(a) 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. Is 26"- "», Ezk 37", Dn 12=, ^vhere its extent is limited to those who have dis- tinguished 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 Immortalitu*, p. 213; cf. Dnlp2'-]).
The imperfection and uncertainty of the hold which this doctrine had on the Jewish mind is evidenced by such passages as 2 Mao 7»- "• =3. 36, 2 Es 7i™)-(it>0) ; Jos. ^ nt. xvni. i. 3 ; Bar 2", Sir IT'^f- 414. In the Apocalypse of Baruch, in answer to the question as to the changes which are to take place (493), 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 61 (ed. by Prof. Charles]). The authors of the Book of Enoch \ary 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 accom- modating 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 dis- courses, connexions with current thought are easily discovered, even when He is engaged in contradict- ing tlie prcsiuiijituous expectations of those whom He is aUilirssiii-. ( 'umpare His use of apocalyptic figures wlii'ii ^|H■;^killJ;■ of His Parousia (Mt 8", Lk IS-"'- ■-'■J"', Mt L'ti-'), 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. Mt 22'-" and Lk M^-'--*). This is the more remarkable that it is accompanied by a stern re- minder that the real heirs of the kingdom shall find themselves outside their heritage. The refer- ence to the judgment of the tribes of Israel is also to be noted in Mt 19=«, Lk 22»», and Rev 20*, remind- ing us of the idea expressed in Dn 7==, 1 Co 6='', Wis 38, Sir 415.
The imagery in which Jesus clothed His description of the events which were to precede the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 24i3l = Mk 131-27=IJt 215-28), and His subsequent Return, finds manv parallels in Jewish literature (cf. 2 Es S'W 618-28 91-12 i3-ja-3l, 2 Mac 52f , Apoc. Bar 702-8 ; Mishna, Sola, ix. 15 ; and Jos. BJ vi. v. 3). K is probable that in Mt 2428 we have the quotation of a current proverb which n^ay or may not have had its origin in the detestation in whicli the symbols of Roman power .aiid authoritv were held (yee Plumnier on Lk 17^'; and Farrar, Lijc vf Christ, vol. ii. p. 262). In any event we know that the phrase ol i-i-roi was known to His hearers as symbolical of God's judgments wrought by means of heathen enemies and oppressors (see Charles' ed. of Enoch [92J ; cf. DC 28-19, Jol) 9'-»i, Hab l'< etc.). The same may be said of the reference to tlie trumpet (o-aXTij-?) .as the instrument by which the resurrection of the dead is immediately effected (cf. 1 Th 416, 1 Co 1552, Mt 2431, and 2 Es &i). 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 (Mt 233') ■ ig not found in the OT, but is frequent in Rabbinical literature ' (Plummer on Lk 1334). Compare, -■.»., 2 Es 130, in which context are also to be found very similar references to the righteous wrath of God and its terrible .■.iiist-quences. He will require the blood of all His servants and prophets slain by the hands of those to whom they were sent (-J Es 13'2). Their house is left unto them desolate (v."-). Tliese words remind us of the language of Jesus in Mt 23351.38 (of. Lk 11-»1"1-), where Wendt
20
ACCOMMODATION
ACCOMMODATION
U. 362). See, further, Messiah, PiRocsii.
(;3) The other conteinporaiy 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 tliere was a tendency to emphasize the importance of the functions ascribed to these beings. This tendency arose out of the giowin" habit of thought which removed God farther and farther from that active participation in the world's cunctins wliicli was characteristic of early Israeliti^h lulief (Ex S"''-, Gn 11' 18=» [cf. G. B. Stevens, Tlu: Thcjlofjii 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 tlie growth of this development see art. [by Whitehouse] ' Demon, Devil,' in Hastings' l)B, vol. i. p. 592). Over against God and His king- dom, thus conceived, stood Satan and his dominion, ruled after the same method by means of dependent demoniacal beings. It is unportant to note that, although tliese dualistic conceptions held a large place in the current thought of His day, Jesus has let fall no hint as to His ideas on tlie subject of angelology. By Him God is conceived as in direct livmg contact with men, guiding their afiairs, and interesting Himself in their welfare (Mt 5^, Lk &•'', Mt e*-"-"-^ 7"). 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. Lk lo""). What was halting, spasmodic, and inferential in the OT becomes in the teaching of Jesus a central, illumi- nating truth which He would liave His hearers emphasize during the most sacred moments of their lives— Ildrep iinCii/ (Mt 6^ cf. the ndTcp of Lk IP). At the same time the Gosjjels furnish us with many references by Jesus to angels and their work, all of which are intimately related to con- temporary ideas. It is unimportant for our jiresent purix)se whether Ave interpret tliese references literally, or, as Beyschlag and otliers do, meta- phorically; viz. as poetical and tigurative e.\- pressions.