In the eulogy of John the Baptist, reported in Mt 11, Jesus is represented as quoting the passage in Mai 3^ with reference to His great predecessor. Inasmuch as this verse is elsewhere used by the Evangelists as descriptive of John, and as we have other traces of the fact that they did not, till a later time, understand our Lord's reference to him as fulfilling the function of Elijah, and as we remember also Mt.'s fondness for introducing OT quotations on every possible occasion, we cannot feel certain about the attribution of these words to Jesus, but they seem quite probable. Later in the same chapter (v.^^) the form in which the judgment is pronounced on Capernaum is taken from the Greek of Is 14'^"'^, and serves to shoAv not only how,, on solemn occasions, Jesus would readily fall into the familiar language of OT prophecy, but how He ^as always prepared to ajjply its teaching to the needs and moral issues of His own time.
We pass next to the passage in Mt IS'*, where again our Lord is discussing a definite command- ment of the Law, which He cites in a double form contained in Ex 20^^ and 21", combining the pass- ages without strict verbal accuracy. Starting from
I
OLD TESTAMENT
OLD TESTAME:sT
273
;his precept, He jn-oceeds to discuss and to condemn the casuistical tradition that had been reared upon ■r, and reveals perhaps an acquaintance with Pr •2S-'', where the writer is in synipatlij- with Jesus in condemning the man who regards the robbery of father and mother as being no transgression. In the same context our Lord is made to quote Is 29'^ ill a form that diverges even from the LXX. The usual ditHculty has here, of course, to b^ faced, — Did Jesus actually use the words, or are they in- serted by tlie Evangelist in order to give a definite completion to his paragraph, and to carry out his theory of finding appropriate illustrative passages from tlie OT for as many as possible of his events? Tlie rebuke Mhich our Lord gave to the delilers of the Temple (Mt 2V^) consists of a combination of Is 5G" and Jcr 7^^ but does not call for more than a simple note of the fact that here also we see that intimate knowledge which could seize at once on the plirases most ap]jropriate for His purjiose. In Mt '22 we hnd three special discussions of passages recorded. The hrst (v.^n-) is that of Ex 3^ which Jesus uses .as an argument for the reality of the life after death. We cannot tell whether this was His own original interpretation of the passage, or whether He was here giving His assent to some ideas about it that were then current : but in any case it is a striking instance of the high level to which He was able to raise the frequently trivial discus- sions of the literalists. In vv.^"-^" He shows Him- self in sympathj- with the most spiritual teaciiers of His own day, insisting on the primary import- ance of the inward precepts of the LaM-, and upon Love as its most perfect and adequate fulHlment. According to another version of the same incident (Mk 12"*'-), His answer won from His interlocutor the response, 'Of a truth. Master, thou hast well said that he is one, and there is none other but lie : and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is much more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices.' If this, as it appears to do, represents the actual cir- cumstances of the case, it shows how Jesus won tlie sympathy of the finest spirits of His day, and l)y His interpretation of the Law was enabled to appeal to their better nature.
The final example in this chapter (v."*-^-) is the difficult one of Ciirist's question about Ps 110'. An altogether exaggerated importance has been attached to this passage, because of its supposed bearing on questions of criticism. It is, of course, obvious that Jesus speaks under the limitations of the literary knowledge of His time, and that He and His hearers regarded the Psalm as representing David's own personal sentiments. But a matter that is often overlooked is that the point of the argument lies in David's being regarded as under the influence of tiie Divine Spirit in what he said. He designates the expected JNIessiah as his Lord, and yet the Messiah is regarded as being, according to the flesh, David's son. This seems to involve a contradiction in terms. All that Jesus does is here to state the dilemma, and enjoy the discredit of His adversaries when they were unable to solve it. He Himself oflers no solution. In this case it appears that, as on one or two occasions, He was suggesting to the thoughtful among His auditors that the ordinary literal interpretations of Scrip- ture were perfectly inadequate to meet the needs n' the religious soul, and that His nu\in endeavour ^as to lead them to revise their methods, and to understand that only the spiritiially minded could understand the Divine revelation. Cf. , for tlie same purpose. His statement that John the Bajitist was the Elijah spoken of by Malachi.
The difficulties that we have encountered in Mt. are even more pronounced when we pass to the dis-