INCARNATION
708
INCARNATION
the Christ was the spokesman of the words of Mala-
chias. But the words of Malachias are uttered by
Jahweh the great God of Israel. Hence the Christ
or Messias and Jahweh are one and the same Divine
Person. The argument is rendered even more forcible
by the fact that not only is the speaker, Jahweh the
God of hosts, here one and the same with the Messias
before Whose face the Baptist went : but the prophecy
of the Lord's coming to the Temple applies to the
Messias a name that is ever reserv'ed for Jahweh alone.
That name is tnS. It occurs seven times (Ex., xxiii,
17: xxxiv, 23; Is., i, 24; iii, 1; x, 16 and 33; xix, 4)
outside of Malachias, and is clear in its reference to the
God of Israel. The last of the prophets of Israel gives
clear testimony that the Messias is the very God of
Israel Himself. This argument from the prophets in
favour of the Divinity of the Messias is most con-
vincing if received in the light of Christian revelation,
in which light we present it. The cumulative force
of the argument is well w'orked out in "Christ in Type
and Prophecy", by Maas.
B. New Testament Proofs. — We shall give the wit- ness of the Four Evangelists and of St. Paul. The argument from the New Testament has a cumulative weight that is overnhelming in its effectiveness, once the inspiration of the New Testament and the Divine ambassadorship of Jesus are proved (see Inspira- tion; Christi.\nity). The process of the Catholic apologetic and dogmatic upbuilding is logical and never-failing. The Catholic theologian first estal> lishes the teaching body to which Christ gave His deposit of revealed truth, to have and to keep and to hand down that deposit without error or failure. This teaching body gives us the Bible; and gives us the dogma of the Divinity of Christ in the unwritten and the written Word of God, i. e. in tradition and Scripture. When contrasted with the Protestant position upon "the Bible, the whole Bible and noth- ing but the Bible" — no, not even anything to tell us what is the Bil:)le and what is not the Biljle — the Catholic position upon the Christ-established, never- failing, never-erring teaching body is impregnable. The weakness of the Protestant position is evidenced in the matter of this very question of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the one and only rule of faith of I'nitarians, who deny the Divinitj' of Jesus; of Modernistic Protestants, who make out His Divin- ity to be an evolution of His inner consciousness; of all other Protestants, be their thoughts of Christ what- soever they may. The strength of the Catholic posi- tion will be clear to any one who has followed the trend of Modernism outside the Church and the suppression thereof within the pale.
(a) Witness of the Evangelists. — We here assume the Gospels to be authentic, historical dociiments given to us by the Church as the inspired Word of God. We waive the question of the dependence of Matthew upon the Logia, the origin of Mark from "Q", the literary or other dependence of Luke upon Mark; all these questions are treated in their proper places and do not belong here in the process of Catho- lic apologetic and dogmatic theology. We here argue from the Four Gospels as from the inspired Word of God. The witness of the Gospels to the Divinity of Christ is varied in kind.
(a) Jesus is the Divine Messias. — The Evangelists, as wo have seen, refer to the prophecies of the Divinity of the Me-ssias as fulfilled in Jesus (see Matt., i, 23; ii, 6. Mark, i, 2: Luke, vii, 27).
(j3) Jesus is the Son of God. — According to the testimony of the Evangelists, Jesus Himself bore witness to His Divine Sonship. As Divine Ambassa- dor He can not have borne fal.se witness.
Firstly, He asked the disciples, at Ciesarea Philippi, " Whom do men say that the Son of man is? " (Matt., xvi, 13). This name Son of man was commonly used by the Saviour in regard to Himself; it bore testimony
to His human nature and oneness with us. The
disciples made answer that others said He was one of
the prophets. Christ pressed them. " But whom do you
say that I am? " (ibid., 15). Peter, as spokesman, re-
plied: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God"
(ibid., 16). Jesus was satisfied with this answer;
it set Him above all the prophets who were the adopted
sons of God; it made Him the natural Son of God.
The adopted Divine sonship of all the prophets Peter
had no need of special revelation to know. This
natural Divine Sonship was made known to the leader
of the Apostles only by a special revelation. "Flesh
and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father
who is in heaven" (ibid., 17). Jesus clearly assumes
this important title in the specially revealed and alto-
gether new sense. He admits that He is the Son of
God in the real sense of the word.
Secondly, we find that He allowed others to give Him tliis title and to show by the act of real adoration that they meant real Sonship. The pos.sessed fell down and adored Him, and the unclean spirits cried out: "Thou art the Son of God" (Mark, iii, 12). After the stilling of the storm at sea. His disciples adored Him and said: "Indeed thou art the Son of God" (Matt., xiv, 33). Nor did He .suggest that they erred in that they gave Him the homage due to God alone. The centurion on Calvary (Matt., xxvii, 54; Mark, xv, 39), the Evangelist St. Mark (i, 1), the hypothetical testimony of Satan (Matt., iv, 3) and of the enemies of Christ (Matt., xxvii, 40) all go to show that Jesus was called and esteemed the Son of God. Jesus Himself clearly assumed the title. He con- stantly spoke of God as "My Father" (Matt., vii, 21; x, 32; xi, 27; xv, 13; xvi, 17, etc.).
Thirdly, the witness of Jesus to His Divine Sonship is clear enough in the Synoptics, as we see from the foregoing argmnent and shall see by the e.xegesis of other texts: but is perhaps even more evident in John. Jesus indirectly but clearly assumes the title when He says: " Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blas- phemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? . . . the Father is in me and I in the Father." (John, x, 36, 38.) An even clearer witness is given in the narrative of the cure of the blind man in Jeru.salem. Jesus said: "Dost thou believe in the Son of Goil?" He ans- wered, and said: "Who is he. Lord, that I may be- lieve in him? And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talkclh with thee. And he said: I believe. Lord. .\nd falling down, he adored him." (John, ix, 35-38.) Here as elsewhere, the act of adoration is allowed, and the implicit assent is in this wise given to the assertion of the Di\ine Sonship of Jesus.
Fourthlv, likewi.se to His enemies, Jesus made undoubted profession of His Divine Sonship in the real and not the figurative sense of the word; and the Jews understood Him to say that He was really God. His way of speaking had been somewhat esoteric. He spoke often in parables. He willed then, as He wills now, that faith be "the evidence of things that appear not" (Heb., xi, 1). The Jews tried to catch Him, to make Him speak openly. They met Him in the portico of Solomon and said: "How long dost thou hold our so\ds in suspen.se? If .thou be the Christ, tell us plainly " (John, x, 24). The answer of Jesus is typical. He puts them off for a while; and in the end tells them the tremendous truth: "I and the Father are one" (Jolm, x, 30). They take up stones to kill Him. He asks why. He makes them admit that they have understood Him aright. They answer: "For a good work we stone thee not, but for bla.sphemv; aiul because that thou, being a man, makest thyself (iod" (ibid., 33). These same ene- mies had clear statement of the claim of Jesus on the la.st night that He spent on earth. Twice He ap- peared before the Sanhedrim, the highest authority
