Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

it. ... Neither (b) are the texts cited from the Apocrypha aitogether satisfactory. The appellation, 2óyos vεov [word of God], which occurs frequently in the Book of Wisdom and in Sirach, cannot be clearly proved, in any one instance, to designate a person of the Godhead, but signifies either the divine oracles and revelations, as Sir. i. 5, or the divine decrees and will, as Sir. xliii. 26. Book of Wisdom, xviii. 15, coll. ix. 1; xvi. 12.... Nor does the appellation "Son of God," in the Book of Wisdom, ii. 13-20, designate the Messiah, but, in a more general sense, a favorite of God, one approved by Heaven, a righteous person. The phrase "Holy Spirit," used in the same book (chap. ix. 17, 18), there means only a holy temper, virtue, temperance, continence, sanctitas animi: cf. ix. 4, 10. (c) The terms,

the word of Jah and the word of] מֵימְרָא אֱלֹהִים מֵימְרָא דִי רוּ

God], are used very frequently in the Chaldaic paraphrases, and seem, as there employed, to designate a person, and have therefore been compared with the appellation 2óyos vɛou, and considered as indicating the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a very important argument. It is doubtful, however, whether these terms were understood by the Jews contemporary with the paraphrasts as titles of the Messiah; or whether, as many suppose, they were regarded as synonymous with numen, majestas divina. - G. C. KNAPP: Lectures on Christian Theology, sect. xli. I.

Dr. Woods, the translator of Knapp's Lectures, thinks there is no doubt that in the Book of Wisdom, an Egyptico-Jewish production, the writer, influenced by the extravagant philosophy of Plato and of the East which then prevailed at Alexandria, hypostatized the divine attributes, and meant to speak of "Wisdom" as a being who proceeded, before the creation, from the substance of God. If this opinion were correct, it would not follow that he believed the Messiah to have been a person in the Godhead, or that there were three persons in the divine nature; nor, if he had, would it follow that the great body of the Jewish nation adopted his theology.

A careful examination of the Scriptures will lead us to see that the Hebrews were accustomed to speak of the word of God in a manner which not unfrequently led to personification; and at times they expressed themselves almost as if it were a hypostasis. The foundation of this seems to be laid in Gen. i. 3: "God said, Let there be light; and there was light." This is equivalent to a declaration, that the word of God has in it a creative power. Expressly after this tenor is Ps. xxxiii. 6: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." There

can indeed be no reasonable ground to doubt that all this is figurative; or, in other words, that it is a symbolical representation of God's executive power or energy. Not unfrequently is "the word of God" spoken of in such a way as would seem, at first view, to indicate that it is regarded as a being, a hypostasis, which possesses and exercises attributes of its own. Thus it is said in Heb. xi. 3, that "the worlds were framed by the word of God:" so in 2 Pet. iii. 5. This word is a life-giving power: Deut. viii. 3. Matt. iv. 4. Luke iv. 4. It gives spiritual as well as physical life: Ps. cxix. 50. 1 Pet. i. 23. It has attributes or qualities ascribed to it: Ps. cxix. 89. Isa. xl. 8. 1 Pet. i. 23. It is an agent in the execution of the divine commands: Ps. cvii. 20; cxlvii. 15, 18. Isa. lv. 11. It is a messenger giving and imparting admonition: 1 Kings xii. 22. 1 Chron. xvii. 3. Jer. xxvii. 1; xxxiv. 8; xxxvi. 1. To the word of God is ascribed the power of searching and discerning the most secret thoughts of men: Heb. iv. 12. We must not suppose, however, that an enlightened and spiritual Hebrew regarded the word of God as a real hypostasis or substantial being, notwithstanding the strong language thus employed respecting it. Another important circumstance, pertaining to the usus loquendi of the Jews at the time when John wrote his Gospel, deserves to be brought distinctly into view. Not far from the beginning of the Christian era, the Targums or translations into Chaldee of the Hebrew Scriptures were made, and committed to writing; of the Pentateuch by Onkelos, and of most of the remaining books by Jonathan ben Uzziel. In these works, and in other Targums, a special idiom prevails respecting the use of the phrase, " word of the Lord;" and it presents some views of the usus loquendi of the Jews of that period, which are not only remarkable, but very striking. In my own apprehension, they have an important bearing upon the use of "Logos " in our text. The Chaldee word for "Logos" is 72, a noun with formative derived from 7, dixit. To this noun the Targumists subjoin the Gen. (abridged), which then is exactly equivalent to ỏ hóуos Toυ vɛou. This expression is employed in the Targums, in cases almost without number, instead of the simple or of the Hebrew text. In particular, wherever the Hebrew represents the Divine Being as in action, or as revealing himself by his works, or by communications to individuals, it is common for the Targumists to say that his word operates, or makes the revelation. . . . Strikingly is this idiom illustrated in a later Targum of 2 Chron. xvi. 3,

where the Hebrew runs thus: "There is a league between me and thee;" Targum, "between my word and thy word." Thus 7?? came, by usage among the Jews, to be employed not only to designate God as acting or making some revelation of himself or of his will, but to be employed as a kind of intensive periphrastic pronoun to designate God himself. The transition was not unnatural. That which is often employed to express God revealed may easily come at last to express the idea of God simply considered. What now are we to say as to the real nature and design of the idiom in question? Is it personification, or does it amount to the assertion of hypostasis? If we were to judge of this matter only in view of the leading instances produced above [Exod. xix. 17. Job xlii. 9. Ps. ii. 4. Gen. xxvi. 3; xxxix. 2. Lev. xxvi. 46. Deut. v. 5; xx. 1. Gen. vi. 6; viii. 21], we might be ready to say that it amounts to asserting hypostasis. But, when we compare the idiom in its whole extent, we cannot view the matter in such a light. Even those cases which present "word" in the sense of the reciprocal pronoun cannot be regarded as hypostatically designating a being different from God. In very late Targums there are, indeed, passages which plainly imply a hypostatic use of, i.e. word; but, in those that were extant in the time of John, we find none which necessarily convey such a meaning. Abridged from MOSES STUART on John i. 1-18, in Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. vii. pp. 18-22.

[ocr errors]

It has been maintained, that the Jewish Scriptures convey the idea of the Logos in the phrase, "the word of God;" implying that this phrase is the designation of a divine person, with omnipotent power, and that it is identical with the Logos of John. If we rest upon the Scripture alone for the meaning of this epithet, we should undoubtedly come to the conclusion, with some of the most learned critics, that it is only a periphrasis for God, or used as expressive of his active power or his wisdom. It can hardly be maintained, that this term could have conveyed to the Jewish mind the conception of the Word, who was to become incarnate among men. . . . The Jewish Logos and the Logos of Philo are not convertible. So that we cannot derive, from the facts in question, a convincing argument that the Divine Saviour, in his distinct personality and his co-equality with God, was known before the Messiah himself was manifested. And, after Jesus himself appeared, a true knowledge of him was slowly developed. DR. SETH SWEETSER, in Biblioth. Sacra for January, 1854; vol. xi. pp. 103–4.

[ocr errors]

SECT. III. THE DOCTRINE OF A TRIUNE GOD, OR OF THE DEITY OF CHRIST, NOT REVEALED OR KNOWN TO THE DISCIPLES BEFORE THE DAY OF PENTECOST.

I do fear, my respected friend, that some of your opinions and reasonings will turn out to be weapons put into the hands of Unitarians.. DR. SAMUEL MILLER.

Christ did not receive testimony from the evangelists, that he was God. ALPHONSO SALMERON: Comm. in Evang., Prolog. xxvi. tom. i. p. 394.

Nor understood they [our Saviour's own disciples] the mystery of the Sacred Trinity as we do, and many other recondite secrets. JOHN EVELYN: The True Religion, vol. ii. pp. 87–8.

[ocr errors]

Be they who they would, Gentiles as well as Jews, that applied to him [our Lord], . . . and implored his assistance, if they declared their belief in him as in a person sent from God, he desired no more, and never sent them away without relief. But, as that was not the time for him to declare the utmost extent of his power and authority, and much less the nature of his kingdom which he ... signified to be just at hand, to show them how he designed to redeem mankind, or to manifest his Divinity in plain and explicit words; so... he wrapt them up in mysterious and allegorical expressions....... Though St. Peter more than once confessed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, yet it is certain from the evangelical history, that neither he nor any of the rest of the apostles did then know our Lord to be what he really was. This was the main article which they not only could not then bear, but which was by no means proper to be then clearly revealed. . . . They had such rules given them, for the direction of their conduct, as he expected should be obeyed by those that would profess themselves to be his disciples. Thus they were told what they were to do, and in whom to believe. If they took him to be the Saviour of the world, that was sufficient. But then they were directed, by all that he did and said, to look up to the Father as the sender, and him as the person sent; and still to give the Father the glory in all that they should see the Son at any time do. If they thought him superior to Moses, who was no more than a servant, though "faithful in all his house," whilst he executed the commands of his great Master, whereas our Lord was his Son, to whom he communicated his whole will, they did as much as was then required of them to do. Farther

...

[ocr errors]

manifestation of himself would not have suited with that state of humiliation in which he appeared before his passion. This concealment of himself till his resurrection is what the ancient fathers meant by the word "economy," when applied to this subject. DR. WM. WOTTON: Disc. on the Omniscience of the Son of God, pp. 32, 36–8.

Our blessed Lord himself, in compliance probably with the weakness and prejudices of his hearers, says very little, in his discourses, of his own Divinity. This seemed to be one of those things which "they were not as yet able to receive." He constantly calls himself by no other name than the Son of man; nor doth it appear that his disciples, till after his resurrection, St. Peter only excepted, took him for a divine person. . . . Our blessed Lord chose rather to set forth his divine character by his actions than his discourses, and left the fuller declarations of it to be made by his apostles after his ascension. - DR. THOMAS MANGEY: Plain Notions of our Lord's Divinity, page 10.

But is it at all probable that Peter would have had the effrontery to rebuke his Master, if he regarded him as Almighty God? In the present connection, the following remarks by Bishop MALTBY (Illust. of the Truth of the Chris. Religion, p. 124), deserve a place: "In the sixteenth chapter of the same evangelist [Matthew], it appears to be intimated, that all the disciples had not fully ascertained, in their own minds, what was the real character of their Master; since only one, in reply to his question upon that point, described him by his true designation. But, immediately afterwards, that same apostle showed his utter ignorance of the nature of that designation, and the entire coincidence of his notions with those of his countrymen, when, in direct opposition to a plain declaration of Jesus concerning his impending sufferings and death, he replied in a tone of impatience and incredulity, Be it far from thee, Lord! this shall not be unto thee.'"

"My Lord! and my God!" I do not understand this as an address to Jesus; but thus, "Yes: he it is indeed! He, my Lord, and my God!" Yet, in giving this interpretation, I do not affirm that Thomas passed all at once from the extreme of doubt to the highest degree of faith, and acknowledged Christ to be the true God. This appears to me too much for the then existing knowledge of the disciples; and we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ, before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I am therefore inclined to understand this expression, which broke out from Thomas in the height of his astonishment, in a figurative sense, denoting only, "Whom I shall ever reverence in the highest degree." If he only recollected what he had heard from the mouth of Jesus ten days before (chap. xiv.

« AnteriorContinuar »