inent prophecy of the Messiah, w to judge the world ; and next, to (orgi\e pin ; and, finallv. to l)e the Lord of life and death. In the Old Testament these pre- rogatives belong to God alone as the essential Head of the kingdom, and appear in those prophctin ilescriptioiis of the kingdom which ignore the figure of the Messiah, and represent Ood as manifesting Himself among men. Here, then, ue have the Christ of the Gospels claiming not only to fulfil the Old Testament prophecies of the various ideals of the Messiah, but also to discharge the functions of God Himself in relation to the kingdom. 'H
109,
* Row, Jfsui of the Ecanqeliitft, p. 147 ft.
t Edersheim. History of the Jemsh yation, p. 200 fT.
J See especially the Church Quarterly Revieir, Jan 1904.
§ Jeaus Christ in the Talmud (Luihle), p. 45 [Eng. tr ].
II T?ie Modem Jevnsh View of Jetue, by Prof. Votaw. r Chicago University Press, 1905.
*\ Expositor, 6th series, v. [19021 P- 26S. In Jewish apoca- lyptic literature, it should be added, the Messiah is in many cases the agent of God in the judgment which takes place at the beKinniiiK or clo<;p nf the Messianic reign ; even in the final ■.*l>rfsented as God's agent, and only in the ■ l'.'>"k uf Knoch does He appear as the judge
: the 1 i-t rla\. We may also contrast our Lord's own words
i to His I'arnnsia « ith tlie fantastic and grotesque de8criptions
: Jewish theology.
judgme
Nor can it be said with any justification that these Di\-ine prerogatives are ascribed to our Lord late in time, or that they were simply Christian accretions. We need look no further than St. Paul's earliest Epistle, 1 Thess., to come across statements which can scarcely mean anything less than that our Lord was associated as Judge with God the Father ; that He is the medium of salva- tion, and that we obtain life through His death ; that the prayers of Christians are to be addressed to Him ; that whether we wake or sleep our true life is in Him (cf. 1 Th 3'3 5»' '»). Nor is there any reason to suppose that in such statements to the Thessalonians St. Paul is putting forward a conception of Christ which ditl'ered from that en- tertained by the rest of the Church : * ' The Son of God,' he writes to the Corinthians, ' who was preached among you by us (not by St. Paul himself alone), even by me and Silvanus and Timothy, was not yea and nay, but in him is yea,' 2 Co 1" (cf. 1 Th 1'). Moreover, in the expression ' the Son of God ' St. Paul's teaching no less than that of the Gospels indicates a unique relationship be- tween the Father and the Son ; cf. c.r/. Ro 8°- '-. And if we ask whence St. Paul's conception was derived, it seems not unreasonable to maintain that it was derived from the statements and the teaching of our Lord Himself.
There is a famous passage contained in two of the SjTioptic Gospels which so strongly resembles the phraseology of St. John that it has been called, and not unjustly, an aerolite from the Johannine heaven : ' All things have been delivered unto me of my Father, and none knoweth the Son save the Father, neither doth any know the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him' (Mt 11", Lk 10==). Dr. Hamack, although he does not deny that Jesus spoke these words, weakens their force and meaning, and it is well to turn for a criticism of his statements to Dr. Swete's remarks on ' The Teaching of Christ,' Expositor (6th Series, vii. [1903] p. 407) :
*The knowledge claimed is that of a son, and it rests upon sonship : it is a strange misreading of the words which reverses this order, as Professor Harnack seems to do— it is not know- ledge which makes Christ "the Son," but sonship which enables Him to know. He declares that He knows God as only a son can know his father, and that this knowledge is not a possession which other sons of God naturally share with Him, but one which belongs of right to Him alone, and to others only so far as He is pleased to impart it. This is to claim not only unique knowledge, but a unique Sonship. It is difficult to dis- cover any essential difference between this statement of St. Matthewand the closing words of St. John's prologue."
The Abb6 Loisy does not allow that our Lord ever spoke these words, but affinns that they are derived from some primitive Church tradition ; and he goes so far as to suppose that they were derived, in part at all events, from Sir 51. t But it is diffi- cult to believe that such words could have found the place which they occupy in two of our Gospels unless they were spoken by our Lord. It should be remembered that they are regarded, not merely by conservative but bv ' scientihc ' critics, as form- ing part of that ' collection of discourses ' which probably comes to us from the Apostle St. Matthew. Indeed, Keim long ago affirmed that there is no more violent criticism than that vvhii h Strauss had introduced, viz., the repudiation i.i i i i-sijr so strongly attested. Moreover, Wm- 'I [m n-