How cold and barren it all is, this being persuaded, granted even that it be fully persuaded, of the credibility, or philosophic certitude, of a truth such as this. That such a stupendous fact as God come down in love, the Word become flesh and dwelling among us, the eternal Son of God found in fashion as a man, in grace so profound, for purposes so great, and in a moral glory so beautiful, should, in a spirit that speaks of but little exercise of heart over it, he coolly observed, reasoned of, and assimilated into a system, somewhat after the manner of a scientific discovery, what does this argue in those who so discuss it? Is there not felt on the part of all who by His grace have been given to have a living interest in it, that in all this philosophizing there is an entire overlooking (what seems to us a most strange overlooking) of the spiritual import and significance of the wonderful fact so discussed? And, to any who have the least consciousness of its vital concern for themselves, how momentous seems the omission! Pathetic, too, to assured believers it cannot but appear. These laboring philosophers, as, with never a lift of their beaded brow to what is sun-clear to untutored minds, they bend over their task, how blindly they miss what we simple ones seize with alacrity! How callously they let slip, or leave out of consideration, that which alone we prize! How fatally they lose the force and value spiritually of the great and grand truth, when they attempt to equate it as a doctrine in philosophic terms! Oh, that its power, its grandeur, its sublimity would more fully penetrate our hearts!
“The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.” Is this merely the advent of a unique phenomenon upon the stage of life? a phenomenon so strange even that our whole system of philosophy must be ransacked for principles to explain it? Or is it altogether an intervention to descend to their terminology, of what, in this sense can only he called the non-phenomenal into the phenomenal world? “Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and, being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Is this something esoteric to philosophers, or calling for such preliminaries as have been indulged in ere it become intelligible to us? Do we need to rove so far afield for its significance, wondrous fact as it is? Is there not a shorter and surer way to its spiritual meaning somewhere in the line of its appeal to our hearts? Ah! were we more under the power of that appeal, the whole spirit in which it is approached, should it not be vastly different? Philosophic reasoning might bulk less largely in our thought of it, occupation with it be less critical than contemplative. But would we be losers thereby? In presence of the greatness of that conception, the infinite grandeur of it morally, it needs not surely to be pressed which is the attitude of mind best becoming us. But for real knowledge of it even, this truth of the incarnation of the Son of God, what its meaning, what its implications, what its adjustment to the scheme of things—the region in which it must be studied most decidedly is the moral and spiritual and not the philosophic. As always in the discerning of the truth of God, whatever the subject, mere acuteness of natural intelligence avails nothing. Spiritual truth is communicated spiritually, and it is he that is spiritual that discerneth all things. And as to this great fact, “the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh,” are we likely to find less true the operation of that principle?
Here, if anywhere, philosophy is at a discount, and spiritual vision is that which alone will reach tangible results. Received in faith, and contemplated spiritually, the bearings of it philosophically count for little, and are left behind as mere husk and shell. Oh! that the real kernel of it may be ours, that the great truth in all its range and beauty, as revealed in the word, may flood our souls with adoration of Him, who claims in this respect perhaps less our knowledge than our worship, who is “God over all, blessed forever.”
We are taken a little further on somewhat similar lines, though here there is a real substratum of truth underlying, when we are asked to remember that the very thought of a personally existent God involves the thought that He must express Himself. Further that, in the words of another, “in the being of God we see there is a Trinity which lays the foundation for the possibility of the incarnation of the Son.” Again, that in none other but the Son of God come in flesh can this be, for revelation is only possible where spiritual kinship exists. All, in their place, considerations not to be slighted. And only now, after such preamble, are we led up to Scripture to consider its testimony. Witness there is there, clear, full, and, above all, plain. Testimony to the Lord Jesus Christ is its express purpose, and the mystery of His person, His divinity and humanity alike, are abundantly evidenced. The order in which the Creed takes it up, first the divinity then the humanity, is that which is observed in this exposition also. “And I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.” With this statement it leads off. The true and essential divinity, perhaps we had better say deity, of the Lord Jesus Christ is what is here first affirmed. And scripture Makes it very apparent that nothing less is what it claims for Him.
This again, as it is very cogently remarked, not as a matter of a few proof texts here and there, which ingenuity of exegesis might essay to explain away, but woven into the very texture of the word.
There is, of course, no lack of categorical statements of His deity; but the truth rests broad-based on even wider foundation than these supply. As has often been remarked, there are attributes ascribed, actions and utterances recorded, and incidental allusions made throughout the entire New Testament that are almost more positive affirmations of His Godhead than the most direct statements can be. It is to this testimony en masse, rather than to particular references, that attention is drawn, so that perforce we must follow on that line. It is something to be thankful for that insistence is so firm on the fact that the New Testament does present Christ’s deity as an acknowledged truth. It is becoming so common now (we are warned) to speak of the orthodox confession of Christ’s essential divinity as a doctrine developed to its present proportions at a period in church history more or less advanced, and not explicitly New Testament doctrine. We are frequently told that, if at all, it was only in a very rudimentary form that an intelligible Christology was held in primitive times! The claims of the writers, more particularly the earliest writers, of the New Testament, for Christ, were not of the same exorbitant nature as those orthodoxy makes now! Divinity, in esse, was an attribute assigned by later ages to Christ, it is said!
With the New Testament before us this should not be difficult to settle. But again fault must be found with the method by which it is done. As is so common, here again there is compromise. Instead of a clear firm stand being taken on what is the uniform, unvarying testimony of scripture, there is, as we shall see, an adoption in measure, a taking over in principle of the heterodox idea, and then the foisting upon scripture of this sense and meaning. This leads to the argument taking, at this juncture, a most surprising turn. We all know how development as a theory seems to have a peculiar charm for theologians to-day, amounting in fact almost to an obsession. In any sphere whatever it needs but to be suggested for them to see something in it. Who would suppose now that, after controverting the idea of the true faith of Christ (that estimate which postulates of His true divine nature—deity) being inconsistent with New Testament Christology, and a matter of development in times posterior to it, that then, in a modified form, the self-same idea of development should be taken over, and read into, New Testament Christology itself? As the note sounded throughout now is far from clear, it seems due at this stage to call attention to this its uncertain sound.
As a start, however, it is rightly emphasized that the great thing to get hold of is what conception of Himself, and of His relation to God, was left by Christ on the minds of His followers, His disciples, the apostles. Did He appear to them, to use two separate confessions of the same individual, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God,” merely such? or, “the Christ, the Son of the living God”? Following in the wake of a recent writer on the subject, a sketch of New Testament Christology is here given. The theme is pursued along three lines of evidence—the Epistles of Paul, the Synoptical Gospels, and the Gospel of John—the question being what impression the writers of each had retained of the nature and personality of Christ Jesus. In what respect do they severally manifest His admitted uniqueness to consist? On this head what is advanced is all very well, and, if left at that, might be a fair, though certainly far from a full, presentation of New Testament teaching, showing at least that the “historical valuation of Jesus” assigned in the Creed was not out of keeping with that entertained by His disciples.
But, from this point, both the writer quoted from, and our lecturer proceed now on that line of reasoning from which we have expressed dissent. Says the former, “In this harmonious account there are still not wanting clear marks of development. The Synoptists give the rudimentary form, in Paul’s Epistles it is more fully developed, and in the Fourth Gospel it is complete. Then even within Paul’s Epistles, and again within John’s Gospel, signs of development are to be seen.” “Jesus was Jesus at first. Jesus becomes more and more ‘the Christ ‘ as we proceed. As a New Testament doctrine it is distinctly progressive.” This is thought to involve no contradiction or disparagement. The explanation of this development certainly differs considerably. By the lecturer it is thought “to have something to do with the fact that the truth of Christ’s divinity had to be forced upon the mind and attention of His Jewish disciples with their carnal conceptions of a Messiah,” and this being only gradually accomplished, the developing Christology of the New Testament may be indicative of its progress. But by the writer referred to it is traced to “the influence of Gentile modes of thought and expression,” and that idea, far from being found in any way objectionable, is held in reserve as a further consideration to explain the supposed progression in New Testament thought from the historic Jesus to the divine Christ. However explained, by both this development is affirmed, and regarded as indicating that as a primitive doctrine in the early church the truth of Christ’s divinity was only progressively held, realized, and taught; that consequently, the earliest impression, or original valuation of Him was comparatively low.
Now as conducive to anything like clear thinking, a distinction is at this stage called for which seems here to be omitted. Two things which we must clearly distinguish between are—the disciples of Christ simply as His earthly followers, and the same individuals, or such of them as were so used, in the capacity of New Testament writers. In regard to such a truth as His being God manifest in flesh, there is surely all the difference between the early glimmerings of faith in simple Galilan fishermen, and the truth as penned by apostles and teachers under the inspiration of the Spirit of God Himself. This last consideration by itself makes all the difference. If divinely inspired we believe these writings to be, they are—whatever the human element—at once for us removed above the possibility of containing a developing Christology. What of Peter, Matthew, or John as to their several measures of conceiving how Jesus could be divine? It may be that in the time of their companying with Him prior to the cross, and (we must add) to Pentecost, such varying measures were true. And that many a shadow of unbelief momentarily dimmed the full assurance of their faith in Him we can well believe, and in fact are told of. But in what they wrote of Him subsequently, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, however true it be that the characteristics of each remain in what they relate of Him, we can never imagine variety in either the nature or the quality of their testimony to what He was—to His Godhead. If it were merely a question of the development, during their earthly association with Him, of His disciples’ conviction of His divinity, it would be another matter. Keeping in mind the distinction between faith and knowledge one would surely allow that there was progression there. But this is an assuming that such development of conviction appears, or is reproduced, in the portion of the word of God they were used by Him to pen, and on every ground this is erroneous and false.
[J. T.]