(^) The same trait is observable in His refer- ences to the anthropological ideas of His time ; but for the illustration of this we must refer the reader to artt. Flesh, Heart, Soul, Spirit.
iv. The attitude of Jesus towards the Me-ssianic expectations of His time. — A dis- cussion of the question of Jesus' attitude towards Messianic hopes and longings is of the utmost importance, on account of its bearing upon the subject with which we are dealing. The attention of the student is at once arrested by His obvions anxiety during the early periods of His ministry to conceal from the general public His claims to the Messiahship. This He did expressly by for- bidding the open proclamation of the truth not merely by the demoniacally possessed (Mk 1-" 3'-, Mt 12"', Lk 4*'), but also by those amongst His circle of disciples who grasped the purport of His teaching and the secret of His Personality (Mt 16=» = Mk 8» = Lk9=' ; Mt 17' = Mk 9' = Lk 9?% For the same reason He courted secrecy in the IJerformance of miraculous cures, and enjoined silence on those who were healed (Mk !*"■ 5^' 7^° 8=3. 26^ ]y[t 930 84)_ Indeed, there is no part of the message which Jesus came to deliver where the words of Mk 4'^('He spake the word unto them as they were able to hear it') are more appropriate. Tlie declaration of His Messiahsliip was gradual ; and even those who were nearest His Person, and in closest touch with His teaching, were left by Him to work out the truth slowly and by degrees.
(re) Perhaps the self-chosen title 'Son of Man,' by which He is styled early in His first Galil.-ean ministry, might at first sight contradict this state- ment (cf. Mk2'» = Mt9«=Lk52*; Mk 228 = Mt 128 = Lk 6^ ; Mt 12^2= Lk 121"). On further considera- tion, however, it will be seen that Jesus, by this designation of Himself, had a twofold object in view— the concealment of His Messiahship from the many who were not ready to accept His inter- pretation of its meaning and purpose ; and at the same time, the unfolding to the few who could bear the revelation, of the character of His Person and His work as shadowed by the title 'Son of Man.' See art. SON OF MAN.
(6) The attitude of Jesus to the Jewish Canon of the OT must not be left out of account when con- sidering the methods of His public teaching. Frankly, the belief is at once confessed that here also He ' used the common language of His con- temporaries in regard to the OT' (Sanday, Bampton Led. p. 414), and in accordance with this we can explain the words which St. Luke puts into the mouth of the risen Jesus, where the tripartite divi-
ACCOMMODATION
ACCOMMODATION
23
sion of the Hebrew Bible is recognizeil— the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (24^^). With this we may compare the division given in the Prologue of the grandson of Jesus ben Sirach. Other divisions were also current, as ' Moses and the Prophets' (Lk 16-^' *' ii^), 'the Law and the Prophets' (Lk 16", Mt 7'^), where the idea is the same, namely, the entire OT as then existing. In
perfect harmony with this is the acceptance by Jesus of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (Lk 16=«-3' 24"-", Mt 198=Mk 10»-=, Mk 12-'« = Lk
Jn 5^-" 7i9--2f-)j and the Davidic authorship, if not of the whole Jewisli Psalter, at least of many of the Psalms contained therein (Mk 12^'- = Mt22«f- = Lk20-'"-).
(1) Several other indications there are which show that He accepted not only the general jjopular belief in the authenticity of the OT books as a wliole, but also the literal genuineness of the stories with which they abound. The details of the narratives of the Flood and Noah (Mt 24"'''- = Lk 17-*''), the story of Jonah and his adventures by sea as well as in Nineveh (Mt 12™'' 16*, Lk 11^'-), are utilized by Jesus on the assumption of their genuine historicity. The glory of Solomon's reign, that heyday of Israelitish prosperity, is incidentally mentioned by Him without any re- serve (Mt 62i> = Lk 12=^). The question is not, as Dr. Sanday puts it {The Oracles of God^, p. Ill), whether Jesus 'accommodated His language to current notions, knoioing them to be false,' but rather, was His 'accommodation' or 'condescen- sion ' so complete that He never entertained any other idea as to the character of these narratives than the one currently held? It certainly seems that it never entered into His mind to question their historical truth ; and if we seek for the estimation in which He held ' the Law and the Prophets,' we find it expressed in words which, if genuine,* are as emphatic as any that are to be had. Not ' one jot or one tittle' (iCira Iv ij nia. Kepala) was to be done away with until all was fultilled (Mt 5'*). Into this Jewish idea of the abiding nature of the Law, Jesus characteristically imported a depth of meaning which, while it did not destroy, transmuted its whole tenor, giving it the eternal significance of which He speaks (fws &v irapiXd-g 6 oipavbi Kal rj yrj), and which it could never otherwise have had. This habitual method, by which Jesus based His teaching on the foundations of existing knowledge, receives some illustration from the way in which He treats the story of Moses and the Bush (Mk 12=«=Lk 2ff", cf. Mt. 22si)- He says nothing whatever of the nature of this vision beyond what the letter of the narrative expresses. He does not tell us whether the sight was visible to the outward eye or to the inward spiritual understanding alone. Cf. also His references to the brazen serpent (.In 3'* 123=).