AUTHORITY OF CHEIST
AUTHORITY OF CHRIST 147
teaching of Jesus which it is in some sense allowed to judge. We may say in Coleridge's phrase that we believe the teaching of Jesus, or acknowledge its (or His) authority, because it ' finds ' us more deeply tlian anything else ; but any Christian will admit that ' find ' is an inadequate expression. The teaching of Jesus does not simply find, it evokes or creates the personality by which it is acknowledged. We are born again by the words of eternal life which come from His lips, and it is the new man so born to whom His word is known in all its power. There is a real analogy between this truth and the familiar phenomenon that a new poet or artist has to create the taste which is necessary for the appreciation of his work. Dis- missing, therefore, the abstract and general con- sideration of the idea of authority in religion (see next art.), our course must be (1) to examine the actual exercise of authority by Jesus in the Gospels, referring especially to occasions on which His authority was challenged, or on which He gave hints as to the conditions on which alone it could be recognized ; (2) by way of supplement we can consider the authority of the exalted Christ as it is asserted in the Epistles and exercised in the Church through the NT as a whole.
1. The exercise of authority hij Jesus on earth. — (a) The simplest but most far-reaching form in which Jesus exercised authority was the practical one. He claimed other men, otlier moral person- alities, for Himself and His work, and required their unconditional renunciation of all otlier ties and interests that they might become His dis- ciples. He said, ' Follow me,' and they rose, and left all and followed Him (Mt i'^^-^- 9"). He made this kind of claim because He identified Himself with the gospel (Mk 8*^ 10'-") or witli the cause of God and His Kingdom in the world, and for this cause no sacrifice could be too great, no devotion too profound. ' He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. He that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Wliosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple ' (Mt 10^', Lk 14^). Nothing is less like Jesus than to do violence to anyone's liberty, or to invade the sacredness of conscience and of personal responsibility ; but the broad fact is unquestion- able, that without coercing others Jesus dominated them, without breaking their wills He imposed His own will upon them, and became for them a supreme moral authority to which they submitted absolutely, and by which they were inspired. His authority was unconditionally acknowledged be- cause men in His presence were conscious of His moral ascendency, of His own devotion to and identification with what they could not but feel to be the supreme good. We cannot explain this kind of moral or practical authority further than by saying that it is one witli the authority which the right and the good exercise over all moral beings.
Not that Jesus was able in every case to carry His own will through in the wills of other men. Moral ascendency has to be exercised under moral conditions, and it is always possible, even for one who acknowledges its right, to fail to give it practical recognition by obedience. When Jesus said to the rich ruler, ' Sell all that thou hast, and
five to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in eaven : and come, follow me ' (Mk 10=^, He failed to win the will of one who nevertheless was con- scious that in refusing obedience he chose the worse part. ' He went away sorrowful ' — his sorrow implying that it was within the right on the part ot Jesus to put Iiim to this tremendous test. He acknowledges by his sorrow that he would have been a better man— in the sense of
the gospel a perfect man— if he had allowed the authority of Jesus to have its perfect work in him. These are the facts of the case, and they are ignored by those who argue that it is no man's busi- ness to part with all he has for the sake of the poor ; tliat property is a trust which we have to ad- minister, not to renounce ; that the commandment to sell all cannot be generalized, and is therefore not moral ; and that it is, in short, an instance of fanaticism in Jesus, due to His belief in the near- ness of the Kingdom, and the literal worthlessness of everything in comparison with entering into it at His side. There is nothing here to generalize about. There is a single case of conscience which Jesus diagnoses, and for which He prescribes heroic treatment ; but it is not in the patient to rise to such treatment. The high calling of God in Christ Jesus is too high for him ; he counts himself un- worthy of the eternal life (Ac 13*"). The autliority of Jesus is in a sense acknowledged in this man ; it is felt and owned though it is declined. Wliere the authority lay is clear enough. It lay in tlie Good Master Himself, in His own identification with the good cause, in His own renunciation of all things for the Kingdom of God's sake ; it lay in His power to reveal to this man the weak spot in his moral constitution, and in the inward witness of the man's conscience (attested by liis sorrow as he turned away) that the voice of Jesus was the voice of God, and that tlirough obedience to it he would have entered into life. It lay in the whole relation of these two concrete personalities to each other, and it cannot be reduced to an abstract formula.