iv] Some Implications of the Incarnation 145 



Father," and others of the same kind? If not, what 

 explanation can we give? For it is hardly justifiable 

 to say here, as some critics do in regard to similar 

 problems, that the Evangelist in retrospect puts say- 

 ings into the mouth of Jesus which really represent the 

 understanding that came after His resurrection. Even 

 though there may be some truth in such a contention, 

 we cannot believe that he deliberately gave a false im- 

 pression for the sake of establishing a theological dogma. 

 Whatever Christ's actual words, He must have said 

 things that gave this impression ; otherwise the Gospel 

 of St John would never have been accepted at a time 

 when tradition was so fresh. And the sayings are so con- 

 gruous and so closely associated with the whole character 

 and ministry of Jesus that we cannot but believe that 

 they, or words like them, were actually spoken by Him. 



On the other hand they seem quite definitely to con- 

 tradict other sayings, in which He expresses a sense of 

 dependence upon, and ignorance of the full purpose of, 

 the Will of the Father. 



Any idea of a kind of alternation of the divine and 

 human consciousness is out of the question. It is irre- 

 concileable with His perfect manhood. We must find 

 some other explanation. 



Now His Godhead and His Manhood were alike real; 

 and the manhood existed in the conditions of matter 

 and becoming. If as Man Christ could have had any 

 memory of transcendent union with the Father, the 

 difficulty would be solved. For, according to Bergson's 

 exposition, His memory could make use of the reality 

 which for Him, as a being experiencing duration, was 

 existent, yet in the past, bringing it into the present 

 again for the purposes of immediate action. 



The value of this memory, in enforcing His teaching, 

 is at once obvious. He could speak with certain know^ 

 ledge, as one having authority, and not as the scribes, 

 ii CD. 10 



