It is quite significant that no one passage is quoted or mentioned in the reports of the teaching of Jesus given by Him after His resurrection. Yet He taught His disciples explicitly that His sufi'erings, death, and resurrection were necessary in order to fulfil the OT. Further, the disciples, after thej- undei'stood the Scriptures, also saw the necessity of the death and resurrection. For the most part, the early utterances of the Apostles, as recorded in the Book of Acts, show the same reticence respecting specific OT jiassages which Jesus had shown.
We must believe that in its general tenor the Apostles taught what they had learned of Jesus. Is it not possible that the speech of Stephen before the Sanhedrin gives us very nearly the character of the teaching of Jesus ? This is an argimaent from broad historical analogies and principles rather than a use of particular passages. In support of this suggestion we may turn to the utterances of Jesus, before His crucifixion, respecting His sufi'er- ings. See art. Axxouxcemexts of Death.
The only passages of the OT which Jesus is re- corded as having quoted in any relation to His sufferings are Ps 35'" 4P (Heb."'^') 69"' (Heb. »), Is 53^-. and Zee 13". Did Jesus see specific predictions in these passages ?
Before attempting: to answer this question, it will be well to note what He said respectina: the suffering of others than Him- self which was due to their religious activities. He affirmed
that in the past the world had been bitterly hostile towards those who worked for the doing of God's will on earth. In Mt oiif-, Lk 11-47 -i», and similar passages, Jesus called to mind the fact that God's messengers to His people had encountered bitter hostility throughout the past. In passages like Mt
1017 22. U-S6 23-S-31- ■» »7, Mk l(i;*«, Lk 12«-53 1334, J„ 151S-25 1714. 15
He showed that such hostility is inevitable in the progi-ess of His Kingdom. The spirit and methods of the world in the midst of which His Kingdom must develop are wholly alien to those of the Kingdom, therefore Jesus must meet hostility, and so must His disciples. The work of Jesus in the establishment of the King- dom was conditioned by a long historical development which had already been centuries in progress when He came.
A long-continued historical niovement, however complex, tending toward one goal has a substantial unity of character in all stages of its development. The various attitudes assumed by men towards the great features of such a movement are sub- stantially the same from generation to generation, from age to age. Human beingrs persistently manifest their attitude in modes that are practically identical. Hence arise the oft-noted historical parallels. The fact that at one stage of a movement persons may act as persons do at another stage is the essential element of a historical parallel. In a long-continued develop- ment of a specific character nearl\- identical situations will often be repeated, and nearly identical experiences will often occur.
More noteworthy tlian mere historical parallels is the sub- stantial identity of moral attitude and conduct seen in the per- sons whose experiences constitute the historical parallels. These facts can be verified from the political life of all peoples which has been recorded and transmitted to us. Xay, even move- ments separated widely in time and place, and not in the direit lines of historical development, give striking instances of his- torical parallels, and substantial identitj- of human character and conduct. This is notably exemplified in the entire history of the attempt to establish an ideal society, from Moses until'the present day. Every attempt of men to establish the coming perfect society had some likeness to the labours which were to follow it. Every person, therefore, who shared in the earlier parts of the work in some respect foreshadowed those who should come later, including Him who should complete it. The earlier is the type of the later. So the persons in the earlier stages were t\"pical of those in the later stages. So also were the institutions which were auxiliary to the labours of these persons, or instrumental in their hands, t\7)ical of elements involved in the final accomplishment of the work to which they contributed. The later experiences are more complex than the earlier ones. For this reason we may sa.v that the earlier ones foreshadowed the later, but we do not say that the earUer ones show with anything like exactness what the later ones were to be. Nevertheless, there is so much of likeness that similar language may often be used respecting them both. The names or descrip- tions of the earlier maj , in a measure, fit the later. It was thus that Jesus properly gave the name Elijah to John the Baptist (Mt 1710-1:*), and appropriated for him the utterance in Mai 45 (Heb. 323), as He had done more explicitlv (Mt llio-W) in the use of Mai 31.
It is a most noteworthy fact that men who would gain power over others to secure their transformation of character, must gain that power by self-denial and suffering. This was the philosophy of history given by Deutero-Isaiah. It was recognized by Stephen in his address before the Sanhedrin. Is it likely that Jesus had any less insight into the meaning of the history of His race, and the nature of the work which He had to do, than the prophet of the Exile '? The teachings of Jesus show that He saw that the ideal state of society could come only 1)\- means of a contest with human selfishness and victory over it. The conflict presents essentially the same aspects in all stages of its progress. A successful issue of any long struggle is the consummation of all the previous stages of that struggle. Any complete realization of an ideal sought in the past is Ihe consummation of that ideal. Also any conflict or experience securing the consummation of the ideal is equally the consum- mation of those seemingly fruitless conflicts and sufferingrs in the previous stages of the striving after the ideal. The history of redemption is organic. All the earlier stages tj^pify the later ones.