It is an utterance that is quite spontaneous. It is the outcome of religious faith not of philosophic interest. The s|icculative instinct is wlmlly scM'ond- ary to the s|iiritu:il farts. I'.iit \vl]ili> (liis 'is sn, Iho
While thi- r.TsMii lii,l,l,-n l.cliiii.l thr \\W ..f th(^ NT is vastei tlian the NT record of Him, it re- mains true that if that Person were to survive and His impression, they must be shown to ring true to the intellect. What happens to the emotions suggests problems to tlie mind. Pnjved f.ic^ts, even those ' i1im>|, -seated ill onr iii.vslie l'i-aiiie,'liave
to forilUllale tlielii-elM'S ill tllollullt. Alld so tllC
moral life eieate.l l.y Cluisl furiiislied m.aterial for new great com i, ( i,,iis litted to be at once its ex- pression an, I it> safeguard. The doctrine of His Person was tin' iieeessary correlate of the impres- sion of His Personality.
In the f.aets thus noted is to l.e foun.l the answer to two inquiries of rationalism, (in lie' one liami, it is asked. Why is He never ealle^l CM' ami on the other. Why such illnrsihi nf nnr ,,u,ni,,i the writerst Take tlie latter In-i. 'Tie' eril in-m' here has been carefully- ma.le l.y Hi'. Mailinean (,sv,/^ of Authority, p. ':;i;i) ,-111,1 niier-, wli,. ni-^,' that Jesus was construcl sueee.s,si\ ely into (1) (lieJow i.sh
ideal or Messiah, (2) the Human ideal or Second Adam, (.3) a Divine Incarnation. This construction of theories is asserted to be only a fanciful achieve- ment of early Cliristian thought. ' The personal attendants o'f .Tesns worked out the first ; the Apostle of tin- Cailil.'s, th.' s,a-,,ll,l ; the .school
whence the Koinil, (;,.-|i,-l |ii,„,',.l,.,l, th,' third.' In reply it may l,,- alliim,',! that siuli irilicism holds its ground only liy (a) doing violence to the facts on A\liicli it seeks to rest, by subjecting them to a narrowly subjective standard: the facts in- clude those in which Christ is represented as accepting the name of Lord ; by (6) an arbitrary apjilication of the idea of development to the nar- rative. It is possible to prove the alleged con- structions to have been made successively only by a series of unwarranted eliminations. The Syn- optists are not without knowledge of (2) and (3), nor is (1) unknown to St. Paul and the Fourth Gospel. The facts, when viewed without prepos- session, point to no such cli'ar-i ut flieories. They do, however, in,li,at,' hotli ni,,\einent and diver- sity of belief, ,lian-,'s , ,jnst,iiit l.\ .eoing on in the oinnions respecting Clnists nature, and very material difi'erences in individual emphasis and interpretation, a movement and diversity only less remarkable than the unmistakable unity pervading them. It was natural that men of the character and training of St. .James and St. Peter should discover in OT conceptions of the Messiah approximate lines of thought wherewith to describe their experience of Christ. Tempera- mental and other causes led St. Paul and St. John as naturally to give representations of their experience such as they have done, the former anthropological aii,l jirailiial, the latter contem- plative and iiiysiiial. .\s types these three are distinguisliable, lail not evrl'nsively of each other. There'are otiieis also, as, ,.(/., that of the Ep. to the Hebrews, of Eplicsiai.s ,'ind Colossians, of the Apocalypse. These expressions .lilha- among them- selves, and differ in jirei isely llie niaiiiier that is natural and desirable. The '\aiiety is that of life and reality. These all represent 'differences that are not separate developments of substance in the doctrine so nmcli as precious elements constitutive of a richer fulness tlian any one of them or all of them ; a fulness of necessary mysteriousness. They represent no signs of a struggle to assert Divinity in opposition to a bare humanity : of such a struggle there is not a trace in the NT.
As to the second point of criticism, it is possible with some reason to maintain that the term 0(6i is never applied to Christ. The matter is still in dispute among scholars. The crucial passages are (not takin- into account Jn l^ 20^, 1 Jn S-o, He F"-) Ko !)•■, Tit 21^ Ac 20=«, 1 Ti 3'«, Ph 2«, 2 P 1>, Col 2'-'. In 2 P 1' the rendering, ' Our God .and the Saviour Jesus Christ,' is not'cxc Indi'd ; similarly Tit 2". In Ko Q!* the doxology mav he ,e..;anled as referring to God. In 1 Ti 3'" the true text is ,« not ee6u In Ac 20=8 theAVreadine is prol.,ihlv eorrect ('God'). Col 2^ Eph 5% 2 tli f'-. Tit 2'' have been adduced as proofs that St. Paul sjieaks of Christ as God ; but erroneoiisly. The twostrongest pasages are Ph 2''-8, Col 2». But if the texts are not unaiiiliigunus, flmt docs not affect tlie truth of the Diriiiilii iif ( 'hrist. It was scarcely natural for a Jew to use the Divine Name in any connexion (cf. Dalman, Wn,,!^ of Jems, § vii., also p. 233). If it were used, it applied to God in His absolute being. Cf. Wcsfeott, Ej). of St. John, p. 172. God nianifcstiiie Himself in Christ was affirmed in a varie'ty of other modes. The Apostles were not so muel'i ,-oi,eeine,l to -iirove 1 1 is 1 )i v in it V ' as to
476
DIVINITY OF CHRIST
DIVINITY OF CHRIST
about Him as tliey liieached, in His liumriTi mani- festation and in His Exalted Glory. I'loui tliat point of view they neither missed the ((iii-riiiu~- ness of His Godhood nor failed aTmiuhuuly Id declare it. The declarations they make are of One who, they were persuaded, was absolutely unique in position, in character, in work ; One whose relationship to God was perfect, who was the Saviour, Light and Life of men. Are such de- clarations consistent wth anything short of His Di\'initj- ?