« EdellinenJatka »
calls the Logos the Son of God, the first born son of God, and the "shepherd of a sacred flock." Elsewhere he calls him the beloved Son of God: and these we know, are epithets applied to Christ in the New Testament. In the following passage the Logos is recognised as the image of God, as the minister of God, and under God, as the author of the world. "The Logos, by which the world is made, is the Image of the Supreme Deity. As we perceive the sun's light, though the sun is not itself seen; and behold the brightness of the moon, though its orb may not appear to the eye; so men look up to, and acknowledge the likeness of God in his minister, the Logos, whom they esteem as God *." Very similar to this is the account which St. Paul gives of the Logos in the person of Jesus. Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son, who is the image of the invisible of God, the first born of every creature.
* Καθαπερ γαρ την ανθήλιον αυγην, ὡς ἥλιον, οι μη δυναμενοι των ήλιον αυτον ιδειν, όρωσι, όντως και την του θεού εικονα τον αγγελον αυτου λόγον, ὡς αυτον κατανοοῦσι. Vol. I. p. 656, or p. 600.
For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Col. i. 12-18.
The following passage, if duly examined, puts it beyond doubt, that by the Image of God Philo means the Lord from heaven. "God, the author of divine virtue, was willing to send his Image from heaven to the earth, from compassion to our race, that he might wash away the impurities, which fill this life with guilt and misery, and that he might thus secure to us a better inheritance *." Here we see the nature and object of the gospel stated in a few unequivocal words. The Son of God came from heaven, and appeared in the world, that he might wash away the sins of men, and thus qualify them for a divine inheritance. On this glorious errand he was sent by the universal Father, who, says Philo, had compassion on our race; and who, says Paul,
* Βουληθείς ο θεός της θείας αρετης απ' ουρανου καταπέμψαι την εικονα επι την γην, δι ελεον του γενους ήμων,
μη ατυχηση της αμεινονος μοιρας, απολουσαμενον τα καταρρυπαίνοντα ἡμων τον αθλιον και δυσκλειας γέμοντα Giov. Vol. II. p. 669.
was not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and live.
Philo and the apostle Paul agree farther in representing the Son of God as a High Priest. Their words are so important, that it is worth while to compare them together. "The Logos of God is alive and active, and sharper than any two edged sword, and piercing even to a separation both of life and spirit, both of joints and marrow; and is a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart; nor is any creature hidden before him; but all things are bare and laid open to the eyes of him, with whom we have to do. Having therefore a great High Priest, who hath passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not a high priest, that is not touched with the feelings of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and grace to help us in time of need." Heb. iv. 12. ..
Philo expressly declares that the Esseans supposed the religion of Moses to consist, as man does, of a body and of a soul; and that, while they rejected the former as the grosser and subordinate part of it, they embraced the latter, as the essential and more refined part. This is precisely the view, as has been already observed,
which the apostle Paul gives of this question, when he represents judaism as consisting not in the flesh, but in the spirit, not in the external and literal, but in the inward metaphorical sense. In this they were directly opposed by the Jews, who disbelieved in Jesus, as they tenaciously adhered to the letter of the Jewish law, and represented the metaphorical interpretation as a dangerous innovation, subversive of the law itself. The two parties being thus at issue, one maintained the perpetuity of the levitical code in all its branches; the other endeavoured to set it aside by shewing, that the several institutions, of which it was composed, were but types or shadows of a higher, more permanent, and more refined order of things, and pointed to Christ as the introducer and chief of that new and happy dispensation.
Now, in pursuing this interpretation, the christian teachers, with the apostle Paul at their head, applied the terms, which designated the types and symbols of the old dispensation to Christ, as the great person in whom they were realized and fulfilled under the new. But this transfer of the terms was catachrestical, a figure of speech, founded only on analogy, and to be interpreted with great latitude. I will illustrate this by an example. "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the
sea. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. And did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was CHRIST." 1 Cor. x. i. Here the meat and drink, miraculously supplied by Moses to the Jews who sojourned with him in the wilderness, are represented by the apostle as symbols of the spiritual food administered by Christ. For this reason the apostle calls them spiritual meat, and spiritual drink, and then adds, that the rock was Christ ; meaning that Christ was the real person of whom the rock was the symbol.
In this manner the high priest, under the ceremonial law, was a type of Christ, and his office being a shadon, of course disappeared with the advent of its real object. When the office of high priest was thus superseded, or abolished, the title necessarily required to be abolished with it. But the prejudice of the judaizing christians, in favour of such a title, made it matter of prudence in the apostles, instead of abolishing, to transfer it to Christ. The conduct of the apostolical teachers in this respect supposes a tender regard for the prepossessions of their weaker brethren; and they depended on their good sense for interpreting the title with that latitude, which is required by the