CHAPTER I.
THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
SECTION 1.--HUMANITY.
JESUS CHRIST WAS A MAN.[1]
The manner of Christ's conception was peculiar. Without a human father, he
was conceived in the womb of his virgin mother, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
How far the son of Mary, conceived in this peculiar manner, resembled the sons
born of other mothers, in the ordinary mode of generation, and how far he
differed from them, we cannot certainly know from the circumstances of his
conception. The divine power, which formed a man out of the dust of the
ground, could also form a man in the womb of the virgin: but whether this
extraordinary production should be a man, or a being of some other order,
depended entirely on the will of God. For the knowledge of what Jesus Christ
was, we are wholly indebted to the testimony concerning him given in the sacred
Scriptures.
The testimony of the inspired Word on this point is very explicit. Whatever
else Jesus Christ may have been, he was certainly a man; for so innumerable
passages of Scripture declare. "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved;"[2] "One mediator, the man Christ Jesus."[3]
Jesus Christ had a human body. His was not a mere shadowy form of humanity;
for, even after his resurrection, he said to his disciples, "Handle me and see
me, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."[4] It was a real body that bore the weight of the cross, and
was afterwards nailed to it. It was a real body that was pierced by the spear;
and real blood and water issued from the wound. It was a real body that was
embalmed with spices and laid in the tomb; and that afterwards rose from the
dead. This body was human. It had the appearance and organs common to human
bodies; was sustained by food, was subject to hunger and weariness, and needed
the rest of sleep, like the bodies of other men.
Jesus Christ had a human soul. If the divine nature had dwelt in his body as
a mere tabernacle of flesh, and supplies to it the place of a human soul, it
could not have been said that "Jesus increased in wisdom."[5] The mere material fabric could have no wisdom, and the
wisdom of the divine nature was not susceptible of increase. Nor was it some
created spirit of angelic or super-angelic nature that animated his body. He
was made in all things like his brethren;[6] and
he would not have been a brother, one of the family, made like the rest, if the
spirit that dwelt in his human flesh had not also been human. Without this he
would not have been a man. If he had not possessed a soul, he could not have
said, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful;"[7] nor
could it have been said, "When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin."[8] And if his soul had not been human, it would
not have been a suitable offering for the sin of human beings. He took not on
him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham.[9] He must be made like those whose law-place he assumed, and
for whom he made himself a sacrifice.
The soul of Christ was unlike the souls of ordinary men, in being without the
taint of sin. The mention of this exception proves more strongly the likeness
in other respects. "He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without
sin."[10] Had the divine nature served as the
soul of Christ, a statement of this exception would have been needless and
inappropriate. Christ could be a man without being depraved; for Adam was a
man before he fell. In the comparison between Christ and Adam as public heads,
Adam is called the first man, and Christ the second man.[11] The humanity of the latter is as real as that of the
former.
In the working of miracles God has shown that he is able to suspend the laws
of nature; and he could have suspended that law of nature by which depraved
parents generate depraved children. Had it been his pleasure, Jesus Christ
might have had a human father as well as a human mother; and have been,
nevertheless, without sin; for with God all things are possible. But it was
not the pleasure of God that he should be so born; and the reason for his
conception by the power of the Holy Ghost, is given in the words of the angel
to his virgin mother; "Therefore, that holy thing which shall be born of
thee shall be called the Son of God."[12]
Ordinary generation would have made him the son of man; but his generation was
extraordinary, because he was also the son of God. The conception by the Holy
Ghost did not give the offspring an intermediate nature between the divine and
the human, such as the demigods of the heathen were supposed to possess. In
that case, Christ, as the son of God, would have been the son of the Holy
Ghost, and not of the Father. But the Holy Sprit was the agent in preparing
the body in which the sacrifice was to be made; and such was the union between
it and the divinity, that the name, Son of God, belonged to the entire person
so constituted.
SECTION II.--DIVINITY.
JESUS CHRIST WAS GOD.[13]
As the humanity of Christ, conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, could not
be known but from the testimony of the Scriptures; so his divinity, considering
that he was born of a human mother, could not be known but from the testimony
of the same unerring word. The conception by the Holy Ghost is sufficient to
intimate that he was not to be an ordinary man; and the declaration that, in
consequence of it, he was to be called the Son of God, leads the mind to
conceive that, in some sense, he was to partake of the divine nature.
Demigods, according to the heathen, had an intermediate nature between that of
gods and men. But we have seen that Jesus Christ was properly a man, according
to the testimony of the Scriptures; and we have now to appeal to the same
testimony to learn whether he was also properly God.
The proofs on this point are abundant, and will be produced under several
distinct heads.
I. The names of God are ascribed to Jesus Christ.
"The Word was God."[14] This testimony of
the beloved disciple is the more important, because it was his design to inform
us who his divine Master was. As he opens his First Epistle with an account of
Jesus Christ, as the "eternal life which was with the Father,"[15] so he opens his Gospel with an account of him as the Word
which was with God, and which was God. The subsequent part of the chapter
clearly shows that this Word became flesh,[16]
in the person of Jesus Christ, and the name Word is given elsewhere, by the
same writer, to Jesus Christ.[17] Now it is
incredible that the Gospel should open with a declaration which has misled its
readers, in all ages, into a belief that Jesus Christ is God, if he were
nothing more than a mere man. To no purpose has this apostle said most
earnestly, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols,"[18] if his own teachings are such as must inevitably lead to
idolatry. His language is usually very plain and simple; but in this case it
needs the torture of most ingenious criticism, if it does not teach the deity
of Christ. He has written that we might believe in Christ, and, believing,
might have life through his name;[19] but if
he has so written as to lead our souls into the sin of idolatry, our faith must
be to death rather than life.
"Who is over all, God blessed for ever."[20]
Christ is here called God; not in some subordinate sense, but over all, and
blessed for ever. His possession of human nature is signified in the phrase,
"Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came." In contrast with this, his
divinity is distinctly brought to view. What he was, according to the
flesh, is not all that he was; but above that, he was over all, God,
blessed for ever. All the criticisms which have been tried on this text leave
its testimony plain and decisive.
"My Lord and my God."[21] These words of
Thomas are a brief, but very expressive declaration of his faith; and were so
received by his Master: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast
believed."[22] So, the unfolding of Christ's
true character to the mind of Nathaniel, drew forth his declaration of faith,
"Thou art the son of God."[23] So this
confession of Thomas was elicited by the opening of the Saviour's character to
his mind. Both of them were doubtless taught by the same Spirit which revealed
Christ's character to Peter;[24] and the faith
of both was accepted, and publicly approved. If Christ had not been God, it
behoved him to correct his disciple, and save him from idolatry.
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever."[25] In
this place, as in the first chapter of John, the inspired writer is designedly
stating who Jesus Christ was. He has represented him as superior to the
prophets, by whom God spake in times past to the fathers;--as superior to the
angels;--as the proper object of angelic worship;--and finally closes the
account with quotations from the Old Testament, applied to him, in which he is
called God, and Lord, and said to have made the heavens and earth, and to
endure for ever. If he was not God, Paul was mistaken.
To these texts in which the name God is applied to Jesus Christ, we may add
the following: "The Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own
blood."[26] "God was manifest in the
flesh."[27] "We are in him that is true, even
in his Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God, and eternal life."[28] "So then every one of us must give account
of himself to God;"[29] compared with the
preceding verse. "He that built all things, is God,"[30] considered in connection with the context, which shows
that the Son is the builder here intended.
Several other passages may be cited as pertinent examples, if the translation
of them, given in our common English version, be amended. "The appearing of
our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."[31]
"The grace of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ."[32] "In the kingdom of the Christ and God," i.e. of
him who is both Christ and God.[33] "Before
the God and Lord, Jesus Christ."[34] "The
righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."[35] These emendations of the translation are not made
arbitrarily, but are required by a rule of criticism, founded on the usage of
Greek writers, as to the repetition of the article, when prefixed to two nouns
connected by a conjunction.
II. The attributes of God are ascribed to Jesus Christ.
Eternity.--In a prediction concerning him by Isaiah, it is said: "His
name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting
Father, the Prince of Peace."[36] The phrase
"Everlasting Father: may be rendered the Father of Eternity. Were this
name given to him by erring men, we might suppose it inappropriate: but it is
given to him by the infallible Spirit that spoke in the ancient prophets. In
another prophecy concerning him, it is said: "Whose goings forth have been
from of old, from everlasting."[37] We know
that this prophecy referred to Christ; for it is expressly applied to him in
Matt. ii. 6. In the book of Proverbs, ch. viii., Wisdom is introduced, saying;
"I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth
was....Then I was with him, as one brought up with him; and I was daily his
delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of the
earth; and my delights were with the sons of men."[38] The most consistent interpretation of this passage,
applies it to the Christ, the Eternal Word, who is called "the Power of God,
and the Wisdom of God."[39] To these
passages, we may add the words of Christ; "Before Abraham was, I am."[40] As his human nature was not fifty years
old, these words could not refer to it. They attribute existence to him of
more ancient date than the time of Abraham; and, in affirming that
pre-existence, the present tense, I am, is employed. This very extraordinary
mode of speaking, agrees precisely with Old Testament language, describing the
self-existent Jehovah; "I am that I am." "I am hath sent me."[41] The Jews who heard Jesus speak thus concerning himself,
understood him to claim divinity; and if he did not design to do so, it is
undeniable that he employed language well calculated to mislead them.
Immutability.--"Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for
ever."[42] "They shall wax old as doth a
garment, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed,
but thou art the same."[43]
Omnipresence.--Christ promised to be with his disciples always, even to
the end of the world,[44] and, not only at all
times, but at all places: "Where two or three are met together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them."[45] To
fulfill this promise, he must be omnipresent. The same is implied in the
words, "No man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven,
even the Son of man which is in Heaven."[46]
His body was on earth, when he spoke these words; and yet he declares himself
to be in Heaven. This could not be true, if he were not omnipresent.
Omniscience.--Jesus knew the thoughts of men, even while shut up in
their own breasts. Other prophets had this knowledge communicated to them, by
special revelation, on particular occasions; but Jesus had his knowledge at all
times. "He knew all men, and needed not that any one should testify of man;
for he knew what was in man."[47] To know the
secrets of the heart, belongs peculiarly to Jehovah. "Who can know it? I, the
Lord, search the heart."[48] Yet the power of
searching the heart, is expressly ascribed to Jesus. "I am he which searcheth
the reins and hearts."[49] Peter appealed to
Christ, as knowing the secrets of his heart, and expressly ascribes omniscience
to him. "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee."[50] Christ claimed omniscience in the words,
"No man knoweth the Son, but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father,
save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."[51] Without omniscience, Christ would not be qualified to
judge the world.
Omnipotence.--Paul, feeling his own weakness, desired the power of
Christ to rest upon him;[52] and he conceived
of that power as infinite, when he said: "I can do all things, through Christ
which strengtheneth me."[53] The omnipotence
of Christ is manifested in the works which he performs, of which we shall
presently speak more particularly. He claimed like omnipotence with the
Father: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work."[54] "What things soever the Father doeth, these also the Son
doeth likewise."[55] "Neither shall any man
pluck them out of my hand. No man is able to pluck them out of my Father's
hand."[56] In the prophecy already quoted
from Isaiah, he is called "the Mighty God;" and in Rev. i. 8--11, he is called
"the Almighty."
III. Divine works are ascribed to Christ.
Creation.--"All things were made by him, and without him was not
anything made that was made."[57] "By him all
things were created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and
invisible."[58] We may admit, that the word
"by" frequently denotes an instrument used in a work; but this is not its
invariable meaning. It is applied to God the Father. "It became him, of whom
are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory to
make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering."[59] If Christ was a created instrument, used in the creation
of everything else, he was himself created without such instrumentality, and
the words of John were not true, "Without him was not anything made that was
made." God created all things by Jesus Christ,[60] not as a mere instrument, or as an inferior agent;
otherwise it could not be said, "All things were created by him and for him."[61] An inferior agent, employed to do a work,
performs it not for himself, but for the superior who employs him. The Son
co-operated with the Father in the work of creation, as supreme God. The word
"by" implies no inferiority. When it is said of Christ, he by himself purged
our sins,[62] himself does not denote an agent
inferior to Christ.
Providence.--All things are kept in being by the power of Christ, and
he must, therefore, be God. "Upholding all things by the word of his power."[63] All the powers of the universe are under
his management, and therefore all the working of providence are directed by
him.
Giving of life.--Christ raised the dead to life during his personal
ministry, not as prophets and apostles did, in the name and by the power of
another. The apostles wrought miracles, not by their own power, but in the
name of Jesus Christ.[64] Jesus, on the
contrary, claimed the power which he exercised in the working of miracles.
"The Son quickeneth whom he will."[65] He
claimed to exercise his power, both in the quickening of souls dead in sin, and
in the resurrection of the body. "The hour is come, and now is, when the dead
shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live."[66] "The hour is coming in the which all that
are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth."[67] The power of raising the dead, is attributed by Paul to
Christ, and is called the working whereby he is able to subdue all things to
himself.[68]
IV. Numerous passages of the Old Testament, which unquestionably speak
of Jehovah, the Supreme God, are, in the New Testament, applied to Jesus
Christ. Isaiah vi. 3, compared with John xii. 41; Isaiah xl. 3, compared with
Matt. iii. 1, 3; Isaiah xlv. 21--23, compared with Phil. ii. 9--11; Zach. xii.
10, compared with John xix. 37.
V. Divine worship was commanded to be rendered, and was rendered, to
Jesus Christ. The angels were commanded to worship him. "When he bringeth in
the first begotten into the world, he saith; "let all the angels of God worship
him." "[69] Men are commanded to believe in
him, trust in him, which are acts of divine worship. This has more force when
compared with the declaration; "Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and
maketh flesh his arm."[70] Christ permitted
himself to be worshipped as the Son of God.[71] He was worshipped by his disciples, after his ascension
to Heaven.[72] They were accustomed to call
on his name,[73] that is, to address prayer to
him. So the dying Stephen prayed: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."[74] The administering or receiving of baptism
in his name, is an act of religious worship, in which he is honored equally
with the Father, and the Holy Spirit.[75]
VI. The equality of the Son with the Father, is taught by Paul, in
Phil. ii. 9. His example, in humbling himself, and taking on himself the form
of a servant, is proposed for our imitation; but there was no humiliation in
his taking on himself the form of a servant, if that had been the only
character that he could rightfully assume. But he had a right to claim
equality with God, and this fact showed the greatness of his humiliation. A
parallel passage found in 2 Cor. viii. 9: "Though he was rich, for our sakes
he became poor."
VII. If Jesus Christ was not god, he was justly condemned to death.
It is difficult to state and unfold this argument, without an appearance of
irreverence. To charge the divine Jesus with crime, even hypothetically, is
grating to the feelings of those who love and adore him. But it must be
remembered that he who is, by this argument, proved to be chargeable with
crime, is the Jesus of another gospel, a mere man, whose character and conduct
are to be judged like those of other men.
Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrim. That council reported
to Pilate, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made
himself the Son of God."[76] On a former
occasion, Jesus said unto them: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work."[77] And they charged him with blasphemy,
because he made God his [own] Father, thereby making himself equal with God.
It was in this peculiar sense that the charge of making himself the Son of God
was construed, or it would not have amounted to blasphemy. The high priest who
was the president of the council, put Christ on his oath, "I adjure thee by the
living God;"[78] and propounded to him two
questions which, though mentioned together by Matthew and Mark, are by Luke
stated as proposed separately. "Art thou the Christ?" and "Art thou the Son of
God?" It was the affirmative reply of Jesus to the last of these questions,
which was the ground of his condemnation. Jesus knew the sense in which the
question was propounded; and he was bound, on correct principles or morals, in
answering the question, to answer it honestly and truly in the sense in which
he knew that the high priest meant it. He therefore affirmed on oath, at that
tribunal, that he was the Son of God, in this high sense. For this he was
condemned to death; and if he was not what he claimed to be, he was guilty of
perjury and of his own death. On this charge he was condemned to death, by the
Council, but God justified him by raising him form the dead. "Declared to be
the Son of God, with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the
resurrection from the dead."[79] This proved
that his condemnation was unjust; and that he was truly what he had claimed to
be, the Son of God, in the sense which the Jews accounted blasphemy.
The last argument exhibits the importance of his doctrine in a strong light.
According to the law of Moses, any one who enticed to idolatry was to be
punished with death.[80] The council before
which Jesus was tried, was the court which had cognisance of this offence
. A mere man, who should claim divine honor to himself, was guilty of
this capital crime; and although the Romans had taken away from the Jews the
power of inflicting capital punishment, the council might, with perfect
propriety, report to the governor concerning such a man, "By our law he ought
to die." This was their decision, as reported to Pilate, concerning Jesus;
and, if he was not entitled to the divine honor which he claimed, the decision
was just.
Two accusations were brought against Jesus. Before the Roman governor he was
charged with treason against Caesar, by making himself king. Into this
accusation the governor inquired, asking Jesus, "Art thou a king?" Jesus
answered in the affirmative, as in the other case; but, that he might not
convict himself of a crime of which he was not guilty, he explained, "My
kingdom is not of this world."[81] His reply
was satisfactory to the governor, who acquitted him on this charge. In the
other case he not only claimed to be the Son of God, but accompanied the claim
with no explanation, to prevent the passing of the sentence. He might have
said, I am the Son of God, but not in such a sense as to claim divine honor.
He made no such explanation. If Jesus was not entitled to divine honor, he
knew it; and he knew also that he deserved death, under the decision of this
court, for claiming it. To make the claim before the court, was to be guilty
of the crime. To answer as he did, on oath, if he did not mean to make the
claim, was perjury. And to permit the sentence against him to pass, without
any effort to explain, was to be guilty of his own death. It follows,
therefore, that Jesus Christ, if not entitled to divine honor, was a wicked man
and a deceiver.
We might suppose the possibility of mistake, concerning Christ's claim of
divine honor before the court that condemned him, if he had habitually
disclaimed such honor in his previous ministry. But, instead of this, he had
taught, "It is the will of God, that all men should honor the Son, even as they
honor the Father."[82] He claimed superiority
to the law of the Sabbath, and the right of working every day, as his Father
did: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work."[83] He claimed to have been before Abraham, in language
which appropriately intimates self-existence: "Before Abraham was, I am."[84] He claimed to be one with the Father: "I
and my Father are one."[85] Moreover, he
never rejected divine honor, when offered him. Paul and Barnabas, at Lystra,
indignantly repelled those who approached to do them honor as gods;[86] and the angel hastily prevented John from
worshipping him: "See thou do it not. Worship God."[87] When the people were minded to take him by force, and
make him king, he escaped from them. He refused to be "a judge or divider,"[88] and declined all civil honor, in perfect
consistence with his disclaimer of it before Pilate. But in equal consistence
with his claim of divine honor before the Sanhedrim, he never rejected it when
offered by any one. The man of whom he had given sight worshipped him as the
Son of God,[89] without rebuke; and Thomas
addressed him, "My Lord and my God;" not only without rebuke, but the
approbation.[90] To all this we may add, that
the disciples to whom he taught the principles of his religion, and who
believed that they had the mind of Christ, were accustomed to render him divine
honor. Many proofs of his deity have been cited above, from their writings.
That Paul did not consider him a mere man, is most clear from Gal. i. 1: Paul
an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ;" and the whole
tenor of his writings shows, that he felt such obligations to Christ, and
reposed such trust in him, as are utterly inconsistent with the belief that he
was a mere creature.
From these facts, we must believe that the deity of Christ is an essential
doctrine of Christianity. As there can be no religion without the existence of
God; so there can be no Christian creed in which the doctrine of Christ's deity
is not a fundamental article.
But, clear and abundant as the proofs on this subject are, the humble inquirer
into the truth as it is in Jesus, is sometimes perplexed with difficulties
respecting it. The more common of these it will be proper briefly to
consider.
Obj. 1. This doctrine is inconsistent with the Unity of God. This objection
will be considered hereafter, under the head of "The Trinity."
Obj. 2. In various passages Jesus Christ is spoken of as distinct from God,
and sometimes in such a manner as seems to deny his proper deity.
Before we proceed, under this head, to examine particular passages, we may
premise that the Scriptures speak of a two-fold connection between the Godhead
and the man Jesus Christ--a personal union and an indwelling. The personal
union is not with the whole Godhead, but with one person or subsistence
therein. It was not the whole Godhead that was made flesh; but the Word that
was with God, and was God. God sent forth, not the whole Godhead, but his Son,
made of a woman.[91] On the other hand, the
indwelling is of the whole Godhead. In him dwelleth all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily.[92] The Father dwelt in
him,[93] and the Spirit was given to him
without measure.[94] This indwelling did not
make him one person with the Father and the Holy Spirit. His body was a temple
for the whole Godhead. As the Holy Ghost, in the prophets, was distinct from
the prophets; so the Godhead, dwelling in Jesus Christ, was distinct from the
person of Jesus Christ.
John xvii. 3. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true
God; and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." The Father is here addressed, as
the representative of the Godhead. The Godhead that sent Christ is distinct
from the person of Jesus Christ; but the person sent was nevertheless divine.
His divinity, though not affirmed in the passage, may be inferred from the fact
that the knowledge of him was necessary to eternal life.
1 Cor. viii. 6. "To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and
we by him." Here, again, the Father is the representative of the entire
Godhead, which is in him, as the object of ultimate worship, and is one. "Of
whom are all things." The same Godhead is in Jesus Christ as the medium of
manifestation. "By whom are all things." This text does not affirm that Jesus
Christ is a divine person; but his qualification to be universal Lord implies
it. This text no more denies Jesus Christ to be God, than it denies the Father
to be Lord.
In the same manner other similar passages may be explained.
Obj. 3. The various passages which speak of Jesus Christ as inferior to the
Father, as sent by the Father, and as working by the power of the Father,
appear to deny his proper deity.
The explanation of all these passages is given by Paul in Phil. ii. 5--8.
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the
form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of
no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and
became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
The Son of God, though truly divine, and entitled to divine honor, humbled
himself; and, by his union with human nature, was made under the law. He was
not originally under the law, but was made under it. Hence we read of his
inferiority to the Father, his subjection to the Father's authority, &c.
Inferiority to office does not require inferiority of nature. A subject is
inferior in authority to his king; though he is equal to him in nature, and may
surpass him in intellectual and moral worth. Jesus Christ is inferior to the
Father in his human nature, and his mediatorial office; but in his divine
nature he is God over all.
Obj. 4. Jesus Christ appears, in Luke xviii. 19, to admit that he had not the
goodness peculiar to God; and, in Mark xiii. 32 to deny that he had
omniscience.
"Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, that is God." These words
are a question. Questions sometimes imply strong affirmation; but, in such
cases, the reason of asking them must be apparent. In the present case there
is nothing in the whole context indicating that it was Christ's design to
explain his own character; and we may therefore conclude that the question was
asked for another purpose. The young ruler thought himself to be a good man,
and addressing Christ as another good man, from whom he was willing to receive
instruction, asked, in the spirit of self-righteousness, "What good
thing shall I do?"[95] The whole of Christ's
discourse with this young man was designed to convince him of his
self-righteousness, and the question with which it commenced was precisely
adapted to this purpose. It was calculated to lead his mind to the humbling
reflection that all human goodness, such as he trusted in, and such as he had
attributed to Christ, was insignificant and worthless when brought into
comparison with God. Whether divine goodness belonged to Jesus Christ is here
neither affirmed nor denied. This question the ruler never thought of, and
Christ made no reference to it, and said nothing about it.
Mark xiii. 31. "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels
of heaven; neither the Son, but my Father only." This passage must be
explained in harmony with other Scriptures. Were Gen. xviii. 21 the only
passage of Scripture from which we could learn anything respecting the extent
of God's knowledge, we should conclude that it is not unlimited; and, in like
manner, if Mark xiii. 31 were the only text from which we could learn the
extent of Christ's knowledge, we should infer that he is not omniscient. But
the proofs of his omniscience, as before adduced, are so abundant, that we are
obliged to seek an explanation of this passage which shall be consistent with
them. When we consider that it was the spirit of Christ in the ancient
prophets, that enabled them to make their numerous predictions--that he
personally predicted so many things, and so much in particular concerning this
very day,[96] and that this day is
emphatically called the day of Christ, the day of the Lord,[97] it seems improbable that he should be wholly ignorant of
the time of its coming. He describes himself as a lord, coming unexpectedly on
his servants after a season of absence. Now, although we can see a propriety
that the servants should not know when their lord would come, no reason appears
why the lord himself should not know it. These facts, therefore, favor an
interpretation of the passage which will be consistent with the doctrine of
Christ's omniscience.
The most obvious method of interpreting the passage in harmony with other
Scriptures, is to suppose that it refers to the knowledge which Christ's
humanity possessed. In this nature he was not omniscient; for it is said[98] that Jesus increased in wisdom. The Holy
Spirit communicated to his human soul, from time to time, such knowledge as was
necessary; but not all knowledge, for human nature could not be made
omniscient. There is, however, an objection to this interpretation, on the
ground that Christ could not, with truth, deny of himself any knowledge with
either nature possessed. This objection would be embarrassing, if it were not
true that Christ, in the passage, has placed his knowledge and that of his
Father in contrast. In the same manner he has denied omnipotence of himself,
in John v. 30; not absolutely, but as distinct from his Father. "I can, of
mine own self, do nothing." In the same verse, he, in the same sense, speaks
of himself as without omniscience also; "As I hear, I judge." The question,
"When shall these things be?" was proposed by the disciples[99] to Christ as visible before them in his human nature. It
was not proper that they should receive an answer; for it was intended that
they should watch; "Watch ye therefore; for ye know not when the master of the
house cometh."[100] As the human nature of
Christ was the medium through which the disciples received their instruction,
and as this was one of the times and seasons which the Father had reserved in
his own power,[101] we may suppose that the
Holy Spirit had not communicated, and the holy humanity of Jesus had not sought
this knowledge, which was unnecessary to any of the purposes of his present
ministry. In this view it was well calculated to check the inquisitiveness of
his disciples into this matter which it was not the will of God that they
should know, for him to inform them, that though the infinite stores of his
Father's knowledge were ever accessible to him, he had not chosen, in his
distinct character, in which he revealed the counsels of God to them, to
inquire into the matter, and could not, therefore, communicate to them the
knowledge which their unprofitable curiosity lead them to desire.
Some have thought it a more satisfactory solution of the difficulty to take
the word know in the sense to make known. This sense it is alleged to
have in 1 Cor. ii. 2; but this may be doubted. It seems more proper to regard
the language as a common rhetorical figure, according to which the cause is put
for the effect. So David said, "I was dumb;"[102] meaning, "I was as silent as if I had been dumb." So
Paul determined, in his ministry among the Corinthians, to be as though he knew
nothing but Christ crucified. In the same manner, the words of Christ may be
interpreted as if he had said, "Your inquiries into the precise time of my
coming will all be in vain. No source of information will be available, to
give you this knowledge. As to the effect, it will be to you as if the
knowledge were possessed by none but the Father; who will make it known, not by
the ministry of men, angels, or his Son; but by his own hand, in the execution
of his purpose."
The two views of this passage which have been presented, differ somewhat from
each other; but the inquirer is not bound to decide on their comparative merit,
or to accept either as unquestionably correct. A perfect understanding of
every difficult text, though desirable, is not indispensable to the exercise of
piety.
Obj. 5. Jesus Christ is called "the beginning of the creation of God;" and
"the firstborn of every creature." These passages, while they attribute a high
character to him, nevertheless speak of him as a creature.
Rev. iii. 14. "The beginning of the creation of God." This text may be
explained by others in the same book: Rev. i. 8; xxi. 6; xxii. 13. When
Jesus Christ is called "the beginning and the end, the first and the last," we
are not to understand that he was created before other creatures, and that
other creatures will be annihilated, leaving him to survive them. The sense
is, that all things are from him and to him; or, as Paul says, "All things were
created by him and for him."[103] He is the
original and the first cause of all things." His being the beginning, is
explained "He is before all things." In this sense he is the beginning of the
creation of God, i. e. its original cause.
Col. i. 15. "The first born of every creature." The clause "first born of
every creature," may be grammatically construed in two different ways. The
genitive "of every creature" may be governed by the word "first born," as a
noun; or by the word "first," as a adjective of the superlative degree in
composition. The objection assumes that the last of these is the true
construction. Having decided on this, it then infers that Christ is one of the
creatures, because the superlative degree usually compares one thing of a group
with the rest of that group. But this usage of the superlative, though
general, is not invariable: for this same word "first" is twice used in the
first chapter of John,[104] where the
comparison is a different kind, and our translators have, on this account,
rendered the word as if it had been in the comparative, instead of the
superlative degree; "He was before me." In proof that Paul did not
design to group Christ with the creatures, as one of them, the following
arguments may be adduced. The descriptive terms employed do not accord with
this supposition. To make him one of the group, Christ should have been called
the first created of all creatures, or the first born of all born: but
the distinction between being born and being created excludes him from the
group of creatures.
2. There is a further incongruity in the use of the word "every." We could
not say, Solomon was the wisest of every man. Yet the objection makes Paul use
this mode of speech. It is true that his incongruity may be in part removed by
translating the clause thus: "the first born of all creation." But even this
would not naturally express the idea supposed to be intended. A plural noun is
needed, to denote the group of which Christ is supposed to be one of the
constituent parts.
3. The context proves that Paul did not design to compare Christ with created
things, as one to the number. He says, "All things were created by him and for
him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist."[105] This language clearly excludes him from
the number of created things.
If we admit that the genitive is governed by the adjective, the arguments
adduced should satisfy us that the adjective must be understood, as in the
places referred to in the first chapter of John. But the construction, which
takes the genitive to be governed by the noun, is preferable. According to
this, we may translate the clause, "the whole creation's first born." God
said, "I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth."[106] The term "first born" here denotes
superiority of dignity, in comparison with the kings of the earth. To the
first born belonged, not only superior dignity, but superior right of
inheritance. Christ, as the Son, was appointed "heir of all things."[107] In respect both of dignity and
inheritance, he is "the creation's first born," the king and heir of the whole
creation.
From the fact that the same Greek word is used in v. 18, some have supposed
that this verse is explanatory of the former, and that Christ is the first born
of every creature, because he is the first born from the dead. Others, by
accenting the Greek word in v. 15 on a different syllable, make it to signify
"first begetter," or "first producer."
Some, who admit the proper deity of Christ, suppose that his human soul was
created before all other creatures, and continued without a human body until
the incarnation in the womb of the virgin. But, according to this opinion,
Christ was not "made like his brethren." Moreover, as that human soul, being a
creature, must have been under law to God from the beginning of its existence,
it was not true that he was made under the law, when he was made of a woman, as
is taught in Gal. iv. 4. We have seen that the texts do not require such a
hypothesis to explain them.
Obj. 6. Jesus, in John x. 35, 36, explained his use of the phrase, "Son of
God," as not implying proper deity. "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?"
As this objection opposes a very strong argument for the divinity of Christ,
it will be proper to give it a careful examination.
In examining the tenth chapter of John, in which these words are found, we may
observe the following facts:
1. The claim to be the Christ was not that on which the charge of blasphemy
was founded.
While Jesus was walking in Solomon's porch, the Jews gathered round him, and
asked, "How long makest thou us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us
plainly." They had asked John the Baptist, "Art thou the Christ?" The Jews
were in expectation that their Messiah would make his appearance about this
time; and, from the manner in which these questions were proposed, it is plain
that the claim to be the Christ could not necessarily be blasphemous. It only
needed to be sustained by proper proof, and the proposing of the question
intimated a readiness to admit the claim. Jesus did not directly answer their
question, but charged them with rejecting the testimony which he had previously
given concerning himself, and the proofs which he had adduced. All this they
bore, without charging him with blasphemy.
2. The charge of blasphemy was founded on the claim to be the Son of God.
This point is clear from the words of Christ, "Say ye, Thou blasphemest,
because I said, I am the Son of God?" He had spoken of God as his Father in a
peculiar relation, according to which he could say, "I and my Father are one."
This was said after such declarations concerning the power by which his sheep
were kept, as represented himself omnipotent as well as his Father. His
oneness with the Father was, therefore, such a unity as implied his possession
of divine attributes. So the Jews understood him; and this they distinctly
declared to be the ground of their charge: "For a good work we stone thee not,
but for blasphemy; because thou being a man, makest thyself God." On a former
occasion they had made out the same charge against him on the same ground. He
had spoken of God as his father in a peculiar sense, which implied co-operation
with the Father, beyond what a mere creature could claim; and they who heard
him, understanding the high claim which he set up, charged him with blasphemy,
because "he called God his Father, making himself equal with God."[108] It was precisely on this ground that he
was reported to Pilate, by the Jewish Sanhedrim, as worthy of death: "By our
law, he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."[109] They also reported to Pilate that "he made himself
Christ a king;" but they do not say that for so doing he deserved to die by
their law. They said, "Whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against
Caesar."[110] This was an offence of
which the Roman law might take cognisance , and which Pilate might judge;
but the other offence was a sin of which the Roman law would take no
cognisance . The charge of blasphemy was investigated by the Jewish
court, and was not made out on the claim to be "Christ a king."
3. Jesus knew that the charge of blasphemy would be left without foundation,
if he should explain that, in claiming divine Sonship, he did not mean to claim
divine attributes or honors.
The charge of blasphemy was, for making himself God, and equal with God. Now,
the Jews called God their Father; and believers and angels are called sons of
God. To claim sonship in this sense could not be blasphemy. Jesus knew all
this, and showed himself able to avail himself of the plea which might be based
on this distinction. He referred to the Scripture use of the term "gods," in
its application to Hebrew magistrates; and showed clearly, that, if the words
which he had used were to be justified by availing himself of this distinction,
he understood well how to do it.
4. Jesus did not plead, that in making himself the Son of God, he did not
intend to claim divine attributes or honors.
What has been supposed to imply this, is merely a question, which affirms
nothing: "Say ye?" In this aspect, it is like the question proposed to the
young ruler: "Why callest thou me good?" Jesus was not now on trial before a
regular court, but was addressed by a company of malignant and captious men, to
whom he did not feel bound to give answers and explanations at their demand.
When they asked to know plainly, whether he was the Christ, instead of
answering them, he charged them with rejecting the testimony and proofs which
he had already given, and with murderous intentions towards him. So, when they
state their charge of blasphemy, he charged them with inconsistency in making
it out. They were desirous to condemn him. When he was finally delivered to
the Roman governor, "Pilate knew that the chief priests had for envy delivered
him to them."[111] Jesus, who knew what was
in man, fully understood that their pretended jealousy for the divine honor,
was hypocritical. Some of them, as members of the great council, could readily
have found Scripture for being themselves styled "Gods," yet they would give no
patient attention to the proofs which Jesus offered, to sustain his claim to
the dignity he assumed.
5. Instead of leaving the matter to rest on the plea which these words have
been supposed to imply, Jesus reasserted his intimate union with the Father:
"That ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him."[112] After this, it is added, "therefore they
sought again to take him." It is manifest that the Jews did not understand him
to retract the claim which had given them offence .
The Jewish magistrates, though called gods, in a subordinate sense of the
term, had nothing of that intimate union with the Father which Jesus claimed.
They were, after all, mortal men. "I have said ye are gods, and all of you are
children of the Most High; but ye shall die like men."[113] But concerning himself, Jesus had said: "As the
Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in
himself."[114] "The Son quickeneth whom he
will."[115] "The dead shall hear the voice
of the Son of God."[116] "The Father hath
committed all judgment to the Son."[117] "I
and my Father are one."[118] If, after
making these high claims, Jesus had quailed before his enemies, and sought
shelter in likening himself to mortal judges, called gods, he would not have
closed his address by re-asserting that which had given offence.
"Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me."
We should remember that Jesus was not now on trial. These words were not
spoken before the Sanhedrim, where the plea which they are supposed to contain,
was needed, if needed at all. When formally arraigned before that tribunal,
Jesus did not object to their jurisdiction, nor to the oath administered by the
high priest. He answered directly and plainly the question which the high
priest propounded, though he knew well that the answer which he gave would, in
the judgment of the court, convict him of blasphemy. Where now is the plea
which he is supposed to have made on the former occasion? He then understood
its bearing on the point. Has he forgotten it now? The plea urged on a former
occasion, at a different place, to a different company, when not on trail, and
not on oath, cannot avail now unless repeated in due form. Besides, when
before made, if made at all, it was obscure, and hidden under the form of a
question. It is now needed in plainness and by direct affirmation. But Jesus
does not produce the plea. Let those who urge the objection we are
considering, account for his silence.
SECTION III.--UNION OF NATURES.
THE TWO NATURES OF JESUS CHRIST, THE DIVINE AND THE HUMAN, ARE UNITED IN ONE
PERSON.[119]
The name Son of God, properly denotes his divine nature; and the name Son of
Man, his human nature. He frequently called himself the Son of God; more
frequently, the Son of Man. Both these names were used as denoting one and the
same person. The whole use of them indicates this; but there are some passages
which show it more clearly than others. After speaking of himself as the Son
of God, he says the Father hath given him authority to execute judgment,
because he is the son of man.[120] Here the
same person is manifestly called the Son of God, and the Son of Man. In other
cases, attributes or works which belong to one nature, are ascribed to his
person, denoted by the name which is derived from the other nature. "No man
hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of
Man, which is in Heaven."[121] Here he is
named from his human nature, the Son of Man; while omnipresence is ascribed to
him, which belongs to his divine nature. Another example of like kind is, "The
Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath."[122] The superiority to the Sabbath belongs to his divine
nature, but the name by which he is designated belongs to the human. On the
other hand, he is called God, and the Lord of Glory, when his blood and his
crucifixion, things pertaining to his human flesh, are the subjects of
discourse. "They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory."[123] "The Church of God, which he hath purchased with his
own blood."[124]
How two natures so widely different, should be so united, we cannot
understand. In the union of the body the soul of man in one person, there is a
similar fact which we are unable to comprehend; but if we should disbelieve it,
we should reject the testimony of our own consciousness. We have, therefore,
no plea for rejecting the doctrine now before us, on the ground of
mysteriousness.
The union of the two natures does not confound the properties peculiar to
each. The humanity is not deified, nor the divinity humanized. So, the body
of man does not become spirit, by its union with the soul; nor does the soul
become matter, by its union with the body.
The union of Christ's divinity with his humanity, is a different thing from
the indwelling of the Godhead in him. The Holy Ghost dwells in believers, so
that their bodies are called his temple, but this union does not constitute
them one person. So, though Jesus said, "The Father is in me, and I in him,"
he addressed his Father, and spoke of him, as a distinct person. The same is
true of the Holy Spirit which dwelt in him, being given to him without
measure.
The personal union is more than a mere manifestation of the divine nature
through the human. God manifests himself in the works of creation. But this
manifestation is not a personal union; otherwise, the universe must be God.
This union is indissoluble. Jesus will ever be the Lamb in the midst of the
throne,[125] and will ever appear, in his
glorified humanity, to the worshipping saints, who, with adoring praise, will
for ever sing, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power and riches,
and wisdom and strength, and honor and glory and blessings."[126]
[1] John i. 14; Phil. ii. 7, 8; Heb. ii. 14--17; Mark ix. 12; 1 Tim.
ii. 5; Matt. i. 18--25; Luke i. 28--35; Gal. iv. 4; Matt. iv. 2; xxi. 18; John
iv. 6, 10; Math. viii. 24; xxi 18; Mark ix. 12; Isaiah liii. 3; John xi. 35;
Luke xix. 41; Matt. xxvi. 37, 38; Luke xxii. 44; Matt. iv. 1; Mark i. 13; Luke
iv. 2; Heb. ii. 18; iv. 15; Luke ii. 10, 52; Matt. iv. 11; Luke xxii. 43; Mark
xv. 34.
[2] Acts ii. 22.
[3] 1 Tim. ii. 5.
[4] Luke xxiv. 39.
[5] Luke ii. 52.
[6] Heb. ii. 17.
[7] Mark xiv. 34.
[8] Isaiah liii. 10.
[9] Heb. ii. 16.
[10] Heb. iv. 15.
[11] 1 Cor. xv. 47.
[12] Luke i. 35.
[13] Mic. v. 2; Heb. i. 8; xiii. 8; Rev. i. 8,
18; John ii. 24; x. 15; xxi. 17; Acts i. 24; Rev. ii 23; Matt. xviii. 20;
xxviii. 20; John i. 48; Col ii. 3; Jude 25; Matt. iii. 17; Luke i. 35; x. 22;
John v. 23; 1 John v. 20; Matt. xxviii. 19; Isaiah xl. 3; Zech. ii. 8, 10; iv.
8; Mal. iii. 1; Matt. iii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 47; Rev. xix. 16; Isaiah ix. 6; John
i. 1; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. i. 8; 1 John v. 20; Phil. ii. 6; Matt.
xxviii. 9; Luke xxiii. 42; Acts vii. 59; Rev. v. 12; John i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16;
Heb. i. 10; Neh. ix.
[14] John i. 1.
[15] 1 John i. 3.
[16] John i. 14.
[17] Rev. xix. 13.
[18] 1 John v. 21.
[19] John xx. 31.
[20] Rom. ix. 5.
[21] John xx. 28.
[22] John xx. 29.
[23] John i. 49.
[24] Matt. xvi. 17.
[25] Heb. i. 8.
[26] Acts xx. 28.
[27] 1 Tim. iii. 16.
[28] 1 John v. 20.
[29] Rom. xiv. 12.
[30] Heb. iii. 4.
[31] Titus ii. 13.
[32] 2 Thess. i. 12.
[33] Eph. v. 5.
[34] 1 Tim. v. 21.
[35] 2 Peter i. 1.
[36] Isaiah ix. 6.
[37] Micah v. 2.
[38] Prov. viii. 23--31.
[39] 1 Cor. i. 24.
[40] John viii. 58.
[41] Ex. iii. 14.
[42] Heb. xiii. 8.
[43] Heb. i. 11, 12.
[44] Matt. xxviii. 20.
[45] Matt. xviii. 20.
[46] John iii. 13.
[47] John ii. 25.
[48] Jer. xvii. 10.
[49] Rev. ii. 23.
[50] John xxi. 17.
[51] Matt. xi. 29.
[52] 2 Cor. xii. 9.
[53] Phil. iv. 13.
[54] John v. 17.
[55] John v. 19.
[56] John x. 27, 28.
[57] John i. 3.
[58] Col. i. 16.
[59] Heb. ii. 10.
[60] Eph. iii. 9.
[61] Col. i. 16.
[62] Heb. i. 3.
[63] Heb. i. 3.
[64] Acts iii. 12; iv. 10.
[65] John v. 21.
[66] John v. 25.
[67] John v. 28, 29.
[68] Phil. iii. 21.
[69] Heb. i. 6.
[70] Jer. xvii. 5.
[71] John ix. 38.
[72] Luke xxiv. 52.
[73] Acts ix. 14.
[74] Acts vii. 59.
[75] Matt. xxviii. 19.
[76] John xix. 7.
[77] John v. 17.
[78] Matt. xxiv. 62.
[79] Rom. i. 4.
[80] Deut. xiii. 6, 8.
[81] John xviii. 36.
[82] John v. 23.
[83] John v. 17.
[84] John viii. 58.
[85] John x. 30.
[86] Acts xiv. 15.
[87] Rev. xxii. 9.
[88] Luke xii. 14.
[89] John ix. 38.
[90] John xx. 28, 29.
[91] Gal. iv. 4.
[92] Col. ii. 9.
[93] John xiv. 10.
[94] John iii. 34.
[95] Matt. xix. 16.
[96] Phil. i. 6.
[97] Cor. v. 5.
[98] Luke ii. 52.
[99] Mark xiii. 4.
[100] Mark xiii. 35.
[101] Act i. 7.
[102] Ps. xxxix. 9.
[103] Col. i. 16.
[104] John i. 15, 30.
[105] Col. i. 16, 17.
[106] Ps. lxxxix. 27.
[107] Heb. i. 2.
[108] John v. 17, 18.
[109] John xix. 7.
[110] John xix. 12.
[111] Matt. xxvii. 18.
[112] John x. 38.
[113] Ps. lxxxii. 6, 7.
[114] John v. 26.
[115] John v. 21.
[116] John v. 25.
[117] John v. 22.
[118] John x. 30.
[119] John iii. 13; Rom. i. 4; ix. 5; 1 Cor.
ii. 8; Matt. i. 23.
[120] John v. 27.
[121] John iii. 13.
[122] Mark ii. 28.
[123] 1 Cor. ii. 8.
[124] Acts xx. 28.
[125] Rev. vii. 17.
[126] Rev.. v. 12.
[table of contents]