iii. Jesus' activity as Teachek.— (n) 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 dele- gated authority conferred on Him by an unction from God. He was sent with a definite message, the contents of wliich He identified with that given in Deutero-Isaiah (ch. 42, cf. 61"-). We are re- minded of the worils of the Ajwstle Peter at ("icsarea (Ac 10**), where he uses tlie same word to express this unction, and adds as the secret of the
ACCOMMODATION
ACCOMMODATION
19
marvellous power exhibited by the Anointed that God was with Him. This thought is most fre- quently and plainly dwelt on in the Fourth Gospel, and this is the more surprising as it appears along- side of claims the most far-reaching as to the significance of His life and teaching. In His con- versation with Nicodenms, 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 (. . . d.w((jTei\ev 6 Beis Tbv vlbv els rdv kSit/xov, k.t.X., Jn 3", cf. 3=^ 4^^ 5=»-
24. 30. 36-38 (j29. 38. 3!). 44. S7 'ylG. 18. 28. 2U. 33 §16. 18. 26. 29. 42 94
1036 1143 i2«.45.4.j 1424 jgsi iQs 173 ^nd 20=1, Lk 10'« 9«, Mt 10", cf. Mk 9" and Jn IS^").
(J) Not only has He received His commission as a Teacher from God, but there is a limitation de- fined for Him in the scope of the delivery of His message (Jn 1", Mt 15=» 2P"-). (1) This limit He not only observed Himself, but imposed also on His disciples. During His ministry their preach- ing was confined to the borders of Israel by His direct orders (Mt 10^'-) ; and this limitation was con.sidered of binding force at the time (Ac 3="), though it was abrogated in the light of further development (cf. Mt SS'*, Mk le'"-, Lk 24-", Ac \*). It is important, then, to recognize that Jesus Him- self 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 delibera- tion 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 conline 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 argumentwm ad horn- ineni (Lk 20"f- = Mk 122«- = Mt 22^"-)- With tliis doctrinal disputation between Jesus and the Sad- ducees we may compare that on the .same subject between Gamaliel and the ' scribes of the Saildu- cees' (see Edersheim, Life imd Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i. p. 316 n.). Thi.s Rabbi bases his argument also on a passage out of the Pentateuch (Dt P, cf. IP), but misses the opportunity so well utilized by Jesus of emphasizing tlie spiritual side of that truth. It is significant in respect of this, that Jesus very seldom makes a formal declara- tion or revelation of the truth of the resurrection doctrine (Jn 5=^- =») ; 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 jjrevalent amongst the best spirits of His time, un.l llr ;,i,„plv refers to it as a matter of course by lakiiig f.,r -ranted that His liearers will understiuid the ullusion, and accept the consequences He ilivliicrs (Lk U", cf. Jn W-*]. On the one hand, He lays stress on His' own judicial
functions as finding their final scope wlien that wondrous result is achieved (cf. Jn 5-'- ", Mt 24'' 1627 253iff. 1928 i349f._ Mk 13=3'.). Then, again. He incidentally refers to the resurrection as a future event of universal significance, to be brouglit into objective existence by the ijower of God (Mt22=») exercised through Himself, wlio will employ angels as the executors of His final decrees (Mt 13^"''- •""•, Mk 13=7).