Under Dr. Harnack’s Scheme the Crucifixion Was Justifiable

We start back and shudder at the question. But may not this be due to thoughts which, if Prof. Harnack’s book be true, are superstitious and erroneous. Let us be sensible and fair. Why did the Jews demand that — execution? Whydid Pilate authorize it? It is denied by some that the Nazarene ever claimed divine, or even kingly, homage. But the “Higher Criticism” deals only with the documents, whereas the student of ev facts; and in view of the facts the denial is unworthy of attention. Pilate seems to have been a reasonably fair and broad-minded Roman magistrate. For Jewish subtilties of creed or controversy he cared nothing. But the claim to kingship gave the Jews a weapon which they might use against Him with His imperial master. “Whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Cesar.” This it was that forced his hand. According to Prof. Harnack, the prisoner might have settled the matter by explaining that His kingdom was “nothing but the treasure which the soul possesses in the eternal and merciful God.” And Pilate’s soldiers, instead of abusing Him, would have protected Him from violence as He passed out a free man to resume His ministry. But in framing the “accusation” for the cross — “The King of the Jews” — Pilate made plain the ground of his judgment. A claim to deity he might have dismissed as the delusion of a fanatic, for he struggled to save Him; but the royal claim raised a question which he could not safely ignore. Considering the age in which he lived and the circumstances in which he acted, does not Prof. Harnack’s book take from us the only ground on which we can with fairness censure him?

And if by the same tests we consider the conduct of the Sanhedrim we shall probably arrive at a similar result. It is the fashion to denounce these men as hypocrites or fiends. But Peter’s testimony was explicit that they acted ignorantly and in good faith. And the testimony of Paul — himself a Pharisee — is that they were sincere men, and that they had “a

zeal for God.” The facts give proof that the

Nazarene was understood to lay claim to deity. And here it may be remarked that t these same facts afford strong, incidental proof of the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, for there it is chiefly that words are recorded which seem to allow of no other meaning. ‘This, moreover, ac for the antipathy to that Gospel displayed by critics of a certain class.

The question here, remember, is not the rejection of their Messiah by those who were the accredited custodians of that Divine revelation of which the Messiah was the substance and fulfilment. What concerns us is the rejection of Prof. Harnack’s “Jesus” by the official guardians and leaders of “the Jews’ religion”

—a religion that was characterized by intense jealousy for the honour of Jehovah. That

“Jesus” used language which to them-appeared

profane is indisputable. A few frank words of

disavowal would have availed to clear him of the ‘charge; but no such words were uttered. On the contrary, He boldly accepted it.* What, then, were these men to do! ey were not responsible for the brutalities committed by. the soldiers or the mob; and having regard — I use the words again — to the age in which these events occurred, and to the circumstances of the time, was there anything particularly heinous in their action? Can the wickedness o

the Jewish Sanhedrim in decreeing the death o

“Jesus” be compared for a moment with th

wickedness of the “Christian Church” whe

(to select a single case among unnumbere

thousands) the Council of Constance committed Huss to the flames?

“What is there left us?’ we may again exclaim. And from being an inquiry for discussion the words become the cry of our despair. What is there left? The Christ of God? But this, we are told, is no more than an “idea,”

*In Matt. xxvi. 63-66.

the creation of the mind of Paul. Here are Dr. Harnack’s words: “Paul became the author of the speculative idea that not only was God in Christ, but that Christ himself was possessed of a peculiar nature of a heavenly kind.” In a word, that Christ was something more than Joseph’s son.

“The Gospel?” Yes, but not “the gospel of our salvation” — “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” This, too, is a Pauline “idea.” His was “the gospel of God concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” But “the gospel as Jesus proclaimed it,” Dr. Harnack insists with all the emphasis of italic type, “has to do with the Father and not with the Son.”

And let no one suppose that the foregoing quotations give an unfair impression of the author’s scheme. Here is the concluding sentence of his book. It is the summary and the climax of all that has gone before, and it has manifestly been framed with elaborate care: —

“If with a steady will we affirm the forces and the standards which on the summits of our inner life shine out as our highest good, nay, as our real self; if we are earnest and courageous enough to accept them as the great Reality and direct our lives by them; and if we then look at the course of mankind’s history, follow its upward development, and search, in strenuous and patient service for the communion of minds in it, we shall not faint in weariness and despair, but become certain of God, of the God whom Jesus Christ called His Father, and who is also our Father.”