The Lord's Testimony to the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch.

W. J. Hocking.

1892 58 The question involved in the denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is not one of merely correct literary and historical criticism. If so, simple believers could well afford to let the critics of one school strive with the critics of the other schools, while they chose the better part of enjoying the Christ of the scriptures, Who is the theme of the Old Testament no less than of the New, and of the Pentateuch no less than of the Psalms or the Prophets. It is not however the soundness of human theories, but the character of our Lord Himself that is involved. For if Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible — "the law" — as our Lord asserted more than once, but which the advocates of "modern criticism" deny, then the Holy Son of God stands convicted of ignorance or error, if not deliberate deception. Such a horrible and blasphemous imputation to the Person of Christ, which it is painful even to repeat, needs only to be mentioned to be instinctively repudiated by every godly and devout soul. Can the saints of God allow for a single moment that He Who was emphatically the "Truth" was either imposed upon by the baseless traditions of the day, or ignorant of the true writer of the very scriptures He came to fulfil? Yet such is the daring and defiant position occupied by that which vaunts itself as "higher criticism." And as this inflated assumption of worldly wisdom is developing in pernicious influence upon the people of God, and widening its line of attack upon all that is holy and divine, it may be profitable to briefly examine the words of Christ in reference to this subject, and also the principal arguments of those who have the unblushing effrontery to refuse to accept our adorable Lord as even a credible witness in the matter.

In the first place then it is proposed to refer to the direct statements of the Lord as reported by the Holy Ghost through the evangelists. In the latter part of John 5 the Lord Jesus is reproving the unbelief of the Jews. He points out the abundant witness to His Person and mission. John the Baptist testified to Him (verses 32-35). The character of the works He was doing in obedience to His Father testified to Him (ver. 36). The Father himself testified to Him (ver. 37). So did the Father Himself witness from heaven (ver. 37). And the scriptures, which it was their duty to search, likewise testified to Him (ver. 39). Yet in spite of this fourfold testimony they refused to come to Him. And the Lord thereupon solemnly warns them of the gravity of such an attitude of unbelief. Not that He would accuse them of hardness of heart to His Father; but the very Moses in whom they trusted and boasted would rise up in judgment against them. "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?" (verses 45-47). Now it is submitted that the Lord here emphatically affirms that Moses under God was the author of those books commonly ascribed to him; "peri gar emou ekeinos egrapsen", "for HE wrote of Me."

In fact nothing else can be drawn from the passage. Moses, not Christ, was to be the accuser; therefore the writer, Moses, must be referred to as much as the person of Christ. Thus no room is left for the objection that Moses is here used tropically for the writings which bore his name; for if such be true in some other places, here, at any rate, Moses is expressly distinguished from his writings. "He wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, etc." Surely the most violent rationalist would never seriously contend for the interpretation, "the Pentateuch wrote of Me." So that this portion appears decisive in establishing that our blessed Lord accepted and confirmed the current belief of the Jews, that Moses was God's agent in composing the Pentateuch. Compare also Mark 10:5 with 12:19

Further, the denial of Moses as the author of the first five books robs this appeal of the Lord of its entire force. He adduces Moses, the human founder of their system of worship, as a witness to Himself. And it is well known with what reverence Moses was acknowledged by the Jews; therefore of what extraordinary weight with them would be the evidence of one who was their leader out of Egypt, and their law-giver at Sinai? And where was his testimony to be found at that late day? Nowhere but in his own writings, as our Lord plainly states. Now if it be true, as the critics dream, that the Pentateuch was fathered upon Moses, centuries after his death, how can it possibly be said that he witnessed of Christ in writings which he never wrote? But such theories are neither true nor worthy, but self-destructive; and the truth is sealed by our Lord's words before us, and expressed as the ordinary belief of very godly Jew by Philip of Bethsaida when he said "We have found Him of Whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph" (John 1:45).

Moreover, this scripture — "he wrote of Me" — indicates a unity of purpose in the writings of Moses, as well as a prophetic outlook into the future which could be nothing short of divine inspiration. However many "documents" Moses may have used in the compilation of the Pentateuch, all were co-ordinated to subserve one dominant purpose viz. testimony to Christ. And "if Moses testified the truth of Christ some fifteen centuries before He lived and died, he was a prophet, and inspired of God in what he wrote; and if God gave him, according to the Lord Jesus, to prophesy truly of Him, is it credible that he has written falsely of that of which even an ordinary man might have written truly? If the rationalist speaks aright, the Pentateuch is not Moses' writing, but a bundle of tales true and false, and in not one word written really of Christ; else it would be bona fide prophetic, which the system denies in principle; because true prophecy implies God's supernatural communication, and this would be necessarily a death-blow to the criticism of the rationalist."*

{* W. Kelly's "Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Pentateuch" London 1871, p. xix. et passim.}

And the indication of this lofty object in the writings of Moses. is by no means confined to these verses. The Lord points out the same thing to His disciples after His resurrection. To the dejected and sorrowful pair wending their way to Emmaus He reproachfully says, "O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory? And beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Luke 24:25-27). Thus the true spiritual nexus of those ancient writings, missed by the dissecting critics, is "Christ," as another passage in the same chapter also states, "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me" (Luke 24:44). Here, too, the Lord alludes to the well-known triple division of the books of the Hebrew canon, viz. the law, the prophets, and the psalms. These together comprised the "scriptures" as the next verse shows, "Then opened He their understanding that they might understand the scriptures." So that as has been said, "we may accept the Hebrew scriptures from the pierced hands of Christ Himself in resurrection:" though it is not hereby implied that His words were more true one time than another.

Other references in the evangelists also agree in teaching that our Lord added the whole weight of His authority to the generally received view of the authorship of the Pentateuch. When the rationalists of that day came to Him with their alleged difficulty about the resurrection, they said "Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die and leave his wife behind him etc.", quoting from Deut. 25:5, and manufacturing therefrom a highly complicated objection, as they thought (Mark 12:18-23). The Lord, at once, utterly condemns their interpretation of Holy Writ, saying, "Ye know (me eidotes) not the scriptures nor the power of God." But it is important to notice that He does not condemn them for ascribing Deuteronomy to Moses, and He did not accept their fabulous interpretation. Why should He accept their fabulous authorship, if indeed it be fabulous, as the critics groundlessly imagine?

The Lord, however, proceeding to instruct them concerning the resurrection, takes up the very one to whom they had just referred and shows that he was opposed to their erroneous and sceptical notions. Neither was there any excuse for their ignorance of this. If they had read Deuteronomy, surely they must have read Exodus which Moses also wrote* "Have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the hush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham etc?" The Lord thus directly appeals to the Pentateuch as the book of Moses. And this phrase means simply the book which Moses wrote. For the word of God in another gospel, as if anticipating the mouse-holes through which the critics would fain creep, entirely forbids any thought to the contrary, such as the "book containing the law of Moses." Accordingly in Luke we read in the same connection, "Now that the dead are raised even Moses showed in the bush, (or "the place concerning the bush." R.V.) when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham" etc. (Luke 20:37). This indicates unmistakably that the human author was Moses, while the parallel passage in Matt. 22:31 adds a word as to the divine inspiration of the same. "Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham" etc. And it should be observed that it is the written word which is thus authorised in this scripture. For though the words themselves were originally addressed by God to Moses, in the written form they are said to be addressed by God to them, being divinely preserved for the profit of all. Compare also Mark 7:10 with Matt. 15:4.

{* Leviticus is also quoted as of Moses (Matt. 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14)}

In another place also the Lord again affirms in very precise terms that Deuteronomy was written by Moses. It was this time to the Pharisees, who, though they agreed with the Sadducees as little as possible, had at any rate no difference of opinion as to owning the hand of Moses in writing the law. They came to Him temptingly with a question concerning divorce. Jesus said, "What did Moses command you?" They at once referred to Deut. 24:1. Jesus answered and said unto them "For the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this precept" (Mark 10:3-5). Language can scarcely be more distinct and definite than this. So that we can but marvel at the audacity of men professing to be shepherds of the flock of God who appear to have no compunction whatever in contradicting their Master and saying "it is certain that Moses himself could not have written the book of Deuteronomy." * And again "on the dramatic hypothesis, Deuteronomy (was) not written by Moses but in Moses' name to incorporate the Mosaic tradition." "We may suppose Deuteronomy to be a republication of the law in the spirit and power of Moses put dramatically into his mouth."

{*Lux Mundi. London 1891. Twelfth ed. Preface: p. xxii. p. 261.}

It is hoped (D. V.) to attempt next month to point out in more detail the real character of these and similar assertions contrary to the words of our Lord.

1892 74 In the previous paper it was pointed out that our Lord not only frequently referred to the Pentateuch as the law of Moses*, but that He unequivocally stated its writer to have been Moses (John 5:46, Mark 10:5). And surely with all simple and godly souls the word of the Lord is sufficient, but it is avowedly not so with the critics. They, forsooth, have their own opinions to maintain, and accordingly endeavour to evade the direct force of this evidence by expedients, the character of which more than strongly hints at the desperateness of their position. Their principal theories are two, and have been not inaptly described as (1) the adaptation theory, and (2) the self-limitation theory. The first of these involves an attack upon our Lord's moral character and the second upon His Person. And from this their ultimate origin is sufficiently indicated.

{*It ought to be borne in mind that "Pentateuch" is not a scriptural term at all. But in the N.T. the "law" (except in the abstract reasoning of the epistles) may be taken as being equivalent to the Pentateuch; since the O.T. consisted of three parts, one of which, known as the "law," contained the first five books of the Bible.}

The "adaptation" theory, as the term suggests, asserts that our blessed Lord adapted Himself to the mistaken beliefs of those among whom He lived. It states that the Jews wrongly ascribed the Pentateuch to Moses, and that the Lord gave His verbal assent to the notion though He knew it to be false. Now, in order to show that this representation of the theory is not unjust, the following quotations are made. Referring to the words "He (Moses) wrote of Me" (John 5:46), it is said "We may regard them as an address ad hominem, as an incidental and temporary adoption of the conceptions and language of those to whom He was speaking, in relation to a subject foreign to His immediate purpose. We may understand Him as if He had said: 'Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for the books which, as you suppose, Moses wrote, concern Me.'"** "He accepted, as the basis of His teaching, the opinions respecting the Old Testament current around Him; He assumed, in His allusions to it, the premises which His opponents recognized"*** "It is not derogatory to our Lord's Divinity to maintain that it was necessary for Him to argue with the Jews from their standpoint without necessarily endorsing the truth of the popular opinion"**** The sentiments herein expressed are by no means obscure or difficult of apprehension. The assumption common to all is, as has already been observed, that the ordinary belief of the Jews of that day in the Mosaic authorship of the first five books was quite erroneous; and further that the Lord accepted this, together with other current opinions, as the basis of His teaching.

{**"The Pentateuch: and its relations to the Jewish and Christian dispensations," by Andrews Norton. London, 1863. p. 96.

*** Professor Driver's "Introduction to Old Testament Literature." 1891. Preface p. xviii.

**** Dr. Wright's "Introduction to Old Testament," p. 76.}

Such an hypothesis is most serious to all who desire to he loyal to Christ; since its acceptance unquestionably casts no small slight on the moral character of our adorable Redeemer. For the Lord, in some cases, made the entire force of His argument to rest upon the fact that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. To refer again to but one instance; in John 5:45-47 the point of our Lord's remarks is that Moses witnessed to Him. He is not alluding to the scriptures as such, for this He had already done (John 5:39). But here He takes up the great lawgiver himself as a personal witness. Moses would be their accuser, and that because they believed neither him nor Christ. Truly, if they believed not the writings of him who wrote of Messiah, how should they believe the words of Messiah? Thus Moses and Christ, Moses' writings and Christ's words, are so antithetically placed that to all unbiased minds there can be no manner of doubt that our Lord meant His hearers to understand that Moses himself had testified to Him in his writings. Now, supposing it be true, as the advocates of the theory in question allege, that the Jews were all wrong in thinking that Moses wrote the law, then we are at once forced to the abominable conclusion that our Lord (may He forgive even such a thought!) declared to them that Moses, their great leader, wrote of Him, when, at the same time, He was perfectly aware Moses did nothing of the kind. So that He, herein, resorted to mere artifice and unworthy cunning in order to win the ear of His opponents. He thus exaggerated before them the value of the testimony borne to Him and sought to take advantage of their ignorance to advance His claims. In short, if the "adaptation" theory be true, Christ is found guilty of duplicity! Where can be the reverence, not to say love, of those who brave such an issue as this? Once more the Lord is wounded in the house of His friends. Will they never cease their unholy handling of the Word of life and truth? Is it either wise or good to seek to degrade our Lord to the level of a mere rhetorical trickster, in order to sustain what is, after all, no more than supposition? On whom then can we rely, if not on Him, Who was the Truth? And the Lord was not only the fulness of truth in His Person, but His words were the expression of Himself. As He Himself said to those who asked Him "Who art thou?" "ten archen hoti kai lalo humin." Absolutely that which I also am speaking to you"* (John 8:25). This is a direct reply to those who charge Him with equivocation. He was, what none ever were before or since, in exact correspondence with what His words expressed. So that all notions of "adaptation," save that He became a man amongst men, sin excepted, amount to ignoble calumnies against His holy and blessed Person. It is incredulity.

*{W. Kelly's translation in the B.T. Vol. xi. 97.}

But this theory will not bear the light of facts on record. The allegation that Christ accepted the opinions current around Him is entirely visionary and altogether opposed to the words of the evangelists. On the contrary, from the commencement to the close of His ministry, He invariably upheld the sanctity and divine authority of the law as originally given, and condemned the human fancies and speculations with regard to it which were prevalent around Him. Did He, for example, accept "the current opinions" of the rabbis as to what was or what was not permissible on the Sabbath day? Was it a "wise accommodation to popular views "when He drove out the traders from the temple courts at the beginning as well as the end of His public life? Was it a measure of conciliation to charge the teachers of the law with "laying aside the commandment of God" whilst "holding the tradition of the elders"? (Mark 7:5–8) Do we find that in order to gain general favour He spared either the hypocritical punctiliousness of the Pharisees or the proud scepticism of the Sadducees? On the contrary, it is made manifest throughout the Gospels, that, wherever the Truth went, error was necessarily exposed. And as such was His general practice, it remains for the critics to explain why there was this exception, if indeed there is an exception, as they groundlessly imagine. Had the belief that Moses wrote the law been a blunder, it would not have been attested but would have been condemned, like their broad phylacteries and their divers washings.

But the theorists further assume, without warrant, that the "law of Moses" was the only name under which the Pentateuch would have been recognized; so that the Lord was obliged to speak thus in order to be understood. "Jesus must have alluded to the books of the Old Testament by their recognized names, just as men will always speak of the poetry of Homer, even if the composite origin of the Iliad and the Odyssey comes to be universally recognized."* Unless He had violated the whole principle of the Incarnation by anticipating the slow development of natural knowledge, He must have spoken of the 'Deuteronomist' as Moses (John 5:46-47) as naturally as He spoke of 'the sun rising.'"** Now, it is not necessary to refer again to the applicability of the allusion in this passage to the "man Moses," and not to a fictitious "Deuteronomist." But it is quite an error for Mr. G. to assume that He must have spoken in this way, as if no other term were intelligible.*** A very slight examination of the Gospels would have revealed that the single word "law" was well understood by the Jews to refer to the first five books, and not merely to the decalogue. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets" (Matt. 5:17). "Have ye not read in the law etc." (Matt. 12:5). "This people who knoweth not the law are cursed" (John 7:49). If the addition of "Moses" was not necessary in these and other instances, neither was it at all necessary for purposes of distinctness. So that, if our Lord merely wished to avoid anticipating "the results of scientific inquiry or historical criticism,"**** He might, when referring to the Pentateuch, have uniformly made use of the word "law," and thereby left the question of authorship unaffected by His words, and escaped the condemnation of the critics. Neither would He, by this means, have been impaled on the other horn of Mr. G.'s dilemma; for silence on the point in question could not "have violated the whole principle of the Incarnation by anticipating the slow development of natural knowledge." Therefore the simple truth can only be that Moses wrote the law, and the Lord confirmed the belief in the same by His authority, using such words as could leave no other impression on the minds of those who heard Him.

{* Bampton lectures by Charles Gore, M. A. p. 196.

** Lux Mundi, Pref. p. xxv.

***Our Lord refers to the inspired books under the only name by which the reference would have been intelligible to His hearers." Lux Mundi, Pref. p. xxvi.

**** Driver p. xviii.}

Another statement in connection with this theory should be pointed out because of its misleading character. Professor D. says "There is no record of the question, whether a particular portion of the Old Testament was written by Moses or David or Isaiah having been ever submitted to Him; and had it been so submitted, we have no means of knowing what His answer would have been."* Now this is really throwing dust in people's eyes. There is good reason why no such question as "Is it true that Moses wrote the Pentateuch?", was brought to our Lord; for not even the sceptical Sadducees doubted it in that day (Mark 7, Luke 20). But though no such question was asked, the fact is affirmed under such circumstances that the testimony thereto is none the less certain. For instance, when the Pharisees came to the Lord with a question concerning divorce, they referred to Deuteronomy and said "Why did Moses command so-and-so?" Here was an opportunity for the Lord to have shown, if such were the case, that this permission was granted not by Moses but by the "Deuteronomist" who lived many centuries after him. However, instead of saying the "Deuteronomist because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives," He said, confirming their own words, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts etc." (Matt. 19:7-8). So that, in this instance, a particular portion of the O.T. is submitted to the Lord as written by Moses; and those who have no theories to maintain, like Professor D., will surely agree that our Lord gave a verbal assent to it.

{* Driver p. xviii.}

Even the advocates of these notions themselves appear to feel the insufficiency of the "adaptation" theory, and accordingly the "self-limitation" theory is also advanced. The real effect however is not the mutual support and consolidation of the theories but their mutual destruction. As the false witnesses against the Lord before the high priest were valueless because their witness agreed not together, so the critics, in their eager desire to silence the Lord's testimony against them, have overreached themselves and destroyed one another. The "adaptation" theory declares our Lord was aware that Moses was not the author of the first five books, but that He said so in deference to the teaching of that age; while the "self-limitation" theory declares that our Lord was ignorant of the true author of the Pentateuch, being restricted in His knowledge to the current opinions of the day. Thus one says He did, the other He did not know. But it is impossible for both assertions to be right, though very possible for both to be wrong.

The following quotations give the terms of the latter theory in the writer's own words. "Now when He speaks of the 'sun rising'* He is using ordinary human knowledge. He willed so to restrain the beams of Deity as to observe the limits of the science of His age, and He puts himself in the same relation to his historical knowledge."** "He never exhibits the omniscience of bare Godhead in the realm of natural knowledge; such as would be required to anticipate the results of modern science or criticism."*** "Indeed God declares His almighty power most chiefly in this condescension, whereby He 'beggared Himself' of divine prerogatives to put Himself in our place."**** "Why should it be thought that He would speak with certain divine knowledge on this matter (i.e. the authorship of the Pentateuch) more than upon other matters of ordinary science or history?"

{* Is Mr. G. alluding to Matt. 5:45? If so, the quotation is hardly accurate.

** Lux Mundi, p. 265.

*** Colenso on the Pentateuch. The italics are his.

**** Allowing that hos is the true reading in 1 Tim. 3:16, the same truth is equally declared in John 1:1-14.

The first thought that strikes one in reading these brief extracts is the utter want of reverence displayed for the Holy Person of Whom they speak. The very attempt to limit the knowledge of "God manifest in the flesh" is, to say the very least, audacious in the extreme. And when He is thus reduced to the level of a poor ignorant Jew for the sole purpose of proving the vast superiority of nineteenth century wisdom, it is high time for such wolves to be stripped of their sheep's clothing that the flock may be warned. What more flagrant dishonour than to take advantage of His humiliation to seek to prove that His manhood was not even perfect, but could be imposed upon by the blunders of the "uncritical age" in which He lived? Have they forgotten the solemn words of the angel to, Mary "That Holy Thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" Luke 1:35? Will not the remembrance of His Deity (for in spite of His lowliness He was never less than God) stay them from laying lawless and defiling hands upon His Humanity? But the fact is the intellectual pride of men will not brook the thought that even the inscrutable mystery of the Incarnation is beyond their ken. Defying the Divine utterance, "No man knoweth (epiginoskei) the Son but the Father," Matt. 11:27, they "rush in where angels fear to tread," proving their own folly and worse. Let them remember Kirjath-jearim. Surely this, above all subjects the most holy, demands reverence, not curiosity, faith, not speculation. Yet it is asked "why should we permit in theology what we ruthlessly exclude from every other region of science"? Therefore it is sought to enlighten theology "the most difficult of all sciences" (sic) by instituting an "honest inquiry" into our Lord's knowledge as a man. Is it any wonder that theories such as these under examination, are promulgated, when our Lord, instead of being revered as the Truth, is treated and discussed in the same manner as a fossil, a zoological specimen, or a cuneiform inscription? It really means that faith is thrown to the winds, and man's mind and will made the judge of all.

1892 90 Nevertheless, since the astounding fact is revealed that He, "Who is over all, God blessed for ever" (Rom. 9:5), was pleased to dwell among men in the "likeness of sinful flesh," there can be but one proper attitude for the soul of man in presence of such a marvel. That attitude is to bow in adoration before such an incomparable display of grace, and to receive in humble faith whatever God has deigned to place on record in regard to it.

Now a cursory survey of our Lord's life on earth as found in the Gospels yields abundant testimony to the truth that, though He appeared among men in lowly guise, the knowledge He displayed was ever superior to what was others' and was, in itself, a sufficient proof that He must be a Divine Person. It is proposed, therefore, to cite some of the most striking of such passages, in order to show thereby that it is quite a gratuitous piece of assumption to say that our Lord was ignorant of the true authorship of the Pentateuch.

The first portion to which we naturally turn is Luke 2:4, 6. There we read that, at the age of twelve years, "They found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions. And all that heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers." Afterwards His public ministry was such as to cause His hearers to exclaim "Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works?" (Matt. 13:54); and again, "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" (John 7:15). This shows that His knowledge was not apparently derived from the usual sources, that is, from rabbis or from writings, but was personal and intuitive. Further, His insight into men's hearts and motives (as it was said, "He heard men thinking") is so often evidenced that even the writer of "Lux Mundi" is constrained to allow this much in a footnote, page 265. Compare Matt. 9:4; Matt. 12:25: Matt. 16:8; Matt. 22:18; Mark 12:15; Luke 9:47; Luke 20:23. When the Lord told Nathanael that He had seen him under the fig-tree, the guileless Israelite, accepting this proof of His Divinity, at once replied, "Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God" (John 1:48-49). The testimony of the Samaritan woman concerning Him was "Come, see a man, who told me all things that ever I did; is not this the Christ?" (John 4:29.) Now if the Lord was thus acquainted with the past history of both Nathanael and the woman at the well, surely it is not too much to believe that He knew the history of the Pentateuch, including the name of the man used of God to pen its pages. Even a Samaritan knew that Messiah when He comes "will tell (declare to) us all things." Think of a christian, of a professed christian minister, lowering Christ beneath the standard of a Samaritan woman!

Moreover, in certain cases it is to be noted that His knowledge is especially shown to be most extraordinary. When, for example, His garment fringe was touched, He immediately knew "in Himself" that virtue was gone out of Him (Mark 5:30). Similarly Mark 2:8 and John 6:61 prove that His knowledge was of no human order but divine. It is also stated that He "knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray Him" (John 6:64), and indeed "all things that should come upon Him" (John 18:4). He could and did indicate beforehand the piece of money in the fish's mouth, the whereabouts of the ass's colt, and the man bearing the pitcher of water. He also displayed His knowledge of the future by predicting to His disciples, His betrayal, His denial, His crucifixion and His resurrection.

These scriptural facts are sufficient to show how utterly untrue is the statement that Christ in His Incarnation "beggared Himself of divine prerogatives."* On the contrary, it is clear that it was as man He manifested omniscience, knowing equally the past, the present and the future, and thus demonstrating, beyond question, that He was both God and Man. When therefore the Son of God says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, we dare not doubt His word. Shall not the Judge of all the earth speak rightly as well as do right? He that searcheth reins, and hearts (Rev. 2:23)?

{* Compare also Mark 2:5-7. The "emptying Himself" in Phil. 2 refers to the form, and not the prerogatives. He was in the "form of God" and He "took upon Him the form of a servant."}

However, as might have been expected, the critics have not advanced these theories without endeavouring to fortify their position with Bible texts. It will be remembered that the Jews quoted scripture against our Lord, and so did a greater enemy for a worse purpose. Therefore it is no matter of surprise to find that it is sought to support the dogma of our Lord's ignorance in certain matters by the word of God. And it should be equally no matter of surprise to find upon examination that the passages cited refuse to yield the support claimed from them.

We are told that when our Lord "asked for information, it was because He wanted it" (Matt. 15:34, John 11:34), implying thereby that He was ignorant of what He asked about. The first reference is to the feeding of the four thousand when the Master said to His disciples, "How many loaves have ye" (Matt. 15:34)? On turning to John 6:5-6, the unworthy inference is entirely and expressly exploded. There the Lord on a similar occasion said to Philip, "Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this He said to prove Him; for He Himself knew what He would do." In the other reference (John 11:34) we have the question concerning the grave of Lazarus "Where have ye laid him"? And we are asked to conclude from it that, though the Lord became aware of the death of Lazarus without human intervention and came to awake him out of sleep (John 11:11), He was yet unaware of the whereabouts of the sepulchre! We prefer to believe that as the weeping displayed His human sympathy, so the question indicated that human interest in the departed so precious to sorrowing hearts at such moments. It is, therefore, denied that there is any ground in scripture for the assertion that when He "asked for information, it was because He wanted it," that is, because of His own ignorance. It needs no study of Socrates to know that a question may be put for the sake of the questioned. Luke 24:18-19 furnishes a sufficient illustration. When Cleopas said to the Unknown One, "Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?" The Unknown One, Who was none other than the Lord Jesus, said, "What things?" not assuredly because He was ignorant of His own recent sufferings, but with a view exclusively to the instruction of the two disciples.

Again we are told* that the verse "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man" Luke 2:52, implies that "He could not have had perfect wisdom in His childhood." It might be retorted that this is no proof whatever that He did not possess perfect wisdom in His manhood. But the intention is to show that our Lord's knowledge was limited. Such a thought, however, is entirely foreign to the verse. The reference is plainly to that which was made apparent to an observer. An eye-witness would have marked an advance both in stature and display of wisdom. Surely it is not necessary to explain to a Professor that wisdom can only be seen or known in its exercise. So that this passage leaves altogether untouched the question as to the extent of the Lord's knowledge. It simply informs us that as to outward appearance He was found "in fashion as a man," and is significantly silent as to the secrets of that incomprehensible Mind.

{* Professor Adeney in the" Thinker," Feb 1892, p. 138.}

Further: incontestable evidence is supposed to be found in Mark 13:32; concerning which, it is said, "He declared His ignorance in regard to the date of a future event.* The passage is as follows: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." But even this, their citadel, yields to a careful and prayerful consideration. It is significant that the phrase, "neither the Son," is to be found alone in Mark who writes of the Lord as the Servant-prophet. It is therefore, as such, that He declares His ignorance of what the Father had put in His own power (Acts 1:7). This should not be strange to a reader of the N.T. Luke 13:25-27 is an example of official ignorance. The master of the house says to those who have eaten and drunk in His presence "I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." The word also to five virgins will be "Verily I say unto you, I know you not" Matt. 25:12. Thus the real point of Mark 13:32, is the exclusive knowledge of God in regard to the day and hour. Even the Son, in taking the place of subjection and service, had received no direction to reveal that time. For, as He says, "the Father which sent Me gave Me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak" (John 12:49). See also John 15:15. The true inference therefore from the passage in Mark is not the limitation of the Lord's intrinsic and divine knowledge, but of His teaching in the servant position He took for the glory of God. The propriety of the phrase, too, is striking. Seeing that the day refers to the time when the once lowly Son of Man will be manifested in glory, what more in accordance with His place of dependence than that He should be in an expectant posture till it pleases the Father to make His enemies His footstool?

{* Professor Adeney.}

In conclusion: it has been shown that the Lord's testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is definite and unequivocal: and also that the theories advanced to invalidate that testimony are purely hypothetical, having not a tittle of support from the Word of God, but tending, as all deep error does, to undermine, not scripture only, but the Incarnate Word and Only-begotten of the Father.