Bibliography.— Hengstenberg, 'Christology of the Old Testament' (1836) ; Meignan, 'Pro pheties messianiques' (1878) ; Schiirer, 'His tory of the Jewish People) (1885) ; Edersheim, 'Prophecy and History' (1885) ; Briggs, 'Mes sianic Prophecy' (1886) •, Schindler, Messianic Expectations' (1886) ; Elliott, 'Old Testament Prophecy' (1M9) ; Stanley, 'History of the Jewish Church' (1891) ; Riehm, 'Messianic Prophecy' (1891) ; Maas, 'Christ in Type and Prophecy' (1893) ; 'Judaism at the World's Parliament of Religions' (1894); Robertson, 'Early Religion of Israel' (1895) ; Goodspeed, 'Israel's Messianic Hope' (1900); Addis, 'He brew Religion) (1906); Marti, 'Religion of the Old Testament' (1907) • Mittel, 'History of the Hebrews' (1908), and 'Scientific Study of the Old Testament' (1910) ; Lagrange, 'Meg sianisme chez les Juifs' (1909); Welch, 'Re ligion of Israel' (1912) ; Robinson, 'Religious Ideas of the Old Testament' (1913) ; Drum in American Ecclesiastical Review (Nov., Dec. 1915 and Jan., Feb. 1916).
II. Christology of the New Testament— Three fundamental facts are taught by the Christology of the New Testament:' (1) The Divine Nature of Jesus Christ;(2) The Human Nature of Jesus Christ; (3) The Hypostatic Union of the Human with the Divine Nature in the Divine Person of Jesus Christ.
The Divine Nature of Jesus Christ.—By the Christology of the Gospels and of Saint Paul, the divinity of Christ stands out in clear relief. The underlying, and at times overlap ping, purpose of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul, is to establish the divine nature of Jesus. For the sake of brevity, the evidence will be limited to two forms of this doctrine. First Jesus is the natural Son of God; secondly, he is very God. These two forms of the doctrine of the divinity of the Christ are deduced from documents, which are assumed to be authentic, historical and inspired. The of Mark from °Q* and another early document, the de pendence of Luke upon Mark and the Logia, the sources of Matthew, the authenticity of the Pauline epistles,—all these questions are waived in this statement of conservative Christology of the New Testament.
A. First, Jesus Christ is the Son of God. At Caesarea Philippi, during the third year of his ministry, Jesus asked the disciples: °Who do men say that the Son of Man is?' (Matt. xvi, 13). This name, Son of Man, was one of Predilection to Jesus; it connoted his oneness with men. The disciples made answer that others said he was one of the prophets. Christ pressed them: °But who do ye say that I am?* (ibid. 16). Peter, as spokesman, replied: °Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God' (ibid. 16). Peter meant more than they who said that Jesus was one of the prophets. They meant that he was the adopted son of God. All the prophets were the adopted sons of God both by grace and by descent from Abraham. Without special divine revelation, Peter might have known that Jesus was such an adopted son of God. The divine sonship that he as signed to Jesus was known to him by special revelation, and nut by acquired knowledge. Peter meant that Jesus was the natural Son of God. The Christ approved of both the avowal and the source of information: "Blessed art thou, Simon son of John; for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee, but my Father who is in heaven' (ibid. 17). Jesus here ad mits that he is the natural Son of God; that God is his Father by a title greater than that whereby the prophets and other saintly leaders in Israel were adopted sons of God. That title is identity of divine nature. Friend and foe alike were allowed by Jesus to address him as the Son of God, and to show by adoration that they meant real and natural sonship, not a figurative and adoptive divine sonship conse quent upon personal and racial sanctity. Men
possessed by unclean spirits prostrated them selves in adoration before him, and • the spirits of evil were forced to cry out: °Thou art the Son of God' (Mark iii, 12). His disciples, after the stilling of the storm at sea, adored him and said: °Indeed thou art the Son of God' (Matt. xiv, 33). The man born blind, whom Christ had cured at Jerusalem, was asked to make an act of faith in the divinity of the Wonderworker: °Dost thou believe in the Son of God?' And after a brief instruction, "he said: believe, Lord' ; and he adored him' ix, T t. 36-37); Mark Calvary evangelist Lint Mark '0, 1), the hypo' thetical witness of Satan (Matt. iv, 3) and of the enemies of Christ (Matt. xxvii, 40), all go to show that Jesus was called and esteemed the true Son of God. Never once did Jesus suggest that men should not give him the adoration due to God alone; never did he hint that men erred in making him more than the adopted son of God. He could not have suggested such error. Adoration was his due. He claimed to be that which adoration implied,— the real and natural Son of God. It was just before the end. Jesus had journeyed to Judea for the last time. He would continue his ministry thereabout for three months until the last Passover. Open and frank then were the teachings that had at times been given under the esoteric form of the par able. One day, during the celebration of the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple, Jesus was walking neath the portico of Solomon on the temple plot. His foes were on the watch. They wished to catch him in speech. So they gathered round about and said: °How long Bost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.° The answer of the Christ was typical. He put them off for a while; chided them for unbelief, for the rejec tion of the abundant testimony that his works bore of the truth of the Messianic claim. And then followed the clear and tremendous teach. ing: °I and the Father are one.°, The Jews understood at once. They took up stones to kill him. He asked why. He made them ad mit that they understood him aright. They replied: °We stone thee not for a good work, but for blasphemy; yea, for that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.° Had they misun derstood, Jesus would have cleared himself of the charge; would have at once denied all claim to true divine sonship, to identity of nature with God the Father. He made no such denial. He pressed the claim more fully, home: °Do .ye say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, 'Thou blasphemest,) be cause I said, I am the Son of God? . . . The Father is in Me and I am in the (John x, 22-38). A last incident worth special note is the judicial procedure before Caia has, who was de jure High Priest of the time. Jesus had hitherto held his peace, and made no reply to any false charges. But when Caiaphas sol emnly queried in regard to the very fundamen• tal issue of the Messianic mission, silence was broken. Caiaphas demanded: °I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ, the Son of God" (Matt xxvi, 63). Simple and to the point is the answer: °I am° (Mark xir, 62). Caiaphas understood. He rent his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy. All joined in condemning him to death for the supposed blasphemy of claiming to be the natural Son of God. Jesus allowed them to understand his claim, and to put him to death therefor. Had he not made claim to be the natural Son of God, he would have been obliged in all truth and fairness to correct the wrong impression.