i. 3X2f.)-' *i" li"' ■ ■'■' ■ ''■'■■■' '■ ■■ ■■■■ I ■'' ■! ''- ■-■' ' '■■
come,' says i^^-- '^ n !■ ■ ■ ' i ■■!
this whole scIhk'I .., ...p..- -.^ {W ,, ,- .:...:.- !.,..j.nu,., . [.. i.:,.i.
1330, Mt 102a he cnrisi.it-rs that the error is ol.vious. fie adds, *That such an error on the part of Jesus concerning not a side- issue but a fundamental point of His faith,— His first proclama- tion began, according to Mk lis, with the TiTXr.faiTx.i o xotipo? xa.) inyymiv -h iSeta-iKuoc tou Oteu, — tloes not facilitate faith in Jesus is self-evident ; but this error of Jesus is for His Church a highly instructive and therefore highly valuable warning to distin- guish between the temporary and the permanent in the work of Jesua.* Not every one even of this school can go, however, length.
I this matt* r
lecounb to think Uelonging to the {The Prophecies
Konnte Jesus in substantial p. 205).
of the mere definition o form rather than to the of Jesus Christ, 1895, irren i 1896, p. 3) ; and
From the other side, E. B.B,\r^t{Eschatolog. Ausm<jenJe.su^ p. 138 f.) urges that Jesus must be supposed to have been able to avoid all errors, at least in the religious sphere, even if they concern nothin-r l>nt tlu- form: while Weiffenbach (Z>te Fragc, etc. p. 9) thinks w.- ^liMnl.t li, ^itate to suppose Jesus could have erred in Ii.m i Imsi u .h limi lun of the time of His advent, when He expris^l^ , ,mi. -. - Oi.i He was ignorant of its time (cf. Muirhead, Ksrhat. i-i .hsus, i^-.'.i), and esp. 117). Probably Fritz Barth {Die Jhiuptpi-->bicuu- dcs Lcbeiis Jem, 1899, pp. 167- 170^ stands alone in cutting the knot by appealing to the con- ditionality of all prophecy. According to him, Jesus did, indeed, predict His return as coincident with the destruction of Jeru- salem ; but all genuine prophecy is conditioned upon the con- duct of the human agents involved—' between prediction and fulfilment the conduct of man intrudes as a codetermining factor on which the fulfilment, depends.' Thus this prediction has not failed, but its fulfilment has only been postponed— in accordance, it must be confessed, not with the will of God, but with that of man. It is difficult to see how Jesus is thus shielded from the imputation of defective foresight ; but at
rr
' still to look for j
of the
The difficulty which the passages in our Saviour's teaching under discussion present to the reverent expositor is, of course, not to he denied or mini- mized. But surely this difficulty would need to he much more hopeless than it is hef" ore it could compel
■ justify the assumption of error ' in One who
ipel has
never been convicted of error in anything else' (Sanday in Hastings' DB ii. 635 — the whole passage should be read). The problem that faces us in this matter, it is apparent, in the meantime, is not one which can find its solution as a corollary to a specu- lative general view of our Lord's self-consciousness, its contents, and development. It is distinctly a problem of exegesis. We should lie very sure tliat we know fully and precisely all that our Lord has declared about His return— its what and how and when — before we venture to suggest, even to our most intimate thought, that He'has committed so gross an error as to its what and how and when as is so often assumed ; especially as He has in the most solemn manner declared concerning precisely the words under consideration that heaven and earth shall pass away, but not His words. It would he sad if the passage of time has shown this de- claration also to be mistaken. Meanwhile, the perfect foresight of our Lord, asserted and illus- trated by all the Evangelists, certainly cannot be set .aside by the facile assumption of an error on His part in a matter in which it is so difficult to demonstrate an error, and in which assumptions of all sorts are so little justified. For the detailed
discussion of our Lord's eschatology, including the determination of His meaning in these utterances, reference must, however, be made to works treat- ing expressly of this subject.
Benjamin B. Waefield. FORGIVENESS.—
Three words are \ised in the Gospels which are rendered in Enj,dish })>■ the word ' foryive ' ■.~a.-raXi.uv, to tictfi-a\ once only.
in LkO'"; xa.p.^i<Tti noptic Gospels. T
' fornii
is found
trespasses' being eitli< I !■ i i i imiilied.
In the treatmeiil oi iIm -ul.jnt in this article three things must lie bcirnc in mind. First, that the words employed by Christ and the ideas they ri'jiresent are not entirely new as they come from His lips. Our Lord presupposes and then j^uts His own characteristic impress upon a doctrine of forgiveness with which His hearers were for the most part familiar, and x\luch for us is em- bodied in the OT. Srroii(//i/, that no complete stu.ly of ('liiisls (.■.icliiii;; concerning forgiveness can 111' ihihI.', iiiiI.~- ..iIiit words, such as 'save,' 'JMslily, ;inil ' ( liMii-r,' ure taken into accoiint, and the wliule suhjuct of release from tlic guilt and bondage of sin, as promised by llini, is kept in view. And, thirdly, that to stoji' sIkhI \\ il h t lie recorded words of Chri.st Himself on iIh- iiLalIrr is — .speakingly reverently — not to know His wlmlu mind upon it. It was impossible for Him in the course of His earthly ministry to set forth the full significance of His work for men, before it was accomplished. Hence for a complete account of the significance of His death we turn to the teach- ing of tlie Apostles, enlightened as they were by