Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

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. 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

blasphemy worthy of death." The Editor must be well aware that the Jews had such an inveterate enmity against Jesus, that they not only charged him with what they found in him contrary to their law, but even with wilful exaggerations. John v. 15: "The man departed and told the Jews, that it was Jesus who had made him whole." Ver. 16: "And therefore did the Jews persecute him, (Jesus,) and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day." (To perform a cure on the sabbath day, is supposed by the Jews to be a breach of the traditions of the elders, and not a crime worthy of death; yet they sought to kill Jesus under that pretence.) Ver. 17: "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." Although the Jews, in their own defence, called God their Father, without subjecting themselves to the charge of blasphemy, (John viii. 41, "We have one Father, even God,") yet they sought to kill Jesus on the false ground, that he equalized himself with God by calling God his Father. It is worth observing, that, lest the Jews should infer his independence in doing miracles, and wrest his words from the purpose, (" My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,") Jesus firmly avows his entire dependence on God in whatever he had performed, in verse 19, ("Verily, I say unto you,

the Son CAN do nothing [of] himself," &c.,) and also in the following verses, insomuch that the Jews, being unable to find any plea for his destruction, remained quiet, and left Jesus in peace. (Vide the whole of ch. v.) In Luke xxiii. 2, the Jews charged him with having perverted the nation by representing himself as their king, and having forbidden to give tribute to Cæsar-a charge which was full of misrepresentation.

Let us return now to the text quoted by the Reverend Editor: "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God;"-whence it is evident, that, notwithstanding the great hatred which the Jews entertained towards our Saviour, and the misrepresentation they were guilty of in their accusation against him, the severest charge which they preferred under the pretence of religion, was, that "he made himself the Son of God," and they would have, of course, accused him of having made himself God, to Pilate, whom they found inclined to release Jesus, and in presence of the multitude, this being better calculated to excite the wrath of the latter and horror of the former, had the Jews ever heard him declare himself God, or say any thing that amounted to his claim to the Godhead. The high-priest and other chief accusers knew very well that their people were taught to consider God as their Father, and to call themselves the children of the Most High (correctly speaking,

« AnteriorContinuar »