Equivalents of Natural Law in the Teaching of Jesus

8/3/2019 Equivalents of Natural Law in the Teaching of Jesus

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/equivalents-of-natural-law-in-the-teaching-of-jesus 1/12



EQUIVALENTS OF NATURAL LAW IN THE TEACHING OF JESUS

AMOS N. WILDER*

JESUS of Nazarethspokehis messageand his claims, as did the prophetsbeforehim, in a setting and out of a

religiousconsciousnessremote from

any philosophic conception of naturallaw. There are, however,certainaspectsof his ethical teaching which invite theattention of those concerned with the

historicalstudy of this conception.It isworth while seeing what kind of casecan be made out for at least equivalentsof natural law or implicitnatural law inhis teaching. This can be done without

claimingthat any such featuresexhaustthe content of his utterance. The prob-lem will remain of how these are to berelated to the fulldemandsof the Gospel.

It is in suchareasas thefollowing

thatwe may expectto findmattergermane othe topic: (i) whatever in Jesus' teach-

ing roughly corresponds o the require-ments of universalmorallaw (havinginmind the recurrent moral demands ofethicized religion and significant cul-

tures); (2) requirements thought of byJesus as self-evident to Jew, Samaritan,and Gentile; (3) requirements which

Jesus views as elementary, preliminary,or self-evident,as distinct from the spe-

* This paper was one of those prepared for the

Chicago Ecumenical Study Group in the course ofits historical and constructive study of the conceptof the Law of Nature. The Journal of Religion has

already published two papers in this series, both byJames Luther Adams: "The Law of Nature: SomeGeneral Considerations" and "The Law of Naturein Greco-Roman Thought" (April, I945). See alsoPaul Ramsay, "Natural Law and the Nature of

Man," Christendom,Vol.

IX,No.

3 (summer, I944).The author of the present paper is professor of NewTestament interpretation in the Chicago TheologicalSeminary and in the Federated Theological Facultyof the University of Chicago.

cial or novel requirements f the Gospel;and (4) requirementsor whose sanction

Jesus appeals to empirical experienceand native discernment.

Of peculiarimportanceto our discus-sionarethe moraldemandsof the Torahand the prophets. These constitutemoral imperatives which (though con-

ceived by Judaismand by Jesus as pre-scriptivedivinelaw) areroughlyequiva-lent to primary and universal moral

standards-justice, mercy,faithfulness-

commonly posited by proponents ofnaturallaw, and whichreceive a certainvalidation by Jesus without necessarilyrepresentinghis full demands.The ques-tion ariseswhetherJesus, in view of his

eschatological outlook, transcends anddissolvesthe moral law of the OldCove-nant. If so, we must deny that there are

any equivalents of natural law in his

teaching and recognize that there is

something incommensurable not onlybetweenTorah and Gospelbut betweenthe ethics of the Old Covenant and the

Gospel.Thus, our first task is to examine the

kind of validity assignedby Jesus to theTorah, and to this subject we devotethe first section that follows. This willlead to a detailed canvass of whatever

equivalentsof naturallaw may be foundin his teachingand to a conclusionas totheir final significance n that teachingas a whole.

I

The late Jewish exaltation of theTorah includedthe view that it existedbeforethe creation of the worldand, in-

deed,that the worldwascreatedthroughI25



THEJOURNAL FRELIGION

the Torah, and correspondinglyhat theTorah would remain in force as long asthe worldendured. An explicit formula-

tion of this latter convictionis found onthe lips of Jesus (a dubioussaying asfaras he is concerned[Matt. 5: i8]):' "For

verily I say unto you, till heaven andearth pass away, one jot or one tittleshall in no wise pass from the law, tillall things be accomplished" (see alsoLuke I6:I7).2

Apocalyptic eschatology, with its

sharpdualism,saw

theend of the

presentage as actually the passing-awayof theworld and, with it, the validity of atleast the greaterpart of the Torah.TheTorah was to continue in force throughthe present age and through the mil-lenniumor days of the Messiah, if thereweresuch. Its continuationbeyond thatinto the new age was merelyan idealiza-

tion,3though some recognitionthat the

deepestprinciplesof the morallaw wererelevant to all conditions of life mayhave been a factor.

Jesus held a highly dualistic es-

chatologyand saw his generationas one

immediately confronting the judgmentand the Kingdom of God. Satan had

already been overthrown in Heaven.The reign of God was about to assertitself

universally.His

healingsand ex-

orcisms and preachingof the Kingdomwere signs of the cosmic change. The

1ThesayingasJesusactuallyspoke t wasone of"bitterirony" againstthe scribes(T. W. Manson,The Mission and Message of Jesus [New York, I938]p. 427).

2See, further, G. F. Moore, Judaism (Cam-bridge, 1932), I, 269ff.; Strack-Billerbeck, Kom-mentar zum Neuen Testament, I (Munich, I922),

245, 246. Cf. Philo Vita Mosis ii. 3, pars. I4-16,etc.:

".... so long as the sun and moon and thewholeheavenandthe worldexist."

3 "In thisageIsraelites ontractuncleanness ndget themselvespurifiedaccording o the directionsof a priest;but in the future t will notbeso ...."(cited from the Pesikta by Moore, op. cit., p. 272).

woes or birthpangsof the new age were

already present. The Kingdom of Godwas suffering violence, and the evil

powers were workinghavoc with it forthe time being, that is, in the death of

John the Baptist and the approachingdeath of Jesus.But the time was at handwhen the evil powers would be over-thrown.4

Now this view of his times meant

that, for Jesus, the periodof validity ofthe Torah was near its end. Otto reads

this same Q passage (Matt. 11: 12-13;Luke I6:I6) as follows: "The law andthe prophetswereuntil John: Fromthattime the Kingdom of God exercisesits

power and men of violence snatch atit." The passage is subject to various

interpretations. But as Manson says,

the saying contrasts two periods of history: the

period of the law and the prophets, and the

Kingdom of God. The formeris one of promise,

the latter, of fulfilment; and the ministry of theBaptist is the dividing line between the two ....

the idea of the supercession of the law by the

fuller revelation of God is developed by Paul,but it has its roots here in Q.5

-

This does not mean that Jesus ex-

plicitly announcedthe end of the law orso acted. Rather he thought and actedas one living on the boundarybetweenthe two eras. The dualistic eschatology

did not have the logical consequencesat every point which we might expect.This becomes understandable as we

recognize its mythopoetic character.And even where its effects are seen in

the relaxation of the authority of theceremonial aw, we note that this did not

carry with it the nullification of themoral aspects of the Torah. It is the

legalisticcharacterof the law which is

4 See A. N. Wilder, Eschatologyand Ethics in the

Teaching of Jesus (New York, I939), pp. 175 f. and

footnote, showingsupportof above interpretation(of Matt. II: 12, 13) by Kraeling and Dibelius.

s Op. cit., pp. 426, 427.

I26



EQUIVALENTSOF NATURALLAWIN THE TEACHINGOF JESUS

dissolvedby the "realizedeschatology,"not the normsthemselves.

Jesus' freedom in ruling and acting

on matters involving not only the orallaw but the writtenlaw is in accordancewith the above facts. But we can under-stand his attitude to the law from an-other point of view. For ultimately theground and sanction of his ethics arefoundnot in the eschatological chema-

thoughthiswasorganic o his wholeview-but in what underliesit, namely, hisimmediate

propheticconsciousness

ofGod. As one in the succession of the

great prophets, he penetrated to thecentral ethical issues in conduct, andthus inevitably did violence to the

existing patterns of religious law-insome instances even to those of thewritten law of Moses. Jesus did not, asMark says, make all meats clean (Mark7:19); but by his saying, ".... there

is nothing from without the man, thatgoing into him can defile him, but the

thingswhichproceedout of the man arethose that defilethe man" (ibid.,vs. I6),Jesusundermined he dietarylaw.6Jesusdid not annulthe ceremonialaw;but bysuch sayings as, "Is not a man of morevalue than a sheep?"and the acts thatenforced them, he contributed to the

depreciationof its

authority,at the

same time, by these very words andacts, establishingthe basic morallaw ofthe OldCovenant.Indeed,Jesusdidmorethan vindicate the moral law: he gavenew content to it by his propheticword.At thispointwe crossthe line that Chris-tian ethics has agreed to recognizebe-tween naturaland revealedethics or be-tween law and agape.To this matter we

shall return.

6 Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin, I929);

English ed., Jesus and the Word (New York, i934),p. 76.

Despitewhat we have saidas to Jesus'independencein dealing with the law,the paradox remains that he was at

many points-and these important-aconformistwith regard to it. Many ofour ablest scholarshave held that evenhis moral demand on men was not newor novel in any respect,pointing to thedouble great commandment and his

echoing on various occasionsthe wordsof the prophets. This appears to be a

misunderstanding, ut it reflectsthe factthat

Jesus'messagewas

grounded n theinsights of the prophets and that helived in that transitionalphase betweenthe old orderand the newwhenhis ethi-cal demandcouldbe formulatednow interms of what the two had in commonand now in terms of the new alone, de-

pending on the situation of those ad-dressed.So far as his conformityor non-

conformityto ceremonialaspects of the

law is concerned, t was left forPaul andothers to make explicit what was im-

plicit in Jesus'own activity. We findthesame paradox in Jesus' relation to the

Temple as in his relationto the law. His

cleansingof the Temple impliesits con-

tinuing validity. His saying about theNew Temple reflects the eschatologicalsupercessionof the Temple.It remainedfor

Stephento make

explicit what wasimpliedat this point.7Thereforewe conclude that, despite

the eschatological ettingof his teaching,

7We have not used the saying, "Think not thatI came to destroy the law or the prophets: I camenot to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matt. 5: 7), because,in view of the differences between the Lukan andMatthean parallels in this section we look on theverse as an editorial introduction to this elaboratesection of Matthew. In

any case,it

maywell

rep-resent Jesus' attitude, though it is ambiguous in its

brevity. Matthew's interpretation of it in 5: 8-6: 8 carries us over into the level of specificallyChristian ethic, without annuling the moral law ofthe Old Testament.

127



THE JOURNALOF RELIGION

Jesusvindicatedthe moralaspectsof theTorahand includedthese in his require-ment.

IIBeforestatingthose elementsin Jesus'

teaching which representequivalentsofnatural law we must first note the argu-ment against such a hypothesis as rep-resented for example by Rudolf Bult-mann.8We should take seriouslyhis in-sistence that the uniqueness of Jesus'teachinglies in thefact that herecognizes

no conception of nature, of human na-ture, of human ideals, values, ends, or

criteria, no rationalistic task, and no

conception of "personality" and itsvirtues.

The liberation which Jesus brings does notconsist in teaching man to recognize the end asthe law of his own human nature, in preachingautonomy in the modern sense. The goodis thewill of God,not the self-realization of humanity,

not man's endowment..... His ethic also isstrictly opposed to every humanistic ethic andvalue ethic; it is an ethic of obedience.....Conduct moreover is not significant because avalue is achieved or realized through action; theaction as such is obedience or disobedience;thus

Jesus has no system of values. This really meansthat Jesus teaches no ethics at all in the senseof an intelligible theory valid for all men con-

cerning what should be done or left undone.9

Bultmannholds that all this is true also

of Jewish ethic,I? the only differencebe-ing that Jesus thought out the idea ofobedienceradicallyto the end."

The valuableinsightto safeguardhereis the realizationthat ultimately Jesuscalls for a responseto the will of Godthat is, through and through, personaland not legalistic. Bultmann's way of

stating this is to say that Jesus teachesaradicalizedethic of

obedience.He is con-O8p.cit.9Op.cit. (Eng.ed.), p. 84.'oIbid.,p. 68." Ibid., p. 84.

cernedthat ourobedienceshould be fullypersonal,freeof existingdeterminations.But to safeguard his, one does not need

to excludethe conceptsof humannatureand human values and ideals. It is the

responseof our wills that should be un-

conditioned,not the ethicalchoiceitself;and Bultmannhas confusedthese. Thecontrast between Greek and Jewishethics can be made too absolute. Be-neath the surface of the diverse ap-proaches to the world there lies a com-mon

humanity, and this common hu-manity affordsa common fundamentalethic.

In Jesus' teaching we find, indeed,what Bultmann stresses. Human con-duct is set in the framework f thorough-goingresponseor obedienceto God.Theformof the teachingis, characteristical-

ly, one that sets up no "rational"criteriain the strict sense, nor is it one that

makes appeal by its form to universalideals. But beneath the surface, andsometimeson the surface,we find,as weshall see below, recognitionof standardsof behaviorconsentto which is expectedfrom both Pharisee and publican, Is-raelite and Samaritan,Jew and Gentile.And human life, though always underthe power of God, is assumedto have a

quality of giveness and to be character-ized by certain stabilities and depend-ableprocesses.

Thus in the casesof Israelin the bibli-cal period, and of Jesus, the issues as

regardsnatural aw andnaturaltheologyare not fundamentally peculiar or

unique. They only appear so; and thisfor two reasons: first, that Israel in-

terpretedits social experienceand con-

sequent insights in a highly dualistic,revelatory form; and, second, becausethe Christian church arose in an hourand out of an experience viewed bythose who participated in them-the

I28



EQUIVALENTSOF NATURALLAWIN THE TEACHINGOF JESUS

Baptist, Jesus, Paul-as in some sensediscontinuouswith the past. Thus thechurch has ever since been inclined, in

one of its two alternatingphases, to setgrace over against nature,the new crea-tion over against the old, in sharpan-tithesis. So it is that we get suchsayingsas: .... that which is exalted amongmen is an abominationin the sight ofGod" (Luke 16:15; cf. Mark 8:33

[Jesus]); " ... natural man receiveth

not the things of the Spirit of God"

(I Cor. 2: I4 [Paul]); "For all that is in

the world, the lust of the flesh and thelust of the eyes and the vaingloryof life,is not of the Father,but is of the world"

(I John 2: 6 [Johannine]). Actually,however,we find in the OldTestament,and in Jesus, at least tacit assumptionsof stability in the created order, regu-larity in the physical and moral order,and persistent ethical norms. That is,

we find real equivalentsof a philosophyof nature, of a conceptionof humanna-

ture, of natural law-yes, of virtue-

runningcontinuouslythroughandunderthe unique experiencesor revelations ofHebrew-Christian sacred history. Thestock andsocietyout of which ourWest-ern faith came had the same "humannature" and the same inherent funda-mental moral instincts and attitudes

born out of the social and moral expe-rienceof the race n theprehistoricaland

early historical periods: the basis andstuff of natural law. The overwhelmingand revolutionary ethicoreligious ex-

periencesof Isreal involved no annullingof these basic attitudes and norms, nordid even the "new creation."It is onlythe prerationalistic or nonrationalisticcharacter of biblical

thought which ob-scures this. We have every right to rec-

ognize the equivalent of natural law inof the Bible,both the recognition hereinof regularitiesof the cosmosand the rec-

ognition of the basic order of human re-

lations. This is not contradictedeitherbythe vivid sense possessed by biblical

man of the powerof God over "nature"or by those features in whichIsrael,likeall other peoples, varied in this or that

particular in their moral conceptions.Thus, when Greekrationalismenters

the picture in the biblical writings,whether with the Wisdom Literatureorin the writingsof Paul or the words as-

signedto him in his discoursebefore the

Areopagusor with the prologue to the

FourthGospel,andwhen,so entering,it

explicitlypresentsconceptionsof natural

revelation,natural law, conscience,and

virtue, it does not representa contradic-tion or a secularizationof the biblicaloutlook. Indeed, the fact that paganrationalism could give proper expressionand precision to the natural law in-herent in the Bible disposes us to wel-

come its further role in articulating theGospel itself.

III

WalterM. Horton,writingon "Natu-ral Law and the InternationalOrder,""finds these equivalents, as follows: He

notes that

judgmentsof Godhaveforthe prophets ome-thingof theregularity,mpersonality,nduni-

versalitylater attributedto natural aw.....ForHebrewand Christian hought,this auto-maticlawof 'reapingwhatyou sow'is onlyanaspectof theworking f thepersonal nd ovingGod; but it is a real and importantaspect.

He then goes on to identifyJesus'teach-

ing on one side with this teachingof the

prophets, and to point out how Jesusseparated the nonessential "statute-law" element in the Torah from the

weightier matters of the law-justice,mercy, and faith-and how he summed

up the latter in the GoldenRule.Horton

" Christendom,IX, No. i (winter, 1943), 2-2I.

I29



THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION

then proceeds to discuss two codes of

righteousness taught by Jesus: one,

roughly identical with that which un-

derlies the particular statutory enact-ments of Jewish Torah, which he callsthe "ChristianLawof Nature,"andone,the higher righteousnessof the Sermonon the Mount. In Paul he finds equiva-lents for these two in (i) Rom. 2:14-15

(the law written on the heart) and (2)Rom. 8:2 (the law of the spirit of life inChristJesus).

Before our own statement we mayput beside this the illuminating recog-nition by Sevenster and Windisch, in

part supported by Bultmann, that in

Jesus' teaching we find elements which

belong not only to the tradition of the

apocalyptistbut also to the tradition ofthe wise man, and not only to the tradi-tion of the prophetbut also to the tradi-tion of the scribe.'3Bultmannrecognizes

the distinction betweenthose utterancesof Jesus that are in what he calls the

"prophetic-eschatological vein" andthose that are in the Wisdom vein.14

'3 GerhardSevenster, Ethiek en Eschatologie n de

Synoptische Evangelien (Leyden, 1929). Sevensterhas chapters on the noneschatological aspects of the

teaching of Jesus in its relation to prophetism,Chokmah, and rabbinic literature. He points outthat Jesus often appeals to common sense. Hiscounsel on wealth is determined in part by the fact

that the dead cannot keep their riches. Counsels ofdiscretion and sagacity recur: "With what measure

ye mete, it shall be measured unto you" (Matt.7:2); "Be ye therefore wise as serpents .... " (Matt.

1o: 6); and God says to the rich fool: "Fool, this

night is thy soul required of thee; and the thingswhich thou has prepared, whose shall they be?"

(Luke I2:20). Hans Windisch, Der Sinn der Berg-predigt (Leipzig, 1929), points to a body of teachingin the Sermon on the Mount from which eschatolog-ical preoccupation and sanction are absent. His con-clusion is that this represents one of two mainstreams of the utterance of Jesus, the Wisdom

typeas over against the eschatological (see ibid., pp.20-21). For discussion see Wilder, op. cit., pp. I I f.,153-66.

I4 Jesus (Berlin ed.), pp. 82-83; "[Jesus] disputesalong the same lines as Jewish rabbis, uses the same

These distinctions will safeguard us

against oversimplificationand will in

part justify Horton's view, which at

first sight appearsto propose an unac-ceptabledoublestandard n Jesus'ethics.

The fact is that, while there is nodoublestandard n Jesus'teaching,thereis a richnessand manifold characterinit correspondingto the variety of thehuman scene with which he dealt, the

varying urgencyof the immediatesitua-

tion, and the resourcesof a consummateteacher.Thus,therewereoccasionswhenhe used the leverage of the existingnormsand sanctions, those especiallyof

prophet, psalmist, Deuteronomist, andwise man. It is here that we have ourbest hope for finding something corre-

spondingto naturallaw in his teachings.But therewere other occasionswhen, in

keeping with the needs of the moment,he spokeabsolutelyout of the conscious-

ness of the comingage and gave expres-sionto imperatives ranscending he best

patternsof the time. Some will say thatthe "higher righteousness," the via

crucis, taught by Jesus, not only tran-scends but dissolves the natural law ofthe Old Testament; that agape is in-

compatible with righteousness.But theansweris, "No." It is only the legalistic,prescriptivecharacterof the law that isso dissolved.

We turnnow specifically o the teach-

ing of Jesus, askingwhat equivalentsofnatural law can be found in it. That is,apart from whatever new ethic of theCross or of the Gospel he teaches, inwhat respectsdo we find him acceptingacommon ground with the ethics of theOld Testament or with pagan ethics?

methods of argument, the same turns of speech;like them he coins proverbs and teaches in parables.Jesus' teaching shows in content also a close relation-

ship with that of the rabbis" (p. 58; cf. pp. 125,

I26). For discussion see Wilder, op. cit.

I30



EQUIVALENTSF NATURAL AW N THE TEACHING FJESUS

How far do we find him making appealto, or recognizing,an existing "natural"moral discernment or "natural" good-

ness in his hearers, or making protestagainst its absence?

I. Specific validation of the moral

aspect of the Torah.

a) Mark I2:29-31. The double "greatcommandment."

b) Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42. The

"weightier matters of the law, justice,and mercy, and faith" urged. (Luke:"..... justice and the love of

God.")c) Mark io: 19. Jesus' response to the

questionerconcerningthe conditionsofeternal life: "Thou knowest the com-

mandments, Do not kill, Do not bearfalsewitness,Do not defraud,Honorthyfather and mother."

d) Mark 7:9-I3. Jesus' rebuke of the

scribesand Pharisees with regardto the

legal pretext of "corban":"Full well do

ye reject the commandment of God:Honorthy father and thy mother. .... "

2. Appeal to the standard of right-eousness or justice and recognitionbyJesus that men acknowledgethis norm.Herewe find the standingdistinctionbe-tween the righteousand the unrighteous,as in their separation at the last judg-ment, Matt. I3:49; and in the resurrec-

tion, Luke I4:I4. See also LukeI5:7,thoughnone of these references s in the

best tradition.Note in theparableof thelaborersin the vineyardthat the owner

says, "Whatsoever s right [dikaion] Iwillgiveyou," and, "Friend,I do theeno

wrong." Of course, the evangelists usethe terms dikaios and dikaiosune andtheir opposites, and the latter term isassignedto Jesus severaltimes by Mat-

thew: .... hunger and thirst afterrighteousness,"etc. (5:6, 6:33, Io:4I,21:32, 25:31-46). But one of Jesus'dominant demands upon man is that

they be honest rather than hypocrites,

and the idea of integrity and justice isinvolved.

3. Appealto the standardof mercyor

humanityand recognitionby Jesus thatmen acknowledge his norm.

a) Aphorisms: Mark 2:17, "Theythat are whole have no need of a physi-cian, but they that are sick"; Mark 2:27,"The sabbath was made for man," etc.

b) Rhetorical questions, putting thehearers o shame or representedas beingunanswerable:Mark 3:4, "Is it lawful

on the sabbathday to do good or to doharm? to save a life or to kill?" (Notethe immediate sequel here: "Jesus was

grievedat the hardnessof theirhearts");Matt. 7:9-Io = Luke ii:ii, ....orwhat man is there of you, who, if hisson shallaskhim for a loaf, will give hima stone,"etc., concludingwith the words,".... if ye then, being evil, know howto

give good gifts unto your children.

c) Further nstances.Note that in the

parableof the unjust steward,his fellow-servants were "exceeding sorry" overhis ruthlessness. Add the citation of

Hosea, "I will have mercy and not sac-

rifice," in Matt. 9: 3 (questionablein

I2:7).

d) It is under thisheading

that weshould include the Golden Rule. It is

worthy of note that, accordingto Mat-

thew, Jesus adds with regard to theGoldenRule, "Forthis is the law and the

prophets."

4. More generalappeal to the funda-mental moral law. We find a naturaldistinctionmade by Jesus betweengoodmen and evil men, for example, in the

Qpassage, Matt. 12:35, and in the warn-ing against those who work iniquity or

lawlessness, Matt. 7:23; Luke 13:27.

Very revealing s the repudiationof "ex-

tortioners,unjust, adulterers" ound on

I3I




the lips of the Pharisee in his prayer in

the temple.5. Appeal to or recognition of ac-

knowledged moral standards, here interms of wisdom. Wisdom is justified byher works, that is, men are led to ac-

knowledge righteousness and truth bytheir outcomes, Matt. i : 19. Or wisdom

is justified by her children, Luke 7:35.The border line is then very close be-

tween the appeal to men's moral wisdom

and their native sense of truth, or even

their commonsense,

andJesus'

use of

such parables as the blind leading the

blind or the rich fool belong in the wis-

dom tradition.

6. Recognition of the moral discern-

ment of Gentiles, Samaritans, publicans,etc. Bearing upon this are Jesus' words

concerning the return of the absent

householder:

.... and that servant who knew his lord's

will,and madenot ready,nor didaccordingohis will, shall be beaten with many stripes;but he that knew not and did things worthy ofstripes, shall be beatenwithfew stripes. And towhomsoevermuchis given,of him shallmuchberequired;ndtowhom heycommitmuch,ofhim will they ask the more [Luke 12:47, 48].

The whole saying suggests the different

degrees of light (cf. "the light that is in

thee," Matt.6:23),

but theuniversality ofsome light and therefore of some ac-

countability. Here we note Jesus' ap-preciation of the mother-wit of the

Syrophoenician woman and of the faith

of the Centurion. Also, the merit of the

widow Zarephath of Sidon, and ofNaaman the Syrian, and the responseof the Queen of the South to Solomonand of the Ninevites to Jonah. Also, the

assertion that Tyre and Sidon-yes,Sodom-would have repented as againstthe Galilean cities. The fact of the non-

repentance of all these does not exclude

their capacity for moral discernment.Matthew connects the faith of the Cen-turion with Jesus' forecast of the many

(Gentiles)who shall comeinto the King-dom from the east and the west. Jesus'portrayalof the Good Samaritan'5 on-firms all these indications that he sees anative capacity for response to the de-mands of commonjustice and humanityin the hearts of all men.

7. Rebuke and denunciationof menfor lack of moraldiscernment.The sur-

prise, grief, and indignation of Jesus atthe hardness of men's hearts and at their

moral blindness is a negative testimonyto what he expected of men. It is true

that these reproaches are directed most

commonly at the scribes and Phariseesand need to be whittled down with re-

gardto theirhistoricity,as do most of his

expostulationswith the Twelve in Markfortheir dulnessofheart. But the charges"blind guides," "fools and blind," "yefoolish ones," and the parables of the

blind leading the blind, all directed

against the authorities, have their coun-

terpart in the reproach of the general

multitude, "0 faithless generation," and

in the delineation of many warned bythe parable of the rich fool. We maydrawupon what is probablyan editorial

phrase of Luke to make explicit what iseverywhere in Jesus' teaching-attitude:"And why even of yourselves judge yenot what is right [to dikaion]?" (Luke

12:57). For men can discern the signsof nature; and they should equally be

able to discern the signs of the times, in-

cluding the moral anarchy and its con-

sequences, but they cannot (Matt.

16:2, 3; Luke I2:54-59).

s The homage of the Samaritan leper (Luke

I7:I2-19) cannot confidently be used as evidence.

See M. S. Enslin, HarvardTheologicalReview,XXXVI, No. 4 (October, I943), 277-97.

I32



EQUIVALENTSOF NATURAL LAW IN THE TEACHINGOF JESUS

IV

Corroboratingevidence of Jesus' ap-peal to naturallaw is foundin his recog-nition of the orderof nature and his ap-peal to reasonand commonsense. Manyof the observations that Jesus makeswith regard to "nature" have their

analoguesin sayings of the rabbis or in

contemporary Jewish literature. Wecall attention to a few representativesayings of Jesus in this field. Jesus isaware of the fixed span of life, of the

unvarying correspondenceof tree andfruit, and of the facts that thorn andthistle remaintrue to type and that themustardseed growsinto a specificform.He recognizesthe distinctive abodes of

fox, bird, and man. In the physiologyofthat time the eye is the lampof the body.Though he may not have thought of the

germinationof the seed and the growthof the plant as we do, he nevertheless

observed the fixedorderof the stages ofgrowth. Note also the following: the

leafing-outof the fig tree; " .... wherethe body is, there .... the eagles"; thefall of the sparrow; he operationsof the

farmer,and in particular, he harvest inits season. One cannot survey these

many and often exceedinglypreciseob-servationsof nature without feelingthat

Jesus was awareof a

domain herewhichGodhad orderedandfromwhich he had,as it were,for the timebeingremovedhishand. That it is God who clothes the

lily and feeds the ravensis no contradic-tion to this. No doubt Jesus read a pro-found correspondencebetween this do-mainof nature and that of mankind,andboth were the field of operationof God.That Jesus could recognize stabilities

andpermanencesn the nonhumanworldconfirms his similar reading of humanlife.

It is also to the point to note that

even in the present age the order ofnature is not depreciatedas evil. Whilethere is a real dualismin all the higher

forms of religion, yet biblical religionin the Old and New Testaments affirmsthat graceis not againstnaturebut onlyagainst the sinful will, which itself is

against nature.'6One can find frequentcitationsin Jesus,Paul, andthe Pastoral

Epistles supportingthe positive appre-ciation of nature, of man, and of the

body. There is no strife betweennatureand

redemption,since both come from

the same one creator. Grace will trans-mute and liberate nature, not destroyit, both in respect to man and to thecosmos.Just as this outlook appearsinterms of the Logos doctrine in John,Hebrews,and Col. :15 ff., so it appearsin the outlook of Jesus; with regardto

man, in the doctrineof the resurrection

body (Mark I2:24 ff.; cf. I Cor.

I5:35 ff.); and with regard to the cos-mos and its palingenesis, in the sym-bolism of the messianicbanquet and ofthe eating and drinkingin the new age(Mark 14:25; cf. Rom. 8:Igff. andRev. 2 : I ff.). The rejection of asceticism

points the same way: the Son of Mancame eating and drinking (cf. Col.

2:20-23; I Tim. 4:3 ff.); marriage is

grounded in the creation (Matt.I9:4ff.); God is immediately activein the processesof nature (Matt. 5:45,etc.); also, our life and the body arerec-

ognized for the miracles they are: "Isnot the life morethan the meat, and the

body than raiment?"

Againwemay note the frequencywithwhichJesus makes appealto reasonandcommonsense as a basisfor a higherap-

peal to religiousand moraldiscernment.z6 For this theme, in what follows, I summarize

Arthur Titius, "Natur und Christentum," Religionin Geschichteund Gegenwart (2. Aufl.), IV, 426 f.

I33




It is very much to the point here to ob-serve how Jesusin his moralimperativesreliedupon the free assent of his hearers

and the nativediscernmentof conscience.This confidenceof Jesusin the persuasivepower of the truth and in the ultimatemoral discernment of common menseems to have taken precedence withhim over other enforcingfeatures. Theunanswerablerhetorical questions that

Jesus puts when an issue is raised in-

volving the authority of the law are

appealsto common sense: "How much

then is a man of more value than a

sheep " (Matt. I2:I2). And the assign-

ment of first place of authority to onefeatureof the law over another,as in thecase of divorce, rests on an appeal tomoraljudgment.

We need to make a distinction here.On the onehand,Jesusis foundfrequent-ly appealingto the reasonof his hearers

in respect to illustrationsand analogiesthat he proposes. These often do nottouch the fundamentalmoral issue ex-

cept by analogy. But such observationsthen serve as a ground from which torise to a higherorder of truth, this timenot by reasonor commonsense but bya moraldiscernment.'7

It is one of the gloriesof Jesus'teach-

ing that it is thusfundamentally

con-fident of man's native insight and freemoralresponsiveness.The GoldenRule,for example, while it involves the sanc-tions of Scripturewhich it summarizesin Matthew's form, is countedon reallyto carryits own conviction.The same istrue of the doublegreat commandmentas a summary of the law. "Take heedand keep yourselves from all covetous-

17 For examples of aphorisms and parabolic say-ings appealing to experience or common sense seeMark 3:23b-25; 6:4; 9:49, 50; Matt. 7:2; Luke

2: 25. For those making appeal to a moral discern-

ment, see below and add Luke I4:II.

ness," says Jesus. "Why?" we answer.And he calls our attention to a fact towhich we cannot but assent: "....for

a man's life consisteth not in the abun-danceof the things which he possesseth(Luke I2:I5). The recognition of what

defiletha man is left to the hearer'sdis-

cernment,assistedby the analogydrawnfromthe body. That Jesus lays immense

weight on the responsibilityof man to

perceiveand understandcomesout wellin the denunciationof the hypocrisyofthe

Pharisees,the burden of which is

summed up in the words "fools andblind."

V

Ouropeningsectionshave shownthatthe dualistic eschatological interpreta-tion of his times by Jesus carriedwith itthe supercessionof the law as the formof the will of Godforhis people.Thoughthe actualrealizationof the new

agewas

still in the future,it was already nitiatedand in process. The period of the lawand the prophetswas giving way to the

period of the Kingdom. So far as themoral law of the Old Testament is con-

cerned,this meant that its prescriptive,legalistic character was in course ofabolitionand that, so far as its contentwas concerned, t was to be fulfilledand

transcendedby the ethicof the Kingdom.The same conclusion is reached if weconsider the matter not from the pointof view of eschatologybut fromthe pointof view of Jesus' prophetic conscious-ness. Here, too, we find a dissolutionofthe Torahin its aspect of a code of con-

duct, a criticismboth of its formand ofits content on the basis of the authorityof the

propheticconsciousness,and the

setting-forth of an ethic transcendingthe old.

This new ethic of the Kingdom,vari-

ously characterizedas the ethic of love

I34



EQUIVALENTSF NATURAL AW N THETEACHINGOFJESUS

(agape)or the via crucis, is inseparablefrom the new religious consciousnessmediatedby the Gospel.In variousways

Jesus makes clear what it is that dis-tinguishes it not only from the legalistor observancecharacterof the moral lawof the Torah but also from the very con-tent of that moral aw. "What ackI yet"is the clue to the distinction,though the

particular demand then placed on therichyouth is not to be taken as a ruleofuniversal application. Discipleship to

Jesusmeant an actionof

repentance,be-

lief in the good news, and a sharein thenew family of the Gospel-all carryingwith it a novel way of life and conduct

correspondingo the fact that the King-dom was in course of realization. Thisdid not thereforenullify the content ofthe moral law of the Old Covenant. Tohold that it did, one would have to saythat Jesus'frequentappealsto the deca-

logueor to "the weightiermattersof thelaw" were essentially irrelevant to hiscall to repentanceand to hispresentationof the ethic of the Kingdom.

It is, indeed, rhetoricallyimpressiveto say that the claims of the Kingdom"confound"all human standards,"dis-solve" all existingpatterns;that "chari-

ty" has nothing to do with human

righteousness,nor love with

justice;and

that justification, the new birth, leave

behind all standards of righteousnessworkedout by manin the gripof originalsin. But such excessive categories and

paradoxesarebettersuitedto thepreach-er than to the historianor the psycholo-gist. After all, the New Testament is

full of the conception that Christ al-

ready workedon the hearts of the men

of the Old Covenant. One cannot arguea discontinuity between natural law

and Gospel when one finds such a pas-sage as the following:

If there be with thee a poor man, one of thybrethren,within thy gates in thy land which theLord thy Godgiveth thee, thou shalt not harden

thy heart, nor shut thy hand from thy poor

brother;but thou shaltfully openthy hand under

him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his

need in that which he wanteth...." [Deut.

I5:7-II].

Similarly, the basic moral standardsofthe Gentile point toward the Gospel,as

a readerof Vergilcan appreciate.'8 t isbecause the soul of man is naturaliterChristianumthat his natural law pre-pareshim for the ethic of the Kingdom.The Fourth Gospel's conception of thetruelight that lightetheverymancominginto the worldis only the later form of aview which is implicit in Jesus' appealto the moraldiscernmentof men.

8ISeeT. R. Glover,TheConflictfReligionsn the

Early Roman Empire (London, I909), pp. 28-32.

I35

Documents

Equivalents of Natural Law in the Teaching of Jesus