lly claim to be the Judge of all men, it is, I
believe, impossible to doubt. The passage just quoted is by no means our
only evidence. In the Sermon on the Mount, which foolish persons who
love to depreciate theology sometimes speak of as though it were the
pith and marrow of the Christian gospel, Christ says, "Many will say to
Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by Thy name, and by Thy
name cast out devils, and by Thy name do many mighty works? And then
will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work
iniquity." Again, He says, "Whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My
words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man also
shall be ashamed of Him when He cometh in the glory of His Father with
the holy angels;" and again, "The Son of Man shall come in the glory of
His Father with His angels; and then shall He render unto every man
according to His deeds." The fourth Gospel also represents Him as
saying, "Neither doth the Father judge any man, but He hath given all
judgment to the Son ... and He gave Him authority to execute judgment
because He is the Son of Man." And if still further evidence be
necessary it would be easy to show both from the Acts and the Epistles
that from the very beginning all the disciples of Jesus believed and
taught that He would come again to be their Judge.

Consider what this means. Reference has already been made in an earlier
chapter to Christ's witness concerning Himself, to His deep and
unwavering consciousness of separateness from all others. But more
striking, perhaps, than any illustration mentioned there is that
furnished by the fact before us now. What must His thoughts about
Himself have been who could speak of Himself in relation to all others
as Christ does here? When men write about Jesus as though He were merely
a gentle, trustful, religious genius, preaching a sweet gospel of the
love of God to the multitudes of Galilee, they are but shutting their
eyes to one half of the facts which it is their duty to explain.
Speaking generally, we do well to distrust the dilemma as a form of
argument; but in this case there need be no hesitation in putting the
alternative with all possible bluntness: either Christ was God, or He
was not good. That Jesus, if He were merely a good man, with a good
man's consciousness of and sensitiveness to His own weakness and
limitations, could yet have arrogated to Himself the right to be the
supreme judge