(C.) The Divinity of the Messiah.

[393]Matt. 27. 43.

Neither of these objections, then, is of much importance; while the agreement of the Psalm with the events attending the death and Resurrection of Christ, seems, as in the previous case, to be far too exact to be accidental.

Our last example shall be of a different kind from the others. It is that the Old Testament contains several passages which show that the future Messiah was to be not only Superhuman, but Divine. And considering the strong Monotheism of the Jews this is very remarkable. The following are three of the most important:—

'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.'[394]Here wehave a plain statement of the Divinity of One Who should be born a child. The two words translatedMighty Godare incapable of any other translation, and no other is suggested for them in the margin of either the Authorised or Revised Version; while the same two words occur in the next chapter, where they plainly meanMighty Godand nothing else. Moreover, the termEverlasting Fatheris literallyFather of Eternity(see margin) and means the Eternal One. This is another divine title, and does not conflict with the Christian doctrine that it was the Son, and not the Father, Who became Incarnate. While the following words, that of the increase of His governmentthere shall be no end, and that it should be establishedfor ever, also point to a Divine Ruler, in spite of the reference to David's throne. And it is significant that a few verses before it is implied that the Ministry of this future Messiah should commence in the land of Zebulon, and Naphtali, by the Sea of Galilee; where, as a matter of fact, Christ's Ministry did commence.

[394]Isa. 9. 6; 10. 21; 9. 1-2.

'But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.'[395]Here we have a prophecy of the birth of One who had existedfrom everlasting; thus showing the Pre-existence and apparent Divinity of the Messiah, who was to be born at Bethlehem, where, again, as a matter of fact, Christ actually was born.

[395]Mic. 5. 2.

'Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and againstthe man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts.'[396]The word translatedfellowis only found elsewhere in Leviticus, where it is usually translatedneighbour, and always implies an equality between the two persons.[397]Thus God speaks of the Shepherd who was to be slain with the sword (a term, as before said, used for any violent death), as equal with Himself, and yet at the same time Man; so no one but a Messiah who is both God and Man—Fellow-Godas well asfellow-man—can satisfy the language.

[396]Zech. 13. 7.

[397]Lev. 6. 2; 18. 20; 19. 11, 15, 17; 24. 19; 25. 14, 15, 17.

And here again the reference to Christ is confirmed by the fact that several incidents in His Passion are alluded to, in some of which His Divinity is likewise asserted. The most important are the way in which He (the Just Saviour) rode into Jerusalem on an ass; and the rejoicing with which He was received, when the people welcomed Him as theirKing. And the fact that He (the Lord Jehovah) should be sold for thirty pieces of silver, the money being cast down in the House of the Lord, and afterwards given to the potter; and also that He (again the Lord Jehovah) should be pierced.[398]These are, it is true, expressed in figurative language, and often mixed up with other subjects; so no instance by itself, affords a strong argument. But still their all occurring so close together, and all leading up to the violent death of aman, who was yet thefellow, orequal, with God, can scarcely be accidental. While the prophecy, like somany others, ends with the conversion of the Gentiles, the Lord Jehovah being recognised as King over all the earth; which seems to place the Messianic character beyond dispute.

[398]Zech. 9. 9; 11. 12-13; 12. 10; 14. 9; Luke 19. 37-38.

The Divinity of the Messiah is also involved in some hints which occur in the Old Testament as to the doctrine of theTrinity. For instance, the Hebrew word for God,Elohim, is a plural word, though, strange to say, it generally takes a singular adjective, and verb. Thus if we tried to represent it in English, the first verse of the Bible would read, 'In the beginning the Gods, He created the heaven and the earth.' Attempts have of course been made to reduce the significance of this by pointing out that a few other Hebrew words, such aslordandmaster, sometimes do the same; or by regarding it as a survival from some previous polytheistic religion; or else as being what is called the plural of Majesty, a sort of royalWe. This, however, does not seem to have been in use in early times, and never occurs in the Bible, where kings always speak of themselves in the singular.[399]Anyhow it is very remarkable that the Jews should have used a plural word for God with a singular verb; especially as the same word, when used of false gods, takes a plural verb.

[399]E.g., Gen. 41. 41; Ezra 6. 12; 7. 21; Dan. 4. 6.

Moreover, God is at times represented as speaking in the plural,[400]saying, for instance,Let us make man in our image, as if consulting with other Divine Persons; since it is obvious that the expression cannot refer toangels, who are themselves created, and not fellow Creators. Yet just afterwards we read, 'God created man inhisown image,' thus implying that there is still but one God. Another and even more remarkable expression is,Behold, the man is become as one of us. This cannot possibly be the plural of Majesty; for though a king might speak of himself asWeorUs, no king ever spoke of himself asone of Us. Such an expression can only be used when there are other persons of similar rank with the speaker; therefore when used by God, it shows conclusively that there are other Divine Persons. So again when God says, 'Whom shallIsend, and who will go forus?' it implies that He is both one, and more than one; which the previousthriceHoly, points to as being a Trinity.[401]The existence of such passages seems to require some explanation, and Christianity alone can explain them.

[400]Gen. 1. 26; 3. 22; 11. 7.

[401]Isa. 6. 8.

Before concluding this chapter there is still one objection to be considered. Why, it is said, if these prophecies really refer to Christ, are they not plainer? Surely if God wished to foretell the future, He would have done it better than this: and a few words added here and there would have made the reference to Christ indisputable. No doubt they would; but possibly God did not wish to make the reference indisputable. Moreover, if the prophecies had been plainer, they might have prevented their own fulfilment. Had the Jews known for certain that Christwas their Messiah, they could scarcely have crucified Him; and it seems to many that the prophecies are already about as plain as they could be without doing this. The important point, however, is not whether the prophecies might not have been plainer, but whether they are not already too plain to be accidental.

Lastly, we must notice the cumulative nature of the evidence. We have only examined a few instances, but, as said before, Messianic prophecies of some kind more or less distinct, occur at intervals all through the Old Testament. And though some of those commonly brought forward seem weak and fanciful, there are numbers of others which are not. And here, as elsewhere, this has a double bearing on the argument.

In the first place, it does not at all increase the difficulty of theChristianinterpretation; for twenty prophecies are practically no more difficult to admit than two. Indeed, the fact that instead of being a few isolated examples, they form a complete series, rather lessens the difficulty than otherwise.

On the other hand, it greatly increases the difficulty ofany otherinterpretation; for twenty prophecies are far more difficult to deny than two. If one is explained as a lucky coincidence, it will not account for the next; if that is got rid of by some unnatural interpretation of the words, it will not account for the third, and so on indefinitely. The difficulties are thus not only great in themselves, but are all cumulative; and hence together they seem insuperable. Anyhow, it is clear that these Prophecies form another strong argument in favour of Christianity.

The character of Christ can only be deduced from the New Testament, any other Christ being purely imaginary.(A.) The Teaching of Christ.(1.) Its admitted excellence.(2.) Two objections.(3.) His sinlessness.(B.) The Claims of Christ.(1.) His claim to be Superhuman—declaring that He was the Ruler, Redeemer, and final Judge of the world.(2.) His claim to be Divine—declaring His Equality, Unity, and Pre-existence with God.(3.) How these claims were understood at the time, both by friends and foes.(C.) The Great Alternative.Christ cannot, therefore, have been merely a good man; He was eitherGod, as He claimed to be, or else abadman, for making such claims. But the latter view is disproved by His Moral Character.

The character of Christ can only be deduced from the New Testament, any other Christ being purely imaginary.

(A.) The Teaching of Christ.

(1.) Its admitted excellence.

(2.) Two objections.

(3.) His sinlessness.

(B.) The Claims of Christ.

(1.) His claim to be Superhuman—declaring that He was the Ruler, Redeemer, and final Judge of the world.

(2.) His claim to be Divine—declaring His Equality, Unity, and Pre-existence with God.

(3.) How these claims were understood at the time, both by friends and foes.

(C.) The Great Alternative.

Christ cannot, therefore, have been merely a good man; He was eitherGod, as He claimed to be, or else abadman, for making such claims. But the latter view is disproved by His Moral Character.

In this chapter we propose to consider the Character of Christ, and its bearing on the truth of Christianity. Now our knowledge of Christ's character can only be derived from the four Gospels; indeed, a Christ with any other character assigned to Him is a purely imaginary being, and might as well be called by some other name. Taking, then, the Gospels as our guide,what is the character of Christ? Clearly this can be best deduced from His ownteachingandclaims, both of which are fortunately given at some length; so we will consider these first, and then thegreat alternativewhich they force upon us.

Under this head, we will first notice the admitted excellence of Christ's teaching, then some objections which are often made, and lastly His sinlessness.

To begin with, the excellence of Christ's moral teaching hardly needs to be insisted on at the present day, and rationalists as well as Christians have proclaimed its merits. For instance, to quote a few examples:—

'Religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching on this man as the ideal representative and guide of humanity; nor even now would it be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete, than to endeavour so to live that Christ should approve our life.'—J. S. Mill.[402]

[402]Nature, the Utility of Religion and Theism, 2nd edit., 1874, p. 255.

'Jesus remains to humanity an inexhaustible source of moral regenerations.' And again, 'In Him is condensed all that is good and lofty in our nature.'—E. Renan.[403]

[403]Life of Jesus, translated by Wilbour, New York, 1864, pp. 370, 375.

'It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character, which, through all the changesof eighteen centuries, has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice; and has exercised so deep an influence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers, and all the exhortations of moralists.'—W. E. H. Lecky.[404]

[404]History of European Morals, 3rd edit., 1877, vol. ii., p. 8.

These quotations are only examples of many which might be given; but it is practically undisputed that the morality taught by Christ is the best the world has ever seen. It is also undisputed that His life was in entire harmony with His teaching. He lived, as far as we can judge, a holy and blameless life, and His character has never been surpassed either in history or fiction.

There are, however, two slight objections. The first is that Christ's teaching was notoriginal; and, strictly speaking, this is perhaps true. Something similar to all He taught has been discovered in more ancient times, either in Egypt, India, China, or elsewhere. But this hardly affects the argument. An unlearned Jew living at Nazareth cannot be supposed to have derived his teaching from these sources; and it is a great improvement on all of them put together. The important point is, that there was nothing among the Jews of His own time which could have produced,or even have invented, such a character. He was immeasurably better than His contemporaries, and all of them put together have not exerted an influence on the world a thousandth part that of Christ.

The second objection refers tocertain portionsof Christ's teaching. For example, He urges men not to resist evil, and seems to place virginity above marriage to an exaggerated extent.[405]I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of the latter passage; but it is obvious on the face of it that it cannot be meant for universal application, or it would lead to the extinction of the human race.

[405]Matt. 5. 39; 19. 12.

Again, several of theparablesare said to be unjust such as that of the workmen in the vineyard, the unrighteous steward, and the wedding garment. But parables must not be pressed literally, and very different interpretations have been put on these. However, we will consider the two last, which are those most often objected to.

With regard to theUnrighteous Steward, though apparently he had been guilty of dishonesty, we are told that his lordcommendedhim, because he had done wisely.[406]But no one can think that his lord commended him, because he had just cheated him. So if his conduct was really dishonest (about which scholars are by no means agreed) we can only suppose thatin spite of this, his lord commended him, because of his wisdom. In the same way, if an ingenious robbery were committed at the present day, even the man robbed, might say that he could not help admiringthe scoundrel for his cleverness. The meaning then appears to be thatwisdomis so desirable that it is to be commended even in worldly matters, and even in a bad cause; and therefore of course still more to be aimed at in religious matters, and in a good cause.

[406]Luke 16. 8.

Next as to theWedding Garment. It is distinctly implied that there was onlyoneman without it,[407]so obviously the first point to determine is how the other men got their garments. They could not have had them out in the roads, and there was no time to go home and get them, even if they possessed any. It follows then that they must each have been provided with a suitable garment (probably a cloak, worn over their other clothes) when they reached the palace. This appears to have been an eastern custom,[408]and if one of them refused to put it on, he would certainly deserve to be excluded from the feast. Thus the object of the parable seems to be to show that God's blessings can only be obtained on God's terms (e.g.forgivenessonrepentance), though there is no hardship in this, as He has Himself given us grace to comply with these terms, if we like. Neither of these objections, then, is of much importance.

[407]Matt. 22. 11.

[408]Archb. Trench, Notes on the Parables, 1870, p. 234.

A most remarkable point has now to be noticed. It is that, notwithstanding His perfect moral teaching, there is not in the character of Christ the slightest consciousness ofsin. In all His numerous discourses, and even in His prayers, there is not a single wordwhich implies that He thought He ever had done, or ever could do, anything wrong Himself. He is indeed most careful to avoid implying this, even incidentally. Thus He does not tell His disciples, 'Ifweforgive men their trespasses,' etc., but 'Ifye,' as the former might imply that He, as well as they, had need of the Father's forgiveness.[409]Nor did He ever regret anything that He had done, or ever wish that He had acted otherwise. And though He blamed self-righteousness in others, and urged them to repentance, He never hinted that He had any need of it Himself; in fact, He expressly denied it, for He said that Healwaysdid those things that were pleasing to God.[410]

[409]Matt. 6. 14.

[410]John 8. 29.

And this is the more striking when we reflect that good men are, as a rule, most conscious of their faults. Yet here was One who carried moral goodness to its utmost limit, whose precepts are admittedly perfect, but who never for a moment thought that He was not fulfilling them Himself. Such a character is absolutely unique in the world's history. It can only be explained by saying that Christ was not merely a good man, but aperfectman, since goodness without perfection would only have made Him more conscious of the faults He had. Yet if we admit this, we must admit more; for perfection is not a human attribute, and asinless lifeneeds a good deal to account for it.

We pass on now to theclaimsof Christ; and His high moral character would plainly lead us to place the utmost confidence in what He said about Himself.And as we shall see He claimed to be bothSuperhumanandDivine; and this is how all His contemporaries, both friends and foes, understood Him. And though it is impossible to add to the marvel of such claims, yet the fact that nothing in any way resembling them is to be found among the Jewish Prophets helps us, at least, to realise their uniqueness. Many of them are spoken concerning theSon of Man; but there can be no doubt whatever that by this title Christ means Himself.[411]

[411]E.g., Matt. 16. 13, 16.

This is shown by three main arguments, for Christ declared that He was the Ruler, Redeemer, and final Judge of the world. In the first place, He claimed to be theRulerof the world, saying in so many words that all things had been delivered unto Him, and that He possessed all authority, both in heaven and on earth.[412]Moreover, His dominion was to be not only universal, but it was to last for ever; since after this world had come to an end, the future Kingdom of Heaven was still to beHisKingdom, its angels were to beHisangels, and its citizensHiselect.[413]

[412]Matt. 11. 27; 28. 18; Luke 10. 22.

[413]Matt. 13. 41; 24. 31.

Secondly, Christ claimed to be theRedeemerof the world. He distinctly asserted that He came to give His life a ransom for many, and that His blood was shed for the remission of sins. And the importance He attached to this is shown by the fact that He instituted a special rite (the Holy Communion) on purpose to commemorate it.[414]

[414]Matt. 20. 28; 26. 28; Mark 10. 45; 14. 24; Luke 22. 19.

Thirdly, Christ claimed to be the finalJudgeof the world. This tremendous claim alone shows that He considered Himself quite above and distinct from the rest of mankind. While they were all to be judged according to their works, He was to be the Judge Himself, coming in the clouds of heaven with thousands of angels. And His decision was to be final and without appeal. Moreover, this astonishing claim does not depend on single texts or passages, but occurs all through the first three Gospels.[415]During the whole of His Ministry—from His Sermon on the Mount to His trial before Caiaphas—He persistently asserted that He was to be the final Judge of the world. It is hardly credible that a mere man, however presumptuous, should ever have made such a claim as this. Can we imagine anyone doing so at the present day? and what should we think of him if he did?

[415]Matt. 7. 22; 10. 32; 13. 41; 16. 27; 19. 28; 24. 30; 25. 31-46; 26. 64; and similar passages in the other Gospels.

Like the preceding, this is shown by three main arguments; for Christ declared His Equality, Unity, and Pre-existence with God. In the first place, Christ claimedEqualitywith God. He said that the same honour should be given to Himself as to God the Father; that men should believe in Him as well as in God; that He and the Father would together dwell in the souls of men; and that He, like the Father, had the power of sending the Holy Spirit of God.[416]He also commanded men to be baptized into His Nameas well as into that of the Father; and promised that whenever and wherever His disciples were gathered together, He would be in the midst of them, even unto the end of the world, which, cannot be true of anyone but God.[417]

[416]John 5. 23; 14. 1, 23; 16. 7.

[417]Matt. 18. 20; 28. 19, 20.

Secondly, Christ claimedUnitywith God. He did not say that He was another God, but that He and the Father wereOne; that He was in the Father, and the Father in Him; that whoever beheld Him beheld the Father; that whoever had seen Him had seen the Father.[418]These latter texts cannot, of course, be pressed literally, as few would maintain that Christ was really Godthe Father. But just as if a human father and son wereextremelyalike, we might say that if you had seen the son, you had seen the father; so if Christ was truly God—God the Son—thevery imageof His Father,[419]the same language might be used. It would at least be intelligible. But it would be quite unintelligible, if Christ had been merely agood man. Can we imagine the best man that ever lived saying, If you have seen me, you have seen God?

[418]John 10. 30; 17. 21; 12. 45; 14. 9.

[419]Heb. 1. 3.

Thirdly, Christ claimedPre-existencewith God. He said that He had descended out of heaven; that He had come down from heaven; that He came out from the Father and was come into the world; and that even before its creation He had shared God's glory.[420]While in another passage, 'Before Abraham was, I am,'[421]He not only said that He existed before Abraham,but by using the wordsI aminstead ofI was, He seemed to identify Himself with Jehovah, the greatI am, of the Old Testament.[422]

[420]John 3. 13; 6. 38; 16. 28; 17. 5.

[421]John 8. 58.

[422]Exod. 3. 14.

Turning now to the other side, there are four passages in which Christ seems todisclaimbeing Divine. The most important is where He says that the Son (i.e.Himself) does not know the time of the future Judgment;[423]and the present writer has never seen a really satisfactory explanation of this. But it may be pointed out that if we admit that Christ was both Divine and human, it is only fair to refer any particular statement to that nature, to which it is applicable; even though the wording seems to suggest the opposite. In the same way, the passage, that theLord of Glorywas crucified[424]can only refer to Christ in Hishumannature, and not in His Divine nature, as the Lord of Glory. And in His human nature Christ may have been ignorant of the time of the future Judgment, just as in His human nature He increased in wisdom and stature.[425]

[423]Mark 13. 32.

[424]1 Cor. 2. 8.

[425]Luke 2. 52.

Then we have the passage where a ruler addresses Christ as 'GoodMaster,' and Christ demurs to this, saying that the word was only applicable to God.[426]And how, it is asked, could He have done so, if He had been both good and God? The best explanation seems to be that among the Jews, it was the custom never to address a Teacher (or Rabbi) asGood. They said God was 'theGood Oneof the world'; it was one ofHistitles.[427]Therefore as the ruler had nomeans of knowing that Christ was God, he was not justified in thus addressing Him asGood.

[426]Mark 10. 18.

[427]Edersheim's Life and Times of the Messiah, vol. ii., p. 339.

The remaining two passages, 'I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I'; and 'I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God,'[428]are easier to explain, since here it is obvious that they refer to Christ'shumannature alone, as it was in His human nature alone that He was ever absent from the Father. And even here He carefully distinguishes His own relationship to God from that of His disciples. For though He teaches them to sayour Father, yet when including Himself with them, He does not here or anywhere else sayourFather, orourGod; but always emphasises His own peculiar position. While we may ask in regard to the first passage, would anyone but God have thought it necessary to explain that God the Father was greater than Himself? Anyhow, these passages do not alter the fact that Christ did repeatedly claim to be both superhuman and Divine.

[428]John 14. 28; 20. 17.

We have now to consider how these claims were understood at the time. And first, as toChrist's friends. We have overwhelming evidence that after His Resurrection all the disciples and early Christians believed their Master to be both superhuman and Divine. And to realise the full significance of this, we must remember that they were not polytheists, who did not mind how many gods they believed in, and were willing to worship Roman Emperors oranyone else; but they were strict monotheists. They firmly believed that there was only one God, yet they firmly believed that Christ was Divine. This is shown throughout the New Testament.

Thus the writers of thefirst three Gospels, though they usually record the events of Christ's life without comment, yet in one passage identify Him with the God of the Old Testament, referring the prophecy about the messenger of theLord our Godto the messenger ofChrist.[429]And as to theFourth Gospel, it begins with asserting Christ's Divinity in the plainest terms, saying thatthe Word, who afterwards became flesh,was God. And it appropriately ended, before the last chapter was added, with St. Thomas declaring this same belief, when he addressed Christ asmy Lord and my God, which titles He fully accepted.[430]Yet immediately afterwards, the author says he wrote his Gospel to convince men that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Evidently then this expression,the Son of God, meant to him, and therefore presumably to other New Testament writers, who use it frequently, that Christ was truly God—God the Son—my Lord and my God—in the fullest and most complete sense.

[429]Isa. 40. 3; Matt. 3. 3; Mark 1. 3; Luke 3. 4.

[430]John 1. 1; 20. 28.

With regard to theActsan argument on the other side is sometimes drawn from St. Peter's speaking of Christ as 'amanapproved of God unto you by mighty works,' thus implying, it is urged, that St. Peter did not know Him to be more than man.[431]But since he says he was only appealing to what hishearersknewto be true (even as ye yourselves know), how else could he have put it? His hearers did not know that Christ was God; they did know that He wasa man approved of Godby many wonderful miracles, because they had seen them. Moreover, in other places the Acts bear strong witness to the Divinity of Christ, as for instance when St. Paul speaksof the Church of God which He purchased with His own blood, or St. Stephen saysLord Jesus receive my spirit; or when the Apostles are represented as working their miracles, not in the name of God the Father, but in that of Christ.[432]

[431]Acts 2. 22.

[432]Acts 20. 28; 7. 59; 3. 6; 4. 10.

Next, as to the Book ofRevelation. The evidence this affords is important, because nearly all critics admit that it was written by St. John. And if so, it shows conclusively that one at least of Christ's intimate followers firmly believed in His Divinity. For he not only speaks of Him as being universally worshipped both in heaven and on earth, but describes Him asthe First and the Last, which is a title used by God in the Old Testament, and is plainly inapplicable to anyone else.[433]And we may ask, is it conceivable that an intimate friend of Christ should have believed Him to be the Everlasting God, unless He had claimed to be so Himself, and had supported His claim by working miracles, and rising from the dead? Is it not, rather, certain that nothing but the mostoverwhelmingproof would ever have convinced a Jew (of all persons) that a fellow Man, with whom he had lived for years, and whom he had then seen put to death as a malefactor,was Himself the Lord Jehovah,the First and the Last?

[433]Rev. 5. 11-14; 1. 17, 18; 2. 8; 22. 13; Isa. 44. 6.

But it is urged on the other side, that the writer also calls Himthe beginning of the Creation of God, as if He had been merely the first Being created.[434]But the previous passages clearly show that this was not his meaning. It was rather that Christ was thebeginningof creation, because He was its Source and Agent; He by whom, as the same writer declares,all things were made. And elsewhere a similar title is given Him for this identical reason, as He is calledthe first-born of all creation, becauseall things have been created through Him.[435]

[434]Rev. 3. 14;

Back to Index Next