« AnteriorContinuar »
gilical writings. (Vide the whole of the four Gospels.)
The Editor then adds that “ the confession (in X. 34. 35. and 36.) which our author termo a disavowal of deity, was the very confession for which they sought again to take him, bee cause 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 bis ; The context is (32.) “ many good works have I shewed you from iny father, for which of those works do ye stone me?' (33) The Jews answered bim saying, for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God: (34.) Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law; I said, ve are Gods? (35) If he called thern Gods unto whom the word of God came, (and the scripture cannot be broken) 36. Say ye of him whom the father hath sanctified and sent into the world, thou blasphemnest; because I said, I am the son of God? (37.) If I do not the works of my father, hjeve me not: (38.) but if I do, though ye believe me not, believe the
works: that ye may know and believe that the father is in me* and I in him ; (39) 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 read. ing the scriptures styled those superiors by the epithet Gods in conformity to their scrip. tyres, they could not in justice accuse him. the sanctified Messiab 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, io ibe 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 pirase :: God” and
Son of God” in its real sense. If a commoner, who holds a high situation under Government, suffers himself to be calleri “honourable” and consequently be accused of presumption in permiting himself to be designated by that title, on ihe ground that he was not actually the son of a nobleman, would he not justify
* I have already in a preceding page (278) stated that such a pbrase aş "one is in apother and the other is iq him"implies in scriptural language only unity in desiga and will, as it is frequently applied to the apogiles in reference to God and to tbeir Lord and master Jesus Christ.
himeelf against this charge, by saying “ You call all the judges Lords in their judi. cial capacity, though they are not noblemen by birth yet you charge me (who hold a more dignified situation than the judges) with are rogance, because I suffer myself to be addres. sed as “ honourable" a title which the chil. dren 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. 35. and 36. contain a confession of Godhead or a disavowal of deity made by Jesus him. self.
It is not only a single instance, in which Jeo sus omitted to correct the Jews in their mis. conceiving 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. and 21. When Jesus told the Jews to des. troy 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 11. 21. "but he spoke of the temple of his body.” As well as John. VII. 34-36. VIII. 21. and 22. as I noliced
before in page 101,253. 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: 16. And therefore did the Jews persecute him (Jesus) and sought to slay him, be. cause he had done these things on the sala bath 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) 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.”. Altho' the Jews, in their own defence, called God their father, without subjecting themsel
ves 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 fa. ther-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. (ós verily I say unto you the son can do nothing himself &c.") and also in the following verses; in so much that the Jews being unable to find any plea for his destruction, remained quiet and left Jesus in peace. Vide the whole of chap, ter 5th. Iu Luke XXIII. 2. the Jews charged him with having perverted the nation by re, presenting 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 Revd. 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 a guilty of in their accusation against him, the severest charge