Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJames Hastings Dictionary of the NT: Accommodation
Subjects in this Topic:
ACCOMMODATION
i. The Incarnation as the supreme example.
(a) The birth and childhood of Jesus.
(b) The temptations to which He was subjected.
(c) The mental and spiritual sufferings experienced by Him.
ii. Incidents inferentially valuable.
(a) His education in a pious Jewish home.
(b) The deliberate acceptance and public avowal by Him of the limitations conditioning human life.
(c) Revelation of these limitations involved in the spontaneity of His attitude towards (1) His fellow-men, (2) His Father.
iii. Jesus’ activity as Teacher.
(a) Repeated assertions as to nature of the authority wielded by Him.
(b) Objective of His message defined by (1) the national characteristics of His fellow countrymen; (2) their theological and traditional beliefs—
( á ) Messianic kingdom.
( â ) Doctrine of angel-mediation.
( ã ) Current conceptions of the power of Satan and of evil spirits.
(c) Methods employed by Jesus in His teaching: (1) parables purposely and economically utilized; (2) use of popular figurative expressions; (3) employment of aphorism, allegory, etc.; (4) acceptance of current conceptions as to—
( á ) Natural phenomena.
( â ) Anthropology.
iv. Attitude of Jesus towards the Messianic hopes of His day.
(a) Assumption of the title ‘Son of Man.’
(b) Attitude towards the Jewish Canon of Scripture observable in His acceptance of (1) its general historicity; (2) the traditional view of the authorship and interpretation of Psalms 110.
v. Summary and practical conclusion.
Literature.
The term ‘accommodation’ may be defined as the Principle or law according to which God adapts His Self-revelation to the capacities and limitations of created intelligences. In every age, from the earliest onwards, this Self-revelation of God has been made, and has its own characteristic features. Between the time when men conceived of God in the rudimentary anthropomorphism of Gen_3:8 and the time of the highest attainment by the human mind of His Nature and Being (Joh_4:23 f.), every conceivable gradation occurs in the extent and character of God’s revelation of Himself to men.
i. The Incarnation as the supreme example.—This is not the place to enter into a detailed inquiry as to the nature and extent of the self-imposed limitations of Christ, or how far the modern theories of the kenosis (wh. see) are justified by revelation, directly or by implication. It will be sufficient here to indicate how far the Gospels, as we have them, point to a real adoption by Him of the conditions of that life which He assumed, and involved Him ex necessitate in the limitations of a real human life.
(a) So complete is the accommodation to the capacities and requirements of infanthood, that St. Luke scruples not to record, as part of the angelic message, the finding by the shepherds of … ‘a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger’ (Luk_2:12), and St. Matthew makes the safety of His childhood depend on the vigilance and care of Joseph and His mother, their return from enforced exile being conditioned by the fact that ‘they are dead that sought the young child’s life’ (Mat_2:20). All this presupposes, of course, His development along the lines of human growth, which is boldly outlined by St. Luke in the much debated passage, ‘Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men’ (Luk_2:52). If these words are to be interpreted according to their obvious meaning, they imply a moral and spiritual as well as a physical advancement along lines as normal as, for example, those which marked the growth of the child Samuel. We may say, indeed, that there is a marked reference to the words … êáὶ ἀãáèὸí êáὶ ìåôὰ Êõñßïõ êáὶ ìåôὰ ἀíèñþðùí of 1Sa_2:26 [LXX Septuagint ]. ‘Christ’s growth was from His birth a holy growth’ (Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, English translation p. 282); but the words ‘the child grew and waxed strong’ (Luk_2:40) point to the essentially human conditions under which that growth was effected.
The sole incident in connexion with His boyhood which has come down to us in our reliable authorities is that of His visit to the temple (Luk_2:41 ff.). Short, however, as it is, it throws a clear light on the nature and reality of the advance ‘in wisdom and favour,’ and its uninterrupted continuity is well expressed in Luk_2:40, if we give the word ðëçñïýìåíïí its proper significance. Day by day He was being filled with wisdom. Even at this age, His marvellous intellectual powers displayed themselves, and already He exhibited that keen insight which in after life He so frequently showed. The verb used to express the amazement of the learned teachers ( ἐîßóôáíôï ) shows how much these men wondered at the Boy’s knowledge and at the depth of His understanding ( ἐðὶ ôῇ óõíÝóåé ). Notwithstanding this feature of the narrative, the historian is far from leading us to suppose that there was anything supernatural in the matter. He rather represents Jesus as a boy of a singularly inquiring turn of mind, who deliberately determines to find out for Himself the solution of many problems which puzzled Him during the course of His home education, and for which He could find no satisfactory explanation from His teachers in Nazareth. He sits down ( êáèéæüìåíïí ) at the feet of these great teachers ( äéäáóêÜëùí ) as a learner (cf. St. Paul’s description of his own education in the Law, Act_22:3). Nor are we to look upon the circumstance in the temple as constituting an exhibition of miraculous intellectual acquirements in the ordinary sense of that word. All Jewish children from their ‘earliest infancy’ (Josephus c. Apion. ii. 18) were made to acquire a knowledge of and to practise the precepts of the Law. We have only to compare the Lukan narrative with that given in the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy to see how completely natural and human is the whole incident, and how entirely the boyhood of Jesus was subject to boyhood’s conditions and limitations. In the latter He is represented as cross-examining each of the doctors, and instructing them not only in matters appertaining to the Law and the Prophets, but in astronomy, physics, metaphysics, and other branches of current erudition (see chs. xlviii.–lii.).
Without entering into an examination of the words contained in His answer to His mother’s gentle rebuke, or what relation they bear to His subsequent complete and developed self-consciousness, it may be said that they do not necessarily involve all that is sometimes imported into them. Even the implied antithesis ὁ êáôÞñ óïõ of Luk_2:48 and ἑí ôïῖò ôïῦ ôáôñüò ìïõ of Luk_2:49 probably means nothing more than a reminder that the claims of His heavenly Father take precedence of all others, and bears testimony to a profound appreciation of the transcendent reality of His Divine Sonship (cf. B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, Eog. translation vol. i. p. 278 ff.). It is true, we have no right to assume that the Boy Jesus had no knowledge of His unique relationship to God (cf. Gore, Diss. p. 78, n. [Note: note.] 1). The use of the possessive particle ìïõ points to the prohability that His powers of realization in this respect were as wonderful as the development of His mental faculties in another. This is, however, far from saying that Jesus at this early age possessed the consciousness of His Messiahship, which only came to full maturity at the next turning-point of His life (see Sanday’s art. ‘Jesus Christ’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible , vol. ii. p. 609); and the short but graphic touch with which St. Luke portrays for us His surprise at His parents’ method of search ( ôἰ ὁôé ἑæçôåῖôÝ ìå ;), and His sustained subordination ( ἦí ὑôïôáóóüìåíïò áὐôïῖò gives the idea of a continuance of His subjection to the conditions of His home life) to the authority of Joseph and Mary shows how completely the Son of God ‘emptied Himself,’ ìïñöἠí äïýëïõ ëáâὠí , Php_2:7.
One incidental reference to this period of Jesus’ life in the Synoptic narrative further deepens the impressiveness of this self-humiliation. St. Mark relates that on the occasion of one of His visits to Nazareth (Mar_6:1) His teaching was met by His fellow-townsmen with the scornful question, ‘Is not this the carpenter?’ ( ὁ ôÝêôùí ).* [Note: This would seem to he the original and correct form of the expression, though the Matthaean record has ὁ ôïῦ ôåêôïíïò õἱüò (Mat_13:55, to which the Western text (11) of St. Mark has conformed (see Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, p. 52 f.).] This single question gives point to the more general remark of St. Luke mentioned above, and interprets his use of the analytical or periphrastic tense ( ἦí ὑðïôáóóüìåíïò : for the use of this form of the verb the reader is recommended to see Burton’s NT Moods and Tenses, p. 11 f. and p. 16; see also Blass, Gram. of NT Greek, p. 203).
His whole life, then, previous to the events which led to His public ministry, was lived under the simple conditions which obtained in a humble but pious country home, and His answer to the Baptist’s remonstrance, ‘it becometh us ( ðñÝðïí ἐóôὶí ἡìῖí ) to fulfil all righteousness’ (Mat_3:15), is the result of a training characteristic in its naïveté of a house whose inmates ‘waited for the redemption of Israel’ (Luk_2:25), and were strict observers of the laws governing the religious life of the Jews. See, further, artt. Boyhood and Childhood.
It may not be out of place to note a slight but significant difference in the method of introducing the narrative of Jesus’ baptism between the Lukan and the other two Synoptic versions. The latter speak of Jesus as coming from Galilee for the special purpose of being baptized (see fragment of Gosp. Heb. in Jerome’s adv. Pelag. 3)— ôïῦ âáôôéóèῆíáé ὑô ʼ áὐôïῦ (Mat_3:13), êáὶ ἑâáôôßóèç ὑôὸ ἸùÜííïõ (Mar_1:9).—and seem to be conscious of a certain amount of astonishment on account of the act. The Lukan narrative, on the other hand, gives the story an incidental character; and by its uses of the participle, both in describing the act of baptism and also His prayer which immediately followed ( êáὶ Ἰçóïῦ âáôôéóèÝíôïò êáὶ ôñïóåõ÷ïìßíïõ , Luk_3:21), the Evangelist gives a human touch to the whole scene which harmonizes well with the style of his history in this place.
(b) It is, however, when we come to the scene of His temptation, and study it in connexion with the revelation which He had just received from His Father, that we begin to appreciate the full meaning of the words of Heb_4:15 that Jesus was One who ‘in all points’ ( êáôὰ ðÜíôá ) was tempted like ourselves. Whatever be the interpretation we are inclined to put upon the nature and method of the temptations (see art. Temptation) to which He was subjected, one thing must be uncompromisingly insisted on—the struggle was a real one, it was intense, it was necessary ( ἔðñåðåí ãὰñ áὑôῷ … äéἀ ðáèçõÜôùí ôåëåéῶóáé , Heb_2:10). It is necessary that we should be on our guard against falling into the errors which mar, for example, the work of Hilary of Poitiers in his controversy with the Arians (see especially his Libri XII. de Trinitate, Liber x.). To explain away the reality of the sufferings of Jesus arising out of His different temptations, whether these sufferings are mental or physical, is of the essence of Docetism; and a docetic Christ has never yet appealed, and we are confident never will appeal, to the conscious needs of humanity. Jesus Himself must have been the ultimate source from which the story of the Temptation became known, and it is very evident that the impression made upon His mind by the terrible ordeal was most profound. He had just received from His Father the revelation of His unique Sonship.* [Note: For our present purpose it is immaterial whether we reject the words of the Textus Receptus Óὺ åἶ ὁ õἱüò ìïõ ὁ ἀãáôçôüò , ἕã óïὶ çὑäüêçóá in favour of the Western reading of Luk_3:22 íἱüò ìïõ åἶ óý , ἐãὼ óÞìåñïí ãåãå ̇ ííçêÜ óå which Resch and Blass as well as others seem to prefer (cf. Blass, Ev. secundum Lucam, etc., Praefatio, pp. xxxvi–xxxvii).] St. Matthew and St. Luke agree in prefixing to two of the temptations the words, ‘If thou art the Son of God,’ the essence of the trial consisting in the danger of doubting the truth which had been disclosed to His consciousness, and of testing the fidelity of God by a thaumaturgical exhibition. There is also a subtle psychological and spiritual fitness in the character of the first of the series, which speaks, perhaps, more for its real force than any direct statement could do. The appeal came to Jesus in the hour and on the side of His physical exhaustion, and this is in direct accordance with the general experience of humanity. Temptation becomes infinitely stronger and more dangerous when physical weakness comes to the aid of the external promptings of the Evil One.
That Jesus believed, and led those to whom He recounted His experiences to believe, in the near presence of a personal spirit of evil during this critical period of conflict, is very evident (see Gore, Diss. p. 24 ff.). Moreover, this Evil One ( ὁ äéÜâïëïò , Mat_4:5; Mat_4:8; Mat_4:11, Luk_4:3; Luk_4:6; Luk_4:13; ὁ Óáôáíᾶò , Mar_1:13) is a prince standing at the head of a kingdom which is the direct antithesis of the kingdom of God. According to the Lukan version of this incident, Jesus expected to meet again in personal conflict this great spiritual enemy. The devil left Him only till further opportunity for assault should arise ( ἅ÷ñé êáéñïῦ , Luk_4:13); and towards the end of His ministry we find Him giving expression to the consciousness that the great struggle with His arch-foe was about to recommence—‘The prince of the world ( ὁ ôïῦ êïóìïõ ἅñ÷ùí , Joh_14:30) is (now) coming’ (cf. Job_12:1). When His arrest, following upon His betrayal, was about to become an accomplished fact, He recognized the return of the spirit of evil, and that the return was with power ( ἡ ἐîïõóßá ôïῦ óêüôïõò Luk_22:53).
Perhaps there is no more vivid presentation of the profound reality of His subjection to temptation than that afforded by the narrative dealing with the events which occurred in Caesarea Philippi. It is almost possible to see the startled look of horror on Jesus’ face as He listens to Peter’s well-meant, if indiscreet, remonstrance. In the words of His chief Apostle He hears again the voice of Satan (cf. Mat_16:23 and Mar_8:33), and the almost fierce way in which He rebukes Peter points to the conclusion that this is not the first time the suggestion has whispered itself into His ear, to forego the bitter taste which He knows He must experience before His work is ended.
(c) Before passing from the consideration of this aspect of the Incarnation viewed as the self-adaptation of the Son of God to the conditions of humanity, we must refer shortly to some of the details of the last, greatest, and most awful of the temptations to which Jesus was exposed. Some have sought to explain away the reality both of the temptations and the sufferings, through a vain desire to exalt His Divine at the expense of His human nature; but this is not the method of interpreting the life of Christ which brings out of it God’s answer to man’s deepest and most conscious needs. There can hardly be a doubt in the mind of any unprejudiced reader that the Synoptists place on record their accounts of the Passion believing the facts detailed to be real and objective. The words of Jesus are the expressions of a mind torn with the mental and spiritual conflict; and if Luk_22:43-44 be not a mere Western interpolation, the element of awful fear entered into and heightened His sufferings. It is only in this way that we can interpret the words ἐí ἀãùíßᾳ . See art. Agony. The thrice-repeated prayer of Jesus, in which He speaks of His own will as distinct from, but completely subordinate to, His Father’s, adds to the impression, already gained, of the purely human feelings exhibited by Him in His struggle, and recalls to our mind the words in His own form of prayer, ‘Thy will be done’ (Mat_6:10); thus connecting, in the greatest crisis of His life, His own with our absolute dependence upon the expressed will of His Father.
The writer of the Fourth Gospel records sayings of Jesus which are very similar to this. After the conversation of Jesus with the woman of Samaria, He explains to His disciples the all-absorbing, satisfying character of His life’s work, which is to do the will ( ôὸ èÝëçìá ) of His Father (Joh_4:34). In other places He distinguishes between His own èÝëçìá and that of His Father (Joh_5:30; Joh_6:38); and this is the word used by the Synoptic writers when recording the words of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. On what grounds St. Luke employs the verb âïýëïìáé (Luk_22:42) in this connexion we do not know. If the choice is not accident, it is evidence that even in His great affliction Jesus bowed Himself to the deliberate determination of God (for the connexion between âïýëïìáé and èÝëù see Cremer, pp. 143 ff. and 726 f.).
A very pathetic touch is given by St. Matthew to the portraiture of this scene in the garden. Both he and St. Mark relate how Jesus expressed a wish that His three disciples should be on their guard. St. Mark, however, leaves the impression that He is bidding them watch against the too sudden intrusion of their enemies upon His privacy. Twice He uses the imperative ‘Watch.’ On the other hand, St. Matthew twice adds to this same verb the expression ‘with me,’ as if anxious to show the very human desire of Jesus to have the companionship of faithful friends in the hour of His need and solitude. The same two writers have recorded a saving of Jesus to His sleeping companions (‘Sleep on now, and take your rest’) which is omitted by St. Luke. In these words it is possible to discover a tinge of bitter sadness and disappointment, as if the reflection were forced upon Him that He was bereft even of that loyal friendship which had left all and followed Him; and that, too, at a time when it was most precious, and when He stood in sorest need of its help and sympathy. The truth is, He felt the full force of the temptation to leave undone the last and hardest part of the work which He came to do, or to find a way of fulfilling His Father’s will other than by treading the path of suffering and death. It was in the very act of submission that He found His most effective weapon of resistance; and we have here at the same time a verification of the reality of His human nature, and an example of Himself carrying out to fulfilment the principle which He inculcated as a guide to others—‘He that humbleth himself shall be exalted’ (Luk_18:14; Luk_14:11).
ii. Incidents inferentially valuable.—(a) If we serutinize carefully the method of resistance which Jesus adopted in His first great conflict, we cannot fail to see the results of that moral and spiritual education which was the characteristic element of His domestic surroundings, and with which we become incidentally acquainted by the tone of His remark to His mother in the temple. The words ἐí ôïῖò ôïῦ ðáôñüò ìïõ (Luk_2:14) show how profoundly He was impressed with the sense of His Divine Sonship; and, we must believe, they were the outcome of His familiarity with the thought underlying much of the language of the OT. In repelling the Satanic attacks of the Temptation He reveals to us a mind steeped in the literature of, and full to overflowing with spiritual principles culled from, the Book of Deuteronomy. Nor was it only when He felt the sore stress of temptation that His belief in the truth of God’s revelation given in the OT, and His profound knowledge of its contents, came to His aid. In the hour of His intensest bodily and mental agony, the words of Psalms 22 leaped instinctively to His mind, and gave expression to the feeling of awful loneliness which then hung over Him like a black cloud. If in moments of deepest feeling, when the soul almost without conscious effort turns to the sources whence it drew its early sustenance, Jesus had recourse to the words of the OT, and was able to extract from that wide field of literature all that was purest and most spiritual, it was not, we feel sure, without long, deep study and pondering over the meaning of the different writers from His childhood onwards. Remembering, then, this feature in the mental and spiritual equipment of Christ, it will not be surprising if we find Him displaying the same habit of mind in almost every variety of circumstance of which He found Himself the centre. St. Matthew and St. Mark tell us that, at the time of St. Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi, He for the first time spoke to His disciples of the fatal end in store for Him. St. Matthew clearly points out that this was a new departure— ἀðὸ ôüôå ἤñîáôï , ê . ô . ë . (Mat_16:21).—and that He continually reverted to the subject as if desirous of impressing the disciples with the impossibility of His escape. We do not know at what precise period Jesus was convinced that there could inevitably be only one ending to His work, or whether He knew from the beginning, and merely waited for a fitting time to prepare His disciples for the shock. We do, however, know that at this period He was convinced not merely by the ‘signs of the times’ (Mat_16:3), which all pointed in this direction, but also by His knowledge and interpretation of the things which were written ‘in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms’ (Luk_24:44), concerning Him, that the way of glory was the way of the cross. St. Mark makes a pointed reference to the connexion, which evidently existed in Jesus’ mind, between the death of the Baptist and His own coming end (Mar_9:12 f.); and we know that the murder of John made a profound impression upon Him (Mat_14:13, cf. Joh_6:1). Perhaps we may be allowed to conjecture that this circumstance marked an advance in the mind of Christ towards a great synthesis—the identification of the Conquering with the Suffering Messiah.
The question ôῶò ãἑãñáôôáé , ê . ô . ë ., of Mar_9:12, shows what it was that strengthened His resolve to pursue His mission to its consummation. That He dwelt long and deliberately on this aspect of His work is seen by the way in which He again refers to it towards the end of His journey to Jerusalem (Mar_10:33, to which St. Luke adds the characteristic formula … ôåëåóèÞóåôáé ðÜíôá ôá ãåãñáììἐíá äéὰ ôù ̈ í ðñïöçôù ̈ í , Luk_18:31; cf. also Mat_26:24 êáèὠò ãἑãñáôôáé Luk_22:22 ÷áôὰ ôï ὠñéóìåíïí Luk_24:26 f., Luk_24:44; Luk_24:46, Mat_26:54.
(b) One of the most widely canvassed, and, indeed, the most difficult passage in the Gospel history is that in which Jesus is said to have disclaimed the knowledge of the time of His glorious Return. St. Matthew and St. Mark record His disavowal in almost identical words, except that the former emphasizes it by the addition of ìüíïò to the words åἰ ìἡ ὁ ðáôÞñ , which are common to both (cf. Mat_24:36 and Mar_13:32). In both narratives Jesus is represented as speaking in the 3rd person ( ïὐäὲ ὁ õἱüò , by which we are doubtless to understand His usual self-designation ‘Son of Man,’ occurring as this title does in the context of both passages, Mat_24:37; Mat_24:39, Mar_13:26). How are we to interpret, then, this self-revelation which emanates from the consciousness of Jesus? Many expedients have been tried to get over the logical conclusion derivable from a literal exegesis, some even going so far as to suggest that the passage is an Arian interpolation.
Athanasius would almost dichotomize the Person of Christ in his effort at explanation. Indeed, he plainly asserts that the Son did know ‘the hour of the end of all things.’ But as being the Word ( ὡò ìὲí ëüãïò ) He knew, though at the same time as man ( ὡò äὲ áíèñùôïò ) He is ignorant of it ( ἀãíïåῖ ). In the same context he maintains that Jesus acted deliberately in speaking of His ignorance for the sake of ‘economy’ ( öáíåñüí ôåôïßçêåí ὀôé ôåñὶ ôῆò ἁíèñùôßíçò áὑôïῦ ëåéôïõñãßáò ἐëåãåí , ‘ ïὐäὲ ὁ Õἰüò ’). See his Orations against the Arians, bk. ii. chapters xliii and xliv, where these passages occur (Bright’s ed.). Cyril of Alexandria, in his capacity of malleus Arianorum, speaks in much the same strain, and sometimes more unguardedly, as if be were unwilling, as indeed most of the Fathers were, to face the theological and exegetical difficulties of this whole question. Most of us will sympathize with the strong and vigorous language of Theodoret with respect to the evasions so commonly current. ‘If,’ he says, ‘He knew the day, but being desirous to conceal it said He did not know, you see in what blasphemy the inference lands us. For the Truth lies’ (Repr. XII. capp. Cyril in Anath. IV.).
There is also a considerable body of modern thought which seems to reject all serious consideration of this aspect of the Incarnation as being dangerous to a right and reverent attitude towards the claims of Christ. We have only to read such a book as Hall’s The Kenotic Theory, or several articles in the Ch. Q. Review (e.g. vols. xliv., xlv., and lii.), to see how earnestly men contend against the frank acceptance, in their most obvious meaning, of the words of Jesus.
However mysterious the conclusion at which we are forced to arrive may be, and however inconsistent the different parts of our Christological system may appear, it is necessary for us candidly to accept this self-revelation of Jesus as being strictly in accord with His personal consciousness, and, moreover, as being an infallible indication of the complete and perfect manner in which the Divine Word accommodated Himself to the conditions of the race whose nature He took.
It would, again, be impossible and absurd to treat the incident of the barren fig-tree, related by both St. Matthew (Mat_21:18-22) and St. Mark (Mar_11:12-14), as if it were a mere scenic display for the purpose of solemnly inculcating a moral lesson. Yet this is practically what we are asked to do by writers who refuse to believe that the mind of Jesus was no more exempt from human characteristics than His body was from the sufferings incident to earthly life. On this occasion He felt the pangs of hunger, and He believed He saw the natural means of satisfying His need. We could look for no more convincing example, in His life, of the complete adaptation of Himself to all the laws governing mortal existence. Other instances there are in abundance which point in the same direction, viz. to His complete and willing submission to the limitations which condition the human mode of life. He hungered, as we have seen (Mat_4:2, Mar_11:12 = Mat_21:18, Joh_4:31), and sympathized with those who suffered thus (Mat_15:32 = Mar_8:2, cf. Mat_12:1 ff; Mat_25:35; Mat_25:42). He suffered the pangs of thirst (Joh_4:7; Joh_19:28). He experienced physical weariness after prolonged exertion (Joh_4:6, cf. Mat_8:24 = Mar_4:38). Notwithstanding O. Holtzmann’s interpretation of Luk_9:58 (= Mat_8:20) it is very certain that there is a personal reference to His homeless condition in these words, and we notice a quiet sadness, as if He felt the loneliness attaching to a life of continued wandering (cf. O. Holtzmann’s Leben Jesu, English translation p. 169, note 3, and p. 303 f.).
(c) The element of spontaneity discoverable in the words and actions of Jesus, expressive of His attitude either towards His fellow-men or towards God, lends force to what we have been saying about limitations involved in His manhood. (1) He experienced feelings of keen disappointment with the people of His country for their lack of spirituality (Mar_8:12; Mar_6:6, Joh_11:33; Joh_11:38, cf. Mar_9:19, Joh_14:9, Mar_8:17 ff; Mar_6:4 = Luk_4:24, Luk_8:25 = Mar_4:40 = Mat_8:26, Mar_3:5; Mar_7:18; Mar_8:12; Mar_10:21 ff. = Luk_18:18-30 = Mat_19:16-24). On the other hand, He expressed astonishment at the spiritual receptivity of some who had no claim to be amongst the number of the chosen people of God (Mat_8:10 = Luk_7:9, cf. Mat_15:28 = Mar_7:29), though He recognizes the fact that this phenomenon was not confined to His own experience (Mat_12:41 f. = Luk_11:31 f., Luk_4:22-27). The legitimate inference to be drawn from the passage last mentioned is not so much that the Divine love flowed over spontaneously towards those who were outside the Abrahamic covenant, as that faith and trust, often found amongst the heathen, drew towards them God’s gracious intervention, just as the lack of these spiritual graces amongst His own people tended to dry up the fountain of God’s active love (Mar_6:1-6 = Mat_13:54-58 = Luk_4:16-24 [cf. Plummer, in loc.]).
One of the methods adopted by Jesus for purposes of instruction was that with which the name of Socrates is usually linked. Starting from premises universally recognized as valid, He leads His hearers onwards by question and answer to the result He wishes to establish (Mar_8:14-21 = Mat_16:5-12, Mar_12:14 ff., Mat_12:48; Mat_22:31 ff., Mat_22:41-46 = Mar_12:23-37 = Luk_20:41-44). With these examples we may also compare the merciless way in which Jesus employed this method lo involve His enemies in an awkward dilemma (Mat_21:24-26), driving home His argument against their moral dishonesty by the parable of the Two Sons, and the question arising out of it (Mat_21:28-31; cf. Mat_21:40-45; Mat_12:27 and Mat_15:3). Not all the questions, however, asked by Jesus were of this character. Some are of the nature of ordinary inquiry—a demand for some needed information. Such are the questions addressed to the sisters of Bethany (Joh_11:34), to the Gerasene demoniac (Luk_8:30 = Mar_5:9), to the father of the epileptic boy (Mar_9:21), to the disciples on the two occasions (if, indeed, they are not different versions of the same occurrence) of His feeding the multitude (Mar_6:38; Mar_8:5 = Mat_15:34; cf., however, Joh_6:6, which is the author’s gloss).
(2) Not very far removed from this phenomenon in Jesus’ life is the habit of prayer and quiet communion with God which He habitually and sedulously cultivated (Mat_11:25-30 = Luk_10:21 f., Luk_3:21, Mar_1:35, Mat_14:23, Luk_5:16; Luk_6:12; Luk_9:28; Luk_22:32; Luk_22:42 ff. = Mat_26:36 ff. = Mar_14:32 ff., with which we may compare Joh_17:9-15; Joh_17:20; Joh_14:16; Joh_12:27 f.). Of the three Synoptists, St. Luke seems to be the one who most appreciates this feature of Jesus’ attitude to His Father. No truer comment has ever been made on it than that of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb_5:7) in referring to His supplications in Gethsemane—the ‘obedience’ of Christ was slowly fashioned through prayer, which was answered for His reverent devotion (Westcott, Ep. to Heb. in loc.). The two descriptive words employed by this writer ( äåἠóåéò ôå êáὶ ἰêåôçñὶáò ) illustrate well the intense nature, of these supplications ( ìåôὰ êñáõãῆò ἰó÷õñᾶò êáὶ äáêñýùí ), reminding us of the vivid representation of Mar_14:35. We have here ‘the spectacle of true man, weighted with a crushing burden, the dread of a catastrophe awful and unfathomed’ (Gore, Diss. p. 82 f.).
iii. Jesus’ activity as Teacher.—(a) When we look at the position of Teacher occupied by Jesus, we not merely see Him assuming tacitly to be the ultimate authority upon the ethical value of OT laws, and giving instruction from that standpoint suitable to the receptive powers of His hearers, we are also confronted with His confessed subordination even in this sphere. His is a delegated authority conferred on Him by an unction from God. He was sent with a definite message, the contents of which He identified with that given in Deutero-Isaiah (ch. 42, cf. Isa_61:1 f.). We are reminded of the words of the Apostle Peter at Caesarea (Act_10:38), where he uses the same word to express this unction, and adds as the secret of the marvellous power exhibited by the Anointed that God was with Him. This thought is most frequently and plainly dwelt on in the Fourth Gospel, and this is the more surprising as it appears alongside of claims the most far-reaching as to the significance of His life and teaching. In His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus sets forth His place in the scheme of world-salvation. He is the object of men’s faith and belief. It is through Him that life is brought into the world. At the same time He is the Sent of God (… ἀðÝóôåéëåí ὁ èåὸò ôὸí õἱὸí åἰò ôὸí êüóìïí , ê . ô . ë ., Joh_3:17, cf. Joh_3:34; Joh_4:34; Joh_5:23-24; Joh_5:30; Joh_5:36-38; Joh_6:29; Joh_6:38-39; Joh_6:44; Joh_6:57; Joh_7:16; Joh_7:18; Joh_7:28-29; Joh_7:33; Joh_8:16; Joh_8:18; Joh_8:26; Joh_8:29; Joh_8:42; Joh_9:4; Joh_10:36; Joh_11:42; Joh_12:44-45; Joh_12:49; Joh_14:24; Joh_15:21; Joh_16:5; Joh_17:8 and Joh_20:21, Luk_10:16; Luk_9:48, Mat_10:40, cf. Mar_9:37 and Joh_13:20).
(b) Not only has He received His commission as a Teacher from God, but there is a limitation defined for Him in the scope of the delivery of His message (Joh_1:11, Mat_15:24; Mat_21:37 f.). (1) This limit He not only observed Himself, but imposed also on His disciples. During His ministry their preaching was confined to the borders of Israel by His direct orders (Mat_10:6 f.); and this limitation was considered of binding force at the time (Act_3:26), though it was abrogated in the light of further development (cf. Mat_28:18, Mar_16:15 f., Luk_24:47, Act_1:4). It is important, then, to recognize that Jesus Himself consciously set national and local bounds to His missionary activity, and was willing to adapt His methods of work to suit the conditions which governed the time and place of His incarnate life. It is difficult to see how He could have approached, with any hope of success, a people so hide-bound in traditionalism as were His countrymen, in any other way than He did. Discrimination in the choice, rather than originality in the creation and presentment of fundamental ideas, characterizes His teaching. And in this we discover His Divine wisdom and greatness. With conscious deliberation He refused, so far as His own personal work was concerned, to break with the best and truest tradition as it was embodied in the teaching and institutions of His time. (2) There is a line of development observable in the Jewish mind from the days of the earliest prophets right onwards to the time of Jesus, and He did not break off at a sharp angle from its continuation. He rather set His face towards the direction in which that line travelled, and unswervingly refused to turn aside at the bidding of a childish literalism or of a debased legalism. That He did not confine His recognition of truth to what was overtly taught in the OT is shown by the whole-hearted way in which He accepted the doctrine of individual resurrection, and pressed home the truth of this latter-day Judaistic development upon those who refused to accept it, by a magnificent argumentum ad hominem (Luk_20:37 f. = Mar_12:26 f. = Mat_22:31 f.). With this doctrinal disputation between Jesus and the Sadducees we may compare that on the same subject between Gamaliel and the ‘scribes of the Sadducees’ (see Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i. p. 316 n. [Note: note.] ). This Rabbi bases his argument also on a passage out of the Pentateuch (Deu_1:8; cf. Deu_11:9), but misses the opportunity so well utilized by Jesus of emphasizing the spiritual side of that truth. It is significant in respect of this, that Jesus very seldom makes a formal declaration or revelation of the truth of the resurrection doctrine (Joh_5:25; Joh_5:28); and, except on this occasion when He was challenged to prove it, He never attempts to give any reasons for its acceptance. He found the belief prevalent amongst the best spirits of His time, and He simply refers to it as a matter of course by taking for granted that His hearers will understand the allusion, and accept the consequences He deduces (Luk_14:14, cf. Joh_11:24). On the one hand, He lays stress on His own judicial functions as finding their final scope when that wondrous result is achieved (cf. Joh_5:21; Joh_5:27, Mat_24:31; Mat_16:27; Mat_25:31 ff; Mat_19:28; Mat_13:49 f., Mar_13:23 f.). Then, again, He incidentally refers to the resurrection as a future event of universal significance, to be brought into objective existence by the power of God (Mat_22:29) exercised through Himself, who will employ angels as the executors of His final decrees (Mat_13:41 ff., Mat_13:49 f., Mar_13:27).
( á ) In these passages we are able to observe a double object in the teaching of Jesus about two distinct contemporary beliefs. As we have seen, there was a current belief, existent amongst the best religious thought, in the resurrection of the dead. This was, however, intimately connected with Jewish hopes as to the future earthly national Messianic kingdom (cf. Isa_26:14; Isa_26:19, Eze_37:11, Dan_12:2, where its extent is limited to those who have distinguished themselves on one side or other of the national conflict, mainly with Antiochus Epiphanes [see Driver, Daniel, in loc. and Introd. xci f., and Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality4 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , p. 213; cf. Dan_11:32 f.]).
The imperfection and uncertainty of the hold which this doctrine had on the Jewish mind is evidenced by such passages as 2Ma_7:9; 2Ma_7:14; 2Ma_7:23; 2Ma_7:36, 2 Esdras 7 :(79)–(100); Josephus Ant. xviii. i. 3; Bar_2:17, Sir_17:27 f., Sir_41:4. In the Apocalypse of Baruch, in answer to the question as to the changes which are to take place (Sir_49:3), the writer affirms his belief in the resurrection of the body, and the subsequent transformation of the bodies of the righteous in order to the enjoyment of unending spiritual happiness (chs. 50 and 51 [ed. by Prof. Charles]). The authors of the Book of Enoch vary as to the extent of the resurrection, but all are agreed as to the restoration of the righteous Israelite to the fulness of a glorious life in the new Messianic kingdom which God shall establish on earth.
Now, as we have just said, Jesus, in His allusions to the doctrine of the resurrection, while accommodating His language to the received Jewish opinions, emphasizes the truth and discards the excrescences which had deformed the popular belief. In His eschatological references and discourses, connexions with current thought are easily discovered, even when He is engaged in contradicting the presumptuous expectations of those whom He is addressing. Compare His use of apocalyptic figures when speaking of His Parousia (Mat_8:11, Luk_13:28 f.,Luk_22:16, Mat_26:29), where the future kingdom is likened to a banquet where the guests recline at the table with the fathers of the Jewish nation (cf. e.g. Mat_22:1-14 and Luk_14:15-24). This is the more remarkable that it is accompanied by a stern reminder that the real heirs of the kingdom shall find themselves outside their heritage. The reference to the judgment of the tribes of Israel is also to be noted in Mat_19:28, Luk_22:30, and Rev_20:4, reminding us of the idea expressed in Dan_7:22, 1Co_6:2 f., Wis_3:8, Sir_4:15.
The imagery in which Jesus clothed His description of the events which were to precede the destruction of Jerusalem (Mat_24:1-31 = Mar_13:1-27 = Luk_21:5-28), and His subsequent Return, finds many parallels in Jewish literature (cf. 2Es_5:1-13; 2Es_6:18-28; 2Es_9:1-12; 2Es_13:29-31, 2Ma_5:2 f., Apocalypse, Apocalyptic Bar 70:2–8; Mishna, Sota, ix. 15; and Josephus BJ vi. v. 3). It is probable that in Mat_24:28 we have the quotation of a current proverb which may or may not have had its origin in the detestation in which the symbols of Roman power and authority were held (see Plummer on Luk_17:37; and Farrar, Life of Christ, vol. ii. p. 262). In any event we know that the phrase ïἱ ἀåôïß was known to His hearers as symbolical of God’s judgments wrought by means of heathen enemies and oppressors (see Charles’ ed. of Enoch [92]; cf. Deu_28:49, Job_9:26, Hab_1:8 etc.). The same may be said of the reference to the trumpet ( óÜëôéãî ) as the instrument by which the resurrection of the dead is immediately effected (cf. 1Th_4:16, 1Co_15:52, Mat_24:31, and 2Es_6:22). In this connexion, and intimately related to the subject of the destruction of Jerusalem, we may note the simile used by Jesus in His lamentation over that city. The similitude of the hen and her brood (Mat_23:37) ‘is not found in the OT, but is frequent in Rabbinical literature’ (Plummer on Luk_13:34). Compare, e.g., 2Es_1:30, in which context are also to be found very similar references to the righteous wrath of God and its terrible consequences. He will require the blood of all His servants and prophets slain by the hands of those to whom they were sent (2Es_1:32). Their house is left unto them desolate (2Es_1:33). These words remind us of the language of Jesus in Mat_23:35 f, Mat_23:38 (cf. Luk_11:49 ff.), where Wendt thinks there is a reference to a Jewish apocalyptic writing ( ἡ óïöéá ôïῦ èåïῦ åἶôåã ) on the part of Jesus (Lehre Jesu, English translation ii. 362). See, further, Messiah, Parousia.
( â ) The other contemporary belief referred to above had to do with the part played by angels in the Divine economy of revelation and grace. Amongst the Jews of the time of Jesus there was a tendency to emphasize the importance of the functions ascribed to these beings. This tendency arose out of the growing habit of thought which removed God farther and farther from that active participation in the world’s concerns which was characteristic of early Israelitish belief (Exo_3:7 ff., Gen_11:7; Gen_18:21 [cf. G. B. Stevens, The Theology of the NT, p. 11 f.]). To them angels were the necessary media connecting a transcendental God with the world and men. (For the external influences which helped the growth of this development see art. [by Whitehouse] ‘Demon, Devil,’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible , vol. i. p. 592). Over against God and His kingdom, thus conceived, stood Satan and his dominion, ruled after the same method by means of dependent demoniacal beings. It is important to note that, although these dualistic conceptions held a large place in the current thought of His day, Jesus has let fall no hint as to His ideas on the subject of angelology. By Him God is conceived as in direct living contact with men, guiding their affairs, and interesting Himself in their welfare (Mat_5:45, Luk_6:35, Mat_6:4; Mat_6:6; Mat_6:18; Mat_6:32; Mat_7:11). perhaps in no way does this come out so clearly as in the stress laid by Him on the Fatherhood of God (cf. e.g. Luk_15:11 ff.). What was halting, spasmodic, and inferential in the OT becomes in the teaching of Jesus a central, illuminating truth which He would have His hearers emphasize during the most sacred moments of their lives— Ðüôåñ ἡìῶí (Mat_6:9, cf. the ÐÜôåñ of Luk_11:2). At the same time the Gospels furnish us with many references by Jesus to angels and their work, all of which are intimately related to contemporary ideas. It is unimportant for our present purpose whether we interpret these references literally, or, as Beyschlag and others do, metaphorically; viz. as poetical and figurative expressions.
From Himself must have come the information noted by the Synoptists as to angelic ministrations (cf. Mat_4:11 = Mar_1:13, Luk_22:43); and He must have been thinking of these services when He rebuked St. Peter with the question recorded in Mat_26:53 (cf. Joh_18:36, where ïἱ ὑôçñÝôáé ïἱ ἐìïß may refer to them also). That He believed in the reality of their existence is, of course, true. That He ascribed to them functions suitable to their state of being is also true. They are described as ‘holy,’ possessed of a knowledge of the ways of God in a higher degree than the sons of men ( ïὑäὲ ïἱ ἄããåëïé ), and interested in the spiritual condition of mankind (cf. Mar_8:38, Mat_16:27; Mat_25:31, Mar_13:32, Luk_15:10, with which we may compare 2Es_16:66 and Luk_12:8). Jesus in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, utilizes the Rabbinical belief that the souls of the righteous are carried to paradise by the angels, but in a way so incidental that we are not instilled in affirming or denying His belief in that tenet (Luk_16:22, with which may be compared the description of Elijah’s translation in 2Ki_2:11). In Mat_18:10 there is a deliberate assertion by Jesus that God’s care over the least important of His people is exercised through the media of angels. This is an extension or development of the idea of national guardian angels in Dan_10:13; Dan_10:20. He makes an incidental reference to their supersensual nature in His discussion with the Sadducees on the subject of the Resurrection (Mar_12:25 = Mat_22:30 = Luk_20:36), where He employs well-known Jewish opinion (with the Lukan ἰóÜããåëïé compare Apocalypse, Apocalyptic Bar 51:10 and Ethiopic Enoch 104:4, 6) in order to enforce a fundamental spiritual truth. The same didactic purpose is discoverable in all the references of Jesus to these beings; and we are therefore led to the conclusion that there is, in His attitude towards this question, evidence of that deliberate economy by which He set to Himself the task of accommodation to the limited knowledge of His fellow-men. It seems to the present writer to be very evident that Jesus knowingly refrained from correcting their ideas on this subject because He had an infinitely more important work to perform. To say with Bishop Gore that His ‘language certainly reaches the level of positive teaching’ about good spirits, seems to import more significance into that language than it can bear (cf. Diss. p. 23 f.). The work of Jesus lay on a far higher plane than this—the correcting and revealing of details as to the nature, position, and employment of subordinate spiritual agencies. It was sufficient for His purpose that a general belief existed in the loving activity of God, though that activity might be somewhat too rigorously conceived of as mediated by certain personal forces— ëåéôïõñãéêὰ ðíåýìáôá (Heb_1:14). A comparison of one pair of parallel passages may throw some light on the way in which Jesus’ attitude towards this belief was interpreted by those who heard Him. In Mat_10:32 we read of those who accept, and are loyal in their adherence to, His Messianic claims, that the Son of Man will confess them before His Father in heaven; while in Luk_12:8 the words run, ‘Him shall the Son of Man also confess before the angels of God.’ From this it would appear that ‘the angels of God’ is a popular synonym for the Sacred Presence, and is employed by Jesus as such (cf. also Luk_15:7; Luk_15:10). But see art. Angels, p. 57b f.
( ã ) On coming to the consideration of the kindred question arising out of Jesus’ language respecting Satan, demons, and demoniacal possession, we are confronted with a more intricate and difficult problem. There can be no doubt, the present writer thinks, that as He believed in the personal existence of good, so He also believed in that of evil angels. How far, on the other hand, we are bound to accept the views which a literal interpretation of the passages where reference to them is found would convey, is another question, and one which demands some care in determining. In the first place, there are several instances where the language of Jesus respecting these beings is obviously figurative, and intended to be interpreted as such. In relating His experiences during the Temptation period, it would certainly seem as if He intended to convey, in language vividly symbolical, an idea of the tremendous difficulties which beset Him in His choice of two alternatives. The popular Jewish Messianic expectations He embodied in a personified form, and Satan appears in the narrative because of the didactic purpose which He had in view.
A similar interpretation seems necessary in Jesus’ explanation of the parable of the Sower (Mat_13:19 ἔñ÷åôáé ὁ ðïíçñüò : Mar_4:15 ἔñ÷åôáé ὁ Óáôáíἄò ; Luk_8:12 ἔñ÷éôáé ὁ äéἁâïëïò , though Plummer (note on Luk_8:12) insists that Jesus is here emphasizing His belief in the Personality of the evil there described as working. The whole passage, however, is highly figurative, and it seem somewhat arbitrary to pick and choose in that way. A very remarkable instance of similar personification is found in the Lukan narrative of the healing of St. Peter’s mother-in-law. Just as St. Luke seems to be the most deeply impressed of the Synoptists with this aspect of Jesus’ power and work, so he is the only one of the three to note this. By using the verb ἐôåôßìçóåí (Luk_4:39), which he had employed immediately before (Luk_4:35) in describing the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue, he links the two acts together by an inward connexion. The same verb, indeed, is found in all three Synoptists in their narratives of the stilling of the tempest on the Lake of Gennesaret (cf. Luk_8:24, Mat_8:26, Mar_4:39), and we cannot resist the conclusion that the disciples saw behind the storm the work of a living personal agent, and that Jesus acted in the spirit of that presupposition (cf. O. Holtzmann’s Leben Jesu, English translation p. 268). Similarly in His rebuke of St. Peter (Mar_8:13