At the same time it is abundantly clear that the title was really assumed from the indirect mode in which Jesus constantly speaks of God as ' My Father.' This is verv frequent in Synoptics as well as in St. John (Mt 7-i 10*-' 11^' 1,5'3 16" etc.). And although, as we have seen, the consciousness which finds expression in this phrase becomes the basis of an extended doctrine of the Divine Father- hood ('the Father,' 'our Father,' 'thy Father.' 'your Father'), there is nevertheless a distinct interval between the sense in which God can be claimed as Father by men, even the innermr>st circle of the disciples, and that in which He is Father to the Son. In this respect the passage Mt ll-' = Lk 10— is quite explicit (cf. also tlie graduated scale of being in Mk lo''- = Mt 24*'). Although this passage stands out somewhat con- spicuoiLsly in Synoptics, tbe context in which it occurs is so original and so beyond the reach of invention, while it supplies so marvellously the key to th.at which distinguishes the history of .lesus from other histories, that doubt cannot rea- sonably be cast upon it. It is confirmed by the sense iu which the title 'Son of God' is taken by the Jews— not merely bv the populace but by the learned (Mt 27«-", cf. Mk 15-»- *■', Jn 19'). And, on the other hand, it confirms sufficiently the sub- stantial accuracy of like passages in the Fourth Gospel (e.g. 10*'*). We are thus prepared for the unanimity with wliich the Church at the earliest date fixed upon this title to convey its sense of the uniqueness of Christ's nature (Ac U*", Ho 1*, Gal 2^, V.\t\\ 4'', He 4'* etc., I Jn 4" etc., Uev 2").
This iispect of the questiim will come before us more fully later. We content ourselves for the present with observing that the teaching of Jesus, reserved and reticent as it is, presupiMises iis its background this wholly exceptional relation of 'the Son' to 'the Father.' From that as centre radiate a number of other relalionships to His innnediate disciples, to the Church of which they formed the nucleus, and to mankind. The Sonship of Jesus is intimately Ci'unected with His work as .Messiah (Titius, p. llli). It is in this character that 'all things are delivered' to Mini (Mt U-' :), in this characier that Ho is enabled to give to the world a revelation of the Fatlier (16.), in this
oJ-i
JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST
cliaraotiT that lie carries out His work of redemp- tion even to tlie ileatli (Mk U*' II).
(u) The Paraclite and the Tri-nnity itf Goil. — In the earliest Kpp. of St. Paul we tiiiil that the Son of Goil is placed side by side with tlie Father, and is associated with Him as the ground of the C'hun'h's beinjf, the source of .spiritual fjrace. and as co-operatiiifj with Him in the providential orderin;; of event.s (1 Th 1', -l Th 1', 1 Tl> ;{"f). It is ditticult to describe tlie effect of tlie lanuuafje used in any oilier lerius than as altribuliin: to the Son a coeipial (Jodhead with the Father. Ami It is remarkable that St. Paul does this, within some twenty-two years of the Ascension, not as thoiiirh he were layinj; down anyihiiig new, but as .somethint; which niiiiht be assumed as part of the common body of Christian doctrine.
We ob.serve also that throughout the earliest fliiiui) of Kpp. there are frequent references to the work of the Holy Spirit as the one great force wliicli lies liehind at once the missionary activity and the common life of the Church of the apos- tolic age (e.sp. 1 Co 12-14, but cf. 1 Th I'f- 4' o'S etc.). This, too, it i.s assumed that all Christians would undei-stand.
How are we to account for the prevalence of such teaching at so early a date, and in a region so far removed from the centre of Christianity? It would be natural if the Lord Jesus Christ Him- self in His intercourse with His disciples had jire- ]iared them to expect a great activity of the lioly Spirit, and if lie had hinted at relations in the (;odhead wliich made it threefold rather than a simple monad. Apart from such hints, the common belief of the ('hurch respecting Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit seems very difficult to under- stand. Certain previous tendencies in Jewi.sh thouglit might lead up some way towards it, but they would leave a wide gap unspanned.
When, therefore, we find that one Gospel a.scribes to our Lord rather full and detailed teaching re- specting the Paraclete, which is explained to be another name for the Holy Spirit (.Jn 14i''-26 152')^ when there is hehl out a clear hope and promise of a new Divine influence to take the place of that which is being withdrawn, and when in another (iospel we are also told of the institution * of a rite a.ssociated with a new revelation of God under a threefold Name, that of Father, .Son, and Holy Spirit (Mt liS'^), these phenomena are just what we ar(r prepared for, and just such as we should have h.ad to a.ssume even if we had had no delinite record of them. We may, then, regard them as having received — whatever the antecedent claims of the documents in which they are found — a very considerable degree of critical verification. The single verse 2 Cor 13" seems to require something very like what we find in Mt aud Jn.