Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

name is, called upon her, Isa. iv. 1. (which is the direct literal notion of εminaλiodai here) or as the servant to that master by whose name he is called also; and so easμevol· ovoua Xpisov is but a periphrasis of Christians, and no

more."

1 Cor. x. 9. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted and were destroyed of serpents. ' Ex4 plained. Dis. VIII. p. 116.

2 Cor. viii. 9. For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich. ' This place is very improperly urged by the Trinitarians. as a proof of their doctrine. For if Jesus Christ had been God, he must have always continued rich, and could never have become poor, as the Apostle affirms he did. The Deity is immense and eternal, and can never abase himself, or diminish himself in any degree. He cannot lay aside the glories and perfections of his nature, and become a frail mortal man. Nor can any union be formed betwixt him and a man, so as that the actions or sufferings of that man, can be properly ascribed to him. But although God cannot change or be diminished, yet the most perfect creature may. It is therefore the Unitarians only, who hold Christ to be a creature or dependent being, that can account for his becoming poor, or that can give any consistent interpretation of the words of the Apostle in this place.

2 Cor. xiii. 14. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.' This passage is no objection, but rather an argument in favour of Unitarianism. The Father only is characterised hore by the word God, and Jesus Christ is plainly distinguished from him. There are several instances of God and the creature being mentioned together, in scripture and our Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Christian church, and the medium of the divine communications with mankind, is very properly joined with him in this, as well as other apostolical benedictions. See Dis. II. .p. 17, and Dis. IX. p. 144. The communion of the Holy Ghost in this place denotes, the participation and enjoyment of spiritual gifts and qualifications.

Dr. Hammond in loco.

[ocr errors]

Eph. iii. 9. And to make all men see, what is the fel. lowship (or rather economy) of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.' The words by Jesus Christ, (a neov XpioTou) have been rejected by some able critics as an interpolation, because they are wanting, in some of the most ancient and valuable manuscripts, in seve ral ancient versions, and in the writings of many Fathers, who quote the rest of the verse without them.* Although they were genuine, and considered as respecting the original creation and formation of all things, they would not prove that Jesus Christ was God, but only that he was the instru ment by whom God created all things.

Eph. iv. 8. Wherefore he saith, when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.' Considered and explained, Dis. VIII. p. 115.

*

Phil. ii. 6 to 11. Who being in the form of God: thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and be came obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: and that every tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.'

This passage has been the subject of many critical disquisitions and enquiries; and as the first part of it stands in our translation, might tend greatly to mislead a mere English reader. A person unacquainted with the original, when he reads Jesus Christ being in the form of God,

*The words (dia Ingou Xpisu) by Jesus Christ,' are wanting in the Alexandrine, Ephrem, and Clermont manuscripts, in the Codex Augiensis, C. Bornerianus, and in two others. They are also wanting in the Vulgate, ancient Syriac, the latter having them with an asterisk) Coptic, and Ethiopic versions; and in the Fathers Tertullian, Jerom, Ambrose, Pelagius, the dialogue against Marcion, Basil, de Sp. S. v. Cyril, Act. Eph. v. and Theodoret, in Dan. x. 13. Dr. Mill, and Bengelius set them aside also. See Wetstein in loco, and Walton's Polyglot Bible. Dr. Harwood has omitted them in his late edition of the Greck Testament, Lond. 1776.

thought it not robbery to be equal with God,' might be very naturally led to conclude, (as many Trinitarians have erroneously done,) that Jesus was really a divine person equal with the Father. But if he allows himself time for recol. lection, and goes on to peruse the whole passage deliberately as it is here quoted, taking it in just connection, he will find this conclusion to be erroneous, and be apt to suspect even without the assistance of criticism, that the words thought is not a robbery equal with God,' are not rightly rendered in our version. For the being that is here said to have been in the form of God, is afterwards declared to have been in the form of a servant, and in the likeness of men, and to have humbled himself, and become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Now a person who has any just conceptions of the divine nature at all, may be easily satisfied, that such an amazing change could never take place upon God. Could that Being who is eternal and omnipotent, who filleth heaven and earth with his presence, in whom we a live, move, and have our being, with whom there is no variableness neither shadow of turning, ever be divested of the essential perfections of his nature, and appear in the form, of a frail, impotent, mortal man; subject to pain, misery, and death? Every ingeni ous well informed mind must revolt at the thought, and see at once that it is impossible! That the God of nature should be abased, degraded, and crucified, are ideas too gross and shocking to be admitted and believed by any per son that will permit his rational faculties to operate, and not tamely resign his understanding into the hands of others. But further, the person who is here said to be in the form of God, and to have abased and humbled himself, iş afterwards declared by the Apostle to have been exalted, and to have had a name given or conferred upon him that is above every name, &c. Now this exaltation or advance. ment, is as incompatible with the character of the Supreme Being, as the depression or humiliation mentioned before. And if Jesus Christ had been God, he could not have been promoted or exalted. Being already possessed of Deity, he would have possessed every thing in consequence of it, and could never have received an accession to his natural inhe rent dignity, dominion, and glory, from any being whatever, far less could he have been declared to be Lord to the

glory of God the Father.' These are reflections, that I apprehend would naturally occur to a sensible person, divested of all prejudice, and attachment to a system, from an attentive perusal of this passage, even as it stands in our version.

I know the Trinitarians have a salvo here, and betaking themselves to the pretended distinction of natures in Christ tell us, that it was only his human nature that was exalted. But there is no room for this subterfuge here more than in other places. St. Paul expressly affirms, that it was the same being that was in the form of God, that humbled himself, and afterwards was exalted on that account. He speaks of a being that voluntary abased himself, and afterwards received a great and glorious reward. But the human nature of Christ (according to the system of our opponents,) not being in the form of God, but being a considerable part of the act of abasement itself, could not be rewarded for what it never performed. Nor could the glorifying and exalting a human nature be any reward to a divine being. This in terpretation of the Trinitarians is therefore quite foreign te, and inconsistent with, the ideas and reasoning of the Apostle.

1

We come now to give the true explication of the words 'being in the form of God.' As Jesus Christ is here plainly distinguished from God by the Apostle, it is perfectly clear that the words (uoppy See) form of God,' are not to be taken in an abstract, philosophical, or metaphysical sense, but in the plain popular sense, in which the word form occurs in scripture. Mark xvi. 12. After that he ap peared in another FORM unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.' See also the compounds of the same word used Matth. xvii. 2. Mark ix. 2. Rom. viii. 29. Phil. iii. 21. In which places the word μopøŋ (form) and its derivatives, does not signify the nature, or essence of a person or thing, but its figure, resemblance, and appearance. Taking the words therefore in this truly scriptural sense, the form of God, does not denote that Jesus Christ was God, but that he bore the appearance or resemblance of God. The expression 'thought it not robbery to be equal with God,' is entirely an erroneous translation, by no means warranted by the original Greek. Many learned critics have shewn, that the true meaning of

the phrase (ουχ αρπαγμον ηγήσατο το είναι θεω) is, * did not eagerly covet, or aspire, to be like God;' or did not look on it as a prize to be hastily catched at to be like God; or was not eager to retain that likeness to God.'* And the words that follow confirm this interpretation. But made himself of no reputation. (aλ'EAUTOY EXEYWσE) ‘But emptied himself." If Jesus Christ had been equal with God, or possessed of a nature properly divine, he could not have 'emptied himself:' but the likeness or resemblance of God might be laid aside, and there is no absurdity in sup. posing it to be so. This being the true explication of the passage, no argument can be raised from it for the divinity of Christ, or his equality with the Father. It would have been very surprising indeed, if St. Paul had ventured to contradict (as our English version makes him do,) bis Lord and master who tells us, John xiv. 28. My Father is greater than I. ' And St. Paul himself also assures us, Eph. iv. 6. that there is one God and Father of all, whe is above all, through all, and in you all; which words are absolutely inconsistent with the equality of Jesus Christ, or any other Being with the Father, and may satisfy any person, that such an idea never entered into the Apostle's mind, or was ever by him committed to writing.

We shall now briefly give the interpretations, that the Unitarians both of the Arian and Socinian denomination, put upon this passage, The Arians consider the form or resemblance of God here mentioned, and the likeness to God that our Lord was not eager to retain, as respecting a state of pre-existent glory and dignity, which he enjoyed with the Father prior to his coming in the flesh; which

See Grotius, Le Clerc, Wetstein, Lamb, Bos, Dr. Whitby, Mr. Pierce of Exeter, and Dr. Clark in loco. It appears from the testimonies of Origen, Novatian, and the churches of Vienne and Lyons, and other ancient writers, that this passage was understood by them very differently from the manner in which our translators have rendered it, and that they by no means inferred the equality of Christ with God from it. The Greek word is here used adverbially, and signifies, as, "OI like, not denoting equality, but only a likeness or resemblance. It occurs frequently in the Septuagint in this sense; Job xiii. 5. They grope in the nocnday (18 XT] as in the night." Job x. 10. Hast thou not curdled me (ida Tupw) as cheese." Job xi. 12. Man is born [ieα orn epnuirn] like a wild ase's colt, and in various other places in the same version.

[ocr errors]
« EdellinenJatka »