now ask the Editor whether he calls the following sayings of Jesus, found in chapters v. and viii., the fullest testimonies to his equality with God? "The Son can do nothing of himself.” "For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth." "So the Son quickeneth whom he will ; for the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life." "So hath he given to the Son to have life in himself, and hath given him authority," &c. "I can of mine ownself do nothing." "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent me." "For the works which the Father hath given me to finish," &c. "I am come in my Father's name." Ch. viii.: "But he that sent me is true." "I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me I speak these things." "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of God." "Neither came I myself, but he sent me." "I seek not mine own glory." "I know him (God) and keep his saying.”* Do these testimonies amount to the equality of Jesus with his God and Father? If so, the Editor must have in view a definition of the term "equality" quite different from that maintained by the world. I at the same time entreat the Editor to point out a * As to John v. 23, I beg to refer my readers to the subsequent chapter of this Essay, where I will examine the same verse fully. single verse in either of these two chapters containing a proof of the equality of Jesus Christ with God, setting in defiance all the phrases I have now quoted from these very chapters. After reflecting upon the above-cited phrases, the Editor will, I hope, spare the charge, that Jesus" at length prevaricates and retracts for fear of death;" for his disavowal of deity in ch. x. 36, was quite consistent with all the doctrines and precepts that he taught in the evangelical writings. (Vide the whole of the four gospels.) The Editor then adds, that "the confession, (in x. 34-36,) which our author terms a disavowal of deity, was the very confession for which they sought again to take him, because they still thought he made himself God." I am, therefore, under the necessity of quoting the context, to shew that the Jews seemed appeased at the explanation given by Jesus himself, as to their misunderstanding of him, and that they sought again to take him on account of another subsequent assertion of his. The context is, (32-39,)" Many good works have I shewed you from my Father'; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came, (and the scripture cannot be broken,) say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not: but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him, but he escaped out of their hand." Does not Jesus here appeal to scripture, on the ground that if the sacred writings, every assertion of which is but true, are justified in calling magistrates and prophets gods, and that the Jews in reading the Scriptures styled those superiors by the epithet gods, in conformity to their Scriptures, they could not in justice accuse him, the sanctified Messiah of God, of blasphemy, for his having called himself only the Son of God? Does not Jesus here justify the use of the phrase "Son of God," for himself, in the same metaphorical sense that the term "gods" was used for the magistrates and prophets among Israel? If so, he of course relinquishes his claim to the use of the phrase "God," and "Son of God" in its real sense. If a commoner, who holds a high situation under government, suffers himself to be called "honourable," and, consequently, be accused of presumption in permitting himself to be designated by that title, on the ground that he was not actually the son of a * I have already in a preceding page (584) stated that such a phrase as "one is in another, and the other is in him," implies in scriptural language only unity in design and will, as it is frequently applied to the apostles in reference to God, and to their Lord and Master Jesus Christ. nobleman, would he not justify himself against this charge by saying, "You call all the judges Lords in their judicial capacity, though they are not noblemen by birth; yet you charge me (who hold a more dignified situation than the judges) with arrogance, because I suffer myself to be addressed as honourable'-a title which the children of noblemen enjoy"? In following the example of Jesus, I now appeal to scripture, and also to common sense, that my readers may judge thereby whether verses 34-36 contain a confession of godhead, or a disavowal of deity, made by Jesus himself. It is not only a single instance in which Jesus omitted to correct the Jews in their misconceiving the phrase, "The Father is in me, and I in him,” (verse 38,) but in many other instances he left them in ignorance. (John ii. 19, 21.) When Jesus told the Jews to destroy the temple, that he might raise it again in three days, they misunderstood him, and supposed that he intended to raise the temple of Jerusalem, and found fault with him, from this misconceived notion, before the high-priest. John ii. 21 : "But he spoke of the temple of his body;" as well as John vii. 34--36, viii. 21, 22, as I noticed before in pages 433, 562. 433, 562. The Editor, lastly, says, that "Jesus at last chose to die under this very charge, rather than clear up the mistake, if it was such. This was their last and grand charge: We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God,' which they esteemed now ask the Editor whether he calls the following sayings of Jesus, found in chapters v. and viii., the fullest testimonies to his equality with God?" The Son can do nothing of himself." "For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth." "So the Son quickeneth whom he will ; for the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life." "So hath he given to the Son to have life in himself, and hath given him authority," &c. "I can of mine ownself do nothing." "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent me." "For the works which the Father hath given me to finish," &c. "I am come in my Father's name." Ch. viii.: "But he that sent me is true." "I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me I speak these things." "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of God." "Neither came I myself, but he sent me." "I seek not mine own glory." "I know him (God) and keep his saying."* Do these testimonies amount to the equality of Jesus with his God and Father? If so, the Editor must have in view a definition of the term "equality" quite different from that maintained by the world. I at the same time entreat the Editor to point out a * As to John v. 23, I beg to refer my readers to the subsequent chapter of this Essay, where I will examine the same verse fully. |