Correspondence On Mark 13:32.

To the Editor of the Bible Treasury. Dear Brother,

1893 379 A tract has just been handed me, the title of which is, "A few remarks on a paper recently published in the Botschafter," and the author, J. S. A.

I have no thought of entering into a controversy to which, thank God, we are no party, but which, as it has already been lasting for some years, may last indefinitely for this simple reason that the subject under discussion is, in its main part, beyond the competency of any man.

But truth, and principally truth that bears upon the person of Christ, has its requirements, on the ground of which it becomes a duty to any and every Christian to confess his faith. Now, in the above mentioned tract, I read the following sentence: "Personally He (Christ) ever was God; but without ceasing to be that, He has taken a 'place' as the second man, and as He is in that position, so shall we be. 'As is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.' As to omniscience, which is one of the attributes of a divine person, see what the Lord says of the position He was occupying" (Mark 13:32). The italics are mine, for it is upon this latter part that I would draw the attention of your readers.

If these words have a meaning, they make our blessed Lord to say that in Him the divine nature and the human were so separate, that one part of Himself knew and the other part did not; in other words, that, as second man, He had not omniscience. Is there any such lowering thought in Mark 13:32? First of all the text does not speak of Him specifically as man or Son of man, but as "the Son," and this alone destroys the argument. Secondly, it is admirably in keeping with the whole Gospel (in which alone it is found), where the Son is characteristically presented as the perfect SERVANT. Now, it was part of His perfection, as servant, not to know "of that day and hour" wherein the Father would exalt Him commensurately with His own voluntary humiliation. To humble Himself and to obey unto death, yea, death of the cross, was His whole concern. The result, as regarded Himself, He would leave absolutely and unreservedly with His Father; "wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him," etc. This is full of beauty and comeliness, truly heart-winning; but if you use the "no man knoweth" to infer that manhood in Christ had no part in omniscience, you disunite the two natures which now, i.e. since the Word became flesh, compose His person for ever, and you cast a slur upon Him. It is a fresh wound inflicted upon Him in the house of His friends.

As we have the perfect servant in Mark, so have we God manifest in the flesh in John, that is characteristically the Son Whom "no man knoweth but the Father." And in this Gospel what do we read? "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray Him." Is not this omniscience? Mark too, it is attributed to JESUS, the God-Man. Again, as to omnipresence, which is no less a divine attribute than is omniscience, we read, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, THE SON OF MAN which is in heaven." Who can fathom these mysteries? We are called upon to believe, not to explain them. The former leads to adoration; the latter is soul-withering and God-dishonouring work. O that we knew more of our littleness in order to see more of His greatness! Ever yours in Him, C.