Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

duration, will bear a sense with respect to his Deity analogous to the nativity of the complex person. Every other exposition is arbitrary, and is incapable of being harmonized with the general sense of the prediction. It follows that our Lord is here represented as begotten from eternity.

In relation to these suggestions, it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to place ourselves precisely in the position of the Jewish readers of the Old Testament; for it is a natural, but in most cases an erroneous, conclusion, that what is clear to us, must have been far from obscure to them. Had we no facts by which to test the correctness of our deductions, the probability is that we should much over-rate the impression produced by such passages as the foregoing. But let us look at the actual state of the case. In the Jewish theology of our Saviour's era, a system be it remembered peculiarly exclusive, we find the doctrine of divine generation. The same we trace in the great repository of Jewish theology, the Scriptures of the Old Testament. It is barely possible that these facts may have no connexion; but certainly, when a source so probable and natural is presented, nothing can be more unphilosophical than to refer the opinions in question to an obscure and hypothetical origin. And should it appear, upon farther inquiry, that the doctrine under consideration is embodied in the purely evangelical theology of the New Testament, its derivation from the Jewish Scriptures will fall little short of moral certainty.

SECTION VI.

RECAPITULATION OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT, WITH REMARKS ON ITS VALUE.

HAVING now gone through the first part of our inquiry, it may not be improper briefly to recapitulate the evidence thus supplied, and to endeavour to estimate its weight with respect to the general question. The facts ascertained are of two kinds. The former are exclusively Jewish; the latter pertain to an intermediate state, the twilight of evangelical times. This distinction, it will be perceived, is not chronological, but spiritual; and while strictly appropriate to the nature of the subject, is the only one of which it will admit. Under the head of opinions properly and peculiarly Jewish, it has been shown,—

1. That the Jews contemporary with our Redeemer believed in the existence of a divine and a divinely generated person, whom they styled, THE WORD OF GOD, and THE SON OF GOD.

2. That in the Messiah they expected a Prophet and a Sovereign really and exclusively human; and one, of consequence, wholly distinct from the Son of God.

3. That they regarded the assumption of the latter title, even by one whose claims to the Messiahship were well authenticated and extensively allowed, as inexpiable blasphemy. And hence while they tolerated the pretensions of Jesus to the character of the Christ, and in many cases hailed him as such, with expressions of the highest delight, his calling himself the "Son of God" never failed to inspire them with the most fanatical rage, and eventually led to his crucifixion.

4. As a collateral fact, it has been shown that upon the minds of certain heathens, at this time resident in Jerusalem, the enunciation of the title "Son of God"

produced an impression correspondent to the sense assigned to it by the Jews.

5. Several illustrative citations have been introduced which render it all but certain that the Jewish doctrine of divine generation had its origin in the Old Testament Scriptures.

For the probable correctness of the general views thus elicited, there is undeniably strong presumption. It is to be noted, that in the Jewish church was to be found the only genuine theology; and that the revelations of our better era are but the developement of the truths conserved under the dispensation of Moses. This fact, it is admitted, furnishes no absolute and infallible warranty of the absence of error; since, in not a few cases, tradition had usurped the place of revelation, and the glosses of the scribes had been allowed to supersede the evident sense of divine oracles. Yet even in such examples, it is rare to find error in an unmixed form. It is usually in divergences from, or in additions to, the theology of Scripture that the mistakes of this period consist; and hence, in the question before us, however we might be disposed to distrust opinions in detail, there is a strong probability that they were based upon, or at least intimately connected with, the truth.

There is a second consideration which may perhaps be held as of yet greater moment. It is a reasonable subject of doubt, whether, except by catachresis or accommodation, the idiom of the Jewish or vernacular tongue would admit of any lower interpretation of the title "Son of God." If we assume analogy as our guide, and examine the use of the appellation Son of man, we have no alternative; for as this latter, according to the Jewish idiom, described one generated by man, and so a proper human being;* the title

* See note (F).

"Son of God," by the same rules of exposition, will designate one who is the subject of a divine generation, and therefore a properly divine person.

The facts of the second class, supplied by the foregoing investigation, are of still higher importance, and bring us much nearer to the object of our inquiry.

1. We have before us the opinions of those Jews who were most fully informed upon the person and character of our Lord. These individuals, having previously acknowledged his Messiahship, and participating, as they undoubtedly did, in the sentiments of their countrymen upon this subject, styled him, "The Son of God." The use of this title in several cases was conjoined with that of the Christ, and occurred at periods when some especial and striking proof of the superhuman power and wisdom of our Redeemer had been, or was about to be, afforded. This combination of facts leads to the conclusions, that, in the judgment of these persons, Jesus was not only the Messiah, but one also truly divine; and that, for his designation in this latter respect, the appellation "Son of God" was of all others the most explicit and appropriate.

2. In the conduct of our Lord, we discover nothing like disapprobation, either of the doctrine intended, or of the medium of expression through which it was conveyed. On the contrary, in more than one example, his own reasoning pre-supposes the Jewish sense of the term in question. At other times, he emphatically applauds its use with that reference, and discourses upon it in such a way as would be inapplicable to any other interpretation.

3. Incidentally we remark, that evil spirits, when not permitted to testify to the Messiahship of Jesus, and at the moment of extreme apprehension from his irresistible power, acknowledge him as "The Son of God." The angel Gabriel, in an address to a Jewish female of

low rank, after having predicted the mediatorial royalty of our Redeemer,* sums up his dignity in this august title. And, lastly, God the Father, in two several instances, selects this phrase to awaken the highest interest, and to secure the most profound reverence for the person and work of our Lord,—“This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I greatly delight."

No error on this subject could be more dishonourable to God, or more perilous to the best interests of man, than the undue ascription of Divinity to Jesus of Nazareth. Yet here is a phrase employed by the disciples of our Lord, sanctioned by Christ himself, selected by spiritual intelligences, and even by Jehovah the Father, which could not issue in any other conclusion. It was absolutely impossible that such a combination of circumstances could occur without producing upon every unprejudiced Jew the impression that our Lord was a truly divine person. The least therefore that can be said of the foregoing evidence is, that it supplies an inexpugnable proof of the Deity of Jesus.

Yet it may be admitted as barely possible, that for the more forceful enunciation of this great truth, opinions in themselves not absolutely free from exception at the commencement of the Christian dispensation, might have been tolerated, and under this head some may be disposed to rank the doctrine of divine generation. Upon the inherent feebleness of such an hypothesis, with the strong probability against its correctness, and the absence of all presumption in its favour, it is not necessary here to insist. The fact of such a possibility, however remote, demands the prosecution of our inquiry into the period and the revelations which are properly evangelical.

"The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." (Luke i. 32, 33.)

« AnteriorContinuar »