things of God in a wide perspective impossible to the reason.
(d) The specialities of Christ's teaching and works may be briefly indicated. Their speciality has been challenged. The opinion of a recent Gilford lecturer is shard by many, that 'itis
article of reliuions failli wliicl, i. m ui oeneral asjiect a do.arine p.'.iiliar In niii-lianily. Its uni(i\ieness lies lathei in \\\\:i[ -cime would call the iiersonality cd the found, i i W ,allace. Lectures, iii.). Tbatis'true; bni ii- ,-n,-^. -i mii is not true, that there is no una| iiene-- in the teaching of • 'brist. The nniiinene-- ol ibe Teacher draws with it nnnineinss in the teailiing; and that both in ils iiii'i li,„| (see abo\e) and in its substance. Sinii- laily His \\orks exliil.il liiuher jiotency than the ordinary human. A si k.iil; feeling to this effect is resulting from the minnie an.il\sis which at the present time both the ' W <.i.ls ' .iial the 'Miracles' are undergoing (cf. A\endl, liorhhiq vf Jcsus; Dalman, Wonjx „f J.xus. ,1 ,-/.). His dependence
conlideiilly asseiled. I( is dilli'cnll, if not inipos-
is likely to have entered into the formative influ- ences of Jlis mind. From Greek philosophy He piidialily lived remote as much by natural tem- lierannait as by patriotic interest. He was not beyond its rangi', but then as now the Jew had a wonderful jiowci of li\ing in the fire without suliering the smell of it to pass ujion his garments. K\(ry .lew appeared in his own eyes to stand naaally and intellectually on a higher level than III to 111 ill : his system of education seemed less ill siiinii of vivifying and invigorating ideals. He \\a,s nnilnred on the history, the scenery, the re-
stiii
;to
habits of iiide|ieiiiliiil wi,-.doni i<j. Tam-.iv. /.'(/wro- Hon o/ Christ, ch. H). Of .lewish sects ami teachers three have been suggested as contributorv forces: the Pharisees, the Baptist, the Essenes. The lirst proved His wor.st foes ; they had an inlluence, but it was solely negative. The .second is remarkable
474
DIVINITY OF CHRIST
DIVIXITY OF CHRIST
for his consciousness of liis own inferiority, of Clirist's higher range in mission and higher rank in Person. Of the third let Hausrath judge : ' From tlie Essenes His whole conception of the world separated Hira.'* There can he little question that the impulse to reflexion was fostered in Christ by study of the sacred books, the Law and the Prophets, under tlie usual Rabbinical direction. The master-words of His teaching are drawn thence. The substance of His teaching, in numerous de- tails, is defined negatively by contrast with the comments of the scribes and positively by ' fulfil- ment' of the Law through a clearer discernment and profounder enrichment of the proper principles of the Law. The substance of His teaching in its main jjositions is intrinsically so separate from even its closest approximations in previous prophecy as to be justly entitled to the claim of originality. The source of its originality was in Himself. Christ's teaching is His own exposition of the Divine life which was revealed in Himself t (Mt 11^--''). ' Out of a perfect relation with God flows His teaching like a crystal stream.' Its form is drawn from the religious vocabulary of the time ; its matter from His own mind. In this connexion the following is admirably put, and meets a common objection :
' It is not enough to show that particular statements of our Lord may be found embedded in earlier writings which consist mainly of foolish superstitions and childish conceits. It would be strange indeed if, with the Scriptures in their hands, the great teachers of Israel never said, or never uttered in pregnant phrase, any of those lofty spiritual truths which shine forth from the pages of the prophets. But if we find, on referring to contemporary literature, that such references are only like rare jewels shining among vast heaps of error and superstition, that they are only like flashes of lightning in an all-embracing night, then their concurrence in nowise diminishes our wonder. The problem only takes another shape. How is it, we ask, that out of all this spiritual lumber the soul of Jesus only selected what was good and great, and rejected all the rest? How is it, e.g., that from the teaching of Hillel He took (if, indeed. He took any- thing directly thence) only what was eternally true, rejecting at the same time all the frivolous ritualism and puerile casuistry in the consideration of which Hillel spent his hfe ? Remember again that it detracts in nowist.' from our Lord's claim to originality, that even His ma-: r ili n;. -: h .1 t.een partially or casu.illy expressed by tbo.'-i- ^^ : ■ 1 - t. Ifni. Thequestion
religion, wliirh should It would not Ije tme to He had becTi p.issing al
Mhougbt of ill the rest? e, as though
lid hold of (
house, T''achi<i'i I'f Chri\^t, p. 66 f.).
When we .idd tliat Chri.st's teaching was given, so to >iic;ik, casually; not systematically, in no ordered or Ihiislicd statement; that the \vhole is comparatively small, and yet that it is easy to draw up from the scattered sayings a sura of doctrine coherent, self-consistent, and completely satisfying to the needs of the soul, further cogency is lent to the witness, ' Never man so spake ' (.In 7^"), and point to the question, ' Whence hath this man this wisdom ? ' (Mt 13"). See artt. Origin- ality' and Uniqueness.