14
'THE KING’S ’BUSINESS
revelation. This general view is confirmed by His detailed references. There is scarcely an historical book from Genesis to 2 Chronicles to which our Lord does not ■refer, and it is hardly without significance that His testimony includes ref erences to the very parts-of the Old Testa ment which are most called in question to-day. But it is said that our Lord only took the ordinary views o f His time and that He was limited in knowledge as well as in other respects by reason o f His incarnation. It is, o f course, perfectly true that our Lord’s earthly life was limited, and if this is to be described as jHis Kenosis, br Self-empty ing, there can be no doubt o f the essential truth o f limitation. But if His silences were part o f His limitation, so were His utterances also. On more than one occa sion He claimed that everything He Said had the Divine warrant, and we must notice carefully what this involves. Suppose we grant that our Lord’s knowledge was lim ited because He, lived here as Man, not a,s God. Very well; as Man He claimed that everything He said and did was from God, and through God, and if therefore the limi tations were from God, so also were the utterances, and as - God’s warrant was claimed for every one o f these, they are therefore Divine and infallible. We are justified in urging that the utterances as well as the silences must be faced, because God was behind both. The fact is that it is impossible to speak o f our Lord’s Keno- sis, or Self-emptying, without at the same time remembering His Plerosis, or Divine Fulness o f Word and Work. So that even though we may grant to the full a theory that will compel us to accept a temporary disuse, or non-use, o f the functions o f the Deity, yet the words actually uttered as Man are claimed to be from God, and on this account we hold them to be infallible. Besides, want o f knowledge is, not error. Our Lord may have been limited without being, in error in regard to what He actu ally said. He may not have known every thing, but what He knew He knew. Some
years ago Professor Kehnett, o f Cam bridge, wrote on “ Christ the Interpreter of Prophecy,” apd the comments o f the Editor o f the Expository Times are worth notic ing. “ Have the men who make so much of the ‘ignorance’ o f our Lord considered this matter fully? They say that His knowl edge o f the Old Testament was the knowl edge o f contemporary Judaism; they say that when He spoke o f the 110th Psalm as David’s He knew no better. Have they considered how often He separated Himself from contemporary Judaism when He had occasion to refer to. the Old Testament? In this very conversation on the 110th Psalm He asked a simple question. He referred to an obvious difficulty; ‘If David calls the Messiah his Lord, how is He then his Son?' But, obvious as it was, the Pharisees ,had not thought o f it and could not answer Him.” It should bd carefully noted that after the Resurrection there could be no ques tion o f any partial knowledge," since our Lord was manifestly free from all earthly limitations. Yet it was a'fter His Resur rection also that He set His seal to the Old Testament (Luke xXiv. 44). W e con clude, therefore, that our Lord’s positive statements with regard to the Old Testa ment are not to be rejected without charg ing Him with error. Have'those who ac cept such a possibility faced the conse quences o f it? V. The Testimony of Spiritual Experience. For most 'Christian people the simplest and most conclusive proof o f the Bible will be that which is derived from their own use ‘o f Holy Scripture in daily life and work. First-and foremost, Scripture is a spiritual book brought home to the heart o f the Holy Spirit, and it is just here that criticism fails us. A learned writer justly says : “ I am struck with the absence o f any sign o f an experience distinctively Chris tian in many o f those who discuss the sanctuaries o f the Christian faith. Some o f these scholars, to judge from their
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs