The Self-Limitation of the Word of God

Front matter

THE SELF-LIMITATION

OF THE

WORD OF GOD

Prefatory Note

THE writer of the two essays which are included in this volume is known to many in England and America as the author of a volume entitled “ Letters to his friends,” the demand for which, although it has not been published in England, has been so great that 20,000 copies have already been issued. Apart from a work on the Coptic apocryphal gospels, the only writings which he himself had printed were the two essays which are here reproduced. These were issued for private circulation but were never published, as their writer contemplated the possibility of elaborating at greater length the arguments which they contain. Readers of his ‘‘ Letters” who have had an opportunity of reading these essays have repeatedly urged that they should be published on the ground that their treatment of the difficult problems with which

Vv vi PREFATORY NOTE they deal is calculated to appeal to thoughtful persons whose minds have been unsettled by some of the teachings of “ modernism ”.

In view of the fact that the author had not himself published them I have for a long time hesitated to accede to this request, but the testimonies to the help which they have afforded to those who have read them have appeared to me to create an obligation to offer them to a wider circle of readers.

The two essays won the Burney and the Hulsean University prizes at Cambridge. The subject set for the Burney prize was ‘The authority of our Lord in its bearing upon the interpretation of the Old Testament”. After the prize had been adjudged the title of the essay was altered by the writer to “The self-limitation of the Word of God as manifested in the Incarnation ”.

Those who are familiar with Forbes Robinson's ‘* Letters to his friends ’ that a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ was at once the foundation and the coping-stone of his faith, and that the doctrine of the Trinity, sc far from rendering the Christian creed mysterious or will not need to be reminded difficult of acceptance, appeared to him to afford an

PREFATORY NOTE vii explanation of some of the most difficult problems that are raised by human experience. The spirit of adoring reverence in which Forbes Robinson approached the central problem with which this essay deals may be illustrated by his own words. He writes, ‘If we could be certain that our Lord had once and for all settled certain questions, our efforts would be directed not at determining whether His decision was correct—the very thought of that would be impious—but at the investigation of facts which might conclusively establish to others the positions which we upon His authority had already accepted as true. That is to say, Old Testament criticism would in no small degree . . . consist of attempts to prove to the intellect the positions laid down by the infallible Master.”

Dr. James, who was headmaster of Rossall and afterwards of Rugby school, writing to the editor of this volume says: ‘“‘ The essay is a singularly lucid statement and attempted solution of a most difficult theological problem, in which all who believe in the deity of Christ must be deeply interested, and I can bear personal testimony to its helpfulness”.

The title of the Hulsean Essay was ‘ The

Vili PREFATORY NOTE evidential value of Old Testament prophecy ”. In it the writer endeavours to show that the evidential value of the Old Testament prophets and in particular of the passages in their writings which have generally been interpreted as containing a Messianic reference is in no degree weakened by the results of Old Testament criticism which have been established or are likely to be established in the future.

The writer of this essay believed that not only was the evidential value of the Old Testament prophecies increased as the result of recent criticism, but that interpreted in the light of modern knowledge the Old Testament as a whole has a special message for the world to-day. In one of his sermons which has been published he says :—

‘‘Conditions of life have changed. Its problems have become more complicated. It is not easy to see God’s working in the events of our own time. As we take up our daily papers, and read the history of our own times, we know that He must still be moving and working—but it is difficult to say how and where. It is then a comfort to be able to turn to a simpler stage of society, and to

PREFATORY NOTE ix read of God's dealings with the children of men at the dawn of history. It is a comfort to read of a time when men heard the voice of God and saw their duty clearer than some of us can see it now. It is well to study such a period of history—to study it with real care—to master it thoroughly, because if we can understand God’s purposes then we shall understand them better now. All history is of a piece. For all history is a manifestation of the mind and purpose of God. He who masters one period of history and knows the interpretation thereof, and who can see God in it, has gone far towards mastering all history.

“Tf then you would learn how God is educating and training the nation to which you belong, read how in old time He educated the Hebrew nation. If you would understand the history of your own time, read the Old Testament. There you will find a simple history interpreted and explained. There you will gain, as you can gain nowhere else, a belief that God is indeed educating the race— that His education extends from generation to generation—that His kindly care is over each generation in turn—that each has a special work x PREFATORY NOTE to learn, which no one else can learn. And the more you believe in God’s education of the race, the more you will believe in His education of yourself, the more clearly will you realize that you too are under a Divine Educator, that you are in a great school, that you have lessons to learn which no one else can learn, that the lessons though they come in unexpected ways—in many portions and in many manners—are all set you by the same Teacher.”

These essays are published in the hope that they may help towards a solution of some of the problems which are being raised by the study of the Old Testament and towards a better understanding of the message which it has for the world to-day.

CATER

The translations of the passages quoted from the O.T. were made direct from the original by the writer of the Essays.

Contents

THE SELF-LIMITATION OF THE WORD OF GOD AS MANIFESTED IN THE INCARNATION.

CHAP. PAGE I. Introductory : ‘ : : ; ; : : I

II. The self-limitation involved in creation . : : 2S III. Creation the prophecy of an incarnation P : ECO IV. The self-limitation involved in thé Incarnation. eae AS V. The development of the incarnate Sonof God 259 VI. The knowledge of the incarnate Son of God. : 5 Gis VII. Our Lord’s teaching on the Old Testament . : sas)

Introduction

THERE never probably was a time when the Old Testament was studied with such peculiar interest as it is studied to-day. Christians have indeed always regarded it with reverence, because in it they have seen the story of the preparation of the world for the final revelation of its Lordand Saviour. But of late years the study of language and of history has greatly advanced, and the problems suggested by the Old Testament are seen to be wider in range and more difficult to solve than was formerly supposed. Our age is asking questions which scarcely suggested themselves to earlier students. To many of them the Old Testament was a single book in numerous volumes, each of which was written by a different hand. To us it is rather the remains of the literature of a people. What is this literature? How did it come to assume its final shape? To what degree can we depend upon the traditional accounts of its origin? Can we trust the statements of the books themselves regarding their authorship ?

‘Do any of them contain collections of traditions and | I myths, or are all throughout a record of historical facts? ;

Such are the questions which men are now asking, and not a few thoughtful scholars are attempting to answer them. They are applying to Jewish literature the same methods of historical and literary criticism, that they would apply to the literature of any other nation ; and the results of their work have already been of the deepest interest. Buta difficulty has arisen in many minds. How far are we justified in treating the Old Testament in this way? Can we approach the question of the authenticity and genuineness of the books as an open one? We have been taught to regard the Old Testament as different to other literature, as written and compiled by inspired men. Such men could not have made mistakes, neither could they have purposely written and handed down mere myths or traditions, much less could they have made or perpetuated actual forgeries.

Hence many at the present day have thought it wisest not to accept the results of modern scientific criticism, unless such results agree with their theory of the nature and extent of inspiration. They are sure that the time will come when sound criticism will show that their theory was right, and that fresh evidence will but tend to prove that their own standpoint was alone tenable, Meanwhile

INTRODUCTION 3 they are content to wait. Such a position might in some respects be satisfactory, if there was one universal standard of inspiration, “quod semper, ubique et ab omnibus creditum est”. But as a matter of fact we do not find that this is the case. ‘“Quot homines, tot sententiae.’’ Comparatively few men have exactly the same theory of inspiration. If each man then refuses to accept results, because they do not harmonize with his theory, the criticism of the Old Testament must progress but slowly and unsatisfactorily.

The truth is that the precise nature and extent of Inspiration are best learnt from a reverent and critical study of the books which we believe to be inspired. We cannot, in approaching the study of any book, entirely lay aside our preconceived theories; but we can constantly correct such theories by a consideration of the facts which the book itself contains. Theories must ultimately be made to agree with facts, not facts with theories. The whole problem of the meaning and extent of inspiration cannot yet be completely solved, because we have not before us the data necessary for a final solution. As fresh discoveries are made and as old facts are seen in a new light, our knowledge of inspiration grows ever wider and more accurate. Meanwhile we must be careful how we regard any question of authenticity or of genuineness as settled, I * because we consider a book to be inspired. The fact that we have such a belief should rather be a motive for further and more scholarly criticism of the book, that we may thereby discover how far our belief is justified, and what inspiration in any particular case may mean.

But this is not the only difficulty which arises in the acceptation of the results of the new criticism of the Old Testament. There is another one still more profound. Itis this. The Old Testament was used by our Lord. He did not use it incidentally or occasionally. He used it again and again. He regarded His whole life and work as the fulfilment of its teaching and prophecies. He refers to events recorded in it. He quotes it and assigns the quotations to particular writers. Hearguesfromit. He uses it as the groundwork of His teaching and as the text of His sermons. He treats it as an authoritative revelation of the Divine purposes. He speaks of events it records as of historical facts. The question then arises: what is the precise significance of our Lord’s treatment of the Old Testament? How far must one who owns our Lord as his supreme Teacher and Master regard the problem of the authenticity of books which He quoted by name as settled once and for all? If our Lord speaks of Moses or David as the author of certain writings, are we at liberty to assign those writings

INTRODUCTION 5 on grounds of internal evidence to any other person save Moses or David? If He uses the book of Deuteronomy to illustrate profound spiritual lessons, are we justified in entertaining for a moment the possibility of forgery in connexion with it? If He finds in the stories of the Flood or the life of Jonah lessons for all time, can we resolve them into myths or allegories? Must not a Christian refuse to credit some of the results of one school of modern criticism, not because the arguments supporting those results appear to him in themselves to be inconclusive, but because he believes that One wiser than the wisest of critics has given to mankind an authoritative and infallible decision on the question ? This is no imaginary difficulty. It is one which vitally affects Christian scholarship. For if we could be certain that our Lord had once and for all settled certain questions, our efforts would be directed not at determining whether His decision was correct—the very thought of that would be impious—but at the investigation of facts which might conclusively establish to others the positions which we upon His authority had already accepted as true, That is to say, Old Testament criticism would in no small degree take an apologetic form, and would consist of attempts to prove to the intellect the positions laid down by the infallible Master. In fact this is precisely the point of view of a considerable number of writers at the present time. Starting with those of our Lord’s statements which bear upon the Old Testament, they have spent their efforts in attempting to overthrow the critical positions of a school, which to their mind has arrived at results that a Christian as such is obliged to reject. To such men the truth of Christianity itself is concerned in the overthrow of the statements of their opponents.

It is our duty then to investigate very carefully the character of our Lord’s teaching on the Old Testament. We must see precisely what He said and what He left unsaid, and we must note each allusion to those books whose historical value has been questioned or whose authority has been denied. This has been done in part, but the results are not entirely satisfactory. For our Lord’s statements are found to admit of more than one interpretation. To one student the mention of a certain Psalm as Davidic is a conclusive proof of its date and origin. To another it betokens a gracious condescension to the views of that particular time by One Who was content to argue with men on their own premises. To a third it is proof of the possibility of error in One Who refused to make use of that Divine omniscience which of right belonged to Him. Such divergent results teach us that the nature of our Lord’s authority cannot be decided by a simple

INTRODUCTION 7 appeal to His actual words, because the significance of those words necessarily depends upon the view which we have already taken of His Personality.

We must go behind the words to Him Who spoke them. We must ask not simply what the words mean, but what they mean as coming from Him.

When we study the picture of our Lord’s life as it is presented to us in the Gospel, we find that it is at once the portrait of a divine and of a human life. It is a divine life. | He Himself claimed to be the Son of God. Each Gospel is written from a different standpoint, but all four Evangelists agree in portraying the central Figure as more than human. It is a mistake to suppose that the divinity of our Lord can only be inferred from the fourth Gospel. The fourth Gospel clearly states the fact, but the first three Gospels are unintelligible unless the fact be assumed. Thus St. Luke represents the real question at issue, when Jesus Christ was condemned to death, to be His claim not only to Messiahship but also to Divine Sonship.!. Had He been willing to renounce the claim, He might perhaps have been released. When He refused to abandon it, He was at once condemned by the council of His nation. ‘And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God?

1St. Luke xxil. 67-71. Cf. St. Matt. xxvi. 63-66; St. Mark XIV. 61-64.

and He said unto them, Ye say that am. And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth.” ? When modern writers assert that the phrase ‘‘Son of God” was used by our Lord in an ethical rather than a metaphysical or ontological sense, we do well to remember that Christ’s actual hearers interpreted it in a very different manner. They recognized in these and similar words not only a vague claim to a kind of divinity, but also an assertion of entire equality and unity with God Himself. Thus in St. John’s Gospel we read that when our Lord claimed to be one with the Father, the Jews took up stones to stone Him. And why? “Because,” said they, “that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” ? They attempted to murder Him then and they ultimately succeeded in putting Him to death because He claimed to be more than human. Modern critics may hold that they were wrong in their interpretation of Christ's words. But it is reasonable to suppose that if our Lord had used the words in a sense different from that in which they understood them, He would have explained the significance of His claim and would not have died on account of a verbal misunderstanding.

The Christ of the Gospel is divine. He is human as well. For not only did He claim to be

EO uKke x XII 57 On 7a St. John x33.

INTRODUCTION 6 the Son of God; He also claimed to be the Son of Man. And as we read the Gospel History, we feel that we are reading the story of a human life. His faculties are subject to the law of human development: He increases in wisdom and bodily stature.’ He asks for information.” He expresses surprise.* He prays.* He knows the meaning of human sorrow and of human love.’ He is tired. He is conscious of the loss of power.’ He dies.’ In life and in death He is man. The fourth Gospel whilst most clearly maintaining His divinity no less surely lays stress on His humanity. It tells us of the depth of His affection,’ and of His grief and indignation at the sight of death.° It tells us how He was human to the close of His life, how upon the Cross one of His dying utterances was the confession of a physical need, “I thirst”. After His resurrection He is still man. He still has a body which retains the marks of former sufferings.” He is mistaken for an ordinary stranger by Mary Magdalene and by two of His followers. His identity is revealed not by the exercise of superhuman powers, but by the tone of His voice and by the

1 St. Luke 11. 52. 2St. John XI. 34. %,St. Mark vil. 18. Ot UKesiilgn2) ls

5 St. Matt. xxvI. 38; St. Mark x. 21. ® St. John Iv. 6.

1 St, John XIx. 28, 12'St. Jonni xx. 27.

to THE SELF-LIMITATION OF THE WORD OF GOD manner in which He took bread and blessed it. And when His disciples are uncertain as to whether He is but a phantom and no real man, He bids them behold His hands and His feet, “and while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish. And he took it and did eat before them.” ?

The only adequate explanation of the words and life of Jesus Christ is that of the Creed, that He was at once perfect God and perfect Man. It is therefore useless to attempt to understand the significance of His Personality, unless in part at least we realize the meaning of Godhead and of Manhood. In the Person of Christ the natural and the supernatural, the finite and the infinite, the earthly and the heavenly are in some manner united. But how are they united? Can we form any conception of the relation of the divine and the human in such a life? Nay, is such a union really possible? Does — it not imply a limitation of the Absolute, which is a philosophical impossibility? Does it not involve a union of sinless Deity with that which is essentially imperfect and sinful ?

Such questions as these are almost necessarily suggested to the thoughtful student, when he con-

INTRODUCTION ti templates the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. They must be carefully considered by anyone who attempts to solve the problem of the extent of our Lord's knowledge in His life upon earth, and the nature of His authority in matters of historical and Biblical criticism.

In the following pages I have attempted to give in outline some suggestions as to the solution of these questions. The reason that I have begun by examining at some length the Christian doctrine of the Personality of God and the possibility of His Self- Limitation and Revelation is because I did not wish to use terms like personality, revelation or self-limitation without inquiring into their true significance. ‘Throughout the following chapters I have endeavoured to investigate the meaning of terms which I have employed. I have asked myself what I really meant when I[ ascribed omnipotence and omniscience to the Supreme Being, because I have found myself and others applying these terms without accurately thinking how much they involved. And if I have even now failed to grasp their true significance, may He who taught me to think upon His nature and attributes forgive me the imperfections and narrowness of my thought.

GHAPTERG): THE POSSIBILITY OF SELF-LIMITATION.

Tue Christian doctrine of the Personality of God has been attacked on two different grounds. The first ground is that of its inherent impossibility. Personality, it is said, involves limitation, and we cannot conceive of the Absolute as limited. To speak of a limited Absolute is a contradiction in terms. Hence Pantheism opposes to this doctrine of the Personality of God the idea of a universal Spirit Who, though Himself unconscious, yet attains to varying degrees of consciousness in nature and in man. Such a Spirit instead of being independent of the world depends upon it for His very existence. — He sleeps in the plant, dreams in the animal, and only awakes to full intellectual and moral consciousness in the man. He would never in all probability have been conscious of His own being or of the world which He had produced but for the existence of man. Inman He remembers what He fashioned in His sleep and in His dreams.

If the Pantheistic explanation of the facts of con- 12

THE POSSIBILITY OF SELF-LIMITATION 13 sciousness and of the existence of the world were satisfactory, we might be able to accept it as a substitute for the Christian belief in the Personality of the Supreme Being. But until it can be shown how a blind instinctive force can work both in nature and in history to intelligent ends, the effect produced must be held to be greater than the cause which is postulated. Therefore on_ intellectual grounds alone Pantheism can scarcely be considered satisfactory." Neither is Pantheism able to account for the deliverances of our moral consciousness. The unconditional “ought” of the moral law is at once explained upon the assumption of the existence of a Lawgiver distinct from and superior to man. But Pantheism allows that such a moral Being exists only in so far as He is created by man himself. Is it possible to conceive how a duty could be owed to such a self-made Being, how He should be capable ‘of issuing absolute and unconditional commands, which man in his inmost being feels himself bound to obey?

But is the objection which gives rise to Pantheism an insuperable one? Are the notions of “personal” and “absolute” self-contradictory? Does the former imply that the Supreme Being is limited and the latter that He is unlimited? The Christian doctrine of the Trinity seems to throw a light upon

1See Martensen, “Christian Dogmatics,” sect. 41.

this question. It is true that man only arrives at a conception of his own personality, of the existence of an ‘‘],” when he discovers that he is different from the world by which he is bounded. Besides his “Ego” there is a “non-Ego,” which limits him and forces upon him the fact of his own identity. But in the case of the Supreme Being, Christianity tells us that thougha Person, He is not dependent upon a created world outside and independent of Himself in order to make sucha discovery. In His own Being there is that which takes the place of the “non-Ego”. God is able to say to Himself “I,” because within Himself there is eternally a ‘‘Thou”. The “1” and “Thou” are not only distinguished but united, because in each act of self-consciousness there is a Third Person Who is neither “I” nor “Thou”. The ground and source of Deity is God the Father ; but, if we may dare to say so, His consciousness of His own identity depends*upon the fact that He is also conscious of the existence within the Godhead of One whose being is derived from Himself, of God the Son : and the mutual consciousness of Father and Son in like manner seems to depend upon the fact that they are conscious of a Third Person Who proceeds from them both, of God the Holy Spirit. Thus God is indeed a Person, but He is not dependent on limitations, like those which the world imposes upon us, to become aware of that fact. He

THE POSSIBILITY OF SELF-LIMITATION 15 has no need to go outside of Himself. He Himself eternally makes His own object.’

Viewed in this light we need not regard the ideas of ‘‘ Personal” and “Absolute” any longer as contradictory. God can be and is a Person independently of the world. He is absolute and unlimited, because He finds within His own being that ‘“ non- Ego,” which we are obliged to go outside of ourselves to find.

But the Pantheist may answer: granted that it is possible to conceive of God as Personal if there were no created world, is it equally possible to conceive of Him as such in the present condition of existence? There is around us a world of nature and man, which you affirm to have been created by God. In that case you must admit that we have on the one side a Personal God and on the other a world which is not part of Himself. That is to say, we have on the one hand an absolute and unlimited Being, and on the other a world which limits His absolute power. Nor are these limits imaginary or evanescent. They consist not only of the natural world which is outside of Himself, but also of persons whose wills are constantly in direct opposition to His. Is not His will therefore bounded by that which He has created? If He is

_ 1See Martensen, “Christian Dogmatics,” sects. 55, 56.

a Person, does He not cease to be absolute by the act of creation?

Now as we have already seen that God can exist as a Personal Being independently of all creation, any limits which are imposed upon Him by the act of creation are not a necessary condition of His existence. Such limits are made of His own free will and are of the nature of a voluntary self-limitation. And the real question at issue is this: is it inconsistent with our idea of an absolute and unlimited Being that He should be able to place limits upon Himself by bringing into existence other wills which are also capable of acting freely? So far from being inconsistent, does it not seem that. God would not be unlimited or absolute in the fullest sense of the terms, unless He were able to do so? For the true conception of an absolute Being is that of One who has absolute control over Himself; and He would not have absolute control over Himself, unless He were able to limit Himself. An absolute Being can never be compelled to do anything against His will and can never do anything that is self-contradictory. But self-limitation is not due to pressure from without, nor is it the same as self-contradiction : it is rather an indication of the free exercise of perfect power. Theism does not assert that the Absolute, in creating beings who have will power of their own, has ever completely

THE POSSIBILITY OF SELF-LIMITATION 17 given over His power to them. Each moment it is of God’s own free will that other wills exist. Each moment the limitation is due not to any metaphysical necessity of His Being, but to a deliberate act of choice. At no particular point of time need we suppose that the Absolute decreed that He would henceforth limit Himself and refuse for ever to exercise certain of His powers. The existence of creation at any given time is the result of the exercise of self-limitation at that time. And when the question is asked: what guarantee then have we that this act of self-limitation may not at any time cease? Theism replies: our one guarantee lies in the unchangeable nature of the moral and rational Being who thus limits Himself. His free will is not a mere impulsive movement, but is dictated by perfect wisdom and perfect goodness. The second objection to the belief in the Personality of God is not that the doctrine is in itself impossible, but that it is one that can neither be affirmed nor denied by man, because he has not faculties capable of knowing God. How can the finite apprehend the infinite? If man affirms that the Absolute is personal, his statements must be regarded as the expression of his own subjective needs, not as the knowledge of an objective reality in the life of God. This is the Agnostic position.