The other objection to which imjiortance attaches is the answer of Jesus to one Avho addressed Him as 'Good Master' — 'Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God' (Mk 10'^). It is not obvious why Jesus should have objected to be called ' Good Master,' sucli a mode of address being, one would suppose, a form of courtesy in which there was no harm ; and this suggests the probability that the humour or irony of Jesus may have been at play ; so that it is dangerous to inter- pret Him too literally. What was it that He wished to turn the inquirer's attention to ? Stier's dilemma ought not to be forgotten : ' Either, There is none good but God ; Christ is good ; therefore Christ is God : or. There is none good but God ; Christ is not God; therefore Christ is not good.' The reading in Mt. (19'^), where the point under discussion is the Good in the sense of the Summuni Bonuni, renders it dubious what was the real toi^ic of the conversation. But if it really was about whether or not Jesus was good, then it is possible to say that Jesus was not ' good ' in the same sense as God ; because His goodness, being that of a human being, was only in process of becoming, and had to realize itself on every step of a long ascent. The comment of Dr. A. B. Bruce in EGT may be subjoined : ' The question means not "The epithet is not applicable to Me, but to God only," but " Do not make ascriptions of goodness a matter of mere courtesy and politeness." The case is parallel to the unwillingness of Jesus to be called Christ indiscriminately.' Weinel complains that this objection is usually answered with too much levity ; and it cannot be denied that there is a body of objections worthy of candid and careful investi- gation. Not only will they bear pondering, but they will reward it ; for if they do not cause the student to stumble, they will have tlie opposite ett'ect of leading liim fui'ther into the mystery of the Person of Christ.
SIXLESSXESS
SIXXERS
639
5. The relation of the sinlessness of our Lord to other elements of the Christian system.
(1) It has an obvious bearing on the Virgin-birth. Had Jesus been an ordinary link in the chain of humanity, He could not have been sinless ; for ' there is none righteous, no, not one ' : in all who have descended from Adam by ordinary generation, there is a ' law in the members warring against the law of the mind.' It has been said, indeed, that immvinity from this sad inheritance could not have been secured in the way suggested, because the motherhood of Mary, unless she also had been sin- less, would have transmitted the tainted nature. We know, however, too little of the way in which the soul is transmitted to be sure of this. And if it must be allowed, on the other hand, that we know too little to have scientific assurance of the contrary, yet the providential arrangement seems intended to suggest this end. It may, indeed, be said that it suggests it too obviously, and that the story of the miraculous birth was an afterthought, to confirm' the sinlessness. But the theory of the Gospel history which presents one part as fitted to another with miraculous cleverness, so as to make one idea account for another, is not consistent with the simplicity of the character of the authors or the straightforwardness of their narration. There is a logic in facts as well as in ideas ; and this seems to be an instance of fact answering to fact in the Divine intention, the human mind only discerning the fitness as it looks back on the accomplished history.
(2) It has a bearing on the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ. Some have, indeed, held it directly to prove His Divinity ; because, they have argued, the moral force of mere manhood would not have been eqvial to the task of maintaining a life of sinlessness in a sinful world. If even Adam, in an empty and sinless world, fell, what chance was there of another, standing in a world so corrupt and a society so per- verted as that in which Jesus lived, moved and had His being ? To bring the Divine nature, how- ever, into play, to account for the sinlessness, would obscure the reality of the temptation of Jesus ; and it obscures the vital truth that His sinlessness was not only a gift but an attainment, which He had to secure afresh on every step of a human development, and which rendered Him supremely well-pleasing to His Father in heaven. God gave the Spirit without measure unto Him (Jn 3^) ; and, by constantly receiving this Divine communication and giving it free play within Him, He garrisoned His human nature against the ad- vances of sin. This is enough to account for His constant victory over temptation. Although, how- ever. His sinlessness does not directly prove His Divinity, it is not ■without a bearing on it of an important kind : it lends weight to all His state- ments, and especially to His statements about Himself. A sinless being could not make state- ments wluch were false, extravagant, or overween- ing. Now, Jesus made statements about Himself tiiat either were visionary and unbecoming, or proved Him to be greater than the children of men ; and if His character supplies strong reason for accepting these as words of truth and sober- ness, the bearing of this fact on our beliefs about Him cannot be ignored.