CLAIMS OF CHRIST
CLEOPAS
337
relationship to men meets us everywhere, but especially in the farewell discourse and the inter- cessory prayer which followed (Jn 14-17). But in the Synoptics also this Divine consciousness appears repeatedly {c.tj. Lk 2«, Mt 7=' lO'- 16"22=f-, Mk 12«), and it finds full expression in that great saying, 'AH things have been delivered unto me of my Father ; and no one knoweth the Son save the Father ; neitlier doth any know the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him' (Mt 11=', Lk 10~), which serves in St. Matthew's account as the ground of the Saviour's universal invitation and of His promise of rest for the soul (v.28ff-). See Preaching Christ, 5 (c).
5. In connexion witli His escliatological teach- ing, and forming its central and most essential feature, is the claim made by Christ to be the final and nniversal Judge of men. Not only did He declare tlie fact of His own Return, an astonishing declaration in itself, but He affirmed as the pur- pose of His Second Coming the Judgment of the world. This claim to be the arbiter of human destinies is distinctly announced again and again (Mt V"- =3 16", Mk 838). It is further implied in the parables of tlie Wise and Foolish Virgins (Mt 25'-") and the Talents (vv. »■'"), and is set forth in detail in that solenm picture of the Last Judgment by which these parables are immediately followed (vy 31-46) jiig testimony of tlie Synoptics with regard to this claim of our Lord is supported by the testimony of the Fourtli Gospel to the same eft'ect (Jn 5-"''-, cf. v.~), and is confirmed by the fact that throughout the rest of the NT the office of the final Judge is constantly assigned to Jesus (Ac W- 17", Ko 2'« U'», 2 Co 5'", 2 Ti i'-\ 1 P i\ Ja 5'- "), an office, be it noted, which was never ascribed to the Messiah either in the OT revelation or in the popular Jewish belief (see Salmond, Christian Doct. of Immortality, p. 318). Tliis is in some respects the most stupendous of Christ's claims. It was a "reat thing for Jesus of Nazareth to assume the titles and functions of the Ho])e of Israel, to declare Himself to be tlie Fulfiller of the Law and the Expected of the Prophets. But it was something greater still to claim that with His Return there would arrive the grand consummation of the world's history (Mt25'"), that before Him all nations should be gathered iy^-) and all hearts laid bare (vv.^s.su.w*)^ t,l,,it ^jjg principle of the Judgment should be the attitude of men to Himself as He is spiritually present in the world (vv.*-''^), and that of this attitude Christ Himself should be the Supreme Judge (vv.^-'"). See art. Judgment.
6. That the doctrine of Christ's pre-existoicc is specifically taught in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel, is apparent to every reader (Jn I'"- '»• "• "*). But it is not less plain that, according to the author, this doctrine was not simply a solution forced upon the Christian mind by a consideration of Christ's other claims and of His whole history, but was the unfolding of an affirmation made by Christ's own lips (6= 8^ 17'- ■*). In spite of all that has been said by writers like Beyschlag {op. cit. i. 254) and Wendt (Tcai-hing of Jesus, ii. 169), the theory of an ideal pre-existence is quite inadequate as an explanation of such language. Only by maintaining that John's picture of Jesus and ])re- sentation of His words is no record of historical fact, but a theologically determined construction of his own, can we escape from the conclusion that, as Jesus claimed to be in an absolutely unique sense the Son of the Father, so also He claimed to be the personal object of the Father's love and the sharer of His glory before the world was. See art. Pre-Existence.
Literature.— Hastings' DB, artt. ' Son of Man,' ' Son of God ' : Denney, Stwlies in Theology, oh. ii. ; Forrest, Christ of History and nj hxpcrlence. Lect. ii. ; Beyschlag, iVT" Tkcol. i. 50-79, VOL. I.— 22
236-2U6 ; Wendt, Teaching of Jesvs, ii. 122-183 ; Weiss, Bib Theol. of NT, i. 73-92 ; Stalker, Chrislology of Jesus ; Ullmann, Stnlessness of Jesus, 69-Sl ; Salmond, Christian Doct. of Immortahly, 313-325 ; Robbins, A Christian Apologetic (1902)1, 69-87 ; Forrest, Authority of Christ (1906).
J. C. Lambert. CLEANNESS See Law, Purification.
CLEANSING.-See Temple.
CLEOPAS (KXe6iras, Lk 24'8).— One of the two disciples to wliom the Lord appeared on the after- noon of the Resurrection day as they went to Emniaus, distant about two hours from Jerusalem (see Emmaus). The omission of all reference to the story in 1 Co 15 is not a sufficient ground for questioning its truth. We have no guarantee that St. Paul's knowledge extended to all the actual events of the Passion and Resurrection period (cf. Chase, Credibility of the Aets, p. 184). The story may have been received by the Evangelist from Cleopas himself : it bears marks of its early origin in the primitive Messianic ideas it preserves, and in the use of the name Simon for St. Peter. By some (Theophylact, Lanj^e, Carr) the unnamed companion of Cleopas is identified with St. Luke himself ; but this is unlikely, as both appear to have been Jews (oi apxavra r^f-Civ, y.-"), though they do not speak in a tone of such personal near- ness to Jesus that we can accept the conjecture that they were of the Eleven. The two were in high dispute about late events, Cleopas apparently taking the more optimist ir \ ii-w, :is, in spite of all, lie clings to the few facts wlm h make for belief. The inability of both to ir. ,.t;iii/.' .lesus is ex- plained in St. Luke to be ilii.; U< spiritual dulness (oi 6<p6a\ixol avTuv iKparovvro, \. "'). The pseudo-Mark (whose allusion does not dejiend on St. Luke, for he gives a diflerent sequel in Jerusalem) says that the Lord appeared ' in another form ' (iv iripa ij.op<t>^, Mk 16'-) ; an interpretation favoured by Augustine, who compares the eH'ect of the Transligiiration ilxtTepoptpwdy!. Mk 9'-). Whatever the cause, the Lord treated them with tenderness (v.^'' duSijroi, 'O foolish men,' RV, not 'fools,' as AV; cf. Ram.say on Gal 31).