The t.i.tle of "Son of David" was the first which he accepted, probably without being concerned in the innocent frauds by which it was sought to secure it to him. The family of David had, as it seems, been long extinct;[1] the Asmoneans being of priestly origin, could not pretend to claim such a descent for themselves; neither Herod nor the Romans dreamt for a moment that any representative whatever of the ancient dynasty existed in their midst. But from the close of the Asmonean dynasty the dream of an unknown descendant of the ancient kings, who should avenge the nation of its enemies, filled every mind. The universal belief was, that the Messiah would be son of David, and like him would be born at Bethlehem.[2] The first idea of Jesus was not precisely this. The remembrance of David, which was uppermost in the minds of the Jews, had nothing in common with his heavenly reign. He believed himself the Son of G.o.d, and not the son of David. His kingdom, and the deliverance which he meditated, were of quite another order. But public opinion on this point made him do violence to himself. The immediate consequence of the proposition, "Jesus is the Messiah," was this other proposition, "Jesus is the son of David." He allowed a t.i.tle to be given him, without which he could not hope for success. He ended, it seems, by taking pleasure therein, for he performed most willingly the miracles which were asked of him by those who used this t.i.tle in addressing him.[3] In this, as in many other circ.u.mstances of his life, Jesus yielded to the ideas which were current in his time, although they were not precisely his own. He a.s.sociated with his doctrine of the "kingdom of G.o.d" all that could warm the heart and the imagination. It was thus that we have seen him adopt the baptism of John, although it could not have been of much importance to him.

[Footnote 1: It is true that certain doctors--such as Hillel, Gamaliel--are mentioned as being of the race of David. But these are very doubtful allegations. If the family of David still formed a distinct and prominent group, how is it that we never see it figure, by the side of the Sadokites, Boethusians, the Asmoneans, and Herods, in the great struggles of the time?]

[Footnote 2: Matt. ii. 5, 6, xxii. 42; Luke i. 32; John vii. 41, 42; _Acts_ ii. 30.]

[Footnote 3: Matt. ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31; Mark x. 47, 52; Luke xviii. 38.]

One great difficulty presented itself--his birth at Nazareth, which was of public notoriety. We do not know whether Jesus strove against this objection. Perhaps it did not present itself in Galilee, where the idea that the son of David should be a Bethlehemite was less spread. To the Galilean idealist, moreover, the t.i.tle of "son of David" was sufficiently justified, if he to whom it was given revived the glory of his race, and brought back the great days of Israel. Did Jesus authorize by his silence the fict.i.tious genealogies which his partisans invented in order to prove his royal descent?[1] Did he know anything of the legends invented to prove that he was born at Bethlehem; and particularly of the attempt to connect his Bethlehemite origin with the census which had taken place by order of the imperial legate, Quirinus?[2] We know not. The inexact.i.tude and the contradictions of the genealogies[3] lead to the belief that they were the result of popular ideas operating at various points, and that none of them were sanctioned by Jesus.[4] Never does he designate himself as son of David. His disciples, much less enlightened than he, frequently magnified that which he said of himself; but, as a rule, he had no knowledge of these exaggerations. Let us add, that during the first three centuries, considerable portions of Christendom[5]

obstinately denied the royal descent of Jesus and the authenticity of the genealogies.

[Footnote 1: Matt. i. 1, and following; Luke iii. 23, and following.]

[Footnote 2: Matt. ii. 1, and following; Luke ii. 1, and following.]

[Footnote 3: The two genealogies are quite contradictory, and do not agree with the lists of the Old Testament. The narrative of Luke on the census of Quirinus implies an anachronism. See ante, p. 81, note 4. It is natural to suppose, besides, that the legend may have laid hold of this circ.u.mstance. The census made a great impression on the Jews, overturned their narrow ideas, and was remembered by them for a long period. Cf. _Acts_ v. 37.]

[Footnote 4: Julius Africa.n.u.s (in Eusebius, _H.E._, i. 7) supposes that it was the relations of Jesus, who, having taken refuge in Batanea, attempted to recompose the genealogies.]

[Footnote 5: The _Ebionites_, the "Hebrews," the "Nazarenes," Tatian, Marcion. Cf. Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xxix. 9, x.x.x. 3, 14, xlvi. 1; Theodoret, _Haeret. fab._, i. 20; Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. i. 371, ad Pansophium.]

The legends about him were thus the fruit of a great and entirely spontaneous conspiracy, and were developed around him during his lifetime. No great event in history has happened without having given rise to a cycle of fables; and Jesus could not have put a stop to these popular creations, even if he had wished to do so. Perhaps a sagacious observer would have recognized from this point the germ of the narratives which were to attribute to him a supernatural birth, and which arose, it may be, from the idea, very prevalent in antiquity, that the incomparable man could not be born of the ordinary relations of the two s.e.xes; or, it may be, in order to respond to an imperfectly understood chapter of Isaiah,[1] which was thought to foretell that the Messiah should be born of a virgin; or, lastly, it may be in consequence of the idea that the "breath of G.o.d," already regarded as a divine hypostasis, was a principle of fecundity.[2]

Already, perhaps, there was current more than one anecdote about his infancy, conceived with the intention of showing in his biography the accomplishment of the Messianic ideal;[3] or, rather, of the prophecies which the allegorical exegesis of the time referred to the Messiah. At other times they connected him from his birth with celebrated men, such as John the Baptist, Herod the Great, Chaldean astrologers, who, it was said, visited Jerusalem about this time,[4]

and two aged persons, Simeon and Anna, who had left memories of great sanct.i.ty.[5] A rather loose chronology characterized these combinations, which for the most part were founded upon real facts travestied.[6] But a singular spirit of gentleness and goodness, a profoundly popular sentiment, permeated all these fables, and made them a supplement to his preaching.[7] It was especially after the death of Jesus that such narratives became greatly developed; we may, however, believe that they circulated even during his life, exciting only a pious credulity and simple admiration.

[Footnote 1: Matt. i. 22, 23.]

[Footnote 2: Gen. i. 2. For the a.n.a.logous idea among the Egyptians, see Herodotus, iii. 28; Pomp. Mela, i. 9: Plutarch, _Quaest. symp._, VIII. i. 3; _De Isid. et Osir._, 43.]

[Footnote 3: Matt. i. 15, 23; Isa. vii. 14, and following.]

[Footnote 4: Matt. ii. 1, and following.]

[Footnote 5: Luke ii. 25, and following.]

[Footnote 6: Thus the legend of the ma.s.sacre of the Innocents probably refers to some cruelty exercised by Herod near Bethlehem. Comp. Jos., _Ant._, XIV. ix. 4.]

[Footnote 7: Matt. i., ii.; Luke i., ii.; S. Justin, _Dial. c.u.m Tryph._, 78, 106; _Protoevang. of James_ (Apoca.), 18 and following.]

That Jesus never dreamt of making himself pa.s.s for an incarnation of G.o.d, is a matter about which there can be no doubt. Such an idea was entirely foreign to the Jewish mind; and there is no trace of it in the synoptical gospels,[1] we only find it indicated in portions of the Gospel of John, which cannot be accepted as expressing the thoughts of Jesus. Sometimes Jesus even seems to take precautions to put down such a doctrine.[2] The accusation that he made himself G.o.d, or the equal of G.o.d, is presented, even in the Gospel of John, as a calumny of the Jews.[3] In this last Gospel he declares himself less than his Father.[4] Elsewhere he avows that the Father has not revealed everything to him.[5] He believes himself to be more than an ordinary man, but separated from G.o.d by an infinite distance. He is Son of G.o.d, but all men are, or may become so, in divers degrees.[6]

Every one ought daily to call G.o.d his father; all who are raised again will be sons of G.o.d.[7] The divine son-ship was attributed in the Old Testament to beings whom it was by no means pretended were equal with G.o.d.[8] The word "son" has the widest meanings in the Semitic language, and in that of the New Testament.[9] Besides, the idea Jesus had of man was not that low idea which a cold Deism has introduced. In his poetic conception of Nature, one breath alone penetrates the universe; the breath of man is that of G.o.d; G.o.d dwells in man, and lives by man, the same as man dwells in G.o.d, and lives by G.o.d.[10]

The transcendent idealism of Jesus never permitted him to have a very clear notion of his own personality. He is his Father, his Father is he. He lives in his disciples; he is everywhere with them;[11] his disciples are one, as he and his Father are one.[12] The idea to him is everything; the body, which makes the distinction of persons, is nothing.

[Footnote 1: Certain pa.s.sages, such as _Acts_ ii. 22, expressly exclude this idea.]

[Footnote 2: Matt. xix. 17; Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19.]

[Footnote 3: John v. 18, and following, x. 33, and following.]

[Footnote 4: John xiv. 28.]

[Footnote 5: Mark xiii. 35.]

[Footnote 6: Matt. v. 9, 45; Luke iii. 38, vi. 35, xx. 36; John i. 12, 13, x. 34, 35. Comp. _Acts_ xvii. 28, 29; Rom. viii. 14, 19, 21, ix.

26; 2 Cor. vi. 18; Gal. iii. 26; and in the Old Testament, _Deut._ xiv. 1; and especially _Wisdom_, ii. 13, 18.]

[Footnote 7: Luke xx. 36.]

[Footnote 8: Gen. vi. 2; Job i. 6, ii. 1, xxviii. 7; Ps. ii. 7, lx.x.xii. 6; 2 Sam. vii. 14.]

[Footnote 9: The child of the devil (Matt. xiii. 38; _Acts_ xiii. 10); the children of this world (Mark iii. 17; Luke xvi. 8, xx. 34); the children of light (Luke xvi. 8; John xii. 36); the children of the resurrection (Luke xx. 36); the children of the kingdom (Matt. viii.

12, xiii. 38); the children of the bride-chamber (Matt. ix. 15; Mark ii. 19; Luke v. 34); the children of h.e.l.l (Matt. xxiii. 15); the children of peace (Luke x. 6), &c. Let us remember that the Jupiter of paganism is [Greek: pater andron te theon te].]

[Footnote 10: Comp. _Acts_ xvii. 28.]

[Footnote 11: Matt. xviii. 20, xxviii. 20.]

[Footnote 12: John x. 30, xvii. 21. See in general the later discourses of John, especially chap. xvii., which express one side of the psychological state of Jesus, though we cannot regard them as true historical doc.u.ments.]

The t.i.tle "Son of G.o.d," or simply "Son,"[1] thus became for Jesus a t.i.tle a.n.a.logous to "Son of man," and, like that, synonymous with the "Messiah," with the sole difference that he called himself "Son of man," and does not seem to have made the same use of the phrase, "Son of G.o.d."[2] The t.i.tle, Son of man, expressed his character as judge; that of Son of G.o.d his power and his partic.i.p.ation in the supreme designs. This power had no limits. His Father had given him all power.

He had the power to alter even the Sabbath.[3] No one could know the Father except through him.[4] The Father had delegated to him exclusively the right of judging.[5] Nature obeyed him; but she obeys also all who believe and pray, for faith can do everything.[6] We must remember that no idea of the laws of Nature marked the limit of the impossible, either in his own mind, or in that of his hearers. The witnesses of his miracles thanked G.o.d "for having given such power unto men."[7] He pardoned sins;[8] he was superior to David, to Abraham, to Solomon, and to the prophets.[9] We do not know in what form, nor to what extent, these affirmations of himself were made.

Jesus ought not to be judged by the law of our petty conventionalities. The admiration of his disciples overwhelmed him and carried him away. It is evident that the t.i.tle of _Rabbi_, with which he was at first contented, no longer sufficed him; even the t.i.tle of prophet or messenger of G.o.d responded no longer to his ideas. The position which he attributed to himself was that of a superhuman being, and he wished to be regarded as sustaining a higher relationship to G.o.d than other men. But it must be remarked that these words, "superhuman" and "supernatural," borrowed from our petty theology, had no meaning in the exalted religious consciousness of Jesus. To him Nature and the development of humanity were not limited kingdoms apart from G.o.d--paltry realities subjected to the laws of a hopeless empiricism. There was no supernatural for him, because there was no Nature. Intoxicated with infinite love, he forgot the heavy chain which holds the spirit captive; he cleared at one bound the abyss, impossible to most, which the weakness of the human faculties has created between G.o.d and man.

[Footnote 1: The pa.s.sages in support of this are too numerous to be referred to here.]

[Footnote 2: It is only in the Gospel of John that Jesus uses the expression "Son of G.o.d," or "Son," in speaking of himself.]

[Footnote 3: Matt. xii. 8; Luke vi. 5.]

[Footnote 4: Matt. xi. 27.]

[Footnote 5: John v. 22.]

[Footnote 6: Matt. xvii. 18, 19; Luke xvii. 6.]

[Footnote 7: Matt. ix. 8.]

[Footnote 8: Matt. ix. 2, and following; Mark ii. 5, and following; Luke v. 20, vii. 47, 48.]

[Footnote 9: Matt. xii. 41, 42; xxii. 43, and following; John viii.

52, and following.]

We cannot mistake in these affirmations of Jesus the germ of the doctrine which was afterward to make of him a divine hypostasis,[1] in identifying him with the Word, or "second G.o.d,"[2] or eldest Son of G.o.d,[3] or _Angel Metathronos_,[4] which Jewish theology created apart from him.[5] A kind of necessity caused this theology, in order to correct the extreme rigor of the old Monotheism, to place near G.o.d an a.s.sessor, to whom the eternal Father is supposed to delegate the government of the universe. The belief that certain men are incarnations of divine faculties or "powers," was widespread; the Samaritans possessed about the same time a thaumaturgus named Simon, whom they identified with the "great power of G.o.d."[6] For nearly two centuries, the speculative minds of Judaism had yielded to the tendency to personify the divine attributes, and certain expressions which were connected with the Divinity. Thus, the "breath of G.o.d,"

which is often referred to in the Old Testament, is considered as a separate being, the "Holy Spirit." In the same manner the "Wisdom of G.o.d" and the "Word of G.o.d" became distinct personages. This was the germ of the process which has engendered the _Sephiroth_ of the Cabbala, the _aeons_ of Gnosticism, the hypostasis of Christianity, and all that dry mythology, consisting of personified abstractions, to which Monotheism is obliged to resort when it wishes to pluralize the Deity.

[Footnote 1: See especially John xiv., and following. But it is doubtful whether we have here the authentic teaching of Jesus.]

[Footnote 2: Philo, cited in Eusebius, _Praep. Evang._, vii. 13.]