text (Mark 13:1-37; Matt. 24:1-51). (KOG p. 69)

5.19 The Abomination of Desolation (Mark 13:14-23, Matthew 24:15-28)

*

5.20 Concerning the Coming of the Son of Man (Mark 13:24-27, Matthew 24:29-31)

*

5.21 The Hour that No One Knoweth (Mark 13:28-37, Matthew 24:32-44)

*

5.22 Concerning Faithfulness (Matthew 24:45-51)

In Mystery p. 73 AS did not include this section of Matthew with the rest of Matt. 24 that is the parallel of Mark 13, but grouped it with the parables that follow in Matt. 25. I assume his inclusion of it in the rejected verses in KOG was an oversight, so I have taken the liberty of not crossing it out.

5.23 Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13)

*

5.24 Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30)

*

5.25 Concerning the Judgement of the Son of Man (Matthew 25:31-46)

AS wrote:

The depiction of the judgment is also kept tremendously simple. There is no elaboration of the destruction of the mighty of the earth and the angelic beings. The reckoning with individuals stands in the forefront of interest (Matt. 25:31-46). Alongside this it is presupposed that Satan and his host are delivered over to eternal fire (Matt. 25:41). The angels who follow the Son of man are active in separating the good from the evil (Matt. 13:41-42, Matt. 13:49-50; Matt. 25:31). (QUESTv2 p. 257)

5.26 Conspiracy of the Chief Priests (Mark 14:1-2, Matthew 26:1-5)

15. Why does Jesus indicate his messiahship only by the title Son of man? [Mark 8:31, Mark 8:38, Mark 9:9-12=Matt. 17:9-12, Mark 9:31=Matt. 17:22, Mark 10:33=Matt. 20:18, Mark 10:45=Matt. 20:28, Mark 14:21=Matt. 26:24, Mark 14:41=Matt. 26:45, Mark 14:62=Matt. 26:64, Matt. 10:23, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 16:27, Matt. 16:28, Matt. 19:28, Matt. 26:2]

16. And why is it that this title falls right into the background in primitive Christian theology?

5.27 The Anointing of Jesus (Mark 14:3-9, Matthew 26:6-13)

*

5.28 Plot of Judas and the Rulers (Mark 14:10-11, Matthew 26:14-16)

AS made a point of discussing the true question about Judas, What did he betray?

One can understand the attitude of the Sanhedrin and their difficulties if one steadily keeps in mind that, in view of Jesus’ whole activity, the thought had not occurred to anybody that he could take himself to be the Messiah. Thus they knew no charge to bring against him, and had nothing for it but to try to catch him in his speech and discredit him with the people—and in this they were not successful.

Then Judas appeared before them and put the deadly weapon into their hand. As they heard what he told them “they were glad,” for now was he delivered into their power. Judas now seeks a favourable moment to deliver the betrayed into their hands (Mark 14:11).

What he had betrayed to them we can see from the process of the trial. The witnesses of the Pharisees can adduce nothing that would justify his conviction. When, however, the witnesses have withdrawn, the High Priest puts the question to Jesus directly, whether He is the Messiah. To prove such a claim on Jesus’ part they could not adduce the necessary witnesses,—for there were none. The High Priest is here in possession of Jesus’ secret. That was the betrayal of Judas! Through him the Sanhedrin knew that Jesus claimed to be something different from what the people held him to be, though he raised no protest against it. (Mystery p. 135)

For a hundred and fifty years the question has been historically discussed why Judas betrayed his Master. That the main question for history was what he betrayed was suspected by few and they touched on it only in a timid kind of way—indeed the problems of the trial of Jesus may be said to have been nonexistent for criticism.

The betrayal by Judas cannot have consisted in informing the Sanhedrin where Jesus was to be found at a suitable place for an arrest. They could have had that information more cheaply by causing Jesus to be watched by spies. But Mark expressly says that when Judas betrayed Jesus he did not yet know of a favourable opportunity for the arrest, but was seeking such an opportunity. Mark 14:10-11: ‘And Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests, to betray him to them. And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.’

In the betrayal, therefore, there were two points, one more general and one more specific: the general fact by which Judas gave Jesus into their power, and specifically the undertaking to let them know of the next opportunity when they could arrest him quietly, without publicity. But the decisive thing was the betrayal of the messianic secret. Jesus died because two of his disciples had broken his command of silence: Peter when he made known the secret of the messiahship to the Twelve at Caesarea Philippi; Judas Iscariot by communicating it to the high priest. (QUESTv2 p. 353)

5.29 The Last Supper (Mark 14:12-31, Matthew 26:17-35)

15. Why does Jesus indicate his messiahship only by the title Son of man? [Mark 8:31, Mark 8:38, Mark 9:9-12=Matt. 17:9-12, Mark 9:31=Matt. 17:22, Mark 10:33=Matt. 20:18, Mark 10:45=Matt. 20:28, Mark 14:21=Matt. 26:24, Mark 14:41=Matt. 26:45, Mark 14:62=Matt. 26:64, Matt. 10:23, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 16:27, Matt. 16:28, Matt. 19:28, Matt. 26:2]

16. And why is it that this title falls right into the background in primitive Christian theology?

42. What is the meaning of the further prediction on the way to Gethsemane (Mark 14.28) that after his resurrection he will go before the disciples into Galilee?

AS, in his thesis, discussed the Last Supper extensively. His discoveries in this topic are what lead to his first presentation of his ideas. I will not cover all of that here, but the main point is that AS accepted the version of the Last Supper given in Mark and Matthew as the most historical, in spite of the fact that the version in Paul’s letters was probably written down first. The version in Mark and Matthew, however, takes a more primitive form and is evidence of the accuracy of these first two gospels.

AS also commented about how to understand the “going before them”:

The prophecy that after his resurrection he will go there before the disciples (Mark 14:28) somehow presupposes that he expects the beginning of the revelation of his glory as Son of man there. (QUESTv2 p. 254)

What is the meaning of the further prediction on the way to Gethsemane (Mark 14:28) that after his resurrection he will go before the disciples into Galilee? How is the other version of this saying (Mark 16:7) to be explained? As spoken by the angel it means that the disciples are to journey to Galilee, there to have their first meeting with the risen Jesus, whereas on the lips of Jesus it meant that just as now as a sufferer he was going before them from Galilee to Jerusalem, so after his resurrection he would go before them from Jerusalem to Galilee? (QUESTv2 p. 301)

AS also pointed out the importance of the disciples denying Him.

Because it was written in Isaiah that the servant of God must suffer unrecognized and that those for whom he suffered would doubt him, his suffering could, and indeed had to, remain a mystery. In that case those who doubted him would not bring condemnation upon themselves. He no longer needed to adjure them for their own sakes to be faithful to him and to stand by him even amid reproach and humiliation; he could calmly predict to his disciples that they would all be offended in him and flee (Mark 14:26-27); he could tell Peter, who boasted that he would die with him, that before dawn he would deny him thrice (Mark 14:29-31); all that was willed thus by scripture. They had to doubt him. But now they would not lose their blessedness, for he bore all sins and transgressions. Everything was buried in the atonement that he offered. (QUESTv2 p. 349)

Jesus’ conception of the course of events was that after His resurrection He should go with His disciples to Galilee, and there experience the beginning of His exaltation as Son of Man. This is what He must mean when on the way to Gethsemane He says to the disciples “After my Resurrection I will go before you into Galilee” (Mark 14:28). (MYSTIK p. 111)

5.30 The Agony in Gethsemane (Mark 14:32-42, Matthew 26:36-46)

15. Why does Jesus indicate his messiahship only by the title Son of man? [Mark 8:31, Mark 8:38, Mark 9:9-12=Matt. 17:9-12, Mark 9:31=Matt. 17:22, Mark 10:33=Matt. 20:18, Mark 10:45=Matt. 20:28, Mark 14:21=Matt. 26:24, Mark 14:41=Matt. 26:45, Mark 14:62=Matt. 26:64, Matt. 10:23, Matt. 12:32-40, Matt. 16:27, Matt. 16:28, Matt. 19:28, Matt. 26:2]

16. And why is it that this title falls right into the background in primitive Christian theology?

35. And how can he, after speaking so decidedly of the necessity of his death, think it possible in Gethsemane that the cup might yet pass from him [Mark 14:36]?

AS found this section to be further evidence that Jesus believed it was God’s will that He suffer and die in Jerusalem.

The Affliction, in fact, represents in its extremest form the repentance requisite for the Kingdom. Whosoever comes through that test approved makes satisfaction for his transgressions in the godless æon. Through conflict and suffering men wrest themselves free from this power to become instruments of the divine will in the Kingdom of God. That is to be conceived collectively. The faithful adherents of the Kingdom as a community make the satisfaction. The individual thereby perfects and approves himself. Such is God’s will. Jesus, however, prays with them to God that he may be pleased in his omnipotence to forgive them the debt without satisfaction, as they forgive their debtors. That means remission pure and simple, without atonement. May it please God not to lead them through the “Temptation,” but straightway to release them from the power of the world.

Only so can one understand how Jesus throughout his ministry can assume forgiveness of sins and yet here expressly prays for it; and how he can speak of a temptation which comes from God. It is a question in fact of the general messianic remission of debts and the Temptation of the messianic Affliction. Therefore these petitions constitute the conclusion of the Kingdom-prayer.

What Jesus here in common prayer petitions for the community, that he implores for himself when his hour is come. In Gethsemane he prostrates himself before God. In moving prayer he appeals to God’s omnipotence: Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee (Mark 14:36). He would that the cup of suffering might pass his lips without his needing to taste it. Also he rouses the three Disciples, bidding them to watch and pray God that he may spare them the Temptation, for the flesh is weak. (Mystery p. 143-4)

5.31 The Betrayal and Arrest (Mark 14:43-52, Matthew 26:47-56)

AS supported the idea that the young man was Mark.

This, by the way, lends further support to the early conjecture that the young man who followed Jesus and His companions that night, and escaped from the apparitors who seized him by leaving his linen garment in their hands, was John Mark himself (Mark 14:51-52). (Mystik p. 248)

5.32 Trial before the Jewish Authorities (Mark 14:53-72, Matthew 26:57-75)

11. Why is his messiahship a secret and yet no secret, since it is known, not only to the disciples [Mark 8:27-30], but to those possessed by demons [Mark 1:24, Mark 3:11, Mark 5:7], the blind man at Jericho [Mark 10:47-48, Matt. 9:27], the multitude at Jerusalem—which must, as Bruno Bauer expresses it, ‘have fallen from heaven’ [Mark 11:7-10]—and to the high priest [Mark 14:60-61]?

37. How did it come about that Jesus alone was arrested [Mark 14:53]?

38. Why were no witnesses called at his trial to testify that he had given himself out to be the Messiah [Mark 14:55]?

40. How does Jesus conceive the resurrection which he promises to his disciples [implied in Mark 10:37, explicit in Matt. 19:28] to be related to the coming on the clouds of heaven, to which he refers his judge [Mark 14:62]?

AS accepted Mark’s version of the trial before the Jewish authorities, especially the interaction with the  high priest.

“Art thou the Christ the Son of the Blessed?” the High Priest asked him (Mark 14:61). “Ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven,” is Jesus’ answer. That signifies, Yes. The same expression occurs in the second and in the third prophecy of the Passion (Mark 9:30-32 and Mark 10:32-34) and in the saying about serving (Mark 10:45). (Mystery p. 118)

Or, on the other hand, the secret is known to the hearers. In that case they understand that the term Son of man points to the position to which he himself is to be exalted when the present era passes into the age to come. It was thus, no doubt, in the case of the disciples at Caesarea Philippi, and of the high priest to whom Jesus, after answering his demand with the simple ‘Yes’ (Mark 14:62), goes on immediately to speak of the exaltation of the Son of man to the right hand of God, and of his coming upon the clouds of heaven.

Jesus did not, therefore, veil his messiahship by using the expression Son of man, far less did he transform it, but he used the expression to refer in the only possible way to his messianic office as destined to be realized at his ‘coming’, and did so in such a manner that only the initiated understood that he was speaking of his own coming, while others understood him as referring to the coming of a Son of man who was other than himself. (QUESTv2 p. 230-1)

But the difficulty [in using Judas’ information] was that Judas was the sole witness. Therefore the betrayal was useless as far as the actual trial was concerned unless Jesus admitted the charge. So they first tried to secure his condemnation on other grounds, and only when these attempts broke down did the high priest put, in the form of a question, the charge in support of which he could have brought no witnesses.

Jesus immediately admitted it, and strengthened the admission by an allusion to his parousia in the near future as Son of man.

The betrayal and the trial can be rightly understood only when it is realized that the public suspected nothing whatever of the messianic secret. (QUESTv2 p. 353)

5.33 The Trial before Pilate (Mark 15:1-20, Matthew 27:1-31)

39. How is it that on the morning after his arrest the mood of the multitude seems to be completely changed, so that no one lifts a finger to help him [Mark 15:11]? [This is connected with the 45th question: What did Judas betray?]

AS connected the betrayal of the Messianic Secret to the behavior of the crowd:

The same is true of the scene in the presence of Pilate. The people on that morning knew nothing of the trial of Jesus, but came to Pilate with the sole object of asking the release of a prisoner, as was the custom at the feast (Mark 15:6-8). The idea then occurred to Pilate, who was just about to hand over, willingly enough, this troublesome fellow and prophet to the priestly faction, to play off the people against the priests and work on the multitude to petition for the release of Jesus.

In this way he would have safeguarded himself on both sides. He would have condemned Jesus to please the priests, and after condemning him would have released him to please the people. The priests were greatly embarrassed by the presence of the multitude. They had done everything so quickly and quietly that they might well have hoped to get Jesus crucified before anyone knew what was happening or had had time to wonder at his non-appearance in the temple.

The priests therefore go among the people and induce them not to agree to the procurator’s proposal.

How? By telling them why he was condemned, by revealing to them the messianic secret. That changes him at once from a prophet worthy of honour into a deluded enthusiast and blasphemer.

But it could also be that the ‘people’ before Pilate’s house were the mob of which the priests were certain, and whom they directed there early in the morning in order to put pressure on the governor and secure confirmation of the verdict as soon as possible. (QUESTv2 p. 353-4)

5.34 The Crucifixion of Jesus (Mark 15:21-41, Matthew 27:32-56)

AS did not accept the miracles of Mark or Matthew added after Jesus died:

If we had not this witness, the knowledge of Jesus’ historical character and personality would be forever closed to us. For after his death all sorts of presumptions arose to obscure the consciousness of the futuristic character of his messiahship. His resurrection as Messiah coincided with the general Resurrection which should usher in the messianic age—such was the perspective of the Disciples before his death. After his death his resurrection as Messiah constituted a fact for itself. Jesus was the Messiah before the messianic age! That is the fateful shifting of the perspective. Therein lies the tragical element—but the magnificent as well—in the whole phenomenon of Christianity.

The primitive Christian consciousness made the most strenuous efforts to fill the breach, trying in spite of it to conceive of Jesus’ resurrection as the dawn of the messianic era in the general rising of the dead. There was an effort to make it intelligible as analogous to a somewhat protracted interval between two scenes of the first act of a drama. Properly, however, they already stood within the messianic Resurrection. Thus for Paul, Jesus Christ, proved to be the Messiah through the Resurrection of the dead, “is the first fruits of them that sleep” (1 Cor. 15:20). The whole structure of Pauline theology and ethics rests upon this thought. Because they find themselves within this period, believers are in reality buried with Christ and with him raised again through baptism. They are “new” creatures, they are the “righteous,” whose citizenship is in heaven. Until we grasp this fundamental notion we cannot perceive the unity in the manifold complications of St. Paul’s world of thought.

The Christian historical tradition sought another way out. It assumed a sort of preresurrection which coincided with the resurrection of Jesus. It lent to this the colouring of the messianic Day. Matt. 27:50-53 furnishes an example in legendary form of such a method of reconciling fact and theory. With Jesus’ death upon the cross a new world era dawned. When he yielded up his spirit the veil of the Temple was rent from the top to the bottom and earthquakes, the signs of the end of the world, shook the earth; the rocks were rent; the graves opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection they go forth out of the tombs into the holy city and appear unto many. So this narrative clings to the conception that the general Resurrection of the dead under the omens of the messianic Day comes in conjunction with Jesus’ death and consequent resurrection,—but still only as a sort of prelude. (Mystery p. 132-133)

It is significant that according to the first two Gospels the terminology of Jesus is not noted by the other persons who appear in the Gospels. Those possessed by demons address him as son of God; Peter, at Caesarea Philippi, greets him as the anointed (Mark 8:29) or as the anointed and son of God (Matt. 16:16); the high priest asks him whether he is the anointed, the son of the Most High (Mark 14:61); the priests and scribes mock the crucified Jesus as the anointed and king of Israel (Mark 15:32) or as the son of God (Matt. 27:43). (QUESTv2 p. 252)

5.35 The Burial of Jesus (Mark 15:42-47, Matthew 27:57-61)

*

5.36 The Watch at the Sepulchre (Matthew 27:62-66)

*

5.37 The Resurrection Morning (Mark 16:1-8, Matthew 28:1-10)

43. How is the other version of this saying (Mark 16.7) to be explained? As spoken by the angel it means that the disciples are to journey to Galilee, there to have their first meeting with the risen Jesus, whereas on the lips of Jesus it meant that just as now as a sufferer he was going before them from Galilee to Jerusalem, so after his resurrection he would go before them from Jerusalem to Galilee?

44. And what was to happen there?

And what of the resurrection itself, did AS accept it? The only clear statement appears to be:

That the ‘historicity’ and the ‘reality’ of the reported events [of the resurrection] consist in visions, and can only consist in visions is no longer stated clearly enough in some ‘critical-historical’ studies. (QUESTv2 p. 477)