[See page image]
Page 324
Second Advent THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 824 Secrecy premises or are the result of wilful systematizing must be determined by the answer given to two questions: Did Jesus himself actually y. The Con- have in mind his coming again to sciousness judge the world? Is the hope for his of Jesus. return one of the inalienable elements of Christian faith? The literature of the New Testament appears without ex ception controlled by the apocalyptic eschatological expectation that Jesus as the Christ will some time terminate the history of the world, and open the new world of God for the reception of his followers. There appears, in place of the fantastic apocalyptic " watching," just as clearly the idea of a present fellowship with Christ which guarantees to faith the attainment of its goal. Who is the author of this grand conception? Jesus or Paul? Is this a theological speculation, or rather a comprehensive expression of the belief in the religiously understood and yet in reality world-ruling Messiahship of Jesus? If the latter, then the outcome of the his torical judgment will depend upon the justification of this belief. Whoever does this will not assume that Jesus used the name of Messiah uncertainly and sustained himself inwardly in his sufferings with a vague hope of returning; but the religious Messianic faith of the New Testament, instead of indulging a meaningless return, involves the claim to the judgment of the world. W. Bousset's asser tion, that the faith of the Church pushed the self assumed position of Jesus as a witness in the divine judgment gradually forward to a world-judgment, rests merely upon an unproved presupposition that Jesus disavowed himself as the judge of the world. The prevailing critical assertion that a finished little apocalypse was inserted with the discourse of Jesus in Mark xiii. would be valid proof against the origin from Jesus of that apocalypse pertaining to the parousia. If, in addition, the authentic literature on the life of Jesus be restricted to the Gospel of Mark, it would be easy to interpret from the few remaining passages the consciousness of a mere witness in the divine judgment and the triumph of his person and kingdom in history (Mark viii. 38, xiv. 62 sqq.). However, the theory of a little apoc alypse would also be of historical value only if Jewish origin could be assumed, but, in general, it is of a specifically Christian character, placing the figure of Jesus prominently at the center of the transcendent expectations. The decision of the matter lies deeper than with mere critical literary research. It appears that various critics would assent to only one side of the twofold problem they face, particularly those who would segregate, in the consciousness of Jesus, the eschatological elements from his person. Jesus would thereby be isolated in a position inconceivable to human per ception; the Jewish and Christian contemporaneous literature would be filled with apocalyptic hopes, while the faith of Jesus without discriminating emphasis would have contented itself with the other world, resurrection, judgment, and the kingdom of God, in general. Similarly, but creating less dis order in the historical situation, is the theory of the " eschatological school " said to have been left be hind by Jesus, which claims that every statement of
the Evangelists concerning the presence of the kingdom is an intrusion of rabbinical representation. As to the truth of the matter itself, this is supposed, on many sides, to be resolved by the ignorance of Jesus concerning the nearness of the time. As truly as a change occurs in Paul's idea of the nearness (II Thess. iv. 17; II Cor. v. 2 sqq.), a historical view may not assume that Jesus announced his return in the following generation. No words are so well authenticated as the statement that he knew neither the day nor the hour (Mark xiii. 32). Is this to refer to the particular moment, while as the general extension, the immediate future is self-evidently fixed? But the events pronounced under the woes, particularly the appearing of many false messiahs, and the preaching of the Gospel to all the nations, necessarily imply a longer development and thoughts of a community of the kingdom on earth. This being so, then the words relating to a personal return of Jesus are to be taken as pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. x. 23, xvi. 28). Even if the mistaken formulation of these words effected in the community a wide-spread belief in the near approach of the end (John xxi. 23; II Thess. ii. 2) ; and this belief gave rise, in the account, to the close temporal approximation of the judgment of the people of God and the universal judgment of the human race, although only inwardly associated by Jesus, yet the distinction of the two acts is unmistakably present throughout.
For the positive estimation of the belief in the second coming no clear direction can be given. It all depends on the attitude taken with reference to the authority of Jesus and the personal needs seeking satisfaction in the truths of Christian faith. A mere regulative idea to act as an ethical incentive would be indifferent to eschatological hopes. This position, especially prominent from Kant to
8. Practi- Schleiermacher and Ritsehl, results cal Estima- more and more in the divergence of tion. individual immortality and the consummation of society. The chief interest, according to Ritschl, accrues to the kingdom of God, unfolding upon an earthly basis, as the end or ideal common to God and his chosen religious community, which, rising above the natural limitations of ethnic distinctions, advances to the ethical unity of all the peoples. Whether this involves merely a constant ideal hovering before, or a real historical goal, is nowhere made distinct; but if the latter, there is no light thrown upon the relation in which the individuals departing previously from history stand with reference to the common goal. These projects rule the newer theology so far as it, not without candor, applies itself to a philosophy of the world, as well as to the religion of Jestrs and the Apostles. For the modern attitude, resting on the basis of an empirical world, the acme of thought is a personal society, realized, with the conquest of purely natural motives, in ethical ends. Timidly and insecurely the consequence is scarcely ventured upon that this kingdom of God may be in full reality the goal of historical evolution subserved also by the natural world. The result is scarcely more than an idealistic self-reflection. In fact all ideas are enlisted in the scheme of the immovable con-