Sayings like these, it is needless to add, could be multiplied almost indefinitely. Through all of them there runs, indirectly, if not directly, the same self-portraitures. And it is a self-portraiture tlial has the .same two sides. On the one hand there is the hunuxn side, the note of meekness or lowhuess, condescension that is not (though it really is!) condescension but infinite sympathy, patience, tenderness ; and, on the other hand, no less firmly drawn, for all the lightness and restraint of touch, an absolute range of command and authority ; all things delivered to the Son in heaven .and on earth (cf. Mt ll^' 28").
That which we hav(^ called the 'human side' fills most of the foreground in the Gospels ; the other, the transcendental side, is somewhat shaded by it ; and we can see that it was deliberately shaded, that the proportions were such as mainly (though, as we shall see. not entirely) corresponded to the facts, or, in other words, to the divine method and order of presentation. But when we turn from the (lOspels to the rest of the NT we shall fiud these proportions inverted.
We only pause upon this ^aOSpel picture a mo-
ment more to say that, apart from any question of criticism of documents or of details in the narrative, it seems to us to be utterly beyond the reach of invention. The evangelists themselves were too near to the event-s to see them in all their signifi- cance. They set down, like honest men, the details one after another as they were told them. l!ut it was not their doing that these details work iji together to a singular and unsought harmony.
I.tT^:l:ATt■ RK. — Tlie ftillcst account of recent dlwnsslons iis to ttie n(lci|iiacy and tnislworthiness of the prciteiitatlon "I" flirlst tn the (iospeN will tie found tn the tsecond enlari;ed edition of Kaliler'f* Ittrmn/eitannte ItiKtitrUclie JeitUH uiul drr gfuchicht- lu-hr. hihliHche f'hrintlts, Leijiziu, ISUlV Another worli. whtell \iiy» the stress rallier on personid experience of the life of t'lirisl. arid is written with f;reat earnestness tVotn that noint of view, liut seems to us too restricted in its historical basis, is lierr- iniinn's Der Vtrkehr den CArittlen mit O'olt, ed. 'J, ;*tultpirt, IbUJ (Eng. tr. ISO.'i).
ii. Thf Christ of the Apostli'H. — In passing over from the (iospels to the rest of the XT we find ourselves hampered by critical questions. What we shiiiild most wish to ascertain is the conception of Christ held by the mass of the first disciples. And to some extent we can get at this ; but, so far as we can do so, it is nearly always indirectly. The writings that have come down to us are tho.se of the leaders, not of the followers ; and many even of these are encumbered with (juestions as to date and origin. Some of these do not so much matter, because in .any case they belong to the end rather than the beginning of the ajioslolic age. The one book which we should most like to u,se more freely than we can is the Acts, the earlier chapters of which we quite agree with the author of the article in this Dictionary in estimating highly.
We will, however, cut the knot by not attempt- ing to summarize the teaching of all the undisputed books, but by taking a single tyjiical exanqile of manageable coiiipa.ss, the first extant NT writing, 1 Thessalonians, written probably about .\,li. ol — in any case not later than 63, or within the first quarter of a century after the Ascension.
Let us suppose for a moment, with the more extreme critics, that ft thick curtain falls over the Cliiircli after this event. The curt.ain is lifted, and what do we iind ? We turn to the openinu verse of the Ep. (emended readini:). ^t. Paul and his companions irive solemn i^reetiiij^ to the * (.'hurch of the Tliess. (which is) iu Liod the Father and the Lord .lesus t'hrlst.' An elaborate pro- cess of retiexion, almost a system of theology, lies behind those lamiiiar terms. Kir-t we note tliat the liuinan iianie '.Jesus' is closely associated \;'ith the title '(."hrist' or '.Messiah,' which in the (iospels hud been claimed with such quiet reticence and unobtrusiveness. From this time onwards the two names are ultnoBt inseparable, or the second supersciles the lirst : in ottier words, .lesu.s is hardly ever thought of apart from His iii^rh Messianic dipnity. This etFect is pressed home by the further title 'Lord' (Kiipios). The disciples liad been in the habit of addressing their Master as 'Lord' during His lifetime, in a sense not very ditferent from that iu which any KabbI might be addressed "by his pupils (.Jn l:ii3f.j_ ij„t that sense Is no longer adeciuale ; the word has been lllled with a deeper meaning. 'I'hat '.lesus is Lord' has become the distinctive confession of Christians (1 Co 12^ I'.o in"), where 'Lord' cer- tainlv = ' the exalted Lord' of the Resurrection and Ascension (cf. Ac •-'"••).
What is still more remarkable, the glorified .lesus is, as it were, bracketed with ' God the Father.' Let us think what this would mean to a strict Jewish inonotheist ; yet St. Paul evidently holds the iuxtaposition, not as something to wliich he is tentatively feeling his way, but as a fundamental axiom of faith. In the appellation 'Father' we have already the lirst beginning— may we not say the first decisive step, which potentially contains the rest *— of the Christian doctrine of tliG Trinity. .And we observe, further, tliat the Thessalonian Church is said to have its being ' hi Christ ' as well as * in God.' Thia Is a characteristic touch of Pauline mysticism. The striking thing aliout it is that in this, too, the Son already holds a place beside the Father (cf 'J" 4'«).