We proceetl to consider more closely some of the different elements in the Jewish religion to which Christ's indebtedness Ls alleged to be so great as to detract from His originality.
(1) The Old Testament. — There can be no ques- tion as to Chri.st's obligations to the OT. How much He was influenced by it in His personal life is shown by the frequency of His quotations from it. He seems to live in it. Parallels from it .suggest themselves at every turn. In criticn! moments of His life His thoughts find natural expression in OT quotation. So it was at the temptation (Mt 4^ '• ^'J), at the cleansing of the Temple (Mk IP"), even when He hung upon the cross (15^). He recognized its authority in religious matters. He appealed to it in defence of His own conduct (2^^-)- He quoted it in condemnation of the Pharisees (7"- '^), and in refutation of the Sadducees (12--'f-)- He claimed that He came not to destroj', but to fulfil the Law and the Prophets (Mt 5^"). And wlien He was asked by the rich young man what he must do to inherit eternal life, instead of imparting to him any new doctrine. He simply referred him to the commandments (Mk 10'").
In view of the attitude Christ thus takes up to the OT, and of His avowed intention of fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, we should expect to find great affinity between His doctrine and that of
ORIGIXALITY
ORIGIXALITY
289
the OT. Is this afiiiiitj- so great as to detract from our Lord's originality? It is alleged b_y some that it is. Nay, it has been questioned, indeed, not onlj- whether Jesus has made anj- new contri- bution to the reliL'ious and moral teaching of the OT, but whether tie even desired to do so (so B. Weiss, Lcbcn Jcsk, i. 274). There is hardly a feature in the teaching of Christ, it is maintained, to wliicli there is not a parallel in the 0T. The constant theme of His preaching, the Kingdom of God, is so manifestly not novel, that He assumes familiarity with it on the part of His hearers, and never even explains what He means bj* it. His work as a Prophet, sent to announce the coming of this Kingdom and to call men to repentance, was evidently nothing novel. The very words by which the iireaching of Christ is introduced by Mk. (P') are practically the same as Mt. uses to describe the appearance of John the Baptist (Mt 3-). The Cod whom Christ reveals is no new God, but the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob (Mk 12-^), the God of Israel (Mt 15=i, Mk 12^). The Father- hood of God, upon which so much emphasis is laid as the mostftindaniental and distinctively character- istic doctrine of Christianity, is taught in the OT. The trust in this Father which Christ seeks to inspire already linds most beautiful expression in the I'salms. Tha new commandment of love which Christ inculcates is so far from being new, that He Himself formulates it on occasion in language borrowed from the OT (Mk 12^'). Not even the widening of the circle of those whom we are re- quired to love, so as to make it embrace our enemy as well as our neighbour, iroes beyond the teaching of the OT (Ex 23^'-, Pr 2(F' 24-^ 2o-"-). How, it is asked, can originality be claimed for the teaching of Christ, when He Himself takes His stand upon the OT and recognizes its authority ; when He claims to reveal no other God than the God of the ( )T, and to continue tlie work of the Law and the Pro2>hets ; when we lind that even those which are regarded as the most characteristic doctrines of Christianity have been forestalled in the OT ?
To this it maj' be replied, that while it is true that Christ generally recognizes the authority of the OT, and appeals to it at times quite in the manner of the scribes, still His attitude towards it is one of freedom and independence. He dis- criminates between the various parts of it, and leaves aside much that does not appeal to Him. In spite of Avhat He says in the Sermon on the Mount about fuUilling the Law and the Prophets, He does not hesitate in that same sermon to set up His own authority in opposition to the teaching of the Law. He freely criticises the ^losaic law of divorce (Mk lO'-""'-), and on the question of Sabbath observance not onlj- exercises a freedom which scandalized His contemporaries, but claims to be invested with authority on the question (Mk 2-*). By His doctrine that tJiat only could defile a man wliich affected his heart. He brushes aside the whole Levitical legislation as to cleanness, and raises the question from the region of the physical to that of the ethical.
It is true, indeed, that most of the elements of Christian doctrine may be found scattered through- out the OT. But they are found side by side with much else which Christ has rejected, and which, in juxtaposition with them, prevents them from haying the significance they acquire in Christi- anity. That God is represented at times in the OT as a Father, c.rf., is perfectly true. But the distinguishing feature in Christ's designation of Him as such, as compared with that of the OT, is that with Christ Father is tftc characteristic title for God, and He is never represented under anj- aspect that is inconsistent with His Fatherhood ; whereas in the OT Father is only one, and not VOL. II. — ig