2. But moral authority, like all other forms of authority, must rest upon a power that lies behind. What rlrf/it hns Jesus to speak thus'', men would ask; What livht to call upon us to leave our liomc^. Hill triinds, our all, to follow Him? What right tu Mil us arcept His teaching as a perfect revelation of the will of God, and His interpreta- tion of tlie Law as its true fulfilling ? Moral autho- rity quickly disappears when there is no moral power at the back of it. But our Lord's claim to authority rested upon an underlying claim to holi- ness— a claim which His hearers and disciples were in a position to verify for themselves. There is nothing which gives a man such sway over the consciences of other men as the possession of true holiness ; whUe there is nothing more certain to be found out than the lack of this quality in one who professes to have it. It was the holiness of Christ's character that made His words fall with such convincing weight upon the hearts of men and women. It was His holiness that gave Him tlie right to command, and made them willing to obey. According to the Fourth Gospel, it was the Baptist's testimony, ' Behold the Lamb of God !' (Jn l^), that brought the first pair of disciples to Jesus. They came to see if this testimony was true (ef. v.^"-), and what they saw bound them to Jesus for ever. Publicans ami sinners drew near to Him (Mt 9'", Lk 15'), not, as His enemies insinuated (Mt W-> ||), because He was a sinner like themselves, but because they saw in Him One who, with all His human sympathy, was so high above sin that He could stretch out a saving hand to those who were its slaves (Mt 9'- li, Lk T*""" 19=-'"). And this holi-
ness, which others saw and felt in Him, Jesus claimed, and that in the most absolute fashion. He claimed to be without sin. He claimed this not only when He said to His foes, ' Which of you convictetli me of sin ? ' ( Jn S*"), but by the attitude of His whole life to the facts of moral evil. He claimed it by calling Himself the Physician of the sinful (Mt 9'°||), by assuming the power to forgive sins(Mt9^ ||, Lk 7''"')i by never making con- fession of sin in His own prayers, though enjoining it upon His disciples (Mt 6'- 1|), by never even join- ing with His disciples in common prayers, of which confession would necessarily form an element (on this point see Forrest, Christ of History and of Experience, p. 22 il". ; Expos. Times, xi. [1900] 352 tf. ). See, further, artt. HOLINESS, Sinlessness.
3. A very important aspect of Christ's claims is their point of connexion with the national hope regarding the Messiah (which see). There can hardly be any doubt that from the very beginning of His public ministry the Messianic consciousness was fully awake in the heart of Jesus. We see the presence of tliis consciousness in the Tempta- tion narratives (Mt 4'-"|l). in the sermon in the synagogue of Nazareth (Lk 4''''-). in tlu- claiiii (if the preacher on the Mount that III' caiin' to tiillil the Law and the Prophets (Mt ,j''i. At a later stage He welcomes and blesses Pctuis e.xiucss de- claration, 'Thou art the Christ' (Mt 16'"), and, linally. He accepts the homage of the multitude as the Son of David (wh. see), who came in the name of the Lord (Mt 21' II), and dies upon the cross for claiming to be the King of the Jews (Mt 27", cf. v."). And if until the end of His ministry He did not call Himself or allow Himself to be called the Messiah (Mt 16'-°), this was clearly because the false ideals of the Jews regarding the Messianic king- dom made it impossible for Him to do so \vithout creating all kinds of misunderstandings, and so precijntating the inevitable crisis before His work on earth was accomplished. But by His constant use of the title ' Son of Man ' (wh. see), Jesus was giving all along, as Beyschlag says (NT Theology, i. 63), ' a veiled indication of His Messianic call- ing ' ; for hardly d.ny one now doubts that He used this title with precise reference to the well-known passage in the 7th chapter of Daniel (v.""-), and that by so describing Himself He was claiming to bring in personally and establish upon earth that very kingdom of (Sod which formed the constant theme of His preaching (see Mt 26''''),
4. But if Christ's use of the title ' Son of Man ' shows how He claimed to fulfil the Messianic idea, His further claim to be the Son of God (wh. see) shows that He filled this idea w ith an altogether new content, whicli formed no part of the Messianic expectation of tlie Jews. No doubt in popular usage the title ' Son of God,' through the influence especially of Ps 2', had become an official name for the Messiah (Mt S-'s, Mk 14«', Jn l-*"). But Christ's claim to be the Son of God evidently meant much more than this. In asserting His IJivine Sonship He was not merely affirming His right to an ex- ternal title of honour, but was givin" expression to a consciousness of relationship to God the Father which was absolutely unique, and in which the very essence of His Messiahship consisted. It is true that in the Synoptics He does not expressly designate Himself the Son of God, as He does in the Fourth Gospel (o-'' ^' [(•«/•. hrt.] 10=« ll-") ; but at all events He reiiratnlly .alls (;..,1 His Father, and refers to Himsrlt a^ ' ihc Smi « hen speaking of God, and that in a >.ii-r manifestly distinct from the general idea oi (ioil's universal Father- hood (e.g. Mt 11=^ 12^ IS'"). In the Fourth Gospel, quite apart from those passages in which Christ assumes the title 'Son of God,' the sense of this unique relation to God as bearing upon His saving