046. II. Divinity Of The Son.

II. Divinity Of The Son. This is a question of revelation. The faith of the Church even from the beginning affirms its truth. But we must go back of this faith, and back of all formulations and creeds of councils, to the Scriptures themselves as the only authority in Christian doctrine. An exposition of all the texts, or even most of the texts, which concern the divinity of our Lord would require an elaboration running into a volume. This method is entirely proper in a separate or monographic treatment of the question, but is neither the usual nor the better method in a course of doctrinal discussions. Nor is it necessary to a conclusive argument for the divinity of Christ. A summary grouping and application of Scripture proofs may give the argument in a conclusive form, and with a strength against which the fallacies of logic and the perversions of exegesis are powerless. The principle in which this argument may be grounded underlies all science. Every thing is for science what its own qualities determine it to be. This law must rule the classifications of science in all realms of existence. Otherwise no science is possible. In the crudest forms of matter, in the spheres of chemistry, botany, zoology, in the realms of intellectual and moral life, every thing must be for science what its own distinctive qualities determine it to be. The same principle is equally valid for theology. It must be valid for theology, because it is the necessary and universal ground of rational and cognitive thinking. Hence, if it is not true in all spheres that existences are what their distinctive facts determine them to be, it cannot be true in any. With such a result, mind would sink far below skepticism into the starkest nescience. As, on this necessary and universal law, gold is gold by virtue of its determining facts, so God is God by virtue of the essential and distinctive facts of divinity. There is for thought no other law of differentiation between the Unite and the Infinite, or between things and God. The principle is equally valid in the question of the divinity of Christ. If the Scriptures in an unqualified sense attribute the essential facts of divinity to the Son, then on the ground of their authority and in the deepest sense of the term he is divine.

It may thus be seen that the strength of the argument for the divinity of Christ may be given without any great elaboration. Proceeding on the principle which we have laid down, all that is required is a grouping of the essential and distinctive facts of divinity as clearly attributed to Christ in the Scriptures. These facts may be classed under four heads: titles, attributes, works, worshipfulness. There is nothing novel in this division or grouping of these facts. It is so simple and advantageous that it has been very customary, and in this sense is the prescriptive method.

1. Divine Titles.—There are titles which in their primary or full sense are expressive of divinity and belong only to God. Yet such titles are given in the same sense to the Son.

God is such a title. It is at once expressive and distinctive of divinity. This is none the less true because it is not always used in this higher sense. Even in the Scriptures the term is often applied to idols (Exodus 22:20; Judges 11:24). It is not necessary to multiply references. This name is given also to princes, magistrates, and judges (Exodus 22:28; Psalms 82:1; Psalms 82:6). In this lower sense Moses was a god: “And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god unto Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1). Even Satan himself is called god—“the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4). In all these instances, however, the partial or figurative use of the term is open and clear. Idols are gods as representing the objects of heathen worship. Princes, magistrates, judges are gods as the ministers of God in government, or as exercising functions in some likeness to the divine agency. Moses was a god to Pharaoh as the minister and representative of God himself. Satan is a god as exercising a ruling power over the world. Such a qualified use of terms is very common, and without any effect upon the primary or full meaning. In this higher sense God is still the expressive and distinctive title of divinity. As in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1); as God is great and doeth wondrous things, and he only is God (Psalms 86:10); as God is the only object of supreme worship (Matthew 4:10; Revelation 12:9), so is the term expressive and distinctive of divinity. In this higher sense Christ is God, and therefore divine. It may suffice to adduce a few instances. “And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God” (Luke 1:16). This is the mission fulfilled by John as the forerunner of Christ. Unto him the hearts of many were turned; and he it is who is called “the Lord their God.” This application is confirmed by the words immediately following: “And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” There is no restricted or qualified sense of the divine name in this use of it. Any issue would be joined, not against the deepest sense of the term, but against its application to Christ. Such an issue, however, must concede the fullest sense, because there is no other possible reason for denying its application to him. With this concession, we need but point again to the clear and full proof of this application. It is thus true that Christ is God in the deepest sense of divinity. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). In the fourteenth verse of this chapter the Word is identified with the personal Son in the incarnation. The Son is the Word, and the Word is God. There is no limitation of the term in this application to the Son. There is no reason in the connection for any limitation, but conclusive reasons for its deepest sense. The eternity and creative work of the Son, as here clearly given, justify his designation as God and require its deepest sense for the expression of his nature.

“And Thomas answered and said unto him. My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Thomas not only refused faith in the resurrection of Christ simply on the testimony of his brother-disciples, but demanded the sight of his own eyes and the touch of his own fingers in a definitely specified manner (John 20:25). Christ freely offered him all that ho required. Then it was, as Christ stood before him in living form and with all the required tokens of his identity, that Thomas addressed him in these words of adoring faith: “My Lord and my God.” It is easy to declare these words a mere ejaculation, addressed to God the Father, if to any one. If addressed to no one, they must have been profane, and therefore could in no sense have received the approval of Christ. A mere ejaculatory rendering is not consistent with the temper of Thomas. Besides, the words themselves are definite respecting the person addressed: “And Thomas answered and said unto him”—unto Jesus —“My Lord and my God.” Eliminate from these words the sense of adoring worship, and they become profane. They were not profane, for Thomas received the approval and blessing of Christ in their use. So sure is it that he is God in the deepest sense of the term.

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). So Paul addressed the elders of the church in Ephesus, whom he met at Miletus. We know that some dispute the genuineness of Θεον in this text, and would replace it with Κυριου; but the preponderance of critical authority is strongly in favor of the former. As Christ is frequently called God in the Scriptures, and often by St. Paul himself, such an application of Θεον is nothing against its genuineness in this text. In all fairness, it must stand with the preponderance of critical authority. It is an instance in which, in the deepest sense of the term, Christ is called God. ‘‘Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 9:5). St. Paul had just been enumerating the great privileges of Israel. “To these privileges he subjoins a climax. The Israelites were they, έξ ών ό Χριστος τό κατά σύρκα, ό ών έπί πάντων Θεός εύλογητός είς τούς αίώνας. It was from the blood of Israel that the true Christ had sprung, so far as his human nature was concerned; but Christ’s Israelitic descent is, in the apostle’s eyes, so consummate a glory of Israel, because Christ is much more than one of the sons of men, because by reason of his higher pre-existent nature he is ‘over all, God blessed forever,’ This is the natural sense of the passage. If the passage occurred in a profane author and there were no antitheological interest to be promoted, few critics would think of overlooking the antithesis between Χριτός τό κατά σάρκα and Θεός εύλογητός. Still less possible would it be to destroy this antithesis outright, and to impoverish the climax of the whole passage, by cutting off the doxology from the clause which precedes it, and so erecting it into an independent ascription of praise to God the Father. If we should admit that the doctrine of Christ’s Godhead is not stated in this precise form elsewhere in St. Paul’s writings, that admission cannot be held to justify us in violently breaking up the passage, in order to escape from its natural meaning, unless we are prepared to deny that St. Paul could possibly have employed an άπαξ λεγόμεν. Nor in point of fact does St. Paul say more in this famous text than when in writing to Titus he describes Christians as ‘looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us’ (Titus 2:13-14). Here the grammar apparently, and the context certainly, oblige us to recognize the identity of ‘our Saviour Jesus Christ’ and ‘our great God.’ As a matter of fact, Christians are not waiting for any manifestation of the Father. And he who gave himself for us can be none other than our Lord Jesus Christ.”^[252] This citation, while addressed more directly to the proof of Christ’s divinity, is conclusive of our specific point in proof of the same truth, that in the profoundest sense he is called God.

^[252]Liddon:Our Lord’s Divinity, pp. 313-315.

“But unto the Son, he saith, Thy throne, God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom” (Hebrews 1:8). In this connection the subject is the greatness of the Son, and the particular view, his greatness above the angels. He has a higher inheritance and name than they. No one of them is ever styled, as the Son himself, the begotten Son of the Father. The Son is their Creator and Euler, and the object of their supreme worship. They are servants and ministering spirits, while the Son is enthroned in the supremacy of government. He is God. The facts call into thought the words of the prophet: “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, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). When the incarnate Son is thus called God, it must be in the sense of his divinity.

Jehovah is a distinctive name of the Deity. It is also a Scripture appellation of the Son, and therefore a proof of his divinity. God made known this name to Moses in a manner which emphasizes its profound meaning. “And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them” (Exodus 6:2-3). It is restrictively the name of God: “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth” (Psalms 83:18). It is the expression of an infinite perfection and inalienable glory: “I am the Lord [Jehovah]; that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images” (Isaiah 42:8). In the plenitude of its meaning this name signifies the eternal and immutable being of the Deity.

There is nothing in the combination of this name with terms of finite import which contradicts or even modifies its profound meaning. Hence it is groundless to object, “that it is sometimes given to places. It is so; but only in composition with some other word, and not surely as indicative of any quality in the places themselves, but as memorials of the acts and goodness of Jehovah himself, as manifested in those localities. So ‘Jehovah-jireh, in the mount of the Lord it shall be seen,’ or, ‘the Lord will provide,’ referred to His interposition to save Isaac, or, probably, to the provision of the future sacrifice of Christ”^[253]. There is no use of this term in combination with others which restricts or modifies its profound meaning as the distinctive and expressive name of the Deity.

^[253]Watson:Theological Institutes, vol. i, p. 506. This name is given to the Son, and in the fullness of its meaning as a divine title. The Scriptures open with the name of God in plural form. These terms may have in themselves but little force for the proof of the Trinity; but as seen in the light of a fuller revelation of God they properly anticipate the personal distinctions in the theophanies of a later period. In these theophanies there are the personal designations of Jehovah and the Angel of Jehovah. The same person appears, sometimes with the one title, sometimes with the other, and in some instances with both, and with the distinctive facts of divinity. A few references will verify these statements (Genesis 16:7-13; Genesis 17:1-22; Genesis 18:1-33; Genesis 22:1-18; Genesis 28:10-22; Genesis 32:24-30, with Hosea 12:3-5; Exodus 3:2-15). The Angel of Jehovah, as revealed in these theophanies, is a divine person. The powers which he exercises and the prerogatives which he asserts are distinctive of the Deity. Yet when styled Jehovah it is clearly with personal distinction from the Father. He cannot be the Angel of Jehovah and Jehovah the Father at the same time; though he can be Jehovah the Son and the Angel of the Father, This is the sense of these theophanies as we read them in the light of later revelations, especially in the clear light of the New Testament. The Angel of Jehovah, the Jehovah of these theophanies, is the Son of God. “The angel, who appeared to Hagar, to Abraham, to Moses, to Joshua, to Gideon, and to Manoah, who was called Jehovah and worshiped as Adonai, who claimed divine homage and exercised divine power, whom the psalmists and prophets set forth as the Son of God, as the Counselor, the Prince of Peace, the mighty God, and whom they predicted was to be born of a virgin, and to whom every knee should bow and every tongue should confess, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, is none other than lie whom we now recognize and worship as our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. It was the Γογος άσαρκος whom the Israelites worshiped and obeyed; and it is the Γογος ένσαρκος whom we acknowledge as our Lord and God.”^[254] This is the summation after a full review of the relative facts; and the facts fully warrant the conclusion.

^[254]Hodge:Systematic Theology, vol. i, p. 490

“From all that has been said, it is now manifest on how great authority the ancient doctors of the Church affirmed that it was the Son of God who in former times, under the Old Testament, appeared to holy men, distinguished by the name of Jehovah, and honored by them with divine worship. . . .He who appeared and spoke to Moses in the burning bush and on Mount Sinai, who manifested himself to Abraham, etc., was the Word, or Son, of God. It is, however, certain that he who appeared is called Jehovah, I am, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, etc., titles which clearly are not applicable to any created being, but are peculiar to the true God. And this is the very reasoning which the fathers all employ to prove that in such manifestations it was not a mere created angel, but the Son of God, who was present; that the name of Jehovah, namely, and divine worship are given to him who appeared; but that these are not communicable to any creature, and belong to the true God alone; whence it follows that they all believed that the Son was very God.”^[255] This is the conclusion of the learned author from a thorough treatment of the appropriate texts, and after a thorough review of the Antenicene fathers, with free citations from their writings.

^[255]Bishop Bull:Defense of the Nicene Creed, book i, chap, i, 30.

It is clear that the argument for the divinity of Christ, as thus constructed, goes far beyond the fact that he is called Jehovah in its deepest sense as a title of the Deity. In the divine manifestations of Jehovah, the Son, in the earlier revelations of God, he appears in the possession of divine attributes and prerogatives, performs divine works, and receives supreme worship, He is called Jehovah in the deepest sense of the term, and this fact is in itself the proof of his divinity. That he is thus called Jehovah is clear in the texts of the theophanies, previously given by reference.

2. Divine Attributes.—The more exact analysis and classification of the attributes, as previously treated, may here be omitted. Such a method would prove a hinderance to the simplicity of the argument, without adding any thing to its strength. Certain divine predicables which we treated as true of God and distinctive of divinity are equally true of the Son, and as conclusive of his divinity as the possession of the divine attributes which are distinctively such. As the words, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), infold the truth of his absolute eternity, so the words, “In the beginning was the Word. . . . All things were made by him” (John 1:1-3), infold the truth of the absolute eternity of the Son. There are more explicit utterances of the same truth. The Son is Alpha and Omega, which is, and which was, and which is to come; the first and the last; the beginning and the end (Revelation 1:8; Revelation 1:17; Revelation 22:13). In these predicates of the Son we have an informal citation from Isaiah: “Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6). No proper interpretation is possible in either case without the absolute eternity of the subject of such predication. The Son by an immediate insight knew all men, even their most secret thoughts and deeds (John 2:24-25); searches the reins and the heart of men (Revelation 2:23). A close and keen observer may acquire a pretty clear insight into the character of one with whom he is in daily intercourse. Yet even in this case the interior active life, the thoughts, desires, aspirations are hidden from the sharpest gaze. The knowledge of Christ infinitely transcends all the possibilities of such knowledge. It has no limitation to such facts as are in some mode expressed, but apprehends the most secret life. Nor is it in the least conditioned on any personal acquaintance or special study, but is an immediate and perfect insight into the most secret facts of the life; and not only of one man, or of a few familiar friends, but equally of all men. “Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee” (John 21:17), is the witnessing of Peter to his immediate knowledge of the inmost life of men. “Now we are sure that thou knowest all things” (John 16:30), is the testimony of the disciples to his omniscience. The same truth receives the very strongest expression in the words of our Lord himself: “As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father” (John 10:15). The infinite depth of such a knowledge of the Father is possible only with omniscience. This may suffice for the present, as the same truth must re-appear in treating the final judgment of all men as the work of Christ.

However, we must not entirely omit an objection which is ever at hand with those who dispute the divinity of our Lord. This objection is based on his own words—whether respecting the destruction of Jerusalem or the final judgment concerns not the present question: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, nor the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32). In the discussion respecting the divinity of Christ these words have been much in issue. This appears in the repeated and persistent efforts of the fathers to bring the text into harmony with that doctrine, or, at least, to obviate all disproof of it. All along the Christian centuries the champions of the Nicene Creed have taken up the question for the same purpose. In his masterly work on the divinity of our Lord, Canon Liddon renews the endeavor with all the resources of his rare ability and learning. Seemingly, little remains to be added on this side of the question. Indeed, this has been the case for a long time. The genuineness of the text has been questioned, or, at least, the question has been raised, but that genuineness has not been discredited. It has been attempted to obviate the difficulty by rendering the words as relating to the Son, in the sense of not making known, instead of not knowing. This, however, is purely arbitrary, and inadmissible. Man, the angels, and the Son, as disjunctively placed in the text, stand in precisely the same relation to the one verb, οίδεν. If, with the negative term, we render this verb in the sense of nescience in relation to man and the angels, and then abruptly change to the sense of not making known in relation to the Son, the transition is so arbitrary that laws of interpretation must forbid it. Further, if ούδε ό υίός (οίδεν) means that the Son doth not reveal or make known, then εί μή ό πατήρ (οίδεν)—words which immediately follow—should mean that the Father doth make known. This, however, would contradict the plain sense of the text. The only escape from this contradiction would require another abrupt transition back to the sense of the verb in its relation to man and the angels. There is no light in this view.

Mostly, a solution of the question has been attempted on the ground of a distinction between the divine and the human consciousness of Christ. On this ground it is assumed that, while as God he knew the time of the judgment, as man he did not know it. This is the method of Athanasius himself, and for it he claims the consensus of the fathers. The great defenders of the Nicene Creed are mostly in his following. Canon Liddon joins them.^[256] We specially refer to him because he is among the most recent and most able upon this question, as also upon the whole question of the divinity of Christ. Of course, the assumed distinction between the divine and the human consciousness of Christ is open to the pointed criticism that it is inconsistent with the unity of his personality in the union of his divine and human natures. In the terse putting of Stier, “Such knowing and not knowing at the same time severs the unity of the God-human person, and is impossible in the Son of man, who is the Son indeed, but emptied of his glory.”^[257] Seemingly, such a distinction involves the doctrinal consequence of Nestorianism, in which the human nature of Christ is a distinct human person, in only sympathetic union with the divine Son. It is a rather curious fact that, for the explication of a perplexing text, so many truly orthodox in creed should make a distinction in the consciousness of Christ which seems like a surrender to the Nestorian heresy. Of course, this is not intended. There are, indeed, many facts in the life of Christ which seemingly belong to a purely human consciousness; but if they are made the ground of a distinct human consciousness the same Nestorian consequence follows. Such facts lie within the mystery of the incarnation, where they unite with the facts of divinity manifest in Christ. The personality of Christ must be determined, not from any one class of facts, whether human or divine, but from a view of both classes as clearly ascribed to him in the Scriptures.

^[256]Our Lord’s Divinity, pp. 458-464.

^[257]The Words of the Lord Jesus, vol. iii, p. 296.

What is the result? The perplexity arising from this text is not obviated by any of the methods previously noticed. Nor is there any method by which this result can be attained. Any inference from this fact that Christ is not divine would be hasty and unwarranted. The many conclusive proofs of his divinity still remain in the Scriptures. The subordination of these many proofs to one seemingly adverse text would, for its method, be against all the logic of science and all the laws of biblical exegesis. That text must remain as a perplexity for our exegesis, and may remain without any weakening of our faith in the divinity of our Lord. As this attribute must be clearly manifest in treating the works of Christ, a very brief statement may suffice here. He has absolute power over nature. This is manifest in many of his miracles. In the feeding of thousands to satiety with a few loaves and fishes, in giving sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf, in raising the dead, in calming the storm, we see the efficiencies of omnipotence in its absoluteness over all the forces of nature. By his mighty power he is able to subdue all things to himself (Php 3:21). He upholds all things by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3). He is the Almighty (Revelation 1:8.). Such attributions of power and agency can be true of Christ only on the ground of his true and essential omnipotence.

Respecting the attributes of Christ, one truth is given in another truth. The truth of his omnipresence is given in the truth of his universal providence, which has already appeared in the fact of his upholding all things by the word of his power, and will further be shown in a more direct treatment. The providence of Christ is through his personal agency, in all the realms of nature. That personal agency is the reality of his omnipresence in its truest, deepest sense—an omnipresence in the infinitude of his knowledge and power. We may cite two promises of Christ, which can receive no proper interpretation without the truth of his omnipresence. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). These words are in the form of assertion, as of a fact, but with the sense and grace of a promise. The fact is of his presence with all who meet in his name, wherever and whenever it may be. As a promise of grace, his presence means a personal agency for the spiritual benediction of his worshiping disciples. Again, when he commissioned his apostles for the evangelization of all nations, he said, “Lo, lam with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matthew 28:20). Again the words in form assert the fact of his presence, but in the sense and grace of a promise. The fact of his presence is for all his ministers, in all the world and for all time, as for his chosen apostles whom he immediately commissioned to the work of evangelization. As a promise of grace, it is for all true ministers of Christ, as for the apostles, an assurance of his helpful agency. He seals this assurance with his own “Amen.” Only an omnipresent Being—omnipresent with the infinite efficiencies of a personal agency could truthfully assert such facts and give such promises.

Mutations of estate with the divine 8on are the profoundest. He was rich, and became poor (2 Corinthians 8:9); in the form of God, with an equal glory of estate, but divested himself of this glory and assumed instead the form of a servant in the likeness of men, and humbled himself even to the death of the cross; and again he was exalted of the Father in Lordship over all intelligences (Php 2:6-11) still, there is the deep truth of his immutability. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8); immutable in divine personality through all his mutations of estate. As pointed out in treating the immutability of God, its strongest and sublimest expression is given in the words of the psalmist (Psalms 102:25-27). Yet these very words, without any variation affecting their sense, or any qualification, are applied to the Son: “And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest: and they shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail” (Hebrews 1:10-12). If the reality of immutability is expressible in words, it is expressed in these words. Then the Son of God is immutable. The possession of the attributes of eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and immutability, as thus grounded in the truth of Scripture, concludes the divinity of Christ.

3. Divine Works.—There are works of such a character that they must be as expressive of divinity in the personal agency which achieves them as the possession of its essential and distinctive attributes. Does Christ perform such works? This question we must carry into the Scriptures. They will not leave us in any reasonable doubt as to the truth in the case. The Scriptures open with the creative work of God. With simplicity of words, the lofty tone at once lifts our thoughts to the infinite perfections of his being. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God said. Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven; let the earth bring forth grass and herb and fruit-tree, and let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life: and it was so (Genesis 1:1-20). Verily God is God. Creation is his work; the expression of his infinite perfections. The same truth runs through all the Scriptures. The heavens declare his glory, and the firmament showeth his handiwork (Psalms 19:1). God who made the world and all things therein, he is Lord of heaven and earth (Acts 17:24). His works of creation reveal his eternal power and Godhead (Romans 1:20).

Creation is the work of Christ. A few texts may suffice for this truth. ‘‘All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:3). Word who was in the beginning with God, and was God, and is in the fourteenth verse of this chapter identified with the incarnate Son, he it is who created all things. Futile is the attempt to resolve this work of creation into a moral renovation of the world. The words of John are go much like the opening words of creation in Genesis, to which one’s thought is immediately carried, that only an original creation will answer for their full meaning. “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Colossians 1:16). It is the Son of God, as the connection determines, who is thus declared the Creator of all things. No admissible interpretation can eliminate from this text the idea of an original creation—a creation of all things in the sense in which the Scriptures ascribe their creation to God. The notion of setting things in order, or of a moral renovation, is utterly precluded by the amplification of the text. If the former sense were admissible, very little would be gained even for an Arian Christology; nothing certainly for the Socinian. A setting of all things in order could mean nothing less than the reduction of chaotic materials into cosmic forms, and the collocation of worlds so as to secure the order of systems and the harmonies of the universe. God only is equal to such a work. There is the same inevitable implication, if with the text we carry up the thought to all higher intelligences, even to thrones and dominions, principalities and powers. Any limitation to an institutional ordering, as in the Christian economy, is senseless for this text. The amplification includes in the creative work of Christ all things in earth and heaven, visible and invisible, material and rational, all the ranks and orders of celestial intelligences. This is infinitely too broad and high for any institutional work of a merely human Christ. In the deepest meaning of the term, and with limitless comprehension, the Son is the creator of all things. The words of Bishop Bull are not too strong for this sense of the text: “But if these words of the apostle do not speak of a creation, properly so called, I should believe that Holy Scripture labored under inexplicable difficulty, and that no certain conclusion could be deduced from its words, however express they might seem to be.”^[258] We add a single text, without comment: “And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thine hand” (Hebrews 1:10).

^[258]Defense of the Nicene Creed, book i, chap, i, 15.

These three texts prove the creative work of Christ. “If God the Father were here substituted for Christ, no man would ever think of denying that the work of creation is attributed to him in the most proper sense.”^[259] The creative work of Christ is conclusive of his divinity.

^[259]Wood: Works, vol. i, p. 351. The question of a divine providence is not here to be treated any farther than in application to the present argument. There is a providence of God which is conservative of all existences, material and rational. “Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth” (Isaiah 40:26). The preservation of all worlds in their orderly existence is thus revealed as the work of a divine providence, and classed with the work of their creation. In the monotheism which St. Paul preached to the men of Athens on Mars’ Hill there is the same creative work of God, only with broader comprehension, and the same providence in the preservation and government of his works (Acts 17:22-28). Here again the work of providence is classed with the work of creation. God only can preserve and rule the works of his hands.

Such a work of providence is ascribed to the Son. After that remarkable passage, previously cited, in which the creation of all things is attributed to him, it is added: “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17). Here the providence of the Son in the preservation of all things is classed with his work in their creation, just as in the texts previously noticed the preserving providence of God is classed with his creative work. “Upholding all things by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3) strongly expresses the providence of the Son. He sustains all things, and rules them in an orderly manner. “By the word of his power” signifies a personal agency of infinite efficiency. In a like manner the personal agency of God in creation and providence is expressed (Genesis 1:3; Psalms 33:6; Psalms 33:9). So by the word of his power, his immediate, omnipotent personal agency, the Son upholds all things, and rules them in an orderly manner. In the providential work of the Son there is the truth of his divinity.

It is the clear sense of Scripture, and the common unperverted moral judgment, that God only can forgive sin, in its strictly ethical sense. Yet Christ forgave sin in the deepest sense of divine forgiveness (Luke 5:20-24). This is decisive proof of his divinity. The theory of the resurrection does not concern the present argument. There is in the Scriptures the doctrine of a final, general resurrection of the dead. This is a great work of the future—so great as to suggest a doubt of its possibility. The sacred writers neither deny its greatness nor attempt to modify the sense of the resurrection, so as to obviate the objection. Instead of this, they make answer simply by appealing the question to the infinite power of God (Matthew 22:29; Acts 26:8). The resurrection is a great work to which God only is equal; but he is equal to its achievement. This is their only answer. Yet it is the explicit truth of Scripture that Christ by his own power shall raise the dead (John 5:28-29; Php 3:21). If God only can accomplish this work, Christ, who shall accomplish it, must possess the infinite efficiencies of God, and, therefore, must be divine. The final judgment must be perfectly righteous both in its decisions and rewards. It must be such respecting every person judged, and respecting every moral deed of every person. For such a judgment, a perfect knowledge of every life, even in its every moral deed, is absolutely necessary. Every life in its constitutional tendency and exterior condition, in all its susceptibilities and allurements, in its most hidden thoughts and feelings, motives and aims, must be perfectly known. There must be such knowledge of each individual life, and of every life of all the generations of men. There is such knowledge only in omniscience. If we might compare works, each of which requires an infinite agency, the final judgment is a greater one than the general resurrection. Not all the divine teleology in the construction of the universe requires a more absolute omniscience. Yet that final judgment is the work of the Son. This is an explicit truth of the Scriptures (Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:22; 2 Corinthians 5:10). We have given only a few references out of many. What we have given are of themselves sufficient for the truth which they so clearly express. The Son of God who shall finally judge all men must be omniscient, and, therefore, truly and essentially divine.

Each of the works of Christ, live in number, which we have brought into the argument is conclusive of his divinity. In their combination the argument is irresistible.

4. Divine Worshipfulness.—God only is supremely worshipful. Such worship consciously rendered to any lower being is idolatry. Many texts of Scripture witness to these truths. Reference to a few may suffice (Exodus 20:3-5; Isaiah 42:8; Matthew 4:10; Revelation 19:10).

Christ claims and receives supreme worship. It is divinely commanded. The Scriptures witness to these truths, as a few texts may show.

“The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son: that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which sent him” (John 5:22-23). In the connection Christ speaks of God as his Father in a sense expressive of his own divinity. So the Jews understood him. He offers no correction, but proceeds with words replete with the same truth. He is co-operative with the Father in the perpetual work of his providence, and ever doeth the same things which the Father doeth. Such words lead up to the rightful claim of a supreme worshipfulness with the Father, as expressed in the words which we have cited. Men honor the Father only as they supremely worship him. Yet it is made the duty of all men to honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. “And again, when he bringeth the first begotten into the world, he saith. And let all the angels of God worship him” (Hebrews 1:6). Only a supreme worship of the incarnate Son can fulfill the requirement of this command. In many instances of prayer and forms of religious service supreme worship is rendered to Christ. In filling the place in the apostolate made vacant by the treason of Judas the apostles “prayed, and said. Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all, show whether of these two thou hast chosen” (Acts 1:24). Stephen in the hour of his martyrdom prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,” and also prayed for his murderers, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” (Acts 7:59-60). Thrice did Paul beseech the Lord for the removal of that thorn in the flesh, that buffeting messenger of Satan (2 Corinthians 12:7-8). The connection shows that it was the Lord Jesus to whom he thus devoutly and persistently prayed. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen” (2 Corinthians 13:14). This benediction is the devout prayer of Paul for the divine gift of the largest spiritual blessings to the members of this Church. For these blessings he prays to the Lord Jesus, just as he prays to God the Father. Only a divine being could bestow such blessings. No other could be associated with the Father in such a supplication by one so fully enlightened in Christian truth as St. Paul. No such prayer could be truly offered except in a spirit of devout and supreme worship. Thus did Paul worship the Lord Jesus in this prayer. In two given instances he prays in like manner for the church in Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 3:11-13; 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17). As Paul thus prayed, so did the other apostles pray, and so did the saints in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:3). To deny them the spirit of a devout and supreme worship of Christ in these prayers is to accuse them of superstition or idolatry.

Christ is exalted and enthroned in supreme lordship and worshipfulness over saints and angels. He is seated on the right hand of God, far above all principalities and powers, while all are made subject to him (Ephesians 1:20-23). To him is given a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue should confess that he is Lord (Php 2:9-11). There shall thus be rendered to him the supreme homage which God in most solemn form claims of all (Isaiah 45:22-23). As this homage is claimed of God, and due to him only because he is God, Christ must be truly divine; for else it could not be claimed for him. Yet, even angels and authorities and powers are made subject to him, and must render him supreme homage (1 Peter 3:22). If Christ is not supremely worshipful, Christianity becomes a vast system of idolatry for both earth and heaven. He is supremely worshiped. There is such worship in the grateful and joyous doxology: “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen” (Revelation 1:5-6). He is supremely worshiped in heaven. Even the angelic hosts join in this worship, saying, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. “The strain is prolonged: “Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever” (Revelation 5:12-13). If in this adoring service the Father is supremely worshiped, so is the Son. His supreme worshipfulness is the proof of his divinity. The unqualified ascription of the distinctively divine titles, attributes, works, and worshipfulness to the Son is conclusive of his true and essential divinity, as the sense and doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. The proof is in the highest degree cumulative and conclusive.

General reference.—Athanasius: On the Incarnation; Burton: Testimonies of the Antenicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ; Pearson Exposition of the Creed, article ii Waterland: Defense of the Divinity of Christ; A Second Defense of Christ’s Divinity, Works, vol. ii; Princeton Essays, essay ii, “The Sonship of Christ;” Whitelaw: Is Christ Divine? Perowne: The Godhead of Jesus, Hulsean Lectures, 1866; Liddon:Our Lord’s Divinity, Bampton Lectures, 1866.