'In the hands of the Pharisees, Judaism finally became petrified.' It was a body of rules and doctrines which laid the main stress on conduct and outward ceremonies, — a rigid mould without plasticity or capability of expansion. It could only react in antagonism towards one who offered a religion of the spirit, a worship of the Father in spirit and in truth. The Pharisee did not know what to make of a renovating and inspiring call which bade him begin afresh, and completely revise Iiis life and ren.iiiijii in the light of a higher ideal. He was self-»;itislied, and resented criticism as an intolerable impertinence. He was like one who says that he must follow his conscience, but who does not continually seek to enlighten his conscience by confronting it with higher aspects of truth. He had ears, but he heard not ; eyes, yet he was blind. This was the most fatal kind of error, the most hopeless of all moral states ; and it was in- evitable that it should come into deadly collision with Jesus. 'While the Pharisaic spirit had changed religion into a narrow and barren formal- ism, the gospel carefully distinguished the form from the essence in things religious. Its estimate of man's true worth and the certainty of his hopes rested not upon the outward conduct of the life, but upon the inward direction of the heart and feelings' (Reuss, The Gospel and Judaism, vol. i. p. 227). The errors of the Pharisees and the bitter hostility to Jesus which they provoked may be studied in the following passages — they are a mere selection : Mt &-^ 12i-« 21=»-« 2i'^-^\ Mk 3'-», Lk
gl-ll 1137-54 189-14^ Jn 530-47 714-52 gl2-59 9I-4I,
4. The errors of the disciples.— \t is not necessary to go into details here. In responding to His call the disciples of Jesus had placed themselves in training for the higher life. They liad passed into a school where the scholar's ignorance and error would be dealt with patiently and wisely. They had much to learn, but the essential tiling was that they were in communion with the Light of Life.
Literature.— lUinstworth, Christian Character; Gore, The
ESCHATOLOGY.—
I. Eschatology in the Synoptic Gospels.
A. Current Jemsh eschatological conceptions.
1. The coming Kingdom.
2. The Jewish supremacy.
3. The Messiah.
4. Various forms of the conception of the Messiah. 6. The preliminaries of the coming Kingdom.
(a1 The heirs of the Kingdom. (Ji) The Resurrection.
(c) Hades. Gehenna. Paradise.
(d) The Final Judgment.
B. The main features of our Lord's eschatological teaching,
1. His conception of the Kingdom of God.
2. His Messianic consciousness.
.. „ ^- ^'^ ^■'^''' °' 'he time of the Consunnuation.
II. Eschatology in the Gospel of John.
1. The idealizing style of the Gospel.
2. Its conception of Eternal Life.
3. Its attitude to Eschatology proper.
Literature.
The design of this article is indicated particularly nnder the letter B in the above Table of Contents.
It is to set forth the main features of the teach- ing of our Lord regarding the Last Things. His doctrine is presumably discoverable from the Four Gospels, and is capable of being exhibited in a self-consistent form. Yet in view of the facts of the case and the present state of critical opinion, it will be necessary to keep certain distinctions steadily in mind.
We must distinguish between (I.) the Synoptic Gospels and (II.) the Gospel of John ; and we must distinguish between (A) current Jewish con- ceptions and (B) the conceptions of Jesus. In proportion to our feeling of the real unity of our subject, it will be impossible to maintain these distinctions with rigidity ; yet a total disregard of them is impossible to any one who would keep on terms with the criticism of the Gospels in our own day, or, what is more important, would appreciate in any just degree the holy originality of Jesus. The bearing, however, of what is called the Synoptic Problem upon any matter important to our purpose is so slight that we may safely ignore it, mentioning only that we assume as a good working hypothesis the prevailing critical theoi-y, which gives precedence in point of time, and even, in certain aspects, of importance, to the Gospel of Mark.
I. ESCHATOLOGY IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.—
A. Current Jewish escuatological concep- tions AS WITNESSED TO BY THE GOSPELS.— Ho far as these are concerned, it does not seem necessary to make any distinction between the Synoptics among themselves or between them and John. It may be generally postulated, moreover, that the fundamental conceptions are those of the OT, although it will be found that some of these have undergone modification since the time of the latest canonical books. Our principal witnesses are naturally the Synoptics. In them we have the most accurate reports accessible to us of the words actually used by Jesus ; and where His sayings, as there recorded, employ the language of eschatology, apart from explanations ^^•llich give it a turn peculiar to Himself, we may assume that the language in its natural implications represents current Jewish belief.
1. The coming Kingdom. — It is clear that Jesus addressed people who had a perfectly distinct, though not accurately defined, idea of an age or kingdom to come, which should follow on the consummation (tri/^WXeia, Mt IS^"'-) of the present age. He speaks, e.g., of rewards to the faithful ' in this time {Kaip&s),' and of eternal life in the ' world (aMf ) to come ' (Mk 10**) ; and the phrase 'Kingdom of God,' which was constantly on His lips, while doubtless subjected to expositions which charged it with new meanings for His followers, yet rested on a view of things common to Him and to even irresponsive hearers. It meant the perfect form of the Theocracy of which all the prophets had spoken.