iginal and sole destiny
it was to come into the world to represent _the Father_? The words are
overweighted with manifold contrast. The judges were persons "to whom"
the word of God came, as from without; Jesus was a person Himself "sent
into the world" from God, therefore surely more akin to God than they
were. The judges represented God by virtue of a commission received in
the course of their career--the word of God _came_ to them: Jesus, on
the other hand, represented God because "sanctified," that is, set apart
or consecrated for this purpose before He came into the world, and
therefore obviously occupying a higher and more important position than
they. But, especially, the judges were appointed to discharge one
limited and temporary function, for the discharge of which it was
sufficient that they should know the law of God; whereas it was "the
Father," the God of universal relation and love, who consecrated Jesus
and sent Him into the world, meaning now to reveal to men what lies
deepest in His nature, His love, His fatherhood. The idea of the purpose
for which Christ was sent into the world is indicated in the emphatic
use of "the Father." He was sent to do the works of the Father (ver.
37); to manifest to men the benignity, tenderness, compassion of the
Father; to encourage them to believe that the Father, the Source of all
life, was in their midst accessible to them. If Jesus failed to reveal
the Father, He had no claim to make. "If I do not the works of My
Father, believe Me not." But if He did such works as declared the Father
to be in their midst, then, as bearing the Father in Him and doing the
Father's will, He might well be called "the Son of God." "Though ye
believe not Me, believe the works; that ye may know, and believe, that
the Father is in Me, and I in Him."

There can be no question, then, of the conclusiveness with which our
Lord rebutted the charge of blasphemy. By a single sentence He put them
in the position of presumptuously contradicting their own Scriptures.
But weightier questions remain behind. Did Jesus merely seek to parry
their thrust, or did He mean positively to affirm that He was God? His
words do not carry a direct and explicit affirmation of His Divinity.
Indeed, to a hearer His comparison of Himself with the judges would
necessarily rather tend to veil the full meaning of His previous claims
to pre-existence and superhuman dignity. On reflection, no doubt the
hearers might see tha