03.07 - Christ Jesus and Modern Criticism

(7) Christ Jesus and Modern Criticism As the Lord Jesus used and quoted the Scriptures for religious and spiritual ends, and not for literary and critical purposes, it is reasonable to suppose that He quoted them under the names by which they were familiarly known, or by the name incribed upon the roll and associated with it by tradition; and that for the purpose of knowing and identifying the quotation, and authorising the particular application of the Scripture used, and not for the purpose of determining the question of authorship. If modern Criticism shall demonstrate that certain Scriptures were not actually written by the persons whose names they bear, and that when the Lord Jesus quoted them as the saying of Moses, David, Daniel, or Jonah, He was quoting them under a pseudonymous name, that would neither discredit the knowledge of the Lord Jesus nor the truth and authority of the Scriptures quoted; but would simply show that the Lord Jesus accepted, used, and quoted them as the}- were used and known by His hearers, without staying to correct the name of the author, while the Scripture none the less taught the lesson, and served the purpose for which He quoted it The authority of the law of Moses and of the books of the Pentateuch does not depend on the tradition that Moses wrote them, but on the fact that they were given by God, and were written by the inspiration of God. The application and appropriateness of a particular Psalm to Jesus Christ does not lie in the truthfulness of the tradition that David wrote that Psalm, but in the fact that it was spoken of Him and applies to Him in a special and pre-eminent manner. The question of date and authorship is a modern literary question, and is subjudice, and not one that engaged the mind and thought of Jesus Christ at the time He quoted and used the Scriptures, nor is it one that vitally concerns the Divine inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, nor will it materially affect the character, purpose, and ends of Divine revelation; since these will be much the same whenever and by whomsoever the Scriptures may have been written.

If this be so, then we need not be over-anxious to find in the utterances of the Lord Jesus support for or against critical views and opinions as to the question of human authorship, seeing the Lord Jesus cannot be said to have intentionally and authoritatively spoken on that particular question; and to do so is, in our judgment, to use the sayings and utterances of the Lord Jesus for a purpose and end to which they were not intentionally spoken. When the Lord Jesus quotes a Scripture for some religious and spiritual purpose, that is the real purpose and meaning of the quotation made by the Lord Jesus, and for that purpose must be regarded as infallibly correct; but when we use it for a mere literary purpose and to establish a position other than the primary purpose for which it was used we cannot be so sure, and remembering the vicissitudes through which the Scriptures as literature have passed, to force the sayings of the Lord Jesus into the service of mere literary and historical criticism is unwise. We can but deplore that men should accuse the Lord Jesus of ignorance, error, and mistake in His knowledge and use of the Scriptures of truth, and should say that His knowledge of the Scriptures was that of fallible man, and not that of the divine Son of God; or that His knowledge was merely human and according to the views of the men of His own age and time and country, and not that of One to whom was given the spirit of knowledge and wisdom with out measure. On the other hand, we think for men to contend that when Jesus Christ used the name of Moses in quoting from Deuteronomy, or of David when quoting the 100th Psalm, or of one of the Prophets in connection with a particular prophecy, He unquestionably meant and taught that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy, that David wrote the 110th Psalm, and that the Prophet wrote the particular prophecy associated with his name; and that to say the contrary is disloyalty to Christ, is to convict Him of falsity or dishonest}, and must discredit both the character of Christ and the revealed will of God. This is a perversion or mere wresting of the Scriptures from their true purpose and end.

Whatever our views as to the Kenosis and knowledge of Jesus Christ, to do Him justice those views must accord with His marvellous and unique personality as God-man. We must not speak of him in terms which would seem to divest Him of that uniqueness and fulness of knowledge which belonged to Him as the Divine Son of God, and which filled Rabbis and contemporaries with wonder and amazement. On the other hand, we must not so speak of Him as to exclude those limitations and developments in wisdom and knowledge which belonged to Him as the Son of Man. Whatever our explanation of the marvellous phenomena of the Person of Christ, the facts of that unique Personality must be guarded, in Whom dwelt the fulness of wisdom and knowledge, as also that sinlessness and truthfulness which no Prophet, Apostle, or teacher ever possessed; while as man I le grew in stature and in knowledge, confessed ignorance on one or more points, and used the means of ordinary men to gain information on some others, and lived and spoke as man with men in the ordinary affairs of daily life. As man lie was subject to those limitations inseparable from the purposes of the Incarnation, while as the Son of God and the revelation of God, as lie Who was “the Way, the Truth, the Life,” lie was infallible and authoritative. This is not the same as saying that Christ was ignorant, that lie had no knowledge beyond that of His own countrymen, or that He was false to truth, accommodated Himself to the views and prejudices of men, and argued ad hominem, and so misled His hearers as to the dates and authorship of the books of the Old Testament. What we mean to say, and what we think we arc justified in saying is, that on these questions of modern Criticism the Lord Jesus gave no distinct authoritative utterance. And while we do not discuss the Kenotic questions, or the relation of omniscience to Christ’s Incarnation, we do say that fallibility is excluded by virtue of Christ’s Divinity, that error was an impossible to Christ as sinning, and deceiving a blaspheming. But it is not necessarily follow that all scientific, historical, and critical knowledge was present to the human mind of Christ, or lay bare and open before Him whenever He stood up to speak, or that every detailed event and incident of history was thought when He expounded and the Psalms in all things concerning Himself.”