The fact that Christianity is a divinely established religion is so well attested that no person, who is at all well informed and unbiased, can possibly call it in question. Both in its theoretical and practical aspects it bears all the most rigid tests of sound historical and philosophical criticism. Its theoretical possibility is in perfect agreement with the most fundamental principles of philosophy, and its existing actuality rests upon the most solid arguments drawn from history. As a professedly supernatural religion, Christianity is a fact, and as a fact it points to God as its sole Author. Its credentials are unexceptionable, its title-deed is without flaw.
Now if this be true, it follows necessarily that at least all fundamental doctrines of Christianity must be accepted; for even if we abstract for the present from the existence of an infallible teaching authority in the Christian Church, such doctrines as form the very foundation and essence of the Christian religion cannot possibly be false, since they necessarily derive their origin from God Himself. As God is the author of the Christian religion, so is He also the Author of all that pertains to the essence thereof; this is a self-evident truth, and as such it does not stand in need of further proof.
What these fundamental doctrines are we need not examine for the present, as that does not come within the scope of this treatise; yet there is one among them which would seem to call for a somewhat detailed consideration, and that is the doctrine which sets forth the Divinity of Christ. Although it is the very heart and soul of the Christian religion, yet it lies to-day as a stumbling-block in the way of many who profess the religion of Christ. Hence in a treatise on Christian Apologetics, however elementary it may be, this doctrine cannot be passed by in silence. For "this is eternal life: that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
That Christ was in some way more than a mere man, even the most outspoken Rationalists readily concede. They are all obliged to confess, and do confess, with Channing, who took so much pains to destroy the idea of Christ's divinity in the minds of his contemporaries: "I believe Jesus Christ to be more than a human being. Those who suppose Him not to have existed before His birth, do not regard Him as a mere man. They always separate Him by broad distinctions from other men. They consider Him as enjoying a communion with God, and as having received gifts, endowments, aids, lights from Him, granted to no other, and as having exhibited a spotless purity which is the highest distinction of heaven. All admit, and joyfully admit, that Jesus Christ, by His greatness and goodness, throws all other human attainments into obscurity."{1}
Even the sensual Rousseau was so carried away by his admiration for Christ, as he found Him portrayed in the Gospels, that he could not forbear giving expression to his enthusiasm in those striking lines: "I confess to you that the majesty of the Scriptures strikes me with admiration, as the purity of the Gospels has its influence on my heart. Peruse the works of our philosophers, with all their pomp of diction; how mean, how contemptible they are, compared with the Scripture! Is it possible that a book, at once so simple and sublime, should be merely the work of a man? Is it possible that the sacred personage whose history it contains should be himself a mere man? Do we find that He assumed the tone of an enthusiast or ambitious sectary? What sweetness, what purity in His manners! What an effecting gracefulness in his delivery! What sublimity in His maxims! What profound wisdom in His discourses! What presence of mind in His replies! How great the command over His passions! Where is the man, where is the philosopher who could so live and so die, without weakness, without ostentation? . . . Yes, if the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of a God."{2}
Nor do the so-called Higher Critics of our own day balk at language like this. They concede willingly that Christ was above the ordinary sphere of humanity. Just where to place the limits to which His superhuman character exalts itself, they are not agreed; but they are almost at one in fixing these limits far beyond where any man before or after Christ could hope to reach. In their study of His life they lift Him to a most exalted intimacy with the Divine Nature; they allow Him to fill an office on earth entirely unique among God's creatures. They call Him the noblest, the best of mankind, the Saviour, the Messiah, the Son of God in a most singular sense. He is placed by them in a world apart, which other human beings may indeed approach, but which they can never reach.
Yet whilst they willingly concede all this, they will in no wise consent to cross the gulf that separates the human from the divine. When they call Christ the Son of God, it is always in an analogous sense; they never imply that he is consubstantial with the Father. Nay more, they tenaciously maintain that for a strictly divine sonship of Christ, which would make Him True God of True God, there is no warrant in Holy Scripture. That, they will have it, is a view that was evolved by later generations of Christians, and did not become dominant in the Church until after the Council of Nice, which was held in the year 325. In that council Arianism, which made of Christ a mere creature, albeit the noblest and divinest of all, was solemnly condemned, and that condemnation, according to these critics, placed Jesus of Nazareth on the throne of God.
How very unreasonable and how absolutely false this position of the Higher Critics is, the present writer has endeavored to show in a booklet entitled, What Think You of Christ? to which the reader is referred for a full treatment of this important question. Hence, on the present occasion, no more will be attempted than to outline a few arguments, which, if duly considered, are sufficient to convince any man of good will that Christ is, in the strictest sense of the term, the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, and therefore True God of True God.
The first of these arguments is directed against the assertion, so often brought forward in Rationalistic circles, that for a strictly divine sonship of Christ there is no warrant in Holy Scripture. It consists, therefore, in a brief examination of the sacred text, so as to determine what the writers found it advisable to say concerning the Godhead of Christ. This examination may, however, be limited to the first three, or Synoptic, Gospels; as it is precisely in reference to these that the assertion in question is usually made. That the Gospel of St. John represents Jesus of Nazareth as True God, many are willing to admit; but his Gospel, they will have it, is not, strictly speaking, an historical document. And although this assertion again is without foundation, nevertheless, we may let it pass for the present, and confine our inquiry to the first three Gospels, whose historical value cannot and, in general at least, is not called in question.
At the very outset it may be freely conceded that the Synoptics do not emphasize the divinity of Christ in so marked a manner as does St. John. But the reason of this difference is quite obvious, and in nowise militates against our contention. For the first three Gospels were written at an early date, when the one point that was of paramount importance in the Apostolic teaching consisted in the fact that Christ was the promised Messiah, who had come to redeem the world from sin and to lead all men of good will to eternal salvation. Hence whatever deeds or sayings of Christ were calculated to bring out this point clearly and distinctly, were appropriately placed in the foreground; whilst His divine personality received only such passing notice as was necessary to set forth the full sense of His Messianic character. Furthermore, when the first three Evangelists wrote, there was no need of emphasizing the divinity of Christ, because all the churches believed that Jesus was True God. Hence they preferred to set forth in detail "how Jesus of Nazareth (who was the Son of God) lived and died to save men, and how He will come again to complete the work of redemption. The public life of the Saviour, His death, His resurrection, and the Parousia, are the essential elements of the evangelical cycles."
It was quite different when St. John wrote his Gospel. According to the commonly accepted view of modern critics, at least thirty years intervened between the appearance of St. Luke's Gospel, which was the last of the Synoptics in point of time, and that of St. John. During this interval, the spirit of skepticism and religious innovation, which somehow seems common to all ages and countries, had found sufficient time to assert itself, and there were not wanting those who set up theories of their own concerning Christ's work and mission and the fundamental fact of His divine personality. Some there were who made pretension to the possession of secret knowledge, not vouchsafed to the faithful at large, and who for that reason were called Gnostics, or the Knowing Ones. One of their tenets, which they began to broach towards the end of the first century, attributed to Christ a sort of inferior divinity, which made of Him a being midway between the highest angel and the Supreme God. Others maintained that Christ was purely human, but had been raised to extraordinary sanctity by the communication of the Holy Spirit, through whose power He had wrought His miracles. Their leader, a certain Cerinthus, lived at Ephesus, the adopted city of St. John, where he drew after him a large following.
Hence if Christ was true God, consubstantial with the Father, the time had certainly come when that truth should be set forth in the clearest and most striking terms. It should be set forth, moreover, by one who could speak with all the authority of an eye witness, and whose commission to teach had come directly from Christ Himself. Such a one was St. John. For as he himself says in his First Epistle: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life: . . we declare unto you, that you may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."{3} Hence it was that he, so to speak, departed from the beaten path of the other Evangelists, and prefaced his Gospel with those sublime words: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth."{4} It was a doctrine which all the disciples of Christ believed, yet which had never before been placed in so clear a light.
However, it must not be understood that the Synoptics represented Christ as merely a human being; they placed Him before the world as the Son of God, as the Well-Beloved of the Father, as the Supreme Arbiter of men's eternal destiny, as an object of divine worship, and consequently as the God Incarnate: but this they did by implication rather than by direct statement. The Christ whom they portrayed in their narratives, and whom the Apostles and the disciples generally preached to the people, was first and foremost a Saviour, although they made it clearly understood that His saving power had its source in the Godhead, which He had in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit. As a modern critic well observes: "The entire representation of Christ, which is given us by the Synoptics, may be placed side by side with that given by St. John, as being altogether identical with it. For a faith moulded in obedience to the Synoptic tradition concerning Christ, must essentially have the same features in its resulting conception of Christ as those which belong to the Christ of St. John."{5} And as another writer words it: "If the title of Divinity is more explicitly put forward in St. John, the rights which imply it are insisted on in words recorded by the earlier Evangelists."{6} That this is really the case, we shall see in the course of the present discussion.
To keep the argument within reasonable limits, we must pass over that part of the Gospel narrative which treats of the birth and hidden life of Christ, although there is much contained in these chapters that places the Saviour from the very outset upon a superhuman plane. His virginal conception effected through the power of the most High; the angel's announcement that He is the Son of God; holy Simeon's declaration that in Him is fulfilled Israel's Messianic hope; the Evangelist's account of His divine wisdom as manifested in His questions and answers during His three days' stay in the Temple: -- all these are so many facts which, if they do not actually declare His divinity, at least form an appropriate prelude to such a declaration in the future. Yet all this we may omit for the present, relying for our proof entirely upon the account of Christ's public life as contained in the three Synoptic Gospels.
As a first step in our argument we may take the Sermon on the Mount, which belongs to the early part of Christ's public ministry, and which is recorded somewhat more fully by St. Matthew, and in part also by St. Mark and St. Luke. This sermon was delivered almost immediately after the choosing of the twelve Apostles, whom Christ had destined to carry the message of Redemption to the most distant nations. It may, therefore, well be regarded as a model after which the Apostles were to fashion their future preaching. And what a model it is! "Sent to save what was lost," Christ begins His famous discourse with a blessing upon all men of good will. "And opening his mouth," says St. Matthew, "he taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when they revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven."{7}
What a surprise this introduction must have caused in the disciples and the multitude that were gathered about Him, and listened with rapt attention to the words of love and mercy that flowed from His sacred lips! No Master of Israel had ever before spoken such words of divine consolation. In the discourses of the Scribes and Pharisees it was always the letter of the law that was emphasized, whilst the spirit was wholly ignored; but here was a teacher who raised that spirit to an importance that dominated all else. As a modern critic well observes: "Jesus furnishes here a universal ideal and a universal criterion. Not only did He describe the ideal in words; He also illustrated it in His own life. According to Jesus' teaching and example, a man's success or failure is to be judged not by the amount of money he can accumulate, or by the amount of social distinction he can command, or by the extent of his intellectual or official achievements; but rather by the essential character which he fashions within himself, and the service which he renders his fellow men. In the Beatitudes Jesus calls men away from the superficial tests and standards which so commonly prevail, to a criterion which concerns the real nature of man, is equally just to all, and stands in relation not only to the few years of man's present existence, but to the whole of his eternal career."{8}
The doctrine here announced is truly divine, yet it is not from this that we primarily infer Christ's divine personality as manifested in the Gospels of the Synoptists. This introduction serves merely as a preparation, which was intended to dispose the hearts of His hearers, so that they might give due consideration to His claim of divine authority. For He continues: "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Of old the Law had been given on Mount Sinai. Its enactment had been accompanied by a portentous display of lightning and thunder, which filled the hearts of the people with dread and consternation. It was a law of fear, whose principal sanction was the vengeance of Jehovah's inexorable justice. Jesus does not mean to destroy that Law, but He professes to put upon it the impress of His own mission of love. And yet although He does not set aside what has been enacted in the days of old, He nevertheless assumes without hesitation, and in full consciousness of His inherent right to do so, the position of a Supreme Lawgiver, whose authority is equal to that of Jehovah. For it must be noticed that He does not act merely as a divine legate, whose power is dependent on and limited by the terms of the commission which he has received; but He evidently proceeds according to His own good pleasure and with an authority that knows no limitation. He does not say, as did the Prophets of old: "Thus saith the Lord God of hosts," but simply: "I say to you." He does not speak in the name and by the authority of another, as did Moses, the great Lawgiver of the Jewish people; but He speaks simply in His own name and by His own inherent authority. It is not the vengeance of Jehovah that He puts forward as a sanction of His enactments, but His own displeasure, which gives them all the finality of divine laws.
To convince oneself of this, one needs but read the account of this sermon as given by St. Matthew, which ends with the significant statement, that "the people were in admiration at his doctrine; for he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees."{9} "You have heard," Jesus tells the disciples and the multitude, "that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. . . . You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. . . . Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself: but thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. But I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God: nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: . . . You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: . . . You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemies: But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you; that you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. . . Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." {10}
Surely, such language no man has ever dared to use : -- it is as absolute and final as was that of Jehovah, when of old He engraved the commandments of the Decalogue upon tablets of stone. In issuing this moral code, Christ assumed a position of authority that was supreme, and had He been but a mere man, He must necessarily have laid Himself open to the charge of blasphemous arrogance. And yet this position of independent authority, thus deliberately assumed at the very outset of His public career, He maintained with equal deliberation until His dying day. To this the Synoptists bear ample witness. They relate how He placed Himself far above all the Patriarchs and Prophets, and saintly men that ever lived : -- all these, according to His teaching, were only servants of Jehovah but He was Jehovah's own Son.{11} He claimed a higher origin than that of son of David;{12} a greater glory than that of the Temple;{13} nay, He put Himself in the very place of Jehovah as the spouse of men's immortal souls.{14} Again, as in the Sermon on the Mount He claimed independent legislative authority, so did He later on reassert that same authority when He told the Jews that He had power to change the observance of the Sabbath, advancing no other reason than that He was "Lord even of the Sabbath."{15} He reasserted that authority when He conferred upon His disciples the power to loosen and to bind upon earth in such wise that their actions should ipso facto be ratified in heaven. To Peter He said: "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."{16} And later on He entrusted a similar power to all the Apostles, saying: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."{17} The kingdom of heaven therefore He claims as His own: admission into it depends upon Him; He holds the key, that is, the supreme and absolute authority, and that authority He delegates to whomsoever He pleases. Could Jehovah Himself have spoken and acted with greater independence?
And this independent authority stands out just as strikingly in the position which He assumes as the end and object of men's highest aspirations, and as the source of their moral obligations and their individual responsibility. "Take my yoke upon you," He tells them, "and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest for your souls. Come to me, all you that labour and are burdened, and I will refresh you."{18} He places the yoke of His law upon all who wish to attain salvation, and yet He calls Himself meek and humble of heart! He demands the undivided service of every human being, and as a reward He offers Himself as the one object that can fill their souls with peace and joy: -- yet He says that He is meek and humble of heart! What a travesty of humility this would be, were His claim to men s submission not based upon His own inherent divine authority! And of what boundless presumption must He not be judged guilty in promising to refresh all that labour and are burdened, had He not within Himself the plenitude of the Godhead! And more still. Not only does He bid men to submit to His law, but He tells them to do so in spite of every obstacle that may stand in the way. In the tenth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, Christ is recorded as saying: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. . . . He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not up my cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it."{19} Hence neither the tenderest affections of the human heart, nor the highest interest of man s social state, nor yet the loss of life itself, is deemed of sufficient weight to set aside the law of Christ. His demands are as absolute as those of Jehovah Himself. He deliberately puts Himself before His followers and before the world at large, as the final end and object of their existence. If men will save their souls, they must be ready to forego for His sake the love of father and mother, the love of son and daughter, and of all else to which their hearts may cling. He wishes to be their One and their All; He proposes Himself to one and all as the Supreme and Absolute Good. And yet this same Christ, as portrayed in Synoptic Gospels, was the most loving, the most affectionate, the most humble of men: He was ever most considerate of the just claims of others; His life and conduct were the very antithesis of selfish ambition and overbearing pride; and how then could He consistently make such demands? Only on the supposition that He knew Himself to be God. And how could the Evangelists record these same demands without a word of explanation? Only on the supposition that they believed Him to be God.
This view forces itself even more strongly upon the thoughtful reader, when he comes to those passages in which the Evangelists record Christ's prediction of the Last Judgment, and the manner in which He will mete out reward and punishment to both angels and men. Not only will He come with great power and majesty to judge all nations, which alone would seem extraordinary enough, but He will judge them precisely according to the service which each individual person shall be found to have rendered or not rendered Him. It is not their responsibility to Jehovah that comes in question, but their responsibility to Him alone. He will come, not with the angels of Jehovah, but with His angels; the nations shall be gathered, not before the throne of Jehovah, but before His throne; He will approve or condemn, not what they have done or failed to do to Jehovah, but what they have done or failed to do to Himself. To them that shall be gathered on His right hand He will say: "Come, ye blessed of My Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. . . Amen I say to you, as long. as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me." And to them that shall stand on His left hand He will say: "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. . . Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just into life everlasting."{20}
Is it possible that a merely human being, even though he had received from God plenipotentiary powers over all nations could have used language like this? Can any creature, whether angel or man, make himself the absolute standard of right and wrong, and then mete out eternal reward or punishment according as men have or have not conformed themselves to that standard? Would not that be a direct usurpation of divine rights and prerogatives? Yet Christ uses such language; He sets Himself up as such a standard; He rewards and condemns precisely as men have or have not rendered Him their undivided service: -- and all this He does with the most perfect consistency. As at the beginning of His public career He placed Himself before the world as the Supreme Lawgiver, and as during the course of that same career He ever pointed to His own person as the object of men's highest aspiration; so now at the very end He announces publicly that He will come as the Supreme Judge, and that He will decide men s eternal destinies according to their observance of the laws which He Himself has made. Whatever may be the objective value of His claim that He was a divine person, for with that we are not now directly concerned, He certainly was consistent in urging it to the last, and that consistency the Synoptists have recorded in unequivocal terms. "If the title of Divinity is more explicitly put forward in St. John, the rights which imply it are insisted on in words recorded by the earlier Evangelists."
Now having this fact before your mind, what meaning, do you think, did the Evangelists assign to the title, Son of God, as applied to Christ? Did they intend to signify thereby merely that Christ was a just man, or that He was a purely human Messiah, as Rationalists and Modernists would have us believe? Or did they also attach to it the further meaning that Christ Himself was really God, as the Church has always held and taught? Taken together, the three Synoptic Gospels apply the title to Christ twenty-four times, and is it possible that they never used it in its natural and obvious sense, when Christ's whole conduct, as narrated by themselves, constantly urged that sense upon their acceptance? When, for instance,{21} St. Matthew relates how Jesus stilled the tempest, and how thereupon "they that were in the boat came and adored him, saying: Indeed thou art the Son of God," is it conceivable that this title did not convey to him the full significance of Christ's divine personality? Or when he records how at Christ's baptism,{22} and at His transfiguration,{23} a voice from heaven was heard to say: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him," is it likely that he failed to recognize in that voice the Father's own testimony to the divinity of His Son? Or again, when he so graphically describes that memorable scene at Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith in his Master's divinity, saying: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God," is it reasonable to suppose that, whilst he narrated this, he thought only of Christ's Messianic dignity? Whatever may have been the meaning attached to this title by those who first used it, there can be no doubt whatever that to the Evangelists it was expressive of Christ's divine personality. The whole tenor of their narratives vouches for this. They throughout represent Christ as the Son of God in the strict sense of that term, and consequently they cannot be supposed to exclude this sense when they expressly call Him Son of God.
Again, in view of the fact that Christ assumed from the very beginning of His public career a position of independent and divine authority, and consistently maintained that position to the last moment, what meaning must He Himself have attached to this title? What did He mean when He called Himself the Son, and when He claimed that God was His Father? As recorded by the first three Evangelists, He made use of these expressions on at least a score of different occasions. What value did the title have in His own mind? Is it reasonable to suppose that to Him it was nothing more than the outward expression of an intimate moral union with God, when His whole conduct was expressive of a relation of absolute equality with the Father? Is it conceivable that He should constantly act as a divine person, and then when He called Himself the Son of God, He should only mean to indicate that He was a man? If to His own mind this title did not signify that He shared the divine nature with the Father, and that therefore He was true God, His actions most certainly belied His words; and if for nineteen hundred years the whole Christian world has erroneously understood His words in their literal and obvious sense, and in consequence has paid Him divine honors, although He was but a man, lie Himself was the cause of that error, and He Himself is responsible for that idolatry. Yet Rationalists and Modernists will have it that He was the very ideal of human perfection: that no one can ever hope to equal Him in wisdom and holiness: -- and He should have been guilty of a deception that would be altogether unintelligible in a man of common honesty and ordinary prudence? Would there be any consistency whatever in such a supposition?
Here it is well to bear in mind how carefully Christ distinguishes; on all occasions, between His own and His disciples' relation to the Father. He reminds His followers again and again that they have a Father in heaven even as He has; yet He never places them on the same level with Himself in regard to the implied sonship. They are indeed sons of God, but He alone is the Son: -- His is a sonship that is shared by no creature; it is altogether unique. Hence He never says, "our Father," but always, "my Father," and, "your Father." " Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."{24} " He that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."{25} Even the "Our Father" in the prayer which He taught His disciples is no exception to this invariable rule. As He did not include Himself in the petition, " forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors,"{26} so neither did He mean to include Himself in the opening words, " Our Father who art in heaven." This universally observed distinction indicates with sufficient clearness that in Christ's own mind His disciples were sons of God by adoption, whereas He and He alone was the Son of God by nature. As He viewed the matter, there was between His divine sonship and that of His disciples a gulf of separation that could never be bridged over: -- they were different not only in degree but in kind.
Furthermore, on several occasions He brought out this distinction so clearly that no one could fail to understand its full siguificance. Thus, for instance, in the parable of the vineyard and the husbandmen, He represents the prophets and saintly men of old, as compared to Himself, simply as the servants of Jehovah, whilst He is Jehovah's Son and heir, to whom all His Father's possessions belong by way of natural inheritance. As just and holy men, they were indeed sons of Jehovah, yet theirs was a sonship that did not remove the condition of servitude which was theirs by nature as God's creatures; but He is Jehovah's Son in a higher sense, which raises Him above all servitude, because His sonship is based not upon adoption but upon divine generation.{27}
Again, on other occasions Christ used the title, Son of God, in such a way that its meaning is quite clear without reference to His ordinary conduct or to the sonship of other just men. Thus both St. Matthew and St. Luke record Him as saying to His disciples: "All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him."{28} In this text Christ brings out two points very clearly: First, that His own dignity and perfection is such that no one can adequately know it, except God the Father, whose knowledge being divine comprehends even the fullness of the Godhead. Now if only God can know the full perfection of the Son, then the Son must indeed be divine; for were He a created being, no matter how great might be His perfection, He would necessarily come within the range of created intelligence. The second point clearly set forth is the comprehensive knowledge of the Son in respect to God the Father. He claims that He knows the Father even as the Father knows Him; for when He says that no one knoweth the Father, but the Son, He evidently alludes to a knowledge that transcends all created understanding. And this knowledge, He implies, is the natural result of His sonship. Now if as Son He is equal to the Father in knowledge, He must also be equal to Him in nature; because the one necessarily implies the other, in as much as divine knowledge is inseparable from the divinity. This saying of Christ therefore, thus recorded by the Synoptists, is identical in meaning with the striking statement of St. John, that "No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (I, 18). Both assert unequivocally that Christ is the true Son of God: -- that Christ Himself is God. Hence when Christ calls Himself the Son of God, or when He claims that God is His Father, He asserts that He Himself is True God of True God, consubstantial with the Father.
With equal clearness is Christ's meaning set forth in the answer which He gave the High Priest, as He stood before the Sanhedrin on the eve of His death. When He was solemnly adjured to say openly whether He was the Son of the living God, He did so without hesitation. Rationalists and Modernists contend that His answer on that memorable occasion was nothing but an assertion of His Messianic office, but their contention is plainly contradicted by the account of St. Luke, who narrates the proceedings of the trial in greater detail than St. Matthew does. As he puts it, Christ was asked two distinct questions. The first was, whether He was the Christ, that is, the Messiah. This question He answered by saying: "If I shall tell you, you will not believe me. And if I shall also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. But hereafter the Son of man," that is, the Messiah, "shall be sitting on the right hand of the power of God." This reference to the power of God, suggested the question that was to decide His fate. For they asked immediately: "Art thou then the Son of God?" that is, not only the Messiah, but also God's own Son? And Jesus answered: "You say that I am," which is the Hebrew way of saying: You speak the truth; I am in very deed. "Then they said: What need we any further testimony? for we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth." This gave them the long desired pretext for putting him to death. From His whole previous conduct they had indeed inferred that He claimed divine sonship in the strict sense of that term, but they desired a clear statement on His part, so that they might hold Him up to the people as a blasphemer: -- as one whom they believed to be only a man, yet who claimed to be God. Hence on that solemn occasion, when His very life was at stake, Christ not only claimed that He was the Messiah, but also that He was the Son of God, and therefore a divine person. It was for this claim that the Sanhedrin condemned Him to death, and it was to defend the truth of this claim that He died upon the cross.
Nor did His claim that He was a divine person end here. For after His resurrection, as both St. Matthew and St. Mark relate, He sent His Apostles to preach His doctrine to all nations, saying: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."{29} Here He explicitly commands that all nations be baptized, not merely in the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost, but in His name as well. Now this seems possible only on the supposition that the one divine nature is common to the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and that therefore the Son, as well as the Father and the Holy Ghost, is truly God. And this doctrine of His own divine personality He solemnly commands to be preached to the whole world, and to be believed by all who wish to save their souls; for St. Mark adds: "He that believeth not shall be condemned."
Such then is the teaching of the Synoptists concerning Christ's personality: -- their entire narrative implies that He is, in the strictest sense of the term, the Son of God -- that He is True God. To eliminate this teaching from their Gospels, the documents which have come down to us must be rejected almost entirely; yet even the most advanced critics admit that this cannot be done, and therefore the only possible conclusion is, that the Synoptists no less than St. John bear unequivocal testimony to Christ's divine personality.
{1} The Imitableness of Christ's Character.
{2} Emile, book 4.
{3} 1 John I, 1-4
{4} John I, 1-14.
{5} Darner, Person of Christ, p. 89.
{6} Liddon, Divinity of Our Lord, p. 255.
{7} V, 2-12.
{8} Votaw, Sermon on the Mount.
{9} VII, 28-29.
{10} V, 21-48.
{11} Matth. XXI, 33-39; Mark XII, 1-12; Luke XX, 41-44.
{12} Matth. XXII, 42-46.
{13} Matth. XII, 6.
{14} Matth. IX, 14-17; Mark II, 18-22; Luke V, 33-38.
{15} Matth. XII, 8.
{16} Matth. XVI, 19.
{17} Matth. XVIII, 18.
{18} Matth. XI, 28-29.
{19} X, 32-38.
{20} Matth. XXV, 31-46.
{21} St. Matthew XIV, 33.
{22} III, 17.
{23} XVIII, 5.
{24} Matth V, 48.
{25} VII, 21.
{26} VI, 12.
{27} Matth. XXI, 33; Mark XI, 32; Luke XX, 5.
{28} Matth. XI, 27; Luke X, 22.
{29} Matth. XXVIII, 18-20; Mark XVI, 15.