However mysterious the conclusion at which we are forced to arrive may be, and however incon- sistent 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 coiuiilete and perfect manner in which the Divine >\ ord acconmiodated Himself to the con- ditions 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 {^V^-^) and St. ISIark (ll"-»), as if it were a mere scenic display for the purpose of solemnly inculcating a moral lesson. Yet this i.s 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 neetl. 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 direc- tion, viz. to His complete and willing submission to the limitations which condition the human mode of life. He hungered, as we have seen (Mt 4^=, Mk ll>==IMt'21'8 Jii 4'i), and sympathized with those who suflered thus (Mt 15'== Mk 8=, cf. Mt. 12"f-and 25«'-«). He suffered the pangs of thirst (Jn 4' and 19=«). He experienced physical weariness after prolonged exertion (Jn 4«, cf. Mt 8"= Mk i^). Kot- witlistandmg O. Holtzmann's interj.retation of Lk 9^ ( = Mt 8=») It IS very certain that there is a per- sonal reference to His homeless condition in these words, and we notice a quiet satlness, as if He felt the loneliness attaching to a life of continued wandering (cf. O. Holtzmann's Lebcn Jcsu, En" tr 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 disapiiointment with the people of His country for tlieir lack of spiritu- ality (Mk 81= 6«, Jn n»-38, cf. Mk 9", Jn 14", Mk Si-ff. 6<=Lk 4=^ Lk 8== = Mk 4« = Mt 8=«, Mk 3= 7" S'= 10="'- = Lk 18"*-»'=Mt 19i«-=^). 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 (Mt 8'" = Lk 7», cf. Mt 15=«=Mk 7=»), though He recognizes the fact that this phenomenon was not confined to His own experience (Mt 12"'- = Lk IP"-, Lk 4»-='). The legitimate inference to be drawn from the pas- sage 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 (Mk 6'-« = Mt 13»-'>«=Lk 4'6« [cf. Pluramer, in loc.']).
One of the methods adopted by Jesus for pur- poses of instruction was that wiVa which the name of Socrates is usually linked. Starting from pre- mises universally recognized as valid, He leads His hearers onwards by question and answer to the result He wishes to establish (Mk 8'''-=' = Mt 16'^-'=, Mkl2>*ff-, Mt li-"* 22"ff- 22-"-«=Mk 12»-''= Lk 20""""). With these examples we may also compare the merciless way in which Jesus em- ployed this method to involve His enemies in an awkward dilemma (Mt 2\-*-^), driving home His argument against their moral dishonesty by the liarable of the Two Sons, and the question arising out of it (Mt 21=8-31 ; cf. 21'"'-», 12=* and 15'). Not all the questions, however, asked by Jesus were of this character. Some are of the nature of ordi- nary inquiry — a demand for some neetled informa- tion. Such are the questions atldressed to the sisters of Bethany (Jn ll**), to the Gerasene de- moniac (Lk 8»' = Mk 5»), to the father of the epi- leptic boy (Mk 9=1), to the disciples on the two occasions (if, indeed, they are not different versions of tlie same occurrence) of His feetling the multi- tude (Mk 6=«, 8==Mt 15"; cf., however, Jn 6«, which is the author's gloss).
(2) Not very far removed from this phenomenon in Jesus' life is tlie habit of prayer and quiet com- munion with God which He habitually and sedul- ously cultivated (Mt ll=5-3o = Lk 10=i'-, Lk 3=', Mk I'', Mt 14==*, Lk 51" 6i=9=« 22'= 22-'=f-=Mt 26'«f- = Mk ;43:fr.^ with A\hich we may compare Jn n'-i*- »> 14'<> 12=^'). Of the three Synbptists, 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 (5') in referring to His supplications in Gethsemane— the ' obedience ' of Christ was slowlj' fashioned through prayer, which was answered for His reverent devotion (Westcott, Ep. to Ueb. in loc). The two descrip- tive words employed by this writer (Sc^ircis re koI iKerijpios) illustrate well the intense nature of these supplications (/it£T4 Kpavyrj^ iaxvpi^ Kai daKpiuv), reminding us of the vivid representation of Mk 14^. We have here ' the spectacle of true man, weighted with a crushing burden, tlie dread of a catastrophe awful and unfathomed ' (Gore, Diss. p. 82f.).