from what c
develoj.iii.
whirl
r it. they could jiosMbly have had (cf. surl, Nvrilri. ,■,, M i,.Linto,li, y,,t. /fist, of Christ. loin/.; l'.Mv\ r.Av,\u,v. ll,..l,„-,r i;.w of NT, ch. n. : ivMllIl (';.ip,;nlrr, Firsf Tlnrr <;osjjds,chs. ii., iii.). The actual facts of Glirist s caicer, i.e., are conformed in tlie NT narrati\cs to .ilrc.uly exist- ing Messianic traditions. And licca\iM' of this the accumulated sanctities of the oM rcli'^ion were l.iid claim to by the new, whereby the latter main- (.lincd i(>clf in face of the opposition which it rH( (lunlcrcd .at the first .and found a .soil prepared lor its reception. The contention cannot be sus- tained. It may receive some countenance from I he larcumstance that the writers of the NT nc\er record any fact or incident merely as fact or incident, but as jiart of the substance of the gospel, illustrating ami com i-viiej spiritual prin- ciples. But the very . ,im. ^'illi which the NT method of presenting hi.^ioric.-il circumstance might be turned to account under the inlluence of Messi- anic bias becomes valuable evidence against that hypothesis. For although the NT history is pre- sented with a bias, i.e. as bearing and bodying forth a Person, the presentation, whether that of the Synoptics, or of the Fourth Gospel, or of St. Paul and the others, cannot with any measure of success be wholly identilied with or wholly snmme.l up in that of the Me.-.M;ih. The Messi- anic cl.'iinis of .lc>ns ni:iy !"■ iii.oie (as they are iji.-i.lc) to rc-l on I he fai(^; l.ul I In- facts are not exliansled in tliosi' cl.'iiius, c\cn in the immensely enrieheil .and original form in which Jesus made them. There are other portraitures of Jesus in the NT besides that of Him as Messiah ; and even those writers who set forth to piutray Him solely as Messiah cannot b(^ restraineil fr'om hnrsting through their self-impo-cd limits, in fulclity lo the facts, and portr.ayinj; Him .-is more than they meant. Moreover, the s.anie w riters con\ cy to us the explicit assurance th.at tliey have not appre- hended all the truth al)out His Person. Subse- quent theology accepted the assurance, departed widely from the purely Messianic portraiture, yet claimed, and with perfect ju~licc. (h,.ii (he new departures were in no sense new ;i(MiiiMii^ (othe original Gospel, but fresh interpnaal ion,-, .Icsigned to recover and vitalize truths di.^cernihle in the Gospels, but imperfectly understood by the Gospel writers.
{!>) What h.as been adverted to finds illuslr.ation in anritlc-r -niircn of t'liri>toloeic;,l i.lcn, fhr self- enin:^': ' . '■ / //;. In ihe neel iinleworthy
di-cu : . . , !lM ehici, ih;0 oi 1 1;, Men.- perger {Ji„. ,^, //,.//„ ,r„,.,,/,v.,w ./.,;, I. .miy .■'hout .,ne half
in which Jesus reganle.l Him.-elt as .M.'ssi.-ih ; the second part is devoted to o( her .asj.ects arising out of His self-designations. His teachinu as to the Kinedom, etc. Withal, much that cannot be ex- cluile.l from ('hrisl.'s seif-i (■\el:ii ion is not even louchi'd up,,n. ,\n\-,'i.|.'.iuale e\ p. ,-i I ion of Christ's idiM, of His own n'alnre will iiichhie tiie following features ; 1 1 is I ii ( ctI, .r 1 i te, 1 1 is niei Ik .d in teaching. His moral perlecimn, 1 1 1- .mene-. w ill, the Father. (a) The /,-//.■ .v. cc, / „/' iliri-:!'- life is not open. Who can ev.a- kn..\v llis inl inn.l e' mind ? Could He have revealed it even if He would? We know His words and deeds; \\ e di-l in;_ui-li the forces He set agoing in the worlds hr-(ery ; we venture on assertions of growth both of nlea and it .iction in His life ; but where was the source of ihese? or what the process? or when the great choices .and decisive oper,ations of His marvellous mil'' What were the supremely triumphant and npremely lenihle ,,ien,en( ^ ol 'llis life? What ^.,,•le Ihe' CM ni in wliii ii He ' lound Himself? Ill- nhiiunilinj eiiei.jy in i pile- :i lii h self-conscious- liess ; the comlileli-s'l self-consciousuess I'csts on
DIVINITY OF CHRIST
DIYIXITY OF CHRIST
a plenitude of interior self-relationships. That these last existed in Him we are certain. But in what manner or in obedience to what im- pulses, who can discern ? The records give results not processes, and just at those points where our curiositj^ is most eager, the limitations of our power to perceive are most urgent. We see but a few things. We observe the self-indulgence of His own consciousness again and again. AVe ha\e glimpses of its exercise in solitary commimings Arith God, in a life of intercourse with men, in the collision with incident and event. Above all, we know it in its great occasions, — Baptism, Tempta- tion, Discussion -Hith the Doctors, Transfiguration, Agony in the Garden, Resurrection, Ascension, — all of A\ hich are equally discoveries of His nature to Himself and revelations to His disciples. Be- cause the meaning of these events seems to lie on the surface, we must be careful not to give them a superficial reception. They must be so received wlien regarded as parts of a religious idea, and not, as they are, experiences of a real Person. Thej' constitute events which were no mere form gone through to proclaim a spiritual truth to men or to certify to them by wondrous signs a new relation opened for them with God. Thev were not dramatic: they were as personal to I'liiu ;i- thi-v aiv iii>tnutive for us. He did uli.ii II. ai,l InVau-.- II,. xwis what He was— from :i drrjii'i nr..-.~iiy tli.ui .iny deliberate persuasion that lli>ili-< iplr, ii.m.Jl-iI this or that teaehingat this or that time. These events are far from summing up His inner life. They are but flashes out of a deep darkness. They reveal a life that is really human, in constant communion with a source of sustenance beyond the hmuan, receiving the ful- ness of that source and translating it into earthly relations, yet with a self-possession and self- knowledge, i.e. a consciousness differentiated and personal. But the revelation does not uncover all the secrets of that life, leaving nothing to elude or be\nlder. There are reservations in the know- ledge given (cf. Dale, Atoncmrvf. \<\i. 4.". 47). Ami these are not to be identified \\illi lli.' n. ■. rosary inscrutabilities inherent in all linii. ]■ i-on.iliiy. They are the intimations of a .L;lniy in lli> nature \vl]i(h -r|.,iiaii'^ it from all common natures, ^ii;ns that ill lliiii iliiir are abysses of impenetrable slilin.ii.nr iiiin n'. lie h finite natures may not enter, huwi-vcr (III-. -In iln'v may touch.