Jn 719- ~. Our Lord shows the Jews that a strict observance of the letter of the whole Law is, in practice, impossible ; and that He is therefore, from their own standpoint, entitled to heal on the Sabbath. 'Did not Moses give you the law? and yet not one of you carries it out in actual practice (toie? ts» toLut).' For instance — Moses has sriven you circumcision ; but in keep- ing that ordinance, you do not hesitate to break the letter of another, for vou circumcise on the Sabbath. There is ironv in
204
MOSES
MOSES
the ;V« ij.yi kvtiy, ('that the law of Moses be not broken') of v. 23. But a further thought seems to be implied in the hiic toZto (' for this cause') with which v. 22 opens. Xot only did Moses give you a law which it is impossible to keep with rigid exactness, but he gave it to you on this \ery account, i.e. that you might discover by experience its weakness and unprofitableness. A parenthesis, however, is thrown in to modify the Vihaxiy. Moses ' has given ' you circumcision in the sense that he has authori- tatively endorsed it as a binding ordinance ; but it did not originate from him ; it was handed down ' from the fathers,' i.e. from the days when Abraham circumcised himself and his sons. (Our Lord uses a similar argument with regard to the Sabbath in Mt 125).
Jn 928f.. The Pharisees taunted the man who had been healed of his blindness with being a disciple of Jesus, while they were ' Moses' disciples.' In their eyes Moses held a position analogous to that of Mohammed or Buddha, or any great founder of a religion. They were Moses' disciples because they revered his writings and obeyed his commands. But Christ's true followers, while they are His disciples, are at the same time far more, because they are partakers in His Divine life.
See also Ro 1019 (the expression ' Moses saith ' introducing the words of God, Dt 3221), He T^.
The thought of this section finds concrete illus- tration in the narrative of :Mt IT^"^ II Mk 9^-8, Lk 9-^'^^. Moses and Elijah, the two grandest figures of the OT, who both fasted forty days and nights, who were both privileged to behold a theophany on Mt. Horeb, and who were both taken from the earth in a supernatural manner, represented ' the Law and the Prophets.' And they appeared to Him who was the fulfilment to which both pointed, and conversed with Him (Lk. ) concerning His im- pending departure (e|o5os). Among other factors in the Wsion which taught a lesson to the watching disciples was the vanishing of Moses and Elijah when 'Jesus alone' remained. 'It helped them to see that the OT being fulfilled by Christ is done away in Christ' (Plummer in Hastings' T)B iv. 808").
In all the above pa.ssages, both in (a) and {h), Moses does not appear strictly as a personality. He is not a man, possessed of individual character — of moral or spiritual attainments. He is the instrument through whom the Law was given to Israel (Ac 7^^) — the hand which wrote and the voice which spoke. And Jesus, together with the Jews of His day, thought of him as such. This fact is held by some to cut away the ground from the critical arguments which go to prove that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch as it stands, and, indeed, that the greater part of the Pentateuchal law is in its present form later than the age of Moses. The question has been very fully discussed by many writers, so that only a brief notice is needed here. If, as Hebrew scholars contend, the evidence is overwhelming that the Pentateuch and the Laws contained in it are the result of a long growth, which was not completed until a period after the return of the Jews from exile, it is impossible for us to shut our eyes to this evidence on the assumption (for it is only an assumption) that our Lord's use of the name of Moses precludes further argument. An explana- tion sometimes given is that Jesus must have known the exact truth about the authorship of the Pentateuch, but that He made a concession to the ignorance of the Jews of His day. But a growing body of students rejects this as untenable, because it detracts from the complete humanity of our Lord. If, as man, He had a full knowledge of the results which modern study has reached with regard to the literary problems of the OT, He must also, as man, have kno^^•n all future results which will be reached by the study of generations to come. In other words, as man He was onmi- scient. But this conflicts alike with our concep- tion of complete manhood and with the explicit declaration that He ' advanced in wisdom ' (Lk 2^2). We know that He could feel hungry and thirsty and weary, that He could be overcome with sleep, that He could manifest surprise ; and on one occa- sion at least He spoke of something which 'no
one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only' (Mt 24««, Mk IS^-^). He was subject, therefore, to the ordinary limitations of manhood, and, as man. He acquired His know- ledge by the methods which other men follow. The problem is a part of a larger one— the problem of determining to what extent, or in what sen.se, His Divine jjowers and prerogatives were in abej-- ance during His earthly life. Although fully and completely man. He did not cease to be God, and He did not cease to be conscious of His Divinitj". ' It is this continuous self-consciousness of the Son of God that gives the true measure of His transcen- dent humility ' (Gittbrd, The Incarnation, p. 90). We can venture the statement with respect to His knowledge, that though, as God, He never ceased to be omniscient, yet He refused to know, as man, anything which could not be learnt by human means. But when we have said that, we have only enunciated and not solved the problem. This is not the place to enter into it further. But there can be no doubt that it is along this line of thought that we must move, to justify modern criticism in denying to Moses the authorship of the Pentateuch which our Lord and His Apostles ascribed to him. See also artt. HUMANITY OF Christ and Kenosis.