Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

that he is personally the self-existent God, any more than his being called David, or David the King, is a proof that he was personally David the son of Jesse.

It may be useful, in this connection, to consider what expectations were in fact excited among the Jews, by the Divine names given to the promised Messiah. And is there, sir, any evidence, that any Jew, whether learned or unlearned, good or bad, ever understood the Divine names given to the Messiah, as importing that he should be the self-existent God? If no such idea was excited in the minds of pious Jews, by the use of those names, we may reasonably suppose that no such idea was intended in the predictions.

LETTER II.

A fifth Rule of Interpretation stated and applied.

REV. SIR,

PERMIT me now to state and apply another rule of interpretation.

Rule V. Particular phrases, terms, and epithets, are to be understood in a sense which is consistent with the general tenor of the gospel, and the character of the objects to which they are applied.

There are two things respecting Jesus Christ, which are, in my view, supported by the general tenor of the gospel, viz.

1. That he is truly the Son of God.

2. That he obeyed, suffered, and died, to open the way for our salvation.

These two points are not only supported by the general tenor of the gospel, but they appear to be essential· to the gospel plan of salvation. If we deny these, do we not in effect deny the gospel? If we deny these, do we not make God a liar?

If these are points unquestionably revealed, and supported by the general tenor of the gospel, then all the particular phrases, terms and epithets, used in respect to the Son of God, are to be understood in a sense which is consistent with these leading truths of the gospel.

There are several texts of Seripture which have been understood as supporting the idea that the Son of God is absolutely self-existent, independent, and immutable. But as this doctrine is, in my view, inconsistent with what have been stated as truths supported by the general tenor of the gospel, let us examine those texts, and see whether they do necessarily import what you and others have imagined.

John x. 18. "I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."

If, in any instance, the En of God said any thing which imported that he had independent power, this is the instance-But Christ did not say, "I have independent power."-Besides, it is believed, that in this case the word power is the same as authority. And this authority or this commandment Christ says he received of his Father. We may add, the resurrection of Christ from the dead is abundantly and explicitly attributed to God in distinction from the Son-"God raised HIм from the dead."

Micah v. 2. "Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

Whatever existed before the world, may be said to be of old, from everlasting. In the eighth chapter of Proverbs, Wisdom, or Christ under the name of Wisdom, is represented as using language similar to that in the text before us- "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old: I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was." But Wisdom adds, "When there were no depths, I was brought forth"-Before the hills, was I brought forth-"Then I was by him as one brought up with him, and I was daily his delight"— Brought up with him as a Son with a Father; and as a Son, was daily his delight. The Son was from everlasting, as he was brought forth before there were either depths or hills.

Rev. i. 17. "I am the First and the Last."

In the forty-fourth chapter of Isaiah, the Lord of Hosts adopts this title, and says, "I am the First and the Last, and besides me there is no God."

In view of these texts, Mr. Jones forms this argument-"There is no God besides him who is the First and the Last; but Jesus Christ is the First and the Last: therefore, besides Jesus Christ there is no God." If this be fair reasoning, we may draw another conclusion, viz. "The GOD and FATHER of our LORD JESUS CHRIST," is not Gop. Is it not amazing, that Mr. Jones should reason in such a manner ? In several instances, his conclusions as fully exclude the FATHER from being Gop, as it is possible that language should do it.

In Isaiah, God did not say, Besides us there is no God; but, "Besides ME there is no Bed." His words, therefore, as fully exclude every other Person as every other being.

When Christ said, "I am the First and the Last," he immediately added, "I am he that liveth, and was dead." He is therefore to be considered as the First and the Last in a sense which is consistent with his having been DEAD. There are several senses in which Christ may style himself "the First and the Last"-He may be so called as the constituted Head and Chief of creation; and as in his glory, as well as the glory of the Father, all things will terminateHe may be so called as the Author and Finisher of faith; or, as a Son, he may bear the Divine titles of his Father.

Heb. xiii. 8. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever."

This text on which so much reliance has been placed, has no verb in it; and, therefore, considered by itself, it contains no affirmation. For the beginning of the sentence, and the sense of the text, we have to look back to the preceding verse, "Remember them who have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering the END of their conversation, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever."

It is evident, that it is as the END of Christian conversation that Christ is here brought into view. And by Jesus Christ, we may understand not merely his Person, but his interest and glory. This END of our conversation is of immutable and perpetual importance the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. Heb. i. 12. "But thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."

This text was quoted from Psalm cii. and there was used in an address to God. This circumstance is worthy of note, and in my view, is the only diffi

eulty presented by the text. Why were words, which were first addressed to God, quoted and applied to the Son? Perhaps you will not find me able to answer the question; but if so, it will not hence follow that it is unanswerable.

In the 5th verse, the apostle quoted a passage from the Old Testament, and applied it to Christ, which was originally used in respect to Solomon-"I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." These words are to be found three times in the Old Testament, and each time they are contained in a gracious promise of God to David respecting his son Solomon. Why then did the apostle quote these words and apply them to Christ, as though they had been originally used in respect to him? The answer must probably be this, that Solomon was a type of Christ. May we not then suppose, that the words, which were first addressed to God, were quoted by the apostle and applied to Christ as the Son and "image of the invisible God ?"

Let us now attend to the import of the text: "But thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." Here we have exhibited a contrast between the material world and its constituted Creator. And what is the contrast? One waxes old and is liable to perish, and the other will remain the same without end. This, it is conceived, is the most which can be supposed to be necessarily implied in the text. And what is here affirmed of Christ, agrees with what he said of himself, "I am the First and the Last. I am he that liveth and was dead; and, behold, I live forevermore."

You suppose the text imports absolute immutability. But, sir, was it no change in the Son of God to pass from the form of God to the form of a servant? Was

« ZurückWeiter »