Chapter II: Doctrine Of The Trinity (1)

In the nature of the one God there are three eternal distinctions which are represented to us under the figure of persons, and these three are equal. This tripersonality of the Godhead is exclusively a truth of revelation. It is clearly, though not formally, made known in the New Testament, and intimations of it may be found in the Old.

The doctrine of the Trinity may be expressed in the six following statements: 1. In Scripture there are three who are recognized as God. 2. These three are so described in Scripture that we are compelled to conceive of them as distinct persons. 3. This tripersonality of the divine nature is not merely economic and temporal, but is immanent and eternal. 4. This tripersonality is not tritheism; for while there are three persons, there is but one essence. 5. The three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are equal. 6. Inscrutable yet not self-contradictory, this doctrine furnishes the key to all other doctrines.—These statements we proceed now to prove and to elucidate.

Reason shows us the Unity of God; only revelation shows us the
Trinity of God, thus filling out the indefinite outlines of this
Unity and vivifying it. The term “Trinity” is not found in
Scripture, although the conception it expresses is Scriptural. The
invention of the term is ascribed to Tertullian. The Montanists
first defined the personality of the Spirit, and first formulated
the doctrine of the Trinity. The term “Trinity” is not a
metaphysical one. It is only a designation of four facts: (1) the
Father is God; (2) the Son is God; (3) the Spirit is God; (4)
there is but one God.

Park: “The doctrine of the Trinity does not on the one hand assert
that three persons are united in one person, or three beings in
one being, or three Gods in one God (tritheism); nor on the other
hand that God merely manifests himself in three different ways
(modal trinity, or trinity of manifestations); but rather that
there are three eternal distinctions in the substance of God.”
Smyth, preface to Edwards, Observations on the Trinity: “The
church doctrine of the Trinity affirms that there are in the
Godhead three distinct hypostases or subsistences—the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit—each possessing one and the same divine
nature, though in a different manner. The essential points are (1)
the unity of essence; (2) the reality of immanent or ontological
distinctions.” See Park on Edwards’s View of the Trinity, in Bib.
Sac., April, 1881:333. Princeton Essays, 1:28—“There is one God;
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are this one God; there is such a
distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit as to lay a
sufficient ground for the reciprocal use of the personal
pronouns.” Joseph Cook: “(1) The Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost are one God; (2) each has a peculiarity incommunicable to
the others; (3) neither is God without the others; (4) each, with
the others, is God.”

We regard the doctrine of the Trinity as implicitly held by the
apostles and as involved in the New Testament declarations with
regard to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while we concede that the
doctrine had not by the New Testament writers been formulated.
They held it, as it were in solution; only time, reflection, and
the shock of controversy and opposition, caused it to crystalize
into definite and dogmatic form. Chadwick, Old and New
Unitarianism, 59, 60, claims that the Jewish origin of
Christianity shows that the Jewish Messiah could not originally
have been conceived of as divine. If Jesus had claimed this, he
would not have been taken before Pilate,—the Jews would have
dispatched him. The doctrine of the Trinity, says Chadwick, was
not developed until the Council of Nice, 325. E. G. Robinson:
“There was no doctrine of the Trinity in the Patristic period, as
there was no doctrine of the Atonement before Anselm.” The
Outlook, Notes and Queries, March 30, 1901—“The doctrine of the
Trinity cannot be said to have taken final shape before the
appearance of the so-called Athanasian Creed in the 8th or 9th
century. The Nicene Creed, formulated in the 4th century, is
termed by Dr. Schaff, from the orthodox point of view,
‘semi-trinitarian.’ The earliest time known at which Jesus was
deified was, after the New Testament writers, in the letters of
Ignatius, at the beginning of the second century.”

Gore, Incarnation, 179—“The doctrine of the Trinity is not so much
heard, as overheard, in the statements of Scripture.” George P.
Fisher quotes some able and pious friend of his as saying: “What
meets us in the New Testament is the _disjecta membra_ of the
Trinity.” G. B. Foster: “The doctrine of the Trinity is the
Christian attempt to make intelligible the personality of God
without dependence upon the world.” Charles Kingsley said that,
whether the doctrine of the Trinity is in the Bible or no, it
ought to be there, because our spiritual nature cries out for it.
Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 1:250—“Though the doctrine of the
Trinity is not discoverable by human reason, it is susceptible of
a rational defense, when revealed.” On New England Trinitarianism,
see New World, June, 1896:272-295—art. by Levi L. Paine. He says
that the last phase of it is represented by Phillips Brooks, James
M. Whiton and George A. Gordon. These hold to the essential
divineness of humanity and preëminently of Christ, the unique
representative of mankind, who was, in this sense, a true
incarnation of Deity. See also, L. L. Paine, Evolution of
Trinitarianism, 141, 287.

Neander declared that the Trinity is not a fundamental doctrine of
Christianity. He was speaking however of the speculative,
metaphysical form which the doctrine has assumed in theology. But
he speaks very differently of the devotional and practical form in
which the Scriptures present it, as in the baptismal formula and
in the apostolic benediction. In regard to this he says: “We
recognize therein the essential contents of Christianity summed up
in brief.” Whiton, Gloria Patri, 10, 11, 55, 91, 92—“God
transcendent, the Father, is revealed by God immanent, the Son.
This one nature belongs equally to God, to Christ, and to mankind,
and in this fact is grounded the immutableness of moral
distinctions and the possibility of moral progress.... The
immanent life of the universe is one with the transcendent Power;
the filial stream is one with its paternal Fount. To Christ
supremely belongs the name of Son, which includes all that life
that is begotten of God. In Christ the before unconscious Sonship
of the world awakes to consciousness of the Father. The Father is
the Life transcendent, above all; the Son is Life immanent,
through all; the Holy Spirit is the Life individualized, in all.
In Christ we have collectivism; in the Holy Spirit we have
individualism; as Bunsen says: ‘The chief power in the world is
personality.’ ”

For treatment of the whole doctrine, see Dorner, System of
Doctrine, 1:344-465; Twesten, Dogmatik, and translation in Bib.
Sac., 3:502; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:145-199; Thomasius, Christi
Person und Werk, 1:57-135; Kahnis, Dogmatik, 3:203-229; Shedd,
Dogm. Theol., 1:248-333, and History of Doctrine, 1:246-385;
Farrar, Science and Theology, 138; Schaff, Nicene Doctrine of the
Holy Trinity, in Theol. Eclectic, 4:209. For the Unitarian view,
see Norton, Statement of Reasons, and J. F. Clarke, Truths and
Errors of Orthodoxy.

I. In Scriptures there are Three who are recognized as God.

1. Proofs from the New Testament.

A. The Father is recognized as God.

The Father is recognized as God,—and that in so great a number of passages (such as John 6:27—“him the Father, even God, hath sealed,” and 1 Pet. 1:2—“foreknowledge of God the Father”) that we need not delay to adduce extended proof.

B. Jesus Christ is recognized as God.

(_a_) He is expressly called God.

In John 1:1—Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος—the absence of the article shows Θεός to be the predicate (_cf._ 4:24—πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός). This predicate precedes the verb by way of emphasis, to indicate progress in the thought = “the Logos was not only with God, but was God” (see Meyer and Luthardt, Comm. _in loco_). “Only ὁ λόγος can be the subject, for in the whole Introduction the question is, not who God is, but who the Logos is” (Godet).

Westcott in Bible Commentary, _in loco_—“The predicate stands
emphatically first. It is necessarily without the article,
inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not
identify his person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say: ‘The
Word was ὁ Θεός.’ Thus in verse 1 we have set forth the Word in
his absolute eternal being, (_a_) his existence: beyond time;
(_b_) his personal existence: in active communion with God; (_c_)
his nature: God in essence.” Marcus Dods, in Expositor’s Greek
Testament, _in loco_: “The Word is distinguishable from God, yet
Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος—the word was God, of divine nature; not ‘a God,’
which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable, nor yet
identical with all that can be called God, for then the article
would have been inserted (_cf._ 1 John 3:4).”

In John 1:18, μονογενὴς θεός—“the only begotten God”—must be regarded as the correct reading, and as a plain ascription of absolute Deity to Christ. He is not simply the only revealer of God, but he is himself God revealed.

_John 1:18—_“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten
God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” In
this passage, although Tischendorf (8th ed.) has μονογενὴς ὑιός,
Westcott and Hort (with א*BC*L Pesh. Syr.) read μονογενὴς Θεός and
the Rev. Vers. puts “_the only begotten God_” in the margin,
though it retains “_the only begotten Son_” in the text. Harnack
says the reading μονογενὴς θεός is “established beyond
contradiction”; see Westcott, Bib. Com. on John, pages 32, 33.
Here then we have a new and unmistakable assertion of the deity of
Christ. Meyer says that the apostles actually call Christ God only
in _John 1:1_ and _20:28_, and that Paul never so recognizes him.
But Meyer is able to maintain his position only by calling the
doxologies to Christ, in _2 Tim. 4:18_, _Heb. 13:21_ and _2 Pet.
3:18_, post-apostolic. See Thayer, N. T. Lexicon, on Θεός, and on
μονογενής.

In John 20:28, the address of Thomas Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου—“My Lord and my God”—since it was unrebuked by Christ, is equivalent to an assertion on his own part of his claim to Deity.

_John 20:28—_“Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my
God.” This address cannot be interpreted as a sudden appeal to God
in surprise and admiration, without charging the apostle with
profanity. Nor can it be considered a mere exhibition of
overwrought enthusiasm, since it was accepted by Christ. Contrast
the conduct of Paul and Barnabas when the heathen at Lystra were
bringing sacrifice to them as Jupiter and Mercury (_Acts
14:11-18_). The words of Thomas, as addressed directly to Christ
and as accepted by Christ, can be regarded only as a just
acknowledgment on the part of Thomas that Christ was his Lord and
his God. Alford, Commentary, _in loco_: “The Socinian view that
these words are merely an exclamation is refuted (1) by the fact
that no such exclamations were in use among the Jews; (2) by the
εἶπεν αὐτῷ; (3) by the impossibility of referring the ὁ κύριός μου
to another than Jesus: see _verse 13_; (4) by the N. T. usage of
expressing the vocative by the nominative with an article; (5) by
the psychological absurdity of such a supposition: that one just
convinced of the presence of him whom he dearly loved should,
instead of addressing him, break out into an irrelevant cry; (6)
by the further absurdity of supposing that, if such were the case,
the Apostle John, who of all the sacred writers most constantly
keeps in mind the object for which he is writing, should have
recorded anything so beside that object; (7) by the intimate
conjunction of πεπίστευκας.” _Cf._ _Mat. 5:34—_“Swear not ... by
the heaven”—swearing by Jehovah is not mentioned, because no Jew
did so swear. This exclamation of Thomas, the greatest doubter
among the twelve, is the natural conclusion of John’s gospel. The
thesis “the Word was God”_ (John 1:1)_ has now become part of the
life and consciousness of the apostles. _Chapter 21_ is only an
Epilogue, or Appendix, written later by John, to correct the error
that he was not to die; see Westcott, Bible Com., _in loco_. The
Deity of Christ is the subject of the apostle who best understood
his Master. Lyman Beecher: “Jesus Christ is the acting Deity of
the universe.”

In Rom. 9:5, the clause ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητός cannot be translated “blessed be the God over all,” for ὢν is superfluous if the clause is a doxology; “εὐλογητός precedes the name of God in a doxology, but follows it, as here, in a description” (Hovey). The clause can therefore justly be interpreted only as a description of the higher nature of the Christ who had just been said, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, or according to his lower nature, to have had his origin from Israel (see Tholuck, Com. _in loco_).

Sanday, Com. on _Rom. 9:5_—“The words would naturally refer to
Christ, unless ‘_God_’ is so definitely a proper name that it
would imply a contrast in itself. We have seen that this is not
so.” Hence Sanday translates: “_of whom is the Christ as
concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever_”. See
President T. Dwight, in Jour. Soc. Bib. Exegesis, 1881:22-55; _per
contra_, Ezra Abbot, in the same journal, 1881:1-19, and Denney,
in Expositor’s Gk. Test., _in loco_.

In Titus 2:13, ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ we regard (with Ellicott) as “a direct, definite, and even studied declaration of Christ’s divinity” = “the ... appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (so English Revised Version). Ἐπιφάνεια is a term applied specially to the Son and never to the Father, and μεγάλου is uncalled for if used of the Father, but peculiarly appropriate if used of Christ. Upon the same principles we must interpret the similar text 2 Pet. 1:1 (see Huther, in Meyer’s Com.: “The close juxtaposition indicates the author’s certainty of the oneness of God and Jesus Christ”).

_Titus 2:13—_“looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the
glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ”—so the English
Revised Version. The American Revisers however translate: “the
glory of the great God and Savior”; and Westcott and Hort bracket
the word ἡμῶν. These considerations somewhat lessen the cogency of
this passage as a proof-text, yet upon the whole the balance of
argument seems to us still to incline in favor of Ellicott’s
interpretation as given above.

In Heb. 1:8, πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν; ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ Θεὸς, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is quoted as an address to Christ, and verse 10 which follows—“Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth”—by applying to Christ an Old Testament ascription to Jehovah, shows that ὁ Θεός, in verse 8, is used in the sense of absolute Godhead.

It is sometimes objected that the ascription of the name God to
Christ proves nothing as to his absolute deity, since angels and
even human judges are called gods, as representing God’s authority
and executing his will. But we reply that, while it is true that
the name is sometimes so applied, it is always with adjuncts and
in connections which leave no doubt of its figurative and
secondary meaning. When, however, the name is applied to Christ,
it is, on the contrary, with adjuncts and in connections which
leave no doubt that it signifies absolute Godhead. See _Ex.
4:16—_“thou shalt be to him as God”; _7:1—_“See, I have made thee
as God to Pharaoh”; _22:28—_“Thou shalt not revile God, [marg.,
_the judges_], nor curse a ruler of thy people”; _Ps. 82:1—_“God
standeth in the congregation of God; he judgeth among the gods”
[among the mighty]; _6—_“I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons
of the Most High”; _7—_“Nevertheless ye shall die like men, And
fall like one of the princes.” _Cf._ _John 10:34-36—_“If he called
them gods, unto whom the word of God came” (who were God’s
commissioned and appointed representatives), how much more proper
for him who is one with the Father to call himself God.

As in _Ps. 82:7_ those who had been called gods are represented as
dying, so in _Ps. 97:7—_“Worship him, all ye gods”—they are bidden
to fall down before Jehovah. Ann. Par. Bible: “Although the
deities of the heathen have no positive existence, they are often
described in Scripture as if they had, and are represented as
bowing down before the majesty of Jehovah.” This verse is quoted
in _Heb. 1:6—_“let all the angels of God worship him”—_i. e._,
Christ. Here Christ is identified with Jehovah. The quotation is
made from the Septuagint, which has “_angels_” for “_gods_.” “Its
use here is in accordance with the spirit of the Hebrew word,
which includes all that human error might regard as objects of
worship.” Those who are figuratively and rhetorically called
“_gods_” are bidden to fall down in worship before him who is the
true God, Jesus Christ. See Dick, Lectures on Theology, 1:314;
Liddon, Our Lord’s Divinity, 10.

In 1 John 5:20—ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεός—“it would be a flat repetition, after the Father had been twice called ὁ ἀληθινός, to say now again: ‘this is ὁ ἀληθενὸς Θεός.’ Our being in God has its basis in Christ his Son, and this also makes it more natural that οὖτος should be referred to υἱῷ. But ought not ὁ ἀληθενός then to be without the article (as in John 1:1—Θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος)? No, for it is John’s purpose in 1 John 5:20 to say, not _what_ Christ is, but _who_ he is. In declaring _what_ one is, the predicate must have no article; in declaring _who_ one is, the predicate must have the article. St. John here says that this Son, on whom our being in the true God rests, is this true God himself” (see Ebrard, Com. _in loco_).

Other passages might be here adduced, as _Col. 2:9—_“in him
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”; _Phil
2:6—_“existing in the form of God”; but we prefer to consider
these under other heads as indirectly proving Christ’s divinity.
Still other passages once relied upon as direct statements of the
doctrine must be given up for textual reasons. Such are _Acts
20:28_, where the correct reading is in all probability not
ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, but ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Κυρίου (so ACDE Tregelles
and Tischendorf; B and א, however, have τοῦ Θεοῦ. The Rev. Vers.
continues to read “_church of God_”; Amer. Revisers, however, read
“church of the Lord”—see Ezra Abbot’s investigation in Bib. Sac.,
1876: 313-352); and _1 Tim. 3:16_, where ὅς is unquestionably to
be substituted for Θεός, though even here ἐφανερώθη intimates
preëxistence.

Rev. George E. Ellis, D. D., before the Unitarian Club, Boston,
November, 1882—“Fifty years of study, thought and reading given
largely to the Bible and to the literature which peculiarly
relates to it, have brought me to this conclusion, that the
book—taken with the especial divine quality and character claimed
for it, and so extensively assigned to it, as inspired and
infallible as a whole, and in all its contents—is an Orthodox
book. It yields what is called the Orthodox creed. The vast
majority of its readers, following its letter, its obvious sense,
its natural meaning, and yielding to the impression which some of
its emphatic texts make upon them, find in it Orthodoxy. Only that
kind of ingenious, special, discriminative, and in candor I must
add, forced treatment, which it receives from us liberals can make
the book teach anything but Orthodoxy. The evangelical sects, so
called, are clearly right in maintaining that their view of
Scripture and of its doctrines draws a deep and wide division of
creed between them and ourselves. In that earnest controversy by
pamphlet warfare between Drs. Channing and Ware on the one side,
and Drs. Worcester and Woods and Professor Stuart on the other—a
controversy which wrought up the people of our community sixty
years ago more than did our recent political campaign—I am fully
convinced that the liberal contestants were worsted. Scripture
exegesis, logic and argument were clearly on the side of the
Orthodox contestants. And this was so, mainly because the liberal
party put themselves on the same plane with the Orthodox in their
way of regarding and dealing with Scripture texts in their bearing
upon the controversy. Liberalism cannot vanquish Orthodoxy, if it
yields to the latter in its own way of regarding and treating the
whole Bible. Martin Luther said that the Papists burned the Bible
because it was not on their side. Now I am not about to attack the
Bible because it is not on my side; but I am about to object as
emphatically as I can against a character and quality assigned to
the Bible, which it does not claim for itself, which cannot be
certified for it: and the origin and growth and intensity of the
fond and superstitious influences resulting in that view we can
trace distinctly to agencies accounting for, but not warranting,
the current belief. Orthodoxy cannot readjust its creeds till it
readjusts its estimate of the Scriptures. The only relief which
one who professes the Orthodox creed can find is either by forcing
his ingenuity into the proof-texts or indulging his liberty
outside of them.”

With this confession of a noted Unitarian it is interesting to
compare the opinion of the so-called Trinitarian, Dr. Lyman
Abbott, who says that the New Testament nowhere calls Christ God,
but everywhere calls him man, as in _1 Tim. 2:5—_“for there is one
God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ
Jesus.” On this passage Prof. L. L. Paine remarks in the New
World, Dec. 1894—“That Paul ever confounded Christ with God
himself, or regarded him as in any way the Supreme Divinity, is a
position invalidated not only by direct statements, but also by
the whole drift of his epistles.”

(_b_) Old Testament descriptions of God are applied to him.

This application to Christ of titles and names exclusively appropriated to God is inexplicable, if Christ was not regarded as being himself God. The peculiar awe with which the term “Jehovah” was set apart by a nation of strenuous monotheists as the sacred and incommunicable name of the one self-existent and covenant-keeping God forbids the belief that the Scripture writers could have used it as the designation of a subordinate and created being.

_Mat. 3:3—_“Make ye ready the way of the Lord”—is a quotation from
_Is. 40:3—_“Prepare ye ... the way of Jehovah.” _John
12:41—_“These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he
spake of him” [_i. e._, Christ]—refers to _Is. 6:1—_“In the year
that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne.” So in
_Eph. 4:7, 8—_“measure of the gift of Christ ... led captivity
captive”—is an application to Christ of what is said of Jehovah in
_Ps. 68:18_. In _1 Pet. 3:15_, moreover, we read, with all the
great uncials, several of the Fathers, and all the best versions:
“sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord”; here the apostle borrows
his language from _Is. 8:13_, where we read: “_Jehovah of hosts,
him shall ye sanctify_.” When we remember that, with the Jews,
God’s covenant-title was so sacred that for the Kethib (=
“written”) _Jehovah_ there was always substituted the Keri (=
“read”—imperative) _Adonai_, in order to avoid pronunciation of
the great Name, it seems the more remarkable that the Greek
equivalent of “Jehovah” should have been so constantly used of
Christ. _Cf._ _Rom. 10:9—_“confess ... Jesus as Lord”; _1 Cor.
12:3—_“no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit.” We
must remember also the indignation of the Jews at Christ’s
assertion of his equality and oneness with the Father. Compare
Goethe’s, “Wer darf ihn nennen?” with Carlyle’s, “the awful
Unnameable of this Universe.” The Jews, it has been said, have
always vibrated between monotheism and moneytheism. Yet James, the
strongest of Hebrews, in his Epistle uses the word ’Lord’ freely
and alternately of God the Father and of Christ the Son. This
would have been impossible if James had not believed in the
community of essence between the Son and the Father.

It is interesting to note that 1 Maccabees does not once use the
word Θεός or κύριος, or any other direct designation of God unless
it be οὐρανός (_cf._ “swear ... by the heaven”_—Mat. 5:34_). So
the book of Esther contains no mention of the name of God, though
the apocryphal additions to Esther, which are found only in Greek,
contain the name of God in the first verse, and mention it in all
eight times. See Bissell, Apocrypha, in Lange’s Commentary;
Liddon, Our Lord’s Divinity, 93; Max Müller on Semitic Monotheism,
in Chips from a German Workshop, 1:337.

(_c_) He possesses the attributes of God.

Among these are life, self-existence, immutability, truth, love, holiness, eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence. All these attributes are ascribed to Christ in connections which show that the terms are used in no secondary sense, nor in any sense predicable of a creature.

_Life_: _John 1:4—_“In him was life”; _14:6—_“I am ... the life.”
_Self-existence_: _John 5:26—_“have life in himself”; _Heb.
7:16—_“power of an endless life.” _Immutability_: _Heb.
13:8—_“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and
forever.” _Truth_: _John 14:6—_“I am ... the truth”; _Rev.
3:7—_“he that is true.” _Love_: _1 John 3:16—_“Hereby know we
love” (τὴν ἀγάπην = the personal Love, as the personal Truth)
“_because he laid down his life for us_.” _Holiness_: _Luke
1:35—_“that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of
God”; _John 6:69—_“thou art the Holy One of God”; _Heb.
7:26—_“holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners.”

_Eternity_: _John 1:1—_“In the beginning was the Word.” Godet says
ἐν ἀρχῇ = not “in eternity,” but “in the beginning of the
creation”; the eternity of the Word being an inference from the
ἦν—the Word _was_, when the world was _created_: _cf._ _Gen.
1:1—_“In the beginning God created.” But Meyer says, ἐν ἀρχῇ here
rises above the historical conception of “_in the beginning_” in
Genesis (which includes the beginning of time itself) to the
absolute conception of anteriority to time; the creation is
something subsequent. He finds a parallel in _Prov. 8:23—ἐν ἀρχῇ
πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι_. The interpretation “in the beginning of
the gospel” is entirely unexegetical; so Meyer. So _John
17:5—_“glory which I had with thee before the world was”; _Eph.
1:4—_“chose us in him before the foundation of the world.” Dorner
also says that ἐν ἀρχῇ in _John 1:1_ is not “the beginning of the
world,” but designates the point back of which it is impossible to
go, _i. e._, eternity; the world is first spoken of in _verse 3.
John 8:58—_“Before Abraham was born, I am”; _cf._ _1:15_; _Col.
1:17—_“he is before all things”; _Heb. 1:11_—the heavens “_shall
perish; but thou continuest_”; _Rev. 21:6—_“I am the Alpha and the
Omega, the beginning and the end.”

_Omnipresence_: _Mat. 28:20—_“I am with you always”; _Eph.
1:23—_“the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” _Omniscience_:
_Mat. 9:4—_“Jesus knowing their thoughts”; _John 2:24, 25—_“knew
all men ... knew what was in man”; _16:30—_“knowest all things”;
_Acts 1:24—_“Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men”—a
prayer offered before the day of Pentecost and showing the
attitude of the disciples toward their Master; _1 Cor. 4:5—_“until
the Lord come, who will both bring to light the hidden things of
darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts”; _Col.
2:3—_“in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
hidden.” _Omnipotence_: _Mat. 27:18—_“All authority hath been
given unto me in heaven and on earth”; _Rev. 1:8—_“the Lord God,
which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty.”

Beyschlag, N. T. Theology, 1:249-260, holds that Jesus’
preëxistence is simply the concrete form given to an ideal
conception. Jesus traces himself back, as everything else holy and
divine was traced back in the conceptions of his time, to a
heavenly original in which it preëxisted before its earthly
appearance; _e. g._: the tabernacle, in _Heb. 8:5_; Jerusalem, in
_Gal. 4:25_ and _Rev. 21:10_; the kingdom of God in _Mat. 13:24_;
much more the Messiah, in _John 6:62—_“ascending where he was
before”; _8:58—_“Before Abraham was born, I am”; _17:4, 5—_“glory
which I had with thee before the world was” _17:24—_“thou lovedst
me before the foundation of the world.” This view that Jesus
existed before creation only ideally in the divine mind, means
simply that God foreknew him and his coming. The view is refuted
by the multiplied intimations of a personal, in distinction from
an ideal, preëxistence.

Lowrie, Doctrine of St. John, 115—“The words ‘In the beginning’_
(John 1:1)_ suggest that the author is about to write a second
book of Genesis, an account of a new creation.” As creation
presupposes a Creator, the preëxistence of the personal Word is
assigned as the explanation of the being of the universe. The ἦν
indicates absolute existence, which is a loftier idea than that of
mere preëxistence, although it includes this. While John the
Baptist and Abraham are said to have arisen, appeared, come into
being, it is said that the Logos _was_, and that the Logos was
_God_. This implies coëternity with the Father. But, if the view
we are combating were correct, John the Baptist and Abraham
preëxisted, equally with Christ. This is certainly not the meaning
of Jesus in _John 8:58—_“Before Abraham was born, I am”; _cf._
_Col. 1:17—_“he is before all things”—“αὐτός emphasizes the
personality, while ἔστιν declares that the preëxistence is
absolute existence” (Lightfoot); _John 1:15—_“He that cometh after
me is become before me: for he was before me” = not that Jesus was
_born_ earlier than John the Baptist, for he was born six months
later, but that he _existed_ earlier. He stands before John in
rank, because he existed long before John in time; _6:62—_“the Son
of man ascending where he was before”; _16:28—_“I came out from
the Father, and am come into the world.” So _Is. 9:6, 7_, calls
Christ “_Everlasting Father_” = eternity is an attribute of the
Messiah. T. W. Chambers, in Jour. Soc. Bib. Exegesis,
1881:169-171—“Christ is the Everlasting One, ‘whose goings forth
have been from of old, even from the days of eternity’_ (Micah
5:2). _‘Of the increase of his government ... there shall be no
end,’ just because of his existence there has been no beginning.”

(d) The works of God are ascribed to him.

We do not here speak of miracles, which may be wrought by communicated power, but of such works as the creation of the world, the upholding of all things, the final raising of the dead, and the judging of all men. Power to perform these works cannot be delegated, for they are characteristic of omnipotence.

_Creation_: _John 1:3—_“All things were made through him”; _1 Cor.
8:6—_“one lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things”; _Col.
1:16—_“all things have been created through him, and unto him”;
_Heb, 1:10—_“Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation
of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands”; _3:3,
4—_“he that built all things is God” = Christ, the builder of the
house of Israel, is the God who made all things; _Rev. 3:14—_“the
beginning of the creation of God” (_cf._ Plato: “Mind is the ἀρχή
of motion”). _Upholding_: _Col. 1:17—_“in him all things consist”
(marg. “_hold together_”); _Heb. 1:3—_“upholding all things by the
word of his power.” _Raising the dead and judging the world_:
_John 5:27-29—_“authority to execute judgment ... all that are in
the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth”; _Mat.
25:31, 32—_“sit on the throne of his glory; and before him shall
be gathered all the nations.” If our argument were addressed
wholly to believers, we might also urge Christ’s work in the world
as Revealer of God and Redeemer from sin, as a proof of his deity.
[On the works of Christ, see Liddon, Our Lord’s Divinity, 153;
_per contra_, see Examination of Liddon’s Bampton Lectures, 72.]

Statements of Christ’s creative and of his upholding activity are
combined in _John 1:3, 4—Πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ
ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὅ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν—_“All things were made
through him; and without him was not anything made. That which
hath been made was life in him” (marg.). Westcott: “It would be
difficult to find a more complete consent of ancient authorities
in favor of any reading than that which supports this
punctuation.” Westcott therefore adopts it. The passage shows that
the universe 1. exists within the bounds of Christ’s being; 2. is
not dead, but living; 3. derives its life from him; see Inge,
Christian Mysticism, 46. Creation requires the divine presence, as
well as the divine agency. God creates through Christ. All things
were made, not ὐπὸ αὐτοῦ—“by him,” but δι᾽ αὐτοῦ—“through him.”
Christian believers “Behind creation’s throbbing screen Catch
movements of the great Unseen.”

Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, iv, lvi—“That which many a
philosopher dimly conjectured, namely, that God did not produce
the world in an absolute, immediate manner, but in some way or
other, mediately, here presents itself to us with the lustre of
revelation, and exalts so much the more the claim of the Son of
God to our deep and reverential homage.” Would that such
scientific men as Tyndall and Huxley might see Christ in nature,
and, doing his will, might learn of the doctrine and be led to the
Father! The humblest Christian who sees Christ’s hand in the
physical universe and in human history knows more of the secret of
the universe than all the mere scientists put together.

_Col 1:17—_“In him all things consist,” or “hold together,” means
nothing less than that Christ is the principle of cohesion in the
universe, making it a cosmos instead of a chaos. Tyndall said that
the attraction of the sun upon the earth was as inconceivable as
if a horse should draw a cart without traces. Sir Isaac Newton:
“Gravitation must be caused by an agent acting constantly
according to certain laws.” Lightfoot: “Gravitation is an
expression of the mind of Christ.” Evolution also is a method of
his operation. The laws of nature are the habits of Christ, and
nature itself is but his steady and constant will. He binds
together man and nature in one organic whole, so that we can speak
of a “universe.” Without him there would be no intellectual bond,
no uniformity of law, no unity of truth. He is the principle of
induction, that enables us to argue from one thing to another. The
medium of interaction between things is also the medium of
intercommunication between minds. It is fitting that he who draws
and holds together the physical and intellectual, should also draw
and hold together the moral universe, drawing all men to himself
(_John 12:32_) and so to God, and reconciling all things in heaven
and earth (_Col. 1:20_). In Christ “the law appears, Drawn out in
living characters,” because he is the ground and source of all
law, both in nature and in humanity. See A. H. Strong, Christ in
Creation, 6-12.

(_e_) He receives honor and worship due only to God.

In addition to the address of Thomas, in John 20:28, which we have already cited among the proofs that Jesus is expressly called God, and in which divine honor is paid to him, we may refer to the prayer and worship offered by the apostolic and post-apostolic church.

_John 5:23—_“that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the
Father”; _14:14—_“If ye shall ask me [so אB and Tisch. 8th ed.]
anything in my name, that will I do”; _Acts 7:59—_“Stephen,
calling upon the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”
(_cf._ _Luke 23:46_—Jesus’ words: “Father, into thy hands I
commend my spirit”); _Rom. 10:9—_“confess with thy mouth Jesus as
Lord”; _13—_“whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall
be saved” (_cf._ _Gen. 4:26—_“Then began men to call upon the name
of Jehovah”); _1 Cor. 11:24, 25—_“this do in remembrance of me” =
worship of Christ; _Heb. 1:6—_“let all the angels of God worship
him”; _Phil. 2:10, 11—_“in the name of Jesus every knee should bow
... every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord”; _Rev.
5:12-14—_“Worthy is the Lamb that hath been slain to receive the
power....”; _2 Pet. 3:18—_“Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be
the glory”; _2 Tim. 4:18 and Heb. 13:21—_“to whom be the glory for
ever and ever”—these ascriptions of eternal glory to Christ imply
his deity. See also _1 Pet. 3:15—_“Sanctify in your hearts Christ
as Lord,” and _Eph. 5:21—_“subjecting yourselves one to another in
the fear of Christ.” Here is enjoined an attitude of mind towards
Christ which would be idolatrous if Christ were not God. See
Liddon, Our Lord’s Divinity, 266, 366.

Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 154—“In the eucharistic
liturgy of the ‘Teaching’ we read: ‘Hosanna to the God of David’;
Ignatius styles him repeatedly God ‘begotten and unbegotten, come
in the flesh’; speaking once of ‘the blood of God’, in evident
allusion to _Acts 20:28_; the epistle to Diognetus takes up the
Pauline words and calls him the ‘architect and world-builder by
whom [God] created the heavens’, and names him God (chap. vii);
Hermas speaks of him as ‘the holy preëxistent Spirit, that created
every creature’, which style of expression is followed by Justin,
who calls him God, as also all the later great writers. In the
second epistle of Clement (130-160, Harnack), we read: ‘Brethren,
it is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God—as
the Judge of the living and the dead.’ And Ignatius describes him
as ‘begotten and unbegotten, passible and impassible, ... who was
before the eternities with the Father.’ ”

These testimonies only give evidence that the Church Fathers saw
in Scripture divine honor ascribed to Christ. They were but the
precursors of a host of later interpreters. In a lull of the awful
massacre of Armenian Christians at Sassouan, one of the Kurdish
savages was heard to ask: “Who was that ‘Lord Jesus’ that they
were calling to?” In their death agonies, the Christians, like
Stephen of old, called upon the name of the Lord. Robert Browning
quoted, in a letter to a lady in her last illness, the words of
Charles Lamb, when “in a gay fancy with some friends as to how he
and they would feel if the greatest of the dead were to appear
suddenly in flesh and blood once more—on the first suggestion,
‘And if Christ entered this room?’ changed his tone at once and
stuttered out as his manner was when moved: ‘You see—if Shakespere
entered, we should all rise; if He appeared, we must kneel.’ ” On
prayer to Jesus, see Liddon, Bampton Lectures, note F; Bernard, in
Hastings’ Bib. Dict., 4:44; Zahn, Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten
Kirche, 9, 288.

(_f_) His name is associated with that of God upon a footing of equality.

We do not here allude to 1 John 5:7 (the three heavenly witnesses), for the latter part of this verse is unquestionably spurious; but to the formula of baptism, to the apostolic benedictions, and to those passages in which eternal life is said to be dependent equally upon Christ and upon God, or in which spiritual gifts are attributed to Christ equally with the Father.

_The formula of baptism_: _Mat. 28:19—_“baptising them into the
name of the father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”; _cf._
_Acts 2:38—_“be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ”; _Rom. 6:3—_“baptized into Christ Jesus.” “In the common
baptismal formula the Son and the Spirit are coördinated with the
Father, and εἰς ὄνομα has religious significance.” It would be
both absurd and profane to speak of baptizing into the name of the
Father and of Moses.

_The apostolic benedictions_: _1 Cor. 1:3—_“Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”; _2 Cor.
13:14—_“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” “In the
benedictions grace is something divine, and Christ has power to
impart it. But why do we find ‘God,’ instead of simply ‘the
Father,’ as in the baptismal formula? Because it is only the
Father who does not become man or have a historical existence.
Elsewhere he is specially called ‘_God the Father_,’ to
distinguish him from God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (_Gal.
1:3_; _Eph. 3:14_; _6:23_).”

_Other passages_: _John 5:23—_“that all may honor the Son, even as
they honor the Father”; _John 14:1—_“believe in God, believe also
in me”—double imperative (so Westcott, Bible Com., _in loco_);
_17:3—_“this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only
true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ”; _Mat.
11:27—_“no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any
know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son
willeth to reveal him”; _1 Cor. 12:4-6—_“the same Spirit ... the
same Lord [Christ] ... the same God” [the Father] bestow spiritual
gifts, _e. g._, faith: _Rom. 10:17—_“belief cometh of hearing, and
hearing by the word of Christ”; peace: _Col. 3:15—_“let the peace
of Christ rule in your hearts.” _2 Thess. 2:16, 17—_“now our lord
Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father ... comfort your
hearts”—two names with a verb in the singular intimate the oneness
of the Father and the Son (Lillie). _Eph. 5:5—_“kingdom of Christ
and God”; _Col. 3:1—_“Christ ... seated on the right hand of God”
= participation in the sovereignty of the universe,—the Eastern
divan held not only the monarch but his son; _Rev. 20:6—_“priests
of God and of Christ”; _22:3—_“the throne of God and of the Lamb”;
_16—_“the root and the offspring of David” = both the Lord of
David and his son. Hackett: “As the dying Savior said to the
Father, ‘Into thy hands I commend my spirit’_ (Luke 23:46)_, so
the dying Stephen said to the Savior, ‘receive my spirit’_ (Acts
7:59)_.”

(_g_) Equality with God is expressly claimed.

Here we may refer to Jesus’ testimony to himself, already treated of among the proofs of the supernatural character of the Scripture teaching (see pages 189, 190). Equality with God is not only claimed for himself by Jesus, but it is claimed for him by his apostles.

_John 5:18—_“called God his own Father, making himself equal with
God”; _Phil. 2:6—_“who, existing in the form of God, counted not
the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped”—counted
not his equality with God a thing to be forcibly retained. Christ
made and left upon his contemporaries the impression that he
claimed to be God. The New Testament has left, upon the great mass
of those who have read it, the impression that Jesus Christ claims
to be God. If he is not God, he is a deceiver or is self-deceived,
and, in either case, _Christus, si non Deus, non bonus_. See
Nicoll, Life of Jesus Christ, 187.

(_h_) Further proof of Christ’s deity may be found in the application to him of the phrases: “Son of God,” “Image of God”; in the declarations of his oneness with God; in the attribution to him of the fulness of the Godhead.

_Mat. 26:63, 64—_“I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell
us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto
him, Thou hast said”—it is for this testimony that Christ dies.
_Col. 1:15—_“the image of the invisible God”; _Heb. 1:3—_“the
effulgence of his [the Father’s] glory, and the very image of his
substance”; _John 10:30—_“I and the Father are one”; _14:9—_“he
that hath seen me hath seen the Father”; _17:11, 22—_“that they
may be one, even as we are”—ἕ, not εἰς; _unum_, not _unus_; one
substance, not one person. “_Unum_ is antidote to the Arian,
_sumus_ to the Sabellian heresy.” _Col. 2:9—_“in him dwelleth all
the fulness of the Godhead bodily”; _cf._ _1:19—_“for it was the
pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell;”
or (marg.) “_for the whole fulness of God was pleased to dwell in
him_.” _John 16:15—_“all things whatsoever the Father hath are
mine”; _17:10—_“all things that are mine are thine, and thine are
mine.”

Meyer on _John 10:30—_“I and the Father are one”—“Here the Arian
understanding of a mere ethical harmony as taught in the words
‘_are one_’ is unsatisfactory, because irrelevant to the exercise
of power. Oneness of essence, though not contained in the words
themselves, is, by the necessities of the argument, presupposed in
them.” Dalman, The Words of Jesus: “Nowhere do we find that Jesus
called himself the Son of God in such a sense as to suggest a
merely religious and ethical relation to God—a relation which
others also possessed and which they were capable of attaining or
were destined to acquire.” We may add that while in the lower
sense there are many “_sons of God_,” there is but one “_only
begotten Son_.”

(_i_) These proofs of Christ’s deity from the New Testament are corroborated by Christian experience.

Christian experience recognizes Christ as an absolutely perfect Savior, perfectly revealing the Godhead and worthy of unlimited worship and adoration; that is, it practically recognizes him as Deity. But Christian experience also recognizes that through Christ it has introduction and reconciliation to God as one distinct from Jesus Christ, as one who was alienated from the soul by its sin, but who is now reconciled through Jesus’s death. In other words, while recognizing Jesus as God, we are also compelled to recognize a distinction between the Father and the Son through whom we come to the Father.

Although this experience cannot be regarded as an independent witness to Jesus’ claims, since it only tests the truth already made known in the Bible, still the irresistible impulse of every person whom Christ has saved to lift his Redeemer to the highest place, and bow before him in the lowliest worship, is strong evidence that only that interpretation of Scripture can be true which recognizes Christ’s absolute Godhead. It is the church’s consciousness of her Lord’s divinity, indeed, and not mere speculation upon the relations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that has compelled the formulation of the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity.

In the letter of Pliny to Trajan, it is said of the early
Christians “quod essent soliti carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere
invicem.” The prayers and hymns of the church show what the church
has believed Scripture to teach. Dwight Moody is said to have
received his first conviction of the truth of the gospel from
hearing the concluding words of a prayer, “For Christ’s sake,
Amen,” when awakened from physical slumber in Dr. Kirk’s church,
Boston. These words, wherever uttered, imply man’s dependence and
Christ’s deity. See New Englander, 1878:432. In _Eph. 4:32_, the
Revised Version substitutes “_in Christ_” for “for Christ’s sake.”
The exact phrase “for Christ’s sake” is not found in the N. T. in
connection with prayer, although the O. T. phrase “for my name’s
sake”_ (Ps. 25:11)_ passes into the N. T. phrase “in the name of
Jesus”_ (Phil. 2:10)_; _cf._ _Ps. 72:15—_“men shall pray for him
continually” = the words of the hymn: “For him shall endless
prayer be made, And endless blessings crown his head.” All this is
proof that the idea of prayer for Christ’s sake is in Scripture,
though the phrase is absent.

A caricature scratched on the wall of the Palatine palace in Rome,
and dating back to the third century, represents a human figure
with an ass’s head, hanging upon a cross, while a man stands
before it in the attitude of worship. Under the effigy is this
ill-spelled inscription: “Alexamenos adores his God.”

This appeal to the testimony of Christian consciousness was first
made by Schleiermacher. William E. Gladstone: “All I write, and
all I think, and all I hope, is based upon the divinity of our
Lord, the one central hope of our poor, wayward race.” E. G.
Robinson: “When you preach salvation by faith in Christ, you
preach the Trinity.” W. G. T. Shedd: “The construction of the
doctrine of the Trinity started, not from the consideration of the
three persons, but from belief in the deity of one of them.” On
the worship of Christ in the authorized services of the Anglican
church, see Stanley, Church and State, 333-335; Liddon, Divinity
of our Lord, 514.

In contemplating passages apparently inconsistent with those now cited, in that they impute to Christ weakness and ignorance, limitation and subjection, we are to remember, first, that our Lord was truly man, as well as truly God, and that this ignorance and weakness may be predicated of him as the God-man in whom deity and humanity are united; secondly, that the divine nature itself was in some way limited and humbled during our Savior’s earthly life, and that these passages may describe him as he was in his estate of humiliation, rather than in his original and present glory; and, thirdly, that there is an order of office and operation which is consistent with essential oneness and equality, but which permits the Father to be spoken of as first and the Son as second. These statements will be further elucidated in the treatment of the present doctrine and in subsequent examination of the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

There are certain things of which Christ was ignorant: _Mark
13:32—_“of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the
angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” He was subject
to physical fatigue: _John 4:6—_“Jesus therefore, being wearied
with his journey, sat thus by the well.” There was a limitation
connected with Christ’s taking of human flesh: _Phil.
2:7—_“emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in
the likeness of men”; _John 14:28—_“the Father is greater than I.”
There is a subjection, as respects order of office and operation,
which is yet consistent with equality of essence and oneness with
God; _1 Cor. 15:28—_“then shall the Son also himself be subjected
to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all
in all.” This must be interpreted consistently with _John
17:5—_“glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I
had with thee before the world was,” and with _Phil. 2:6_, where
this glory is described as being “_the form of God_” and
“_equality with God_.”

Even in his humiliation, Christ was the Essential Truth, and
ignorance in him never involved error or false teaching. Ignorance
on his part might make his teaching at times incomplete,—it never
in the smallest particular made his teaching false. Yet here we
must distinguish between what he _intended_ to teach and what was
merely _incidental_ to his teaching. When he said: Moses “wrote of
me”_ (John 5:46)_ and “David in the Spirit called him Lord”_ (Mat.
22:43)_, if his purpose was to teach the authorship of the
Pentateuch and of the 110th Psalm, we should regard his words as
absolutely authoritative. But it is possible that he intended only
to _locate_ the passages referred to, and if so, his words cannot
be used to exclude critical conclusions as to their authorship.
Adamson, The Mind in Christ, 136—“If he spoke of Moses or David,
it was only to identify the passage. The authority of the earlier
dispensation did not rest upon its record being due to Moses, nor
did the appropriateness of the Psalm lie in its being uttered by
David. There is no evidence that the question of authorship ever
came before him.” Adamson rather more precariously suggests that
“there may have been a lapse of memory in Jesus’ mention of
‘Zachariah, son of Barachiah’_ (Mat. 23:35)_, since this was a
matter of no spiritual import.”

For assertions of Jesus’ knowledge, see _John 2:24, 25—_“he knew
all men ... he needed not that any one should bear witness
concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man”;
_6:64—_“Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed
not, and who it was that should betray him”; _12:33—_“this he
said, signifying by what manner of death he should die”;
_21:19—_“Now this he spake, signifying by what manner of death he
[Peter] should glorify God”; _13:1—_“knowing that his hour was
come that he should depart”; _Mat. 25:31—_“when the Son of man
shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall
he sit on the throne of his glory” = he knew that he was to act as
final judge of the human race. Other instances are mentioned by
Adamson, The Mind in Christ, 24-49: 1. Jesus’ knowledge of Peter
(_John 1:42_); 2. his finding Philip (_1:43_); 3. his recognition
of Nathanael (_1:47-50_); 4. of the woman of Samaria (_4:17-19,
39_); 5. miraculous draughts of fishes (_Luke 5:6-9_; _John
21:6_); 6. death of Lazarus (_John 11:14_); 7. the ass’s colt
(_Mat. 21:2_); 8. of the upper room (_Mark 14:15_); 9. of Peter’s
denial (_Mat. 26:34_); 10. of the manner of his own death (_John
12:33_; _18:32_); 11. of the manner of Peter’s death (_John
21:19_); 12. of the fall of Jerusalem (_Mat. 24:2_).