1 ΤΣ Ε ςΟλΙΡ ΝΙΟζ Π Ι:Ι;: . f Ά` Q: F Ά THAT FEAR ΤΗΕ, AND OF THEM THAT KEEP ΤΗΥ ,ECEPTS. T%lE I#Q SP ΣBTΣΡ' KEEP 18V Υ, WHICH η, k . •ϋW4ϊ.R':IN;USTI^U:, OΌD DEPOSIT ^ ? ENTRIJ$TED Ζ TIMOTHY 1 14 Could Christ Sin? 1 The Holiness of Christian Fellowship Chapter 3: Galatians 5:9 and 2 John 9, Gal. 5:9 7 Selfishness that Clothes Itself 11 Elements of Dispensational Truth Chapter 5: Zion and the Jerusalems 12 Is There Room in Gal. 4:10 for Participation by Christians in Hindu Death Anniversary Celebrations? 27 New Book Announcement see inside rear cover www.presenttruthpublishers.com www.presenttruthpublishers.com THE TRUTH OF CHRIST'S PERSON "THE SON CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF SAVE WHATEVER HE SEES THE FATHER DOING" (COULD CHRIST SIN?) The Temptations and the Lord's Omniscience Was part of the stress of the temptation of Christ the (supposed) idea that He did not knοω if He would fail or not? I have already cited Peter Cousins in The Harvester, an Open-Brethren peńodical'. It is evident that he holds both that the Lord did not know if He would fail or not and also that He could have sinned. 2 He wrote: These considerations have led Gerald Hawi ome, writing in A Bible Commentary for Today, to make an interesting suggestion. 'Nevertheless, assuming that it was impossible for Him to sin, because of the nature of His person, yet it is also possible to assume that He did not know that this was the case. Mark 13:32 implies that the Son, in His incarnate role, was not omniscient -- there is at least one thing recorded there which He did not knοω. If, then, there was one thing He did not knοω, ignorance of other things was also }•• ssible, even this concerning whether or not He could sin ... One must never suppose that His victory over temptation was `the mere formal consequence of 1.Now called Aware. 2. To find such teachings in an Open Brethren periodical is consistent with the fact that certain Open Brethren warn that "exclusives' (the term has been applied to those who refused to receive believers who break bread with evil persons) have doceiic tendencies. Traditonally, the exclusives have held the impeccability of Christ's person. For example, F. F. Bnmce (who denies inerrancy of Scripture and denies eternal, conscious punishment of the wicked) says: .. verging at times on Docetisim, has been endemic in certain phases of the Brethren movement" ('The Humanity of Jesus Christ,' The Journal of the Christian Brethren Research Fellowship, 824, p. 5, Sept. 1973). F. R. Coad, (A History of the Brethren Movement, London: Paternoster Press, 1968, pp. 135, 152, 147, 160, 210, 265) is another, who alleges this docetic tendency. This allegation may result from unsoundt :ss on their part concerning the impeccability of Christ. www.presenttruthpublishers.com 2 Thy Precepts vol 8 # 1, Jan/Feb 1993 His divine nature'. Any interpretation of the person of Christ which in any way diminishes the force and genuineness of His temptation cannot be correct.' From what I know of readers of HARVESTER, 3 I have little doubt that they are scriptural in what they believe about the deity of Christ. I have a strong impression that they, along with many other evangelicals, tend not to believe so emphatically in his full humanity. But a scriptural faith will affirm both the deity and the humanity, and will accept the tensions thαt such a faith entails. 4 So when he attacks the Lord's holy humanity he also supports the notion that Christ was not omniscient. If you do not agree, then you "tend not to believe so emphatically in his full humanity." Why, y rn have a docetic tendency! Well, there seems no end to the ways in which oii. Lord's humanity is attacked. I suggest that what is at work is a kenotic tent ency, though it is clear that "tendency" is too weak a word. Of course, not all Open-Brethren hold such teaching, but why do they not exclude such teachers from their fellowship? At any rate, one of them, W. Hosι wrote: The plainest testimony to the omniscience of Christ is ignored or explained away. Again and again we read: "He knew their thoughts"; "He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man, f οτ He knew what was in man"; "Neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son"; (the knowledge of the disciple can never approach that of the Teacher, when the lesson is infinite); and, lastly, the unparalleled (except in John 21:17) testimony of the disciples resulting from His wonderful words just uttered. "Now are we sure that Thou knewest all things." What could be plainer? But all goes fοτ nothing with these men, in face of their theory thαt "our Lord must have been in the position of not knowing what was coming next in order to resemble us." But surely what we are called to is to resemble Him, not to drag Him down to resemble us. This same writer refers to this theory as 'This marvelous experience of His of not knowing." It would indeed be marvelous were it true! I hope what has been written here will enable' he Lord's people to appraise this teaching aright. Let us, however, in closing, ;note a few more Scriptures which still further negative this erroneous thει ry: "Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that believed not and w io should betray Him" (John 6:64); "He knew that His hour was come," (Chap. 13:1;) "Now 1 tell you before it come, that when it is come to pass ye may believe that I am" (v. 19. Chap. 14:29; see Isa. 41:21-23,26); and finally, "Jesus knowing all things that should ccme upon Him" (chap. 18:4). Is it not difficult to recognize in the Christ these teachers offer us, "who did n ι. know what was coming next," the omniscient Christ of the Gospels, "Who 1:, ..w all things thαt should come upon Him" and "all things" besides? s 3. This periodical is now named Aware. 4. The Harvester, Sept. or Oct. 1986, p. 18. 5. The reference has escaped me. www.presenttruthpublishers.com Thy Precepts vol 8 # 1, Jan/Feb 1993 3 That is plain enough. What possible excuse is there for denying His omniscience? There is none, and what is at the bottom of such blatant distortion of Scripture? Why, it is the doctrine that Christ could have sinned. Well did W. Kelly say, "Could such a profane dreamer be really supposed to believe th αt He is the Son of God?" Having settled from Scripture that our Lord was omniscient and impeccable (we may be charged with docetic tendencies), we should seek the mind of God concerning Mark 13:32. Α lengthy consideration is found in The Bible Treasury, New Series 8:157-160: The only teal occasion of momentary difficulty presents itself in the third reference now to be alluded to (Mark 13:32). This is the great stronghold, invariably the proof text of all who assert limitation in our Lord's knowledge. Being out of His own mouth also, this apparent repudiation of any knowledge of a superior grade seems all the more forcible. As has been recently admitted, however, the fact thαt this is the only occasion when there is any approach to a confession of ignorance on Christ's part, and that even so it only refers to a single item not strictly cognate, leaves the contention somewhat inadequately supported. Solitary or not, however, the expression demands most careful consideration. For, on the face of it, it does occasion difficulty, this acknowledgment of ignorance, if such it be. If such indeed it be, for one of the first questions that readily prompt themselves immediately the difficulty is felt is -- Can this really be an absolute and unqualified disclaimer on the Lord's part of any light on the subject? Aie we really to imagine Him personally and absolutely as much in the dark as, say, "men" or "angels," concerning what is spoken of? Consider for a moment how strange that would be. After all th αt Christ claimed to know, and professed to reveal as to the future, that just here the store of His knowledge should give out! This same prophetic discourse of the Lord's, of which the verse forms a part is, remember, His emphatic reply to the request of His disciples for a sketch of the future. No mere disquisition on things moral, clothed in the imagery of Jewish Apocalyptic literature, is this; but given as true prophecy. And after all this opening out of what that future contains, particularly as given by Matthew in its fullness, the whole course of events evidently before the mind of the speaker right down to the consummation of the age, Himself filling no small but the chief role in them, after all this we are to imagine that Christ's knowledge of the future, as of everything else, was of the same limited kind as our own, because He avows for Himself, in the capacity in which He was then speaking, unacquaintance with the day and hour of His own return and the establishment of His kingdom! In this case, as in the others, reason from what in the passage itself is apparent as to what Christ does know, and the kenotic interpretation sought to be put upon it will not stand.