The Divine Origin of Revelation

§ II. The Divine Origin of the New Testament

A) The Religion of the New Testament

The nature of the New Testament religion shows that it is based upon divine revelation.

A religion which contains no contradictions, but is in every respect worthy of God and fully responds to all the needs of men, and which is furthermore unique in its purity and perfection, must necessarily come from God, because human reason is not able to know the truths of religion accurately, completely, and with certitude except by supernatural aid.¹⁰⁶106V. supra, Pt. I, ch. II, pp. 21 sqq. Now Christianity is such a religion. Consequently, Christianity must be based on divine revelation.

We are here concerned solely with the positive side of the argument. Therefore, we shall confine ourselves to showing that the Christian religion is worthy of God and responds to all the needs of human nature. Its purity and sublimity will become manifest in the course of the demonstration. Its freedom from contradictions requires no formal proof, since this feature is substantially admitted by all, even the great majority of its enemies. The attempts to explain the origin of Christianity by purely natural means will be dealt with in a subsequent section of this treatise.

1. The Dogmatic Teaching of Christianity

The Christian Church in its dogmatic teaching closely follows that of the Old Testament, which it assimilates, develops, and perfects.

The idea of God is perfected by the revelation of the Trinity,¹⁰⁷107Matth. XXVIII, 19. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, 5th ed., St. Louis, 1925. which affords a deeper insight into the nature of the Godhead and at the same time lays the foundation for the understanding of the dogmas of the Incarnation and the Redemption.¹⁰⁸108John III, 16. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 5th ed., St. Louis, 1925; Soteriology, 5th ed., St. Louis, 1927.

The origin, goal, and mission of man appear in a brighter light. God is the Creator and final end of men,¹⁰⁹109John XVII, 3. but at the same time their loving Father.¹¹⁰110Matth. VI, 26 sqq.; John I, 12. The human soul possesses infinite value¹¹¹111Matth. XXVI, 26. because it has been created for a life of eternal beatitude in Heaven.

The Redemption of mankind by the Godman takes away the burden of guilt and reopens to fallen humanity the gates of Paradise.¹¹²112Matth. XXVI, 28; John I, 29; III, 36.

The means by which eternal salvation is attained (Baptism, Penance, the Holy Eucharist) offer spiritual grace in a material form admirably adapted to human nature.¹¹³113Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, 5th ed., St. Louis, 1927, pp. 59 sqq.

2. The Moral Teaching of Christianity

The moral teaching of Christianity is intimately bound up with its dogmas. Faith is the foundation of morality. The divine law appears as the rule and norm of human conduct. The moral faculties of man, conscience, the consciousness of duty, and free-will, attain their full recognition and development.

The goal of moral conduct is the immediate possession of the triune God in the beatific vision and charity. God Himself is the beau-ideal and exemplar of all moral perfection,¹¹⁴114John XVII, 3; Matth. V, 48. which can be attained by observing the law of charity, the great commandment that comprises love of God, oneself, and one’s neighbor.¹¹⁵115Matth. XXII, 36 sqq. Cfr. Koch-Preuss, A Handbook of Moral Theology, 5 vols., St. Louis, 1918 sqq., see especially Vol. IV, pp. 71 sqq. Perfect charity, which excludes no one, not even one’s enemies, constitutes the distinguishing mark of a disciple of Christ.¹¹⁶116John XIII, 34 sq.; Matth. V, 44. To make obedience to the law easier, Christ, God in human form, invites all men to follow Him.¹¹⁷117John XIII, 15. Those who wish to reach the highest stage of moral perfection by the use of extraordinary means, are asked to give up all they have, renounce the world, and follow Him.¹¹⁸118Matth. XIX, 21; Luke IX, 23. Cfr. Koch-Preuss, A Handbook of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 236 sqq.

Highly effective motives, such as the joys of Paradise, the torments of hell, a grateful love of God and the Redeemer, the charm of a virtuous life, and the qualms of a wicked conscience incite the followers of Christ to lead a moral life.

3. Christian Worship

The worship of God inculcated by the Christian religion is an internal adoration of the Father in spirit and in truth; with all due regard, however, to external rites.¹¹⁹119John IV, 23. Cfr. Koch-Preuss, op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 191 sqq. The centre of preaching and worship is the Person of the Godman. The constant renewal of His death in the Eucharist takes the place of the Old Testament sacrifices, of which the Mass is the fulfilment. In connection with it there are common prayer and the administration and use of the Sacraments as means of grace.¹²⁰1201 Cor. I, 23; XI, 26; Luke XXII, 19; Matth. VI, 9 sqq.; XVIII, 20. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, The Holy Eucharist, pp. 272 sqq.; Koch-Preuss, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 98 sqq.

Christian worship, dogma, and moral teaching form one harmonious whole. Worship is based on faith, which it serves to animate, and moves men to act in conformity with the moral law.

Thus, the religion of the New Testament occupies a unique place among the religions of the world, transcending all others in sublimity and perfection. No other religion is so perfectly adapted to the dignity of God and to the needs of man. None other, not even that of the Old Testament, can boast of equal excellence. Consequently, the Christian religion cannot be a human invention, but must have a divine origin.

B) Christ’s Own Testimony to His Nature and Mission

To form a correct opinion of the Person, work, and doctrine of Jesus Christ, we must enquire what He Himself thought of His origin, nature, and mission. It is upon His testimony that the faith of His disciples and that of the Christian Church rests. Miracles and prophecies but serve to give that testimony external confirmation, though that confirmation is, of course, extremely valuable.

Christ’s own testimony as to His nature and mission, together with the wisdom and holiness of His Person, constitute one of the external criteria of Christian revelation.

His enemies, the Scribes and Pharisees, refused to accept His testimony. “Thou givest testimony of thyself,” they said; “thy testimony is not true.”¹²¹121John VIII, 13: “Tu de te ipso testimonium perhibes, testimonium tuum non est verum.” But Christ insists that it is true. “Although I give testimony of myself,” he declares, “my testimony is true; for I know whence I came and whither I go.”¹²²122John VIII, 14: “Si ego testimonium perhibeo de me ipso, verum est testimonium meum, quia scio unde veni, et quo vado.” And in confirmation of His holiness and love of truth He asks: “Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me?”¹²³123John VIII, 46: “Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? Si veritatem dico vobis, quare non creditis mihi?”

Therefore, we are justified in employing Christ’s own testimony as an independent argument for the divine origin of the Christian religion.¹²⁴124A. Seitz (Das Evangelium vom Gottessohn, Freiburg, 1908, pp. 179 sqq.), asserts that this cannot be done; but his opinion is untenable. That testimony is particularly valuable against those who, for fear of the supernatural, refuse to acknowledge miracles and prophecies as criteria of revelation.

Against this argument it will not do to quote Christ’s declaration: “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.”¹²⁵125John V, 31. No one will contend that a man’s testimony of himself, least of all that of the Godman, is per se untrustworthy. Therefore, the words quoted cannot possibly have this meaning. They are not the expression of Christ’s conviction, but that of His enemies, who unfairly interpreted the precept of Deuteronomy¹²⁶126Deut. XIX, 15; cfr. John VIII, 17 sq. that every accusation before a court of law should be confirmed by at least two witnesses, in such wise as to make it seem a condemnation of His testimony of Himself. John VIII, 14 evidently renders the Master’s opinion of His nature and mission most faithfully.

1. The Substance of Christ’s Testimony of Himself

We assert that Christ’s own testimony guarantees the divine origin of His teaching.

Standing before the people, in the presence of His disciples and the Sanhedrin, He declares Himself to be an extraordinary ambassador of God, nay, the consubstantial Son of God, and emphatically traces His teaching to divine revelation. This testimony is trustworthy, and, consequently, Jesus is an extraordinary ambassador of God, the consubstantial Son of God the Father, and His teaching is divine.

a) Jesus Christ is an extraordinary ambassador or minister of God. He was sent by the Father to teach mankind: “For from God I proceeded and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me.”¹²⁷127John VIII, 42: “Ego enim ex Deo processi et veni, neque enim a me ipso veni, sed ille me misit.” “I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The things therefore that I speak, even as the Father said unto me, so do I speak.”¹²⁸128John XII, 49 sq.: “Ego ex me ipso non sum locutus, sed qui misit me pater, ipse mihi mandatum dedit, quid dicam et quid loquar. Et scio, quia mandatum eius vita aeterna est. Quae ergo ego loquor, sicut dixit mihi pater, sic loquor.” “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth.”¹²⁹129John XVIII, 37: “Ego in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati.”

Christ is greater than the leaders of the Old Testament. He excels Abraham: “The Jews therefore said: … Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? … Jesus answered: … Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it and was glad. … Before Abraham was made, I am.”¹³⁰130John VIII, 52–58: “Dixerunt Iudaei: … Numquid tu maior es patre nostro Abraham, qui mortuus est? … Respondit Iesus: … Abraham pater vester exsultavit, ut videret diem meum, vidit et gavisus est … antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum.” Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 165 sqq. He outranks Moses: “You have heard what it was said to them of old [through Moses] … but I say to you. …”¹³¹131Matth. V, 21–48: “Audistis, quia dictum est antiquis [per Moysen] … ego autem dico vobis,” etc. He is greater than Jonas and Solomon: “Behold a greater than Jonas here, … behold a greater than Solomon here.”¹³²132Matth. XII, 41 sq.: “Ecce, plus quam Ionas, … quam Salomon hic.” He ranks high above King David: “How then does David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord saith to my Lord. … If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?”¹³³133Matth. XXII, 43 sqq.: “Quomodo ergo David in spiritu vocat eum dominum, dicens: dixit dominus domino meo … Si ergo David vocat eum dominum, quomodo filius eius est?” He excels all created beings by His perfect knowledge of God: “All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.”¹³⁴134Matth. XI, 27: “Omnia mihi tradita sunt a Patre meo. Et nemo novit filium nisi Pater, neque Patrem quis novit nisi filius, et cui voluerit filius revelare.” Cfr. Luke X, 22; John I, 18.

b) Jesus Christ is the consubstantial Son of God the Father. The name “Son of God” is frequently used in Holy Scripture (twenty-nine times in all, nineteen times by the Synoptists and ten times by St. John). As it is sometimes applied to men,¹³⁵135Cfr. John I, 12. per se no argument can be drawn from it for the metaphysical divine sonship of Christ.

Even more frequent than “Son of God” is the name “Son of man.” It is applied to Jesus seventy-two times in the Synoptic Gospels and fifteen times in the Gospel of St. John. It is Christ’s usual way of referring to Himself. The name “Son of man” is derived from Dan. VII, 13: “… in the vision of the night, … lo, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven.” Coming with the clouds of heaven, in Old Testament parlance, is a characteristic mark of the deity, and, applied to the “Son of man,” indicates His divine nature.¹³⁶136Cfr. Ps. CIII, 3; Is. XIX, 1. Cfr. A. E. J. Rawlinson (Prot.), The New Testament Doctrine of the Christ, London, 1926, Appended Note III: “On the Meaning and Use of the Title ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospels,” pp. 242–250; F. Tillmann, Der Menschensohn. Jesu Selbstzeugnis für seine messianische Würde, Freiburg i. B., 1907,—a splendid monograph, of which Rawlinson (ibid., p. 250, n. 4) says that, “despite the conservative presuppositions of Roman Catholic biblical scholarship, it is a scientific and competent piece of work.” On the concept “Son of Man” see J. Goettsberger, Das Buch Daniel übersetzt und erklärt, Bonn, 1928, pp. 54 sqq.

α) Jesus Christ is the Son of the Heavenly Father in a unique sense. Whenever He refers to the Father, He draws a distinction between Himself and the remainder of mankind, putting Himself on a higher level than the others: “Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.”¹³⁷137Matth. V, 48: “Estote ergo vos perfecti, sicut et pater vester caelestis perfectus est.” “Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven …”¹³⁸138Matth. VI, 9: “Sic ergo vos orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in caelis.” “Did you not know, that I must be about my Father’s business?”¹³⁹139Luke II, 49: “Nesciebatis, quia in his, quae patris mei sunt, oportet me esse?” “I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father.”¹⁴⁰140John XX, 17: “Nondum ascendi ad patrem meum; vade autem ad fratres meos et dic eis: ascendo ad patrem meum et patrem vestrum.” Cfr. A. E. J. Rawlinson, The New Testament Doctrine of the Christ, pp. 251 sqq.

β) He is consubstantial with, i. e., of the same substance or nature as the Father. The Synoptic Gospels are usually said to contain no reference to the consubstantiality of Christ with God the Father; yet St. Matthew tells us that when He was adjured by the High Priest to tell if He were Christ, the Son of God, He answered: “Thou hast said it; nevertheless I say to you: hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”¹⁴¹141Matth. XXVI, 63 sq.; cfr. Mark XIV, 61 sq. “Thou hast said it” is a Hebraism equivalent to our: Yes, I am. And thus Rösch well renders it. So also Matth. XXVII, 11–12: Pilate: Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus answered: Thou sayest it, i. e., Yes, I am. And thus Rösch again translates it. The High Priest in his question emphasized the phrase, “Son of God,” as can be clearly seen from the second part of Christ’s answer, in which He attributes divine dignity to the Son of man by saying that He will “come in the clouds of heaven,” and also from the report of St. Luke, according to which the first question, “If thou be the Christ, tell us,” was followed by a second, to wit: “Art thou then the Son of God?”¹⁴²142Luke XXII, 66; 70; Matth. XVI, 16.—the reply to which entails His condemnation, as recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark.¹⁴³143Matth. XXVI, 65 sq.; Mark XIV, 63 sq.

The Jewish High Priest regarded Christ’s profession of His divine sonship as a blasphemy. This is explicable only if he understood Christ to represent Himself as the Son of God in the strict metaphysical sense of the term.

We have additional evidence for our thesis in the profession of St. Peter: “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,”¹⁴⁴144Matth. XVI, 16: “Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi.” for which this Apostle was called blessed by the Master.¹⁴⁵145Matth. XVI, 17. What Peter proclaimed as his conviction, is thus recognized as the objective truth by Christ and attributed to divine inspiration: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”¹⁴⁶146Ibid.

In the parallel passages—Mark VIII, 29 and Luke IX, 20—the expression “Son of God” is absent from the profession of St. Peter, whence some argue that this title is identical with Christ (or Messias) in the Gospel of St. Matthew and that it excludes consubstantiality with the Father, since the contemporaries of Our Lord did not conceive of the Messias as the metaphysical Son of God, i. e., as true God.¹⁴⁷147M. J. Lagrange, Le Messianisme chez les Juifs, Paris, 1909, p. 218. Hence, they say, when Christ called Peter blessed because the truth which he professed had been revealed to him by the Father, He referred solely to His Messianic dignity, which was as yet unknown to the other Apostles, as their answer shows. We reply that neither in the Old nor in the New Testament was the title “Son of God” ever regarded as a synonym of, or included in, the Jewish term Messias.¹⁴⁸148We purposely disregard 4 Esdr. VII, 28 and the parallels, where the Messias is called (not consubstantial) “Son of God” (cfr. F. Tillmann, Das Selbstbewusstsein des Gottessohnes, 3rd ed., Bibl. Zeitfragen, 4. Folge, Heft 11/12, Münster i. W., 1921, pp. 18 sqq.), since our opponents date this book about 70 A.D. (cfr. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Vol. III, 4th ed., Leipsic, 1909, pp. 320 sqq.) In the Old Testament the term “Son of God” (aside from Ps. II, 7, where it is merely mentioned in passing) does not occur at all as a name for the Messias. In the New Testament it is found in many passages, but, as in Ps. II, 7, always has a signification far transcending the purely human notion of the Jewish Messias. There is no doubt about this, so far as the second Psalm and the Apostolic writings are concerned; but it can also be demonstrated with regard to the Gospels. “Son of God” was not familiar to the contemporaries of Jesus as an appellation of the Messias.¹⁴⁹149Cfr. Lagrange, Le Messianisme chez les Juifs, pp. 213 sqq. The name was uttered by the angel who announced the birth of Christ,¹⁵⁰150Luke I, 32, 35. by the voice that came from heaven at His Baptism in the Jordan,¹⁵¹151Matth. III, 17; Mark I, 11; Luke III, 22. and at the Transfiguration on Thabor,¹⁵²152Matth. XVII, 5; Mark IX, 7; Luke IX, 35. by John the Baptist,¹⁵³153John I, 34; III, 35 sq. by the devil when he tempted our Saviour in the desert,¹⁵⁴154Matth. IV, 3, 6; Luke IV, 3, 9. by divers persons possessed of demons,¹⁵⁵155Matth. VIII, 29; Mark III, 11; V, 7; Luke IV, 41; VIII, 28. by some of the disciples,¹⁵⁶156Matth. XIV, 33; XVI, 16; John I, 49; VI, 69 [?], XI, 27. by the members of the Sanhedrin,¹⁵⁷157Matth. XXVI, 63, Mark XIV, 61; Luke XXII, 70. and other enemies of Jesus,¹⁵⁸158Matth. XXVII, 40; 43; John XIX, 7. and, finally, by Jesus Himself.¹⁵⁹159John IX, 35 [?]; X, 36; XI, 4. All those who applied the title “Son of God” to Jesus Christ owed their knowledge of this Messianic appellation partly to supernatural revelation (like John the Baptist, Nathanael, the devil, and the persons possessed by evil spirits), partly to definite utterances of Jesus Himself (like the disciples,¹⁶⁰160Matth. XIV, 33. Martha, the Sanhedrists and the other enemies of Jesus, perhaps also the demons). Hence, “Son of God” in the Gospels has the meaning which Christ and divine revelation attach to it. Christ’s own view has been explained above. Revelation must necessarily agree with this view because the declaration of Christ, as we shall show further on, is true. Consequently, wherever Christ is called “Son of God” in the Gospels (including Matth. XVI, 16), the meaning is that He is of the same nature as the Father in Heaven. That the parallel passages to Matth. XVI, 16 do not contain the title “Son of God,” is attributable to the fact that SS. Mark and Luke, who wrote for pagan converts, unacquainted with the Jewish idea of the Messias, simply substituted for that term the Christian concept, which implies consubstantiality with the Father,¹⁶¹161Cfr. Luke XXII, 66 sqq. and consequently, were in a position to omit the adjunct “Filius Dei” without incurring the danger of misunderstanding. St. Matthew, on the other hand, who wrote for converts from Judaism, in order to make his meaning clear and to prevent misconceptions, had to emphasize Christ’s divine sonship.

More numerous than in the Synoptics are the texts affirming the divine sonship of Christ in the Gospel of St. John. This fact is easily explained in view of the peculiar purpose of the Fourth Gospel.

At the very beginning of the public life of the Redeemer we meet with Nathanael’s implied profession: “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God.”¹⁶²162John I, 49: “Rabbi, tu es filius Dei.” Jesus confirmed him in his belief and promised him that he would “see greater things” than he had already witnessed.¹⁶³163John I, 50: “Quia dixi tibi: vidi te sub ficu, credis; maius his videbis.”

To those who persecuted Him because He cured the sick on the Sabbath, Jesus said: “My Father worketh until now, and I work.”¹⁶⁴164John V, 17: “Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor.” As the Father works on the Sabbath, so also the Son. In other words, Jesus puts His activity on a level with that of God and asserts His consubstantiality with the Father. Hence, the Evangelist’s comment: “Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.”¹⁶⁵165John V, 18: “Propterea ergo magis quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo.” And in order that no one might remain in doubt concerning the signification of His words, He solemnly reiterated His statement: “Amen, amen I say unto you, the Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he [the Father] doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.”¹⁶⁶166John V, 19: “Amen, amen dico vobis: non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem; quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et filius similiter facit.”

When the Jews came round and said to Him: “How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly,”¹⁶⁷167John X, 24: “Quousque animam nostram tollis? Si tu es Christus, dic nobis palam.” Jesus replied among other things: “I and the Father are one.”¹⁶⁸168John X, 30: “Ego et pater unum sumus.” The Jews regarded these words as blasphemous and picked up stones to kill him, justifying their conduct as follows: “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”¹⁶⁹169John X, 33: “De bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia, et quia tu, homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum.” Jesus answered that if the Scripture had the right to call the Old Testament Judges, who were simple representatives of Yahweh, “gods,”¹⁷⁰170Cfr. Ps. LXXXI, 6. no one should take offence if He, who was the extraordinary ambassador of the Father, called Himself Son of God.¹⁷¹171John X, 34–36. He added that He would go farther and call Himself Son of God in the strict and proper sense of the term, and that He expected them to believe His words. But if they did not wish to believe His assurance that He was consubstantial with the Father, they should at least believe His works.¹⁷²172John X, 38: “Si mihi non vultis credere, operibus credite, ut cognoscatis et credatis, quia pater in me est et ego in patre.”

With equal clearness Jesus on a subsequent occasion affirmed His divine sonship: “He that believeth in me, doth not believe in me, but in him that sent me. And he that seeth me, seeth him that sent me.”¹⁷³173John XII, 44 sq.: “Qui credit in me, non credit in me, sed in eum, qui misit me. Et qui videt me, videt eum, qui misit me.” And again: “Philip, he that seeth me, seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father [is] in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.”¹⁷⁴174John XIV, 9 sq.: “Philippe, qui videt me, videt et patrem. Quomodo tu dicis: Ostende nobis patrem? Non creditis, quia ego in patre, et pater in me est? Verba quae ego loquor vobis, a me ipso non loquor. Pater autem in me manens, ipse facit opera.” “All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine.”¹⁷⁵175John XVI, 15: “Omnia quaecunque habet pater, mea sunt.” It is in the light of these utterances that we must interpret the accusation made against Jesus before Pilate: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”¹⁷⁶176John XIX, 7: “Nos legem habemus et secundum legem debet mori, quia filium Dei se fecit.” On the divine sonship of Christ see Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 49 sqq. Only on the supposition that Christ had declared Himself to be the consubstantial Son of the Father, could He be charged with a crime subject to the death penalty under the law of Moses.¹⁷⁷177Lev. XXIV, 16.

c) The teaching of Jesus was derived from divine revelation. If Jesus was true God, then His teaching must necessarily be divine. He, moreover, repeatedly affirmed its divine character. When, for instance, the Jews marveled at the wisdom of His preaching, He said: “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.”¹⁷⁸178John VII, 16: “Mea doctrina non est mea, sed eius qui misit me.” And upon another occasion: “He that sent me is true: and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world. … I speak that which I have seen with my Father. … But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God.”¹⁷⁹179John VIII, 26, 38, 40: “Qui misit me verax est, et ego quae audivi ab eo, haec loquor in mundo. … Ego quod vidi apud patrem meum loquor. … Nunc autem quaeritis me interficere hominem, qui veritatem vobis locutus sum, quam audivi a Deo.” And: “For I have not spoken of myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak.”¹⁸⁰180John XII, 49: “Ego ex me ipso non sum locutus, sed qui misit me, pater. Ipse mihi mandatum dedit, quid dicam et quid loquar.” And again: “The word which you have heard, is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me.”¹⁸¹181John XIV, 24: “Sermonem, quem audistis, non est meus, sed eius, qui misit me, patris.” And once more: “I have called you friends: because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you.”¹⁸²182John XV, 15: “Vos autem dixi amicos, quia omnia, quaecumque audivi a patre meo, nota feci vobis.”—From a purely apologetical point of view it is necessary to prove only the divine mission of Jesus. Since apologetics is concerned with the divine character of the religion instituted by Him, it is sufficient to prove either that He claimed to be sent by God to do this work or that He claimed that His teaching was of divine origin, and that one or other of these alternatives, or both if one wishes, are confirmed by miracles. His Divine Sonship need not be proved. It belongs to the context of revelation and is accepted with all the other doctrines, once the divine mission of Jesus is proved.

2. The Truth of Christ’s Testimony of Himself

The weight of the testimonies we have quoted depends upon their truth, and this in turn on the credibility of the witness. Since there is question here, not of external events, but of internal facts of self-consciousness, we shall have to establish the credibility of Christ by demonstrating that He was not deceived as to His Person, work, and mission, but able and willing to tell the truth.

a) Christ was not deceived with regard to Himself, but knew the truth and therefore was able to tell it.

Self-deception has its source either in the will or in the intellect. The will may deceive if it is blinded by pride, ambition, or success; the intellect, if it is unbalanced by disease. Neither the one nor the other abnormality can be shown to have existed in the case of our Saviour.

α) Christ was not blinded by pride, ambition, or success. He had not a vestige of vanity in Him. On the contrary, His life and teaching are a standing admonition to humility.¹⁸³183Matth. XI, 29; XX, 28; Luke XXII, 25 sqq.; John XIII, 4 sqq. Nor was He ambitious and greedy of honors. The Messianic ideal of His contemporaries with its external pomp was foreign to His mind.¹⁸⁴184Luke XVII, 20. He did not seek the company of the rich and powerful, but preached with predilection to the poor.¹⁸⁵185Luke IV, 18; VII, 22. When the people tried to crown Him, He “fled into the mountain himself alone,”¹⁸⁶186John VI, 15. and when they paid homage to Him as their temporal ruler, He wept over their folly.¹⁸⁷187Luke XIX, 41 sqq.

The success of His public career cannot possibly have awakened in Him the idea that He was the promised Messias and the Son of God, for he regarded Himself as such from the very beginning.¹⁸⁸188John I, 45 sqq.

β) Christ’s testimony of Himself did not originate in a diseased mind. His case shows no signs of insanity. There are no indications at any time of fanatical exaltation, an unguarded imagination, or inconsistency of thought. On the contrary, His bearing is characterized by security and calm, all His words and actions testify to an extraordinary degree of prudence and wisdom. “He did not talk like an enthusiast and a fanatic, who sees only one red-hot spot, and so is blind to the world and all it contains. He is possessed of a quiet, uniform, collected demeanor, with everything directed to one goal. He never uses any ecstatic language, and the tone of stirring prophecy is rare. Entrusted with the greatest of all missions, his eye and ear are open to every impression of the life around Him—a proof of intensive calm and imperturbable security.”¹⁸⁹189A. von Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums, Leipsic, 1920, pp. 22 sq. (Engl. tr., What Is Christianity? pp. 30 sq.)

b) Christ did not intend to deceive men, but wished to speak the truth. If He had intended to deceive men concerning His Person, mission, and doctrine, His testimony of Himself would be sheer fraud, His entire public life would be one enormous outrage. What no one else ever dared to do, He would have been guilty of, namely, representing Himself falsely as God, unjustly claiming for Himself the highest veneration and love of men, and imposing His doctrines upon all under pain of eternal damnation. Had He been an impostor, we should have to regard Him—sit venia verbo—as the meanest scoundrel that ever lived.

In the light of the historical evidence nothing would be more unjustifiable than such a view of the Personality of Christ. Every page of the New Testament proves the contrary. Nowhere is it possible to discover a defect or even a moral weakness in the character of Christ. On the contrary, He is the very embodiment of holiness and virtue.

α) Christ is sinless. He challenges His bitterest enemies to convict Him of sin.¹⁹⁰190John VIII, 46. Though they watched Him closely, they could find no guilt in Him. The High Priest and the Sanhedrin sought witnesses against Him, but were able to procure only two, whose testimony was manifestly false.¹⁹¹191Matth. XXVI, 59–60; Mark XIV, 56: “Multi enim testimonium falsum dicebant adversus eum.” Herod and Pilate declared Him innocent.¹⁹²192Matth. XXVII, 24; Luke XXIII, 4, 14 sq.; John XVIII, 38. Judas committed suicide when he realized that he had betrayed an innocent man.¹⁹³193Matth. XXVII, 3 sqq. Paul, who first persecuted Him and then became His most ardent disciple, declared Him “holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.”¹⁹⁴194Heb. VII, 26. On the sinlessness of Christ see Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 207 sqq.; L. Atzberger, Die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, Munich, 1883.

β) But Christ is not only sinless. He is a sublime model of virtue and holiness. He fulfils His duties towards God in a most perfect manner. To do the will of God is His food and drink,¹⁹⁵195John IV, 34. His rule of conduct even in the darkest hours of His life.¹⁹⁶196Luke XXII, 42. He is “obedient unto death.”¹⁹⁷197Phil. II, 8.

He is equally perfect in His intercourse with men. Up to His thirtieth year He humbly obeys His parents.¹⁹⁸198Luke II, 51; III, 23. He loves His disciples, the sinners, the sick,¹⁹⁹199John XV, 13 sqq.; XVII, 11 sqq.; Acts X, 38; Luke XIX, 10; Matth. IV, 23; Luke VI, 17 sqq. His fellow-Jews,²⁰⁰200Luke XIX, 41 sqq. and all men in general.²⁰¹201Matth. XXVIII, 19 sq.; John XII, 32; XVII, 20 sqq.

Withal He is ever humble and modest, demands nothing for Himself, and regulates His conduct strictly according to the law. He begins His public career by a long and severe fast,²⁰²202Matth. IV, 2. often retires for whole nights into the desert to pray,²⁰³203Matth. XIV, 23; Mark I, 35; Luke VI, 12. and has not enough property to be able to sleep under His own roof.²⁰⁴204Matth. VIII, 20. He is greatest in suffering. Patiently and uncomplainingly He, the most innocent of mortals, bears bitter contumely and racking pains. At the moment of His death He utters a prayer for His enemies.

Thus Jesus Christ stands before us, unique, great, sublime, the beau ideal and exemplar of purity and virtue. To doubt His veracity, to denounce Him as a fraud, would be to destroy the credibility of human testimony. If Christ’s testimony of Himself is unworthy of belief, no man can claim the confidence of his fellowmen. Veracity can have no adequate foundation in human nature if Christ was not morally perfect. To destroy faith in Him is to destroy faith in human testimony and to subvert the very basis of society.

Hence, we must insist that the testimony of Jesus is true and reliable. He was able to speak the truth and wished to speak it. His wisdom and holiness are our surest guaranty. We cannot reasonably doubt that He was an extraordinary ambassador of God, nay, the only-begotten consubstantial Son of the Father, and that His teaching was divine. And since that teaching is the foundation of the New Testament, the Christian religion is undoubtedly of divine origin.

Objections Refuted

The enemies of Christianity do not dare to denounce Christ as a deceiver, but in order to eliminate the superhuman, divine element from His career, they attack the credibility of His testimony by pointing to certain alleged pathological symptoms in His mental life. To make this theory appear less shocking, its advocates assert that many other great historical characters, e. g., St. Paul, Cæsar, Muhammad, Napoleon, etc., were mentally abnormal. They admit that Christ was great, holy, wise, and normally sane, but assert that there were pathological elements in his character which go far towards explaining His success.²⁰⁵205This is the contention of O. Holtzmann, War Jesus Ekstatiker? Tübingen and Leipsic, 1903; E. Rasmussen, Jesus: eine vergleichende psychopathologische Studie, Leipsic, 1905; de Loosten, Jesus vom Standpunkte des Psychiaters, Bamberg, 1905; J. Baumann, Die Gemütsart Jesu, Leipsic, 1908. What these writers call pathological is nothing else but the supernatural, divine element in the life of Christ. It is charged in particular that

1. His contemporaries regarded Him as mentally unsound. Even His relatives admitted that He was insane at times,²⁰⁶206Mark III, 20 sq. and the Pharisees held that He was possessed by the devil.²⁰⁷207Mark III, 22; cfr. John X, 20.

As regards the relatives of Jesus, it is not certain that the Evangelist’s phrase, “they said” (ἔλεγον), is intended to apply to them. St. Mark’s observation that the Scribes said He was possessed by Beelzebub, indicates that these words were spoken by the enemies of Jesus. However, it is possible that His relatives actually believed that He had lost His reason. Perhaps they were at first unable to explain on another theory His sudden change of life and His public preaching after so many years of retirement. But they must have changed their mind before long, for we read that several of them became His disciples. The assertion of the Pharisees that Jesus was possessed by a devil was inspired by the false idea which the Jews generally entertained concerning the promised Messias. It had become known that Jesus claimed to be the Messias, but since His humble appearance and His poverty did not agree with the idea which His contemporaries had formed of the Messias as a political leader and a king after the model of David, they regarded His Messianic consciousness as a figment of His imagination and attributed it to insanity or diabolic possession.

2. Jesus positively and definitely predicted that He would return “in the clouds, with great power and majesty,”²⁰⁸208Mark XIII, 26. before the present generation had passed away,²⁰⁹209Mark XIII, 30. before the Gospel had been preached in all the cities of Israel.²¹⁰210Matth. X, 23. These predictions, we are told, are plain symptoms of an unbalanced mind, especially in view of the fact that they did not come true.

In order not to misunderstand Christ’s prophecies regarding His return, we must distinguish in them two distinct and separate trains of thought. On one occasion He speaks of His return at the end of the world and says it will not take place until the Gospel has been preached to all nations and the Kingdom of God, in which good and bad exist side by side, is completed.²¹¹211Matth. XIII, 24–30, 37–43; Mark XIII, 10; Matth. XXIV, 14. No one knows the day or the hour when He will return. On another occasion Jesus speaks of His return as an event which many of His contemporaries will live to see. This proximate parousia of the Son of man began with His glorious Resurrection, manifested itself in the spiritual transformation of the Apostles on Pentecost, took visible shape in the divine judgment that overwhelmed the city of Jerusalem in the year 70, and will be concluded at the end of the world, when the Saviour will return in person to judge the living and the dead. Thus Christ’s prophecy concerning His return has already been partly fulfilled and may not be treated as the product of an irresponsible mind.

3. The sharp words which Jesus employed against the Pharisees,²¹²212Matth. XII, 34; XXIII, 13 sqq.; Mark VII, 6, 9. the curse He pronounced upon the barren fig tree, and the violent measures He took against the money-changers in the Temple,²¹³213Mark XI, 12–20. are interpreted as symptoms of nervous irritability and a disturbed soul life. But the proceeding against the Pharisees and money-changers in the Temple loses the character of abnormality if we remember that the religious life of that time consisted almost wholly of external ceremonies, that even the worship of God was regarded as a mere business affair, that the Pharisees by their hypocritical conduct fooled the people and combated Jesus tooth and nail. This condition of affairs necessarily disturbed the mind of Jesus and filled Him with indignation and anger. For precisely that which He esteemed most highly, viz.: the interior life, sincerity and truthfulness in religion, was grossly disregarded, and the people were systematically deterred from the practice of these virtues. Christ’s energetic measures against these abuses, therefore, are merely powerful manifestations of His moral conviction, which formed the sharpest possible contrast to the immoral conduct of the Pharisees and money-changers.

The curse pronounced against the fig tree, in view of the Master’s usual kindness and moderation, must not be regarded simply as the result of an impatient and angry mood. The fig tree with its fruits occurs frequently in the sermons of Jesus as a symbol of human life, and no doubt His conduct on this occasion had a profound symbolical meaning. The curse pronounced against the barren tree was probably intended to point out the fate of the man who produces no fruit, i. e., good works.

4. It is said that Jesus had no respect for His parents and did not appreciate the advantages of family life. As a twelve-year-old boy He remained in the Temple unknown to Mary and Joseph;²¹⁴214Luke II, 41–51. at the marriage feast of Cana He returned a harsh answer to His Mother;²¹⁵215John II, 4. He treated His relatives coldly when they desired to speak to Him whilst He was addressing the people,²¹⁶216XII, 46 sqq.; Mark III, 32 sqq.; Luke VIII, 19 sqq. and He showed little consideration for the feelings of those who wished to become His disciples.²¹⁷217Matth. VIII, 21 sq.; Luke IX, 59 sqq. All these things are said to be obvious symptoms of an unsound mind.

In order to judge correctly Christ’s attitude toward His relatives, friends, and disciples, we must bear in mind the purpose for which He had come into the world. His principal aim was to win humanity for the Kingdom of Heaven and the life beyond. This was the sublime object to which all His preaching and His whole activity was made subservient, and the work of accomplishing that object was so sacred to Him that everything else, including His intercourse with His nearest relatives, had to take second place. It was His wish that His disciples, too, should in all their doings be governed chiefly by the thought of the Heavenly Kingdom. Hence, His admonition to them to leave the burial of the dead and household cares to others²¹⁸218Matth. VIII; Luke IX. and to devote themselves entirely to the service of God. This admonition is merely the practical application of the commandment: “Seek ye first the kingdom of God.”²¹⁹219Matth. VI, 33. Whatever harshness there may have been in His words and conduct was calculated to induce men, to whom the visible and material always appeals more strongly than the invisible and the spiritual, to turn their attention to “the one thing necessary.”²²⁰220Luke X, 42. This, too, is the meaning of the commandment to “hate” father and mother, wife and children, brethren and sisters, yea, life itself.²²¹221Luke XIV, 26; John XII, 25. That He did not employ the term “hate” in its strict sense, but merely to indicate a less degree of love, is evident in the light of the great central precept of charity and the parallel text Matth. X, 37. It is even more evident when understood in the light of the Hebrew (or Semitic) idiom: When two things of different value are compared with each other:

a) the better one is affirmed, “the inferior denied”; “misericordiam volo et non sacrificium” (Acts 5, 4); “non est mentitus hominibus, sed Deo.”

b) the better one is loved, the lesser hated: “Iacob dilexit Esau … vero odio habens,” Jacob loved Rachel and hated Lea.

c) the better one is chosen, the lesser rejected, e. g. 1 Kings XVI, 7–10.

As regards the words which Christ spoke to His mother at the marriage feast of Cana, it is to be remarked that the Greek text does not sound nearly as harsh as the English, “Woman, what is that to me and to thee?”²²²222John II, 4. The contemptuous connotation of our word “woman” in this context must not be transferred to the Aramaic original. Nevertheless, we are constrained to admit that the words quoted contain a refusal of Mary’s request. As in the Temple, when He was only twelve years old, so again on this occasion, Christ sets up the will of His Heavenly Father against the wish of His earthly mother. Now that His public career as Messias has begun, His mother no longer exercises a controlling influence over Him. This interpretation agrees with the immediately following words, which had best be couched in the form of a question, to wit: “Has not my hour come?”—that is to say, “You know very well that my hour, i. e., the time of my Messianic ministry, has come, and I now have to be guided solely by the will of my Father.” This attitude fully explains His answer to His mother. Mary, intent upon helping the bridal couple through her intercession with her Son, misunderstands the second part of His answer and thinks He is about to comply with her petition; hence, her order to the waiters: “Whatever he shall say to you, do ye.”²²³223John II, 5. No lack of consideration and love for His mother can be found in the words of Jesus except by those who deny His divine nature and place Him on a level with ordinary mortals.

5. It is further alleged that Jesus was subject to hallucinations and visions, because St. Luke quotes Him as saying: “I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven,”²²⁴224Luke X, 18. and St. Matthew relates that when He was baptized by John in the Jordan, “he saw the spirit of God descending as a dove and coming upon him,” and heard “a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”²²⁵225Matth. III, 16 sq.; cfr. John I, 32 sqq. Attention is also called to St. Mark’s account of the Transfiguration.²²⁶226Mark IX, 2–9.

It must be admitted that incidents like those mentioned above may be the product of hallucination. But this does not by any means justify the conclusion that such is always the case. From the theistic point of view we have to reckon with the possibility of supernatural occurrences, i. e., miracles. Everything depends on the account given of such an event. If trustworthy witnesses confirm its objective reality, we have no right to doubt it, even if it cannot be explained by natural means, as is the case here. The Evangelists report phenomena which (aside from the fall of Satan, which must no doubt be interpreted figuratively) were perceived not only by Jesus, but also by other witnesses. At Christ’s Baptism, John saw the Holy Ghost descending in the form of a dove,²²⁷227John I, 32. and Peter, James, and John at Christ’s Transfiguration on the mountain beheld their Master glorified, with Moses and Elias at His side, and heard a voice out of the cloud saying: “This is my beloved Son; hear ye him.”²²⁸228Mark IX, 6. Only dread of the supernatural and a priori disbelief in miracles can persuade one to assume hallucinations under such conditions.

6. As lunatics sometimes imagine they are guided by a strange power which eggs them on with irresistible force, so Jesus is said to have felt Himself dependent upon a spirit, which He conceived as a personal being. This spirit entered into relation with Him at His baptism,²²⁹229Matth. III, 16. “remained upon him,”²³⁰230John I, 32. and drove him into the desert.²³¹231Mark I, 12. Jesus sighed²³²232Mark VIII, 12. and rejoiced²³³233Luke X, 21. in this spirit, and gave it back into the hands of His Father at death.²³⁴234Luke XXIII, 46.

But the Greek word πνεῦμα not only means spirit (Holy Ghost), but also “soul.” When the sacred writers say that the spirit descended upon Jesus, remained with Him, drove Him into the desert, and so forth, they refer to the Holy Ghost or the special divine guidance which Jesus enjoyed. He rejoiced in the Holy Ghost, in so far as His joy and the success of His disciples were attributable to the grace of the Holy Ghost. But when the sacred writers say that Jesus sighed in the spirit, or commended His spirit to the Father when He died, they plainly refer to His soul, its interior commotion²³⁵235Cfr. John XI, 38. and separation from the body. There is no reasonable motive for interpreting the respective Gospel texts differently.

7. Another defect which some of the higher critics pretend to have discovered in Christ, is excessive egoism. He regards Himself as the Redeemer who takes away the sins of the world.²³⁶236Matth. XVIII, 11; Luke XIX, 10. He imagines He is the Messias and the Son of God. He demands that men should love Him more dearly than their nearest relatives.²³⁷237Matth. X, 37; Luke XIV, 26. All these things, it is asserted, are symptoms of an abnormal egoism.

This theory would be well founded if the doctrines and claims of Christ were not fully guaranteed by His wisdom and sanctity. Since this is the case, however, there is no justification for speaking of exaggerated egoism. As the Messias and the consubstantial Son of God, Jesus simply could not have spoken and acted differently than the Gospels tell us that He did.

For further reading, see page 345.