Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

Paul will assist us in the interpretation of this passage. Gal. iii. 8, he says, The Scripture having foreseen that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, proclaimed before glad tidings to Abraham, saying, Through thee all nations shall be blessed.' Abraham's seeing the day of the Messiah, therefore, means only his having very general information of the previous divine purpose and appointment that the Messiah should descend from him. In like manner, the clause Before Abraham was born, I was he,' signifies that previous to Abraham's existence God had appointed that Jesus should be the Messiah. Since every event from the beginning to the end of time, and throughout eternity, is present to the omniscient mind of the Deity, and since every thing which he appoints will certainly come to pass, his original appointments are represented in the language of Scripture as being actually fulfilled before the events really take place."

In the explanation of this important text it was thought necessary to be thus particular, because it is in a great measure decisive of the whole controversy: for, if this declaration does not establish the pre-existence of Christ, no other passage can. And the impartial reader will consider whether, when our Lord had declared, "Your father Abraham saw my day," meaning thereby in prophetic vision; and when, immediately afterwards, he assigns as a reason," Before Abraham was born, I was he," it be not most reasonable, and most consistent with the connexion, to understand these words in the corresponding sense, not of real existence, but of existence in the divine purpose.

Further, 'As it appears to have been common with the sacred writers to represent persons and things as actually existing, which existed only in the divine counsels, it follows that wherever Christ or his glory is represented as existing previously to his appearance on earth, it may justly be understood of an existence in the divine purpose

and

and decree only, unless the connexion necessarily determines it to the contrary signification.

John xiii. 3.

VIII.

"Jesus knowing that he was come from God and went to God." See No. VI.

He came from God as the messenger of his will to mankind. See John i. 6. He was returning to God, having finished his embassy, to render an account of his mission.

Dr. Harwood (Soc. Sch. p. 45,) cites this text as decisive in favour of the pre-existence of Christ. Dr. Clarke, with more judgement, appeals to it (Scrip. Doct. No. 51,) only as a proof of the inferiority of the Son.

IX.

John xvi. 28. "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world and go to the Father."

It is here argued, that as the last clause clearly refers to a local ascent into heaven, so the first and corresponding clause ought in all reason to be understood of a prior local descent from the Father. Hence Arians and Trinitarians argue the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, and the Polish Socinians infer his ascent into heaven antecedently to his public appearance as a messenger from God.

On the other hand it has been urged, that "it is frequent with the best authors, and with the sacred writers in particular, when the same words are put in opposition to each other, to take the one in a literal, the other in a figurative sense. Matt. viii. 22, 'Let the dead bury their dead."" So Jesus came into the world in a figurative sense as a messenger from God; but he left the world and went to the Father literally and locally when he ascended into heaven.

But it is better to take both clauses figuratively. As Jesus

F 2

Jesus came into the world when he appeared in public as a messenger from God; so, conversely, he left the world and returned to the Father when his mission closed, and he ceased to appear any longer as a public teacher 63,

X.

John xvii. 5. "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thy own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

1. This text is understood by many Trinitarians as a petition to the Father from our Saviour in his divine na-. ture, requesting that his human nature might be assumed. to a participation of those honours which the divine nature had from all eternity possessed. The truth of this hypothesis it would be useless to discuss 64.

2. By the advocates for the pre-existence of Christ, this text is understood as a prayer to be restored to that dig

63 Slichtingius argues strenuously, from the opposition of the two clauses, the local ascent and descent of Christ. Wolzogenius, Grotius, and Mr. Lindsey, Comm. and Ess. vol. i. p. 395, contend for the figurative interpretation of the first, and the literal sense of the latter clause. It may be remarked, that in this text the Arians take both clauses in the same, i. e. the literal sense: and the Unitarians understand one literally, and the other figuratively. In John iii. 13, "Who hath ascended úp into heaven but he that came down from heaven?" the Arians understand the first clause figuratively, and the second literally; whereas the Unitarians interpret both clauses figuratively. And surely

it is always right to interpret the same words in the same sense, whether literal or figurative, where they occur in the same sentence, unless the connexion imperiously requires contrary. Upon this principle, the figurative interpretation of both clauses in the present case appears the most eligible.

64" Nunc autem, O Pater, adsumito hanc mortalem naturam ad participationem honoris et dignitatis et gloriæ, quâ antequam mihi hanc conjungerem naturam, ante creationem mundi, imo ab omni æternitate fruebar." Hammond in loc.-" Declarat se nihil adventitium cupere, sed tantum ut appareat talis in carne, qualis fuit ante conditum mundum." Calvin.-Dr. Whitby gives the same interpretation, which he supports by a quotation from Theophylact, " ανθρωπινην με φυσιν αγαγε εις την δόξαν, ην είχαν πάρα σοι εγω λογάς.”

nity and felicity which he possessed with the Father, before the foundation of the world, and of which he had voluntarily divested himself when he became incarnate.

This it is alleged is the natural obvious meaning of the words. If interpreted by the rules of sound criticism, they will bear no other sense. The words The words παρα σεαυτῷ, ' with thy own self,' are opposed to the words & τns yns, upon the earth,' in the preceding verse: and the words Tagα παρα

'with thee,' in the Scriptures and in all good writers, are used in a local sense to express in thy house,'' in thy presence,' and the like; and never signify in thy purpose or decree 65.'

This text is held up by the Arian expositors as an unanswerable argument for the pre-existence of Christ, and the interpretation of the Unitarians is treated by them with very little ceremony.

"To suppose with the Socinians," says Dr. Doddridge, who agreed with the Arians in the belief of a created Logos," that this refers only to that glory which God intended for him in his decrees, seems to sink and contract the sense far short of its genuine purpose.

"The Socinian interpretation of this passage," says Dr. Clarke (No. 607), " is too much forced."

The value of such kind of observations has been already stated. Low and forced interpretations mean nothing more than interpretations to which these learned expositors had not been accustomed; but which might nevertheless be true.

Dr. Harwood, as he is wont, uses language still more

See Numb xxii. 9, " Who are the men that are (Taga σo) with thee in thy house?" 1 Sam. xxii. 3, "Let my father and mother be (Tapa co) with thee in thy house." "We shall receive," says the mother of the seven martyrs, "the prize of virtue, and we shall be (Tapa Oew) with God :" i. e. in his presence. Joseph. Opp. tom. ii. p. 509 See Aristoph. Plut. vi. 394. Demosth, de Coron. § 25. Harwood Soc. Sch. p. 46-48.

triumphant,

triumphant. "Was there no intimation," says he (Soc. Sch. p. 46,)" in the whole New Testament of the preexistence of Christ, this single passage would irrefragably demonstrate and establish it. It is a plain solemn address to the Deity, that, since he had glorified his name upon earth, he would be pleased to re-admit him to that state of glory and happiness which he had possessed in his presence before the creation of the world. Upon this single text I lay my finger. Here I posit my system. And if plain words be designedly employed to convey any determinate meaning; if the modes of human speech have any precision; I am convinced that this plain declaration of our Lord, in an act of devotion, exhibits a great and important truth which can never be subverted or invalidated by any accurate and satisfactory criticism."

The learned writer adds in a note, "The solemnity with which I once heard Dr. Benson appeal to this text greatly affected me when I was a young man. Dr. Newcome also, the very learned and worthy bishop of Waterford, (afterwards archbishop of Armagh,) in a visit with which he condescended to honour me, insisted on this text as decisive."

These authorities are considerable. But authorities, at least equally grave, may be produced on the other side. And the question must be determined by reason, not by authority.

3. "O Father, glorify thou me with thyself, with the glory which I had with thee," that is, in thy immutable purpose and decree, the glory which was intended for me "before the world was.'

99

This is the sense in which the words are explained by the Polish Socinian expositors and by the modern Unitarians and if this sense be admissible, no argument can be drawn from this text in favour of the pre-existence of Christ.

The

« EdellinenJatka »