Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

a claim to equality with God is not made out from this assertion, by any force of the word duos, is sufficiently plain from comparing the tenth chapter of this same Evangelist, (verses 24—39 ;) where the Jews are described as having made the same accusation, on the ground that Christ had declared himself to be the Son of God, (v. 36,) or that God was his Father, (v. 29.)

And that no such stress can be laid on the word duos, to prove the “real and substantial generation of the Logos," as Turretine lays upon it, is sufficiently evident from the manner in which the word is employed, in other cases.

Christ is said to have entered the holy place once by bis own blood, Heb. 9: 12; and to have washed us from our sins in his own blood, Rev. 1: 5. In these and a multitude of other cases, where own (idios) is used, it is either employed as an intensive, to add force and emphasis to the meaning of his, that, &c, as his own, their own, &c; or it is placed in opposition to something that is strange, foreign, or that belongs to another. Thus, his own city means the city of which one is a native, or where he habitually resides, in distinction from other cities. And thus, Christ entered into the holy place by his own blood, means that he did not, like the Jewish priests, enter in with the blood of animals, &c.

It is however the emphatic sense of own, perhaps, which the passage from Paul's Epistle requires ; although the sense is good if own here be opposed to that which is foreign, or another's. The meaning then would be, God did not make atonement for sin, by exacting the blood of bulls and goats, or of human victims; but he gave his own Son to die for us.'

At any rate, Paul applies a still stronger epithet than duos to Timothy, who stood in no other relation to him, than that of one of his converts. “ To Timothy a genuine Son in the faith, gunoia TEXVQ," 1 Tim. 1:2; which, in 2 Tim. 1:1, he varies, by calling him my son.

But in whatever sense Christ is Son of God, whether his filiation be eternal, or in time he is God's own Son; and the epithet own cannot possibly have any bearing on the question of eternal generation. The Son of God, if begotten yesterday, would be as truly God's own Son, as if begotten from eternity. To call him idios vios then, determines nothing respecting the point in question. 2. Ayanntos, beloved.

beloved. / A formal examination of this really seems to me needless. Is not Christ all perfect, lovely, glorious, exalted as he is—God's beloved Son? And God's beloved Son in a peculiar sense ; for the reason that his character and attributes are peculiar? Yet, I could not argue the peculiarity of divine love toward him, merely from the fact that the epithet beloved is applied to him. Daniel is not only called beloved, but a man greatly beloved ; David was a man after God's own heart; Solomon was beloved of God; the church is his beloved; but these are not therefore eternally begotten. It is then the circumstances under which ayannios is applied to Christ, and the manner of the application, that intimate a peculiarity of meaning in his case. But this peculiarity has no concern, with any argument in favour of the doctrine of eternal generation.

3. Movoyevns, only begotten. I cannot help thinking it somewhat singular, that any argument should ever have been drawn from this epithet, to prove the eternal generation of the Son. Is not that generation in the womb of the virgin, by supernatural miraculous power, and on account of which the angel says he should be called the Son of God, the only generation of the kind, which has ever taken place ? Has God any other Son, who was thus produced ?

Or if you understand the term Son as characterising the incarnate Logos, the Messiah, the supreme King ; is there more than one such King? And is not uovoyers the very adjunct which may properly be connected with vios, used in either of the above senses?

Here I might stop, then, with having shewn, that in whatever way you understand the phrase Son of God as applied to Christ, only begotten is strictly applicable to him. But my examination of the term uovoyevns has ended in the conviction, that as applied to the Saviour, it is a mere parallelism of αγαπητος.

It
may

be

proper to state the reasons of this conviction.

In the Hellenistic Greek, both ayanntos and uovoyavns correspond to the Hebrew word 7977" only begotten. Thus Gen. 22: 2, " Take now thy son, ibine only son, Hebrew 717", Sept. ayanniov, Aquila uovoyevn; all in the same sense. So 7979 is rendered by ayanntos in Gen. 22: 12, 16. Jud. 11: 34. Jer. 6: 26. Amos 8: 10. Zech. 12: 10. Ps. 22: 21. It is thus too that Hesychius explains ayanniov, in his Glossary. Ayanntov, says he, μονογενη, κεχαρισμενον. So Pollux; « A beloved and only son, or a beloved daughter, is called uovoyevns, by Hesiod.” So in Homer's Iliad, (S. v. 401) the term ayanntov is explained by the Scholiast, uovoyevn. . | As applied to Christ, we find the epithet povoyevns used only by John; a writer whose tender heart every where flows out, in epithets of endearment. That the term indicates special endearment cannot be doubted; nor can we doubt that the Son of God was specially dear to the Father.

κτισεως. .

Supported by such authorities, and such usage, I hesitate not to say, it is my full belief, that uovoyevns as applied to the Saviour is merely a term of special endear. ment. But if it be more; then, as I have already shewn, it applies to the peculiar and unique generation of the Son, in the womb of a virgin, by divine power; or to the peculiar and unique exaltation of the incarnate Logos.

4. Ilowrotoxos first born. This appellation has often been adduced, to confirm or prove the doctrine of eternal generation. But it would prove a great deal too much, if the term is to be literally applied. Christ is called the first born of every creature, πρωτοτοκος πασης

Is the difference then between him and others, only that he was born first? He is called the first born among many brethren ; (Rom. 8: 29) those brethren then are born as well as he; but he is the first in point of time.

This sense will not bear. We come, then, by necessity to the figurative sense of the word; where we find the meaning to be, chief pre-eminent, first in dignity, command, honour, &c; a very natural meaning, derived from the rights and privileges of primogeniture among the Hebrews. And now we have the sense of all those passages, where Christ is called the first born ; viz, he is the head of all creation; he is Lord over the church ; he is the first born from the dead, i. e. the Lord of those who will die no more, &c. But none of all these meanings have any bearing, that I can perceive, on the doctrine of eternal generation.

5. The fifth argument of Turretine is drawn from Col. 1:15 ; “ Who is the image of the invisible God;" and from Heb. 1:5,“ Who being the effulgence [irradia

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

tion] of his [the Father's] glory, and the express image of his substance, &c."

As to the first of these passages, the context immediately going before affords an easy solution of the meaning “ In whom [Christ] we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of our sins; who is the image, &c.” Now who is the image ? He by whose blood we have redemption. And who is it, that shed his blood ?” The preceding context tells us, that it was God's dear Son. Was it then the eternally begotten and coequal Son that shed his blood? Or was it the incarnate Logos i. e. the Messiah, who made atonement by suffering ? In exactly the same strain is the

passage

in Hebrews. “ Who, (being the irradiation of his glory, and the express image of him,* and directing all things by his omnipotent control,) having made expiation by himself for our sins, sat down at the right hand. of the majesty on high.”

Who then made expiation by suffering for our sins ? Surely the Messiah, not the eternal Logos. The same person then is the irradiation of the Father's glory, and his peculiar image.

I have reviewed the arguments, on which Turretine depends, to prove the doctrine in question from the Scriptures. I find in most of them confirmation of an opinion very diverse from his.

Some other arguments must be noticed, before I leave the subject ; for I would not wittingly leave any important argument unexamined, which is brought to establish the doctrine in question.

της υποστασεως αυτου I take to be simply a translation of the Hebrew ng, so often used to designate him, himself, &c.

*

« ZurückWeiter »