THE DIVINE MESSIAH (cont) Donald MacLeod ‘THE SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS OF OUR LORD ‘The significance of our Lord’s self-consciousness for the question of His deity is not, however, exhausted by the designation ‘Son of Man’, It is clear from innumerable other details that He was conscious of Himself as unique in origin, authority and destiny. In this connection we should note, first ofall, His understanding of His own relation to the Father, especially as that comes tc light in the high- priestly prayer [John 17]. He feels Himself under no necessity to admit, failure or transgression, He has finished the work givea Him to do and it is on that basis - not as a matter of grace but of debt ~that He claims His reward, He has whereof to boast before God. Again, He is conscious that His existence and His activity, His knowledge of the Father and Fis experience of His love, did not begin with the beginning of His human and earthly life, Before the world was He had glory with the Fathers and He is in the world only because He has ‘come’, and because He has been ‘sent’. ‘They are one and the same in being. ‘To enjoy eternal fife one rust know not only the Father but Jesus Christ whom He has sent. ‘The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, Consequently, the great High Priest is not a mere suppliant oF petitioner: “Father, V will {not I pray: but I ordain, or deeree} that they also, whom thow hast given ‘me, be with me where Iam’ [Joln 17.24]. A second striking feature of our Tord’s self-consciousness is His estimate of Himself as a revealer of the Father. Precisely because He is ‘one with God His revelation has an absolute significance: to see Him is to see the Father {John 14.9]. No man has seen God at any time, but the Son, who is in His bosom, and who knows the whole content of His mind, is His interpreter and exegete [Yoh 1.18]. This emphasis is not confined to the Apostle John, The Synoptics contain the equally remarkable claim, ‘No man knows the Father save the Son and he to ‘whom the Son will reveal him.’ And no less significant are the words, “No man knows the Son save the Father’ (Matt 11.27). The Son Himself equally with the Father is deus absconditus ~ an impenetrable mystery save to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and those, neither wise nor prudent, to whom God reveals Him, It is against this background that we should consider the famous antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount, ‘Ye have heard thet it hath been ‘The Divine Messiah (cont) 33said by them of old time . . . but I say unto you.’ ‘These refer respec~ tively to the questions of oath-taking, divorce and the lex talonis('an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’). Our Lord is not here repudiating the authority of the Old Testament. His view of the earlier revelation is accurately reflected in the affirmation, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken.” Indeed, in the very section of the Sermon on the Mount in which the antitheses occur He insists, “Think not that Tam come to destroy the law or the prophets: Iam not come to destroy but to fulfil” [Matt 5.17]. Our Lord shared with the Jews of His day an unqualified respect for the Old Testament. What He criticises therefore, is something entirely different that Rabbinical interpretation of the Law which made the Word of God of none effect. ‘The significance of His utterances does not fie in the fac that He dismisses the teaching of Moses, and thereby asserts His own pre-eminence and superiority. It lies rather in the fact that in ‘making His pronouncements He adduces no authority save His own. He does not say, It is written, He docs not say, I received from the Lord. He does not announce, Thus saith the Lord. He affirms simply, T say unto you. In His own name He puts the finishing touches to the disclosure of the inwardness and spirituality of the Law. Thirdly, our Lord assumed a right to the unqualified loyalty and adoration of men. He accepts, as a matter of course, forms of address proper only to the Creator. This is true, for example, of the designation Lord, which surely has its highest Old Testament connotation in such starements as that of Thoms, ‘My Lord and my God? {Jol 20.28). He spoke of God as His Furher, implying as is audience was quick t0 realise Ii own equality with God [Jol 10.33}. He studiously refrains from identifying the nature and basis of Tis own Sonship with the sonship of Mis disciples: ‘my Father and your Father.’ His Sonship is eernal, essential and necessary; theirs a matter of grace and adoption ~ a becoming [olin 1.12) Similarly, despite the so-called ‘Messianic secret’, and despite the even mote radical outright denial of His Messianic consciousness, our Lord accepted the designation ‘Christ’, We may readily allow that He spoke of His Messiahship only with reserve ~ especially if we are sure that mis- understanding on this question was characteristic of the Judaism of His day. The Messianic claim is already implicit, by association, in the designation Son of Man, And at Caesarea Philippi our Lord accepts, ‘without hesitation, Peter’s celebrated confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God? [Matt 16.16]. ‘Two points should be noted ‘with regard to this incident. First, even the popular estimate agreed that Jesus was @ person of extraordinary significance - Elijah, or John the Baptist, or one of the prophets, This is not simply to portray Jesus as an 34 ‘Tho Banner of Trutheminent man, Not only did the identification imply, in each case, that Jesus was one returned from the dead; but Eliah and ‘one of the prophets’ [Jeremiah 2] were, in current apocalyptic expectation, eschatological figures ‘whose coming should herald the advent of Messiah, Secondly, we must not overestimate the significance of the confession at Caesarea Philippi. When it is spoken of es ‘epoch-making’ the pro- nouncement is generally ominous of a rejection of the authority of John’s Gospel, according to which, on theit very first encounter with Jesus, ‘Andrew, Philip and Nathanael formed the impression that they had found ‘him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, the ‘Messiah, the Son of God and the King of Israel? [Jolin 1.45, 49]. The truth is that the disciples were frequently, if aot habitually, convinced of His Messiahship before Peter's confession; and that, even afterwards, their faith on occasion failed them, until, at ore point, they could only say despondently, ‘We trusted it had been he which should have redeemed Israel” [Luke 24.21]. Besides the confession at Caesarea Philippi and the incidents recorded in the first chapter of John’s Gospel we shoald note that our Lord, by implication, returned a positive answer to Jehn’s enguiry, ‘Art thou he that should come, oF do we look for another? [Mart 11.3]3 and abo to the High Priest’s challenge at His trial, I adjure thee by the living God, that ‘thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of Godt [Mart 26.63} It is certain, then, that our Lon, according to the portrait of both John and the Synoptists, accepted the Messianic designation, And equally certainly in the view of both Old ‘Testament propheey and late Jewish expectation, the Messiah was a divine, supernatural and heavenly figure. So, in His own estimation, was Jesus of Nazareth In keeping with this, our Lord permitted His followers to accord to Him the most explicit divine worship. Matthew's report, ‘they wor- shipped Him, but some doubted? (Mart 28.17] finds its echo in Revelation 1.17, ‘Tell at his fet as dead.’ Jesus does no: deem it inappropriate that John should say, ‘I have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou 0 e? [Mate 3.14}; or that Peter should say, ‘Depart from me, for T am a sinful man, O Lord’ [Luke 5.8]. He insists on unconditional loyalty from His disciples. If devotion to one’s family clashes with devotion to Christ the former, as the lesser, must give way before the latter: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt 10.37], Similarly, the disciple must not be deterred by suffering, A man must or~ sake all, take up his Cross, and follow Christ. To be persecuted for right- ceousness’sake is synonymous withhaving men speak all mannerof evilof you ‘because of Christ (Mate 5.10 ff]. In either case, to suffer is to be blessed, ‘The Divine Messiah (cont) 35Further, He is the judge of men - His very presence among them is a judgment (John 3.19]—and the criterion is whether Jesus new them [Maze 7.23}. Tt is as we consider the self-consciousness of Jesus that we realise precisely how pointed is the dilemma: aut Deus aut non bonus. Either He was God or He was not good. If He was nothing more than @ man it was incumbent upon Him studiously to avoid confounding the distinction between Creator and creature; it was of the essence of the humility which He inculcated, to take care that men should not over-estimate Himself to insist, ‘I am your fellow-servant, I am not the Light’; unambiguously to repudiate as inapplicable to Himself the characteristic designations of Deity; and to contain within appropriate bounds the enthusiasm and admiration of His disciples. ‘Yet what do we find ? That Jesus of Nazareth did not feel Himselfunder ‘any such obligation! No designation, no function, no adoration, was too high or too sacred to be applied to Him, He was unique, pre-ertinent, divine, And if, in so projecting Himself, our Lord, consciously or un- consciously, was in crror, the mind boggles at the dimensions of His aberration, whether in the direction of insanity or of blasphemy. JESUS AND THE KINGDOM OF GoD ‘There remains one further consideration ~the relation of Jesus :0 the Kingdom of God. ‘No distinction is to be made between ‘the kingdom of heaven’ and ‘the kingdom of God.’ They are synonymous, the former usage {typical of ‘Matthew] arising out of Jewish reluctence to use the divine name. Again, it need hardly be said that the kingdom of God does not refer to any territorial or political entity, It is not an area over which God rules. Like many New Testament ideas it can be understood only in terms of iss Old Testament background, Ever since Isaiah, the Jews had been encouraged to rest their hopes upon the fact that God reigned - ‘then the moon shall ‘be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in ‘Mount Zion’ (1sa'24.23]. (Compare Obad 21, Zeph 3.15, Zech 14.9), ‘How ‘beautiful upon the mountains are the fect of him that bringeth glad tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of gooe, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth’ (Isa 52.7]. Our understanding of the kingdom of God in the New Testament must be determined by these and similar passages. ‘The word kingdom is to be taken in an active sense, as doing duty for the verbal noun reigning, and indicating, not an area or entity over which God rules, but the divine act ‘of ruling. “The rule or reign of God is upon you’ that is the emphasis. ‘The kingdom is not founded or initiated in the New Testament - God 36 ‘The Banner of Truthreigns from eternity, But the kingdom comes, Its revealed and decisively manifested. The good news is that God has finally asserted His sovereignty; that He has decisively intervened in the historical process and in the human tragedy; that He has actively seized the initiative in the interest of His people’s redemption, ‘There is no obligation upon us to choose between a futurist and a realised eschatology in relation to the kingdom, ‘There is room for both emphases. ‘The futurist strain is apparent especially in the petition, “Thy Kingdom come,’ and in the words uttered by our Lord at the conchision of the last Supper, ‘I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God? (Mark 14,25], But there fare other passages which explicitly assert that the kingdom of Gos has come, The best known of these is Mark 1.15 and parallels, ‘uve Kingdon of God is at hand,’ or, ‘has drawn near.’ ‘The same emphasis is found in Luke 17.21, ‘the kingdom of God is among you,’ [4.V. Mg.]: and ‘Matthew 12.28, ‘If cast out devils by the Spirit of God then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” ‘The kingdom has already come: the kingdom is yet to come. The explanation of this apparent contradiction lies in the connection between. Christ and the kingdom. The kingdom comes in Him; and He both has come [Incarnation] and is yet to come [Parousia]. ‘The exact conncetion between the Son of Man and the reign of God is clearly brought out, 2s we have already seen, in the Synoptic accounts of the Transfiguration. While ‘according to both Mark and Luke our Lord foretlls that they will sce the kingdom of God come with power, the Matthean version is, “There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they sce the Son of ‘Man coming in His kingdom’ (Matt 16.28]. Assuming for the moment the evangelical doctrine of inspiration ~ assuming therefore that the narratives are mutually consistent ~ we may clearly infer that the kingdom of God is synonymous with the kingdom of the Son of Man, Iti in the Son of Man that the divine sovercignty asserts itself, In Him the power of God is active. By Him Satan is bound, In Him God is putting forth the powers of the world to come. ‘The government is upon His shoulders because He is the Mighty God, Hence John the Baptist, the greatest of the prophets, ‘enjoying the confidence of the people, and feared by Herod, keeps on insisting, ‘T am not that light . . . there standeth one among you the latchet ‘of whose shoes I ain not worthy to unloose . . . He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me.’ John's is the greatest hhonour ever accorded to man. He is the Messenger preparing the way before the coming King. But Jesus is more. He is Jehovah coming to His temple, ‘This is the correct background against which to consider the miracles ‘Tho Divine Messiah (cont) 7of our Lord. Schweitzer’s assertion, “The miracles are connected with the kingdom and the nearness of the kingdom ~ not with the Messiah,’ too sweeping; but it points to an important truth, According to the New Testament understanding of the situation, the miracles did serve as testimania to the Messiah, This is clear from, our Lord's reply to John’s enquiry, ‘Art taou he that should come? [Mac 11.3]: ‘Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind reccive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the Gospel preached to them.” ‘Nathenae!’s exclamation, ‘Rabbi, thou art the Son of God!” was recognised by our Lord Himself as the direct outcome of miracle: “Becanse I seid unto thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? [folm 1.50}, ‘And of course the faith of the whole Church is built upon the miracle of| the resurrectien. Petes, recalling bow the Cross had shattered the early hopes of the disciples, goes on to say, ‘God has begotten us again to @ living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” [| Pe 1.3}. (On the othe: hand, the miracles were not primatily wonders. They were miracles of the kingdom, ‘They were works of power, the divine King in action. In them the Great Deliverer, come to destroy the works ofthe Devil, directly assaults and invades his kingdom, Inunching a. frontal attack on all its provinces on disease, on death, om the futility and blindness and aimfessness to which nature is in bondage, and on the dlemons who are the Adversary's minions. But so far Sata is oaly bound. His not destroyed. Yet these miracles, pointing as they do to the kingdom already come, point also to che kingdom yet to come. They hold out promise of the ultimate viewry of the Redeemer. Then sorrow and sighing shall dee away. ‘Then shall there be @ new heaven and a new earth. ‘Then shall the promise of Revelation 7.15-17 receive a glorious fulfilment: “He that siteth on the throne shall dvell among them. ‘They shall hunger ro more, nether thirst any mores neither shall the sun light fon them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which isin the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall ead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from thei eyes.” ‘We should note further, however, that Christ's ‘mighty works’ are not limited to those acts commonly designated ‘miracles’. The Cross as interpreted by the New Testament is a mighty act. It is not simply an experience undergone by Christ it is an achievement ~ ‘the exodus which hhe accomplished at Jerusalem’ (Luke 9.31]. Tt was not an arrangement of which Christ was the passive and helpless victim. Tt was an engagement in which all His prodigious strength was put forth for the overthrow of sin, Tt was not a mere priestly acts even less was it merely prophetic. Tt was a kingly act, an act of conquest. The Lamb of God is a God of 38 ‘Tho Banner of Truthbattles. He spoiled principalities and powers and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them by the Cross [see Col 2.13-15]. ‘These remarks apply equally to the resurrection of our Lord. Death could not hold him. On one side of His achievement the prophet declares, “0 death, I will be chy plagues; O grave, Iwill be thy destruction’ [Hos 13.14], And on the other side stands Paul: ‘O death, where is thy sting ? grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law, But thanks be to God who giveth ts the victory through ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ [1 Cor 15.55 ff]. conctuston ‘The foregoing is by no means an exhaustive presentation of the evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ. I have concentrated on essentials, following the main thrust of revelation, and have refrained from drawing upon the considerable body of more recondite detail by which the case might ‘easily be strengthened, But enough has been said, I hope, to demonstrate {if we assume the authority of Scripture] that Jesus Christ cannot be adequately understood in terms of any category applicable to man, He is neither great nor brilliant, ncither hero nor genius. He is sui generis, He isa category by Himself. He is the embodiment and the depository of the sovereign power of God, equal with the Father and with Him to be ‘worshipped and glorified. The Word was God. Jesus is Jehovah. ‘He is God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God.” ABOUT CONTRIBUTORS JouN LEGG, BA, BD, ‘minister of Independent Church, Northallerton, Yorkshire ‘Murpo A, MacLz0p, MA, minister af the London congregation of the Free Church of Scotland. Rosert Moke, JR; minister of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Almonte, Ontario, Canada.