276
May 1924
T H E
K I N G ’ S
B U S I N E S S
This general view is confirmed by our Lord’s detailed references to the Old Testament. Consider His testimonies to the persons. Abel, Noah, Abraham, Lot’s wife, Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Daniel, Jonah— all these are referred to as historical. Then consider His testimonies to the facts of the old covenant; the Sabbath, marriage, the flood, the bush, the manna, the brazen serpent, the miracles of Elisha. Note, too, His claim to the prophecies: “ Moses wrote of Me” (John 5 :46 ); “ Abraham saw My day” (John 8:56). Isaiah 61 is fulfilled at Nazareth (Luke 4:21). There is scarcely a historical book, from Genesis to 2 Chronicled,: to which our Lord does not refer; while it is perhaps significant that His testimony includes references to every book of the Pentateuch, to Isaiah, to Jonah, to Daniel, the very parts most called in question today. Above all, it is surely of the deepest moment that at a very solemn hour of His life—His temptation-lgHe should use three times over as; the Word of God the book about which there has, perhaps, been most controversy of all. Again, therefore, we venture to say that everything to which Christ can be said, on any honest interpretation, to have referred, or which He used as a fact, is thereby sanctioned and' sealed by the authority of our Infallible Lord. “ Dominus locutus est; causa finita est.” “ The Lord has spoken; the matter is closed.” Did Jesus Know? Nor can this position be turned by the statement that our Lord simply, adopted the beliefs of His day without necessarily sanctioning them as correct. Of this there is not the slightest proof, but very much to the contrary. On some of the most important subjects of His day He went directly against prevailing, opinion. His teaching about God, about righteousness^ about the Messiah, about tradi tion, about the Sabbath, about the1 Samaritans, about women, about divorce, about the baptism of John, were diametrically opposed to that of the time. Ahd this op position was deliberately grounded on the Old Testament which our Lord charged them with misinterpreting. The one and only question of difference between our Lord and the Jews as to the Old Testament was that of interpretation. Not a vestige of proof can be adduced that He and they dif fered at all in their general view of its historical character or Divine authority. If the current Jewish views were wrong, can we think our Lord would have been silent on a matter of such moment, about a book which He cites or alludes to over four hundred times, and which He made His constant topic in teaching concerning Himself? If the Jews were wrong, Jesus either knew it, or He did not. If He knew it, why did He not correct them as in so many other detailed instances? If He did not know it— but I will not finish. The Bishop of Ripon (Dr. Strong), although prepared to admit on some points the possibility of our Lord having accepted the views of His time without necessarily sanc tioning them, yet makes the following significant qualifica tion: “ It would still, we think, be necessary to believe that Moses existed, and was inspired to be the founder of Jew ish law; and that David existed, and was inspired to be the founder of Jewish poetry. For this is not merely a literary question. Unless we take leave of the Gospel narrative altogether, we cannot deny that Christ represented Juda ism as a special preparation, upon the field of history, for Himself. A series of unembodied literary ideals is not a historical preparation. In many cases, therefore, when (Continued on Page 328)
“ The Bible of the Jews in our Lord’s timé was practically our Old Testament. For us its supreme sanction is that which is received from Christ Himself. It was the Bible of His education and the Bible of His ministry. He took for granted its fundament'al doctrines about creation, about man, and about righteousness; about God’s providence of the world'and His purpose ô f grace through Israel. He ac cepted its history as the preparation for Himself, and taught His disciples to find Him in it. He used it to justify His mission and to illuminate the mystery of His cross. He drew from it many of the examples and most of the cate gories of His gospel. He reinforced the essence of its law and restored many of its ideals. But, above all, He fed His own soul with its contents, and in the great crisis of His life sustained Himself ;upon it as upon the living and sov ereign Word of God. These are the highest external proofs ;¿í-if, indeed, we can call them external— for the abiding validity of the Old Testament in the life and doctrine of Christ’s Church. What was indispensable to the Redeemer must always be indispensable to the redeemed.’*—Modern Criticism and thé; Preaching of the Old Testament, p. 11. “ It Is Written!” What, then, is our Lord’s general view of the Old Testa ment? There is no doubt that His Old Testament was prac tically, if not actually, the same as ours. There is no doubt, also, of His full and exact knowledge of its contents. And there can be no doubt that He regarded it as of Divine authority, and as the final court of appeal for all questions connected with it. The way in which our Lord quotes Scripture shows this. The titles used are “ the,, Scripture” (John 7 :38 ); “ the Scriptures” (John 5 :38 ); the “ law” (John 7:38)'; “ the Scriptures” (John 5 :39 ); thé “ law” (John 10:34); “ the law and the prophets” (Luke 16:16); “ the Scriptures of the “, prophets,” (Matt 26:56); “ the law of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). Above all, the solemn and constant use of “ It is written” clearly indicates that to the Lord Jesus the Old Testament was authoritative and final, because1Divine. This is confirmed by His discussion of the general posi tion of the Old Testament in certain passages. In Matt. 5:17-19 we notice the solemnity and emphasis of the utter ance at the outset of His public ministry. ’ How minute and extensive is this reference to thé Scriptures of the Old Covenant! They are only to be supérseded by being ful filled. There is to be no break, and certainly no destruc tion; only the necessary abrogation that comes from in clusion in a fuller, wider and deeper law of life. The Old Testament is not discarded, but embodied and developed in the New. The New is “ built on,” but, of course, “ built beyond,” the Old. “The Scripture Cannot be Broken” Consider, again, the emphatic reference to the Book of Psalms as “ your law;” “ their law” (John 10:34; Ps. 82:6; and John 15:25; Ps. 35:19; 69:4). And of this the Lord says: "The Scriptures cannot be broken.” No one can go through the Gospels without being im pressed with .the deep reverence of our Lord for the Old Testament, and with His constant use of it in all matters of religious thought and life. His question “ Have ye never read?” His assertion, “ It is written,” His testimony “ Ye search the Scriptures” (R. V.), are plainly indicative of His view of thé Divine authority of the Old Testament as we have it. He sets His seal to its historicity and its revela tion of God. He supplements, but never supplants it. He amplifies and modifies, but never nullifies it. He fulfills— i. e., fills full— but never makes void.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker