The problem of the messianic secret

T H E PROBLEM OF T H E MESSIANIC SECRET BY

DAVID E. AUNE Chicago

WILLIAM W R E D E is still with us. His radical solution to the problem of the messianic secret in the Gospel of Mark is a vigorously debated today as it was when his book, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, was first published sixty-eight years ago 1). This continu-ed interest is primarily due to the problems which W R E D E raised concerning the interpretation of the text of Mark in its present form 2). Those problems necessitated the annulment of the ille-gitimate marriage between the "Markan hypothesis" and liberal theology. ALBERT SCHWEITZER, whose book Das Messianitts- und Leidensgeheimnis also appeared in 1901, was in complete agreement over the relevance of the problems which were raised by W R E D E . Although his answers were diametrically opposed to those of W R E D E , SCHWEITZER clearly recognized that it was the assumptions held in common with W R E D E and himself which would prove fatal to liberal theology's version of the Markan hypothesis, and not one or the other of their solutions.

The basic difference in viewpoint between W R E D E and SCHWEITZER is still maintained in a modified and developed form in current trends of New Testament research. While W R E D E worked from the standpoint of literary criticism and arrived at a position of ' 'thoroughgoing skepticism" 3), SCHWEITZER arrived at his position of "thoroughgoing eschatology" by means of historical criticism. Methodologically, W R E D E was one of the more significant prede-cessors of the later formgeschichtliche and redaktionsgeschichtliche schools of New Testament criticism. SCHWEITZER'S consistent eschatology provided the impetus for a new emphasis on the

x) W I L H E L M W R E D E , Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Gttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprech t , 1901). T h e book was repr in ted in 1963.

2) A L B E R T S C H W E I T Z E R raised a lmost ident ical quest ions in The Quest of the Historical Jesus, t r ans . W . Montgomery (New Y o r k : T h e Macmil lan Company , 1909), p p . 334"36.

3) Ibid., p . 330. Novum Testamentum, XI

2 DAVID E. AUNE

eschatology of Jesus and the early Church on the part of New Testament scholars. The realized eschatology of C. H. DODD and RUDOLF OTTO arose in reaction to SCHWEITZER, while a more mediating position developed in the direction of the sich realisierende eschatology of JOACHIM JEREMAS. T. W. MANSON, a distinguished adherent of realized eschatology, was convinced that ". . . the farther we travel along the Wredestrasse, the clearer it becomes that it is the road to nowhere" 1). In his recent review of the second edition of the collection of essays in honor of C. H. DODD in which the quotation from MANSON was found, NORMAN PERRIN rather sanguinely asserted that ' T h e Wredestrasse Becomes the Haupt-strasse" 2). The former has clearly rejected the stone, while the latter has made it head of the corner.

Summary and Criticism of Wrede s Hypothesis The primary features of the Markan account which interested

W R E D E were those which were linked together by what he sup-posed to be a common secrecy motif: (i) Jesus commanded the demons to keep silence, for they recognized him (Mk. i 23 ff., 34, iii 11 ff., 6 f., ix 20), (2) Those who were healed by Jesus were enjoined to remain silent (Mk. 144, 43, vii 36, viii 26), (3) His disciples were ordered not to reveal that he was the Messiah after Peter's confession (Mk. viii 30), (4) Jesus asked his disciples not to speak of the Transfiguration until after the Resurrection (Mk. ix 9), and (5) Jesus frequently withdrew from the crowd to go on secret trips with his disciples and gave private instruction to them (Mk. iv 10-13, 34, vii 17-23, ix 28 ff., viii 1, ix 31, 32-34, xiii 3 ff.). W R E D E concluded that the messianic secret in Mark was a theological and apologetic device of the early Christian community which the second evangelist heightened and brought to literary expression3). According to W R E D E , Jesus had made no explicit or implicit messianic claims during his lifetime. Mark ix 9 provided strong evidence for him that the belief that Jesus was the Messiah did not arise until after the Resurrection. St. Mark and his predecessors firmly believed that Jesus was the Messiah, a fact that

*) W M A N S O N , " T h e Life of Jesus Some Tendencies in Present-day R e s e a r c h " , The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, ed W D Davies a n d D D a u b e (Cambridge T h e Univers i ty Press, 1956), 2 i 6

2 ) N O R M A N P E R R I N , " T h e Wredestrasse Becomes t h e H a u p t s t r a s s e A Review Art ic le," Journal of Religion, X L V I (1966), 296-300

3 ) W R E D E himself t h o u g h t t h e messianic secret t o be older t h a n Mark, 145

THE PROBLEM OF THE MESSIANIC SECRET 3

was confirmed for them by his authoritative words and miraculous deeds1). The historical traditions at their disposal, however, were non-messianic in character. Jesus had not fulfilled Jewish messianic expectation, but had been rejected and crucified. By resorting to the theory of the messianic secret, which viewed Jesus' messiahship as divinely concealed, Mark was able to reconcile the faith of the Church in Jesus the Messiah with the historical traditions which seemed to deny that belief.

WREDE'S view of the nature of Mark as a source for reconstructing the life of Jesus and his emphasis on the priority of literary criticism form the foundation of his investigation. He was very conscious that the authors of our Gospels viewed Jesus from the perspective of their own time, and that they wrote of him from the standpoint of the faith of the Christian community and for the needs of that community2). The decisive questions for WREDE were these: (i) What do we know about the life of Jesus? and (2) What do we know of the history of the oldest views and conceptions of his life ? 3) In other words, what elements of the synoptic tradition derive from Jesus himself and what elements from the earliest Christian community ? WREDE would certainly have agreed with one of his modern advocates, T. A. BURKILL: "St. Mark's gospel is essentially a soteriological document in which history is subservient to theology" 4).

With regard to the question of the priority of literary criticism over historical criticism, WREDE was insistent that the purely exegetical question of the understanding of the messianic secret by Mark himself was logically prior to the historical question of its place and meaning in the life of Jesus. 'The first task must always and only be to illuminate thoroughly the reports from their own spirit ; to ask what the narrator wanted to say to his readers in his time. This task must be pressed to its conclusion and form the basis of criticism" 5). In this formal claim for the priority of literary criticism WREDE was certainly correct, for in the interpretation of historical documents the question of meaning is always prior to the

x) W R E D E , p. 16. 2) W R E D E , p . 2. 3) W R E D E , p. I . 4) T . A. B U R K I L L , " C o n c e r n i n g St . M a r k ' s C o n c e p t i o n of S e c r e c y " , Hibbert

Journal, L V (i956-57)> 5 5) W R E D E , p p . 2-3.

4 DAVID E. AUNE

question of t ruth 1 ) . I have designated W R E D E ' S claim as "formal" for in practise he frequently raises historical questions which are methodologically irrelevant 2) Since literary criticism is itself incapable of making historical judgments, W R E D E ' S procedure is most vulnerable at this point. His historical questions, however, were undoubtedly formulated in reaction to the romantic and psychological interpretations of the life of Jesus characteristic of his contemporaries 3) W R E D E himself stressed the necessity of moving away from the subjective interpretations of the Markan account, and stressed the need for dealing with the text as it is

The publication of W R E D E ' S book met with immediate criticism in both Germany and England. One of the earliest and most thorough criticisms of W R E D E was offered by A. SCHWEITZER in the final chapter of his epoch-making book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus. SCHWEITZER was eager to recognize the critical objections which he and W R E D E held in common: (i) The impossibility of tracing the psychological development of Jesus in the Markan narrative 4 ), (2) The impossibility of distinguishing between the "kernal" and the "husk" of purportedly historical events in Mark. The gospel is either historical or unhistorical as it stands, no mediating position is permissible, (3) The difficulty of discovering connecting links between the pericopes in the Markan narrative. There is a great deal of contradiction and unintelligibility in the narrative as it stands. (4) The problems raised by the self-contradictory elements are similar. (5) The lack of connection is due to the fact that two representations of the life of Jesus are superimposed in Mark: the historical and the theological. "This dogmatic element is the Messianic secret of Jesus and all the secrets and concealments which go along with i t " 5 ) . SCHWEITZER then concludes,

The inconsistency between the public life of Jesus and His Messianic claim lies either m the nature of the Jewish Messianic conception, or m the representation of the Evangelist There is, on the one hand, the eschatological solution, which at one stroke raises the Marcan account as it stands, with all its disconnectedness and inconsistencies, into genuine history, and there is,

x) KNOX C. HILL, Interpreting Literature (Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press, 1966), io

2) Cf E R I K S J O B E R G , Der verborgene Menschensohn in den Evangelien (Lund C W Gleerup, 1955), 133 ff

3 ) WREDE, vi, 3 4 ) Ibid., pp 13, 15 5 ) SCHWEITZER, pp 332-36


on the other hand, the literary solution, which regards the incongruous dogmatic element as interpolated by the earliest Evangelist into the tradition and therefore strikes out the Messianic claim altogether from the historical Life of Jesus. x)

The principle by which W R E D E distinguishes the historical from the theological elements in Mark is the contradictions which he finds everywhere in the narrative 2). Every inexplicable element in the narrative is related to the dogma of the concealment of Jesus' messianic dignity, which W R E D E considers to be the only dogmatic consideration underlying the narrative.

SCHWEITZER finds three "messianic facts" in the Markan narrative which have forced W R E D E to go beyond the bounds of literary criticism: (i) the triumphal entry, (2) Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi, and (3) the high priest's knowledge of Jesus' messiah-ship 3). " In each case W R E D E finds himself obliged to refer these to tradition instead of to the literary conception of Mark. This tradition undermines his literary hypothesis, for the conception of a tra-dition always involves the possibility of genuine historical ele-ments" 4). In spite of W R E D E ' S intention to analyze the Markan text in and of itself to discover the principle by which it was composed, he is forced to set aside the purely literary version of the messianic secret and to see in Mark the end result of a preliterary process of theological development5). In each of the three events adduced by SCHWEITZER, W R E D E is forced to admit that another tradition which places a public messianic claim back into the life of Jesus has intruded into the Markan narrative. Each of these instances forced W R E D E to abandon the secrecy motif 6). A further criticism of SCHWEITZER was directed toward the assumption of W R E D E that Jesus' messiahship was not recognized until after the Resurrection :

But how did the appearance of the risen Jesus suddenly become for them a proof of his Messiahship and the basis of their eschatology ? That Wrede

!) Ibid., p. 337. 2) W R E D E , p . 21 : " I n general his description is too confused t o gain a clear

picture directly from it." 3) S C H W E I T Z E R , p p . 340-42. 4) Ibid., p . 342. 5) I t is precisely here that W R E D E approximates the form critical method.

The necessity of form criticism arose because of the breakdown of the literary method.

e) This is also true of other pericopes such as Blind Bartimaeus.

6 DAVID E AUNE

fails to explain, and so makes this ' event an historical' miracle which in reality is harder to believe than the supernatural event x)

W R E D E ' S theory was also rejected by such contemporaries as A JULICHER, J W E I S S , W SANDAY, A S PEAKE, F C BURKITT, A E J RAWLINSON and C J CADOUX Most of these scholars have followed the same line of criticism as that of SCHWEITZER In England, WILLIAM SANDAY expressed a lengthy reaction to both the works of W R E D E and SCHWEITZER m his 1907 book, The Life of Jesus in Recent Research His basic criticism was that W R E D E immediately leaped to the conclusion that any appearance of contradiction or incoherence in the narrative was evidence for its unhistoncity 2) SANDAY'S criticisms paralleled those of SCHWEITZER and added nothing essentially new His arguments were accepted m England as proving the ' 'utter inadequacy of W R E D E ' S hypothesis in its original form" 3) SANDAY, who referred to W R E D E ' S theory as a ''strange hypothesis' ' 4 ) , and claimed that his reconstruction of gospel history was accepted by no one, would be quite surprised to witness the continued debate today 5)

A E J RAWLINSON, on the other hand, followed a different line of criticism Recognizing a ''residuum of t r u t h " m W R E D E ' S theory, he made the following concessions (1) the demonic recognition of the Messiahship of Jesus represents a Markan theory of the supernatural knowledge of demons, (2) Mark's representation of the disciples as spiritually blind was derived from the theory that their hearts were supernaturally hardened, (3) private instruction may have been a literary device for the insertion of catechetical instruction, (4) some injunctions to secrecy were the overworking of the fact that Jesus did give such commands 6)

In contemporary New Testament research the situation is much the same as it was m 1907 English and American critics of W R E D E have generally not improved the arsenal of criticism offered initially by SCHWEITZER and then reiterated and expanded by SANDAY and RAWLINSON R H LIGHTFOOT and A BURKILL

*) SCHWEITZER, 345 2) W I L L I A M S A N D A Y , The Life of Christ in Recent Research (Oxford T h e

Clarendon Press 1907) pp 70 71 3) VINCENT TAYLOR ' Unsolved New Testament Problems The Messianic

Secret m Mark" The Expository Times LIX (1947 48) 146 4) S A N D A Y 75 5) Ibid , j6 e) T A Y L O R , 47 f


remain among the few exceptions to the nearly unanimous rejection of W R E D E ' S hypothesis among the New Testament scholars of Great Britain1). In a recent exchange between VINCENT TAYLOR and T. A. BURKILL in the pages of the Hibbert Journal2) , the traditional criticisms levelled at W R E D E by TAYLOR in his com-mentary on Mark are answered seriatim by BURKILL. The inade-quacy and superficiality of the latter's attempted refutations demonstrates the penetrating nature of SCHWEITZER'S line of criticism. TAYLOR himself sees the secrecy motif as penetrating the entire narrative, thus testifying to its historicity in the life of Jesus 3). This same view has been expressed by JULIUS SCHNIEWIND : 'Th is secret stands behind every single pericope" 4). And again, "W. W R E D E , who was the first to observe the messianic secret, considered all these traits as the reworking of the original figure of Jesus. I t will be shown, however, that this secret stands behind every narrative and every word of Jesus in our Evangelist" 5).

W R E D E ' S hypothesis was accepted in varying forms by W. BOUSSET, E. LOHMEYER, H. EBELING, R. BULTMANN and M. DIBELIUS. The modification of W R E D E ' S theory by contemporary adherents of the form critical school has been motivated by the conviction that not all of the evidence adduced by W R E D E in support of his hypothesis is of the same kind 6). At the suggestion of HANS CONZELMANN and EDUARD SCHWEIZER, ULRICH LUZ has recently attempted to distinguish between a Wundergeheimnis and a Messiasgeheimnis in Mark. While the latter is said to refer to the Christ of the post-Easter kerygma, Luz finds that the former is a product of the Hellenistic theios anr conception referring to the Jesus of history 7).

The present situation in New Testament research, therefore, witnesses a continuation of the two solutions originally offered by

x) VINCENT TAYLOR, "The Messianic Secret in Mark: A Rejoinder to the Rev. Dr. T. A. Burkill", Hibbert Journal, LV (1956-57), p. 243.

2) B U R K I L L , "Concerning . . . " , and T A Y L O R , "TheMess ian ic . . . " , Hibbert Journal,

3) T A Y L O R "Unso lved . . . , " p p . 148-50. 4) J. SCHNIEWIND, Das Evanglium nach Markus, Das Neue Testament

Deutsch, ed. Paul Althaus (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952), p. 41. 5) Ibid., p. 45. e) T. A. BURKILL, Mysterious Revelation (New York: Cornell University

Press, 1963), p. 210. 7) ULRICH LUZ, "Das Geheimnismotiv und die Markinische Christologie",

Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, LVI (1965), p. 28.

8 DAVID E. AUNE

W R E D E and SCHWEITZER with one important exception. The rise of Formgeschichte has enabled a number of German scholars ostensibly to legitimize their frequent use of literary criteria to form historical judgments. In spite of the refinements made by both camps, there remains but two solutions to the problem, the literary and the historical.

The Messianic Secret in its Historical Setting

A number of theories have been elaborated in the attempt to interpret the messianic secret as an historical phenomenon in the life of Jesus. Each of the three which we shall summarize has met with a certain degree of success. None of them, however, has been completely satisfactory.

The first and most influential attempt (at least negatively) to find an historical setting for the phenomena presented by the second evangelist was made by A. SCHWEITZER. Following the lead of JOHANNES W E I S S , he interpreted the life of Jesus from the standpoint of consistent eschatology. The theological elements of the Markan account which W R E D E ascribed to the early Christian community and primarily to the evangelist himself, were attributed by SCHWEITZER to Jesus. "For, after all, why should not Jesus think in terms of doctrine, and make history in action, just as well as a poor Evangelist can do it on paper, under the pressure of the theological interests of the primitive community" 1). The secrecy motif was thought by SCHWEITZER to cohere with Jesus' eschatol-ogically-oriented conception of himself as the Messias Designatus. His account of Jesus' life is divided into two periods. During the first part of Jesus' year of ministry, he was convinced that the kingdom of God would break in by harvest time. The sending out of the Twelve was the prelude to this expectation. When the kingdom did not appear, the second period began in which Jesus realized that he himself would have to go to Jerusalem and die in order to compel the coming of the kingdom of God. He expected to be vindicated by God and return as the enthroned judge of the world in fulfillment of current Jewish messianic expectations.

In one of the most comprehensive and constructive criticisms of SCHWEITZER which has yet appeared, H. B. KOSSEN has reduced

x) S C H W E I T Z E R , p . 350.


SCHWEITZER'S position to three basic points of departure: (i) the succession of reports in Mark must be viewed as historically valid, (2) in the framework of Mark a series of speeches can be inserted (as in Matthew), (3) the chronology of Mark derives from insight into the eschatologically defined self-consciousness of Jesus. KOSSEN concludes that each of these points is indefensible and asserts a. . . we must conclude that no historically reliable overview

concerning the public appearance [of Jesus] can be deduced from the synoptics, since the nature of the sources does not allow i t " 1 ) . Although KOSSEN has removed some of the major weaknesses of SCHWEITZER'S reconstruction, his attitude toward the sources would still be strongly contested by the English school of realized eschatology 2 ) . SCHWEITZER'S reconstruction of the life of Jesus, in spite of the refinements of KOSSEN, has been rejected by the majority of New Testament scholars.

Yet another attempt to place the messianic secret into a coherent historical context has produced a theory with both a positive and negative aspect which is far older than W R E D E ' S hypothesis. Negatively, the silence on the part of Jesus with regard to his own Messiahship has been attributed to a '"prudential" motive. Advocates of this theory include A. S. P E A K E , H. J . HOLTZMANN, E. MEYER, M. GOGUEL, J . MACKINNON and C. J. CADOUX. According to this view, Jesus hesitated to make an open messianic claim for fear that it would produce a political revolution and other unsavory results which would only hinder his ministry. Positively, it has been held that Jesus did not openly claim to be the Messiah during his ministry because his own conception of the messianic office was quite different from that of his contemporaries. Jesus spiritualized the Jewish messianic expectations, which were primarily politically oriented. Through the use of the relatively neutral title "Son of m a n " , Jesus reinterpreted the messianic role and filled it with new meaning. Advocates of this view, which is popular in both England and America, include O. CULLMANN, E. STAUFFER and V.

) H. B. KOSSEN, Op Zoek naar de Historische Jezus: Een Studie over Albert Schweitzers Visie op Jezus* Leven (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. N.V., i960), pp. 267-68.

2) MANSON, p. 213: " I am increasingly convinced that the Marcan story-presents in the main an orderly and logical development; and that this development or framework has as good a title to be considered reliable historical material as any particular anecdote incorporated in it ."

IO DAVID E AUNE

TAYLOR. Both W R E D E X) and SCHWEITZER 2) disagree with this position, claiming that there is no positive indication in Mark that this is the case

One of the latest and most comprehensive attempts to place the messianic secret withm its historical context is the study by E R I C SJOBERG, Der verborgene Menschensohn in den Evangelien, (1955) According to SJOBERG there were two mam forms of the concept of the hidden messiah m Judaism (1) the apocalyptic belief m a messiah concealed in heaven until the eschaton, and (2) the rabbinic conception of a messiah already born and who lives unknown somewhere on the earth until the time when he assumes the messianic office at the end of the age 3) Although SJOBERG considered the latter concept to be a rabbinic development which belonged to a later time than that of Jesus, the Dead Sea Scrolls now provide evidence that the Essenes of Qumran held a similar conception (iQ Sa 11 n ) It was SJOBERG'S view that "only the conception of a messiah hidden in heavenabove all the Son of man conception m apocalypticremains as a Jewish background for the early Christian faith in a concealed Messiah" 4) The title of SJOBERG'S book reveals the degree of his dependence on the pseudepigraphal writings I Enoch and IV Ezra, both of which develop the Danielle figure of the Son of man to a further degree In these writings SJOBERG sees a double revelation of the Son of man which further suits his purpose (1) a special revelation is given to the elect while the messianic figure is still concealed, and (2) a revelation is eventually granted to everyone at the eschaton 5) Further, secrets revealed to the elect should not be betrayed to outsiders, since the limitation of the revelation to the faithful occurs m accordance with the divine will 6)

Beginning with the Jewish belief that the revelation of the Messiah signified the end of this age and the dawn of the eschato-logical age of salvation, SJOBERG assumes that if the Messiah should appear on earth before the eschaton, he must necessarily appear as one hidden 7) From the standpoint of Jewish apocalyptic, then,

*) WREDE pp 14 18 2) S C H W E I T Z E R 332 3 ) SJOBERG 41 4 ) Ibid 99 5 ) Ibid 46 ) Ibid 24 7) Ibid 125

THE PROBLEM OF THE MESSIANIC SECRET II

the early Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of man could only be expressed in terms of a temporarily concealed Son of man. 'The messianic secret was a necessary and thoroughly meaningful element in the early Christian faith in Jesus as the Son of man-Messiah' ' 1). The Markan representation of the messianic secret can therefore be satisfactorily understood as an historical phenomenon in the life of Jesus2).

SJOBERG'S theory has not gone without criticism. R. E. C. FORMESYN has offered two main objections: (i) the notion of a hidden Messiah did not really exist in Jewish apocalyptic thought at the time of Jesus' ministry, and (2) the apocalyptic notion of the hiddenness of the Messiah is entirely different from the notion of secrecy in Mark 3). An earlier and more comprehensive criticism of SJOBERG was made by T. A. BURKILL 4). He finds many inade-quacies in the book, especially those arising from a failure on SJOBERG'S part to recognize the "rich variety of motives entailed in the gospel traditions", and also to an overzealous desire to prove the ultimate historical basis that Jesus believed himself to be a temporarily concealed Son of man destined to be revealed in glory as God's plenipotentiary and judge of the world5). These gene-ralizations reveal only the prejudices of BURKILL rather than the weaknesses of SJOBERG. BURKILL concludes his criticism with this judgment:

Accordingly, while the evidence scarcely warrants the view that Jesus actually thought of himself as the hidden Son of Man, Dr. Sjoberg is on firm ground when he maintains that St. Mark's doctrine of the messianic mystery is not imposed ab extra upon an utterly alien tradition. Various secrecy motifs were already present in the materials he uses, and the notion of hiddenness, associated with a form of divine predestinarianism, may well have been exemplified, in the manner outlined, in the teaching of Jesus himself e). Perhaps SJOBERG'S weakest point is his assumption of the early date of the Similitudes of Enoch (I Enoch 37-71) and IV Ezra. The absence of the former from the Qumran discoveries may indi-

x) Ibid., p . 126. 2) Ibid. 3) R. E. C. FORMESYN, "Was there a Pronominal Connection for the Bar

Nasha Self -designation ?", Novum Testamentum, VIII (1966), pp. 6-7. 4) T. A. BURKILL, "The Hidden Son of Man in St. Mark's Gospel", Zeit-

schrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, LH (1961), pp. 206-13. 5) Ibid., p . 206. e) Ibid., p . 213 .

12 DAVID E. AUNE

cate that they were not composed before the middle of the first century A.D. IV Ezra is generally dated toward the end of the first century A.D.

In a recent article on the question of the messianic secret, EDUARD SCHWEIZER has confirmed BURKILL'S judgment that the most significant contribution of SJOBERG is the demonstration of the importance of the secrecy motif in pre-Markan tradition (though hardly in a manner BURKILL would have anticipated) ). According to SCHWEIZER, SJOBERG'S remarks on such passages as Cor. ii 6ff. ; Rom. xvi 25 ff. ; Col. i 26 ff., ii 2 f., Eph. iii 1 ff. and 1 Tim. iii 16 demonstrate the effects that the secrecy motifs from Jewish apocalyptic had on early Christian theology. "Here, in fact, is the background for Mark's own point of departure from which he brings into relief his own, essentially different emphasis" 2 ) . Elements of the synoptic tradition which belong to pre-Markan tradition include: (1) Jesus' commands that the demons keep silence, (2) healings in secluded places, (3) perhaps the silencing of those healed until after they were certified by the priest, and (4) the idea of parables needing interpretation 3 ). This assumption demolishes BULTMANN'S contention that the literary location of the secrecy motif is only in the editorial sentences of the evangelist, not in the body of pre-Markan tradition itself 4 ) . For SJOBERG, the fact that the secrecy motif must be located in pre-Markan tradition as well as in the Markan redaction was an important line of evidence which pointed to the historicity of the secret because of its multiple attestation. SCHWEIZER, on the other hand, has viewed the apocalyptic influence on the early Christian community as the catalyst which eventually produced the messianic secret.

This brief survey of attempts to interpret the messianic secret as an historical phenomenon in the life of Jesus leads us to a number of significant conclusions. First of all, none of the attempts to replace W R E D E ' S theory with one which more satisfactorily accounts for the phenomena recorded by the second evangelist has been accepted as being entirely convincing. The recent attempt by

x) E D U A R D S C H E I T Z E R , " Z u r F r a g e des Messiasgeheimnisse bei M a r k u s , " Zeitschrift fur die neutestamenthche Wissenschaft, LVI (1965), p p 1-8

2) Ibid , 3 ) Ibid See B U R K I L L ' S discussion in " T h e H i d d e n . . ., " p p 198-205 4 ) R U D O L F B U L T M A N N , Theology of the New Testament, t r a n s . Kendr ick

Grobel, I (Charles S c n b n e r ' s Sons, 1951), p . 32


SJOBERG along different lines only serves to emphasize this point. Secondly, the most incisive and effective criticism of W R E D E remains that of A. SCHWEITZER, whose arguments have never satisfactorily been rebutted. SCHWEITZER'S own position has been substantially strengthened by the modifications of K O S S E N 1 ) . Finally it must be concluded that any attempt to view the messianic secret as historical shoud proceed along at least two lines: (1) it must be more closely demonstrated that the secrecy motif coheres with what is known of the words and deeds of Jesus, and (2) it must be demonstrated that the life of Jesus is not only coherent with his messianic self-consciousness, but convincingly so. This line of argument is necessarily a continuation of that originally offered by SCHWEITZER 2 ) , but with one significant advantage. That is the availability of an entire library of an apocalyptic Jewish sect whose chronological limits can be fixed with a fair degree of certainty : the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Qumran sectarians.

The Significance of the Qumran Texts The discovery and continued publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls

is an event of crucial importance for the student of Christian origins. For the first time the historian has ready access to an extensive body of literature which must chronologically be limited to the period bounded by the middle of the first century B.C. on the one hand, and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 on the other. The historical significance of these texts is that they were produced with the community for the community 3). The possibility of distortion on the part of disinterested commentators, or un-sympathetic redaction or interpolation is thus eliminated. Al-though the value of the Qumran texts for the historian of early Christianity is immense, it is quite safe to say that their potential has hardly been tapped 4). Whether or not an extensive use of the Qumran literature in the present context is justified will become evident in the three areas of comparison and contrast which I

x) These essentially drop the two-fold division of Jesus' eschatological expectation, and rely more heavily on the place of the Old Testament in his self-consciousness.

2) Supra, pp. 4 f. 3) On the whole, the statements regarding the Essenes preserved in Philo,

Josephus and Pliny are remarkably confirmed by the scrolls themselves. 4) F . C. G R A N T , Ancient Judaism and the New Testament (New Y o r k : T h e

Macmil lan Company, 1959), p . 19.

1 4 DAVID E. AUNE

propose to discuss: () regard for and use of the Old Testament, (2) views on determinism and predestination, and (3) messianic beliefs.

1. Though the Essenes of the Dead Sea community constitute an apocalyptic sect, nothing is more remarkable than the dearth of historical prediction and the absence of cosmological speculation from their writings. This is primarily due to two factors: (1) they were consciously living in the final age which was a time of fulfillment of previous prophecy and not a time for a renewed movement of the prophetic spirit, and (2) their rigorous adherence to the Law and the Prophets left no room for the cosmological speculation characteristic of later heterodox Jewish and Gnostic thought x ) . Since all life and thought were defined in Qumran in terms of their understanding of the Old Testament, to that degree they were like their Jewish contemporaries 2 ) . If the Scriptures were of crucial importance for the self-consciousness of the Qumran sectarians and especially for their founder and early leader the Teacher of Righteousness, then their beliefs cannot a priori be relegated to the fanatical periphery of first century Judaism. The zeal which the community directed toward the rigorous study of the Scriptures may be typified by the opening lines of the Manual of Discipline (iQ S). In an allusion to Deuteronomy vi 4, they interpret the phrase " t o love God" by substituting the phrase " t o seek God". Since God can only be sought in the study and obedience of the Scriptures, their definition of "love" for God takes on a very unique connotation. In a manner characteristic of Jewish apocalyptic they viewed the Old Testament as a divine book which was partially "open" to outsiders, but which also contained mysteries "closed" to those outside the community 3 ) . The understanding of those mysteries were divinely revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness and through him were conveyed to and perpetuated by the entire sect (iQ ii 13-14; CD xx 31-32; iQ S 9). With the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, an entirely new genre of Biblical commentary was discoveredthe pesharim. In these commentaries,

x) L E O N H A R D G O P P E L T , Jesus Paul and Judaism, t r a n s . E d w a r d Schroeder (New Y o r k : T h o m a s Nelson & Sons, 1964), p p . 48-9.

2) O T T O B E T Z , Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (Tbingen: J . C. B . Mohr, i960), p . 3.

3) On th is whole quest ion see B E T Z , and also F . F . B R U C E , Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rapids , Michigan: W m . B. E e r d m a n s Publ ishing Company, 1959).


phrases of the Biblical text being studied are quoted together with their interpretation. The meaning of the text is usually applied to the history or present circumstances of the sect itself. This emphasis on the divine anticipation of the unfolding events of history is integrally connected with their view of divine determinism or predestination.

2. The Qumran community shares the apocalyptic emphasis on dualism and determinism1). This consideration alone is not suffi-cient to place the Qumran sect at the periphery of Jewish thought. W. D. DAVIES has successfully demonstrated, in our opinion that it is impossible to make a rigid distinction between apocalyptic and pharisaic Judaism in the first century A.D. 2). The elements which really distinguish the Essenes from contemporary Jewish sectarian movements are two: (i) their rigoristic attitude toward the Scrip-ture, (which included their emphasis on separation from the rest of Israel for reasons of purification), and (2) their consciousness of being the true Israel, an eschatological community to whom God had revealed his hidden mysteries. The esoteric knowledge of the community was based on their predestined election as well as on their belief that the will of God was limited to the Scriptures. Everything which happens occurs according to the will of God alone (iQ H i 20; iQ S xi 11). The entire course of world events has been entirely predetermined by God (iQ H x i i g - n ; CD ii 7 ff.). I t follows that man himself can do nothing to influence the will of God, directly or indirectly3). These theoretical beliefs were also observed in practise. Although the community was completely pre-pared for the final eschatological battle in which they would play a prominent role, they nevertheless waited in readiness for God to initiate the conflict. Their faith in the certainty of God's inter-vention into the affairs of men produced an obedient and expectant passivity which stands in vivid contrast with the outspoken claims of contemporary messianic and eschatological movements (Acts viii 9 ff. ; Josephus Antiquities xx 5. 1 ; cf. Wars ii 13.4). In HELMER

1) MARTIN RIST, "Revelation: Introduction and Exegesis", The Inter-preter's Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick et. al. (New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1957), X H P- 347 if

2) W. D. DAVIES, "Apocalyptic and Pharisaism", Christian Origins and Judaism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), pp. 19-30-

3) HELMER RINGGREN, The Faith of Qumran, trans. Emile T. Sander (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), p. 50.

6 DAVID E. AUNE

RINGGREN'S discussion of Qumran's views of the acts of God in history, he cites iQ M xi 1-3, 9 f., and observes,

We are here once again withm the framework of the Old Testament's teaching about God But against the background which has been sketched it is clear that even m this simple statement of God's acting m history there is an underlying idea of divine predestination of the course of the world and of history The fact that God's action is emphasized more strongly than the role of the human instrument m the event is probably connected with this idea of predestination x)

In i Q S iii 13-iv 26, the double theory of predestination of the community is set forth, based on a dualistic system which is cosmological as well as ethical. Dominion [memsheleth] over the sons of light is in the hands of the Prince of light (iQ S iii 20-21), while the dominion over the sons of darkness is in the control of the Angel of darkness. The Prince of light influences the sons of light to act righteously, while the power of the Angel of darkness is such that he causes both the sons of light and the sons of darkness to stray (iQ S iii 21-22). In addition to being characterized by disobedience and stubbornness, the sons of darkness are also described as possessing ' 'blindness of eye and hardness of ear, stiffness of neck and heaviness of heart causing a man to walk in all the ways of darkness" (iQ S i v n ; cf. Mk. i v n - 1 2 ; Matt, xiii 11-16). A judicial blindness accompanies those who are predetermined to walk in darkness.

The Qumran sectarians viewed their community as comprehending all of the sons of light who were identified with the full number of the elect. Those outside the community comprised the sons of darkness. The predeterminate will of God was revealed by an individual's membership (or lack of it) into the community. On the basis of this clearcut division, knowledge in the mysteries of God was believed to be limited to those within the society and withheld from those outside. As the leader of the original community, the Teacher of Righteousness was given divine insight into the mysteries of God contained in the Old Testament (iQpHab 7 4-5; iQ S viii 11-12). In the passage just cited from the Habakkuk commentary, it is claimed that God revealed all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets to the Teacher of Righteousness. Assuming the author of the Thanksgiving Hymns (iQ H) to be the Teacher of Righteousness, not only does he claim insight into the hidden

1) Ibid , 6o.

THE PROBLEM OF THE MESSIANIC SECRET I7

things of God (iQ H i 21, xi 16-17), but also that this knowledge was given through the Spirit of God (iQ H xii 11-12 xiii 18-19). This revelation of the mysteries of God was then systematically conveyed to novitiates (all of whom must be Israelites, i Q S vi 13), and became the possession of the entire community (iQ S viii 11-12; iQ H iv 27-29, 27-28, xi 9 10; CD iii 13-14; i Q M x 10 11). On the other hand, the sons of darkness are not permitted to know the hidden secrets of God, for they are concealed from them (iQ S iv 6, ix 17, xi 5-6; iQ H iv 7, 25-26, viii 12 ff.). The perverse have not even attempted to learn the hidden matters of the Law (iQ S 8, 11), or to listen to the Prophets ( iQpHab ii 6). The foolish of heart are incapable of understanding the significance of the mighty deeds (iQ H i 37), as well as past or future things (iQ Myst i 2-4.

The blindness of Israel is an eschatological phenomenon which will only be terminated with God's judgment of iniquity and reward for righteousness. For Qumran, the present is still the "times of the blindness of Israel" (CD XV12-3), and under the oppressive dominion of Beliar (iQ M XIV9). Prophecies referring to the stubbornness and blindness of Israel are applied to the present (Hosea iv 16 in CD i 13 ; Isaiah xxvii 11 in CD 16-17). After the final punishment of the wicked and vindication of the righteous, the latter will be rewarded with complete knowledge and wisdom (iQ S iv 22).

3. The Qumran texts have considerably expanded the amount of literary evidence for Jewish messianic beliefs of the first century A.D. In spite of the complexity of their beliefs, and the variety of forms in which they are expressed, it is possible to reconstruct with a fair degree of accuracy the content of the sect's messianic expectations. Considering the length of time during which most of the texts were composed, it is quite possible that these beliefs were developed and refined during the history of the sect*).

One of the difficulties in interpreting the Messianic expectation of the community concerns the word mashiach (usually translated "messiah" or "anointed"). The term is used in such a variety of ways that the connotations of our word "Messiah" can easily prove to be misleading. I t is evident, for example, that the "anointed ones" mentioned in CD ii 12, vi 1 and i Q M xi 7-8 are not Messiahs,

x) J . STARCKY, "Les Quatre Etapes du Messianisme Qumran", Revue Biblique, LXX (1963), pp. 481-505. Novum Testamen tum, 2

8 DAVID E. AUNE

in the technical sense of the term, but prophets. This equation is already found within the Old Testament itself (Psalm cv 15). On the other hand, mashiach can be understood in passages such as4Q Flor i 19 in the corporate sense of " t h e elect of Israel" (interpreting Psalm ii 2). However, both of these usages are clearly marginal in Qumran eschatological expectation Scholars such as H A N S KOSMALA who attempt to find the corporate significance of mashiach in every reference where that word occurs are clearly on the wrong track x).

In a recent study on the meaning of the term mashiach in Jewish literature from 100 B.C to A.D 70, M. DE JONGE has arrived at some significant conclusions. Noting the fact that few instances of the word mashiach occur at all in this period, he further observes that the articular use of the term without a following genitive or possessive pronoun is rarely found. "This basic fact shows the relative unimportance of the term in the context of Jewish expectations concerning the future, at least in the Jewish sources at our disposal for this period" 2 ) . Excluding data from IV Ezra and II Baruch because of their late first century date 3 ) , DE JONGE proceeds to investigate each definite occurrence of the absolute term hamma-shiach in the relevant literature. He arrives at the following conclusions: (1) the use of mashiach is rare and does not necessarily designate a future redeemer, (2) when used, the term denotes a special relationship to God which has many parallels in Biblical figures of the past, but the future element provokes intense expectation; there is a growing tendency to connect the expression with the expected king, (3) the calling and function are more important than the individual who bears the designation, (4) the term mashiach itself is not as important as the context in which it characterizes the expected king, priest or prophet, (5) the expectation of a future redeemer is not an integral part of Jewish eschatological thought 4 ) .

*) HANS KOSMALA, "Das Verborgene und das Offenbarte," Hebrer EssenerChristen Studien zur Vorgeschichte der frhchristlichen Verkndigung, Vol I of Studia Post Biblica, ed A H De Boer, pp 266, 276, 15

2) M D E J O N G E , " T h e Use of t h e W o r d 'Anointed ' m t h e T i m e o J e sus" , Novum Testamentum, V I I (1966), p p 133-34

3) Ibid , pp 145-6 The term "anointed one" is used absolutely m IV Ezra 12 32 and II Baruch 29 3 and 30 1 with reference to the eschatological Messianic King

4) Ibid , p p 147-8, cf D S R U S S E L L , The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia The Westminster Press, 1964), 309

THE PROBLEM OF THE MESSIANIC SECRET i g

In the light of DE JONGE'S conclusions, it would be difficult to support the contention that a completely unified concept connected with the word mashiach existed in the period 100 B.C. to A.D. 70. While mashiach had not yet become a terminus technicus referring to the eschatological Davidic King-Messiah, it was nevertheless used not infrequently with that connotation. Moreover, since ' 'concepts' ' are rarely linked indissolubly with particular linguistic expressions, there is a great deal about "messianic" beliefs of the period which a word study of mashiach will fail to reveal. The word mashiach itself could best be described as a semi-technical term which could be used very definitely of the coming eschatological king. Then too, DE JONGE has failed to take the targums into account. In spite of the difficult problem of dating the sources, the frequent use of meshai in a technical sense should not be over-looked (cf. Targ. Palest. Gen. iii 15, xlix 1, 10,11 ; Ex. xl 9,11 ; Num. xxiii 21 ; Targ. Jon. Isa. xvi i , xlii i ) . Even the Synoptic tradition, which certainly contains the absolute use of the term before A.D. 70 is no exception to the semi-technical possibilities of usage of the word mashiach, for although the term is applied to a single individ-ual Jesus of Nazareth, the content of the designation remains undefined precisely because it was unambiguous x).

To claim that the expectation of a future redeemer is not integral to Jewish eschatological thought is in reality to stress the fact that Judaism placed emphasis on the activity of God rather than on the anointed human instrument through whom God chose to work. A mashiach may be defined as one who has been called by God and anointed with his Spirit for the task of revealing his will and person and for the performance of certain activities in which the agency of God is evident2). In the execution of this divine calling, the individual himself is subservient to the overruling purpose of God. The presupposition for this definition is clearly expressed in iQ H iv 31-33 : ' 'Works of righteousness belong to the most high . . . unless it be by the Spirit which God has created for him [i.e. man]."

In Qumran, three eschatological figures were the object of ex-pectation. The locus classicus for this belief is iQ S ix 11 : ". . . until

x) Contra G. SEVENSTER, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart,z I, 1751. 2) In the Old Testament conception of the anointed king, adoption brought

the monarch into filial relationship with God. The king thus became God's heir and plenipotentiary who ruled in God's stead. (GERHARD VON RAD, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1962), I, 320).

2 0 DAVID E AUNE

the coming of the Prophet and the Anointed Ones of Aaron and Israel " These dramatis personae of the end time are further attested m 4Q Testimonia, which contains quotations from four Old Testament passages Deut 28-29 refers to the necessity of keeping the law (the dominant task of the community), Deut xvm 18-19 refers to the coming eschatological prophet, Num xxiv 15-17 refers to the Davidic Messiah, and Deut xxxm 8-11 is related to the priestly Messiah The prophetic figure is undoubtedly the forerunner of the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel, while in the New Testament Deut. xvm 18-19 was applied messiamcally to Jesus (Acts 111 22-23) The idea of a royal and a priestly Messiah has its roots in the Old Testament (Zech iv 14 ff , Lev 1V3, 5, 16, vi 20, 22, Jer xxxm 14-23) The doctrine of two Messiahs is also found in Jubilees (xxxi 13-20), and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (cf Test. Gad v m i , Judah XXIV24, Simeon v i i2 , Dan 10, Levi 1111, vm 2, 6-8,11 ff ) Although the Davidic Messiah was integral to the eschatological scheme of the community, he is viewed as subordinate to the priestly Messiah (iQ Sa 11 11-22), and is hardly mentioned m the final eschatological conflict anticipated by the War Scroll (iQ 11, xi 2, 6) It is claimed that the Davidic Messiah is the one who will restore the kingdom to Israel (iQ Sb 20)

The Life of Jesus The central question for the interpretation of the New Testament

and the point at which the ways divide, according to HARALD R I E S E N F E L D , IS the problem of the messianic consciousness of Jesus x) R U D O L F BULTMANN maintains that Jesus appeared as a prophet, a rabbi and even as an exorcist, but not as a king ''Moreover the Synoptic tradition leaves no doubt about it that Jesus' life and work measured by traditional messianic ideas was not messianic' 2) BULTMANN and W R E D E are in agreement on the nature of Jesus' ministry GNTHER BORNKAMM, a former pupil of BULTMANN also agrees " behind the doctrinal teaching concerning the Messianic secret there still dimly emerges the fact that Jesus' history was originally a non-Messianic history, which was portrayed m the light of the Messianic faith of the Church only

*) H A R A L D R I E S E N F E L D The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings 28 2) B U L T M A N N , I 27

THE PROBLEM OF THE MESSIANIC SECRET 2 1

after Easter" *). The recent renewal of the quest for the historical Jesus was motivated by the desire to find a closer connection between the kerygmatic Christ and the historical Jesus. The resultant picture of the ministry of Jesus by form critical scholars may be briefly summarized as follows: (i) Jesus claimed unheard of authority in his interpretation of the Torah, (2) he claimed that the kingdom of God was present in his words and deeds, (3) he asserted that an individual's present relationship to himself was decisive for that person's future status in the kingdom of God, (4) closely connected with this is his astounding declaration that he possessed the authority to forgive sins. With data such as this in mind KSEMANN has said: ' T h e only category which does justice to his claim . . is that in which his disciples themselves placed himnamely, that of the Messiah" 2). The attribution of that title to Jesus by the disciples wasin KSEMANN'S opiniona post-Resurrection occurrence. We are asked, in effect, to believe that the words and deeds of Jesus surpassed all categories of Jewish conception on the one hand, and on the other, that in an era of intense eschatological expectation he neither be-lieved himself to be the Messiah, nor did his followers attribute that title to him until after the Resurrection. This contradiction is labelled "implicit Christology", and entails a greater leap of faith than anyone less than a twentieth century existentialist could muster. We cannot avoid posing the crucial question, "How then did Jesus think of himself, and how did he understand himself ?" 3) Throughout this section we shall deal with the same three areas of thought that we did in considering the relevance of the Qumran texts: (1) Jesus' attitude toward the Old Testament, (2) his atti-tudes on determinism and predestination, and (3) Jesus' conception of the Messiahship

1. To contemporary Jewish thought, Jesus' ambivalent attitude toward the Old Testament must have appeared supremely para-doxical. On the one hand, he could place his own teaching beside

x) G N T H E R B O R N K A M M , Jesus of Nazareth, t r ans I rene and Fraser McLuskey wi th J a m e s M . Robinson (New Y o r k and E v a n s t o n H a r p e r & Row, Publishers , i960), 172

2 ) E R N S T K A S E M A N N , " T h e P r o b l e m of t h e Histor ical J e s u s , " Essays on New Testament Themes, t r a n s W J Montague, Studies in Biblical Theology No 41 (Naperville, Illinois Alec R Allenson, I n e , 1964), 38

3 ) O B E T Z , Was Wissen Wir von Jesus ? ( S t u t t g a r t u n d Berlin Kreuz-Verlag, 1965), p . 54.

22 DAVID E. AUNE

that of Moses as equal or even greater in authority x ). And yet on the other he viewed the Old Testament as the authoritative word of God as did his contemporaries 2) According to LEONHARD GOPPELT, ' 'Jesus did not only live within the framework of Old Testament Jewish traditions, but the scriptures are the binding manifestation of God to him, which he read with the eyes of his Jewish environment and yet consciously understood it differently than they" 3 ) . The significance of the Old Testament in Jesus' ministry is at least partially revealed by the fact that most of the controversy accounts recorded by Mark deal with the interpretation of the Old Testament (Mark ii 13-17, 23-iii 6, vii 1-23, ix 11-13, 2-i2, xii 18-27, 28, 34, 35-37). It is our contention that on analogy with the Teacher of Righteousness, Jesus used the Old Testament to define his conception of his own person and mission 4)

Jesus' life and thought were controlled by the will of God as it was revealed to him through the Old Testament. The uniqueness of his teaching points to his unique understanding of his life and mission which he derived, I believe, from reading Biblical prophecies in the light of their fulfillment in himself The unifying factor of the gospel presentation of the messianic life of Jesus lies in his consciousness alone. Because we are dealing with a unique individual our parallels may fail, and our criterion of dissimilarity will produce distortion 5 ) . The only way to restore a unified interpretation is to

*) Ibid B U L T M A N N , I, 16 2) B U L T M A N N , I, 16, K O S S E N , 270 3) L E O N H A R D G O P P E L T , " D e r verborgene Messias zu der F r a g e n a c h d e m

geschichtl ichen J e s u s " , Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus, hrsg H E L M U T R I S T O W u n d K A R L M A T T H I A E (Berlin Evangel ische Verlagsanstalt , 1961), 381

4) This emphas is on Jesus ' use of t h e Old T e s t a m e n t is s t rongly presented b y K O S S E N , 270, b u t s t rongly d o u b t e d b y K A S E M A N N , 40 As far as t h e T e a c h e r of Righteousness is concerned, m i Q H x v m 14, t h e a u t h o r applies I s a i a h lxi 1 to himself (as does Jesus m L u k e iv 16-22) Similarly m i Q H vu 10 a n d v in 36 t h e a u t h o r of t h e H o d a y o t h uses phrases from t h e Servant Songs of I sa iah (1 4) t o describe his own mini s t ry Assuming t h a t t h e Teacher of Righteousness was t h e a u t h o r of t h e Thanksgiv ing H y m n s , his high view of his own calling c a n n o t be passed over in silence H e claimed t o possess a divinely g r a n t e d abi l i ty t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e myster ies of God ( i Q H 1 21, xs 16-17, xii 11-12, x m 18-19) T h e react ion which people give t o h i m defines the i r a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s God ( i Q H 11 8-9, vu 11-12, 20-21) I n spi te of his p resent condit ion of suffering a n d hiddenness, he expects divine v indicat ion ( i Q H 11-12, v m 18, a n d especially ix 23-26) Nowhere, however, does he refer t o himself in a n y sense as " a n o i n t e d " b y God

5 ) I n his recent book Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York a n d E v a n s t o n H a r p e r & Row, Publishers, 1967), N O R M A N P E R R I N calls t h e


view his life and thought from the standpoint of apocalyptic Judaism, taking our point of departure from their use of the Old Testament.

Two of the many Old Testament passages which must have held deep significance for Jesus were 2 Samuel vii 12-14 and Zechariah xiii. GERHARD VON RAD, referring to the passage from 2 Samuel has said, "in it also lie the historical origin and legitimation of all messianic expectations' ' x). An example of the later influence of this oracle of Nathan can be seen in Zechariah vi 12-13, where the man named "Branch" is to build the temple of the Lord and rule upon his throne. OTTO BETZ has, in my opinion, successfully shown the overwhelming significance of 2 Samuel vii 12-14 for both Jesus and the earliest Christian community2). The passage contains at least three significant elements: (1) the double sonship of the messianic king; he is a son of David (v. 12) as well as a son of God (v. 14), (2) this Davidite will be "raised up" by God (v. 12), (3) and will also build the temple (v. 13).

The double sonship of Jesus is attested by pre-Pauline tradition in Romans i 3-4, and is emphasized in the birth narratives of both Matthew and Luke. Davidic descent was a necessary requisite for th expected Messiah, and Jesus was certainly a descendant of David (Mk. xii 35-37 does not deny this fact, but rather emphasizes the double nature of the Messiah's sonship).

The word in 2 Samuel vii 12 which we have translated "raised u p " is qum in the hiphil (Greek anistemi), and is ambiguous in that it could be construed to mean exaltation to the kingship (David had many sons and only one of them could be "raised up" to the kingship). It could also refer to the resurrection from the dead which Jesus anticipated in the Markan passion predictions (Mark viii 31, ix 31, 33 f.). In our opinion, Jesus profoundly united these two meanings and expected his exaltation to the kingship to be

fundamental criterion for determining the authenticity of words of Jesus the ''criterion of dissimilarity": " . . . the earliest form of a saying we can reach may be regarded as authentic if it can be shown to be dissimilar to characteristic emphases both of ancient Judaism and of the early Church, and this will particularly be the case where Christian tradition oriented towards Judaism can be shown to have modified the saying away from its original emphasis." (P 39)

*) VON RAD, I, 311. 2) O. BETZ, "Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewusstsein Jesu",

Novum Testamentum, VI (1963), 24-37.

24 DAVID E. AUNE

identical with his resurrection from the dead. This is precisely the meaning of Romans i 4: Jesus was designated son of God (i.e. king in the sense of 2 Sam. vii 14) in power by the resurrection from the dead. The misunderstanding of the disciples, who clearly understood that Jesus would be exalted in the political sense (cf. Mark 35-4) may have been caused by the fact that Jesus brought together these two meanings in the single word qum.

The Davidic Messiah was expected to rebuild the temple, and one of the sayings of Jesus which is generally regarded by most scholars as genuine is that in which he claims to be the temple builder (Mk. xiv 58, xv 29; Mt. xxvi 61, xxvii 40; Jn. ii 19 and Acts vi 14). This claim to be the builder of the temple carried with it an indirect but clear claim to the messianic office, and is a fundamental datum for establishing the fact that Jesus did in fact think of himself as the Davidic Messiah1).

Zechariah xiii is a passage which refers to events that will occur "on that day" ; obviously the eschaton. Jesus' quotation of this chapter in Mark xiv 27 indicates his familiarity with the passage. Suffice it here to summarize the five significant events which are the object of future expectation, and which have obvious parallels to the conscious ministry of Jesus: (1) a fountain for cleansing from sin and uncleanness will be opened up, (2) idols will be removed, (3) the unclean spirit (ruah hattumya) will be removed, (4) the shepherd will be stricken and the sheep scattered, (5) judgment will follow. The implications of these points will be made clear in the remainder of the article.

2. If Jesus has an attitude toward the Old Testament analogous with the Qumran community in the sense that he viewed it as the divine expression of the will of God determinative for all life and thought, can anything be said about his views on determinism or predestination? The view of the divine determination of events in the life of Jesus is rooted deeply in the synoptic tradition. It is quite unnecessary and even erroneous to attribute this view of history to the early Christian community alone 2 ). Jesus' reticence with regard to his own person must be ascribed to a strong belief that his own destiny was completely in the hands of God. One of

x) B E T Z , Was Wissen Wir . . ., p . 6 1 ; B E T Z , " D i e F r a g e . . . " , p p . 34-37; G O P P E L T , Jesus . . . , p p . 88-89.

2) B U R K I L L , " T h e H i d d e n Son of Man . . . " , p p . 171-72; B U R K I L L , Mysterious Revelation, p p . 172.


SCHWEITZER'S fatal errors was to assume that Jesus actively attempted to compel the breaking in of the transcendent kingdom of God. Nothing could have been further from his purpose. The person of the Messiah was less significant to Jesus than the kingdom of God which he introduced through his words and works. I t was through the proclamation of this kingdom that Jesus sought to found a community which would be the nucleus of the New Israel. In this respect he also interpreted his Messianic task as temple builder in a figurative manner. The temple which he sought to build was the community of the New Israel1). The extent of this community was voluntarily limited to those who did not stumble at the apparently insignificant nature of the beginning of the kingdom of God, to which Jesus referred in the parables of growth or contrast.

3. The synoptic tradition does not define the specific connotation of the word "Messiah" as it is used in the narratives. If Jesus did think of himself as the Messiah, as I believe he did, this can only be confirmed through the study of his words and deeds as they have been handed down in the gospel tradition. If this investigation produces results which cohere with SCHWEITZER'S three Messianic facts [supra, p. 5), our purpose shall have been accomplished.

The kingdom of God was the central subject of the teaching of Jesus. While modern critics speak of the "messianic secret" of Mark, the evangelist himself was concerned with the "secret of the kingdom of God" (Mk. iv 12). This secret is clarified by the parables of Matthew xiii and means that the kingdom of God is now present in the words and deeds of Jesus, even though the restoration of all things (apokatastasis, Acts iii 21) is still lacking. I t was this fact that Jesus' contemporaries were unable to grasp. His words and deeds posed a riddle for them that they were unable to answer. T. A. BURKILL is certainly wrong in assuming that this mystery is the fact that Jesus is the Messiah the son of God, for although Jesus stands in the closest connection to the kingdom of God, it is nevertheless the kingdom itself which is given primary emphasis. According to R. FULLER, " In his works, as in his words, God is present acting eschatologically through Jesus. Such is Jesus' under-standing of his own words and works. I t is demonstrated by logia

x) B E R T I L G R T N E R , The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge: The Univers i ty Press, 1965), p p . 105-122.

26 DAVID E AUNE

which pass all the criteria of authenticity" 1). In the words of H. B. KOSSEN, "Jesus was conscious that God's eschatological act of salvation was being accomplished through him" 2). The difficulty which Jesus' contemporaries had in understanding this fact is evident when we consider that outwardly there was no catastrophic change of aeons.

The second evangelist presents Jesus as a proclaimer of glad tidings, with a short summary of the proclamation in Mark i 15 : "The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel". The recent publication of the Dead Sea Scroll fragment 11Q Melchisedek 3) provides new and conclusive evidence that the proclamation of glad tidings could be viewed as a messianic task during or before the first century A D On lines xv ff of that document, which constitutes a pesher on Isaiah Hi 7 the Messiah is described as a mebassr or a proclaimer of glad tidings In the Massoretic text of Isaiah Iii 7, the content of the message is " thy God reigns", while in the Targum of Isaiah that phrase has been replaced with "the kingdom of thy God hath been revealed" 4). The messianic interpretation of Isaiah Hi 7 together with its association with the proclamation of the near reign of God means that Jesus' preaching ministry can no longer be considered non-messianic in nature, for even the proclamation of glad tidings itself was viewed as a messianic event of the final age (11Q Melch 15).

The synoptic tradition presents Jesus as constantly on the move, traveling from one hamlet to another engaged in his ministry of proclaiming the nearness of the kingdom of God5) . In contrast with John the Baptist and the Qumran community, both of which

*) R E G I N A L D H F U L L E R , The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York Charles Scnbner ' s Sons, 1965), 105

2) K O S S E N , 270. 3) A S VAN D E R W O U D E publ ished t h e editio princeps of this f ragment m a n

article entitled, "Melchisedek als himmlische Erlosergestalt m den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran-Hohle XI " , Oudtesta-mentischeStudien, XIV, ed. A H DE BOER (Leiden E J Brill, 1965), 358 Together with M DE JONGE he published a further revision of the fragment entitled "11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament", New Testament Studies, XII (1966), 302 Another reconstruction of the fragment may be found in JOSEPH A FITZMYER, "Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXVI (1967), pp 27-8

4) J F S T E N N I N G , The Targum of Isaiah (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1949), p p 176-77.

5 ) BETZ, "Die Frage . . . " , pp 41-3 He suggests parallels with David's wandering.


took their stand in the wilderness, Jesus is represented as actively seeking the lost (cf. Lk. xix 10, Mk. ii 17 and par.). In Ezekiel xxxiv 16, the activity of seeking the lost is an eschatological deed of God, set in a metaphor of a shepherd and his sheep. For Ezekiel, this gathering would be placed under the authority of the Davidic king: "And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them; I the Lord have spoken" (Ezek. xxxiv 22-23). The same juxtaposition of the shepherd-sheep motif following the prediction of the enthronement of the eschatological Davidic king is also found in Jeremiah xxiii 1-6. More important than that, the shepherd-sheep imagery is found similarly in Psalm of Solomon xvii 45-46, and in verse 28 it is said of the eschatological Davidic king that "he shall gather together a holy people, whom he shall lead in righteousness/' In Qumran, allusions to the sheep motif of Isaiah xl 11 and Ezekiel xxxiv 12 are referred to the com-munity itself under the care of the overseer (CD xiii 9).

Following another line of evidence, there is a remarkable simi-larity between the ministry of the mebassr of Isaiah lxi 1 (quoted in Lk. iv 18-19, alluded to by Jesus in Lk. vii 22 and elaborated in the beatitudes of Matt, 3 ff.), and the eschatological activity of God in Ezekiel xxxiv 16: " I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the crippled, and I will strengthen the weak, and the fat and the strong I will watch over; I will feed them in justice/1 This similarity is further borne out by Isaiah xi 9-11, which begins with a reference to the mebasser and his proclamation of the coming of God, and is followed by the metaphor which compares God's relationship to Israel as a shepherd to his sheep.

In Mark xiv 27, a quotation from Zechariah xiii 7 is attributed to Jesus: " I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered" . The passage is applied to his imminent death and the consequent dispersal of the disciples *). The identical passage is quoted in CD xix 7-11 in the context of the coming of the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. In Qumran this passage was clearly understood

!) For a brief discussion on the use of Zechariah xiii 7 in Matthew xxvi 31, Justin Dialogue with Trypho liii 6 and Epistle of Barnabas 5.11-12, see DAVID E. AUNE, "Just in Martyr's Use of the Old Testament", Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, IX (1966), 179-97

28 DAVID E. AUNE

to refer to the eschatological community of God. Jesus too was conscious of being God's instrument ( = anointed one) in the gathering of the "lost sheep of Israel" (Matt, 6, xv 24; Mk. vi 34). The purpose of these remarks is the demonstration of the thesis that Jesus' ministry of seeking the lost can be understood in an eschatological sense in connection with his conscious Messianic ministry of proclaiming the glad tidings. In Jeremiah and Ezekiel this activity is associated with the restoration of the Davidic monarchy. Jesus knew himself to be the descendant of David who, according to Ezekiel xxxiv 22-23, would stand in the place of God. This was made possible by his being anointed with the Sprit of God which enabled him to perform functions only properly attributable to God himself.

Included in Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God was his astounding claim to possess the authority to forgive sins (e.g. Mk. ii 5, 10). According to Mark ii 7 this authority was attributed only to God by the scribes, and consequently they considered Jesus' claim to be blasphemous. For Jesus the forgiveness of sins was a necessary prerequisite for miracles of healing 1). The Qumran community frequently made God the subject of the verb kpr ("to cover, atone"), in such passages as iQ S ii 8, xi 14; CD ii 5, iii 18, iv 6, 9, 10. In continuity with the Old Testament, where atonement is thought of as a priestly function (Lev. 17; Num. i 53, viii 19, 21, xvii 6-15, xxv 13), the community itself becomes the agent of atonement (iQ S 6, viii 6, 10, ix 4; iQ M ii 5 ; iQ Sa 13) 2 ). One of the more significant texts for our purpose is found in CD xiv 19: " . . . until the Anointed One of Aaron and Israel arises and expiates their iniquity . . . ." 3 ) . Here the final forgiveness of sins is clearly an eschatological messianic task, even though the expiatory function of the community may be attributed here to the Messiah of Aaron and Israel as their representative par excellence. In 11Q

*) A L B R E C H T O E P K E , Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, t r a n s . G E O F F R E Y W B R O M I L E Y ed G E R H A R D K I T T E L (Grand R a p i d s W m E e r d m a n s Publ i shing Company, 1965), I I I , 203

2 ) E M I L A W C E L A , " T h e Messiah(s) of Q u m r a n " , Catholic Biblical Quarterly, X X V I (1964), 341.

3 ) T h e recons t ructed t e x t of D U P O N T - S O M M E R , The Essene Writings from Qumran, t r a n s G V E R M E S (Cleveland a n d New York T h e World Publ i shing C o m p a n y ; Meridian Books, 1962), i 6 o is m agreement wi th E D U A R D L O H S E , Die Texte aus Qumran' Hebrisch und Deutsch (Mnchen Kosel-Verlag, 1964), p p 96-97.


Melch. 4-9 Melchisedek, who may be identified with the proclaimer of glad tidings in line 18 ff., is portrayed as a heavenly redeemer figure who will bring atonement to the children of light in the eschaton. Already in the Old Testament, as we have seen above, p. 24, the forgiveness of sins was considered to be an event be-longing to the eschaton, although it was granted by God himself (Zech. xiii 2, Jer. xxxi 4; cf. Jubilees i 23). We may conclude that both in Qumran and in the consciousness of Jesus the forgiveness of sins was an eschatological act of God, administered by his repre-sentative par excellence, the Messiah. This is another indication of the messianic character of the ministry of Jesus.

The synoptic representation of Jesus as a exorcist is generally accepted as belonging to the earliest and most authentic stratum of the gospel tradition 1). In Qumran the expulsion of the evil spirit was an event which belonged to the end time, and was as significant as the act of God in forgiving sins (iQ S iv 19-21; iQ M xiv 10). Zechariah xiii 2 also sees the expulsion of the unclean spirit as an integral act of the eschaton. OTTO BETZ has suggested a striking parallel between Jesus and David. The Old Testament knows only one individual who drove out an evil spirit: David. Further, this occurred after he had been anointed with the Spirit of God secretly by Samuel (1 Sam. xvi 13-23) 2). Both the Qumran community and their Jewish contemporaries expected the age to come to be immediately preceded by a supreme conflict between the forces of God and the forces of Satan. In both circles this conflict was depicted with the imagery of a Holy War drawn from various passages of Old Testament prophetic literature. The War Scroll of the Essene community gave a systematic account of this final struggle, describing the engagements and strategy in great detail. For Jesus, this Holy War was not a literal conflict between two opposing armies, but rather was a spiritual struggle which he waged against the demonic powers in his capacity as an exorcist. The recognition that Jesus held a limited cosmological dualism also makes it imperative that he be interpreted in terms of an apocalyptic world view.

x) BULTMANN, I, 27, 40. PERRIN, p. 65: "The evidence for exorcism as a feature of the ministry of Jesus is very strong indeed: exorcisms are to be found in every strata of the synoptic tradition, and the ancient Jewish texts regard Jesus as a miracle worker, i.e. an exorcist."

2) BETZ, "Die Frage . . . " , p. 41.

30 DAVID E. AUNE

Jesus' ministry of healing and performance of miracles are closely related to his deeds of exorcism. These deeds are the primary means whereby Jesus indicated and demonstrated his divine anointment. His anointment with the Spirit of God is validated by the victorious encounter with the enemy as he manifested himself in terms of sickness and demon possession in individual men. In the pericope concerning the healing of blind Bartimaeus (Mk. 46-52), the blind man is presented by the evangelist as frantically begging the "son of David'' to heal him. This recognition of the Messiahship of Jesus on the part of Bartimaeus appears to W R E D E and BURKILL as an exception to the evangelist's doctrine of the messianic secret, and both conclude that the passage has nothing to do with the secrecy motif 1 ). This reveals an inherent weakness in the theory itself. On the supposition that the story is genuine 2 ), the question arises. Why should Bartimaeus expect healing from the son of David ( = Messiah) at all ? The answer to this question can only be that the Davidic Messiah was connected with the concept of healing from such Old Testament passages as Ezekiel xxxiv and Jeremiah xxiii. That Jesus viewed this ministry of healing as integral to his own mission is a fact made evident by a pericope preserved in Q (Mt. xi 2-5; Lk. vii 18-22), and which contains allusions to Isaiah lxi 1 and xxxv 5: "Go and tell John what you hear and see; the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good new preached to them". Jesus himself, it would seem, regarded these events as decisive evidences of his messianic ministry, and not as a general characteristic of the final blessedness which he saw beginning with his ministry 3). Healing itself was regarded as an eschatological event by the author of Jubilees (xxiii.30).

Jesus and the Secrecy Motif The purpose of the discussion to this point has been to rapidly

sketch out some of the more significant aspects of Jesus' life and work and to show how they cohere with a messianic consciousness which was largely dependent upon the Old Testament. Jesus

x) B U R K I L L , Mysterious Revelation, p . 190. 2 ) R U D O L F B U L T M A N N , The History of the Synoptic Tradition, t r a n s .

J O H N M A R S H (New York a n d E v a n s t o n : H a r p e r & Row, Publishers, 1963), p p . 213.

3 ) Ibid., p . 23.

THE PROBLEM OF THE MESSIANIC SECRET 3 I

certainly did not appear as the mighty liberator of Israel who was the object of a significant segment of popular expectation. This was not because he entirely reinterpreted the messianic role and elim-inated the political aspect totally. On the contrary, his role as World Judge and Redeemer would become visible to all upon his exaltation and installation as son of God in power. Since Jesus under-stood his coming exaltation=resurrection in a dual sense, the element of suffering and death became for him the necessary prerequisites for his ultimate vindication and exaltation by God.

The messianic secret cannot have been an historical phenomenon in the life of Jesus unless the predictions of his passion and resur-lection are also accepted as historical. This is primarily because Jesus could not have considered himself the Messiah unless he conceived of his own ultimate exaltation from son of David to son of God. Nevertheless it is not accurate to refer to Jesus as the Messias Designatus as SCHWEITZER did. After David's secret anoint-ing by Samuel he was not less the anointed of God because he had not yet been publicly recognized and officially enthroned. It was precisely because of the nature of his Messiahship that Jesus was unable to make any open claim to that title. That claim could only be made by God on Jesus' behalf. Whether or not the resur-rection proclaimed in the kerygma constitutes that claim can only be decided through the revelation of faith x).

*) GOPPELT, Jesus . . . , p. 81.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Documents

The problem of the messianic secret