THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
BYRICHARD N. DAVIES
Copyright
By CRANSTON & STOWE,
1891,
COL. 3. 2.
"ETERNAL, undivided Lord,
Co-equal One in Three,
On thee all faith, all hope be placed;
All love be paid to thee!"
TO THE READER.
IF the theologian of extensive reading and mature thought finds in these pages but little that merits his special attention, I wish him to remember that they have been written for those who are just beginning their Biblical studies. I desire to furnish the young student of divinity with a plain, courteous, and trustworthy answer to the objections of those who reject the doctrine of a Triune Deity. I acknowledge my great indebtedness to Rev. Richard Gear Hobbs, A. M., for the carefulness with which he has read and corrected the manuscript. May the ever-blessed Spirit guide the reader of this essay into the knowledge of " the true God and eternal life!"
THE AUTHOR.
DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY STATED,
IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE,
THE UNITY OF GOD,
PLURALITY OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD,
A PLURALITY OF THREE PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD,
DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE TRINITY IN UNITY,
THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF CHRIST,
CHRIST THE JEHOVAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT,
The Jehovah-Angel was the Supreme God,
The Jehovah-Angel was not the Father,
This Angel was Christ in his Pre-existent State,
DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST,
Jehovah, "Lord," "God,"
OBJECTIONS TO THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST,
DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST,
Eternity,
Omnipresence,
Omniscience,
Omnipotence,
DIVINE ACTS ASCRIBED TO CHRIST,
DIVINE WORSHIP RENDERED TO CHRIST,
ARIAN NOTIONS REVIEWED,
OBJECTIONS TO THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST,
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST,
The Kenotic Theory,
Objections to Kenosis,
The Real Humanity of Christ,
THE UNION OF DIVINITY AND HUMANITY IN CHRIST,
OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE UNION OF DEITY AND HUMANITY IN CHRIST,
PERSONALITY AND DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,
Scriptural Proofs of the Doctrine,
Personality,
Deity,
APPENDIX.
Pluralis Majestaticus,
ANY inquiry concerning the nature of the ever-blessed God should be conducted with the profound reverence that we owe to the only absolutely perfect Being. Uncreate and eternal in his existence, infinite in all of his perfections, it is not possible for a finite being to discover his nature, nor even perfectly to comprehend it after it has been revealed to him. The sacred Scriptures contain all that is known on earth concerning the nature and the mode of existence of the Divine Being. This revelation of himself is not found in any one formulated statement, but must be gleaned from the entire body of the Scriptures, by a collection and right comparison of the different statements made concerning him.
The prayerful study of the Bible, from the day of Pentecost down, has convinced men that Almighty God exists as a Trinity of co-equal persons in the unity of the Godhead. To state this doctrine briefly and correctly, and to guard it against the false teachings of Arius and other errorists, the believers in the Trinity were necessitated to adopt the phrase, " The Trinity in Unity," which, for convenience sake, has been abbreviated into " The Trinity."
A more extended statement of the doctrine of the Trinity may be found in the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Episcopal Church:
Article I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity,—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
The doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is a matter of pure revelation. Like the doctrine of the omnipresence of God, while not contrary to reason, it is superior to mere human reason—probably is superior to angelic rea-son—and is comprehended by God only. In the light of the Holy Scriptures we apprehend it, but we do not comprehend it. " We lay hold upon it, ad prehendo; we hang upon it, our souls live by it. But we do not take it all in, we do not comprehend it; for it is a necessary attribute of God that he is incomprehensible." (Trench's Study of Words, p. 110.) This being true, human reason furnishes no proof either for or against the doctrine of the Trinity. Reason neither affirms nor denies it, but is rightly employed in the examination of the Biblical evidences of the soundness of the doctrine. It is doubtful whether there are any types or symbols of the Trinity. Efforts to illustrate it are of questionable propriety; it is better to confine ourselves to the consideration of the Divine revelations concerning it.
The Bible declares plainly and repeatedly that there is but one God. But it also makes known to us three distinct persons, by the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It invests each of these three persons with the attributes and titles that belong to Deity; it ascribes to each of these three persons the acts that the Deity has been known to do; it represents each of these three persons as receiving that supreme worship that is properly paid only to the infinite God; thus showing that each of these three persons is really and truly God. The unity of God, taken in connection with the supreme divinity of the Father, the supreme divinity of the Son, and the supreme divinity of the Holy Spirit, abundantly proves that these three persons co-exist in the unity of the Godhead; or, in other words, that God exists as the Trinity in Unity.
The importance of the doctrine of the Trinity is easily shown. " The knowledge of God is fundamental to religion; and as we know nothing of him but what he has been pleased to reveal, and as these revelations have all moral ends, and are designed to promote piety and not to gratify curiosity, all that he has revealed of himself in particular must partake of that character of fundamental importance which belongs to the knowledge of God in the aggregate. ' This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' Nothing, therefore, can disprove the fundamental importance of the Trinity in Unity but that which will disprove it to be a doctrine of Scripture." (Watson's Institutes of Theology, Vol. 1. p. 452.)
If the doctrine of the Trinity is not true, and we worship the Son or the Holy Spirit, then we are guilty of idolatry; for we are worshiping something else besides God. If the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is true, and we do not worship the Son and the Holy Spirit, then we are guilty of withholding our worship from two persons of the Godhead. If Jesus Christ is not God as well as man, then his sacrificial death sinks in value; instead of being a sacrificial atonement for man, made by one who was God as well as man, it is merely the death of a martyr.
If Jesus Christ is not supremely divine, then he must be of limited perfections; and it becomes impossible for us to have perfect faith in him as our Savior.
The apostolic benediction, 2 Cor. 13. 14, is a sublime invocation, in which the love, the grace, and the communion of the Triune Godhead is invoked upon his readers. But if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not co-equally and supremely divine, if the Unitarian notion that the Son is only a creature and the Holy Spirit is simply an attribute,—if this notion be accepted, then the benediction becomes the invocation of the grace of a creature, the love of God, and the communion of an attribute.
The foregoing considerations clearly prove that it is of the first importance to establish the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. " The doctrine of the Holy Trinity—that is, of the living and only true God, Father, Son, and Spirit, the source of creation, redemption, and sanctification—has in all ages been regarded as the sacred symbol and the fundamental article of the Christian system, in distinction alike from the abstract monotheism of Judaism and Mohammedanism, and from the dualism and polytheism of the heathen religions. The denial of this doctrine implies necessarily also, directly or indirectly, a denial of the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, together with the divine character of the work of redemption and sanctification." (Philip Schaff, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, 1858, p. 726.)
The unity of God is the necessary foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, and must never be lost sight of when discussing that doctrine; for there can not be any proper conception of the Holy Trinity if the truth of the divine unity is overlooked or ignored. The Bible reveals the unity of God in these words: " There is none like unto the Lord our God" (Exodus 8. 10); " There is none like unto God, O Jeshurun " (Deut. 33. 26, Rev. Ver.); " Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20. 3); " The Lord he is God; there is none else beside him" (Deut. 4. 35, 39). See also 2 Sam. 7. 22; 1 Kings 8. 60; 1 Chron. 17. 20; Joel 2. 27; 1 Cor. 8. 4. " Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord " (Deut. 6. 4); " Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Mark 12. 29, Rev. Ver.); " Who is God save the Lord?" (Psalm 18. 31); " Before me there was no God found, neither shall there be after me" (Isaiah 43. 10; 44. 6, 8; 45. 5, 6, 14, 18, 21, 22; 46. 9); " The only true God" (John 17. 3); "The only wise God" (Rom. 16. 27, Rev. Ver.); "The only God" (1 Tim. 1. 17, Rev. Ver.); " There is one God " (1 Cor. 8. 6, Rev. Ver.); " God is one" (Gal. 3. 20); " There is one God" (1 Tim. 2. 5).
Dr. Charming objects that the unity of God denies the doctrine of the Trinity, proving it to be impossible. This is so common an objection with Unitarians that it is not necessary to quote authors; nevertheless it is a mere begging of the question. The doctrine of the unity of God does not teach anything about the manner of the divine existence; but, as Lawson states it, that " God is so one that there is not, there can not be, another God." God " is one as to essence and three as to persons; unity and trinality are affirmed of the same being, but in different senses." (Raymond's Theol., Vol. 1. p. 384.) " The true Scripture doctrine of the unity of God, as set forth in Deut. 6. 4, and similar texts, will remove this objection. It is not the Socinian notion of unity. Theirs is the unity of one, ours the unity of three. We do not, however, as they seem to suppose, think the divine essence divisible and participated by and shared among three persons; but wholly and undividedly possessed and enjoyed. Whether, therefore, we address our prayers and adorations to the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, we address the same adorable Being, the one living and true God. Jehovah, our Aleim, is one Jehovah." (Watson's Inst., Vol. 1. p. 475.)
The unity of God denies that he has any compeer or rival; it asserts his proper Deity over and above all of the false gods of the heathen. It is the divine protest against dualism, polytheism, and pantheism; and the same Bible that teaches this unity of God also teaches the co-equal Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Dr. 'Wm. G. Eliot (Unitarian), in his " Doctrines of Christianity," pp. 18, 19, objects that Christ teaches that the Father is God to the exclusion of himself. The objection consists of Dr. Eliot's statement, quotations of texts, and comment upon the texts. I will give the objection in full, and then answer it in detail.
Christ uniformly spoke of God as his Father and of the Father as the only God. Almost his first recorded words are these: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.' He prayed to God as his Father, and taught his disciples to pray in the same words: Our Father, who art in heaven.' Upon one occasion, when some one called him Good Master,' he answered: Why calls thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.' Upon another occasion, when asked what was the first commandment of all, he commenced in the very words of the law spoken from Mt. Sinai: Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first and great commandment.' Observe how solemn is this affirmation of the old doctrine; it is a re-enactment of the great central law of the Jewish religion, without one word of amendment or qualification. Can we ask anything more? But we have more, if possible. If this were all, it might perhaps be argued that the word God' includes the idea of tri-personality in the Father, Son, and Spirit; but the Savior has forbidden such a construction, by teaching us that the God of whom he spoke is the Father only. We once more refer to the words of our text, the words of prayer to the Father: This is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.' He speaks of himself, the Son, as a separate being, dependent on the Father. Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.' Again, in his prediction of his heavenly exaltation, he says: Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.' So when in the garden of Gethsemane he prayed to the Father, Not my will, but thine, be done;' and on the cross, in the time of his last agony, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' and yet once more, after his resurrection, he said to his disciples: I ascend unto my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God.' Thus, through his whole ministry, he used the same uniform and familiar language. I ask you to remember that this language was addressed to those who had no conception of any other doctrine than the absolute unity of God. How must they have understood it? I think just as we understand it now, when we say: To us there is but one God, even the Father.'
The first text quoted by Dr. Eliot is Matthew 4. 10: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." These words do not prove that Christ is not divine, nor that he is not an object of supreme worship. They do unquestionably prove that Deity is the only proper object of worship, and are in perfect harmony with our Lord's declaration that " all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (John 5. 23); hence Jesus Christ and the Father are both persons in the same supreme Deity whom we have been taught to worship. It is true that Christ, in the days of his humiliation, prayed to God as his Father—for since his incarnation he is man as well as God—but it is not true that he taught his disciples to pray in the same words that he used himself. He taught them to say, " Our Father" (Matt. 6. 9); but we have no evidence that he ever spoke to the Father and called him " Our Father." He spoke of him as " My Father," he addressed him as " Father;" but he never addressed him as " Our Father." The disciples of Christ are " the sons of God" by creation and adoption; but our Lord is "the Son of God," not by creation or adoption, but by nature. Any man who believes in Christ may properly be called "a son of God;" but Jesus Christ is the only being who can be properly called "The Son of God." The title, (the Son of God), is never applied in the New Testament to any single person except our Lord Jesus Christ. The disciples have, to a limited extent, the same moral attributes with the Father; but Christ, as " the only begotten Son of God," has the same attributes, both moral and natural; hence, like the Father, he is eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and immutably holy. Having these attributes, he co-exists with the Father as one of the persons in the Triune Godhead, and as such he is entitled to, and receives, the same worship that is paid to the Eternal Father.
Christ said to a certain ruler: " Why tallest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark 10. 17, 18.) Christ did not deny that he himself was " good," nor did he deny that he himself was God; but the ruler had not acknowledged him to be God, and our Lord's question to the ruler was based upon that fact. It was as much as to say, As you do not confess me to be God, why call me good? Our Lord said: " There is none good but one, that is, God." It would follow from this that whoever is perfectly good must be Ged; but our Lord is perfectly, infinitely good, hence must be God. " Our Lord's answer, . . . so far from giving any countenance to Socinian error, is a pointed rebuke of the very view of Christ which they who deny his divinity entertain. He was no good Master' to be singled out from men on account of his pre-eminence over his kind in virtue and wisdom. God sent us no such Christ as this, nor may any of the sous of men be thus called good. He was one with Him who only is good, the Son of the Father, come not to teach us merely, but to beget us anew by the divine power which dwells in him. The low view, then, which this applicant takes of him and his office, he at once rebukes and annuls, as he had done before in the case of Nicodemus. . . . The dilemma, as regards the Socinians, has been well put (see Stier 2. 283, note), either, There is none good but God; Christ is good; therefore Christ is God;' or, There is none good but God; Christ is not God; therefore Christ is not good.'" (Alford, in loco.)
That our Savior's quotation from Deuteronomy 6. 4, as recorded in Mark 12. 29, 30, is in perfect harmony with the Trinity in Unity, has been shown in the quotation previously given from Richard Watson. The words of Jesus in his priestly prayer (John 17. 3), "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou bast sent," are set in their proper light by the following comments from Fletcher and Horseley If the only true God' be a truly divine and everlasting Father, he has a truly divine and everlasting Son; for how can he be truly God the Father who hath not truly a divine Son? " He that honored not the Son honored not the Father.' Whosoever denies the Son, the same hath not the Father;' because the opposite and relative terms and natures of Father and Son necessarily suppose each other." (Fletcher, Vol. 3. p. 552.)
To know Jesus Christ is here made by our Savior equivalent, in its eternal consequences, to knowing the Father. Can this apply to any merely finite being? Unitarians may say that to know Jesus Christ is to know the will of God, as delivered by Jesus Christ. But it is not knowing the will of God, but doing it, that will secure us eternal life. To know Jesus Christ is, therefore, to know him as represented in the gospel as God and Man (Horseley's Tracts, pp. 167, 168.)
John 17. 1, " Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee," proves that the Father and the Son are distinct persons, but it does not prove that they are separate beings. The glory that Christ here asks of the Father is the same in kind and degree with the glory that the Father had determined that men should render to Christ. (See John 5. 23.) Furthermore, the glory that Christ here asks of the Father is the same glory that he had with the Father in the unity of the Godhead " before the world was." (Verse 5.)
Christ predicted his heavenly exaltation: " Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God." (Luke 22. 69.) These words would seem to refer to the manifestation of his glorified humanity, as a partner in the exercise of God's universal government, and are in perfect harmony with, and rest upon, the great truth of his co-equality with the Father. That they were understood as a claim to co-equality with the Father is evident from the fact that when he spoke them the high-priest judged him guilty of blasphemy and deserving of death. (Matt. 26. 63-66; Mark 14. 61-64; Luke 22. 69-71.)
The Biblical evidence proving the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity will now be presented. Attention will be asked in the first place to evidence proving that there is a plurality of persons in the godhead.
This evidence is drawn from the fact that the Divine Being has used such plural personal pronouns as "us" and " our."
GENESIS 1. 26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."
Unitarians object that if the use of plural pronouns by God proves a plurality of persons in the Godhead, then the use of a singular pronoun by God must limit the Godhead to a single person. But this does not necessarily follow. If the use of plural pronouns proves a plurality of persons in the Godhead, then the use of a singular pronoun can not disprove it, but must be in harmony with it. When the Godhead speaks as a unity, it appropriately uses the singular pronouns; but inasmuch as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit speak of each other, and also to each other, is it not reasonable to suppose that any one of the Sacred Three, when speaking of their joint act in creating man, would use the plural pronouns "us" and "our" to designate their joint work in creation? In the text quoted above note the following item: 1. There is a speaker, " God said;" 2. A person, or persons, spoken to, " us," " our;" 3. The words spoken, " Let us make man;" 4. The party speaking asks of the party spoken to a cooperation in a specific work, " Let us make man;" 5. The party spoken to forms one or more persons of the " us" who are addressed; 6. There is a plurality of persons engaged in the creation of man, and whose common image (" our image," " our likeness,") was to be borne by the man whom they created. To resolve this text into an instance of the so-called "plurality of majesty," is to imagine the Supreme Deity as indulging in a meaningless soliloquy. The text is a record of things said by one person to another. The party spoken to cannot be angels, because the words, " Let us make," is an invitation to create; creation is an act of omnipotence, and angels cannot join in it; " and because the phrases, our image,' our likeness,' when transferred into the third person of the narrative, become his image,' the image of God' (verse 27), and thus limit the pronouns to God himself. Does the plurality, then, point to a plurality of attributes in the divine nature? This cannot be, because a plurality of qualities exists in everything, without at all leading to the application of the plural number to the individual, and because such a plurality does not warrant the expression, 'Let us make.' Only a plurality of persons can justify the phrase. Hence we are forced to conclude that the plural pronoun indicates a plurality of persons or hypostases in the Divine Being." (Murphy on Genesis.)
GENESIS, in, 22: "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us."
The words " one of us" indicate a plurality of persons comprehended in the word "us," one of whom was the speaker, the others were the persons spoken to. That these words were spoken of angels, is destitute of all evidence, and utterly unlikely. Is there any case in the Bible in which God associates either angels or any other finite beings with himself in this manner? Mark the words. God does not say, " Is become like us," but, " Is become as one of us;" thus indicating a plurality of persons in the Godhead, one of whom speaks to the others.
Similar evidence may be drawn from Gen. 11. 7, and Isa. 6. 8.
It is not merely that God, by the use of plural pronouns, has revealed himself as a plurality of persons existing in one Godhead, " but that three persons, and three persons only, are spoken of in the Scriptures under divine titles, each having the peculiar attributes of divinity ascribed to him; and yet that the first and leading principle of the same book, which speaks thus of the character and works of these persons, should be that there is but one God." " Let this point then be examined, and it will be seen even that the very number three has this pre-eminence; that the application of these names and powers is restrained to it, and never strays beyond it; and that those who confide in the testimony of God rather than in the opinions of men have sufficient Scriptural reason to distinguish their faith from the unbelief of others by avowing themselves Trinitarians." (Watson's Inst., Vol. 1. p. 469.)
The following quotations are presented as evidence that three divine persons are frequently mentioned in the Holy Scriptures:
Luke 3. 21, 22, at the baptism of Christ, there is mentioned the Father, who proclaims Christ as his Son; Jesus, the Son, of whom the Father speaks; and the Holy Spirit, who in a bodily form descends upon Christ. In Luke 4. 18, we have the mention of Christ preaching; the Lord, who sent him; and the Spirit of the Lord, who anointed him. John 16. 13-15, the Father, who owned all things; Christ, whom the Spirit of truth would glorify; and the Spirit of Truth, who would come to the disciples, and skew them things to come. Acts 20. 27, 28, God the Father, whose counsel Paul had declared; God (the Lord), Jesus, who had purchased the Church with his blood; and the Holy Spirit, who had made the overseers of the Church. Gal. 4. 6, God the Father, who sent the Spirit; Christ, whose Spirit was sent; and the Spirit, who was sent. (See also Rom. 8. 9; 1 Cor. 12. 3-6.) Eph. 2. 18-22, the Father, unto whom we have access; Christ, who procured the access for us; and the one Spirit, who guides us in the access. Eph. 4. 4-6, the Father, who is above all; Christ, one Lord, the author of our faith; and one Spirit, who called us. 1 Peter 1. 2, the Father, who foreknew us; Jesus Christ, who sprinkled us with his blood; and the Spirit, who sanctified us."
NUMBERS 6. 23-26: "Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise shall ye bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless thee and keep thee: the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace."
An analysis of this text presents the following items: 1. " Ye shall bless the children of Israel," (11.?) " Ye shall invoke the Divine favor upon them." 2. The words "bless" (verse 24), " make his face shine upon thee" (verse 25), "lift his countenance upon thee" (verse 26), convey nearly the same meaning; namely, " show love and favor." 3. " Keep thee", watch, guard, keep (verse 24). 4. " Be gracious unto thee" (in the Sept.), " be merciful unto thee" (verse 25). 5. "Give thee peace,"—such peace as results from a sense of safety and rest, and is accompanied with health and comfort.
The three members of this benediction are not simply three repetitions of the same nouns and verbs, but form three invocations of the same blessing in somewhat different terms. They also contain the invocation of three distinct and different blessings; that is, a distinct blessing is invoked in each member of the benediction. If there is but one person in the unity of the Godhead, it would be difficult to relieve the text of the appearance of tautology; but there being three persons in the Godhead, and three different blessings invoked, the exegesis of the text becomes natural and easy. Verse 23 is introductory, calling attention to the manner of the benediction. Verse 24 may be paraphrased thus: " The Lord shew thee love and favor, guard and preserve thee." This would seem naturally to apply to the Father, and is in harmony with the following texts: " No man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand;" " Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou bast given me;" " That thou shouldest keep them from the evil;" "Who are kept by the power of God." (John 10. 29; 17. 11, 15; 1 Peter 1. 5.) Verse 25 might be paraphrased thus: " The Lord skew thee love and favor, and shew mercy unto thee." This would seem to refer to Christ, and is in harmony with the fact that mercy comes to us through Christ. It is in perfect harmony, so far, with the apostolic benedictions; thus, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you." (1 Cor. 16. 23; 2 Cor. 13. 14; Gal. 6. 18; Phil. 4. 23; 1 Thess. 5. 28; 2 Thess. 3. 18; Philemon 1.25.) Verse 26 might be paraphrased thus: "The Lord shew thee love and favor, and give thee peace"—such peace as flows from a sense of safety and rest, and brings with it health and comfort. This harmonizes with what is said of the Holy Spirit. "In the comfort of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 9. 31.) "The Spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba, Father." " Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Spirit." " With joy of the Holy Spirit." (Rom. 8. 15; 15. 13; 14. 17; Gal. 5. 22; 1. Thess. 1. 6.) This benediction seems to be an invocation of the blessings of the Triune God, in which they prayed for the favor -and protection of the Father, the favor and mercy of the Son, and the favor and peace of the Holy Spirit.
Isaiah 6. 1-10.-" In the year that King Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the home was filled with smoke. Then said I. Woe is me! for I am undone! because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphim unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar; and he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said 1. Here am I; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
The Divine Being spoken of in this passage is called " Lord" (Adonai), " the King," and " the Lord of hosts" (Jehovah Sabaoth). ,,The seraphim, in a profound act of religious worship, attributed to him infinite holiness and omnipresent glory, thus ascribing to him the at-tributes of supreme Divinity, and also rendering to him supreme worship. While the singular pronouns " 1." "he," " his," are used to represent this Being, it is also true that this Divine Being uses the plural pronoun " us" when speaking of self (ver. 8); thus indicating a plurality of persons in the Divinity. An examination of this passage will show that this plurality comprises three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It will not be denied that this manifestation of the Divine Being was a manifestation of God the Father. It was also a manifestation of the Son: The evangelist says: " These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him." (1 John 12. 42.) Christ was one of the three whom the seraphim worshiped as " the Lord of hosts."
Some Unitarian writers endeavor to escape the force of this testimony of John by saying that Isaiah here " foresaw" the glory of Christ. But this will not stand examination. John says that Esaias "saw his glory." If John had wished to say that Isaiah foresaw Christ's glory, then the words were at hand to designate such a thought; but John does not use them; and I do not know of any passage in which it is used to designate the act of foreseeing. John does not speak of what the prophet foresaw, but of what he saw at that time as actually present before him. The prophet's vision of the Lord Jesus receiving worship of the seraphim was not a prevision of something that would take place in the future; but it was an ocular manifestation of the worship that Christ was then receiving. It was not Christ incarnate, but Christ in his pre-existent state, as the Jehovah of the Old Testament, that Isaiah saw. " Some have affirmed that the pronouns in the passage of John refer to the Almighty Father, because the Lord,' in verse 38, is the nearest antecedent. But this proceeds upon a misapprehension. The appropriate use of the pronoun in question is to mark the person or thing which is the principal subject of discourse. If it were possible for anyone to read the whole preceding connection, and have any doubt that Christ is that subject, his doubt could not but be dissipated by the next sentence: Yet many even of the rulers believed on him.'" (J. P. Smith's " Messiah," Vol. 1. p. 379.)
I subjoin Alford's note on the text: " The evangelist is giving his judgment, having (Luke 24. 45) had his understanding opened to understand the Scriptures—that the passage in Isaiah is spoken of Christ. And, indeed, strictly considered, the glory which Isaiah saw could only be that of the Son, who is the image of the Father, whom no eye hath seen."
The examination of this passage so far has resulted in the identification of two of the persons comprehended in the supreme Godhead, as it manifested itself to Isaiah in the temple; namely, the Father, and Jesus Christ the Son. There was, and is, a third person in the Godhead, that revealed itself to Isaiah; namely, the Holy Spirit. Paul quotes the passage from Isaiah, and attributes it to the Holy Spirit: " Well spoke the Holy Ghost by Esaias, the prophet, unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people and say, Hearing, ye shall hear," etc. (Acts 28. 25, 26.) Isaiah saw the Lord of hosts receiving supreme worship from the seraphim; at the same time and place he heard the Supreme Being speak certain words. These words St. Paul quotes, and declares that the Holy Spirit spoke them; thus making it manifest that the Holy Spirit is one of the persons comprehended in the Godhead. It has been objected that "Holy Spirit" in the text may denote the Father as the fountain of Deity. In answer to this, let it be noted that, in the text under consideration, the Holy Spirit is designated by.
Now, while it may be true that in the New Testament, sometimes designate the Father, yet the full title occurs in the following places: Matt. 12. 32; Mark 3. 29; 12. 36; 13. 11; Luke 2. 26; 3. 22; John 14. 26; Acts 1. 16; 5. 3, 32; 7. 51; 10. 44, 47; 11. 15; 13. 2; 15. 8; 19. 6; 20. 23, 28; 21. 11; 28. 25; Eph. 1. 13; 4. 30; 1 Thess. 4. 8; Heb. 3. 7; 9. 8; 10. 15; and in no one of these instances does it designate either the Father or Christ, but always designates the Holy Spirit.
Let all the circumstances of Isaiah's vision be considered; the One Jehovah of hosts to whom the religious worship of the seraphim was addressed; the plural pronoun used by this One Jehovah—" us;" the declaration of the apostle that in this vision Isaiah saw the glory of Christ; the assertion of St. Paul that the Divine Being who spoke on that occasion was the Holy Spirit; and they place it beyond all reasonable doubt that the Jehovah of hosts, whom Isaiah saw, was the Triune God, existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one Godhead.
MATTHEW 28, 19: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Rev. Version.)
Christian baptism is an act of religious worship, in which the person receiving it is obligated to believe in, worship, and serve the only true God. The apostles of Christ had been taught that there was but one God; and yet they were commanded to baptize in the name of three distinct persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Mark the fact: Christ did not say "the names," but " the name." The Sacred Trinity is not a congregation of three separate Gods, but a unity of three distinct persons in one Godhead. Unitarian writers speak of " the name" as being pleonastic. In the form of administering baptism, this—one of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel—the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is unequivocally taught. "No superiority or difference in rank is mentioned as appertaining to either of the Sacred Three; but all of them are spoken of in the same terms. It is therefore impossible to suppose that, while the Father is self-existent, eternal, and omnipotent," the Son should be a mere creature, subject to all of the limitations of a finite being; "or, that the Holy Spirit should be a mere energy or operation, without any personal existence. The very form, indeed, running in the name—not names—of the Three, may insinuate that the authority of all three is the same, their power equal, their persons undivided, and their glory one." (Trollope's Analecta Theologica.)
It has been objected that baptism is, in the book of Acts, frequently mentioned as baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus' simply, and from hence it might be inferred that the formula in the Gospel of St. Matthew was not in use. If this were so, it would conclude against the use of the words of our Lord as the standing form of baptism, but would prove nothing against the significancy of baptism in whatever form it might be administered. For as this passage in St. Matthew was the original commission under which, alone, the apostles had authority to baptize at all, the import of the rite is marked out in it; and whatever words they used in baptism, they were found to explain the import of the rite, as laid down by their Master, to all disciples so received. But from the passages adduced from the Acts, the inference that the form of baptism given in Matthew was not rigorously followed by the apostles does not follow, because the earliest Christian writers inform us that this solemn form of expression was uniformly employed from the beginning of the Christian Church. It is true, indeed, that the apostle Peter said to those who were converted on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2. 38, 'Repent, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ;' and that, in different places of the book of Acts, it is said that persons were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; but there is internal evidence from the New Testament itself that, when the historian says that the persons were baptized in the name of. the Lord Jesus, he means that they were baptized according to the form prescribed by Jesus. Thus the question put, Acts 19. 3, Unto what then were ye baptized?' shows that he did not suppose it possible for any person who administered Christian baptism to omit the mention of the Holy Spirit; and even after the question, the historian, when he informs us that the disciples were baptized, is not solicitous to repeat the whole form, but says in his usual manner, Acts 19. 5: When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.' There is another question put by the apostle Paul, which shows us in what light he viewed the form of baptism, 1 Cor. 1. 13: Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?' Here the question implies that he considered the form of baptism as so sacred that the introducing the name of a teacher into it was the same thing as introducing a new master into the kingdom of Christ. (Watson.)
With regard to 1 Cor. 10. 2, " Were all baptized unto Moses," it may be said: 1. The name of Moses is not associated with that of God in the baptism of Israel. 2. The Israelites never understood their baptism as obligating them to worship Moses as their God; but in all time, since the giving of the Commission, the great majority of Christians have understood their baptism as obligating them to worship both the Son and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father. 3. The Israelites were not commanded to perform subsequent baptisms in the name of Moses; but the disciples of Christ are obligated to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, through all coming time; and thug this fully proves the co-equality of each of the Sacred Three, for we must either believe in and worship their co-equal supreme Divinity as the Trinity in Unity, or renounce our baptism in their name.
2 CORINTHIANS 13. 14: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit., be with you all. Amen."
This apostolic benediction has been recognized by the Christian world as an act of worship rendered to Jesus Christ and to the Holy Spirit in union with the Father. The fact that this worship is paid to Christ and to the Holy Spirit conjointly with the Father, is full proof that Christ and the Holy Spirit are persons of supreme Divinity. Unitarians object that "the text does not say communion with the Holy Spirit,' as though the Spirit were a person; but communion of the Holy Spirit,' as though the Spirit were something to be received." The fallacy of this mode of reasoning is seen when we remember that the same construction is used in 1 Cor. 1. 9, " The fellowship of his Son;" and also in 1 John 1. 3, 6: " Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ;" " If we say that we have fellowship with him," etc. The word rendered " communion" in the benediction, is the same word that is rendered " fellowship" in the texts just quoted. Will Unitarians question the personality of Christ and of the Father?
It is objected that Christ cannot, in the benediction, be worshiped as God, for in the benediction that title is given specifically to the Father. There might possibly be some force in this objection, if "God" was the only name or title by which the Divine Being was known; but as this is not the case, the objection dwindles into nothingness. The truth that the Father is God, is not only no proof that the Son is not God, but it is unanswerable proof that he is God. For as the Father is God, the Son, who must be of the same nature and essence with the Father, must be God also.
Unitarians deny that this benediction is a prayer, and assert that " it is simply the expression of an affectionate, devout, and earnest wish." The incorrectness of this is shown by the substance matter of the benediction: " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ;" that is, the pardoning mercy of the Lord the anointed Savior; " and the love of God," the love of the Father, which caused our creation, our preservation, and our redemption; " and the communion of the Holy Spirit," the source of all spiritual illumination and life; " be with you all." If this is not a prayer, it will be difficult to tell what a prayer is. It is a prayer. It is a prayer addressed to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the Father, and to the Holy Spirit, thus proving each of them to be supremely divine. Our Savior quoted an immutable law: " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. 4. 10.) Yet here an inspired apostle closes his epistle with an act of religious worship rendered to Christ and to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. It follows from this that these three persons must constitute one God, and that the apostolic benediction is the benediction implored of the Triune God.
Dr. Whedon has well said of this benediction, that " like the baptismal sentence of our Lord, it implanted the impress of the Holy Trinity on the mind of the early Church. It proceeds in the order of Christian life. First, grace from Christ, bringing justification; second, love from God as to an adopted child; then the witness and the abiding impartation of the Spirit. Such is the blessed climax of our gospel inheritance."
It has now been shown that there is but one God. The Bible teaches this great truth with such a plainness, force, and frequency, as to place it beyond all doubt. It has also been shown that the use of plural pronouns by God indicates a plurality of persons in the Godhead. It has also been shown that the Bible limits this plurality of persons in the Godhead to three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the Jewish benediction (Numbers 6. 23-26); in the vision of Isaiah (Isaiah 6. 1-10); in the apostolic commission (Matthew 28. 19); in the apostolic benediction (2 Cor. 13. 14),—these three persons have been found joined in the unity of the Godhead, receiving the supreme worship of men and of seraphim. The foregoing evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the doctrine of the Sacred Trinity; nevertheless, it is but a small part of the evidence on which that doctrine rests. When we fasten our minds on the Bible doctrine of the unity of God, and associate with this doctrine the fact that the Bible presents us with three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that it invests each and all of these persons with the attributes and titles, ascribes to them the actions, and pays to them the worship that is due only to supreme Divinity, it proves the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity beyond the possibility of successful contradiction. The supreme Divinity of the Father will not be questioned by any believer in the existence of the Supreme Being. The direct evidence of the supreme Divinity of Christ, and of the personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit, will now be adduced.
In examining the doctrine of the supreme Divinity of Christ, I will first call attention to the evidence of his preexistence.
Two distinct, separate truths are involved in the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ. 1. That Christ existed as a man, having a body and a human soul. 2. That before he existed as a man—that is, before his body and soul existed—he pre-existed as a Divine Being. The existence of Christ's body and human soul will be discussed when we speak of the humanity of Christ. The doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ must not be confounded with the notion of the pre-existence of Christ's human soul; for the essential point in the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ is that he had an existence as a living being before his human soul began to exist.
The writers in favor of the pre-existence of Christ's human soul recommend their opinion by these arguments:
1. Christ is represented as his Father's messenger, or angel, being distinct from his Father, sent by his Father, long before his incarnation, to perform actions which seem to be too low for the dignity of pure Godhead. The appearances of Christ to the patriarchs are described like the appearance of an angel, or man, really distinct from God, yet one in whom God, or Jehovah, had a peculiar dwelling, or with whom the divine nature had a personal union.
2. Christ, when he came into the world, is said, in several passages of Scripture, to have divested himself of some glory which he had before his incarnation. Now, if there had existed before this time nothing but his divine nature, this divine nature, it is argued, could not have properly divested itself of any glory. (John 17. 4, 5; 2 Cor. 8. 9.) It can not be said of God that he became poor; be is infinitely self-sufficient; he is necessarily and eternally rich in perfections and glories. Nor can it be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he were never in a richer state before than while he was on earth. 3. It seems needful, say those who embrace this opinion, that the soul of Jesus Christ should pre-exist, that it might have an opportunity to give its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of making atonement fur man's sins. It was the human soul of Christ that endured the weakness and pain of his infant state, all the labors and fatigues of life, the reproaches of men, and the sufferings of death. The divine nature is incapable of suffering. The covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son is therefore represented as being made before the foundation of the world. To suppose that simple Deity, or the Divine Essence, which is the same in all the three personalities, should make a covenant with itself, is inconsistent. Dr. 'Watts, moreover, supposes that the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul of Christ explains dark and difficult Scriptures, and discovers many beauties and proprieties of expression in the Word of God, which on any other plan lie unobserved. For instance, in Col. 1. 15, etc., Christ is described as the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature. His being the image of the invisible God can not refer merely to his divine nature, for that is as invisible in the Son as in the Father; therefore it seems to refer to his pre-existent soul in union with the Godhead. Again, when man is said to be created in the image of God (Gen. 1. 27), it may refer to the God-man, to Christ in his pre-existent state. God says: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' The word is redoubled, perhaps to intimate that Adam was made in the likeness of the human soul of Christ, as well as that he bore something of the image and resemblance of the divine nature. (McClintock & Strong, Vol. 8. 503.)
The doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ's human soul is open to several objections. These objections will be stated as they are found in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, Vol. 8. 503; and Hodge's Theology, Vol. 2. 427:
1. "If Jesus Christ had nothing in common like the rest of mankind except a body, how could this semi-conformity make him a real man?"
2. "The Bible, in teaching that the Son of God became man, thereby teaches that he assumed a true body and a rational soul. For neither a soul without body, nor a body without a soul, is a man in the Scriptural sense of the term. It was the Logos which became man, and not a God-man that assumed a material body."
3. " This notion is contrary to the Scripture. St. Paul says: 'In all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren' (Heb. 2. 17)—he partook of all our infirmities except sin. St. Luke says: 'He increased in stature and wisdom.' (Luke 2. 52.)"
3. " This notion raises him beyond the reach of human sympathies. He is, as a man, farther from us than the angel Gabriel." We want one to whom we can draw near in faith and love, because he has a human soul like our own, and can " be touched with the feeling of our infirmities." (Heb. 4. 15.)
4. "This opinion, by ascribing the dignity of the work of redemption to this sublime human soul, detracts from the Deity of Christ, and renders the last as passive as the first is active."
5. " Upon the whole, this scheme, adopted to relieve the difficulties which must always surround mysteries so great, only creates new ones. This is the usual fate of similar speculations, and shows the wisdom of resting in the plain interpretation of the Word of God."
Having rejected the notion of the pre-existence of Christ's human soul, let us now examine the evidence found in the Scriptures of the pre-existence of Christ.
The proof that Christ existed before he was born of the virgin Mary is a complete refutation of Socinianism. The point to be proven is that Christ existed as a conscious, intelligent Being before he was born in Bethlehem. In proof of this doctrine, the following texts of Scripture and arguments are adduced:
JOHN 6. 62: " And if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before."
In verse 38 of this chapter, Jesus claims to have come down from heaven; he said: "For I came down from heaven." The Jews understood him as claiming a literal descent from a literal heaven. They deemed it incredible that a man whose mother and reputed father dwelt in their midst, could possibly have descended from heaven; hence they said: " Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" Now, if they misunderstood Christ, if he did not mean to teach that he had lived in heaven before he came to earth, then he ought to have corrected their misunderstanding by explaining his meaning. He was certainly obligated to do this, because the simple, natural meaning of his words would be that he had lived in heaven before he came to earth. But Christ does not intimate that they misunderstood him; but, on the contrary, he forbids them murmuring at his words—verse 43. After proceeding with his discourse, he notices some of his disciples murmuring at it. He remonstrates with them by asking them, if they were offended at his words, what they would say if they were to see him ascend to the same heaven from whence he came? If we place any value on Christ's words, we cannot escape the conviction that he claimed to have lived in heaven before he came to earth.
For a similar proof of the pre-existence of our Lord, see John 16. 28.
JOHN 8. 56-58: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
In this text note the following items: 1. Our Lord's assertion that Abraham "rejoiced to see" his " day." 2. The Jews understood him to say that he and Abraham had seen each other. 3. They not only so understood him, but in their answer they reminded him that he was "not yet fifty years old;" and then ask him the direct question, " Hast thou seen Abraham?" 4. Christ does not intimate that they misunderstood him; but, on the contrary, he claims an existence before Abraham was—" Before Abraham was, I am."
I subjoin the following notes as worthy of serious attention:
”Was points only to a human constitution; / am to a divine substance; and therefore the original hath a relo-eac for Abraham, and an dill for Christ. (Sydenbam.)
JOHN 17. 5, 24: " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. . . . For thou loved me before the foundation of the world."
The prayer, from which the foregoing words are taken, is not characterized by any highly-wrought figurative or parabolical language. On the contrary, it is remarkable for its severe simplicity of style. Attention is called to the following points: 1. Christ asks the Father to glorify him. 2. He asks for the glory which he once had possessed in union with the Father. 3. He had possessed this glory before the world was. 4. He strengthens his prayer with the statement that the Father had loved him before the foundation of the world. Thus, in the clearest possible manner, he sets forth the truth of his pre-existence; he had lived with the Father "before the foundation of the world;" he had shared the Father's glory " before the foundation of the world;" and he had been loved by the Father "before the foundation of the world."
2 CORINTHIANS 8. 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."
Two statements are made in this text, which, taken together, prove the pre-existence of Christ: 1. Our Lord Jesus Christ was rich; 2. He became poor. According to the text, he was rich before he became poor. But all of our Lord's earthly life was a life of poverty; hence his life of riches must have been before his earthly life. It must have been a pre-existent life. Unitarians contend that it does not mean to "become poor," but to " be poor," and that the text means that "Christ was rich, and, at the same time, that he lived in poverty." It is true that in classic Greek means to " be poor, beg, live by begging;" yet such is not its Biblical usage. It does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, and only six times in the Septuagint. In every one of these instances it means "to become poor." Notice these passages as they are given by Trommius: " Israel was greatly impoverished" (Judges 6. 6); that is, " was made very poor." " Have ye called us to take that we have?" literally " to make us poor." (Judges 14. 15.) " The rich have become poor;" " We have become very poor." (Psalm 33. 10; 79. 10.) " Every drunkard and whoremonger shall become poor." (Prov. 23. 21.) " Fear not, my son, that we are made poor." (Tobit 4. 21.) These quotations furnish sufficient evidence of the incorrectness of the Unitarian interpretation.
Barnes's note on this text is very good: " The riches of the Redeemer, here referred to, stand opposed to that poverty which he assumed and manifested when he dwelt among men. It implies (1) His pre-existence; for he became poor. He had been rich; yet not in this world. He did not lay aside wealth in this world after he had possessed it; for he had none. He was not first rich and then poor on earth; for he had no earthly wealth. The Socinian interpretation is, that he was rich in power and in the Holy Ghost; but it was not true that he laid these aside, and that he became poor in respect to either of them. He had power, even in his poverty, to still the waves and to raise the dead, and he was always full of the Holy Ghost. But he was poor. His family was poor, his parents were poor, and he was himself poor all his life. This, then, must refer to a state of antecedent riches before his assumption of human nature."
Thayer's Lexicon of the Greek Testament says: " Although, as he formerly abounded in the riches of a heavenly condition, by assuming human nature he entered into a state of [earthly] poverty. (2 Cor. 8. 9)."
The foregoing survey of the evidence of our Lord's preexistence cannot be closed more appropriately than by reproducing the words of Noah Worcester (Unitarian). We cannot indorse Dr. Worcester's views of our Lord's nature; but the following statement of his concerning our Lord's pre-existence meets with our hearty indorsement: "It is amazing that it should be denied by any man who professes a respect for the oracles of God." (Bible News, p. 100.)
The next step in proving the supreme Divinity of Christ is to prove that he was the Jehovah of the Old Testament.
The proof of this truth naturally divides itself into the proof of three subordinate propositions: 1. The Being who is mentioned in the Old Testament under the titles of " The Angel of the Lord," " The Angel of God," " Lord," and "God," is one and the same Being, and is the Supreme God. 2. This Being is not God the Father, although occasional manifestations of the Father are admitted to have taken place. 3. That this Being was our Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-existent state.
In proof that "The Angel of the Lord," " The Angel of God," " Lord," and " God," is the supreme God, the following texts and arguments are submitted:
GENESIS 16. 7, 10, 11, 13: " And the Angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness. . . . And the Angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the Angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. . . . And she called the name of the Lord that spoke unto her, Thou God sees me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that sees me?"
In this text "The Angel of the Lord" is called both " Lord" (Jehovah) and " God." It is cheerfully admitted that the title "Lord" (Jehovah) sometimes designates God the Father. It seems to be applied to him in verse 11, " because the Lord hath heard." It is sometimes applied to another person. In verse 13 it is applied to the angel: " And she called the name of the Lord that spoke unto her." In this text " The Angel of the Lord" is called both " Lord" and " God." This Divine Person claims such foreknowledge as God only can have. He foretold that Hagar's expected child would be "a son;" that his name would be " Ishmael;" that he would be " a wild man," and would " dwell in the presence of all his brethren." Such prescience belongs to God only. This Jehovah-Angel also claimed omnipotence. He promised to make Hagar's posterity a numberless multitude—a promise which nothing but Omnipotence could fulfill. This Jehovah-Angel wears the titles and exercises the attributes of Supreme Deity. Hengstenberg, in his "Christology," Vol. 1. p. 117, renders the words " Have I also here looked After him that sees me?" " Do I still see after my seeing?" That is, " Do I still live after seeing God?" He speaks of verse 14 thus: " They called the well Well of the living sight;' i.e., where a person had a sight of God and remained alive." He follows this translation with the following: " Hagar must have been convinced that she had seen God without the mediation of a created angel; for otherwise she could not have wondered that her life was preserved. Man, entangled by the visible world, is terrified when he comes in Contact with the invisible world, even with angels; but this terrorizes to fear. of death only when man comes into contact with the Lord himself."
In Gen. 32. 30—a passage which bears the closest resemblance to the one now under review, and from which it receives its explanation—it is said: " And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, for I have seen God face to face, and my life has been preserved." In Ex. 20. 19, the children of Israel said to Moses, " Speak thou with us, and we will hear; and let not God speak with us, lest we die;" compared with Deut. 5. 25: "Now, therefore, why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die." (Compare also Deut. 18. 16.) And it is Jehovah who, in Ex. 33. 20, says: " There shall no man see me and live." Israel's Lord and God is, in the absolute energy of his nature, a "consuming fire." (Deut. 4. 24. Compare Deut. 9. 3; Heb. 12. 29.) "Who among us would dwell with everlasting burnings?" (Isa. 33. 14.) It is not the reflected light, even in the most exalted creatures, nor the sight of the saints, of whom it is said, "Behold, he puts no trust in his servants, and his angels he charged with folly;" but the sight of the Thrice Holy One, which makes Isaiah exclaim: " Woe is me, for I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips!'' Murphy comments thus: " Have I continued to live and see the sun after having seen God?—Beer-lahai-roi, the well of vision (of God) to the living. To see God and live was an issue contrary to expectation." Gesenius and Kurtz make similar comments. The Bible Commentary refers us to the notes of chapter 12. 7. I subjoin these notes: " And the Lord appeared unto Abram. This is the first mention of a distinct appearance of the Lord to man. His voice is heard by Adam, and he is said to have spoken to Noah and to Abram; but here is a visible manifestation. The following questions naturally arise:
3. Was this a direct vision of Jehovah in bodily shape?
4. Was it an impression produced in the mind of the seer, but not a true vision of God? 3. Was it an angel personating God? 4. Was it a manifestation of the Son of God, a Theophania, in some measure anticipating the incarnation? (1) The first question seems answered by St. John (John 1. 18): 'No man hath seen God [the Father] at any time.' (2) The second, to a certain extent, follows the first. Whether there was a manifestation of an objective reality, or merely an impression on the senses, we cannot possibly judge; but the vision, whether seen in sleep or waking, can not have been a vision of God the Father. (3) The third question has been answered by many in the affirmative, it being concluded that the angel of the Lord,' a created angel, was always the means of communication between God and man in the Old Testament. The great supporter of this opinion in early times was St. Augustine (De Trin., 3. c. xi; Tom. 8. pp. 805-810), the chief arguments in its favor being the statements of the New Testament that the law was given by disposition of angels,' spoken by angels,' etc. (Acts 7. 53; Gal. 3. 19; Heb. 2. 22.) It is further argued by the supporters of this view, that the angel of the Lord is, in some passages in the Old Testament, and always in the New Testament, clearly a created angel (e. g. Zech. 1. 11, 12, etc.; Luke 1. 11; Acts 12. 23); and that therefore it is not to be supposed that any of these manifestations of the Angel of God or Angel of the Lord, which seem so markedly divine, should have been anything more than the appearance of a created angel personating the Most High. (4) The affirmative of the fourth opinion was held by the great majority of the Fathers from the very first. (See, for instance, Justin, Dial, 280-284; Tertull. adv. Prax., c. xvi; Athanasius, cont. Arian., 4. pp. 464, 465, Ed. Col.; Basil, adv. Eunom., 2. 18; TIreodoret, Qu. V. in Exod.) The teaching of the Fathers on this head is investigated by Bishop Bull. (F. N. D., 4. iii.) In like manner the ancient Jews had referred the manifestation of God in visible form to the Shekinah, the Metatron, or the Memra de Jah—apparently an emanation from God, having a semblance of diversity, yet really one with him, coming forth to reveal him, but not truly distinctive from him. The fact that the name Angel of the Lord' is sometimes used of a created angel, is not proof enough that it may not also be used of Him who is called the Angel of mighty counsel' (Isa. 9. 6, Sept. Trans.), and the Angel of the Covenant' (Mal. 3. 1), and the apparent identification of the Angel of God with God himself in very many passages (e. g. Gen. 32. 24, comp. vv. 28, 30; Hosea 12. 3, 4; Gen. 16. 10, 13; 48. 15, 16; Josh. 5. 14; 6. 2; Judg. 2. 1; 13. 22; Isa. 6. 1; cf. John 12. 41; Isa. 63. 9), leads markedly to the conclusion that God spoke to man by an Angel or Messenger, and yet that that Angel or Messenger was himself God. No man saw God at any time, but the only begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, declared him. He who was the Word of God—the Voice of God to his creatures—was yet in the beginning with God, and he was God."
Throughout the whole of the Old Testament there runs the distinction between the hidden God and the Revealer of God, himself equal with God, who most frequently is called the Messenger, [the Angel] of the Lord' (Malachi) – ‘Jehovah,' one with him, and yet distinct from him. This Messenger of the Lord is the Guide of the patriarchs; the Caller of Moses; the Leader of the people through the wilderness; the Champion of the Israelites in Canaan; and also, yet further, the Guide and Ruler of the people of the Covenant, or—as he is called (Isaiah 63. 9)—the Angel of his Presence; by Malachi, as the Messenger of the Covenant, greatly longed for by the people, whose return to his temple is promised. It nowhere occurs in the Old Testament that an angel speaks as if he were God—since Gabriel (Daniel 10) and the angel who talks with Zechariah (1. 2) clearly distinguish themselves from Jehovah; while this Angel of the Lord, in the passage under consideration, and often elsewhere in the Old Testament, speaks as Jehovah, and his appearing is regarded as that of the Most High God himself. Nay, God says expressly of this Angel: My name e., my revealed being—' is in him.' (Gerlach, quoted in Butler's Bible 'Work.)
GENESIS 22. 11, 12, 15, 16: "And the Angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham; and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him; for now I know that thou fears God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. . . . And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son."
In Genesis 22. we have the narrative of Abraham's offering of Isaac, and of the interposition of the Jehovah-Angel. In verses 11, 12, 15-18, we have the Angel's address to Abraham. In this address the Angel is called " the Angel of the Lord; and he calls himself " God" (verse 12), saying: "I know that thou fears God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me." In verse 16, the Angel calls himself "Lord" (Jehovah), and declares that he has sworn by himself. In Hebrews 6. 13, 14, Paul declares that "he swore by himself," because " he could swear by no greater." This fully establishes the supreme Divinity of the Jehovah-Angel.
GENESIS 31. 11-13: " And the Angel of God spoke unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob; and I said, Here am I. . . . I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointed the pillar, and where thou vowed a vow unto me; now arise, get thee out of this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred."
In this text " the Angel" is called " the Angel of Elohim" (verse 11). He claims to be " the God of Bethel;" that is, the God who appeared to Jacob at Bethel, and to whom Jacob made a vow (verse 13; chapter 28. 12-22). This "Angel" is not to be confounded with one of " the angels" mentioned as being present at Bethel, for he claims to be " the God of Bethel;" and at Bethel, God is expressly distinguished from " the angels." " The angels" are mentioned as " ascending and descending" the ladder, while God is said to have " stood above it." At Bethel he is called " Lord;" he calls himself "Lord God" and " God." When Jacob comes to die, he calls this Being both " God Almighty " and " the Angel." (Genesis 48. 3, 16.) The collation of these texts establishes the supreme Divinity of " the Angel" by showing that it was the same Being with Jehovah Elohim, the Lord God of Israel.
GENESIS 32. 24, 30: " And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. . . . And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
The Being with whom Jacob wrestled is called " a man." In Hosea 12. 4, he is called " an angel." Jacob calls him " God" (verse 30). Hosea calls him " God" and "Lord of hosts" (chapter 12. 3, 5). This proof of the supreme Divinity of " the Angel" is short, plain, and unanswerable.
GENESIS 48. 15, 16: "And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."
When Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph, he said: " The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads." Here he offers this Angel religious worship—he prays to him. He attributes his redemption from " all evil" to him; and in the preceding verse calls him " God." It was only as God that Jacob could pray to him and attribute his redemption to him. This Angel was our prayer-hearing Redeemer and God.
There is here a triple blessing:
The God before whom my fathers walked; the God which fed me like a shepherd all my life long; " The Angel which redeemed [or redeemed] me from all evil.' It is impossible that the Angel, thus identified with God, can be a created angel. Jacob, no doubt, alludes to the Angel who wrestled with him, and whom he called God. (Chapter 32. 24-30.) The same as the Angel of the Covenant. (Malachi 3. 1.) Luther observes that the verb ' bless,' which thus refers to the God of his fathers, to the God who had been his shepherd, and to the Angel who redeemed him, is in the singular, not in the plural, showing that these three are but one God, and that the Angel is one with the fathers' God and the God who fed Jacob like a shepherd. (The Bible Commentary.)
EXODUS 3. 1-18: " And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."
In the Scripture from which the foregoing texts are quoted, we have the narrative of the wonderful manifestation to Moses of a Divine Being in the burning bush. The supreme Divinity of this person is proven by the following points: 1. He proclaims himself as the Being who hears prayer: " The cry of the children of Israel is come unto me." (Verse 9.) 2. He proclaims himself as the Being who rules over nations. He proposes to take Israel out of Egypt, and take them into Canaan: "I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites." (Verse 8.) 3. He forbids Moses coming near him, and commands him to put off his shoes, because the place he stands on " is holy ground." 4. This Being is called "Lord" and "God." 5. It is objected that this Divine Being was simply an angel, who spoke in the name of God. The authors of this objection cite us to the case of the angels who took Lot out of Sodom (Genesis 19. 12-22), and to the angel who spoke to John at Patmos (Rev. 22. 7), as parallel cases; but these passages are too obscure and difficult of exegesis to allow them to set aside the testimony of the text in Exodus. Besides this, neither of these angels, either in Genesis or Revelation, makes any claim to the names and titles of God. On the other hand, the Being at the Burning Bush calls himself " the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;" he calls himself " the Lord God of your fathers;" he calls himself "I Am," and says, " This is my name forever," "this is my memorial unto all generations." It has been objected that this " Angel of the Lord" was an ambassador, and that ambassadors speak in the names of the rulers sending them. But this is not exactly true. Ambassadors speak in the name of the rulers sending them, but they do not assume the rulers' names; but this Angel, as " the messenger of the great council," not only calls himself "God" and "I Am," but claims that this has always been his name. What would we think of an ambassador from America to England who would say, " I am President Harrison; this is my name forever?" The absurdity of such a thing exposes the fallacy of the objection. " The Angel of the Lord " at the Burning Bush exercises the governing authority—demands and receives from Moses the homage belonging to supreme Divinity.
The Jehovah-Angel "explicitly identifies himself with Jehovah (Gen. 22. 11-18; Heb. 6. 13-20), and Elohim (Gen. 22. 12). 2. Those to whom he makes his presence known recognize him as divine. (Gen. 16. 13; 18. 23-33; 28. 16-22; Exod. 3. 6; Judges 6. 15, 20-23; 13. 22.) 3. The Biblical writers constantly speak of him as divine, calling him Jehovah without the least reserve. (Chapter 16. 13; 18. 1; 22. 16; Exod. 3. 2; Judges 6. 42.) 4. The doctrine here implied of a plurality of persons in the Godhead is in complete accordance with earlier foreshadowing (chapter 1. 26; 11. 7), and later revelations of the same truth. 5. The organic unity of Scripture would be broken if it could be proved that the central point in the Old Testament revelation was a creature angel, while that of the new is the incarnation of the God-man." (Thomas Whitelaw, in Butler's Bible Work.)
A Divine Being manifests himself to Moses and Israel 5 on Mt. Sinai, attended with sublime physical phenomena. At his presence— EXODUS 19. 16-25: " There were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that were in the camp trembled. . . . And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly."
This Divine Being is called by Moses both " God" (Elohim) and " Lord" (Jehovah); and in chapter xx he calls himself Lord God: " I am the Lord thy God." He forbids either man or beast to touch the mount on penalty of death. (Verses 12, 13.) "Now it was that the earth trembled at the presence of the Lord," the God of Jacob, and the mountains skipped like rams" (Psa. cxiv, 4-7); that Sinai itself, though rough and rocky, " melted from before the Lord God of Israel" (Judges 5. 5). (Benson.) If this was not a manifestation of Supreme Deity, we may despair of finding one in the world's history. But in Acts 7. 38, Stephen calls this Being " the Angel which spoke to" Moses "in the Mt. Sinai," thus giving us the most conclusive proof that the Jehovah-Angel was the Supreme Deity.
EXODUS, 23. 20, 21: "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him."
The supreme Divinity of the Being here termed " an Angel" is sufficiently indicated by several items. 1. They are cautioned to " beware of him;" that is, to reverence and stand in awe of him. 2. That he has the power either to punish or pardon. 3. That the " name" of God is in him; that is, the nature of God is in him. " This name must be understood of God's own peculiar name—Jehovah, I Am—which he revealed as his distinctive appellation at his first appearance to Moses; and as the names of God are indicative of his nature, he who had a right to bear the peculiar name of God must also have his essence. This view is' put beyond all doubt by the fact that Moses and the Israelites so understood the promise; for afterward, when their sins had provoked Gud to threaten not to go up with them himself, but to commit them to an angel who should drive out the Canaanites, etc., the people mourned over this as a great calamity; and Moses betook himself to special intercession, and rested not until he obtained the repeal of the threat and the renewal of the promise, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.' Nothing, therefore, can be more clear than that Moses and the Israelites considered the promise of the Angel, in whom was the name of God,' as a promise that God himself would go with them." (R. Watson.)
The following proof is here offered:
The Angel of the Lord whose appearances are so often recorded is not the Father. This is clear from his appellation angel, with respect to which there can be but two interpretations. It is a name descriptive either of nature or of office. In the first view, it is generally employed in the sacred Scriptures to designate one of an order of intelligences superior to man, and often employed in the service of man as the ministers of God, but still beings finite and created. 'We have, however, already proved that the Angel of the Lord is not a creature, and he is not, therefore, called an angel with reference to his nature. The term must, then, be considered as a term of office. He is called the Angel of the Lord because he was the messenger of the Lord—because he was sent to execute his will, and to be his visible image and representative. His office, therefore, under this appellation, was ministerial. But ministration is never attributed to the Father. He who was sent must be a distinct person from him by whom he was sent—the messenger from him whose message he brought, and whose will he performed. The Angel of Jehovah is, therefore, a different person from the Jehovah whose messenger he was; and yet the Angel himself is Jehovah, and, as we have proved, truly divine. Thus does the Old Testament most clearly reveal to us, in the case of Jehovah and the Angel of Jehovah, two divine persons, while it still maintains its great fundamental principle that there is but one God. (Watson's Inst., Vol. 1. pp. 492, 493.)
The next step in the argument is to prove that the Jehovah-Angel of the Old Testament was Jesus Christ in his pre-existent state.
In support of this proposition, the following Scripture texts are presented:
JEREMIAH 31. 31, 32: " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt."
In this text notice the following points: 1. There is a promise to make a new covenant with Israel. 2. He who promises to make the covenant is called " the Lord"—"Jehovah." 3. Jehovah, the author of this new covenant, was the author of the covenant at Sinai. 4. The author of the new covenant is Christ. " This cup is the New Testament [covenant, Rev. Ver.] in my blood." (Luke 22. 20; see also, 1 Cor. 11. 25). In Hebrews 8. 8, Paul quotes Jeremiah's prophecy, and refers it to our Lord as a proof of his superiority to the Aaronic priesthood and Moses. In Hebrews 12. 24, Paul calls our Lord, "Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant." 5. From the foregoing it follows that Jesus Christ, the author of the new covenant, is one and the same with Jehovah God, the author of the covenant at Sinai.
MALACHI 3. 1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts."
This prophecy of Malachi seems to be a quotation from and an enlargement of a preceding prophecy of Isaiah. (Chapter 40. 3.) Mark, in his Gospel (chapter 1. 2), refers it to Isaiah. (See Revised New Testament). The text predicts the coming of a person called " my messenger." This person Christ identifies as " John the Baptist." (Matt. 11. 10; Luke 7. 27, and 1. 76.) The person called "my messenger" was to prepare the way of the Lord (Jehovah); but John the Baptist was this " messenger," and he prepared the way of Christ; and Mark, the Evangelist, declares that his doing so fulfilled this prophecy of Malachi. Hence, Christ must be the Jehovah of the Old Testament.
But this text also predicts the coming of a Divine Being, called " the Lord whom ye seek "—i.e., the expected Messiah. He is also called " the Messenger of the Covenant"—i.e., " the Angel of the Covenant;" finally, he is called the Lord of hosts—" Jehovah of Sabaoth." This Divine Person is the Lord of the temple. The temple is called " his temple." No sincere person will deny that it is the temple at Jerusalem that is spoken of. Nor may it be questioned that the Lord of this temple is the Jehovah God of the Jews. He dwelt in that temple. (1 Kings 9. 3.) It was dedicated to " the Lord God of Israel." (1 Kings 8. 25-30.) He called it "my house." (Isa. 56. 7.) Mark 11. 17, applies this prophecy to Christ, and identifies this "Angel of the Covenant"—" the Lord of hosts "—with Christ. Christ comes to the temple, exercises the authority of its Lord, and calls it "my house." Hence, Christ and the Lord of hosts are one and the same Person.
In this prophecy of the Messiah are three palpable and incontrovertible proofs of his Divinity: First, he is identified with Jehovah—' He shall prepare the way before me, saith Jehovah.' Secondly, he is represented as the proprietor of the temple. Thirdly, he is characterized as Ha Adonai—’ the Sovereign '—a title nowhere given, in this form, to any except Jehovah. In its anarthrous state the noun Adonai is applicable to any owner, possessor, or ruler, and it is applied in the construct state to Jehovah as Adonai kal ha-arets—the Possessor of the whole earth (Joshua 3. 11, 13); but when it takes the article, as here, it is used, and exclusively of the Divine Being. See Exod. 23. 17; 34. 23; Isa. 1. 24; 3. 1; 10. 16, 33; 19. 4. (Hengsteuberg's Minor Prophets.)
PSALM 68. 16-19, 29: " Why leap ye, ye high hills? This is the hill which God desired to dwell in; yea, the Lord will dwell in it forever. The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels; the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high; thou hast led captivity captive; thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them. Blessed be the Lord, who daily loaded us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah. Because of thy temple at Jerusalem shall kings bring presents unto thee."
EPHESIANS 4. 8: "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men."
The Divine Hero of the Psalm is called "God," "LORD," also " Lord " (Adonai). He is the God of the temple at Jerusalem, verse 29; but Christ claimed that temple as his. (Matt. 21. 1-16.) He is called " the God of our salvation," verse 19; but Christ is the God of our salvation. (Matt. 1. 21-23.) It is predicted that this " Jehovah God" will "dwell among men," verse 18; but it was Christ who dwelt among men. " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." (John 1. 14.) Because of this he is said to have been a partaker of flesh and blood. (Heb. 2. 14.) This Jehovah God was to ascend " on high," and to receive " gifts for men," verse 18. In Ephesians 4. 8, Paul quotes this text, and applies it to Christ as a prediction of his ascension to heaven; thus putting it beyond all question that Jesus Christ was the Jehovah of the Old Testament,
HEBREWS 11. 24-26: " By faith, Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of reward."
Richard Watson says that this passage is " of easy interpretation, when it is admitted that the Jehovah of the Israelites, whose name and worship Moses professed, and Christ were the same Person. For this worship he was reproached by the Egyptians, who preferred their own idolatry, and treated, as all apostates do, the true religion, the pure worship of the former ages from which they had departed, with contempt. To be reproached for the sake of Jehovah, and to be reproached for Christ, were convertible phrases with the apostle, because he considered Jehovah Christ to be the same Person."
The reproach of Christ is not merely a reproach like that of Christ, but reproach for the sake of Christ. It is described as reviling, slander, persecution, shame, distresses, which are suffered and endured for the name of Christ, for Christ's sake. " Therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men."
The reproach of Christ is reproach suffered for the sake of Christ; as " the marks of the Lord Jesus" are the marks of the stripes that were suffered for the sake of the Lord Jesus. (Gal. 6. 17.) As Moses bore this reproach for the sake of Christ, it follows that Christ must have been the God of the Israelites in that day; but their God was Jehovah, consequently Christ was their Jehovah.
HEBREWS 1. 1: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son."
This text is not unfrequently quoted as an objection to the doctrine that Jesus Christ was the Jehovah of the 'Old Testament. But there is no opposition between the text and the doctrine. The text asserts the simple fact that God the Father had spoken to men; it does not deny-that the Son existed in the past days of the Mosaic dispensation; nor that he was called Jehovah; nor that the Israelites served and worshiped him as God.
HEBREWS 2. 2, 3: " If the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord."
This text has also been quoted as an objection. But an analysis of the text will show that there is no contradiction. The text does not speak of the authorship of the law, but of the ministration by which it was delivered. Paul declares that it was " spoken" by angels, but says nothing of its authorship. There is nothing in the text which denies that Christ was the Jehovah God of Israel; and that, as the Jehovah God, he gave the Ten Commandments, beginning with the words, " I am the Lord thy God," etc. There is nothing in the text denying these truths; on the contrary, Paul has amply proved them by his quotations from Jeremiah 31. 31, as he gives it in Hebrews 8. 8.
1. "JEHOVAH."
This is the name of God, and implies his eternal self-existence and unchangeability of nature and character. The Bible speaks of this name as follows: " My name Jehovah." (Exodus 6. 3.) " This is my name forever, and this my memorial unto all generations." (Exodus 3. 14, 15.) "Thy name, O Lord, forever, thy memorial throughout all generations." (Psalm 135. 13.) "The Lord is his memorial." (Hosea 12. 5.) "Seek him that makes the seven stars and Orion, and turned the shadow of death into the morning, and makes the day dark with night; that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poured them out upon the face of the earth: the Lord is his name." (Amos 5. 8.) "I am the Lord; I change not." (Mal. 3. 6.) " I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another." (Isaiah xlii, 8.) " Whose name alone is Jehovah." (Psalm lxxxiii, 18.) Similar quotations might be made ad libitum, but the foregoing are sufficient to show that the name denotes a nature which is eternal, self-existent, and unchangeable; in other words, Supreme Deity. Professor Noyes translates the name thus: " The Unchangeable—he who always will be what he now is." (Notes on Jeremiah.) " The title Jehovah includes the past, the present, and the future, Eternal." (Bickersteth.) " The name Jehovah represents God as pure existence, in contradistinction from every created object, the existence of which is always comparatively a non-existence. Pure existence leads to immutability of essence. Because God is, he is also that which he is, invariably the same. And from the immutability of his nature there follows, of necessity, the immutability of his will, which is based upon his nature." (Hengstenberg). " He is, therefore, not merely the One who, without beginning or end, is all-sufficient in himself—the causa sui who acts from his own free will and is absolutely self-controlled—but he als6 continues to be for his people that which from the beginning he showed himself to be, and fulfills everything which he either promises or threatens. Hence he is the faithful and true God (Ps. 33. 4; Numbers 23. 19), who is a firm Defense and Rock to all who put their trust in him (Ps. 18. 2, 3; Isa. 26. 3, 4; Deut. 7. 9, 10; Josh. 23. 14, 16; 1 Kings 8. 56; 2 Kings 10. 10"), (Christlieb, Modern Unbelief, p. 214.)
This name Jehovah is given to Christ. In 1 Peter 2. 7, 8, Christ is said to be " a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense;" but in Isaiah 8. 13, 14, from whence Peter quotes, Christ is called " Jehovah of hosts." In Zech. 12. 8-10, where the piercing of Christ's side is predicted, Christ calls himself Jehovah—" They shall look on me whom they have pierced." (Compare John 19. 34, 37.) In Isaiah 6. 1-9, the seraphim call Christ " Jehovah Sabaoth." (Compare John 12. 39-41.) When we reflect that God claims the name " Jehovah" as his " memorial to all generations "—claims it as being his " alone," and protests that he will not give his " glory to another "—it must be evident that the Being who wears that name must be the Supreme God; but Christ is often called Jehovah, hence Christ must be the Supreme God. It has been objected to this view of the subject that the name " Jehovah" was sometimes given to finite things, places, and persons; hence the wearing of the name does not indicate supreme Divinity. A little reflection will show this objection to be without force. 1. The instances in which it is so applied are comparatively rare. 2. When it is applied to finite objects, places, and persons, it is for the purpose of commemorating some memorable action of Jehovah connected with these objects, or some relation which they held to him. " So 'Jehovah-jireh, in the mount of the Lord it shall be seen '—or, the Lord will see or provide '—referred to his interposition to save Isaac, and, probably, to the provision of the future sacrifice of Christ. The same observation may be made as to Jehovah Nissi, Jehovah Shallum, etc.; they are names, and not descriptive of places, but of events connected with them, which marked the interposition and character of God himself. It is an unsettled point among critics whether Jah, which is sometimes found in composition as a proper name of a man—as Abijah (‘Jehovah is my father'), Adonijah (Jehovah is my lord), be an abbreviation of Jehovah or not, so that the case will afford no ground of argument. But if it were, it would avail nothing, for it is found only in a combined form, and evidently relates not to the persons who bore these names as a descriptive appellation, but to some connection which existed, or was supposed to exist, between them and the Jehovah they acknowledged as their God. The cases would have been parallel had our Lord been called Abijah,--‘ Jehovah is my father '—or Jedidiah—’ the beloved of Jehovah.' Nothing, ill that case, would have been furnished, so far as mere name was concerned, to distinguish him from his countrymen bearing the same appellations; but he is called Jehovah himself, a name which the Scriptures give to no person whatever, except to each of the sacred Three, who stand forth in the pages of the Old and New Testaments, crowned with this supreme and exclusive honor and eminence." (Watson.)
2. "LORD."
The title Lord is not, " like the Jehovah of the Old Testament, an incommunicable name; but, in its highest sense, it is universally allowed to belong to God; and if, in this highest sense, it is applied to Christ, then is the argument valid that in the sacred writers, whether used to express the self and independent existence of him who bears it, or that dominion which, from its nature and circumstances, must be divine, it contains a notation of true and absolute divinity.
The first proof of this is, that both in the Septuagint And by the writers of the New Testament it is the term by which the name Jehovah is translated. The Socinians have a fiction that IC6pco; properly answers to Adonai, because the Jews were wont, in reading, to substitute that name in place of Jehovah. But this is sufficiently answered by Bishop Pearson, who observes that it is not probable that the LXX should think it to be the proper interpretation of Adonai, and yet give it to Jehovah only in the place of Adonai; for if they had it would have followed that when Adonai and Jehovah had met in one sentence, they would not have put another word for Adonai and placed Koper); for Jehovah, to which, of itself, according to their observation, it did not belong.' ‘The reason, also, of the assertion is most uncertain; for, though it be confessed that the Masoreths did read Adonai when they found Jehovah, and Josephus, before them, expresses the sense of the Jews of his age that the word was not to be pronounced, and before him Philo speaks as much, yet it followed not from thence that the Jews were so superstitious above three hundred years before, which must be proved before we can be assured that the LXX read Adonai for Jehovah, and for that reason translated it Korios.' (Discourse on Creed.) The supposition is, however, wholly overturned by several passages, in which such an interchange of the names could not be made in the original without manifestly depriving them of all meaning, and which absurdity could not, therefore, take place in a translation and be thus made permanent. It is sufficient to instance Exodus 6. 2, 3: 'I am the Lord [Jehovah]: I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known unto them.' This, it is true, is rather an obscure passage; but whatever may be its interpretation, this is clear, that a substitution of Adonai for Jehovah would deprive it of all meaning whatever, and yet here the LXX translate Jehovah by Korios.
Lord—is, then, the word into which the Greek of the Septuagint renders the name Jehovah; and in all passages in which Messiah is called by that peculiar title of divinity, we have the authority of this version to apply it, in its full and highest signification, to Jesus Christ, who is himself that Messiah. For this reason, and also because, as men inspired, they were directed to fit and proper terms, the writers of the New Testament apply this appellation to their Master when they quote these prophetic passages as fulfilled in him. They found it used in the Greek version of the Old Testament, in its highest possible import, as a rendering of Jehovah. Had they thought Jesus less than God, they ought to have avoided, and must have avoided, giving to him a title which would mislead their readers, or else have intimated that they did not use it in its sense as a title of divinity, but in its very lowest, as a term of merely human courtesy, or, at best, of human dominion. But we have no such intimation; and if they wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit of Truth, it follows that they used it as being understood to be fully equivalent to the title Jehovah itself. This their quotations will show. The evangelist Matthew (3. 3) quotes and applies to Christ the celebrated prophecy of Isaiah 40. 3: For this is he that was spoken of by the Prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.' The other evangelists make the same application of it, representing John as the herald of Jesus, the JEHOVAH of the prophet and their Korios.'
It was, therefore, in the highest possible sense that they used the term, because they used it as fully equivalent to Jehovah. So, again, in Luke 1. 16, 17: And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God, and shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias.' Him,' unquestionably, refers to the Lord their God;' and we have here a proof that Christ bears that eminent title of divinity, so frequent in the Old Testament, the Lord God,' Jehovah Aleim; and also that Korios answered, in the view of an inspired writer, to the name Jehovah. On this point the apostle Paul also adds his testimony (Romans 10. 13): 'Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved;' which is quoted from Joel 2. 32: Whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered.' Other passages might be added, but the argument does not rest upon their number. These are so explicit that they are amply sufficient to establish the important conclusion that, in whatever senses the term 'Lord' may be used, and though the writers of the New Testament, like ourselves, use it occasionally in a lower sense, yet they use it, also, in its highest possible sense and in its loftiest signification when they intended it to be understood as equivalent to Jehovah, and in that sense they apply it to Christ.
But even when the title 'Lord' is not employed to render the name Jehovah in passages quoted from the Old Testament, but is used as the common appellation of Christ after his resurrection, the disciples so connect it with other terms, and with circumstances which so clearly imply divinity, that it cannot reasonably be made a question but that they themselves considered it as a divine title, and intended that it should be so understood by their readers. In that sense they applied it to the Father, and it is clear that they did not use it in a lower sense when they gave it to the Son. It is put absolutely and by way of eminence the Lord.' It is joined with God'—so in the passage above quoted from St. Luke, where Christ is called the Lord God, and when Thomas, in an act of adoration, calls him My Lord and my God.' When it is used to express dominion, that dominion is represented as absolute and universal, and therefore divine: He is Lord of all,' King of kings and Lord of lords.' Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands. They shall perish; but thou remains: and they all shall wax old, as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.' (Watson's Institutes.)
3. GOD.
The import of the title " God "—its value as a proof of the supreme Divinity—will be developed in the course of the discussion. In proof of the proposition that " Jesus Christ is called God," I present the following texts and arguments:
MATTHEW 1. 22, 23: "Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
So strong is the testimony that these two verses furnish to the supreme Divinity of Christ, that Unitarians have made repeated efforts to impeach the authenticity of the first two chapters of Matthew's Gospel, but so far without success. The proofs of their authenticity are overwhelming. 1. They are found in all unmutilated Greek manuscripts and in all ancient versions. 2. The earliest Fathers had them in their copies. 3. The early heretics and opponents of Christianity were acquainted with them. 4. The commencement of the third chapter presupposes something antecedent. 5. The diction of the two chapters bears the same impress and character as the whole Gospel. 6. The authenticity of these two chapters is accepted by Davidson, Home, Nast, Harman, Westcott and Hort, Alford, Lange, Tischendorf, Olshausen, and the Revised Version. In the face of these facts the effort to question the authenticity of these two chapters savors more of a captious spirit than it does of a regard for truth.
It will not be denied that Matthew is here speaking of Christ, and that he here designates Christ as the person whose name should be called Emmanuel, " God with us." It would seem that a text so plain and forcible ought to · be full and sufficient proof that Jesus Christ is God as well as man; but those who are opposed to the doctrine of the supreme Divinity of Christ have bent all their energies to destroy the force of the text. Such of their objections as seem to be of importance will be duly noticed. Dr. Worcester objects that Isaiah gave this name "Immanuel," "to the people of Judah." (Chapter 8. 8.) This is not correct. In the text to which he alludes, " Immanuel" is represented as the Lord and owner of the land of Judah—" Thy land, O Immanuel." There may be some controversy whether these words should be applied to a prince living in Isaiah's day, or to Christ; but the application of them " to the people of Judah" is out of all question. On this text (chapter 8. 8) Professor Noyes (Unitarian) remarks: "Referring, as some suppose, to Hezekiah, . . . or as others, with much greater probability, believe, to the Messiah." The prophet "addressed himself to Immanuel i? person, as the proprietor of the land; the promised Messiah, in the form of God, was then Lord of that land especially; there, in the fullness of time, he would surely assume human nature, and appear in the form of a servant; and he would therefore certainly deliver his land from Sennacherib's invasion, for his own sake and for the sake of his promise to David his servant." (Scott, in, loco.)
The author of the "Examination of Liddon's Bampton Lectures" objects, that " a child to be called Immanuel (God with us), in token of Divine guardianship and assistance, was soon to be born (compare 8. 8)." But Isaiah 8. 8, does not furnish any proof that Immanuel was to be born soon; it mentions Immanuel as the owner and ruler of the land, but says nothing of the time of his birth.
Unitarians have taxed their ingenuity to show that the prophecy quoted by Matthew from Isaiah 7. 14, had no reference to Mary as the mother of Christ, and was only applied to her by way of accommodation. On this point Professor Noyes writes thus: " The damsel; i.e., my damsel, the damsel betrothed to me. I see not what other force the article can have in this connection. So in Prov. 7. 19, 'the goodman' means 'my husband.' So in our idiom, the governor, the schoolmaster, is our governor, etc." To this I answer: Not necessarily, nor even commonly. " The goodman," as a title for the husband, is not a common mode of expression with wives; and on the lips of the woman mentioned in Proverbs 7. 19, it marks her alienation from her husband. A virtuous woman would have been more likely to have said " my husband," while the title "the goodman" would have been natural on the lips of a stranger. The phrases, " the governor," "the school-teacher," are common titles for such officers, and do not imply any relationship between these officers and the parties speaking of them; hence the article ha, " the," before almah, does not imply any relationship between " the virgin" and any person or persons then living.
Noyes says that the term almah " means a young woman of marriageable age, without reference to virginity." To express that idea, Isaiah would have used a different word; namely, bethulah. But the question here is not about the meaning of bethulah, but of almah. Does almah in the text mean " virgin?" The fact that bethulah means " a virgin" is no proof that almah may not also mean " virgin." "Almah is distinguished from bethulah, which designates the virgin state as such, and in this signification occurs in Joel 1. 8; also where the bride laments over her bridegroom, whom she has lost by death. Inviolate chastity is, in itself, not implied in the word. But certain it is that almah designates an unmarried person in the first years of youth; and if this be the case, unviolated chastity is a matter of course in this context; for, if the mother of the Savior was to be an unmarried person, she could be a virgin only; and, in general, it is inconceivable that the prophet should have brought forward a relation of impure love. In favor of an unmarried person is, in the first instance, the derivation. Being derived from alam—' to grow up,' to become marriageable '—dm& can denote nothing else than puella nubilis. But still more decisive is the usus loquendi. In Arabic and Syriac the corresponding words are never used of married women." (Hengstenberg's Christol., Vol. 2. p. 45.)
Almah, and alamoth (plural), occur in the Old Testament nine times. Let us examine each instance. 1. Genesis 24. 43: " When the virgin cometh forth to draw water." This occurs in the prayer of Abraham's servant, when he was seeking a wife for Isaac. He had asked the Lord to show him the virgin that should be Isaac's wife, and he calls her "ha almah." 2. Exodus 2. 8: "And the maid went." This was the virgin sister of Moses, watching her baby-brother. 3. Proverbs 30. 19: " The way of a man with a maid." This refers clearly to a virgin, but does not prove incontinence on her part. 4. and 5. "Ala-moth "-1 Chron. 15. 20; Psalm 46. 1: It is the name of some matter pertaining to music, and is foreign to the question discussed here. 6. Psalm 68. 26: "Damsels playing with timbrels." The most reasonable translation of the word in this place is " virgins." 7. and 8. Canticles 1. 3; 6. 8: " Virgins love thee;" " Virgins without number." In chapter 6. 8, they are clearly distinguished from both " wives" and " concubines," thus clearly establishing their virginity. 9. This is the instance of the text, Isaiah 7. 14. In the light of the foregoing examination we are convinced that, to express the idea of virginity, it was not necessary for the prophet to have used any other word but almah, and that Isaiah here foretells that Christ would be born of a virgin mother, and that Matthew here declares that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ of the virgin Mary. The birth of a child was promised; the mother of this child was to be either a married woman or a virgin. " Does Isaiah offer Ahaz a miracle, either in the depth or in the height above, and when he seems to tell the house of David that God of his own accord would perform a greater work than they could ask, does he sink to a sign that nature produces every day? Is that to be called a wonder (which word implies an uncommon, surprising, and supernatural event) which happens constantly by the ordinary laws of generation? How little does such a birth answer the solemn apparatus which the prophet uses to raise their expectation of some great matter? Hear ye, O house of David! Behold, the Lord himself will give you a sign, worthy of himself, and what is it? Why, a young married woman shall be with child! How ridiculous must such a discovery make the prophet, and how highly must it enrage the audience, to hear a man, at such a juncture as this, begin an idle and impertinent tale, which seems to banter and insult their misery, rather than administer any consolation under it!" (Stackhouse's History of the Bible.)
Burnap says: "To be called Immanuel. And why? Because he was to be a? incarnation of Jehovah? By no means. But because God was to defend and deliver his people before he should grow up to know good and evil. The nature of the child was to have nothing to do with his name; nor was it on account of anything that the child was to do that the name Immanuel was to be given to it, but on account of something that was to be done by God before the child should be old enough to discern good and evil." It would be difficult to imagine a more gross perversion of the case than the foregoing quotation contains. The name "Emmanuel" is not symbolical, but declarative. It does not symbolize either defense or salvation, but simply declares the union of God with man. The name does not refer to au act of God; it does not declare action but nature. It is a declaration of Christ's nature as " God with us."
The prophecy of the birth of Immanuel, the virgin's Son, has its fulfillment, and its only fulfillment, in the birth of Christ. In proof of this I offer the following points:
1. The promise of a deliverer, made in the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve, contemplated the birth of a virgin's Son. The promised " seed" was to be " the seed of the woman;" i.e., the woman alone, the woman without connection with a man. Christ was most peculiarly " the seed of the woman," as he had a human mother and no human father. (See Jacobus on Genesis.) The words of Mary well agree with this: " How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1. 34.)
It presupposes here that what was done stood in the connection of purpose with the Old Testament declaration, and, consequently, in the connection of the divine necessity as an actual fact, by which the prophecy was destined to be fulfilled. The divine decree, expressed in the latter, must be accomplished, and to that end this, namely, which is related from verse 18 onwards, came to pass, and that according to the whole of its contents.” (Meyer.)
2. Isaiah's prophecy is not concerning any indefinite virgin, but a particular virgin—one already thought of—the virgin. This interpretation of the text is sustained by the following rule from Nordheimer's Hebrew Grain-mar, Part 2. p. 15: The article is subjectively " prefixed to a common noun by way of emphasis, and to point it out as one which, although neither previously or subsequently described, is still viewed as definite in the mind of the writer."
3. Jesus Christ is the only person born into the world the son of a pure virgin. There never was one before him, and there has been none since him. It is of no avail to say that the future mother of the "Son" was a virgin at the time of the uttering of the prophecy. The terms of the text demand that the mother of the "Son" should be a virgin at the time of the " Son's" birth. Immanuel was not the virgin's Son if his mother was not a virgin at the time when he was born. This ties the fulfillment of the prophecy down to the birth of Christ, the Son of Mary, the virgin.
Isaiah, in the name of God, offered Ahaz a sign. This offer Ahaz refused. This act of the king called the mind of the prophet to contemplate the stubborn perversity and rebellion of the house of David. He sees their rebellion in the future as well as in the past. It is of the Jewish people he speaks, and to them this prophecy is given. The virgin of the prophet " was the virgin of prophetic foresight. The tenses of the Hebrew in this passage are not all future. Hengstenberg renders it thus: ‘Behold the virgin has conceived and bears a Son, and calls his name Immanuel.' All this shows that Hengstenberg's view of the prophetic vision is correct. The powerful conceptions of the prophet's mind become as a present reality. His mind's eye sees the panorama of future objects and events now standing and moving before him. Time is dropped out of the account. This explains what, to many commentators, has been a great difficulty in the following verse, Isaiah 7. 16. Before this ideal child, beheld in vision as now being born, is able to know good from evil, these two invading kings shall disappear. Isaiah takes the birth of the infant conceptually present as the measure of the continuance of the invading kings. That Immanuel, the predicted seed of the woman, the prophet sees as already being born. He is being fed on nourishing food—namely, butter and honey—to bring him to early maturity; but in a briefer period than his growth to intelligence shall require, these invading kings shall be overthrown and Israel be rescued. Thus was the Messiah yet to be born—a sign not, indeed, to unwilling Abaz, but to Israel, of her speedy deliverance and permanent preservation. Well and wisely, therefore, does the inspired evangelist, now that the Messiah is born, adduce this prophecy to show its fulfillment in him. The amount of the whole is, that the spirit of prophecy availed itself of the occasion of Ahaz's unbelief to utter and leave on record a striking prediction of the incarnation." (Whedon.)
It is often objected that such significant names prove nothing in regard to the nature or dignity of those who wear them, and the naming of Ishmael is referred to as an illustration. But the naming of Hagar's son and the naming of Immanuel have few if any points in common. Ishmael's name had no reference to his own nature, but to the fact that his mother's prayers had been beard by God. (Gen. 16. 11.) Immanuel's name has no reference to any act of God's providence, but is declarative of Christ's nature. as " God with us." In view of this difference, " it would be improper to say that Hagar's son was a person in the Deity," and it would be equally improper to deny that Jesus Christ was "God manifest in the flesh." They are directed by God to call Christ Immanuel; "and there could be no reason with God to select this name but because its meaning denoted a reality. The person bears the name because he is what the name signifies. As the Lord was called Jesus, Savior, because he is Savior; and as he is called Christ, anointed, because he is the Anointed; so he is called Immanuel, God with us, because he is God with us. He is God with man; he is Divinity with humanity." (Whedon.)
LUKE 1. 16, 17: " And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just: to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
These are the words of the angel Gabriel to Zacharias, announcing the coming birth of John the Baptist. It was to be the work of John to prepare the way of Christ, and to turn the children of Israel to him; but the person to whom John was to turn the children of Israel is here called " the Lord their God;" consequently Jesus Christ is the God of Israel.
ISAIAH 9. 6: " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
In the effort to dispose of this text, Unitarians generally take common ground with the Jews, and assert that the words were originally spoken, not of Christ, but of King Hezekiah. The notion that the text refers to Hezekiah is not supported by any word of Scripture. On the contrary, it collides harshly with other portions of the text. Without detracting from either the mental or moral excellencies of Hezekiah, it will still be evident that to apply to a mere man the titles "Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace," would be an hyperbole unwarranted by any Scriptural analogy. How could he be called " The Prince of Peace" who had no power to give peace to others, and who spent the larger share of his active life in war? How could it be said of Hezekiah that "of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end," when he reigned only twenty-nine years, and his son Manasseh was carried captive to Babylon?
It is objected that " the text is not applied to Christ by any speaker or writer of the New Testament." It will be cheerfully admitted that this particular clause of the prophecy has not been specially applied to Christ by any New Testament speaker or writer; but the text is only a detached portion of a prophecy concerning Christ, and this prophecy is applied to Christ in the New Testament by Matthew and by the angel Gabriel. Matthew " manifestly alludes to the words of the text by quoting those which precede them, and which he applies to the times of the Messiah; for, having related the imprisonment of John, and, in consequence of that, the retiring of Jesus Christ into Galilee, he adds that the divine Savior ‘came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea-coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: the people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up' (Matt. 4. 16)." The angel Gabriel, " when he declared to Mary the choice which God had made of her to be the mother of the Messiah, applied to her Son the characters by which Isaiah describes the child in the text, and paints him in the same colors: Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." (Saurin's Sermons, Vol. 1. p. 161.)
2 PETER 1. 1: " Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ."
The latter clause of this text ought to be rendered thus: " Through the righteousness of Jesus Christ our God and Savior." It is so rendered by Wesley, Clarke, Horne, MacKnight, Bloomfield, Lange, Alford, and the Revised New Testament. Unitarians will not deny that in verse 11, Christ is called both " Lord and Savior;" but the construction of the two clauses is exactly alike, and if verse 11 proves that Christ is both " Lord and Savior," then this verse proves him to be both " God and Savior."
1 TIMOTHY 3. 16: " And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
There has been a great deal of controversy about the true reading of the first clause of this text; whether it should read in English, should it read "God was manifest," or, "who was manifest."
In my argument on the text I will accept the reading O; ("who"), as given in Westcott and Hort, and in the Revised Version. "Who," is a relative pronoun, and refers to some antecedent, either expressed or implied. Westcott and Hort (New Testament, Vol. 2. part 2, p. 134) say: " These clauses were a quotation from an early Christian hymn; and, if so, the proper and original antecedent would doubtless have been found in the preceding context, which is not quoted." Suppose this to be true, yet the only way in which Paul could make the quotation intelligent to his readers would be to introduce the quotation in such a manner, as would make the as, "who," the relative of an antecedent that he had already mentioned or introduced. For the apostle to introduce a quotation commencing with a relative pronoun, without any antecedent having been indicated by him, would be to involve the meaning of the quotation in hopeless uncertainty. We naturally expect to find its antecedent in the portion of Scripture immediately preceding the text. In this expectation we will not be disappointed. Verse 15 contains three substantives, " the Church," "the living God," and " the truth;" it -is but reasonable to believe that one of these three substantives must be the antecedent to "who." Whatever the antecedent of " who" is, it must agree with its in gender, and must be the proper subject of the six predicates that belong to: that is, it must, like es, be of the masculine gender, and must be the subject of these six predicates; in other words, the antecedent to 8: must have been " manifest in the flesh," and " justified in the Spirit," and " seen of angels," and " preached unto the Gentiles," and " believed on in the world," and "received up into glory." The antecedent of Os must be of the masculine gender, and must carry all six of these predicates. If either of these substantives (of verse 15) is not of the masculine gender, and fails to carry all six of these predicates, then that substantive. is not the antecedent of gs. But if we find a substantive of the masculine gender, and of which all six of these predicates are true, then that substantive is the proper antecedent of Os. Let us bring forward the substantives found in verse 15, and test them.
1. "Church," is of the feminine gender, and does not agree with js, which is masculine, hence is not its antecedent. If it should be said that " the Church " is, in verse 15, is masculine, it is answered that to say that the Church " was manifest in the flesh," the Church was " justified in the Spirit," the Church was "seen of angels," the Church " was preached unto the Gentiles," etc., all of this is utterly discordant with the New Testament, and is without any meaning that a Christian can accept. " The Church" is not the subject of these predicates, and is not the antecedent of 3s. 2. "The truth," is feminine, hence does not agree with in gender. " The truth" is another name for the aggregate of the doctrines of Christianity, and has no existence separate from an intelligent being who believes or teaches it; it can not be said to be "received up into glory," for it is not the subject of reward. It is not the subject of these predicates, and is not the antecedent of Os. There will not be any difficulty with the third substantive, " the living God;'' agrees with Os, being in the masculine gender. God, in Christ, "was manifest in the flesh;" God, in Christ, was "justified in the Spirit;" God, in Christ, was "seen of angels;" God, in Christ, was "preached unto the Gentiles;" God, in Christ, was "believed on in the world;" God, in Christ, was " received up into glory." Hence, Christ was " God manifest in the flesh."
COLOSSIANS 2. 9: " For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
I think that it will be evident to any unprejudiced person who is acquainted with Greek grammar, that is the genitive of apposition. "It is a very common grammatical usage to annex the apposition in the genitive to the noun on which it depends." (Winer's Grain., New Testament, p. 531.) Winer gives the following illustrations of this rule; (for the benefit of the English reader I will give the English translation of the text cited.) Luke 22. 1: " the feast of unleavened bread." John 13. 1: " of the feast of the Passover." 2 Corinthians, 5. 5: "the earnest of the Spirit."
Eph. 1. 14: “the earnest of our inheritance." Rom. 4. 11: “he received the sign of circumcision. John 2. 21: "the temple of his body." See also, John 11. 13; Acts 2. 33; 4. 22; Romans 8. 21; 15. 16; 1 Cor. 5. 8; 2 Cor. 5. 1; Eph. 2. 14; 6. 14; Col. 3. 24; Heb. 6. 1; 12. 11; Jas. 1. 12; 1 Peter 3. 3.
The text is correctly rendered, " In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." "The entire plenitude of the divine essence (not a mere emanation of that essence as the rising sect of the Gnostics taught) dwells permanently dwells (it is no transient manifestation), in him bodily, invested with a body. The Godhead in its fullness is incarnate in Christ. He is, therefore, not merely (God), but the God, in the highest sense. More than Paul says cannot be said." (Hodge.)
JOHN 1.1-18: " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the be-ginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a-man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came kn. a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lights every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spoke, He that cometh after me, is preferred before me; for he was before me. And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
These eighteen verses form what is frequently called " the proem of John’s Gospel." In this proem " the Logos" is said to have been "in the beginning," to have been "with God," and to be "God." This statement of his personality and of his supreme Deity is sustained by the declaration that "all things were made by him." In verses 14-18, the Logos was identified with Jesus Christ, "the only begotten Son of God." " The Word of the Lord " is an Old Testament title for a divine person having the attributes and exercising the authority of Supreme Deity, Thus in Genesis 15. 1, 2: " The Word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram; I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me?" " Here the Word of the Lord is the speaker—' the Word came saying:' a mere word may be spoken or said; but a personal Word only can say, am thy shield.' The pro- noun refers to the whole phrase, the Word of Jehovah;' and if a personal Word be not understood, no person at all is mentioned by whom this message is conveyed, and whom Abram in reply, invokes as Lord God." (Watson.)
1 SAMUEL 3. 21: "The Lord revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the Lord."
In this text " the word of the Lord " must mean either the subject matter of the revelation or a personal Word. To say that it means the subject matter of the revelation is to deprive the text of all meaning. " The Lord revealed himself by the revelation." Pretty well emasculated. It is first stated that the " Lord revealed [showed] himself to Samuel." Then it gives us the manner of the showing, to wit: by the personal word of Jehovah. This conclusion is strengthened by the following items:
1. In verse 10 it is said: " The Lord came and stood." "It is most natural to understand the words came and stood as designating a visible appearance. God was not only personally but visibly there, either in human form (Gen. 18. 2, 33; Josh. 5. 13-15), or in some angelic or surprising manifestation. (Exodus 3. 2-6.) " (Whedon.)
2. In verse 15 this revelation of God to Samuel is called " the vision," a name " which implies something more than a mere mental process "—a personal appearance. 2 Sam. 24. 11: " The word of the Lord came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and say," etc. Here we have a construction similar to that of Gen. 15. 1. This was a personal Word. None other could say " Go;" none but a personal Word could call himself "Lord," as he does in the next verse. For other manifestations of this personal Word, see 1 Kings 6. 11, 12; 16. 1-3; 1 Chron. 17. 3, 4; Isa. 28. 4, 5; Jer. 1. 4. The Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases of the Old Testament, were made for the use of the common people among the Jews, who, after their return from captivity, did not understand the original Hebrew. They were read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day, and the Jews became familiar with their more common terms and phrases. These Targums used the phrase " The Word of the Lord" as a common title flu Jehovah, thus: " The Word of the Lord created man."
(Gen. 1. 27.) " They heard the voice of the Word of the Lord." (Gen. 3. 8.) " Jehovah, thy God, his Word goes before thee." (Deut. 9. 3.) " My Word is thy shield." (Gen. 15. 1.) " Israel shall be saved by the Word of the Lord." (Isa. 45. 17.) " My Word is with thee." (Jer. 1. 8.) " The Lord said unto his Word." (Ps. 110. 1.) An examination of the foregoing passages will show that this personal Word was a Divine Being, who acted as the speaker or interpreter of the Godhead. That this title is appropriately applied to Christ is evident from the fact that he declares, or makes known, the Father to us. (Verse 18.)
In proof that the Word was a person, I submit the following items:
1. He is said to have been " in the beginning with God." It would be a mere truism to say this of an attribute; for God and his attributes could never exist separately.
2. He is called God: " The Word was God." The title "God" is applied by the sacred writers to the Supreme Being, and, with certain qualifications and limitations, to angels and men, but never to a thing. It always implies personality.
3. He was the source of life. "In him was life." Life can come only from a person.
4. The world was made by him. No matter whether he was the original author of creation or only an agent, in either case he must have been a person.
5. John declares that the Logos " was the Light," but that John the Baptist " was not that Light." There was a possibility of confounding "the Word" with John the Baptist. To make this matter plain, I present the following points: There was a possibility of confounding some person with John the Baptist. You could not confound an attribute with John, but you might confound a person with him. The person who might be confounded with John is here called " the Light," and must be either the Father or the Word. There was no possibility of confounding the Father with John; for the Father was not personally visible to men, while John was; hence the person who might be confounded with John the Baptist was the 'Word. This puts the personality of the Word beyond dispute.
6. He owns property. "He came unto his own." The owner of property must be a person.
7. He "gave power" to men. The gift of "power" can come only from a person.
8. He " was made flesh;" " that is, he became a man. But in what possible sense could an attribute become a man? The Logos is the only begotten of the Father;' but it would be uncouth to say of any attribute that it is begotten; and if that were passed over, it would follow from this notion either that God has only one attribute, or that wisdom is not his only begotten attribute." (Watson.) The fact that he became incarnate stamps the fact of his personality.
9. He dwelt among men. Dwelling is a personal act.
10. He possessed "glory." But glory belongs only to a person.
Let us now inquire what evidence the text furnishes of the Supreme Deity of the Word. It declares " the Word was God." In proof that John does not call Christ "God" in any inferior sense, but that he speaks of him as the Supreme God, I offer the following point: John teaches that Christ was eternal. "In the beginning was the 'Word." That this "beginning" refers to eternity is evident from verse 3: "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made." If all created things were made by Christ, then he must have existed before anything was made; hence was himself untreated and eternal. Christ, as the pre-existent Creator of all things, is, in his very nature, eternal. It is no answer to this to quote Hebrews 1. 2—" by whom he made the world "—and contend that Christ was merely the instrument in creation. Grant that he was the Father's agent in creation. As an agent, he was either created, or untreated. He could not be a created agent; for John says, "All things were made by him;" and for fear this should not be thought to cover everything, he adds, " without him was not anything made that was made;" thus settling the fact that he was the creator of every created thing. If he was a created agent, he must have created himself; but this is absurd. He was not created, hence must have been eternal; but Deity alone is eternal, hence Christ must be Supreme, Eternal Deity.
Christ, the Logos, is the self-existent source of life. "In him was life." We have already seen that Christ was the creator of all things; hence he is appropriately said to be the source of life; but the source of life must be the Self-existent, Omnipotent God.
HEBREWS 1. 8: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever."
In this text Christ is called " God." He is called such by the Eternal Father. Everlasting dominion is ascribed to him. These things are said in a manner so august and so dignified as to furnish irresistible proof of his supreme Divinity. In the crucible of Unitarian exegesis this text has been subjected to a white heat, in the hope of destroying its testimony to the supreme Divinity of Christ. The text is a quotation from Psalms 14. 6. Professor Noyes has rendered the text in Psalms, " Thy throne is God's for ever and ever." The English version is sustained by two considerations, which, when taken together, are unanswerable: 1. No honest scholar can deny that the common English translation is both easy and natural. 2. In both the Septuagint and the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is given a Greek translation of the text, that completely cancels that of Noyes; for no Unitarian skill can make these words mean " Thy throne is God's."
The design of the apostle in quoting these words of the Psalmist is to prove the superiority of Christ to the heavenly messengers. He begins well, by showing that God makes the winds his messengers, and flames of fire his ministers, thus reducing angels to the condition of servants; but he does not end well, if he say only that God is the throne of Christ, or the support of his authority. Where is the contrast? If he has given power to our Savior, and upholds him in the exercise of it, he has done the same thing to angels and other ministers of his will; and how does his pre-eminence appear? If we read, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,' the point is decided, for he is God, and they are creatures. (Dick.)
Thy throne, O God. This is the literal and grammatical construction. The King is addressed as God; the other Greek versions have the same meaning. Feeling that such words could not possibly be addressed to an earthly king, commentators have suggested other interpretations; such as, Thy throne (is a throne of), God:' but it is certain that no such explanation would have been thought of, had not a doctrinal bias intervened. The word God' is applied to kings. and even to judges, as representatives of the divine power and justice—see Exod. 21. 6; 22. 8 (Heb.); Psalms 82. 1, 6—but never in a direct address, as in this and in the following verse. The person before the Psalmist's mind was a visible manifestation of the Godhead; the ideal king of whom his earthly sovereign was an imperfect type. The objection that the Messiah is never called God, or addressed as God in the Old Testament, begs the entire question and is untrue: See Isaiah 8. 8: O Immanuel.'" (Bible Comm.)
JOHN 20. 28: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."
In order that we may understand these words of Thomas, we must keep in our minds the peculiar circum-stances under which they were spoken. Thomas had been with Christ during all of his human ministry. He was one of the apostles whom Christ had chosen; he had seen Christ baptized; he had heard him preach; he had seen Christ walk upon the sea, and quiet the storm; he had seen him heal the sick, cast out demons, give sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf; he had seen him raise the dead. He had heard Christ teach that all men should honor him, even as they honored the Father; that they should believe on him as they believed on the Father. He had heard Christ foretell his own death, burial, and resurrection; he had heard Christ declare that he laid down his life of his own accord, that he had the power to lay it down, and to take it again; he had heard Christ promise that after his resurrection he would go and prepare heavenly mansions for them, and that while preparing these mansions, he would send them the Holy Ghost as a comforter; and, finally, that he would come in his glory, attended by all the holy angels, to judge the world and to welcome his followers into the kingdom prepared for them by him. All these promises presupposed him to be invested with supreme Divinity.
Furthermore, they were inseparably connected with his resurrection from the dead. The death of Christ crushed Thomas with sorrow; in his distress he could not believe that Christ had risen from the dead, and that these glorious promises would all be realized. But when he saw Christ standing before him, alive, and speaking to him, the proof of his resurrection and (under the peculiar circumstances that attended it) the proof of Christ's supreme Divinity, made so powerful an impression on the mind of Thomas, that " he could only utter his one deepest thought, that he had before him his Lord and his God." (Geikie.)
The fact that Christ did not reprove Thomas is ample proof that the words of Thomas were neither thoughtless nor profane. His words cannot be invested with any neutral character; they were either profane, or else they were a glorious act of religious worship. They evidently were not profane, hence they must have been words of worship; and this worship was paid directly to Christ: he " said unto him, My Lord and my God." If Christ was not supremely Divine he would have refused this worship as being idolatry; just as Peter did. (Acts 10. 25-26. See also Rev. 19. 10.) But Christ does not refuse it, but receives it with commendations; hence the words of Thomas were not idolatrous, and Christ is God.
Norton says that Thomas employed' the name God,' not as the proper name of the Deity, but as an appellative, according to a common use of it in his day. (Reasons, p. 300.) In support of this assertion he quotes several texts of Scripture. Norton denies that Christ was Supreme Deity, and he did not believe him to be an angel; hence he must mean that " God" was an " appellative," and that it was applied to Christ as a man " according to a common usage of it in his day." The incorrectness of this theory has been already pointed out.
But let us examine, in this connection, John 10. 34-36: " Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemes; because I said, I am the Son of God?" These words do not prove that the title " God" was applied to Christ in. any subordinate sense, nor do they prove that he was not the Supreme Deity. The words of the text show that, even if Christ had been only a man, yet the title "God" might be applied to him without blasphemy. Again, when we reflect that he must have existed before he was " sanctified," and that he was " sanctified" before he was " sent," it follows that he must have had an existence before he was " sent" into this world; that before he became incarnate he was solemnly set apart, or sanctified, by his Father for the great work of redemption. The sanctification of Christ implied two distinct things: 1. When he was to be sent into this world the Father sanctified or separated him from the fellowship of this world, so far as the sinful nature of the world was concerned, so that he came into the world as one who did not share the character of the world. 2. The Father sanctified him, or set him apart, for the performance of a work in this world—a work that involved the doing of miracles, a work involving the attributes of omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence, and the supreme judicial authority necessary in the forgiveness of sins. When we reflect on these things, then the words of Christ not only do not forbid, but very strongly imply, his right to appropriate the title of " God" in its highest sense.
To say that our Savior here denies making any claim to supreme Divinity, "is to make his conduct in this case trifling and ridiculous—not in an ordinary sense, but supremely and contemptibly so. The obvious intent of these words is to reply to that part of the accusation against him contained in the words being a man,' as if he had said being a man' is not of itself alone conclusive argument—not decisive in a charge of blasphemy against the use of the divine title, for in Scripture the term is applied to civil rulers and religious teachers. They are called gods to whom the word of God came.' That I am a man is not of itself a determinative argument that I am not also divine. The title may be applied to a man, and the divinity signified by it be also predicated at the same time of the same man. That this is the proper exegesis of our Savior's reply is further evident from what follows in the thirty-seventh and thirty-eighth verses, when he again directly reasserts his claim to a divine character by saying that, by reason of his works, it was in their power to know, and was obligatory on them to believe, that the Father was in him, and he in the Father.' That Jesus was understood to claim equality with the Father, and that he intended to be so understood, is evident from the fact that when he said, The Father is in me, and I in him,' they, the Jews, therefore sought again to take him, but he escaped out of their hand.'" (Dr. Raymond, in Methodist Quarterly Review.)
The following condensed note from Alford will sum up the argument on this text: " The Socinian view that the words My Lord and my God' are merely an exclamation, is refuted (1) by the fact that no such exclamations were in use among the Jews; (2) by the impossibility of referring to another than Jesus (see verse 13); (3) by the New Testament usage of expressing the vocative by the nominative with an article; (4) by the utter psychological absurdity of such a supposition: that one just convinced of the presence of him whom he deeply loved, should, instead of addressing him, break out into an irrelevant cry; (5) by the further absurdity of supposing that, if such were the case, the apostle John, who, of all the sacred writers, most constantly keeps in mind the object for which he is writing, should have recorded anything so beside that object. . . . This is the highest confession of faith which has yet been made; and it shows that (though not yet fully) the meaning of the previous confessions of his being the Son of God' was understood. Thus John, in the very close of his Gospel, iterates the testimony with which he begun it—to the Godhead of the Word, who became flesh—and by this closing confession shows how the testimony of Jesus to himself had gradually deepened and exalted the apostles' conviction from the time when they knew him only as (chapter 1. 46) till now, when he is acknowledged as their Lord and their God."
JOHN 17. 3: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou halt sent."
These words have often been quoted by Unitarian writers to prove that Jesus Christ had no claim to the title " the only true God." They urge that Christ here attributes that title to the Father alone, and thereby denies its application to himself. The text styles the Father "the only true God," in contradistinction of the Father from all heathen gods; but it does not invalidate Christ's claim to the title, for he "and the Father are one." "The very juxtaposition of Christ here with the Father, and the knowledge of both being defined to be eternal life, is a proof by implication of the Godhead of the former. The knowledge of God and a creature could not be eternal life, and the juxtaposition of the two would be inconceivable." (Alford, in loco.)
The answer of Dr. Dick is to the point: "We grant that our Lord would have denied his own divinity if he had said that the Father only is God to the exclusion of himself; but it is quite evident that he merely distinguishes his Father from other pretenders to divinity. He does not say, 'Thou only art the true God,' but 'Thou art the only true God.' When the Scripture calls the Father the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and the Lord of lords,' the design is, obviously, to except -not Jesus Christ, but the lords many' of the Gentiles; and, accordingly, Jesus Christ receives the same title in other places, being designated King of kings and Lord of lords,' and the Prince of the kings of the earth." (Theology, p. 176.)
TITUS 2. 13: " Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ."
Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. (Rev. Version.)
Here Christ is not only called "God," but " the great God." It is objected that Paul elsewhere applies the title " God our Savior," not to Jesus Christ, but to the Father. While it is true that the apostle elsewhere applies the title to the Father, yet there is nothing in the cases where it is so applied that would restrict it to the Father, or forbid its application to the Son in the text under consideration.
It is objected that Jesus Christ is nowhere else called " the great God." To this objection Bishop Horseley's answer is full and complete: " He is nowhere called the Word but in the writings of St. John; he is nowhere in the New Testament called Emmanuel, or God with us, but in St. Matthew; he is nowhere called that eternal life' but in St. John's first epistle. But single authorities must not be relinquished because they are single. There are several important facts peculiar to each of the evangelists. But if our Lord is nowhere else expressly called the great God,' can it be said that he is called nothing like it? Is not the mighty God' in Isaiah's prophecy of the Messiah very like it? Are not St. Matthew's God with us,' and St. John's God,' and that eternal life' very like it? For in what does God's greatness consist but in the greatness of his attributes—his omnipotence, his omnipresence, his power of creating the world and sustaining it? Omnipotence and omnipresence are asserted by Christ himself (Matt. 28. 18, 20), and are ascribed to him by St. Paul (Phil. 3. 21), and by St. John (1 Eph. 5. 14). The act of creating the world is attributed to him by St. John (1. 3), and of sustaining it by St. Paul (Col. 1. 17; Heb. 1. 3). These attributes are so identified with greatness that the God, the "Word, and that Eternal Life, who possess them, cannot be less than a great God; and he that does possess these attributes, and is also one and the same God with the Father, and is to be honored with the same honor as the Father, must be the great God." (Tracts, No. 247.)
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is called " the hope of Israel;" " our hope;" "the hope of glory" (Acts 28. 20; Col. 1. 27; 1 Tim. 1. 1); and in the text he is called " that blessed hope." We are frequently taught to look for " the appearance" of the Son " (Matt. 24. 30; Col. 3. 4; 1 Tim. 6. 14; 2 Tim. 4. 1, 8; 1 Peter 5. 4; 1 John 2. 28; 3. 2); but we are never taught to look for the appearing of the Father, for he is invisible.
It is objected that when Christ comes, it will be in the glory of his Father. True, but " he shall come in his own glory" also. (Luke 9. 26.) He whose appearance we are taught to look for is here called " the great God;" but we look for the appearance of Jesus Christ; hence Jesus Christ has the title of "the great God."
Ellicott doubts whether the interpretation of this passage can be settled on grammatical principles; nevertheless he translates it thus: " Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." Ellicott also says: " When, however, we turn to exegetical considerations, and remember, (a) that it is a term specially and peculiarly applied to the Son, and never to the Father; . . . (b) that the immediate context so especially relates to our Lord; (c) that the following mention of Christ's giving himself up for us, of his abasement, does fairly account for St. Paul's ascription of a title otherwise unusual, that specially and antithetically marks his glory; (d) that it would seem uncalled for if applied to the Father; . . . when we candidly weigh all this evidence, it does indeed seem difficult to resist the conviction that our blessed Lord is here said to be, and that this text is a direct, definite, and even studied declaration of the divinity of the Eternal Son."
Dr. Whedon's notes on this text present a clear and satisfactory view of the passage: " By our present translation, approved by many eminent scholars, the words great God designate the Father; and Savior, the Son. But the large majority of scholars, ancient and modern, understand both the two appellatives, great God and Savior, to be applied to Jesus Christ."
The literal rendering of the Greek words would be: " The appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior of us, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us." Now, as the words stand, if the two appellatives are to designate two different persons, some mark of separation should have been interposed between them. The author ought certainly to have taken that precaution. Our translators have so done by interposing " our" before " Savior;" a scarcely justifiable method, for "of us" may just as properly take in both appellatives as one. Another method for the author would have been to interpose an article-" the great God and the Savior of us." Greek scholars claim that, by the laws of the Greek, the two appellatives without the interposed article designate one subject.
But such a rule belongs not to any one language; it belongs to every language, especially to every language having a definite article. Indeed, the principle requiring some separation of the two appellations is based in common sense and natural perspicuity.
It need not be denied that there is force in the opposite argument of Huther and Alford. It is certainly true that the appellative, great God,' is nowhere else applied to Christ. The instance stands alone. But there is 'over all, God' (Rom. 9. 5); true God' (1 John 5. 20); mighty God' (Isa. 9. 6); and, as we think, ‘Almighty,' in Rev. 1. 8. Each one of these appellatives of supreme Divinity also stands alone. Alford argues that, in Matt. 16. 27, the Son comes in the glory of his Father.' But in Matt. 26. 31, the Son comes in his own glory. So that the glory of the present passage may still be the glory of one personality. There was a unanimity among the early Greek writers of the Church in applying both appellations to Christ, and the verse was so used against the Arians. Alford seems to think that this polemic use of the passage weakens the value of their opinions. Perhaps it does. But is it not probable that this text has its share of influence in fixing the views of the Church before Arius appeared, so as to render the Church so nearly unanimous against his views? A proper delicacy in declining to use polemic authority is commendable; but there is some danger of sacrificing truth even to over-magnanimity. We are obliged to say that the natural reading of the words favors decidedly the reference of both appellations to one subject. The words Jesus Christ' tell us who is our great God and Savior.' And this exposition is confirmed by the following words—' who gave himself,' etc.—indicating that the writer had but a single personality in his thought. We would then read: The epiphany of the great God and Savior of us, Jesus Christ.'
ROMANS 9. 5: " Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen."
In this text Christ is called " God;" " God blessed forever." " Whenever the expression according to the flesh' is used in the apostolic writings, it always represents another light, or method of consideration, under which the subject may be viewed, in addition to that which is immediately spoken of. Thus (Rom. 9. 3), Paul had other brethren than those who were descended from Abraham, viz., his fellow-Christians; there was another Israel (1 Cor. 10. 18) than the nation so denominated from natural descent (see Rom. 2. 28, 29; Gal. 6. 16; Phil. 3. 3); and Christian servants (Eph. 6. 5) have another Master to serve and please, than their earthly lords. Thus also (Acts 2. 30), there is another point of view under which Christ is to be considered, than that which consists in his descent from David." (Royard's, quoted from Smith's Messiah, Vol. 3. p. 333.) For further proofs of this see John 8. 15; Rom. 1. 3; 4. 1; 8. 1, 4, 5, 12; 1 Cor, 1. 26; 2 Cor. 1. 17; 5. 16; 10. 2, 3; 11. 18; Gal. 4. 23, 29; 5. 17; Col. 3. 22; 1 Peter 4. 6.
But if Christ " had no other nature, why should such a distinction as is implied be here designated? Would a sacred writer say of David, for example, that he was descended from Abraham? If this should be said, it would imply that he was not descended from Abraham, but from someone else. But here the other nature of Christ appears to be designated by the succeeding phrase." (Moses Stuart, in loco.) It is well remarked by Thomas Whitelaw, D. D., that " the antithesis between of whom, and who is, represents that superior nature as one that had no commencement of existence." In perfect harmony with the foregoing the Peshito Syriac renders the text, " And from them was manifested Messiah in the flesh, who is God that is over all, whose are praises and blessings to the age of ages. Amen."
It is objected that nowhere else is Christ called " God over all." I answer neither is he so called here. The apostle does not call him " God over all." The apostle says that he " is over all," and he calls him " God blessed forever."
It is objected that to refer the words " God blessed forever" to Christ is to involve the text in a contradiction with 1 Cor. 15. 28, which reads thus: " And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." The contradiction vanishes when we consider the twofold nature of Christ. " Here is a human nature which was of the Israelites,' which, after being obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, was highly exalted, and received a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and in earth, and under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' When all these things shall be subdued, this human nature shall also become subject to the Divine. On the other hand, here is, in the same person, a Divine nature which existed before the incarnation, which had glory with the Father before the world was, and which shall be all in all' when all shall have been subdued." (Hare on Socinianism, pp. 84, 85.)
In this text some person is styled " God blessed forever." This person must be either the Father or Christ. It would be unnatural and forced to refer these words to the Father. The Father is not the subject of the dis-course, while Christ is the immediate, nearest, and most natural subject; hence is the person who is styled " God blessed forever."
It is objected that "blessed" is not used in the New Testament concerning Christ. As the word occurs in the New Testament only eight times, it occurs too seldom to form any argument from the usage of it. But it is by no means certain that it never refers to Christ. It occurs in Luke 1. 68: " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel;" and we have already seen that the "Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel" was Christ in his pre-existent state. It occurs in Romans 1. 25: " The Creator, who is blessed forever." But John has settled it that all things were made by Christ (chapter 1. 3); Paul asserts the same great fact (Col. 1. 16, 17). In the light of these passages, " the Creator, who is blessed forever," refers to Christ just as certainly as it does to the Father. It occurs in 2 Cor. 11. 31: " The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore." In this text, if we refer to the nearest antecedent, then it refers to Christ. Those who object to its reference to " Christ" are obligated to show why we should pass by " Christ," the nearest noun, and refer " which" to a more remote noun for its antecedent.
The words " God blessed forever" cannot be referred to the Father without construing them as a doxology; but to this arrangement there are two objections: 1. It makes the doxology abrupt, constrained, and forced. All of this is avoided by referring the words to Christ. 2. When they; are used for the purpose of a doxology, then invariably precedes and invariably has the article. These two points refer only to the adjective when used together in a doxology. Instances may be found in which follows the subject; but such texts are not doxologies, but simply declarative sentences. Instances may also be found in which the participle follows; in doxologies; but when the adjective is used with in a doxology.
Unitarian writers quote some passages as exceptions to this rule, and I will examine them. Psalm 67. 20, is quoted as an exception. I think that a sufficient answer to this is found in the fact that there are no words in the Hebrew answering to the first clause of the Septuagint, neither is there anything answering to this clause in the Vulgate. The words appear to be an interpolation. The same order is preserved in the Hebrew text. 1 Kings 10. 9; 2 Chron. 9. 8; Daniel 2. 20; Job 1, 21, are also quoted as exceptions to the rule; but these texts use the participle and not the adjective. 1. In each of these texts either is used, requiring the substantive to follow it closely; hence these texts are not exceptions to the rule. Romans 1. 25: "Who is blessed forever" and 2 Cor. 11. 31, " Which is blessed " are sometimes referred to as departures from this rule. But they are not doxologies; they are simple declarative sentences. 2. In both of these passages is present as the connecting link between the subject and the adjective; hence these texts do not come under the rule. Besides the passages already noticed, there are twenty-three texts in which they are joined together. These texts are Gen. 9. 26; 14. 20; 24. 27; 1 Sam. 25. 32; 2 Sam. 18. 28; 1 Kings 1. 48; 5. 7; 8. 15; Psalm 17. 47; 40. 14; 65. 20; 67. 36; 71. 18; 105. 48; 143. 1; Ezra 7. 27; 1 Chron. 29. 10; 2 Chron. 2. 12; 6. 4; Daniel 3. 28; Luke 1. 68; 2 Cor. 1, 3; Eph. 1, 3; 1 Peter 1. 3. These are all doxologies, alone are joined together in Genesis 24. 31; Exod. 18. 10; Ruth 4. 14; 1 Sam. 25. 39; 1 Kings 8. 57; Psalm 27. 8; 30. 28; 67. 20; 88. 51; 118. 12; 123. 5; 134. 21; Zech. 11. 5—thirteen instances it is used in only one other doxology, 2 Sam. 22. 47: " The Lord lives, and blessed be my keeper." These are all the instances in which is used in doxologies, and in every instance it precedes its noun or subject; but in our text (Rom. 9. 5) it does not precede the noun; hence our text is not a doxology. All of the texts in which follows its noun or subject are simple declarations; but in our text (Rom. 9. 5); hence the sentence is simply declarative. It declares Jesus Christ to be " God blessed forever."
The true inference from the context is well expressed by Theodoret in Cramer's Catena: And then last he puts the greatest of their blessings, " And of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh." And though the addition " as concerning the flesh" was sufficient to imply the Deity of Christ, yet he adds, " Who is over all, God blessed forever—Amen," both showing the difference of the natures and explaining the reasonableness of his lamentation that though he who was God over all was of them according to the flesh, yet they fell away from his kinship.' The assertion of Christ's Divine Majesty is thus admirably suited to the purpose of the passage, which is to extol the greatness of the privileges bestowed upon Israel, and so unhappily forfeited. The reference to Christ is supported by the unanimous consent of the ante-Nicene Fathers. (See Irenaeus L. 3. c. 16. §3; Tertullian, Adv. Praxean, c. 13. c. xv; Hippolytus, Adv. Noetum, vi; Origen, in hoc loco; Cyprian, Testimon. 2. 6; Novatian, De Trin., c. xiii; Methodeus, Symeon et Anna, § 1.) In the Arian Controversies our passage is constantly used by Athanasius: e.g., Or. 1 c.; Arianos, c. 10. 11. xxiv. The same interpretation is given by Basil, Gregory of Nyssa., Epiphanies, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria (Contra Julian X), Aecumenius, Theophylact." (The Bible Comm.)
4. SON OF GOD.
It is not denied by any believer in the New Testament that " the Son of God" is a common and rightful title of Jesus Christ. What does this title teach concerning Christ's nature? I propose to educe the answer to this question entirely from the Old and New Testament Scriptures. Different parties have attributed the Sonship of Christ to-1. His miraculous conception; 2. To his Messiahship; 3. To his resurrection; 4. To his ascension and coronation. Rejecting these theories, I will endeavor to prove that the title " the Son of God " indicates his self-existent and eternal Deity as the second person in the eternal Godhead. Christ never referred to his miraculous conception, his Messiahship, his resurrection, or his ascension and coronation as things that made or constituted him " the Son of God." His disciples never referred to any of these things as constituting him " the Son of God." The Jews never understood his claim to be " the Son of God" as referring to any of these things as the origin of the title, or as the reason for it. On the contrary, both his disciples and his enemies understood his assumption of this title as a claim to equality with the Eternal Father. These different views will naturally come up for more perfect examination in the subsequent discussion of the subject. I will proceed at once .to examine the passages in which Jesus Christ is called "the Son of God."
PSALM 2. 7: " I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."
These words are quoted by Paul and applied to Christ three times: Acts 13. 33; Hebrews 1. 5; 5. 5. This places it beyond question that Christ is the person to whom the Lord here speaks and says, " Thou art my Son." Prof. Noyes, in his Notes on the text, translates the words thus: " Thou art my favored king." It is true that the terms " first-born," "son," and " sons" are sometimes applied to kings. Thus in Ps. 82. 6, 7, kings are called " children of the Most High;" Ps. 89. 27, David is called " first-born" (" my" is not in the Hebrew). In 2 Sam. 7. 14, it is said of Solomon, He shall be "my son " (literally " a son to me "). But in no instance does God address a mere man as " my Son;" nor is the title "the Son " (of God) given to any mere human ruler. The reference of this text to any merely human prince is forbidden by several particulars: 1. We do not know of any temporal prince to whom these words were addressed. 2. No merely human ruler has ever received " the uttermost parts of the earth" for his " possession." 3. Never have the kings of the earth been exhorted to bow in universal submission to any temporal prince; but they are all exhorted to give the Son the "kiss" of loving subjection. 4. 'We are warned against putting our trust in princes: " Put not your trust in princes." " Cursed be the man that trusted in man." (Ps. 146. 3; Jer. 17. 5.) On the other hand, we are exhorted to trust in " the Son." " Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Hence this " Son" is no temporal prince.
It is " the Son" that is " King" (verse 6; John 1. 49, 50); it is " the Son" that is to have " the heathen" for an "inheritance" and "the uttermost part of the earth "for a " possession;" it is " the Son " that is to " rule the nations with a rod of iron;" it is " the Son" that they are to " kiss," "lest he be angry;" for it is the wrath" of " the Son" that they are to dread (verse 12; Rev. 6. 16, 17); and it is " the Son" in whom they are to " trust" (verse 12; Rom. 9. 33; 10. 11; 1 Peter 2. 6).
ROMANS 1. 3, 4: " Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead."
Concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord. (Revised Version.)
MICAH 5. 2: " But thou, Bethlehem Ephrata'', though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
This text was applied to Christ by both the scribes and the Jewish laity. These quotations are recorded and indorsed by the evangelists. (Matt. 2. 5, 6; John 7. 42.) This proves Christ to be the subject of the prophecy. His human birth is set forth in the words " out of thee shall he come forth unto me;" while his eternity is established by the declaration " whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." It is "Christ, the Son of God," who is the subject of this prophecy. It was the Son of God who was to come forth out of Bethlehem; it was the Son of God whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. It will not be denied that the terms mikkedem and olam are often used to denote periods of limited duration; but, on the other hand, it must not be forgotten that they are the strongest terms which are used by the sacred writers to designate the eternity of God. Witness the following examples: " God shall hear and afflict them, even he that abideth of old. (Psalm lv, 19.) In Psalm 68. 33, the words " which were" do not belong to the text. Leave them out, and the text reads: " To him that rides upon the heavens of heavens of old." " The everlasting God." " Thou art from everlasting." "From everlasting to everlasting thou art God." " Thy name is from everlasting." (Gen. 21. 33; Ps. 90. 2; 93. 9; Isa. 40. 28; 63. 16.) In Deut. 33. 27, both terms occur: " The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms." Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate understood these words to teach the eternal existence of the Son. Their renderings are:
Noyes and Burnap interpret " whose goings forth" of descent, birth, etc. This is doubtless correct; but it is fatal to Unitarianism, for it settles the eternity of Christ as " the only begotten Son of God." "The plural form, his goings forth' from eternity, denotes eminency. To signify the perfection and excellency of that generation, the word for birth is expressed plurally; for it is a common Hebraism to denote the eminency or continuation of a thing or action by the plural number." (Watson's Inst., Vol. 1. p. 536.) " If we suppose that Micah purposed to state, in as energetic language as possible, the pre-existence from eternity of him [the Son of God] who in the fullness of time would be born at Bethlehem, we can not easily find out words in which he could have more forcibly expressed his meaning." (Scott, in loco.)
Mark the fact, the terms used by Micah to express the eternity of "the Son of God" are not only appropriate, but they are the strongest terms to express eternity that are to be found in the Hebrew and Greek languages.
MATTHEW 3. 17: " And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
The most discriminating mode of expression that could be employed, as if to separate Jesus from every other who at any time had received the appellation of the Son of God: This is that Son of mine who is the beloved. In the second clause, ‘in whom I am well pleased,' the verb, in all the three evangelists, is in the first aorist. Now, al-though we often render the Greek aorist by the English present, yet this can be done with propriety only when the proposition is equally true, whether it be stated in the present, in the past, or in the future time. And thus the analogy of the Greek language requires us not only to consider the name Son of God as applied in a peculiar sense to Jesus, but also to refer the expression used at his baptism to that intercourse which had subsisted between the Father and the Son before his name was announced to men. (Watson.)
The verb is put in the aorist to denote the eternal act of loving contemplation with which the Father regards the Son. (Lange, in loco.)
JOHN 5. 17-23: "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. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showed him all things that himself doeth: and he will chew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raised up the dead, and quickened them; even so the Son quickened whom he will. For the Father judges no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son; that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honored not the Son honored not the Father which hath sent him."
The Revised Version renders the last two clauses of verse 18 thus: "But also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
We call attention to the following points in this passage: 1. Christ calls God his " Father," " My Father."
2. The Jews recognized this as a claim to equality with God the Father, "making himself equal with God."
3. Our Lord reaffirms his divine Sonship in the strongest possible terms. Note two points: First, Christ denies that any of his actions can be peculiar to himself, separate from the Father: " The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do." Second, Christ claims to do everything the Father does: " What things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." 4. The Father gives life, so also does the Son: " The Son quickened whom he will." 5. " All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." We will now review these five points, and notice the objections made to them by Unitarians:
1. Christ calls God his Father: " My Father worked' hitherto, and I work." The occasion of these words was a charge brought against Christ of having broken the Sabbath, because he had cured an impotent man on that day. The charge of Sabbath-breaking had been brought against Christ before this, because of cures wrought by him on that day. On these previous occasions Christ had justified himself on the ground that works of mercy were not a violation of - the Sabbatical law. On the present occasion he does not appeal to the merciful character of the act; but he appeals to the fact that his Father and he always had worked on the Sabbath-day as well as on all other days. This answer involves two points: First, he claims for himself equality with the Father; second, he claims for both the Father and himself a superiority to, and a supremacy over, the Sabbatical law. He claims for himself the same supreme sovereignty over both men and laws that belongs to the Eternal Father. This equality with the Father involves supreme Divinity.
A material point in this language which would give it a blasphemous character in the view of the audience rests upon the particle, as being here as elsewhere (3. 31), not a simple copulative, expressing a bare accumulation of circumstances, but representing the Hebrew copulative of accordance, and thus serving to suggest, in this place, correspondence and combination of action. Accordingly, under this simple mode of expression, there is a declaration by the speaker of an identity of operation on the part of the Father and himself, as is more precisely detailed in the sequel (verses 19, 20). (Thomas Sheldon Green's Critical Notes on the New Testament.)
2. The Jews recognized this as a claim to equality with the Father—" making himself equal with God;" he had said " that God was his Father"—" his own Father." (Rev. Ver.) The Jews claimed God as their Father (see chapter 8. 41), and they would' not have charged Christ with blasphemy if he had not claimed that God was his Father in such a sense as to declare himself to be equal with God. Robinson, in his Lexicon, refers to ratoc in this place, as marking with emphasis the peculiar relation of God to Christ. St. John has used the word 'Mu); in the following places, and always in the sense of something peculiarly one's own: " In his own name," v. 43; " he came unto his own;" " his own brother," chapter 1. 11, 41; " in his own country," 4. 44; " he speaketh of his own," 8. 44; " calleth his own sheep;" " puts forth his own sheep;" " whose own the sheep are not," 10. 3, 4, 12; " having loved his own," 13. 1; " the world would love his own," 15. 19; " every man to his own," 16. 32; " took her unto his own," 19. 27.
An antithesis, expressed or implied, is always involved in the use of the word 'locos. (See Acts 2. 6; Rom. 11. 24; 14. 4; Titus 1. 12.) The Jews, we are told, took up stones to stone our Lord, because thus making himself equal with God. Christ is in such a sense the Son of God, that he is of one nature with him, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. (Hodge on Rom. 8. 32.)
They were so thoroughly persuaded that he claimed to be " equal with God" that they sought " to kill him."
3. This caused Christ to reassert his Sonship in words still more forcible and positive. " The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do." This is not a confession of a want of power, but a denial that any of his work is done by him alone to the exclusion of the Father. Inasmuch as he is one with the Father in essence, it is not possible that his work, authority, or power should be separate from that of the Father. Christ claims to do everything that the Father does. " What things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." In union with the Father, he is the Creator of all things; and, like the Father, he upholds "all things by the word of his power." Christ claims equality with the Father in eternity, wisdom, power, and work.
5. In verse 21, Christ claims, as the Son, the same power to raise the dead and restore life that the Father has; nay, more than this, he emphasizes his work in raising the dead to life as an act of his own will: " The Son quickened whom he will." Norton interprets this of causing happiness; but this is refuted by the fact that, the natural meaning is to vivify, or give life. Schleusner speaks as follows: " In (John 5. 21); that is, to recall life, to restore lost life:" The Improved Version, and Noyes New Testament (both Unitarian), alike render it ' giveth life."
5. The relation of the Son to the Father is such that " all men should honor the Sou, even as they honor the father." Tvido, properly means to obey, revere.
worship; this honor in suitable degrees may be rendered to men, but when rendered to God is religious worship, and consists in making him the object of our supreme affections and rendering to him our perfect obedience. The text demands that Christ receive the same worship as the Father. "It has been urged, indeed, that xoi0e0; does not necessarily imply equality, but merely similitude but in reference to the charge that Christ had made himself equal with God, it can have no other signification in this place." (Trollope.) Ellis in his " Half Century " asks: " Can we not honor the Son for what he is, even as we honor the Father for what he is?" If we honor the Son less than we do the Father, then we do not honor him as the text demands; for the text demands that we pay equal honor to both the Father and the Son. But Ellis's question is suicidal to Unitarianism. If we " honor the Son for what he is," then we must honor him as co-eternal with the Father. We must honor him as being inseparably connected with the Father in all of the work of creation, providence, and redemption. 'We must honor the Son as being, with the Father, the great fountain of life, and as imparting life on his own personal volition. Thus we must honor the Son as being co-equal with the Father in all of the attributes and works of Supreme Deity.
JOHN 1. 14, 18: " And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. . . . The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
JOHN in, 16, 18: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son. . . . Because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
1 JOHN 4. 9: " God sent his only begotten Son into the world."
It is common for Unitarians to object that the words "only begotten Son" mean nothing more than " well-beloved Son." Pearson's answer to this is very thorough: " We must by no means admit the exposition of those who take the only begotten' to be nothing else but the most beloved of all the sons; because Isaac was called the only son of Abraham (Gen. 22. 2, 12, 16), when we know that he had Ishmael besides; and Solomon was said to be the only begotten before his mother, when David had other children even by the mother of Solomon. For the only begotten and the most beloved are not the same—the one having the nature of a cause in respect of the other, and the same can not be cause and effect to itself. For though it be true that the only son is the beloved son, yet with this order that he is therefore beloved because the only, not therefore the only because beloved. Although, therefore, Christ be the only begotten and the beloved Son of God, yet we must not look upon these two attributes as synonymous, or equally significant of the same thing, but as one depending on the other, unigeniture being the foundation of his singular love. Besides, Isaac was called the only son of Abraham for some other reason than because he was singularly beloved of Abraham; for he was the only son of the free woman—the only son of the promise made to Abraham."
Liddon says this title, " the only begotten Son of God," means " not merely that God has no other such son, but that his only begotten Son is, in virtue of this sonship, a partaker of that incommunicable and imperishable essence which is sundered from all created life by an imperishable chasm."
The word is used by St. Luke of the son of the widow of Nain (7. 12), of the daughter of Jairus (8. 42), and of the lunatic son of the man who met our Lord on his coming down from the mount of the transfiguration (9. 38). In Heb. 11. 17, it is applied to Isaac. MovorE,4s means, in each of these cases, that which exists once only; that is, singly in its kind.' (Tholuck, Corn. on John 1. 14.) God has one Only Son who by nature and necessity is his Son. (Bampton Lectures, p. 233.)
With regard to the two readings of chapter 1. 18, "only begotten Son," and "only begotten God," the following extract from Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, App., p. 74, will be found to be a fair statement of the ease:
Both readings, intrinsically, are free from objection. The text, though startling at first, simply combines in a single phrase the two attributes of the Logos marked before (v. 1, 14). Its sense is, One who was both.' The substitution of the familiar phrase for the unique would be obvious, and by its own primary meaning, directly suggested. The converse substitution is inexplicable by any ordinary motive likely to affect transcribers. There is no evidence that the reading had any controversial interest in ancient times; and the absence of the article from the more important documents is fatal to the idea that it [Deus] was an accidental substitution.
John 10. 30: " I and my Father are one."
In verse 28 our Lord declares that none shall ever pluck his disciples out of his hand. He fortifies this declaration by (1) setting forth the Father's omnipotence: " My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's band;" (2) by the declaration "1 and my Father are one." This declaration is void of all force or meaning unless it asserts a oneness of nature with the Father. To assert that he was in harmony with the counsels and designs of the Father, that in these matters he was one with the Father, would prove nothing concerning his ability to save his followers; but if he and the " Father are one " in essence, then he can certainly save his followers; for the infinite knowledge, wisdom, and power of supreme Deity are his.
JOHN 16. 15: " All things that the Father hath are mine."
Christ's words are without limit or restriction, and we have no right to put any on them. We are compelled to take them in their broadest sweep. All that belongs to the Father belongs also to the Son. The Father hath eternity; the Son must have it also. The Father has omnipotence; it belongs to the Son also. The Father has all knowledge; so also has the Son. " All things that the Father hath are mine.' If Christ had not been equal to God, could he have said this without blasphemy?" (Adam Clarke.)
Be not surprised that I said, He shall receive of mine; for all the treasures of the Father's wisdom, power, and goodness, truth, justice, mercy, and grace are mine; yea, in me dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily.' Could any mere creature say this? (Benson.)
HEBREWS 1. 1 5: " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds: who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; having become by so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?" (Revised Version.)
The author of this epistle begins it by incidentally alluding to Christ's sonship. He sets forth the fact-1. That he owns the universe: "Appointed heir of all things." 2. That the Son is the Creator of the universe: " By whom he made the worlds." 3. He is " the brightness of the Father's glory." 4. He is " the express image of the Father's substance." 5. He is the preserver of all things, " upholding all things by the word of his power." 6. He has co-equal royalty with the Father: "Sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." 7. By inheritance he is superior to all angels: " He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." 8. The Father has declared him to be his Son: "Thou art my Son."
I will review each of these items separately:
1. The Son of God owns the universe: "Appointed heir of all things." Norton objects that if Christ be the Supreme God he could not be appointed by anybody. This objection rests upon the assumption that there is but one person in the Godhead. The assumption being unproved, the objection is worthless. Since the incarnation of Christ in his dual nature, he may be appointed "heir of all things" without in any way compromising the truth of his supreme Divinity. Norton limits the words " all things" to the Jewish and Christian dispensations. Burnap limits them to "this physical world." It is a sufficient answer that no such limitation is to be found in either the text or the context. The neuter with the article, is often used in the New Testament to designate " all created things, visible and invisible." (Schleusner.) (See Rom. 11. 36; 1 Cor. 8. 6; Eph. 3. 9; Col. 1. 16, 17.) Liddell and Scott define "the universe;" Robinson defines "all things, the universe, the whole creation;" the Vulgate renders it by "universal" Thayer's Lexicon renders " in an absolute sense, all things collectively, the totality of created things, the universe of things."
2. That the Son is the Creator of the universe: "By whom also he made the worlds." It is cheerfully ad-mitted that the text presents Christ as the Father's instrument in creation. As such, he must be either a created- or an uncreated instrument; if created, it could not be true what the evangelist saith that " all things were made by him," since himself, the principal thing, could not be made by himself. We are satisfied that the statement of the evangelist is infallibly true; hence our Lord was not a created instrument, but an uncreated one. As an uncreated instrument he was God, and so acted in his own omnipotence. Christ is the uncreated, omnipotent instrument of the Eternal Father in the creation of the universe.
3. Christ, the Son of God, is " the brightness of" the Father's " glory." Norton and Burnap translate it by "the reflection of his glory." Robinson says that this is " against both the etymology and the usus loquendi." I would amend Norton's translation by the Revised Version, thus: Christ is not the " reflection" of the Father's glory, but " the effulgence of his glory." A reflector is that which throws back the light that is cast upon it by some other body. Christ in union with the Father and the Holy Spirit is the fountain of the divine glory, and he is the effulgence of that glory. Robinson's Greek Lexicon defines thus: " The effulgence of God's glory; i.e., in whom, as proceeding from the Father, the divine Majesty is manifested." " And this (which, as Delitzsch remarks, is represented by the glory of the Church) seems to have been universally the sense among the ancients, no trace whatever being found of the meaning reflection.' Nor would the idea be apposite here. The Son of God is, in this his essential majesty, the expression, and the sole expression, of the divine light, not as in his incarnation, its reflection.'" (Alford, in loco.) Alexander Roberts, D. D., in his " Companion to the Revised Version of the New Testament," p. 134, writes: " Three words are in common translated brightness' in the Authorized Version, which, nevertheless, admit of being easily distinguished. One of the expressions occurs in that striking passage, Heb. 1. 3, in which we read of Christ, Who being the brightness of his glory,' etc. Here the word might be mistakenly supposed to mean a reflected splendor, but the true meaning is a radiance which is flashed forth; and, therefore, the translation effulgence' has been adopted in the Revised Version."
4. He is " the express image of" the Father's " substance." The word rendered "person" in verse 3, primarily means anything placed under a building or superstructure, as a foundation or support. In course of time it acquired the tropical meaning of substance or essence. Bloomfield says that it signifies, as the commentators are agreed, not " person" (a sense of the word unknown until after the Arian controversy, in the fourth century), but " substance, or essence; i.e. being;" a sense supported by the authority of the Peshito Syriac and Vulgate Versions. Cremer, in his Biblico-Theological Lexicon, quotes our text and says: "It denotes the revealed glory, the divine essence underlying the revelation." Christ is here asserted to be the express image of the Father's substance. It means a print, image, or likeness. The imprint of Caesar upon the national coin was intended to be Caesar's image or likeness. But as the imprint was inanimate it could only be the image or likeness of Caesar’s face or body. Christ is " the express image of" the Father. He is a living " image of the invisible God." Thayer's Lexicon defines "the substantial quality, nature of any person or thing." Robinson defines "tropically, hypostasis (Latin, substantia); e., what really exists under any appearance, substance, reality, essence, being (Heb. 1. 3): . . The express image or counterpart of God's essence or being, of God himself."
5. Being of the same divine essence with the Father, he is rightly set forth as " upholding all things by the word of his power." Unitarians make vigorous effort to limit the force of the words " all things," but without success. The neuter word has naturally a universal sweep, and the context gives the words a range limited only by the bounds of creation. The " all things"
which he " upholds " must be co-extensive with " the worlds" which he " made."
Unitarians and some Trinitarians interpret the Greek word by "controlling." That the notion of control is included here there can be no doubt, but it is only incidental to the main idea. The primary notion of col/icy is to " bear up," " support," " uphold." It carries the notion of control only so far as is necessary to the upholding. The Son of God not only created " all things,' but he continues them in existence and life. The upholding of the universe is " by the word of his power." Thayer paraphrases the sentence thus: " Of God, the Son, the preserver of the universe." (Vide Lexicon.) The pro-noun " his " finds its proper antecedent in the " Son" of verse 2.
6. The Son has co-equal royalty with the Father. He " sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Burnap says that " the second person of the Trinity - could not sit down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." Possibly Burnap found it easier to deny the truth of the apostle's statement than to evade the force of the text. Christ having always been one with the Father, having shared the divine glory with the Father before the world was, having divested himself of that glory when he became incarnate, and having now returned to heaven in his incarnate state, he is now reinvested with his former glory and majesty.
7. The Son of God has by inheritance a more excellent name than the angels. This name " Son of God " has been eternally his; it was his before he became incarnate, and when he returns to heaven in his incarnate state it is his by his own right. The humanity of Christ in its union with the Divinity does not bar his claim to his ancient titles and glory. Being the Son of God, he is of the same substance with the Father; he is the manifestation of the Father to the world; he sits on the right hand of the Father, receiving the worship that is due only to Eternal, Uncreate, Supreme Deity.
It is objected " that Adam is called the son of God,' Luke 3. 38; and that believers are called the sons of God; but this does not prove that they were possessed by supreme Divinity; how then does this title prove Christ to be God?" To this I answer:
7. Our Lord is the only person whose divine Son-ship was revealed by the Old Testament writers. (Psalms 2. 7; Acts 13. 33; Hebrews 1. 5; 5. 5.)
8. Our Lord is the only person of whom the Almighty Father publicly said: " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;" " hear ye him." (Matt. 3. 17; 17. 5.)
9. Our Lord is the only person whom inspired authority declares to be " the only begotten of the Father:" " The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father." (John 1. 14, 18.)
10. Our Lord is the only person who, by his resurrection from the dead, in conformity with his own prediction of his resurrection, was declared to be " the Son of God." (Rom. 1. 3.)
11. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only person who has a perfect knowledge of the Father (Luke 10. 22); this proves his co-equality with the omniscient Father.
12. Our Lord is the only person who, when speaking of the Father's omnipotence, could truthfully say: "I and the Father are one." (John 10. 30.)
13. Our Lord is the only person who could truthfully say that the Father hath given all judgment into his hands, that all men may honor him "even as they honor the Father." (John 5. 22, 23.) He could have no claim to co-equal honor with the Father if he was not divine.
14. If our Lord were not of the same substance, power, and eternity with the Father, he could not truthfully have said: " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." (John 14. 9.)
15. Christians are the children of God by adoption (John 1. 12), but Christ never was an alien; he is the child and heir by natural right. (Raymond's Theology, Vol. 1. p. 416.) Adam was " the son of God " by creation; our Lord can not be the Son of God by creation, for he is himself the Creator of all things. (John 1. 3.)
All attempts . . . to make out that the Sonship claimed by our Lord is nothing more than the child-like relation which belongs to all believers (against which compare John 1. 12, with 4. 14 and 18), are plainly refuted by the observation that he always makes a clear distinction, in speaking to his disciples, between your Father and my Father, your God and my God;' that he never places himself, so to speak, on the same line with them—never speaks of our Father (Matt. 6. 8, 32; 18. 10; 16. 17; 26. 53; John 20. 17); the first words of the Lord's Prayer are not in point (Matt. 6. 9), for Christ is there teaching his disciples to pray, and does not include himself with them. (Christlieb's Mod. Doubt and Christ. Belief, 246.)
The phrase sons of God' is elsewhere used frequently to denote the saints, the children of God, or men eminent for rank and power (compare Gen. 6. 2, 4; Job 1. 6; Hosea 1. 10; John 1. 12; Rom. 8. 14, 19; Phil. 2. 15; 1 John 3. 1), and once to denote angels (Job 28. 7); but the appellation, the Son of God' is not appropriated in the Scriptures to anyone but the Messiah. . . . The true sense, therefore, according to the Hebrew usage, and according to the proper meaning of the term, is that he sustained a relation to God which could be compared only with that which a son among men sustains to his father; and that the term, as thus used, fairly implies an equality in nature with God himself. It is such a term as would not be applied to a mere man; it is such as is not applied to the angels (Heb. 1. 5); and therefore it must imply a nature superior to either. (Condensed from Barnes on Psalm 2. 7.)
God is known to us by his attributes. Some of his attributes belong also to his creatures, such as goodness, wisdom, truth, justice, etc.; that is, some of his creatures, through creation and redemption, possess these attributes to a limited degree. But there are other attributes of Deity, such as eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence; these attributes are not possessed by any created or finite being. Nor is it possible that any finite being should possess them; they belong wholly and alone to God. Now, if we find the attributes of eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence clearly and unmistakably applied to Christ, then Christ must be God.
ETERNITY
Eternity is an attribute of the Godhead ascribed to Christ. When we say that Jesus Christ is eternal, we do not mean simply that Christ will never cease to exist. Men, angels, and demons will never cease to exist, but they are not eternal. But Jesus Christ is eternal; he never began to exist, but always did exist, and be always will exist. Without beginning or end, he is eternal.
ISAIAH 9. 6: " The everlasting Father."
It is objected that to apply this text to Christ would be to confound him with the Father. To this the remarks of Barnes would seem to be a sufficient answer: "The term Father is not applied to the Messiah here with any reference to the distinction in the divine nature; for that word is uniformly in the Scriptures applied to the first, not to the second person in the Trinity. But it is used in reference to duration as a Hebraism, involving high poetic beauty. He is not merely represented as everlasting, but he is introduced by a strong figure, as even the Father of eternity, as if even everlasting duration owed itself to his paternity. There could not be a more emphatic declaration of strict and proper eternity."
REVELATION 1, 17, 18: "I am the first and the last: I am he that lived, and was dead, and, behold, I am alive for evermore. Amen." "Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the Living One," etc. (Revised Version.)
REVELATION 22. 13: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
These texts contain three distinct presentations of the truth concerning Christ; they harmonize with each other, and mutually interpret each other. These three presentations are: " Alpha and Omega," " the beginning and the ending," and " the first and the last." Au exposition of these phrases may be found in any ordinary commentary on the Apocalypse. The last of the three presentations is to be found in the words " the first and the last." This is an Old Testament title of Jehovah, and is found in Isaiah xli, 4: " Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? 1. the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he." Brown gives the following comment on this text: " Who hath disposed of all the generations of mankind? have not 1. the eternal God?" " I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God." (Isaiah 44. 6.) "I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." (Isaiah 48. 12.) There can be no doubt that these words express a title of Jehovah, and that by them he means to declare his eternity. But Christ claims the same title for himself, thus claiming to be eternal. Thayer's Lexicon defines this phrase "the eternal One." It has already been proven that Jesus Christ was the Jehovah of the Old Testament; this proves that Christ, who here speaks to John, is the Jehovah who spoke to and through Isaiah. In both instances Christ claims to be eternal.
HEBREWS 13. 8: " Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever."
The testimony of this text to the eternity of Christ is plain and direct, and would need no comment were it not for the efforts of Unitarian writers to neutralize and destroy its force. Dr. Worcester objects that the text " has no verb in it, and therefore, considered by itself, contains no affirmation." (Bible News, p. 216.) It is a well-known fact that an ellipsis of the neuter verb is a common thing with the sacred writers, and if we reject all texts that are marked by such an ellipsis, we will be compelled to reject some of the most important portions of Scripture. Note' the following: " God is faithful." (1 Cor. 1. 9.) "For all have not faith." (2 Thess. 3. 2.) "Unto the pure all things are pure." (Titus 1. 15.) "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." (Acts 19. 28, 34.) " Blessed is the man who endures temptation." (James 1. 12.) "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." (1 Tim. 1. 17.) There is no verb in the original Greek of these texts. Are they, therefore, meaningless? " The omission of the copula in the third person singular of the indicative is very common in all parts of the New Testament. In fact it may be said, particularly in the Pauline epistles, to be preferred often throughout entire paragraphs." (Buttman's Greek Grammar, p. 136.)
Dr. Worcester further objects that by the words Jesus Christ we may understand not merely his person, but his interest and glory." Norton argues that the term " Christ sometimes designates the religion of Christ." If we were to admit these pleas, it would still be impossible to have either the interest, glory, or religion of Christ separate from his existence; hence, if his interest, glory, and religion be eternal, then his personal existence must be eternal also. While we cheerfully admit that the term " Christ" is sometimes used to designate the doctrine of Christ, we may safely challenge Unitarianism to produce a single text in which the full name Jesus Christ is used to designate anything else than the person of Christ. The subject of the text is Jesus Christ, and it declares his eternity.
If Christ were only the exalted creature, the super-angelic being, the delegated God whom the Arians declare him to be, he would, of all virtuous beings, be the most changeable; because, with his superior faculties and advantages, he would advance more rapidly in knowledge and virtue, and in power also; for the increase of knowledge is in itself the increase of power. Such a being can not possibly, therefore, be the Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.'
HEBREWS 1. 10-12: "And thou, Lord, in the beginning halt laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. They shall perish, but thou remains: and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."
The testimony of this text to the eternity of the person spoken of in it is so pointed and unanswerable, that Unitarians, in order to save their system, have been compelled to deny its reference to Christ. The mere fact that verses 10-12 do not begin with the same words as verses 5, 6, 8, is no proof that they do not refer to the same person. On the contrary, a close inspection of verses 8-12 will show that they all belong to the same general introduction, ‘But unto the Son,' of verse 8. In verse 8 the apostle asserts that certain addresses were made to the Son. Verses 8, 9, contain one of these addresses, and verses 10-12 contain another one of them. The conjunction " and," in the first clause of verse 10, is not in the Hebrew nor in the Septuagint. The apostle adds it, in order to connect this fresh quotation with the preceding one. The last time the word " God" occurs in the preceding verses it refers to the Father, who is spoken of in the third person, " Thy God hath anointed thee;" but in the preceding part of the quotation God the Son is spoken to in the second person, "Thou Lord," thus clearly showing that the address of the eighth and ninth verses and the address of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth verses are both made to the Son. In verse 8 the address is plainly made to the Son, and there is no evidence that the apostle makes any change in the person addressed.
The following from Barnes sets the matter in a clear light: " This is connected with verse 8. Unto the Son he saith [verse 8], Thy throne,' etc.; and (verse 10) 'he also saith, Thou Lord,' etc. That this is the meaning is apparent, because (1) the object of the whole quotation is to show the exalted character of the Son of God, and (2) an address here to Jehovah would be wholly irrelevant. Why, in an argument designed to prove that the Son of God was superior to the angels, should the writer break out in an address to Jehovah in view of the fact that he had laid the foundations of the world, and that he himself would continue to live when the heavens should be rolled up and pass away? Such is not the manner of Paul or of any other good writer, and it is clear that the writer here designed to adduce this as applicable to the Messiah. Whatever difficulties there may be about the principles on which it is done, and the reason why this passage was selected for the purpose, there can be no doubt about the design of the writer. He meant to be understood as applying it to the Messiah beyond all question, or the quotation is wholly irrelevant."
Emlyn argues that the apostle is endeavoring to show the durability of the Son's kingdom by proving the immutability of the Father who gave it to him. But the point the apostle is laboring to prove is not the durability of Christ's kingdom, but Christ's superiority to angels, and he does this by applying to Christ, as belonging to him, the psalmist's declaration of the Divine eternity. "To introduce a passage here about God's immutability or stability, must appear very abrupt and not pertinent; because the angels, also, in their order and degree, reap the benefit of God's stability and immutability. And the question was not about the duration and continuance, but about the sublimity and excellency of, the respective natures and dignities' of the angels and of the Son of God." (See Simpson's Deity of Jesus, p. 268.)
I know of no better summary of the evidence furnished by this text than that given by Richard Watson: " These words are quoted from Psalm 102, which all acknowledge to be a lofty description of the eternity of God. They are here applied to Christ, and of him they affirm, that he was before the material universe; that it was created by him; that he has absolute power over it; that he shall destroy it; that he shall do this with infinite ease, as one who folds up a vesture; and that, amid the decays and changes of material things, he remains the same. The immutability here ascribed to Christ is not, however, that of a created spirit, which will remain when the material universe is destroyed; for then there would be nothing proper to Christ in the text—nothing but in which angels and men participate with him—and the words would be deprived of all meaning. This immutability and duration are peculiar, and a contrast is implied between his existence and that of all created things. They are dependent and he is independent, and his necessary and therefore eternal existence must follow."
1 JOHN 1. 2: " That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (for the life was manifested and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested unto us.)"
The testimony of this passage to the eternity of our Lord Jesus Christ is very plain and decisive. 1. The subject of the text is the "Word of life;" but Logos, or " Word," is one of the titles that John, in his Gospel (chapter 1. 1, 14), applies to Christ. 2. The subject of this text is called " the life," but this title is claimed by Christ as properly his own. (John 11. 25; 14. 6.) This " Word of life " is said to have been " from the beginning," but a similar statement is made concerning Christ. (John 1. 1, 4.) The subject of this passage is one whom John had " heard, seen, looked upon, and handled." All this points to Christ, with whom John had been an associate during the three years of Christ's earthly ministry. These words, "our hands have handled," rivet the text to Christ; for after his resurrection from the dead he had invited. the disciples to handle him. (Luke 24. 39; John 20. 20, 27.) 5. This " life" is said to have been " manifested," but it was Christ " who was manifested in the flesh." (John 1. 14; 1 Tim. 3. 16. 6.) " The life" spoken of in this text is said to have been " with the Father;" this could not be said of any non-personal matter, but it was true of Christ. (John 1. 1, 2; 17. 5.) The foregoing items prove that the subject of the text is Christ, and John calls him " that eternal life," thus investing Christ with the attribute. of eternity—not merely everlasting duration in the future eternity of the past as well as of the future; for it was the eternity of one who was with the Father before the world was. "In him was life." "Whoso eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath eternal life." " I give unto them eternal life." (John 1. 4; 6. 54; 10. 28.) Robinson's Lexicon: " Meton. for the Author and Giver of eternal life. (John 5. 26; 11. 25, 14. 6; Col. 3. 4; 1 John 1. 2; 5. 20.)"
In attributing omnipresence to Christ, we mean to say that he is possessed of the same attribute of omnipresence which the sacred Scriptures attribute to God the Father, when they say of him: " The heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee." "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there; if I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me." " The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my foot-stool." "Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord." "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord." " There are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all." " Him that fills all in all." (1 Kings 8. 27; Psalms 139. 7-10; 66. 1; Jer. 23. 23, 24; 1 Cor. 12. 6; Ephesians 1. 23.) We mean to say that our Lord Jesus Christ is possessed of the same attribute of omnipresence that is so forcibly and sublimely set forth in the preceding Scriptures.
The first proof that we will offer of our Lord's ubiquity is drawn from the fact that he healed afflicted persons, who, at the time of their being healed, were distant from his bodily or human presence. Thus he healed the nobleman's son (John 4. 46-53), the centurion's servant (Matt. 8. 5-13); and the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (Matt. 15. 22-28.) In these cases notice certain facts: 1. Christ was absent from each and all of these subjects at the time they were healed. (John 4. 46, 47; Matt. 8. 5, 6; Mark 7. 30.) 2. Each of these persons was healed at the very moment when Jesus, at a distance from them, pronounced them healed. (John 4. 52, 53; Matt. 8. 13; 15. 28.) 3. The evangelists do not intimate the intervention of any other power or agency than that of Christ's by which these persons were healed, and in the case of the centurion's servant our Lord claims the healing act as his own. (Matt. 8. 28.) It is impossible to account for Christ healing these distant sufferers without believing him to be omnipresent.
EPHESIANS 1, 22, 23: "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him that fills all in all."
Norton has paraphrased this passage thus " The body of Christ the perfectness of him who is made completely perfect in all things." To this paraphrase there are two objections: 1. " Perfectness" and " perfect " are not common or ordinary meanings and in fact, they rarely have these meanings in the New Testament. The ordinary meaning of these terms is "fullness," and "fulfill," or "fill;" and it is not right to depart from these meanings without showing good and sufficient reasons. 2. It is not right to render 72)2poulzboo in the passive, and thus violating the established rules of Greek grammar. Winer renders it in the middle voice—" The fullness of him who fills all, where the middle signification is not entirely lost: from himself, with himself he fills all." " He fills all persons, both angels and men; he fills all places, heaven with glory, earth with grace; . . . he fills all ordinances—prayer with prevalence, preaching with efficacy, etc.; he fills all relations—fathers with paternal affections, mothers with maternal bowels; he fills all conditions—riches with thankfulness, poverty with contentment." (Burkitt.) None but an omnipresent Savior can meet the terms of this text.
COLOSSIANS 1. 17: "By him all things consist."
In him all things consist. (Revised Version.)
There is no question as to whom these words refer; all agreeing that they were written concerning Jesus Christ, the Son of God. No being could create, preside over, sustain, and be the author of all blessings to the whole Church on earth and to the Church triumphant, unless he was omnipresent.
Alford speaks of "all things" thus: "The universe (thus only can we give the force of the Greek singular with the collective neuter plural, which it is important here to preserve, as 'all things' may be thought of individually, not collectively)."
The word "all" may be restricted to men, or angels, or any one class of beings or things; but the phrase "all things," unless limited by the context, is universal in its application. In the present case, the context, so far from limiting the application of the words "all things," gives them an unlimited reference to everything that is either "visible" or "invisible." These words, " visible or invisible," include everything in the universe; hence here properly means "all things"—material or spiritual, earthly or heavenly, of this world or of any and all other worlds. It will not be denied that in verse 17, has the same meaning that it has in verse 16; and Winer says of it that it " signifies the (existing) all, the sum of all things collectively." Robinson's Lexicon defines the phrase, " the universe, the whole creation," and quotes the text as proof. Thayer's Lexicon defines it, "In an absolute sense, all things collectively, the totality of created things, the universe of things."
MATTHEW 18. 20: " For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
How futile is the Socinian comment in the New Version,—This promise is to be limited to the apostolic age!' But were that granted, what would the concession avail? In the apostolic age the disciples met in the name of their Lord many times in the week, and in innumerable parts of the world at the same time—in Judea, Asia Minor, Europe, etc. He, therefore, who could be the midst of them' whenever and wherever they assembled, must be omnipresent. But they add, by a spiritual presence, a faculty of knowing things in places where he was not present'—' a gift,' they say, given to the apostles occasionally,' and refer to 1 Cor. 5. 3. No such gift is, however, claimed by the apostle in that passage, who knew the affair in the Church of Corinth, not by any such faculty or revelation, but by 'report' (verse 1). Nor does he say that he was present with them, but judged as though he were present.' If, indeed, any such gift were occasionally given to the apostles, it would be, not a spiritual presence,' as the New Version has it, but a figurative presence, No
such figurative meaning is, however, hinted at in the text before us, which is as literal a declaration of Christ's presence everywhere with his worshipers as that similar promise made by Jehovah to the Israelites: In all places where I record my name I will come to thee, and I will bless thee.' (Watson.)
MATTHEW 28.20: " Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
The evidence furnished by this text in proof of the omnipresence of Christ is very similar to that furnished by the text last under consideration. The Unitarian objection that it does not mean the physical world, but the age or dispensation they were then in, is of no force; for even if it were granted that the promise was limited to the age they were then living in, it would not materially weaken the testimony of the text to Christ's omnipresence. Before that age terminated, the disciples of Christ were to be found in Asia, Africa, and Europe; hence none but an omnipresent being could be present with each and every one of them in these different parts of the world. We must either deny that Christ kept this promise or believe in his omnipresence.
Unitarians sometimes assert that this promise is substantially the same as that found in Mark 16. 17, 18: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." This promise is in perfect harmony with the promise of Christ to be with his disciples always; but it is not identical with it, nor is it substantially the same. It is a promise of a protecting providence—of just such a providence as could not be carried out except by an omnipresent being. And though the declaration of verse 20, " They went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them," is conclusive proof that the promise was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, an omnipresent Savior.
But it is not true that the words " the end of the world " refer to the end of the existing Jewish dispensation. They properly designate the end of the world's history—the end of time. The phrase the end of the world, is not to be found in the Septuagint. It occurs four times in the New Testament: Matt. 13. 39, 40, 49; 24. 3. The plural end of the world, or " end of the ages" (Rev. Version), is found in Heb. 9. 26, and doubtless refers to the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations in Matt. 13. 39, 40, 49, designates a time when " the Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire." It refers to a time when " the righteous" shall " shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." (See verses 41, 42, 43, 49, 50.) No one can truthfully affirm that any such events have ever occurred in the world's history. " The end of the world," when these things shall take place, is still future. Matt. 24. 3: " Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" The disciples asked our Lord about two different things: 1. " When shall these things be?" 2. " What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" The question, " When shall these things be?" was based upon the prophecy of verse 2: " There shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down." This prophecy and the question, " When shall these things be?" unquestionably refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. " These things" were to take place during the history of that generation. (Matt. 23. 36; 24. 34.)
That " the end of the world" was not the same thing as the destruction of Jerusalem, is evident from the following considerations (see Whedon, in loco):
1. They were warned against confounding " these things" with " the end of the world." " All these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet." (Matt. 24. 6; Luke 21. 9.)
2. Commotions and persecutions would precede the destruction of Jerusalem, but " the end of the world" would be preceded by its evangelization. (Verses 7-14.)
3. The coming of the " false Christs" previous to the destruction of Jerusalem is contrasted with the coming of the true Christ at " the end of the world." (Verses 23-27.)
4. The prolixity of the slaughter and captivity consequent upon the destruction of Jerusalem, is contrasted with the suddenness of " the end of the world." (Luke 11. 24; Matt. 24. 28-31.)
5. The coming of the destruction of Jerusalem could be easily calculated, but the time of " the end of the world" was concealed from men. (Verses 32, 41.)
There can be no reasonable doubt that when the apostles asked about " the end of the world," they were asking about the end of time. I have now examined every place in the New Testament in which this phrase occurs in the singular, and in every instance it designates the end of time. Our Lord promised to be with the disciples until the end of time. This interpretation of his words is given by the great mass of Bible scholars.
Cremer, in his Biblico-Theological Lexicon, p. 52, says: " The Greek word is still to come, in so far as the existing course of the world has not yet found its final termination."
Thayer's Lexicon renders the phrase " the end of the world" thus: " The end, or rather consummation, of the age preceding Christ's return, with which will be connected the resurrection of the dead, the last judgment, the demolition of this world, and its restoration to a more excellent condition. (Matt. 13. 39, sq. 49; 24. 3; 28. 20.)"
That the words " the end of the world" are to be understood in their popular sense of " the end of time," " appears, first, from the clause, Lo, I am with you al-way at all times;' secondly, because spiritual presence stands, by an evidently implied antithesis, opposed to bodily absence; thirdly, because that presence of Christ was as necessary to his disciples after the destruction of Jerusalem as till that period." (Watson's Inst., Vol. 1. p. 581.)
This farewell promise of Christ to his disciples furnishes unanswerable evidence of his omnipresence. As he had been with Joseph, Moses, and Joshua (Gen. 39. 2; Exod. 3. 12; Josh. 1. 5), so he promised to be with all of his disciples in all places and in all times—an omnipresent Savior.
Omniscience is another attribute of the Godhead which is ascribed to Christ.
Over and above all of the varied degrees of knowledge that belongs to finite beings, there are three kinds of knowledge that belong peculiarly to God: 1. A perfect knowledge of the thoughts and intents of the heart; 2. A perfect knowledge of the future; 3. A perfect knowledge of the nature of Deity. Our Lord's possession of each of these three kinds of knowledge will be discussed separately.
1. " A perfect knowledge of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Watson.) " 1. the Lord, search the heart; I try the reins." (Jer. 17. 10.) " Thou, even thou only, knows the hearts of all the children of men." (1 Kings 8. 39.) Christ claimed, possessed, and exercised this perfect knowledge of the thoughts and intents of the hearts of men. It might be objected that prophets and apostles occasionally exercised this knowledge, and yet made no claim to Divinity. There were instances when God gave to his servants a knowledge of some of the thoughts of men's hearts; as in the case of Elisha and Gehazi (2 Kings 5. 25-27); also Peter with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5. 10). But this communicated knowledge will not warrant us in supposing that the receiver of it possessed the power of seeing the heart. They did not acquire their knowledge by seeing the heart; they received it from God. It must be remembered, also, that it was only occasionally that men were possessed of such knowledge, while it was a constant thing with Christ. (See Matt. 9. 4; 12. 25; Mark 2. 8; Luke 5. 22; 6. 8; 9. 47; John 6. 61; 21. 17.) Again, the prophets and apostles, when they had this knowledge, attributed it to a direct revelation from God, while Christ had it as " an attribute or original faculty" of his nature. Three of the passages just referred to (Matt. 9. 4; Mark 2. 8; Luke 5. 22) relate to our Lord healing the paralytic who was let down through the roof. In these narratives note the following points: 1. The paralytic was brought to Christ to be healed. 2. Christ said to the paralytic, " Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." 3. The scribes were offended at this speech and "said within themselves," "reasoning in their hearts." Mark the fact, what they said or reasoned was not orally, it was " within themselves," "in their hearts." (Matt. 9. 3; Mark 2. 6; Luke 5. 22.) 4. Jesus saw this " reasoning in their hearts." This knowledge of the thoughts of their hearts was not communicated to him from abroad; it did not come to him from any external source; it originated in his own spirit. Matthew speaks of him as "knowing their thoughts." Mark (verse 8) speaks of him as " perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves." Luke 5. 22, says that "Jesus perceived their thoughts." Jesus saw their hearts— a sight that belongs only to omniscient Divinity.
JOHN 11. 24, 25: "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man."
In this text two declarations are made concerning Christ, and each assertion is followed by the statement of a fact on which the declaration rests, thus: 1. " Jesus did not commit [trust] himself to them," for " he knew all men;" 2. " He needed not that any should testify of man," for "he knew what was in man."
Our Lord's knowledge of men did not come from what others told him; he did not need their testimony, for he had a direct and unerring knowledge of everything that is in every man. Solomon in his dedicatory prayer (1 Kings 8. 39) said to Jehovah God: " Thou only knows the hearts of all the children of men." John affirms that Jesus had this knowledge, hence Jesus must be the omniscient God.
REVELATION 2. 23: " I am he which searches the reins and hearts."
These are the words of Jesus the Son of God. There is no other person mentioned or alluded to in the context to whom they can be referred but to our Lord; he is the speaker, and proclaims himself to be the one who " search-eth the reins and hearts." Unitarians object that this does not prove our Lord to be omniscient, for Christians are said to "know all things." (1 John 2. 20.) But it is evident that John did not mean to declare the omniscience of these disciples. There were some things that they did not know; they surely did not know all history, literature, science, and art. The context limits the phrase " all things" to those things that were necessary to their preservation from these seducers, and to their eternal salvation. The same statement, substantially, is made in verse 27, and is in harmony with our Lord's promises to his disciples: " It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 13. 11.) And, " He will guide you into all truth." (John 16. 13.) They did not have the power to " search the reins and hearts."
The Old Testament writers frequently declare God's power to read the secrets of the heart. " The Lord searches all hearts, and understands all the imaginations of the thoughts." (1 Chron. 28. 9.) " Thou tries the heart." (1 Chron. 29. 17.) "The righteous God tried the hearts and reins." (Psalms 7. 9,) " O Lord of hosts, that judges righteously, that tries the reins and the heart." (Jer. 11. 20.) " O Lord of hosts, that tries the righteous and the heart." (Jer. 20. 12.) This omniscience of the heart belongs to God only: "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it? 1. the Lord, search the heart; I try the reins." (Jer. 17. 9, 10.) There are two points in this text to be noticed: 1. The denial that any one but God can read the heart. 2. The declaration made by God himself, that he does know the heart: " 1. the Lord, search the heart." In Solomon's dedicatory prayer we have the explicit assertion, " Thou only knows the hearts of the children of men." (2 Chron. 6. 30.) It is thus evident that this power to " search the heart" belongs only to the omniscient God; but our Lord claims it as his, and that, too, in nearly the identical words used by Jehovah in Jeremiah 17. 9, 10. This compels the conclusion that Jesus Christ is omniscient.
JOHN 21. 17: "He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, loves thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Loves thou me? And he said unto him, Lord thou knows all things; thou knows that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."
Peter, in his reply to Christ, does not refer to the knowledge of doctrines or actions, but to the knowledge of the heart. Jesus had thrice asked Peter whether be loved him. The repetition of the question, after it had been twice answered in the affirmative, seemed to imply a doubt of his sincerity, and he said: Lord, thou knows all things; thou knows that I love thee.' Why dost thou put the question so often? There is nothing concealed from thee, not even the secrets of the heart. Thou needs not to be told that my affection to thee is genuine. This is plainly to ascribe omniscience to Christ, who, so far from correcting the apostle—as he would have done if he had deified him, being only a man—that he gave a virtual sanction to what he had said, by subjoining: Feed my sheep.' (John Dick.)
2. Besides the knowledge of the thoughts and intents of the heart, our Lord also possessed a knowledge of future events. This is a " quality so peculiar to Deity that we find the true God distinguishing himself from all the false divinities of the heathen by this circumstance alone. 'To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?' I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.' (Isaiah 46. 5, 9, 10.)" (Watson.) What evidence does the New Testament furnish that our Lord Jesus Christ possessed this knowledge of the future?
JOHN 6. 64: " But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."
Four things are proven by this text: 1. "Jesus knew" " who they were that believed not." 2. He knew this from the " beginning." 3. " He knew who should betray him." 4. He knew this from the beginning.
He knew from the beginning who the unbelievers were, and who the traitor was. There is no evidence that this knowledge of the future was a mere judgment based on existing circumstances, or that it came to him by a special inspiration; it is mentioned here as a knowledge that was natural to Christ. " 'From the beginning'—whether we understand it from the beginning of the world, . . . or from the beginning of their attending him as it is taken, Luke 1. 2—he had a certain prescience of the inward dispositions of men's hearts and their succeeding sentiments; he foreknew the treacherous heart of Judas in the midst of his splendid profession, and discerned his resolution in the root and his thought in the confused chaos of his natural corruption; he knew how it would spring up before it did spring up, before Judas had any distinct and fundamental conception of it himself, or before there was any actual preparation to a resolve." (Charnock.) This text stands as a simple but sublime declaration of our Savior's prescience of future events.
MATTHEW 17. 27: " Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money; that take, and give unto them for me and thee."
There is no evading the miraculous character of this act of our Lord. Waiving all consideration of the display of power, let the attention be directed to the knowledge that is here displayed by Christ: 1. Jesus knew that there was a Grecian stater in the Galilean sea. 2. He knew that a certain fish would have it in his mouth. 3. He knew that when Peter would cast his hook into the sea that this fish, with the stater in his mouth, would bite the hook, and would be drawn up out of the sea. 4. He knew that this fish would be the first fish that Peter would catch. Christ here displays a knowledge of the future.
MARK 14. 30: " And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice."
In this text notice these points: 1. Christ foretells Peter's denial of him. 2. He specifies the number of times Peter would deny him—" thou shalt deny me thrice." 3. The time of the denial was specified—" before the cock crow twice." 4. For the exact fulfillment of this prediction, see verses 66-72. 5. It was a very unlikely time—a time when men are usually in bed and asleep—but the literal fulfillment of our Lord's words proves his omniscience.
MARK 14. 12-16: "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare, that thou mayest eat the Passover? And he sends forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with my disciples? And he will shew you a large upper room, furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the Passover."
Our Lord's answer to his disciples has some points to which we ask special attention. He told them that when they entered the city they would meet " a man bearing a pitcher of water." This was apparently a very ordinary and insignificant matter; but none but he, who has numbered the hairs of the head, could foresee the fact that the man with the pitcher would certainly meet the disciples. The chances of their missing each other were as a hundred to one that they would meet, but he knew that they would meet. They were to follow this man until he entered a house; they were to ask the goodman of the house for a room in which the Passover could be kept. The man of the house would show them a " room;" it would be an " upper-room;" it would be a " large room;" it would be a room already " furnished and prepared." Our Lord knew that the master of this house would be willing to furnish him a room. He foreknew that a man connected with this house would meet the disciples, and that this man would be bearing a pitcher of water. He foreknew the location of the room, its size, and its furniture; thus proving that all things, present and future, are known to the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Besides a knowledge of the thoughts and intents of the heart, and a knowledge of the future, Jesus Christ possessed a perfect knowledge of the Divine nature. The impossibility of a finite being having a perfect knowledge of God is very forcibly set forth by the sacred writers. "Lo, these are parts of his ways; but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power, who can understand?" (Job 26. 14.) "O Lord, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep." (Psalm 92.5.) "O, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?" (Rom. 11. 33, 34.) " Who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?" (1 Cor. 2. 16.) "Dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see." (1 Tim. 6. 16.) It is evident from the foregoing passages that Deity can be perfectly known only by Deity. We propose to show that our Lord Jesus Christ had a perfect knowledge of the nature and thoughts of Deity; hence must be omniscient.
MATTHEW 11. 27: " No man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."
LUKE 10. 22: "No man knows who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him."
Unitarians interpret our Lord's words as declaring " that no one but the Father can fully comprehend the object and extent of the Son's commission, and no one but the Son comprehends the counsels and designs of the Father with respect to the instruction and reformation of mankind." (Improved Version.) " Christ's own words express something mutual and equal in the degree of knowledge which the Father had of the Son, and the Son of the Father; but in" the Unitarian " explanation there is nothing either equal or mutual; for it amounts to no more than this: As the Son knows the Father's" " counsels and designs," " so the Father knows his own" " counsels and designs." " For, to know the extent of the Son's" " commission," " is merely to know his own " " counsels and designs;" "that is, to know for what purpose he himself had sent his Son into the world." (Altered from Horse-ley's Tracts, pp. 449, 450.)
In these texts we note the following points: 1. The declaration "No man knows the Son." 2. The exception to this declaration, " but the Father." The Father, and he only, has a full knowledge of the Son. 3. " Neither knows any man the Father." 4. The exception to this declaration, " save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." The Son knows the Father fully, and he to whom the Son reveals the Father will also know the Father. 5. The Son knows the Father and we may know the Father; but our knowledge of the Father and the Son's knowledge of the Father differ infinitely. Our knowledge of the Father is mediate. It comes to us through the Son, and is limited by our capability to receive it, while the Son's knowledge of the Father is immediate and infinite. We cannot know the Father except the Son reveal him to us; but the Son's knowledge of the Father is underived, perfect, and eternal. It is such a knowledge as proves our Lord to be omniscient.
JOHN 1. 18: " No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
Winer, in his New Testament Grammar, p. 415, says these words are " probably to be referred to the primary (external and local) import—who is (laid) upon (unto) the bosom." But such a rendering of these words robs them of all sense. God is not a physical being, with a material bosom. The word " laid " is not in the text, nor is there any word answering thereto. The words of the text were spoken by John to account for our Lord's power to reveal God to us; if we give them a literal physical interpretation, then we fail to explain that power. In the text there is asserted of our Lord Jesus Christ such an intimate and perfect knowledge of the Father's nature, thoughts, counsels, and purposes as could be possessed only by one whose nature and knowledge are as infinite as the Father's; that is, by one who was also infinite and omniscient.
Alford says the text " must not be understood as referring to the custom of reclining, as in chapter 13. 23; for by this explanation confusion is introduced into the imagery, and the real depth of the truth hidden. The expression signifies, as Chrysostom observes, and is derived from the fond and intimate union of children and parents. The present participle, as in chapter 3. 13, is used to signify essential truth, without any particular regard to time."
More is meant than that the man Jesus Christ had a greater degree of knowledge than other men. The words evidently import that he had knowledge of a totally different kind, arising from immediate vision and perpetual communion. No prophet or apostle is ever said to have enjoyed such means of knowledge even in an inferior degree. None of them had seen God; none of them was in his bosom. (Dick, p. 174.)
Schleusner quotes the text in his Lexicon, and says: "Who is one and the same with God, having the nature and majesty, or who is in the closest union with God."
Because of this highest unity with the Father, and of his most perfect knowledge of the Father, Christ's omniscience is placed beyond doubt.
The following passages are quoted by Unitarians as objections to the doctrine of our Lord's omniscience:
MARK 13. 32: " But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
MATTHEW 24. 36: "But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
A number of passages explicitly declare that Christ knows all things. There is one which declares that the Sou did not know the day and the hour' of judgment. Again, there is a passage which certainly implies that even this period was known to Christ; for St. Paul (1 Tim. 6. 14), speaking of the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ' as the universal judge, immediately adds, which in his own times——shall show who is the blessed and only Potentate,' etc. The day of judgment is here called his own times' (Revised Version), or his own seasons,' which, in its obvious sense, means the season he has himself fixed, since a certain manifestation of himself is in its fullness reserved by him to that period. As the times and the seasons,' also, are said in another place to be in the Father's own power,' so, by an equivalent phrase, they are said to be in the power of the Son, because they are his own times.' Doubtless, then, he knew the day and the hour of judgment.' Now, certainly, no such glaring and direct contradiction can exist in the Word of Truth as that our Lord should know the day of judgment, and, at the same time and in the same sense, not know it. Either, therefore, the passage in Mark must admit of an interpretation which will make it consistent with other passages which clearly affirm our Lord's knowledge of all things, and, consequently, of this great day, or these passages must submit to such an interpretation as will bring them into accordance with that in Mark. It can not, how- ever, be in the nature of things that texts which clearly predicate an infinite knowledge should be interpreted to mean a finite and partial knowledge, and this attempt would only establish a contradiction between the text and the comment. Their interpretation is imperative upon us; but the text in Mark is capable of an interpretation which involves no contradiction or absurdity whatever, and which makes it accord with the rest of the Scripture testimony on this subject."
These passages belong to a class of texts that can be explained only by a reference to the twofold nature of Christ, thus: " Ye both know me and ye know whence I am" (John 7. 28), compared with "no man knows the Son, but the Father" (Matt. 11. 27). Again, " Ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always" (Matt. 26. 11), compared with "Lo, I am with you always" (Matt. 28. 20). Again, " I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself." (John 10. 17, 18.) Compare this with " The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: and they shall kill him." (Matt. 17. 22, 23.) If we deny the dual nature of Christ, then the foregoing Scriptures are hopeless contradictions; but in the light of the two natures they harmonize with each other naturally and easily. Thus Jesus Christ as a man was known by men. As a man he is not present with his disciples; as a man he was killed by men; as a man he knew not the day and the hour of the judgment. On the other hand, as God "no man knows" him; as God he is " with" his disciples " always;" as God no man took his life—he "laid it down himself;" as God he had appointed his own times— (1 Tim. 6. 15)—for the judgment; hence must know both the day and the hour. "As man he was no more omniscient than omnipresent; but as God he knows all the circumstances of it." (Wesley.) The correctness of this conclusion is sustained by the fact that, as the Son of God, he " is in the bosom of the Father;" that he " knows the Father," hence knows what the Father knows; that he "knows all things."
Dr. Farley, in his "Unitarianism Defined," quotes Mac-knight to prove that Christ here speaks of himself as the Son of God. To this I offer Dr. Whedon's answer: " It has, indeed, been argued that, inasmuch as the Son is here named after the angels in the order of ascending climax, we must understand it to be the Son of God, and not the Son of man. The result of this would be to prove that our Lord, in his highest personality, was limited in knowledge. But those who thus argue forget that even as Son of man he was superior to the angels. They are his ministers. It is as the Son of man he judges the world, attended by his holy angels. Surely it is a thousand times more wonderful that the judgment-day should be unknown to the judge than to his mere attendant officers. And this expression neither the Son' stands in striking coincidence with our Lord's expression, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power.' (Acts 1. 7.)"
That the words " neither the Son" refer to Christ as the Son of man is put beyond all dispute by the context both in Matthew and Mark. In the discourse from which this text is quoted, Christ does not speak of himself as " the Son of God," but always as " the Son of man." (See Matt. 24. 27, 30, 37, 39; 25. 13, 31; Mark 13. 26; Luke 21. 36.)
Objections to the omniscience. of Christ are sometimes based upon John 7. 16; 8. 28; 12. 49 and 14. 24; but these objections derive all their strength from the ignoring of the twofold nature of Christ. As declarations concerning the humanity of Christ, they do not and can not clash with the doctrine of his omniscience as God.
Omnipotence is also ascribed in the Scriptures to Christ.
Omnipotence is au attribute possessed only by supreme Divinity. Whatever degree of power may belong to a creature, omnipotence belongs to God only. The sacred Scriptures ascribe omnipotence to our Lord Jesus Christ.
MATTHEW 28. 18: " And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."
It is justly argued by Whitby and Mede that as in his Divine nature our Lord doubtless had this power from all eternity, so if this declaration be supposed to be made with respect to his Divine nature, it must be understood of him as being God of gods, deriving his being and essence by eternal generation from the Father. But he was also perfect man as well as perfect God; and, therefore, the words may have been spoken in reference to his state of humiliation now about to terminate in glory at the right hand of God, before which time he could not exercise the power, though he had before received it. In short, such unlimited power could neither be received nor exercised by any being less than God. Christ, therefore, is God. (Bloomfield.) Unitarians contend that "all" is often used in a limited sense, and they refer to Matt. 20. 23, "But to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father," for proof that our Lord did not possess infinite power. But Matt. 20. 23, does not furnish any proof that Christ's power was limited. The words "it shall be given to them" are not in the Greek text, and should be left out. " The conjunction, when, as in this place, it is not followed by the verb, but by a noun or pronoun, is equivalent with, except. Compare Matt. 17. 8, with Mark 9. 8." (Trollope.) The text should read " is not mine to give, except for whom it is prepared of my Father." Our Lord " applies to the glory of heaven what his disciples were so stupid as to understand of the glories of earth; but he does not deny that these are his to give. They are his to give in the strictest propriety, but both as God and as the Son of man. (See John 10. 28; Luke 22. 29.) He only asserts that he gives them to none but those for whom they were originally prepared." (Benson.)
Our Lord does not deny his power to give, but only declares who they are who shall receive this honor. His answer, far from intimating anything of that kind, concludes as strongly against it as a negative argument can be supposed to do. Thus the meaning is, I can not arbitrarily give happiness, but must bestow it on those alone for whom, in reward of holiness and obedience, it is prepared, according to God's just decrees.'" (Horseley's Sermons, Vol. V., p. 281.)
The word here rendered "power," combines the two ideas right and might. The following text will furnish both illustration and proof of the union of these two ideas, (right and might): " He gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out" (Matt. 10. 1); that is, both the authority and the might to cast them out. " I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." (John 10. 18.) No man but Christ had the right to relinquish life; and when life has been relinquished, no man but Christ had the power to resume it again: " I have power to crucify thee, and power to release thee." (John 19. 10.) Pilate certainly claimed both the authority and the ability to crucify Jesus. " Hath not the potter power over the clay?" (Romans 9. 21.) Paul's argument would have been a failure if the potter had been lacking in either the right or the might to fashion the clay.
It is not supposable that the Father would confer a right upon Christ without a corresponding might; if our Lord's right is unlimited, then the accompanying might must be unlimited also. Unitarians seek to avoid this conclusion by denying that the authority of Christ was universal. They interpret the words " in heaven and in earth" as meaning " the Jewish and Gentile world." That the formula " the heavens and the earth " may be used, in a few instances (Haggai 2. 6, 21; 2 Peter 3. 7), to designate divisions of the political world, is not denied; nevertheless, such is not the usual import of these words. " Heaven and earth" are a Biblical formula, designating the universe with its inhabitants. This will be abundantly demonstrated by an examination of some of the passages in which these words occur.
For convenience' sake it will be well to classify these passages. The first class of these texts to be noticed is that in which these words are used to indicate the extent of creation: " God created the heaven and the earth;" " The heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them;" " The Lord made the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." (Gen. 1. 1; 2. 1; Exodus 20. 11. See also 2 Kings 19. 15; Psalm 115. 15; 121. 2; 124. 8; 134. 3; 146. 6; Isaiah 37. 6; Jeremiah 32. 17; Acts 14. 15; Col. 1. 16; Rev. 10. 6; 14. 7.) A careful reading of the preceding texts can not fail to prove that the words " heaven and earth" mean the entire universe. Second class: Those texts in which Jesus declares " that heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt. 5. 18; 24. 35; Mark 13. 31; Luke 16. 17; 21. 33.) If these words do not here signify the universe, then our Lord's words lose much if not all of their meaning; for he evidently intends to represent his words as having a permanence that is more enduring than the universe. Third class: When God would vindicate his justice he calls " heaven and earth " to bear record. (Deut. 4. 26; 30. 19; 32. 1; Isaiah 1. 2.) These are unquestionably appeals to the inhabited universe. Fourth class: In the same manner the sacred writers call upon " heaven and earth" (the universe) to praise God. (Ps. lxix, 34; xcvi, 11; Jer. 1f, 48.) Fifth class: The pure intelligences in the kingdom of Christ are called " the whole family in heaven and earth." (Eph. 1. 10; 3. 15; Col. 1. 20) They constitute the universal family of Christ. Sixth class: That these words (heaven and earth) designate the universe is evident from the fact that they are employed when the omnipresence of God is declared. God is said to fill heaven and earth. (Jer. 23. 24. See also Psalm 135. 6.) Seventh class: When the universal dominion of God the Father is to be proclaimed, he is called " the possessor of heaven and earth; the Lord of heaven and earth." (Gen. 14. 19, 22; Matt. 11. 25; Luke 10. 21; Acts 17. 24.) No one questions the fact that the foregoing texts teach the universal dominion of God. In perfect harmony with these texts our Lord's words, " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth," teach the omnipotence of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Unitarians object "that omnipotence can not be communicated from one being to another, but belongs to one being alone." This would be true concerning beings who were separate from each other; but Christ, though distinct from the Father, is not separate from him, but is " in the bosom of the Father." What would be impossible with separate beings, is not only possible but actual in the unity of the Trinity. The omnipotent Father has given " all power" (omnipotence) to his eternal Son.
JOHN 5. 19: " Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for what things soever be doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."
JOHN 5. 26: " For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself."
This " is a most strongly marked distinction between himself and all creatures whatever. He has life in himself,' and he has it as the Father' has it; that is, perfectly and infinitely, which sufficiently demonstrates that he is of the same essence or he could not have this communion of properties with the Father. The life is, indeed, said to be given,' but this communication from the Father makes no difference in the argument. Whether the life' means the same original and independent life, which at once entitles the Deity to the appellations the living God' and the Father of spirits,' or the bestowing of eternal life upon all believers, it amounts to the same thing. The life' which is thus bestowed upon believers, the continuance and perfect blessedness of existence, is from Christ as its fountain, and he has it as the Father himself hath it. By his eternal generation it was derived from the Father to him, and he possesses it equally with the Father. By the appointment of his Father he is made the source of eternal life to believers, as having that LIFE IN HIMSELF to bestow and to supply forever." (Watson.)
For proof of this, see John 1. 3; Col. 1. 15-17; Heb. 1. 2.
It has been said that the work of creation was performed by God alone, without any assistant or partner. For example, Isaiah 44. 24: I am Jehovah that makes all things; that stretches forth the heavens alone; that spreads forth the earth by myself.' Christ, therefore, as Unitarians reason, can not be the Creator; and those texts which declare that all things were made by him must be understood in a metaphorical sense.
Reply: If the Bible does in some places explicitly declare that all things were created by Jesus Christ, and in other places that God is the sole creator, the natural conclusion is that Christ is God. The creator of all created beings cannot be himself a creature, and he who is not a creature must be God.' If Unitarians still insist that a lower sense must be put upon the texts which would declare that all things were created by Christ, and urge that the texts, taken in that lower sense, afford no proof that Christ is God, I still ask for what reason they give this lower sense? And if they say that these texts must be taken in a lower sense because they ascribe creation to one who is not God, I reply again that this would plainly be a petitio principii, which sound logic never admits. And if they should take another ground, and say that our argument to prove from the work of creation that Christ is God, implies that, inasmuch as God the Father is Creator as well as Christ, there must be two Gods, they would certainly say this without sufficient reason; for who has ever disproved or can disprove the truth of the position that the Father is God and Christ is God, and yet there is only one God? After all that the Unitarians have said, it remains perfectly clear that the Father and the Son may be distinct and different in some respects, so that they may be properly spoken of with distinct appellations as two personal agents, and yet be one and the same as to divine nature or perfection; that is, one and the same God." (Leonard Woods, Vol. 1. p. 352.)
" In the manifest reason of the thing, no one can forgive but the party offended; and as sin is the transgression of the law of God, he alone is the offended party, and he only, therefore, can forgive. Mediately others may declare his pardoning acts, or the condition on which he determines to forgive; but authoritatively there can be no actual forgiveness of sins against God but by God himself. But Christ forgives sins authoritatively, and he is, therefore, God. One passage is all that is necessary to prove this: He said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.' (Matt. 9. 2, 6.) The scribes who were present understood that he did this authoritatively, and assumed in the case the rights of Divinity. They, therefore, said among themselves, This man blasphemes.' What, then, is the conduct of our Lord? Does he admit that he only ministerially declared, in consequence of some revelation, that God had forgiven the sins of the paralytic? On the contrary, he works a miracle to prove to them that the very right which they disputed was vested in him; that be had this authority—' but that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, then saith he to the sick of the palsy, Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thine own house.'" (Watson.)
Unitarians assert that Christ's forgiving the man, and healing his palsy, no more imply the Deity of Christ than the miracles of the apostles, and their power to bind and loose on earth, evince their Deity. But this is not true. The apostles always wrought their miracles in the name of Christ, because they received their power from Christ. "Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents," etc. (Luke 10. 19.) "And he gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases." (Luke 9. 1.) "In my name shall they cast out devils." (Mark 16. 17.) "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." (Acts 3. 6.) "And his name, through faith in his name, hath made this man strong." (Acts 3. 17.) " By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, . . . doth this man stand here before you all." " Eneas, Jesus Christ makes thee whole." To Elymas, the sorcerer, Paul said: " The hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind." " I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her." (Acts 9. 34; 13. 11; 16. 18.) In broad contrast with these utterances of the apostles, Christ wrought his miracles in his own name and by his own authority. He said to the leper: " I will, be thou clean." (Matt. 8. 3.) To the dead son of the widow of Nain, Christ said: " Young man, I say unto thee, arise." (Luke 7. 14.) Again, the apostles preached forgiveness in the name of Christ; they never ventured to forgive sin in their own name. Christ forgave sin in his own name. " To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgiveness" (Dan. 9. 9), but Christ grants forgive-ness; hence Christ must be God.
During the days of his earthly life, our Lord was surrounded by acts of homage, ranging, as it might seem, so far as the intentions of those who offered them were concerned, from the wonted forms of Eastern courtesy up to the most direct and conscious acts of divine worship. As an infant, he was worshiped' by the Eastern sages; and during his ministry he constantly received and welcomed acts and words, expressive of an intense devotion to his sacred person, on the part of those who sought or who had received from him some supernatural aid or blessing. The leper worshiped him, crying out: Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make .me clean.' Jairus worshiped him, saying: My daughter is even now dead; but come, and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.' The mother of Zebedee's children came near to him, worshiping him, and asking him to bestow upon her sons the first places of honor in his kingdom. The woman of Canaan, whose daughter was grievously vexed with a devil,' came and worshiped him, saying, Lord, help me.' The father of the poor lunatic, who met Jesus as he descended from the mount of transfiguration, came, kneeling down to him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son.' These are instances of worship, accompanying prayers for special mercies. . . . At other times such visible worship of our Savior was an act of acknowledgment or of thanks-giving for mercies received. Thus it was with the grateful Samaritan leper, who, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, and fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks.' Thus it was when Jesus had appeared walking on the sea, and had quieted the storm, and they that were in the
ship came and worshiped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.' Thus, too, was it after the miraculous draught of fishes, that St. Peter, astonished at the greatness of the miracle, fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.' Thus the penitent, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him, weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.' Thus, again, when the man born blind confesses his faith in the Son of God, he accompanies it by an undoubted act of adoration: 'And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshiped him. (Liddon's Bampton Lectures, pp. 364, 365.)
Having laid before the reader the evidence that Jesus Christ was worshiped by men during his human life upon earth, it now becomes necessary to inquire into the nature of that worship. It will not be denied that sometimes this worship may have been nothing more than the homage paid by Orientals to acknowledged superiors. " This word occurs sixty times in the New Testament. Of these there are two, which, without controversy, denote the customary act of civil homage; fifteen refer to idolatrous rites, three are used of mistaken and disapproved homage to creatures, about twenty-five clearly and undeniably respect the worship of the Most High God, and the remaining number relate to acts of homage paid to Jesus Christ." (Smith's Messiah, Vol. 2. 295.)
This worship was sometimes paid to Christ under circumstances that proved it to be divine. The following propositions are submitted in proof of this assertion: 1. Our Lord did not receive the homage due to a civil ruler, for he denied being such, and refused all such homage. 2. The same worship that Christ received during his life-time was vehemently refused by apostles and angels as being due to God only. 3. Moses, Christ, and the apostles, all teach that God is the only proper subject of worship. 4. Worship was sometimes paid to Christ under such circumstances as proved it to be in the highest sense divine.
Our Lord did not receive the homage that was due to a civil ruler, for he denied being such, and refused all such homage. He purposely avoided everything that looked like the assumption of civil authority. " When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come by force to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone." (John 6. 15.) When he was urged to exercise magisterial authority between two disputing brethren, he answered: "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?" (Luke 12. 14.) He said positively: "I judge no man." (John 8. 15.) When Pilate questioned him about his kingdom, he said: "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18. 36.) It was as if he had said: "I interfere not with your authority, neither am I an enemy to Caesar. I assume no worldly state nor riches." (Cottage Testament.)
He did not receive such homage as a rabbi; for he emphatically denounced the rabbis because they loved " greetings in the market, and to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi." (Matt. 23. 6.) He did not receive this homage " as a simple teacher of religion; for his apostles then might have imitated his example, since, upon the Socinian hypothesis of his mere manhood, they, when they had collected disciples and founded Churches, had as clear a right to this distinction as he himself, had it only been one of appropriate and common courtesy sanctioned by their Master." (Watson.) But we have no record of the apostles receiving such worship. On the contrary, Peter refused to receive it from Cornelius, saying, " Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts 10. 26.) When this worship was offered to Paul and Barnabas at Lystra, " they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you." (Acts 14. 14, 15.) Moreover, the Mosaic law prohibited the worship of any other being but God: "Thou shalt worship no other god." (Ex. 34. 14.) " Prepare your hearts unto the Lord, and serve him only." (1 Sam. 7. 3.) " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. 4. 10.) " Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator." (Rom. 1. 25.) " Worship God." (Rev. 19. 10; 22. 8, 9.)
Unitarians sometimes say that although we are forbidden to worship any other god but Jehovah, yet we are not forbidden to offer inferior worship to inferior beings. But the Bible knows nothing about any such distinctions in worship as superior worship and inferior worship. It commands us to serve the Lord only. Jesus, in rebuking the devil, asserted that the Lord God was the only proper person to worship. The apostle pointed it out as one of the crimes of heathendom that they worshiped the creature, while the emphatic words of the angel, " Worship God," forbid us worshiping anyone else but God. " He does not say Worship God, and whom God shall appoint to be worshiped,' as if he had appointed any besides God; nor worship God with sovereign worship,' as if any inferior sort of worship was permitted to be paid to creatures; but simply, plainly, and briefly, Worship God." (Watson.)
The worship received by Christ during his human lifetime was sometimes rendered under circumstances that proved it to be supremely divine. Two instances will be sufficient to illustrate and prove this statement: " When the man who had been cured of blindness by Jesus, and who had defended his prophetic character before the council before he knew that he had a higher character than that of prophet, was met in private by Jesus, and instructed in the additional fact that he was the Son of God,' he worshiped him. 'Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and when he found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe in the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talks with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe, and he worshiped him,'—worshiped him, be it observed, under his character Son of God,' a title which we have already seen was regarded by the Jews as implying actual Divinity, and which the man understood to raise Jesus far above the rank of a mere prophet. The worship paid by this man must, therefore, in its intention, have been supreme; for it was offered to a divine person, the Son of God." (Watson.)
Christ was worshiped by the disciples in the ship on the sea of Tiberias. (Matt. 14. 22-33.) The nature of this worship is shown by the history of the case. On the preceding day they had seen him feed the five thousand with the five loaves and two fishes. That night they saw him walk on the water. " This suspension of the laws of gravitation was a proper manifestation of omnipotence." (Cottage Testament.) It was declared to be the act of God only, " which alone spreads out the heavens, and treads upon the waters of the waves of the sea." (Job 9. 8.) They saw him save drowning Peter. They saw the wind cease at his presence. These wonders impressed them with a conviction of his omnipotence, and, calling him " the Son of God," they rendered him the worship that was due to his supreme Divinity.
Evidence will now be presented proving that divine worship was rendered to Christ after his ascension to glory. In proving that divine worship was rendered to Christ by the apostles and disciples, it has been usual to refer to Luke 24. 51, 52. The words " and they worshiped him" have been objected to as being spurious; and as Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort have marked them as interpolations, I will not present them. The evidence proving that our Lord had supreme worship paid to him is too abundant and strong to make it necessary to refer to any evidence of doubtful value.
ACTS 1. 24: " And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knows the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen."
That this was a prayer to Christ seems evident from the following items:
1. "Lord" was the title by which the apostles commonly addressed Christ, or spoke of him.
2. It is by this title that the name Jesus (" Lord Jesus") is introduced in verse 21.
3. The appointment of an apostle was a matter pertaining to our Lord as the " head of the Church." He had chosen the apostles; he had commissioned them; he had fixed their number; he had been the companion of both of the men whose names were cast in this lot. It was our Lord Jesus Christ who had given Judas " part of this ministry," and our Lord was now asked to " shew whether of these two" he had choice to "take part of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas, by transgression, fell." Furthermore, the person spoken to in this text is adduced as "thou, Lord, which knows the hearts of all"—" heart-searcher." This power is attributed to our Lord Jesus Christ: "These things saith the Son of God, I am he which searches the reins and hearts." (Rev. 2. 23.)
All these points center upon Christ as the person to whom this prayer was addressed. This act of the apostles was a twofold worship of Christ: 1. The offering of prayer to Christ was worship paid to Christ. 2. The apostles ascribed to him the omniscience of the Supreme Being.
ACTS 7. 59, 60: " And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge."
The word "God" is not in the Greek text, and should not be in the English Version. In this passage several points should be carefully noticed:
1. Stephen knew that the time of his death had come.
2. He " was full of the Holy Spirit." On a kindred text Albert Barnes remarks: " To be filled with anything is a phrase denoting that all the faculties are pervaded by it, engaged in it, or under its influence. Acts 3. 10, Were filled with wonder and amazement;' verse 17, Filled with indignation;' 13. 45, Filled with envy;' verse 52, Filled with joy and the Holy Spirit.'" Adam Clarke comments thus: "He is holy because the Spirit of holiness dwells in him. He has not a few transient visitations or drawings from that Spirit; it is a resident in his soul, and it fills his heart. It is light in his understanding; it is discrimination in his judgment; it is fixed purpose and determination in righteousness in his will; it is purity, love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance, and fidelity in his affections and passions; in a word, it has sovereign sway in his heart, it governs all passion, and is the motive and principle of every righteous action."
3. Stephen was not only perfectly controlled by the Holy Spirit, but he saw the glory of God, and knew that he was in the Divine presence.
4. Under these circumstances Stephen addressed his prayer to Jesus Christ.
5. In this prayer Stephen commits his soul to our Lord Jesus Christ, and he does this in the same manner in which Jesus Christ commended his soul to God the Father. In doing so he acknowledges Christ to be the disposer of the eternal states of men.
6. In this prayer Stephen asks Jesus Christ to forgive the sin of his murderers; but God only can forgive sin. Thus Stephen worships Christ as the Preserver and Judge of men. Stephen offers to Christ the same prayers that Christ during his crucifixion had offered to God the Father; but Christ's prayer to the Father was an act of supreme worship; hence Stephen in his prayer offers supreme worship to Christ.
7. Stephen was tried on the charge of blasphemy, because he attributed to Christ authority such as belonged to God only (Acts 6. 13, 14); hence it was appropriate that this last act of his should be a prayer to Christ as God.
If our Lord Jesus Christ be not God, then Stephen, the first martyr of the Christian Church, died in the very act of idolatry.
1 CORINTHIANS 1, 2: " Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, . . . with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."
In this text Paul designates Christians as those who "call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." To call upon the name of God is to worship God in prayer. This point will be easily settled by its Biblical usage. At Beersheba Abraham " called on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God." (Gen. 21. 33.) " Give thanks unto the Lord, call upon his name." (1 Chron. 16. 8; Ps. cv, 1.) " Praise ye the Lord, call upon his name." (Isa. 12. 4.) " Then called I upon the Lord; O Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul." (Ps. 116., 4.) Elijah said at Carmel to the priests of Baal, " Call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord." (1 Kings 17. 24.) In Joel 2. 32, we read: " Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be delivered." In the New Testament it reads " shall be saved." (Acts 2. 21; Romans 10. 13.) Saul of Tarsus went to Damascus with authority " to bind all that call upon the name of Jesus Christ." (Acts 9. 14, 21.) Saul was exhorted to wash away his sins, " calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22. 16.) Stephen, a martyr to the supreme Divinity of Christ, died calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 7. 59, 60.) A careful examination of the preceding passages cannot fail to convince the reader that " calling upon the name of the Lord" denotes an act of supreme worship, and that Paul addressed his epistle to all who paid this supreme worship to Christ.
2 CORINTHIANS 12. 7-9: "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me."
The following points are presented in proof that this prayer was offered to Christ:
1. The prayer begins with the title " Lord." This is the common title of Christ.
2. Leaving out of the narrative the two parentheses contained in verses 2 and 3, there is no person mentioned except Christ to whom the prayer could be addressed.
3. The prayer is evidently answered by the person to whom it was addressed; but Paul attributes the answer to Christ. A little irregularity in the translation hinders this from being seen as plainly as it otherwise would be. The words " strength" and " power" in verse 9 are translations of one and the same Greek word, 8ovaitcc, and ought to be rendered " power " in each instance. Again, the words " weakness" and " infirmities" are translations of one and the same Greek word, and ought to be rendered " weakness" in each instance. The verse would then read: " My power is made perfect in weakness. . . . I rather glory in my weakness, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." The " Lord," whom Paul addressed, promised " power " to sustain him; but Paul calls this power " the power of Christ," showing conclusively that it was Christ, the author of this power, to whom Paul had addressed his prayer.
2 THESSALONIANS 2. 16, 17: " Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work."
Here prayer is offered to Christ in unison with the Father. Paul would not offer to God the Father any worship that was less than supreme, but he here offers the same worship to Christ.
Unitarians assert that " we must consider Paul's language as founded upon the conception which he entertained of Christ's extraordinary agency over the concerns of the first Christians." Was Paul mistaken in this conception? Was he wrong in offering Christ the same worship that he offered to the eternal Father? On this occasion did not Paul " honor the Son even as he honored the Father?" A similar prayer is to be found in 1 Thess. 3.11: "Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you." " It is a striking fact that both here and in 2 Thess. 2. 16, 17, the verb is singular in the Greek with God and Christ for the nominative—a striking proof of the apostle's assumption of their oneness."
HEBREWS 1. 6: " And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."
This text is obviously a quotation from Psalm xcvii, 7, which reads in the Hebrew, " Worship him, all ye gods." Watson suggests that this is probably an " ellipsis for the 'angels of the Aleim for the LXX uses the word angels." Unitarians say that " the connection shows that heathen gods are denoted. Though they have no real existence, they are figuratively represented as bowing down before the majesty of Jehovah."
The answer of Owen to this is final. The following is an abridgment of it: "It cannot be that the psalmist should exhort the idols of the heathen, some whereof were devils, some dead men, some inanimate parts of the creation, unto a reverential worshiping of God reigning over all. 'Elohim,' here rendered angels,' in the Septuagint is so far in this place from being exegetical of Elohim,' gods,' (idols) that it is put in direct opposition to it, as is evident from the words themselves. The word Elohim,' which most frequently denotes the true God, is never used to designate a heathen or false god unless joined with some other word which denotes its application, such as his god,' or their gods,' or the gods of this or that people,' in which case it is rendered by the LXX by some proper term designating its inferior usage. Magistrates are sometimes called Elohim because of the representation they make of God in his power, and their peculiar subordination unto him in their working; but they are not intended here, as any reference to them would be totally foreign to the purpose of the psalmist. Angels are called Elohim.' (Psalm 8. 6, and 138. 1.) These alone are they whom the psalmist speaks to."
The Septuagint reads, " Let all the angels." Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says, " Let all the angels of God worship him." As this worship was to be paid by angels, it cannot be resolved into mere obeisance.
That religious worship is here intended is certain, because the object of the worship commanded is directly opposed in the command itself to idols, and the worship required to that which is forbidden. Confounded be all they that serve—that is, religiously worship—graven images, that boast themselves of idols. As if God had said, Worship no more graven images nor idols of any kind; for all their worshipers shall be confounded. Worship him—the Messiah, the Son of God; and not only you, the sottish men who are guilty of this idolatry, but all ye angels also. (Dwight.)
Paul asserts that this worship was ordered to be paid to Christ, thus identifying Christ with the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and settling the fact that, by command of the Father, supreme worship was paid to Christ.
JOHN 5. 23: " That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honored not the Son honored not the Father which hath sent him."
In this text it is proposed by our blessed Savior that all men shall honor him even as they honor the Father. "It will not be denied that Greek naturally means to obey, reverence, and worship. Nor will it be denied that this honor, in suitable degree, may be paid to men. When rendered to God it consists supremely in religious worship—in making him the object of our supreme affection, and rendering to him our supreme obedience." (Dwight.)
The text demands that Christ receive the same honor with the Father. " The honor which we give to the Father consists in adoration, praise, unreserved confidence, humble submission, and, in a word, the dedication of soul and body to his service. We are, therefore, to adore the Son, and to make him the object of our trust and hope, to resign ourselves to his disposal, and to yield implicit obedience to his commands." (Dick.)
Inasmuch as all men are required to honor the Son as they honor the Father, and as they who do not honor the Son as they do the Father are regarded as not properly honoring the Father, it follows that equal honor is due to the Son with the Father.
Let us now consider the doxologies to Christ.
2 TIMOTHY 4. 18 " And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."
This doxology is addressed to Christ by his usual title of "Lord." The apostle predicates his doxology upon his faith in the providence of Christ, upon Christ's power to keep him from falling, and upon Christ's power to bring him safely to heaven" will save me into his kingdom; i.e., save me, translating me into, etc." (Winer.) The doxology consists in an ascription of eternal glory to Christ. In Romans 16. 27, the same doxology is ascribed to God the Father: " To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen." No one questions the fact of this being supreme worship; but this same worship is here paid to Christ; hence supreme worship is paid to Christ. The same doxology is rendered to Christ in 2 Peter 3. 18: " To him be glory both now and to the day of eternity." (Wesley.)
REVELATION 1. 5, 6: " Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
This doxology ascribes to Christ eternal glory and dominion. To ascribe these honors to any other being than God would be blasphemous; but they are here ascribed to Christ, hence he is here worshiped as God. The words (excepting " glory") are precisely the same, both in Greek and English, with Peter's doxology to the Father (1 Peter 5. 11): "To him be dominion for ever and ever. Amen." Hence John pays to Christ the same supreme worship that Peter pays to the Father.
We will now examine two objections which are made to the proposition that Christ was and is the proper object of supreme worship.
Unitarians quote the first sentence of the Lord's Prayer in connection with John 4. 23, " The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth," and then assert that our Lord always directed his followers to pray to the Father. This objection will not stand an examination. Christ does not forbid us praying to him. He does not intimate that the Father is the only object of worship. Do we honor the Father when we pray to him? Then we must pray to the Son also; for the Son has taught us that we should "honor" him "even as" we "honor the Father." (John 5. 23.) In perfect harmony with this, Christ said (John 14. 13, 14): " Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." In connection with these words notice the following points: 1. The prayer is to be offered in the name of Christ—" in my name." 2. The answer to the prayer is given by Christ—" that will I do;" " I will do it." 3. The prayer and its answer were for the joint glory of the Father and of Christ—" that the Father may be glorified in the Son." These items prove conclusively that the prayer was offered to Christ as well as to the Father.
Unitarians quote John 16. 23: " And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you." Having quoted this text, they then insist that Christ here forbids prayer being offered to himself. But this is to involve our Lord in a contradiction where no contradiction exists. We have already seen that Jesus taught his disciples to pray to him conjointly with the Father. (John 4. 23, compared with chapter 5. 23; and 14. 13, 14.) The word "ask" occurs twice in the text—" shall ask me" and " shall ask the Father." In the Greek the words are not the same. In the first clause the word in the second clause the word is often used in the sense of " asking a question," " inquiring," etc.; but it is never used in the sense of asking a question, but almost always to ask a favor—solicit, entreat, pray, etc. The disciples were anxious to ask a question of our Lord (verse 19). Jesus knew it, and said the day was coming when they would not need to ask questions of him; for he would send the Holy Spirit, who would guide them into all truth; but if they needed help, and prayed to the Father and him for it, they should receive it. " If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." The examination of the text warrants the conclusion that our Lord does not forbid us praying to him, but encourages us to do so.
The import of the text is beautifully given by John Brown of Haddington: "And under this comforting light and these influences of my Spirit, ye shall neither need my bodily presence, nor to ask information as ye now do. But I solemnly assure you that whatever ye, by the assistance of the Spirit, shall ask my Father and yours, with faith in my name as your only Mediator, High Priest, and Advocate, he will readily grant it on my account." (Brown's Family Bible.)
Before the discussion of the humanity of our Lord as held by the Athanasian Creed, by the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and by such writers as Pearson, Barrow, Watson, Raymond, and others of less note, it seems to be appropriate to spend a little time in the examination of the so-called " Kenotic theory." This theory is built upon a misconception of John 1. 14: " And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (Revised Version, " The Word became flesh," etc.); and Phil. 2. 5-8: " Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; 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 became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
It gets its name from the use its advocates make of the word in the sentence " he humbled himself." (Phil. 2. 7.)
The more prominent advocates of the Kenotic theory have been Thomasius, Ebrard, Dorner, Gess, Nast, Martensen, H. W. Beecher, and Reubelt. The outlines of the theory may be stated as follows: 1. It denies that Christ has a human soul. 2. It teaches the Logos, or Second Person in the Trinity, acted the part of a human soul in Christ. 3. That in Christ the Logos, or Divine nature, minified itself down to the limitations of a human soul.
While the advocates of Kenosis agree in the foregoing particulars, they are divided among themselves upon other matters connected with the theory. Thus Gess and Reubelt teach that during Christ's humiliation there was a total relinquishment of the Divine self-consciousness. I quote the following extract from Gess, as furnished by Dr. Nast in the Methodist Quarterly Review, 1860, p. 455: " But the Logos became flesh. He determines to suspend his eternal consciousness and his eternal will in order to resume it in the proper time, and in proportion to the strength of the bodily organisms, with which he unites himself in the form of human development. From this it follows that the flowing over of the Father's fullness into the Son ceases for the time of his sojourn upon earth. Where there is no receiving, there is no giving—the Son, existing in a state of unconsciousness, and then in the narrow limits of self-consciousness and human will, does not receive into himself the infinite stream of the Father's life. During this period the Son lives by the Father, as the disciple of the exalted Savior lives through the Savior. The Father is in the Son on earth too, but the Son receives the Father's fullness into himself only wave by wave, just as the disciples can drink only by drops the life-stream of the exalted Savior. But though the Logos has, after his incarnation, no longer his eternal self-consciousness nor will, yet the substance of the Logos is still the same after his having become man. The substance of our human soul, that now lives within so narrow limits, and that will hereafter live in the liberty of eternal life, is, in a similar manner, the same. It is this identity of the Son's substance before and after the incarnation which constitutes Christ's superiority to men and angels while he was upon earth. On the other hand, the change of the divine form of self-consciousness and will into the human form of self-consciousness and will, and the ceasing of the overflow of the Father's fullness into the Son, as conditioned thereby, constitutes the basis on which Christ's equality with other men rests."
Inasmuch as the answer to the other modification of this theory as held by Ebrard and Nast applies with full force to the foregoing presentation of it by Gess, I will waive the full answer to it until I have presented Dr. Nast's view of the theory, only stopping at present to offer a remark upon the assertion that the Logos in his incarnation determined to suspend his Divine self-consciousness. However satisfactory this statement may be to metaphysicians, it is in direct antagonism with the general tenor of his statements concerning himself. Witness the following: "That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." (John 5. 23.) " Before Abraham was, I am." " As the Father knows me, even so know I the Father." " I and my Father are one." " Ye believe in God, believe also in me." "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." If these words of Christ do not prove a clear Divine self-consciousness, then it would be difficult to tell how a Divine self-consciousness could be proven. Gess endeavors to smooth his statement of the theory by drawing an analogy between the condition of the incarnate Logos and the will of man asleep. He says:
When this sinks into slumber, all the powers of the soul fall asleep. It was the substance of the Logos which in itself had the power to call the world into existence, to uphold and enlighten it; but when the Logos sank into the slumber of unconsciousness, his eternal holiness, his omniscience, his omnipresence, and all his really divine attributes were gone, it being the self-conscious will of the Logos through which all the Divine power abiding in him had been called into action. They were gone—i.e., suspended—existing still, but only potentially. Further, a man when he wakes from sleep is at once in full possession of all his powers and faculties; but when consciousness burst upon Jesus it was not that of the eternal Logos, but a really human self-consciousness, which develops by degrees, and preserves its identity only through constant changes. (Reubelt's translation of Gess on the Person of Christ, p. 342.)
It would be extremely difficult to tell from the foregoing statement of Gess what the nature of Christ's self-consciousness was. Gess says " the Logos sank into the slumber of unconsciousness." The Logos was the Jehovah of the Old Testament. Now Elijah, at Carmel, insinuated to the idolatrous prophets that possibly Baal was asleep; but of the Logos (Jehovah) it is said he "shall neither slumber nor sleep." (Ps. 121. 3, 4.) The sinking into unconsciousness involves the suspension of all intelligence, of all voluntary life for the time being; hence if " the Logos sank into unconsciousness," then there was a period of time, be it long or short, in which all the intelligence and voluntary life of the Logos was suspended—a time in which the second Person of the Trinity was destitute of all knowledge, feeling, and power. The theory cannot escape this conclusion, and it is fatal to it. Again, self-consciousness pertains not to the body, but to the immaterial, intelligent spirit. Self-consciousness is an apperception of self as it really exists—not of an imaginary self, but the true self. It is not possible for an intelligent being to have a fictitious or false self-consciousness. An intelligent being cannot have the consciousness of any other nature than his own. A man does not and cannot have the self-consciousness of an angel nor of God; nor can an angel have the self-consciousness of either a man or God, and (we speak it reverently) it is just as impossible for God to have the self-consciousness of a man or of an angel as it would be for him to be and not to be at the same time. According to this theory of Gess, the Divine Logos "sank into the slumber of unconsciousness," during which its intelligence, feeling, and power were all suspended. It awoke out of this intellectual blank to pass through thirty-three years of activity and suffering burdened with a spurious self-consciousness—a self-consciousness of humanity when there was no humanity in the case, no human soul, nothing but an unintelligent human body. A theory which puts the Divine nature under a total suspension of all its powers, and then clouds it for years with a delusion, is too monstrous to be received.
The other modification of this theory, as held by Dorner, Ebrard, Nast, and H. W. Beecher, may be seen in the following quotations from Dr. Nast, in the Methodist Quarterly Review, 1860, p. 450: " Do not the simple words of the evangelist, And the Word became flesh' (John 1. 14), contain the key for the proper understanding of the personality of the God-man? Is the plain meaning of these words about this: The Logos united himself in the absolute infinitude of his being with the man Jesus, begotten by the Holy Ghost, to constitute one personality with him? or is it, rather, the Logos without giving up his Divine substance—a thing that would be an impossibility—became by assuming human flesh and blood, a human being, living in a truly human form of existence and in human lowliness? In short, does the passage not clearly mean that the Logos, without giving up his Divine nature, became to all intents and purposes a man? that he who is God, from God, and in God from all eternity, entered into the sphere of time and space; that he, by an act of emptying himself, subjected himself to human development, and assumed human existence and life, human will and intuition, feeling, and thinking? Does not the oneness of the Divine and the human in Christ consist in this: that he, retaining his Divine nature, took upon himself as an attribute the human form of existence and human condition, and, in consequence thereof, had human feeling, human will, and human thinking?"
Professor Reubelt published an article in support of this theory in the Bibliotheca Sacra of 1870, in which we find the following: "If, as the Heidelberg Catechism says, his Godhead neither was nor is limited to his human nature which he assumed, he (the Logos) may have been united in some intimate way or other with the human nature, but not by a personal union, which implies that the whole Logos be confined to the human nature as the man Jesus, be consequently nowhere outside of him, as the human soul is personally present only in the body during the latter's life; a different incarnation would seem to be no reality, no incarnation at all." (Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 18.) There would be considerable force in the preceding argument if the Divine Logos and the human soul were material substances, having length, breadth, and thickness; but as neither the Divine Logos nor the human soul has such attributes, the logic fails. The argument amounts to about this: You can not apply all of the parts of a cube of ten inches to a cube of one inch; hence the Divine nature can not join itself to human nature. Professor Reubelt's argument would be true enough in geometry, but utterly untrue in psychology and divinity. There is nothing in Professor Reubelt's argument that proves the impossibility of the Divine Logos retaining its infinite perfections and yet being inseparably united to human nature. Let us hear Professor Reubelt once more: " If the Savior knew some things as to his Divine nature which he did not know as to his human nature; if he could truthfully say that the Father was greater than he as to his human nature, but that the Father and he as to his Divine nature were one, the Divine nature and the human nature can evidently not have been united in him by a personal union, nor can they have been so united as to constitute oneness of personality. On the contrary, by ascribing all the attributes of personality, as self-consciousness and will, thinking, judging, feeling, to each nature, and even the expression of personality, viz., I. nature' is thereby made synonymous with personality,' and two such natures' cannot form one person." (Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 18.)
The following points are submitted in answer to the foregoing: 1st. Christ speaks of an inferiority to the Father, thus: "My Father is greater than all;" "My Father is greater than I." (John 10. 29; 14. 28.) 2d. He speaks of an equality with the Father: "All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father;" " I and the Father are one." (John 5. 23; 10. 30.) 3d. This diversity in his manner of speaking can be accounted for only on the supposition of a duality of persons, or of a duality of natures. 4th. But Christ never spoke in a manner which would lead us to suspect a duality of persons. He always spoke and acted as one single person; hence the duality was not personal, but in his natures. Professor Reubelt says: " If another personality, another I than that of the Logos, had been in Jesus, it is inconceivable that no mention should have been made thereof." True; but his personality was not dual, but single, while his nature was dual. Professor Reubelt says: " If the incarnated Logos was always in the possession of his divine or eternal holiness, how could he learn obedience, how could he be perfected (Heb. 5. 8, 9)?" (Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 17.) There is some ambiguity in the expression his divine or eternal holiness." The holiness of God is perfect holiness; that is, it is unmixed with sin. Now, does Professor Reu-belt mean to intimate that Christ, (luring his earthly life, was not perfectly holy? that he was not free from all sin? The testimony of the sacred writers to the holiness of Christ is ample. He is called " that holy thing," " thy holy child Jesus," " the Holy One and the Just" (Revised Version), "the Holy and Righteous One," "who knew no sin," " who was without sin," " without spot," and " who was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." The fact that he " learned obedience" does not prove that he had at any time been disobedient. It is not said that he learned to obey, but that he learned obedience. He did not learn the duty, necessity, or propriety of obeying, but he learned by experience what " obedience" was, just " as a man learns the taste of meat by eating it." Again, he did not learn obedience to the moral law, but " to the death of the cross." (Phil. 2. 8,) In Gethsemane, in the judgment-hall, and at Calvary, he learned by experience what privation and suffering, obedience to that death, involved. His " being made perfect" does not imply any previous moral imperfection, nor does it refer to any moral perfection, but to the consummation or perfection of his priestly service. In his sufferings and death he was perfected as the High Priest of our salvation.
Professor Reubelt asks: "How could he not know the day of his second coming, if he was possessed of omniscience?" This is precisely the question of Unitarians. Its only force lies in the assumption that Christ had but one nature. For a full answer to this question, see the exegesis of Mark 13. 32. The same remarks will apply to Luke 2. 52. Professor Reubelt translates John 1. 14, thus: "And the Logos became man." To this, Dr. Whedon makes two answers: 1st. " If Greek is to receive so literal a rendering, we must literalize also; and then we shall have it that the eternal Logos ceased to be God and became a portion of fleshly matter." 2d. " ' The Word became flesh' is far from saying that the Infinite essence became a finite soul. In the word flesh, as designating our humanity, the corporeal nature is the primitive idea, and never ceases to be the leading element. The divine soul becomes flesh, or human, just as the human soul becomes flesh, or human, by being incarnated in the human body." (Methodist Quarterly Review, 1870, p. 291; 1875, p. 508.) "
Professor Reubelt translates Greek by " emptied," and insists upon the literal meaning of the word, that the Eternal Son emptied himself of all the attributes and qualities of Deity. But this reduces the theory to utter atheism. Before the incarnation the Son was God; he was not less than God, and more than God he could not be. Now if he divested himself of all the attributes and qualities of Deity, then he must have passed out of being, and there was no Son, no Logos, no Trinity, no God. It occurs but twice in the Old Testament (Jer. 14. 2; 15. 9.) In the New Testament it occurs in four places besides the text (Rom. 4. 14; 1 Cor. 1. 17; 9. 15; 2 Cor. 9. 3). In none of these places does it designate the emptying of a subject of its contents. In the two texts in Jeremiah it is used in the sense of abase; and this would seem to be the most probable sense in Phil. 2. 7. He humbled himself, not by losing or relinquishing his Divine attributes, but by refusing to use them for his own safety, welfare, and glory.
Professor Reubelt quotes Matt. 28. 18, and John 11. 42, etc., to prove that Christ did not possess omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence during the days of his humiliation. His methods of exegesis are essentially Unitarian, and are fully answered in the chapters on the Attributes of Christ.
It now remains to state some objections to the Kenotic theory. I will give these objections as they are stated by Hodge and Whedon:
Objection 1. " This doctrine destroys the humanity of Christ. He is not and never was a man. He never had a human soul or a human heart. It was the substance of the Logos invested with a body, and not a human soul. A being without a human soul is not a man." (Hodge's Systematic Theology, Vol. 2. p. 440.)
Objection 2. It leads to Socinianism. "Either the minified God became truly a human soul, or he did not. If he did not, then Christ was not a man. If he did, then Christ was not Divine; the fullness of the Godhead did not dwell in him bodily; and he was, as Socinus asserted, a mere man." (D. D. Whedon, in Methodist Re-view, 1875, p. 508)
Objection 3. The doctrine " impugns the Trinity. If the second Person of the Trinity became human by ceasing to be God, then, during the incarnation, there was no Trinity." (D. D. Whedon, ibid.)
Objection, 4. "This theory exposes us to atheism. In maintaining the argument from effect to cause, we arrive at God. The atheist then demands a cause of God; and our reply is that he is the necessary self-existent First Cause. But then, as self-existent First Cause, he must be necessary and not contingent in his essence, and in the fullness of all his attributes. If he may cease to be infinite and omnipotent First Cause, then atheism is possible. It is then reasonable to suppose that he can annihilate himself." (D. D. Whedon, ibid.)
It is now desirable to present the evidence of Christ's humanity; not the fictitious humanity that is set forth in the Kenotic theory, but a true, genuine humanity. In the Athanasian Creed our Lord's humanity is stated as a "perfect man, of a reasonable soul, and human flesh subsisting." " Jesus was born of a woman, grew in wisdom and stature, hungered, thirsted; was weary, ate, drank, slept, journeyed; was grieved and tempted, sought aid and relief in prayer, marveled; was moved with compassion, wept; was troubled in spirit, recognized filial and fraternal relations, indulged friendships, felt aversions; he was a High Priest, touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin; he offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears; was crucified, dead, and buried; lie lived the life and died the death of a man; he called himself the Son of man, and was called our Elder Brother; he was a man whose human nature partook of all that essentially belongs to our common humanity." (Raymond's Theology, Vol. 1. pp. 399-400.)
In support of the foregoing statement of Christ's humanity, the following texts and arguments are offered:
LUKE 2. 40, 52: " And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man."
Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and the Revised Version reject the words "in spirit" from the text; hence we will drop these words out of the argument. The statement that Christ was " filled with wisdom," and that he "increased in wisdom," could not be predicated of the Divinity of Christ, for the wisdom of the Divine nature is infinite, and cannot become either less or greater. These statements cannot be predicated of the body, for it does not possess any wisdom, and can neither acquire it nor lose it. These statements prove the existence of Christ's human soul; which, because it was a finite intelligence, could grow in wisdom, and because it was pure, was filled with wisdom. Jesus "had a true human soul, as well as body. He was a genuine natural child, infant, and boy." (Whedon.)
The fact that Jesus increased "in favor with God" cannot be predicated of his Divine nature; for it is not possible that the mutual love of the Son and of the Father for each other could either increase or diminish. It must have always been infinite, and admitted of no fluctuations.
This increase " in favor with God" could not have been predicated of his body aside from his human soul, for the body was not capable of developing any excellence that should challenge the favor of God. These words prove Christ to have bad a human soul, for of it only could these statements have been true. If Jesus did not have a human soul, then these words of the evangelist would seem to be destitute of meaning.
MARK 22. 32: "But of that day and that hour knows no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
Here Christ denies that he knows the time of the general judgment. His ignorance of the time cannot be affirmed of his Divinity, for his Divinity is unchangeably omniscient. If our Lord had not possessed any other nature than the Divine nature, he could not have been ignorant " of that day," but he was ignorant " of that day;" hence must, in addition to his Divinity, have possessed a human soul which, in the limitations of its knowledge, was ignorant " of that day."
MATTHEW 8. 10: " When Jesus heard it, he marveled."
Luke 7. 9.
MARK 6. 6: "And he marveled because of their unbelief."
Some translators have rendered Matt. 8. 10, and Luke 7. 9, " he was filled with admiration;" but in the Greek the verb is not in the middle, or passive, but in the active, voice, the Greek and is properly rendered, " he marveled." There certainly was no admiration expressed in Mark 6. 6, for in that instance the cause of his marveling was " their unbelief." in the sense of " marvel," is never spoken of the supreme Divinity, either in the Old Testament or in the New Testament. Marveling is caused by some unexpected event; but to the supreme Divinity nothing can be unexpected, hence Divinity does not marvel. Again, marveling is not done by the body, it is done by a human soul; hence the fact that Christ "marveled" proves that he had a human soul.
MATTHEW 26. 38: " My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death."
The sorrow here mentioned was of that crushing, deadly nature which forbids us predicating it of the Divinity. There is to be observed a reference to the words of David, "'Why art thou cast down, O my soul?" (Ps. xlii, 5.) " So that it doth not only signify an excess of sorrow surrounding and encompassing the soul, but also such as brings a consternation and dejection of mind, bowing the soul under the pressure and burden of it." (Pearson on the Creed, p. 288, note.)
Christ predicates this sorrow of his soul, " My soul is exceeding sorrowful." " It is the human soul, the seat of the affections and passions, which is troubled with the anguish of the body; and it is distinguished from the Greek, the higher spiritual being." (Alford, in loco.) " Jesus, then, had a purely human soul. The doctrine of the Monophysites, that he had only a human body, of which God was the only soul, is not true." (Whedon, in loco.)
ACTS 10. 38: " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost."
Similar declarations are made concerning Christ in Matt. 3. 16; Luke 4. 18; John 1. 32, 33; Acts 4. 27; Hebrews, 1. 9. This anointing of Christ by the Holy Spirit had been promised in the days of Isaiah. "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. And he shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord." (Isa. 11. 2, 3.) This gift of the Holy Spirit could not have been made to Christ's Divine nature; for in his Divinity he himself sends the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24. 49; John THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 175 15. 26; 16. 7; 20. 22; Acts 1. 4, 5; 2. 33.) As God, he sends the Holy Spirit; as a man, he receives it from the Father. It is the human spirit that receives the Holy Spirit. " There is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." (Job 32. 8.) It follows that it was the humanity of Christ that received the Holy Spirit from God the Father.
PRAYERS OFFERED BY JESUS.
Matt. 14. 23; 26. 36-39, 42, 44; Mark, 1. 35; 6. 46; 14. 32, 35, 39; Luke 3. 21; 5. 16; 6. 12; 9. 18, 28, 29; 11. 1; 12. 32, 41, 44. Prayer implies want, dependence upon a superior, and the asking of help from that superior. It is not possible that the Divine nature should be in want, or that it should be helpless, or need to ask help. Nor is there any being superior to the Divinity from whom the Divinity could ask help; hence it was not the Divine nature of Christ that prayed. Prayer is an act of the human soul. The soul has wants; it is dependent upon a superior, upon God, who can help it. Christ's prayers prove that he had a human soul.
HEBREWS 5. 8, 9: "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all that obey him."
In this text Christ is said to have " learned," and to have " learned obedience." Each of these items proves the proper humanity of Christ. He is said to have learned: " Yet learned he obedience." This could not be said of Christ as God, for to learn is to increase knowledge; but God is omniscient, hence his knowledge cannot be increased. Again, " obedience " is submission to, and compliance with, authority. These things cannot be predicated of God; there is no superior to whom he can submit and with whose authority he can comply. A human soul can increase its knowledge; it can learn; it can submit to a superior, and comply with its authority; it can learn obedience. Jesus Christ " learned obedience;" Jesus Christ had a human soul.
LUKE 23. 46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
Prayers similar to this one have been offered by David and Stephen. David, in great distress said: " Into thy hands I commit my spirit." (Psalm 31. 5.) Stephen, when dying, said: " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (Acts 7. 59.) Such words, proceeding from Divinity, would be unintelligible; but they are easily understood, and very proper, when coming from a human soul. Coming from Christ, they are the natural and reasonable expression of his soul in his dying hour. The words, "He gave up the ghost," are mentioned in connection with the death of Christ in four other places besides the text: Matthew 27. 50; Mark 15. 37, 39; John 19. 30. These texts are not exactly alike in the Greek, but the differences are so slight that they do not affect the matter now under discussion. In the Old Testament the same or similar expressions occur in Gen. 25. 8, 17, 29; 49, Job 10. 18; 11. 20; 14. 10; Jer. 15. 9; Lam. 1. 19; Acts 5. 5, 10; 12. 23. In each of these places these words note the departure of the human soul from the body in death. These words coming from the lips of Christ, it would seem impossible to give them a reasonable explanation without admitting that he had a human soul.
HEBREWS 4. 15: " For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities: but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
See also Matt. 4. 1-11; Mark 1. 13; Luke 4. 1-13; John 14. 30. Christ was tempted. It could not be his Divinity that was tempted; for although the Divinity has the power to do evil, yet the union of its infinite knowledge and wisdom with its perfect purity renders it impossible to present to the Divinity any inducement to sin. This conclusion is sustained by James 1. 13: " God cannot be tempted with evil." "There is nothing in him that has a tendency to wrong; there can be nothing presented from without to induce him to do wrong: (1) There is no evil passion to be gratified, as there is in man; (2) there is no want of power, so that an allurement could be presented to seek what he has not; (3) there is no want of wealth, for he has infinite resources, and all that there is or can be is his (Ps. 1, 10, 11); (4) there is no want of happiness that he should seek happiness in sources which are not now in his possession. Nothing, therefore, could be presented to the Divine mind as an inducement to do evil." (Barnes on James.)
It could not be Christ's fleshly body that was tempted, for intellect only can be the subject of temptation; hence the temptation of Christ furnishes conclusive evidence that he had a human soul. An examination of the temptations mentioned by Matthew puts this conclusion beyond all doubt. The first temptation was a suggestion that Christ should turn stones into bread, in order that he might appease the cravings of hunger. The second temptation was a suggestion to a presumptuous trust in God's providence. The third temptation was a suggestion to worship Satan, in order to obtain power. Surely these temptations were not addressed to Divinity. Divinity hungry and tempted to appease its own hunger; Divinity tempted to a presumptuous trust in Divine Providence; the Lord of heaven and earth tempted to worship Satan by an offer of earthly dominion! The mere mention of such a notion breaks down with pure excess of absurdity. Christ's human soul was tempted to appease the hunger of the body with which it was associated and which it inhabited. His human soul was tempted to a presumptuous trust in Divine Providence. His human soul was tempted by an offer of human power and glory. Deny that Christ had a human soul, and the narrative is perfectly emasculated; accept the truth of Christ's proper humanity, and the narrative is rational and of thrilling interest.
In discussing " the union of Deity and humanity in Christ," it is not intended to make any new statement of the doctrine, but to state and defend it as it has been accepted and taught by the Christian Church from the days of the apostles down to the present time. In accordance with this design, the doctrine will be stated in the words of the "Articles of Religion of the Methodist Episcopal Church," Article II: "The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures—that is to say, the Godhead and manhood—were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man."
These two circumstances, the completeness of each nature and the union of both in one person, is the only key to the language of the New Testament, and so entirely explains and harmonizes the whole as to afford the strongest proof, next to its explicit verbal statements, of the doctrine that our Lord is at once truly God and truly man. On the other hand, the impracticability of giving a consistent explanation of the testimony of God 'concerning his Son Jesus Christ' on all other hypotheses, entirely confutes them. In one of two ways only will it be found, by everyone who makes the trial honestly, that all the passages of Holy Writ can be explained, either by referring them, according to rule of the ancient fathers, to the Greek, by which they meant everything that related to the Divinity of the Savior, or to the incarnation and everything that he did in the flesh to procure the salvation of mankind. This distinction is expressed in modern theological language by considering some things which are spoken of Christ as said of his Divine, others of his human, nature; and he who takes this principle of interpretation along with him will seldom find any difficulty in apprehending the sense of the sacred writers, though the subjects themselves be often to human minds inscrutable.
‘Does anyone ask, for instance, If Jesus Christ was truly God, how could He be born and die? How could he grow in wisdom and stature? how could he be subject to law, be tempted, stand in need of prayer? how could his soul be exceeding sorrowful even unto death,' be forsaken of his Father,' purchase the Church with his own blood,' have a joy set before him,' be exalted, have all power in heaven and earth given to him?' etc. The answer is, that he was also man. If, on the other hand, it be a matter of surprise that a visible man should heal diseases at his will, and without referring to any higher authority, as he often did; still the winds and the waves, know the thoughts of men's hearts, foresee his own passion in all its circumstances, authoritatively forgive sins, be exalted to absolute dominion over every creature in heaven and earth, be present wherever two or three are gathered in his name, be with his disciples to the end of the world, claim universal homage and the bowing of the knee of all creatures to his name, be associated with the Father in solemn ascriptions of glory and thanksgiving, and bear even the awful names of God—names of description and revelation, names which express Divine attributes,—what is the answer?
Can the Unitarian scheme, which allows him to be a creature only, produce a reply? "Can it furnish a rea-sonable interpretation of texts of Sacred Writ which affirm all these things? Can it suggest any solution which does not imply that the sacred penmen were not only careless writers, but writers who, if they had studied to be misunderstood, could not more delusively have expressed themselves? The only hypothesis explanatory of all these statements is, that Christ is God as well as man; and by this the consistency of the sacred writers is brought out, and a harmonizing strain of sentiment is seen, compacting the Scriptures into one agreeing and mutually adjusted revelation." (Watson's Institutes, Vol. 1. pp 618, 619.)
In proof of the union of Deity and humanity in Christ, the following Scriptures are adduced:
ISAIAH 9. 6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
For previous discussions of this text, see pages 70-72, 114. In this text the humanity of Christ is set forth by the words "a child is born," "a son is given;" while his Deity is unequivocally asserted in the titles "Mighty God," "Everlasting Father." " It cannot be maintained that this is all true of any one nature. It cannot all be true of a being wholly divine, because he never could have been a child. It cannot all be true of a human being, because he could not be called The Mighty God;' nor could it be true of an angel, for no angel was ever a child born.'" (Lee.) It was true of Jesus Christ—he " was God," and yet he " became flesh, and dwelt among us."
MATTHEW 22. 41-46: "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David? He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."
Unitarians intimate that Christ's reference to this Psalm is merely an " arguntentum ex concessu," or from the acknowledged opinion of his opponents, without vouching for its correctness. But this will not bear examination. If the opinion of the Pharisees concerning David's words was erroneous, the argument of Christ, built upon that opinion, must also be erroneous. A reference to the text and the parallel places (Mark 12. 36, 37; Luke 20. 42, 43), will show that Christ does not make any reference to the opinion of the Pharisees concerning David's words; but in the most positive manner asserts that "David therefore himself calleth him Lord." Peter, also, at Pentecost (Acts 2. 34-36) quotes the same words as referring directly to Christ.
Unitarians argue that "Jehovah being thus, in a peculiar sense, the Supreme King of Israel, the throne of Judea was called the throne of Jehovah (see 1 Chron. 29. 23), and the human king of Israel is said to sit on the throne of Jehovah; i.e., at the right hand of Jehovah." It is true that Jehovah was the Supreme King of Israel, and that the throne of Judea was called "the throne of Jehovah;" but it is not true that sitting on the throne of Judea was ever designated as "sitting at the right hand of Jehovah." From time to time a number of Jewish kings sat down on the throne at Jerusalem, but only Christ has sat down at the right hand of Jehovah. The fact of Christ's sitting at the right hand of the Father is regarded by the Spirit of inspiration as of great importance, for it is frequently mentioned in the New Testament. (Mark 14. 62; 16. 19; Luke 20. 42; 22. 69; Acts 2. 34; 7. 55, 56; Rom. 8. 34; Eph. 1. 20; Col. 3. 1; Heb. 1. 3; 8. 1; 10. 12; 12. 2; 1 Peter 3. 22.) " This was an honor never given, never promised, to any man but the Messiah; the glorious spirits stand about the throne of God, but never any of them sat down at the right hand of God. For to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?' (Heb. 1. 13.)" (Pearson on the Creed, p. 416.) This settles the fact that the "Lord" (" Adon ") whom Jehovah asked to sit at his right hand, was not any mere temporal prince of that day, but Christ. This proves the pre-existence of Christ. He is addressed by the title "Lord " (Adon); while this term is used in the historical books to designate a temporal lord or master, in the Psalms it not unfrequently designates Supreme Deity. -Witness the following instances of its use: " O Lord, our Lord [Adon], how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who bast set thy glory above the heavens." " The Lord [Adon] of the whole earth." " At the presence of the Lord [Adon], at the presence of the God of Jacob." " Our Lord [Adon] is above all gods." " Great is our Lord [Adon], and of great power: his understanding is infinite." (Psalms 8. 1, 9; 97. 5; 114. 7; 135. 5; clvii, 5. See also Isa. 1. 24; 3. 1; 10. 16, 33; 51. 22; Micah 4. 13; Zech. 4. 14; 6. 5; Mal. 3. 1.) " Adon " " is a term implying an acknowledgment of superiority in the person to whom it was addressed, and therefore never given to inferiors; though sometimes, perhaps out of courtesy, to equals. Upon this, then, our Lord's argument turns. An independent monarch, such as David, acknowledged no lord or master but God; far less would he bestow that title upon a son, or descendant; and consequently the Messiah, being so called by him under the influence of the Spirit, and therefore acknowledged as his superior, must be Divine. " (Campbell.)
According to the flesh, Christ was David's son; according to " the Spirit of holiness," Christ was David's Lord.
Now, here is a question asked by our Lord which no one in heaven nor on earth can answer, if Jesus was not possessed of two natures: If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?' This question can be answered only by admitting the two natures of Christ. (Lee.)
How could Christ "be both David's Lord and David's son? No son is lord to his father; therefore, if Christ were David's Sovereign, he must be more than man—more than David's son. As man, so he was David's son; as God-man, so he was David's Lord." "Although Christ was really and truly man, yet he was more than a bare man; he was Lord unto, and was the salvation of, his own forefathers." (Burkitt.)
JOHN 1. 14: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."
We have already seen that " the Word" was a personal being, in union with the Father, eternal, Creator of all things, and the Author of life. This Divine Word became a man, and dwelt among men, the possessor of a dual nature, the Logos or Deity, and the flesh, or humanity. The judicious Hooker sums up the whole doctrine of the union of Deity and humanity in Christ in four words, " Truly, perfectly, indivisibly, distinctly;" truly God, perfectly man, indivisibly one person, distinctly two natures. (Book 5. chapter 54, 10.)
ROMANS 1. 3, 4: " Concerning his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead."
As God, this passage calls Christ " the Son of God," " Our Lord," and " the Spirit of Holiness;" as a man, it speaks of him as being " made," as being " of the seed of David," as being of " the flesh," as having been " dead," and as having raised from " the dead." See also Romans 9. 5, where the apostle says that Christ " is over all, God blessed forever;" and yet in his humanity he came in " the flesh."
1 TIMOTHY 3. 16: "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
The union of the two natures is established by the fact that Jesus Christ was God; that lie was God made visible; that he was God visible in the flesh, that is, in a man; that in the life of Jesus Christ perfect Divinity and perfect manhood were alike visible.
HEBREWS 1.3: " Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."
To this passage " the Hypostatical union is the only key. Of whom does the apostle speak when he says, When he had by himself' purged our sins, but of him who is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person?' He by himself purged our sins;' yet this was done by the shedding of his blood. In that higher nature, however, he could not suffer death; and nothing could make the sufferings of his humanity a purification of sins by himself but such a union as should constitute one person; for unless this be allowed, either the characters of divinity in the preceding verses are characters of a merely human being, or else that higher nature was capable of suffering death; or, if not, the purification was not made by himself, which yet the text affirms." (Watson.)
JOHN 11. 4-45.
The narrative of the resurrection of Lazarus furnishes ample proof of the union of Deity and humanity in Christ.
1. He displays such foreknowledge as is possessed only by Supreme Deity. When he hears of the sickness of Lazarus, he tells the disciples that " this sickness is not unto death." (Verse 4.) Lazarus died, but was restored to life again. Christ foresaw that life; he saw it through the shade of intervening death and the grave. Again, although Lazarus was in Bethany, while Christ was on the other side of the Jordan, yet he knew that Lazarus was dead, and he told it to his disciples. Again, while Jesus was standing at the grave of Lazarus he said, " Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me," thus evincing a knowledge of the thoughts of the Eternal Father—a knowledge of those secrets known only to the Godhead. This knowledge of the Divine mind is in perfect harmony with the declaration, " Neither knows any man the Father save the Son." (Matt. 11. 27.) Again, notice his claim to share with the Father the glory that would arise out of the event. " This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby." Surely no mere man, angel, nor archangel, could make such a speech; yet Christ makes it, and that, too, without sin. It can be explained only by his own words, "1 and the Father are one." Once more, notice his claim to be the author of the resurrection and of eternal life: " I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever lives and believeth in me shall never die." Wonderful as this claim is, he verifies it by calling Lazarus back to life again. Surely these speeches and this miracle prove Jesus Christ to be the Almighty God.
2. But the proofs of his humanity are just as positive. He was a personal friend of Lazarus; the Jews had sought to stone him; his disciples judged him to be in danger of being killed. " Let us also go that we may die with him;" " he groaned in the spirit;" " was troubled;" he " wept;" he calls himself " a man." (Verse 9.) These proofs of his humanity need no comment; and yet this was the same person who foretold the end of Lazarus's sickness, read the mind of the Father, claimed to be the author of the resurrection and of eternal life, and who raised Lazarus from the dead. The only explanation of such a person is, that he has two natures, humanity and Divinity.
PHILIPPIANS 2. 5-7: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 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."
In the examination of this text it is necessary to make a preliminary examination of some of the clauses and words found in it.
These words designate something that belonged to Christ before he " took upon him the form of a servant;" something that he "emptied himself" of when he " took upon him the form of a servant." The fact that Christ once existed " in the form of God," and the fact that " he emptied himself" of it, will help us to determine what " the form of God" means. These words do not mean Christ's power to work miracles; for this power he exercised frequently during the three years of his ministry. They do not mean his essential attributes of Deity; he often manifested both his omniscience and omnipotence. They do not mean his sovereign authority; for he rebuked both men and demons, compelled demons to do his bidding; he also claimed and exercised authority to forgive sin. These words do not mean his claim to Supreme Deity; Christ never relinquished this; on the contrary, he often asserted it. He said: " Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8. 58); "As the Father knows me, even so know I the Father" (John 10. 15); " I and the Father are one" (John 10. 30); " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14. 9). The foregoing facts and Scriptures prove that our Lord did not " empty himself" of his Supreme Deity, even if such a thing were possible.
While it is true that " no man hath seen God at any time," yet it is also true that God, in past times, had made known his presence to men by a manifestation of glory that would create in the mind of the beholder a profound impression of the Divine Majesty. In Exodus 33. 15, this manifestation of the Divine glory is called "thy presence;" in Numbers 12. 8, it is called " the similitude of the Lord;" in Deuteronomy 5. 24, in Psalm 31. 16, " thy face;" in John 5. 37, " his shape." This manifestation of the Divine glory Christ emptied himself of when " he took upon him the form of a servant." He momentarily resumed this "form of God" at the time of his transfiguration; and his resumption of the " form of God" at the transfiguration is expressed by the Greek word. (Matt. 17. 2.) Deity can exist without this " form;" but only Deity can exist in this " form." It is the fact that Christ exists in this " form " that makes him " equal with God." Christ had this glorious " form " in common with the Father, "before the world was." (John 17. 5.) When Christ "became flesh" he emptied himself of this " form," in order that he might take " upon him the form of a servant." While Christ existed " in the form of God," he was properly " equal with God."
Unitarians object that " the Trinitarian exposition of this text is a mere reductio ad absurdum of the apostle's argument, since it makes him say that Christ, being God, thought it no robbery to be equal with himself." This objection started with Socinus, and has been re-echoed by all Unitarians from the days of Socinus to the present time. "To this it may be answered that the Son may be equal to the Father in the unity of the Godhead, which is all that the apostle's language implies, and all that Trinitarians contend for. Nor can this be denied without begging the question, and denying that there is any distinction of persons in the unity of the Godhead." (Scott.)
It will not help the cause of Unitarianism to render these words " to be even as, like as, God;" for they cannot produce a solitary instance in which the words have such a meaning. Again, " since infinite attributes admit of no increase or diminution, he who is as God, or like as God, must be possessed of these attributes, and, consequently, possessed of every perfection entering into the very idea of God." (Holden.)
The words—" like as God, resembling God"—have been applied by Homer to kings, princes, and warriors; but the words have never been applied to any created being. On the contrary, the Jews said that it was blasphemy in Christ to make himself God. (John 5. 18.)
The word " robbery "— calls for a passing notice. I think that the majority of modern Bible scholars agree that a it does not denote an action, but a thing. The Revised Version renders it "a prize;" in the margin, " a thing to be grasped." This rendering harmonizes with the exhortation in the preceding verses to avoid " vainglory," to cultivate " lowliness of mind," not to look on our " own things," but on " the things of others" for their advantage. The apostle enforces this exhortation by saying, " Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." Christ, " being in the form of God, did not regard equality in state with God as a robber regards his booty—viz., as a thing to be clutched greedily, and held fast at all hazards—but emptied himself." (Bruce's Humiliation of Christ, p. 409.)
If all the rest of the Bible were silent concerning the twofold nature of Christ, this text would set the matter forever at rest. His taking upon him " the form of a servant" proves that he existed before he became " a servant," and at that time was not " a servant," but was "equal with God," and originally existed in his glorious " form." All the intelligent beings in the universe are divided into two parties: first, the Master, God; second, his servants. There is no third party. Hence as Christ existed when he was not " a servant," he must be God. It is no answer to this to say that he was not God, but only the highest created intelligence. All created beings are servants of the Most High. They may be rebellious " servants," like " the devil and his angels," but still they are " servants." Now, if Christ never was anything but a creature—no matter how glorious—then he always was "a servant;" but the fact that he originally existed " in the form of God," and when so existing he " took upon him the form of a servant," proves that previous to that time he was not a servant, but was God. As a man he was in " the form of a servant," " and was made in the likeness of men." He was " found in fashion as a man." He " became obedient unto death." In " the form of God " our Lord was perfect God; in " the form of a servant" and the " fashion as a man," he was a perfect man—he was God " manifest in the flesh."
Professor John Eadie closes a long discussion of the meaning of these words with the following sentences:
The insignia of Godhead were oft revealed in the olden time; and we have what we take to be several descriptions of the form of God in Deut. 33. 2; Psalm 18. 6-15; Dan. 7. 9, 10; Hab. 3. 3-11. Such passages, describing sublime tokens of a Theophany, afford a glimpse into the meaning of the phrase form of God.' It is not the Divine nature, but the visible display of it, that which enables men to apprehend it and prompts them to adore it.
Eadie writes further: " This meaning which we give to Greek is in harmony with the whole passage, and is not materially different from it. (John 5. 37. See under Col. 1. 15.) It stands here in contrast with the phrase. He exchanged the form of God for that of a servant—came from the highest point of dignity to the lowest in the social scale. And we are the more confirmed in our view because of the following verb, as this self-divestment plainly refers to the previous. It cannot mean Divinity itself; for surely Jesus never cast it off; but he laid aside the form of God, the splendor of Divinity, and not the nature of it—the glory of the Godhead, and not the essence of it. . . . At the same time, while we think that the apostle selects with special care the term as signifying something different from nature, we must hold that no one can be in the form of God without being in the nature of God, the exhibition of the form implying the nature of the essence."
The doctrine of the two natures of Christ may be urged from the fact that no other account can be given of his nature and character. The Scriptures declare him to be God and man, but they pronounce him nothing else. If he is not God and man, what is he? It will be said that he is the Son of God. But what is the Son of God? Is he God, or is he a man? or is he neither? I press the question, What is he? If it be said that he was God, and not man, then God was once born a child, and grew, and lived, and died. If it be said that be was a man, and not God, then we have only a human savior, a human redeemer, and a human intercessor, whose arm is but an arm of flesh. It is written: Cursed be the man that trusts in man, and makes flesh his arm.' (Jer. 17. 5.) But of Christ it is said: Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.' Now, put that and that together. If it be said that he was neither God nor man, what was he? Was he an angel? No; for angels can not die. But admit that he was God and man, and all is plain, and we have a Savior worthy of everlasting trust—one to whom we can commit our souls without distrust or fear of being confounded. (Lee's Theology.)
The Scriptures speak of him as the Prince of Life,' who was killed' (Acts 13. 15); the Lord of glory,' who was infamously crucified' (1 Cor. 2. 8); the Lord' and the Son' (Matt. 22. 45); . . . the Lord of all' and the servant of men (Acts 10. 36; Matt. 20. 28); the Word, which was God, and was made flesh' (John 1. 1, 14); who was in the form of God, and was made in the likeness of men' (Phil. 2. 6, 7); the Son of God and the Son of man; the fellow of Jehovah and of men (Zech. 13. 7; Heb. 2. 9); eternal, and yet beginning (Micah 5. 2).; having life in himself' (John 1. 4), and yet being dependent; filling all in all,' and lying in manger (Eph. 1. 23); knowing all things,' and yet ignorant of some (John 21. 17); almighty,' and yet crucified through weakness' (Rev. 1. 8; 2 Cor. 13. 4); always the same,' and yet undergoing many changes (Heb. 1. 12); reigning forever,' and yet resigning the kingdom (Isaiah 9. 7; 1 Cor. 15. 24); equal with God,' and yet subordinate (Phil. 2. 6, etc.); ‘one' with God, and yet a Mediator between God and men (John 10. 30; 1 Tim. 2. 5). Such sayings are apparent contradictions, and can be reconciled only on the Scripture hypothesis which ascribes to him the fullness of the Godhead' and the likeness of sinful flesh. (Hare's Socinianism, pp. 93, 94.)
Dr. Channing objects that " this doctrine of the dual nature of Christ renders our ideas of him obscure and misty." The doctrine defines Christ as being both God and man; in this there is nothing either obscure or misty. It is cheerfully admitted that the dual nature of Christ is incomprehensible; but it is no more so than that of an Eternal Being, or of an Omnipresent Being, or of an Omnipotent Being. The whole nature of Deity is incomprehensible, and its union with humanity does not make it any more so. But does Dr. Channing better the matter when he makes his own statement concerning Christ's nature? Let us see: "We feel that a new being, of a new order of mind, is taking part in human affairs. There is a native tongue of grandeur and authority in his teaching. He speaks as a being related to the whole human race. His mind never shrinks within the ordinary limits of human agency." "A being such as never before and never since spoke in human language." "Truly, this was the Son of God." " I believe him to be a more than human being. In truth, all Christians so believe him.
Those who suppose him not to have existed before his birth, do not regard him as a mere man, though so reproached. They always separate him, by broad distinctions, from other men. They consider him as enjoying a communion with God, and as having received gifts, endowments, aids, light from him, granted to no other." " Jesus respected human nature; he felt it to be his own." (Channing's Works, pp. 241, 243, 247, 250.) Read the foregoing passages with the desire to determine what the whole nature of Christ is, and they will be found sufficiently " misty " for all practical purposes.
Dr. Farley objects that " Divine and human qualities, as the essence of being, cannot co-exist in the same person. God is infinite, man is finite; and no being can be at once and essentially finite and infinite." (Unit. Def., p. 129.) This objection is liable to the criticism of being very ambiguous. It would have been well if the author of it had stated what he meant by " Divine and human qualities as the essence of being." If this phrase has any meaning I have failed to grasp it. If Dr. Farley means to deny that it was possible that Christ should possess the attributes of both Deity and humanity, then he is denying the well-known facts in the case. It has been fully proven that the sacred writers ascribed to Christ eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence, and have invested him with the titles of Supreme Deity. On the other hand, it has been shown that Christ was born in time, lived and died in time; that there were some things that he did not know; that he was hungry, and ate food; thirsty, and drank; was weary, and slept; sorrowed, and wept like other men. In the face of these facts, Dr. Far-ley's objection amounts to merely a questioning of the truth of God's Word.
Again, Dr. Farley objects " that the Hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ charges him with duplicity," and quotes, in proof of his objection, Christ's denial of a knowledge of the judgment-day (Matt. 13. 32); urging that if Christ was God, then he could not possibly be ignorant of that day. Now, it must be evident to every candid reasoner that the doctrine of the Hypostatic union is the only ground on which this text can be explained, in perfect harmony with the integrity of Christ; for it has been already proved that Christ knew the thoughts of men's hearts—that he was the " heart-searcher "—that he knew the events of the future, and that he knew the secrets of the Divine mind. This was omniscience in the full sense of the word, and such as marked Christ's Supreme Deity. Now, if Christ had no other nature than that of Deity, then he must have known the time of the future general judgment. But we know Christ to have been a man, as well as God; and while as God he knew everything, as man there were some things which he did not know.
The doctrine of the Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit may be briefly stated thus: "The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God." (Articles of Religion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Article 4.)
The doctrine of " The Procession of the Holy Spirit" may be stated in these words: "Christ is God by an eternal filiation; so the Holy Spirit is God by an eternal procession. He proceeded from the Father and from the Son. . . . He is the Spirit of the Father, he is the Spirit of the Son; he is sent by the Father, he is sent by the Son. The Father is never sent by the Son, but the Father sends the Son; neither the Father nor the Son is ever sent by the Holy Spirit, but he is sent by both. The Nicene Creed teaches—' And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified.' The Athanasian Creed—' The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding." The doctrine of "the Procession of the Holy Spirit" rests upon the following Scriptures: "When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15. 26.) "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." (Matt. 10. 20.) "The things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God. And we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God." (1 Cor. 2. 11, 12.) "God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts." (Gal. 4. 6.) " Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Rom. 8. 9.) " Even the Spirit of Christ, which was in the prophets." (1 Peter 1. 11.) "I know that this shall turn to my salvation, through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1. 19.) "The Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send." (John 14. 26.)
In the preceding paragraph I have stated the doctrine of "the Procession of the Holy Spirit," and have pointed out the Scriptures on which it rests; farther than this I can not do, and my reasons for refusing to do more will be found in the following quotations:
No man can tell what proceeding from the Father means;' it is equally unintelligible as is the generation of the Son. Attempts have been made to explain both terms; but in doing so, ideas borrowed from material substances have been generally applied to the incomprehensible nature of a spiritual being. Again: " We do not know what is the procession of the Spirit. Let us be sensible of our ignorance and acknowledge it, remembering that as this is our duty, so it is more honorable than to indulge in vain babbling, and to darken counsel by words without knowledge." (Dick's Theology, p. 181.)
It is obvious to remark that what is precisely intended by the term procession, as applied to the Spirit, can not be definitely and exhaustively stated. When it is said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is intended to make, on Scripture authority, an affirmation concerning the manner of the distinction subsisting between the persons of the Trinity. The quo modo, here as everywhere else, lies outside the purview of human science. We know no more of the procession of the Holy Spirit than we do of the generation of the Son; we know nothing of either, beyond the Bible affirmation of the facts that the Son is begotten of the Father, and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. (Raymond's Theology, Vol. 1. p. 485.)
The proofs of the personality of the Holy Spirit and of the Deity of the Holy Spirit are so closely united that it is almost impossible to discuss them separately. I will introduce them in two classes. In the first class the evidences will be mainly in proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit; whatever proof this class may furnish to the Deity of the Holy Spirit will be a secondary matter. In the second class the evidence will be in positive proof of the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
The personality of the Holy Spirit is proven by the fact that creation is attributed to him.
GENESIS 1. 2: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water."
The word " moved," (merakhepheth), is the feminine Piel participle of rakhaph. It occurs in the Bible but three times,—once in Kal, Jer. 23. 9, "All my bones shake;" once in Piel, in the text; and once in Piel, in Deut. 32. 11, " As an eagle . . . flutters over her young." It designates a personal action, which can not appropriately be predicated of a lifeless instrument. That the moving of the Holy Spirit on the chaotic mass may have been accompanied by " a rushing mighty wind," as it seemed to be at Pentecost (Acts 2. 2), is not improbable. But in neither case was the wind the agent, but only the accompaniment of the real agent, the Holy Spirit.
Spirit, (ruakh), is here a definite noun, by being in the construct state before the definite noun (Elo-him). Gesenius (who will not be accused of any undue partiality to the doctrine of the Trinity) says of the word " moved:" "Trop., of the Spirit of God as thus brooding over and vivifying the chaotic mass of the earth." Creation is here attributed to the Holy Spirit; but creation is the work of a person. A personal Creator must be omnipotent, hence must be God; the Holy Spirit is a Person, and is God.
In perfect harmony with the preceding are the words of Elihu:
JOB 33. 4: "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."
This is a very pointed allusion to Genesis 2. 7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living soul." In this speech of Elihu's we have both the instrument of creation, " the breath of the Almighty," and the agent or Creator, " the Spirit of God." "The Spirit of God" and "the Almighty" are associated together as co-workers in creation, thus establishing the personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit was the inspiring agent of the prophets and apostles.
GENESIS 6. 3: "And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man."
The most obvious and natural view of this text is that which recognizes three parties in it. First, the person. speaking, " The Lord said;" second, the author of the striving, " My Spirit shall not always strive;" and third, " man," with whom the striving is done. The Spirit here is not to be confounded with the Father, who speaks. If he had been referring to himself he would most probably have said: " I will not always strive," etc.; on the contrary, he clearly distinguishes between himself and his Spirit. The word "Boon," here rendered " strive," does not occur anywhere else in the Bible; its root and meaning are very obscure. The Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic versions all render it by, " Shall not dwell in man." Gesenius seems to favor this rendering. This is in harmony with the New Testament doctrine of the Holy Spirit being sent by God to convict men, cause them to be born again, and to dwell in them.
This work of the Holy Spirit is accomplished in two ways. 1. Immediately, directly, by personal contact with the human spirit. 2. Mediately, through the agency of men whom he commissions and inspires. Thus:
2 PETER 1. 21: " For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spoke from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost. (Revised Version.)
Tischendorf renders the text in a similar manner. Here again we have the same three parties as before,—God, from whom the prophecy came; the men, who spoke the prophecy; and the Holy Spirit, who moved the men to speak. It would be a very awkward exegesis to make the Holy Spirit identical with the Father, mentioned in the preceding part of the verse. It would be absurd to speak of men being moved by an attribute. The most natural exegesis of the text is that which makes the Holy Spirit the personal agent of the Father. In 1 Peter 1. 11, the Spirit which moved these men is called " the Spirit of Christ;" that is, " the Spirit which resided in and proceeded from Christ was the teacher of the prophets." (Whitelaw's Divinity of Jesus, p. 20.)
This destroys the notion that the Holy Spirit is merely the influence of the Father. Those who deny Christ to be God will surely not call the Holy Spirit the joint influence of the Eternal God and of a creature. On the Biblical doctrine of a Triune Deity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the farther Biblical fact that the Father and the Son both sent the Spirit to inspire the prophets and apostles, these two texts easily and naturally harmonize. The authors of " The Improved Version" have a foot-note to this last text (1 Peter 1. 11): " The Spirit which prophesied concerning Christ." Seeming to be doubtful of the propriety of this note, they added another: " The Spirit of an anointed one,' or 'prophet." These notes are very properly characterized by Watson as "gratuitous and unwarranted paraphrases."
Prophecy had no human author. It was not borne to the prophet or to men by the will of himself or of any man. He was simply the instrument in delivering it. Holy men of God,—they were called to a holy office and used in a holy work; besides which they were, as a rule, holy in character and life. But holiness does not constitute a prophet. They spoke, being borne by the Holy Ghost. He was sole author; their minds and speech were taken possession of, and borne along by his might, and made to utter, under his impulse, whatsoever he pleased, whether they at the time understood it or not. (Whedon's Com.)
JOHN 16. 13: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come."
The Holy Spirit is here termed " the Spirit of truth." That it is neither an attribute nor an influence, but a person, is evident from the things predicated of him. Thus he is said to "guide into all truth" (" ' He shall guide you into the entire truth, embracing the many things at present withheld from you,' verse 12 "—Green's New Test. Gram. p. 57); " to speak;" to speak " not of himself," but of what " he shall hear;" and to " shew" " things to come." Hearing, speech, guiding, and revealing are not to be predicated of any attribute or influence, but only of a person. What attribute, influence, or doctrine can here be personified? When did any Bible speaker or writer use so crude, so monstrous a figure as " an attribute, or influence, or doctrine, not speaking of himself, but speaking what he shall hear?"
Norton, in his " Translation of the Gospels" (Vol. 2. p. 448), says this text is throughout figurative, and consequently does not admit of being taken in a literal sense. It is a common thing with Unitarian writers to dispose of a troublesome text by calling it " figurative." This is not interpretation, but mere licentiousness. The great mass of all language is literal in its acceptation; figurative language is the exception to the rule. " The words of Scripture must be taken in their common meaning, unless such meaning is shown to be inconsistent with other words in the sentence, with the argument or context, or with other parts of Scripture." (Angus, Bible Hand-book, p. 210.) Tried by this rule, the assertion that the text is figurative will prove to be a purely gratuitous assumption. Norton assumes that the term "Spirit" means simply an influence, and then, because this meaning conflicts with the literal rendering of the rest of the text, he assumes all of the rest to be figurative also. Let the term " Spirit" be understood as meaning an intelligent person, and it makes plain, easy sense of the rest of the verse. Norton defines the words " the Spirit of truth" as meaning " the knowledge and belief of the essential truths taught by" Christ. " Knowledge" and " belief" have no existence separate from the being or person who knows and who believes; they are merely states and actions of the mind. Yet Mr. Norton would have us believe that these nonentities are " the Spirit of truth," and that they " hear," " speak " " guide," and " shew things to come." Take the text in its literal sense, and all of this confusion is avoided. Accept of the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the text becomes a clear, plain statement of his mission.
THE HOLY SPIRIT THE SOURCE AND FOUNTAIN OF LIFE.
ROMANS 8. 11: " He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."
There is considerable controversy about the reading of the last clause of the text. If the proper reading is this is the reading of the Textus Receptus, of Hodge, De Wette, Shedd, also Westcott and Hort), then the Holy Spirit is the personal agent who " quickens" " our 'mortal bodies;" and the English translation is right in saying " shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Tischendorf, Tholuck, Lange, Schaff, Vaughan, and Alford, have adopted the reading; but this does not necessarily demand any alteration in the English Version; for while aca with the accusative generally means " for the reason of," " because of," or " for the sake of," yet it is often used to designate the efficient agent. Pickering, in his Greek Lexicon, says, sub voce: " With an accusative case, it denotes the cause, manner, and instrument by or through which anything is done, as not through me; i.e., not through my fault (De-mosthenes de Corona); by him, through his means (Dionysius Halicarnensis); 'if it had not been for me, if I had not prevented; if it had not been for you; i.e., but for you (Demosth.); according to the will of Jove (Odys. 8. 82)." The following instances of the accusative, denoting causal agency, may be satisfactory to the student: By us, with the gods, ye have the country; i.e., "Ye have by us, with the help of the gods, got possession of the country." (Xenophon's Anab. 7. 7, 7.) "I now beg you to make the payment through me; i.e., " by my hands." (Xenoph. Anab. 7. 7, 49.) to conquer by Athens; i.e., " by the citizens of Athens." (Od. 4, 520.) The foregoing quotation is taken from Jelf's Greek Grammar, § 627, 2. 3, c, where Jelf introduces it by saying of the accusative: " The instrument or agent; with persons, through whose agency or instrumentality something occurs or is done." Thayer's Greek Lexicon says: " With acc. of the person by whose will, agency, favor, fault, anything is or is not done." Instances of this usage may be found in the Septuagint and in the New Testament: " To be made by the hand of Moses"— (Exodus 35. 29. See, also, Josh. 20. 2; Ex. 28. 21; Num. 7. 8); " This shall ye have of mine hand;" i.e., " By me these things came to you "— (Isaiah 1. 11); "And I live by the Father"— (John 6. 57); "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope "—literally " by him who hath subjected," etc.— (Rom. 8. 20). In the light of this usage, we may well abide by the common English Version. The text identifies the agent as the Spirit of the Father. It refers to the Spirit as dwelling in man, and as imparting life to man's dead body. Surely this cannot be any attribute or influence. It bears the conclusive evidence of being a person.
A denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit leaves some texts of Scripture unintelligible and even absurd. To remedy this difficulty Unitarians have been compelled to give the words "the Holy Spirit" a great variety of definitions. Norton and Eliot define " the Holy Spirit" as " the power of God." Eliot unites with Yates, Pea-body, and others in a second definition, viz.: " God himself." Eliot and Peabody unite in a third definition: " Various influences which proceed from God and Christ." Charming calls it " a Divine assistance;" Worcester calls it " productive, efficient emanations of Divine fullness;" Thomas Starr King calls it " diffused grace;" Burnap calls it " miraculous events;" J. F. Clarke calls it " an inward revelation of God and of Christ." (Norton's Gospels, Vol. 2. p. 399; Channing, p. 235; Bible News, p. 183; Eliot's Doctrines of Christianity, p. 30; Yates's Reply to Ward-law, pp. 102, 107; Peabody's Lectures, pp. 131, 142; Burnap's Lectures, p. 236; Clarke's Orthodoxy, p. 435.)
These interpretations fail in some of the plainest passages:
ACTS 15. 28: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us."
The word here rendered " seemed good," means to think, to resolve, to appear. In verses 22, 25, 34 of this chapter it is rendered " please." It expresses the action and feeling of an intelligent, self-active agent. Any Unitarian interpretation of this text reduces it to an absurdity. Thus: "It seemed good to the power of God," "It seemed good to various influences," " It seemed good to efficient emanations of Divine influences," " It seemed good to diffused grace," " It seemed good to miraculous events," " It seemed good to an inward revelation of God and of Christ." Comment is unnecessary. The decision of the apostles was one that had originated with the Holy Spirit, had been communicated by the Holy Spirit to the minds of the apostles, and had been concurred in by them. It would seem impossible to teach the personality of the Holy Spirit in plainer terms.
REVELATION 22. 17: "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."
Here the Holy Spirit is inviting mankind to partake of " the water of life." Inviting is a purely personal act. To predicate it of any "influence" or of any "attribute" is the very essence of absurdity.
JOHN 15. 26: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeded from the Father, he shall testify of me."
In the discussion of this text, I will use it as a central point around which to collect all of the testimony given by John in chapters 14, 15 and 16 to the personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Eliot, in his effort to evade the force of this testimony, has quoted, with approbation, the following paragraph from Wilson's "Illustrations," for the purpose of showing that the language applied by Christ to the Holy Spirit is metaphorical, and designates an influence or attribute, and not a person: " The sea and the mountains are represented as having eyes; the earth as having ears; a song, a stone, an altar, water, and blood, the rust of gold and silver, are spoken of as witnesses. The sword and arm of Jehovah are addressed as individuals capable of being roused from sleep. The ear, the eye, and the foot, the law, righteousness, and the blood of sprinkling are exhibited as speakers, and destruction and death .as saying that they had heard with their ears. In the language of Holy Writ, the sun rejoiced and knows his going down; the deep lifts up his hands and utters his voice; the mountains skip like rams, the little hills like lambs; wisdom and understanding cry aloud, and put forth their voice; the heart and the flesh of the prophet cry out for the living God. The Scripture is a seer and preacher; the word of Jesus is a judge; nature, the heavens, the earth, are teachers. God's testimonies are counselors, his rod and staff are comforters, the light and the truth and the commandments of God are leaders or guides. Sin is described as a master, and death as a king and an enemy. Flesh and the mind are treated of as having a will; fear and anger, mercy, light, and truth, the word and commandments of God are exhibited as messengers. Charity is represented as in possession of all the graces and virtues of the Christian character." (Eliot's Doctrines of Christianity, p. 36.)
As this extract from Wilson contains the great burden of all that Unitarian writers have to say concerning figurative language as applied to the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit, I will examine it sentence by sentence.
The extract itself might very properly be called " a mass of perverted truths." Few things require more time and patience in their examination than a perverted truth; for concealed under the mask of truth there is a vicious falsity. We must not forget the rule laid down by Angus, by which we decide whether a text is to be interpreted literally or figuratively. Inasmuch as Wilson does not seem to have followed any rule or plan in the presentation of his references, the examination of them seriatim may involve considerable repetition.
Wilson says: " The sea and the mountains are represented as having eyes; the earth as having ears." As sight and hearing are not possessed by either seas, mountains, or earth, we are compelled to call such language metaphorical; but the same language applied to the Holy Spirit would naturally be taken in a literal sense. God, who is Spirit, and angels, who are spirits, both see and hear; hence it is reasonable to believe that the Holy Spirit both sees and hears. By a figure of speech, seas and mountains may be said to see; but it can never be said of either of them, as it is of the Holy Spirit, that it " searches all things, yea, the deep things of God." Figuratively, they may be said to hear; the Holy Spirit hears, and invites others to hear—" The Holy Ghost saith, Today if ye will hear his voice." (1 Cor. 2. 10; Hebrews 3. 7.) The same explanation will hold good when, in the Bible, " the ear, the eye, and the foot, the law, righteousness, and the blood of sprinkling, are exhibited as speakers." Such language must be metaphorical, for none of these things constitute a rational being, capable of literal speech; but it is pure presumption to classify the Holy Spirit with these non-volitional things.
A song, a stone, an altar, water, and blood, the rust of gold and silver, are spoken of as witnesses. Both things and persons are at times called " witnesses," but in different senses of the word. Things—such as songs, stones, altars, etc.—are witnesses when evidence can be drawn from them, but they cannot render voluntary evidence. Their evidence must be collected and applied by the party desirous of using it. The evidence given by a living witness is collected and rendered by the witness himself. The Holy Spirit is a " witness." (Acts 5. 32; Heb. 10. 15.) His testimony is not involuntary, to be gathered up and applied by those who need it; it is given by his own voluntary act, by which he brought to the " remembrance" of the disciples the things said by Christ. The Holy Spirit " speaks" what he had " heard." As a witness, he is not a thing, but a person.
The sword and arm of Jehovah are addressed as individuals capable of being roused from sleep. The "sword" and "arm of Jehovah" denote the executive justice and power of Jehovah, and a call for them to "awake" is a prayer that they may be put in action.
The Holy Spirit, like God the Father, " never slumbers nor sleeps." " Destruction and death, as saying that they had heard with their ears." There is no personification here, but the statement of a literal fact. " Destruction and death" are terms representing the inhabitants of Sheol; and Job, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, sets them forth as saying that they have heard of " the fame" of "wisdom." (Job 28. 22.) " The sun rejoices and knows his going down; the deep lifts up his hands, and utters his voice; the mountains skip like rams, the little hills like lambs; . . . the heart and the flesh of the prophet cry out for the living God." These expressions are metaphorical, and used in a highly-wrought poetical style; and it is a violation of all rules of interpretation to use them in the exegesis of Christ's statements concerning the mission of the Holy Spirit, for Christ's words are in a style that is severely simple.
The Scripture is a seer and preacher. In this sentence, Wilson has reference probably to Gal. 3. 8: "And the Scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham," etc. Here the word " Scriptures" evidently represents the author of the Scriptures, but that author is the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1. 21.) "The word of Jesus is a judge." I know of no text teaching this. It may be that Wilson has reference to John 12. 48: " He that rejected me, and receives not my words, hath one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." This text does not represent · " the word of Jesus" as the judge, but as the instrumentality of the judgment. At present Christ is not the judge, but at the last day he will be the judge, and his word will be the instrumentality of the judgment. There is no personification in this text.
Nature, the heavens, the earth, are teachers. That is, lessons of wisdom may be learned of them, but they have no voluntary power of teaching. Their lessons may be neglected, but they themselves cannot be " quenched" or "grieved" as the Holy Spirit can. They are not personal teachers; he is. The same, also, is true of the next item: " God's testimonies are counselors"—to teach only such as seek them and use them; but the Holy Spirit brings his counsel to bear upon every man. (John 16. 8.) "His rod and staff are comforters." The "rod and staff" represent God's government and providence, and they are the comfort and support of God's people. On the same principle " the light and the truth and the commandments of God are the leaders or guides" to all them who will use them. They are passive guides, just as maps and charts are; but the Holy Spirit is an active Guide, both directing and urging men. (See Matt. 4. 1; Mark 1. 12; Luke 4. 1; Rom. 8. 14.) "Sin is described as a master, and death as a king and an enemy." It is cheerfully granted that this language is figurative; but I am at a total loss to see how it disproves the personality of the Holy Spirit, or what bearing it has on the case.
Flesh and the mind are treated of as having a will. I presume that Wilson probably refers to John 1. 13, and 2 Cor. 8. 12: " Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God;" "For if there be first a willing mind." The first text uses the term "flesh," not in any figurative sense, but as a common Biblical name for depraved human nature. Our Savior, in describing the new birth, makes four propositions—three negative, and one affirmative. Thus, the sons of God are " born, not of blood"—kindred— "nor of the will of the flesh"—not of the will of a depraved, carnal being; " nor of the will of man "—not by the agency of any other man; " but of God," through the " renewing of the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3. 5.) In the second text (2 Cor. 8. 12), " mind" is not a personification, but denotes the intellect of man. "A willing mind" is the intellect having the hearty co-operation of the will occurs only in Acts 17. 11; 2 Cor. 8. 11, 12, 19; 9. 2. Its usage in these places will fully sustain the foregoing. In neither of these texts is there any personification.
Fear and anger, mercy, light, and truth, the word and commandment of God, are exhibited as messengers. Not so; they are represented as going before Jehovah, and as being sent by him; they are not messengers, but messages; the Holy Spirit is not a message, but a Messenger. The reference to " charity " is a reference to the discussion of that subject as discussed in 1 Cor. 13. 1-13. An examination of this chapter will show that "charity" is neither an abstraction nor a personification, but an attribute as possessed and exercised by men; and the remarks of the apostle apply, not to any personification, but to men who exercise charity. The Holy Spirit is the personal author of this charity. (Rom. 5. 5; Gal. 5. 22.) The most thorough examination of the personifications and metaphorical expressions of the Holy Scriptures will not furnish any evidence against the Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit.
The examination of John 15. 26, will now be resumed. As already stated, this text will be used as a rallying-point, around which to collect all of the testimony given by John (in chapters 14, 15 and 16) to the doctrine of the Personality of the Holy Spirit. Yates, in his reply to Wardlaw (page 118), objects that the Holy Spirit cannot be a person, for the Father is said to " give" it: " He shall give you another Comforter." Yates says: " This phrase excludes personality." Yates forgets that Christ is spoken of as the Son given." (Isaiah 9. 6; John 3. 16; Romans 8. 32.) In chapter 14. 16, the Holy Spirit is called a " Comforter." The Greek term is defined by McClintock and Strong thus: " One who pleads the cause of another; also one who exhorts, defends, comforts, prays, for another. It is an appellation given to the Holy Spirit by Christ (John 14. 16, 26; 15. 26; 16. 7), and to Christ himself by an apostle (1 John 2. 1. See also Rom. 8. 34; Heb. 7. 25)."
In the widest sense, a helper, succorer, aider, assistant; so of the Holy Spirit, destined to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), to lead them to a deeper knowledge of gospel truth, and to give them the divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the Divine kingdom. (John 14. 16, 26; 15. 26; 16. 7.) (Thayer's Greek Lexicon, sub voce.)
Of the Holy Spirit, as the Paraclete, it is said that " he abides," " dwells," that he will " teach," " testify," " guide," " speak," " hear," " show," " reprove," and " glorify." (Chapter 14. 16, 17, 26; 15. 26; 16. 7, 8, 13, 14.) Here are nine different actions, all of them personal actions. In bold figures of speech, each one of them separately might be applied to some personification; but Unitarianism may be respectfully challenged to produce a single instance in which they are all applied to one impersonal subject. The personal title " Paraclete," applied to the Holy Spirit, and these nine personal actions, are all predicated of the Holy Spirit; are unanswerable proof of his Personality.
1 CORINTHIANS 12. 11: " But all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will."
There can be no question that the pronoun " these," Taira, refers to the gifts and graces mentioned in the preceding verses, and all of these are said to be " worked," or produced, by the Holy Spirit. He is the author producing " wisdom," " knowledge," " faith," " gifts of healing," "working of miracles," "prophecy," "discerning of spirits," " tongues," and " interpretations of tongues." Here are nine distinct gifts, each one of them involving mental and moral power; and each one of these gifts is produced by the energy of the Holy Spirit. That some one of these gifts might, in a bold figure of speech, be predicated of an impersonal subject, is not impossible; but that all nine of them should, in a plain narrative, be predicated of a mere abstraction, is wholly incredible.
In this text the Holy Spirit is not to be confounded with the " influences," " gifts," and " graces;" for he is distinguished from them as being their author,—" all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit."
In verses 6, 7, the Holy Spirit is also distinguished from both Christ and the Father; thus we have " the Lord," " God," and "the Spirit;" in verse 3 we have " God," " Jesus," and " the Holy Spirit."
The Holy Spirit is said to divide these gifts " as he will." The objection that Jesus represents " the wind " as having a will falls powerless; for it is not clear that there is any personification in the words, " the wind blows where it lists." Jesus spoke of the wind as it appears to men, that is unrestrained and free in its action. This argument is, that just as the wind is independent of human control, so the Holy Spirit, in its operation, is ruled by its own free will.
Dr. Whedon's note on John 3. 8, is so clear and satisfactory that I will give the following quotation from it: " By a beautiful touch, the volitional power—that is, the will—belonging to Spirit, is here attributed to the wind. The Divine Spirit acts by its own supreme and supremely wise will. Yet, as modern science has discovered in some degree the laws of winds and storms, it is demonstrated that the wind, however capricious it may seem, is as truly under law as the solar system. And so the Spirit is not capricious, a powerful and arbitrary sovereign, but acts freely in accordance, not with fixed laws, but with wise and wisely adapted principles and reasons."
The apostle expresses the " will" of the Spirit by Him. This " word does not so much imply arbitrary pleasure as a determination founded on a wise counsel." (Wesley's Notes.) Thayer, in his Greek Lexicon, entertains a similar view; he says i3uoilopac " marks the choice as deliberate and intelligent."
It is evident that what an agent or factor does not possess, that it cannot communicate nor give; and whatever an agent or factor has given, that he must have possessed. But in this chapter, the Holy Spirit is said to have given knowledge, wisdom, language, etc., and to have done this "as he will;" that is, of his own free, deliberate purpose. It follows that the Holy Spirit must possess knowledge, wisdom, language, and will, proving beyond all doubt that the Holy Spirit is not an abstraction, but a person.
EPHESIANS 2. 18: " For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father."
Ellicott comments on this text as follows: " In one Spirit, common to Jew and Gentile;' compare 1 Cor. 12. 13. The Holy Spirit is, as it were, the vital sphere or element in which both parties have their common to the Father. The mention of the three persons in the blessed Trinity, with the three prepositions, is especially noticeable and distinct."
Adam Clarke writes: " Jews and Gentiles are to be presented unto God the Father; the Spirit of God works in their hearts and prepares them for this presentation; and Jesus Christ himself introduces them."
I believe that the two foregoing comments state the meaning of this text. They are indorsed by the great majority of Christian commentators.
1 PETER 1. 2: " Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."
In this text the sanctifying Spirit is as certainly distinguished from the Father and the Son, as the Son is from the Father and the Spirit.
ACTS 5. 32: "And we are his witnesses of these things, and so is also the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him."
Yates, in his " Vindication " (pp. 116, 117), quotes John 5. 36; 10. 25, 37, 38, and then adds: " In these passages, as well as in the address of Peter, miracles are personified, and appealed to as the witnesses of certain facts. The only difference is that in these passages they are called works;' by Peter they are denominated the Holy Spirit.'" To this method of explaining the text there are some objections. It does not follow that because " the works" of Christ and " the Holy Spirit" both bear witness to Christ, that therefore "the works" and "the Holy Spirit" are one and the same. Both " the works" and " the Father" and " the apostles" bear witness to Christ; surely they are not identical; yet there is just as much reason for making them identical as there is for making " the works" and " the Holy Spirit" identical.
Again, " the works" " bear witness," not as intelligent beings, but as actions whose testimony must be collected and applied by those who wish to use it; on the other hand, the Holy Spirit voluntarily " testifies" of " what it hears." Again, "the works," when testifying, are always spoken of in the plural; while " the Holy Spirit" (with the exception of the title, " The seven spirits," occurring in the first five chapters of Revelation), is never mentioned in the plural, but always in the singular. It evidently is the design of Peter to represent the Holy Spirit and the apostles as personal co-workers for Christ.
ROMANS 8. 16: " The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."
Yates paraphrases this text as follows: " Our persuasion of the peculiar favor of God toward us is assured by the testimony of his gracious aid, direction, and consolation." (Vindication, p. 117.) Let us test Yates's definition of " the Holy Spirit," in this place, by other texts that speak of the same Spirit, in this same chapter. Thus, verse 2, " the law of the Spirit of life," would read, " the law of his gracious aid, direction, and consolation of life;" verse 5, " But they that are after the gracious aid, direction, and consolation, mind the things of the gracious aid, direction, and consolation;" verse 9, " But ye are not in the flesh, but in the gracious aid, direction, and consolation, if so be that the gracious aid, direction, and consolation of God dwell in you;" verse 26, " Likewise the gracious aid, direction, and consolation, also helps our infirmities, . . . but the gracious aid, direction, and consolation itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered;" verse 27, " He that searches the hearts knows what is the mind of the gracious aid, direction, and consolation." Again, waiving the question of moral purity (for the human spirit is naturally impure, while the Holy Spirit is perfectly pure), it will be evident to every unprejudiced mind that the spirit of man and the Spirit of God must be alike in kind, though not in degree; hence, if the Holy Spirit is " the aid, direction, and consolation" of God, then the spirit of man must be " the aid, direction and consolation" of man. Our text would then read, " The gracious aid, direction, and consolation' of God witnesses with our aid, direction, and consolation,' that we are the children of God." Such are the beauties of Unitarian exposition.
I add the following, from Hodge's comment on the text: "The Spirit itself is, of course, the Holy Spirit,-1. Because of the obvious distinction between it and our spirit. 2. Because of the use of the word throughout the passage. 3. Because of the analogy to other texts, which can not otherwise be explained: God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Sou into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father' (Gal. 4. 6); ‘The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit given unto us' (Rom. 5. 5), etc."
Objection, 1.
Dr. Worcester (Bible News, p. 188) objects that the same actions that are ascribed to the Holy Spirit are also "the breath," " the hand," and " the finger;" hence he concludes that " the breath," " the hand," and " the finger " of the Lord must be synonymous with " the Spirit of the Lord." The utter fallacy of this will be apparent on an examination of his first statement. I will quote it: " The breath of the Lord is used as synonymous with the Spirit of the Lord. The wicked are represented as consumed both by the breath of the Lord' and by the Spirit of the Lord.'" His argument is, that as the wicked are consumed both by the " breath" and by the " Spirit," therefore the " breath" and the " Spirit" are synonymous. But the wicked are consumed not only by the " breath" and by the " Spirit," but by the "Lord," by " anger," " wrath," " terrors," " the sword," " famine," " fire," and "hailstones." According to the argument of Dr. Worcester, all of these must be synonymous. The other illustrations are readily reduced to a similar absurdity. Dr. Worcester has appended to his objection the following note: " The Spirit of the Lord and the breath of the Lord are the same in the original. Is the breath of the Lord a person? If not, neither is the Spirit of the Lord or the Holy Spirit." Because " breath " and " Spirit" are both translations of Greek, it does not follow that both "breath" and "Spirit" mean the same thing, or that it has the same meaning in all places. "Ruach," is translated by " spirit," " wind," " breath," and " courage." According to Dr. Worcester, all of these words are synonymous. Nephesh, is rendered' " soul," " life," " creature," " lust," " person," " yourselves," " the dead," dead body, " pleasure," and " appetite” surely these are not synonymous.
Objection 2.
It is objected by Unitarians that the Holy Spirit is said to be " poured out," " shed forth," " shed abroad," and that it is said to " fall," to " come down," etc.; hence it cannot be a person. To this Bickersteth, in his "Rock of Ages," pp. 150, 151, gives a sufficient answer: " Here we fully admit that the terms Spirit' and ' Holy Spirit' do sometimes denote, not the person, but the operations, the gifts, the influences of the Holy Ghost; as, for example, when it is said, will take of the Spirit that is upon thee.' But the question is, not whether some passages may not be brought forward which denote the operations and influences of the Spirit, and therefore do not establish the point; but whether, besides these, there are not very numerous portions of Scripture which do positively and unanswerably establish his personality. Just as if I were studying a work on horticulture, and because the writer, here and there, used the term sun' to denote the influences of the sun, directing me to place certain plants in the sun, or that more or less sun should be admitted, I were to contend that the author could not believe there was actually such a globe of light in the heavens, although in many other parts he had spoken in most strict astronomical language of our planetary system. You would justly assure me that the occasional recurrence of such familiar phrases as more or less sun,' etc., was no valid argument against his conviction of the sun's real existence, stated elsewhere in the volume plainly and positively. Now, we admit that by the Spirit.' are sometimes intended the gifts and graces of the Spirit. These graces may be poured out, these gifts distributed. But all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as be will.'"
Objection 3.
It is objected to the personality of the Holy Spirit that Greek is not masculine but neuter, and that this would not be the case if the Holy Spirit was a person. That the use of nouns and pronouns of the neuter gender does not disprove personality, is evident from the fact that all of them neuter nouns, are nevertheless common names for a child. The first two, are repeatedly applied to Christ. (Matt. 2. 9, 11, 13, 14, 21; Luke 2. 12, 16.) It is in harmony with this that the angel calls the child Jesus " that holy thing," (Luke 1. 35.) In 1 John 5. 4, those " born of God" are called in the neuter; but those born of God are not things, but persons. There can be no question about the personality of the daughter of Jairus, yet in Mark 5. 23, she is called Greek. The Germans say, "das Weib." Surely this does not question the wife's personality; yet both these substantives are neuter.
Deity does not exist under the limitations of sex or gender. The fact that Greek is masculine does not prove that God has gender or sex. " Gender is only properly attributed to animal bodies; but God is of no gender, and therefore the sacred writers were left at liberty to speak grammatically, and to put their articles and pronouns in the same gender with the nouns with which they should agree. To 19Eioy, the word used in Acts 17. 29, and translated the Godhead, is neuter, and has a neuter article." (Hare on Socinianism, p. 103.) Demons, angels, and Deity are without sex. The application to them of male nouns and pronouns does not prove them to be of the male gender, and the application of a neuter noun or pronoun to the Holy Spirit does not disprove its personality, but designates a personality that is independent of gender.
For the benefit of those who may wish to examine this subject somewhat further, I add the following facts: 1. The noun and its article are neuter. 2. The noun and its article are masculine. 3. I have found twenty-five places in the New Testament in which the Holy Spirit is referred to by a pronoun. 4. In twelve of these places the pronoun is neuter: To, John 14. 7; 15. 26, twice. John 14. 17, three times; Romans 8. 16, 26; 1 Cor. 12. 11, 48. John 15. 26. 1 John 5. 6. 5. In eight of these cases the pronoun is masculine: John 14. 26; 15. 26; 16. 8, 13, 14. John 16. 7. Eph. 1. 14. 6. In six of these cases the pronoun is indefinite; that is, it may be either masculine or neuter: 05, John 7. 39; 1 John 3. 24. John 16. 13. 1 Cor. 12. 9; 91, Eph. 4. 30; 1 Peter 3. 19. I have tried to collect every case in the New Testament in which the Holy Spirit is referred to by a pronoun. I will not say positively that the foregoing are all of the cases, but I think that they will be found to be nearly if not quite all.
Objection 4.
"Much is said in the Scriptures of the mutual love between the Father and the Son, and the disposition of each to honor the other; but where shall we find the least intimation of any love on the part of the Father or the Son towards the Holy Spirit as a person, or on the part of the Holy Spirit towards either the Father or the Son? Yet if the Spirit be a person, as distinct from the Father and the Son as the Son is from the Father, should we not have reason to expect the same evidence of mutual love in the one case as in the other?" (Worcester's Bible News, p. 202.) I answer, not necessarily. Inasmuch as the Father had given the Son up, to pass through an experience of humiliation, temptation, suffering, shame, and death, it became necessary that their mutual love might be abundantly made known, in order that the ministry of the Son might be understood, and be successful; but as the Holy Spirit did not send the Son, neither was the Holy Spirit called to pass through any humiliation or suffering; hence it was not so necessary that his relation to this mutual love should be revealed. The Holy Spirit, as a person of infinite wisdom and holiness (indicated by the title he wears, " the Holy Spirit "), must necessarily receive the infinite love of both the Father and the Son. For the same reason we are commanded to love the Father and to love the Son, while there is no specific command to love the Holy Spirit. Nor is any such command necessary; for it is the work of the Holy Spirit to create love in the heart (Rom. 5. 5; Gal. 4. 6; 5. 22; Eph. 3. 16-19), and he would necessarily be the object of the love which he had created. In the light of the doctrine of the Trinity, there is no necessity for a command to love the Holy Spirit, for he is one of the persons in the triune Godhead. Every command to love God is a command to love the Holy Spirit; and we cannot intelligently love God without loving the Holy Spirit.
The following summary of the evidence of the personality of the Holy Spirit is quoted from Watson's Dictionary, sub voce: "
1. The mode of his subsistence in the sacred Trinity proves his personality. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and cannot, therefore, be either. To say that an attribute proceeds and comes forth, would be a gross absurdity.
2. Many passages of Scripture are wholly unintelligible, and even absurd, unless the Holy Ghost is allowed to be a person. For as those who take the phrase as ascribing no more than a figurative personality to an attribute, make that attribute to be the energy or power of God, they reduce such passages as the following to utter unmeaningness God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with power;' that is, with the power of God and with power. That ye may abound in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost;' that is, through the power of power. In demonstration of the Spirit and of power;' that is, in demonstration of power and of power.
3. Personification of any kind is, in some passages in which the Holy Ghost is spoken of, impossible. The reality which this figure of speech is said to represent to us, is either some of the attributes of God, or else the doctrine of the gospel. Let this theory, then, be tried upon the following passages: He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:' What attribute of God can here be personified? And if the doctrine of the gospel be arrayed with personal attributes, where is an instance of so monstrous a prosopopceia as this passage would exhibit, the doctrine of the Gospel not speaking of himself,' but speaking whatsoever he shall hear?" The Spirit makes intercession for us.' -What attribute is capable of interceding, or how can the doctrine of the gospel intercede? Personification, too, is the language of poetry, and takes place naturally only in excited and elevated discourse; but if the Holy Spirit be a personification, we find it in the ordinary and cool strain of mere narration and argumentative discourse in the New Testament and in the most incidental conversations. Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.' How impossible is it here to extort, by any process whatever, even the shadow of a personification of either any attribute of God or of the doctrine of the gospel. So again: The Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.' Could it be any attribute of God which said this, or could it be the doctrine of the gospel? Finally, that the Holy Ghost is a person, and not an attribute, is proved by the use of masculine pronouns and relatives in the Greek of the New Testament, in connection with the neuter noun MeDita (Spirit), and also by many distinct personal acts being ascribed to him; as, to come,' to go,' to be sent,' to teach,' 'to guide,' to make intercession,' to bear witness,' to give gifts,' dividing them to every man as he will,' to be vexed,' grieved,' and quenched.' These cannot be applied to the mere fiction of a person, and they therefore establish the Spirit's true personality."
1. The Holy Spirit is called " God."
ACTS 5. 3, 4: " Why path Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? . . . Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."
The apostles were under the influence and direction of the Holy Spirit. (John 14. 17, 26; 16. 13; 20. 22; Acts 1. 5, 8; 2. 4; 4. 8, 31.) It was by the Holy Spirit that the apostles governed the Church. The attempt of Ananias to deceive the apostles was really an attempt to deceive the Holy Spirit which dwelt in them; and it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that Peter detected the falsehood, thus proving the omniscience, and consequently the Deity, of the Holy Spirit. Peter charges Ananias with lying to the Holy Spirit, and afterward calls it lying to God, thus proving that the Holy Spirit is God.
The authors of the " Improved Version " append a note, from which we quote the following: "Satan, a spirit and temper opposite to that of the gospel. To deceive the Holy Spirit, i. e., men who were inspired by God. Observe here, both Satan and the Holy Spirit are personifications of qualities." The authors of this version seem to be in some confusion over the meaning of the words " the Holy Spirit;" they first define them as meaning " men who were inspired by God," and in the next break they call both Satan and the Holy Spirit the "personifications of qualities." Are " men who were inspired by God" and " personifications of qualities" two names for the same thing? Are we to believe that one "quality" put it into the heart of Ananias to lie to another " quality," and that Ananias and his wife agreed together to tempt a quality? (See verse 9.) Ananias is said " to lie to the Holy Spirit." He could not lie to a quality, nor to an attribute, nor to an influence; he could lie only to a person; hence the Holy Spirit is a person, and by an inspired apostle he is called " God."
According to Peter, to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God; to lie to the Holy Spirit is not to lie to man, because the Holy Spirit is not man; and it is not to lie to an angel, because the Holy Spirit is not an angel; nor to lie to any creature, because the Holy Spirit is not a creature; but to lie to God, because the Holy Spirit is God. If the Holy Spirit were not God, the apostle might have said, " Thou hast not lied unto the Holy Spirit, but unto God," for this would have been a proper manner of distinguishing them. Or, the apostle might have said, " Thou hast not lied unto God, but unto the Holy Spirit;" or, the apostle might have said, " Thou hast lied unto the Holy Spirit, and thou hast lied unto God." But the apostle did not use either of these modes of stating the matter. He asked of Ananias, " Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? . . . Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God;" thus rendering it un- questionably certain that the apostle believed the Holy Spirit to be God.
1 CORINTHIANS ill, 16: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"
1 CORINTHIANS 6. 19: " Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God."
2 CORINTHIANS 6. 16: " Ye are the temple of the living God."
In the first of these texts the apostle calls believers in Christ " the temple of God;" in the last text he calls believers " the temple of the living God;" in the second text he calls believers " the temple of the Holy Ghost," proving decisively that the Holy Spirit is God. Yates objects that " the Holy Spirit is not a person, because he is said to be given unto us.'" Yates forgets that Christ was given to us, yet he was a person. Yates also objects that " faith," " the word of Christ," and " sin" are said to dwell in us; but that does not prove them to be per-sons—they are only things. True, but the persons in whom they dwell are never called " the temple of faith," or " the temple of the word of Christ," or " the temple of sin;" but the person in whom the Holy Spirit dwells is called " the temple of the Holy Ghost." The indwelling of Deity is absolutely essential to the very existence of a temple. Without the indwelling of Deity there can be no temple. Believers are " the temple of the Holy Spirit;" and they are called " the temple of God," because the Holy Spirit is God.
Yates quotes 2 Timothy 1. 14—" That good thing which was committed unto thee, keep by the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us "—and adds: " In this passage the Holy Spirit' must signify powers and dispositions, because Timothy is exhorted to use them as instruments, by means of which he may keep secure his Christian privileges and advantages." The text says nothing about " instruments;" there is not a plural noun or verb in the whole verse. Timothy is exhorted to keep the " good thing" " by the Holy Spirit"; the same construction (Sed, with the genitive) occurs in John 6. 57: " I live by the Father." Is the Father only an instrument by which Christ lives? Again, Romans 2. 16: "Shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." Is Christ to be only an instrument in the judgment? Is he not to be the Judge? Again, Galatians 1. 1: " Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ." Was Christ only an instrument in making Paul an apostle? Was he not the Creator and the Master of the apostle? The Holy Spirit was not an instrument in the bands of Timothy to be used by him; he was the indwelling God, by whose gracious aid Timothy would be able to hold fast the faith.
In John 3. 5, 6, the sons of God are spoken of as being " born of the Spirit," while in John 1. 13, they are said to be born " of God;" thus applying the title " God" and the title " Spirit" to one and the same agent or person.
MATTHEW 12. 31, 32: " All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."
Burnap objects that " blasphemy does not prove the person or thing against which it is uttered to be God," and refers to the fact that " the king," "Moses," " the law," and "the temple" are all said to have been the subjects of blasphemy, and yet no one of these persons or things was God. It is cheerfully admitted that blasphemy, in an inferior sense, has been uttered against created persons and things; but it is impossible for it to be uttered, in its highest sense, against any other being than God. That blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is of the highest and worst grade, is evident from the fact that it is unpardonable. And as the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable, it proves the Holy Spirit to be God.
Can blasphemy against anything or person, that is not God, be a greater sin than blasphemy against God? If sin against the Holy Ghost be the greatest possible sin, the only unpardonable sin, then surely the Holy Ghost must be God. (Raymond's Theology.)
2. The Holy Spirit is omnipresent.
1 CORINTHIANS 6. 19: "What! know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you?"
This text is adduced here to prove the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as he dwells in each believer in Christ, he must be omnipresent; hence, must be God.
ROMANS 8. 14: " As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
The Spirit of God is the Personal Leader of all of " the sons of God"—hence must be everywhere present; none but God is everywhere present—hence the Holy Spirit is the Omnipresent God.
1 CORINTHIANS 2. 10, 11: "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God."
From this text the following points are plainly deducible:
1. The Spirit possesses knowledge.
2. This knowledge is not communicated to him by another; but is his own, by virtue of his own intellectual activity—" the Spirit searches."
3. This knowledge extends to the secret purposes of Deity—" all things, yea, the deep things of God." "He penetrates and understands all the Divine counsels." (Schleusner's Lexicon.)
4. He is the Father's Agent in revealing these counsels to men—"God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit." The Being who can thus penetrate, understand, and reveal to men the secret counsels of God, must be supremely Divine.
Dr. Worcester objects: " It is obvious that the Spirit of God is here represented as bearing the same relation to God as the spirit of man does to the man. But as man and his spirit are but one person, so God and his Spirit are represented as one Person." (Bible News, p. 194.) Substantially the same objection is urged by Yates, Farley, Burnap, and others. But the apostle urges that just as certainly as only the human spirit among creatures can know the things of a man, just so certainly only the Spirit of God can know the things of God; but the apostle does not represent the Holy Spirit as holding the same relation to God that the human spirit does to man. Nothing is said about the relationship of either the human spirit or the Holy Spirit; this is a subject that the apostle does not discuss. The Holy Spirit is distinct from God the Father, for it "searches the deep things of God." The word here rendered "search," means to "penetrate and understand," and is an appropriate word to designate the search of one intelligent being by another. Again, it is by the Holy Spirit, as an agent, that God reveals himself to man; the Spirit being distinct from the Father whom he reveals. As "the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God"—as he "knows" the "things of God"—it follows that, like the Father and the Son (Matthew 11. 27; John 10. 15), the Holy Spirit is omniscient, hence supremely Divine.
Some Unitarian writers define the term " Spirit," in verse 10, as meaning " inspiration." The text would then read: "God hath revealed them unto us by his inspiration; for the inspiration searches all things. . . . Even so the things of God knows no man, but the inspiration of God." Unitarian exegesis does not leave much meaning in the words of Scripture.
Scott's note on this text sets it in a clear light: " The apostle and the other preachers of salvation by Jesus Christ had not discovered the mysteries of Divine wisdom by their own superior sagacity; but God hath revealed it to them by his Spirit, who not only searched all hearts, but was intimately acquainted with the deep things of God, and all the inmost counsels of his infinite mind. For as no man can penetrate the recesses of another's heart, and know the whole of his thoughts and intentions in the same way that his own soul is conscious of them, so none can know, discover, or comprehend the things of God but his own infinite Spirit, who is one with the Father and the Son in the unity of the Godhead, and whose office it is to reveal divine mysteries to his Church. (Matt. 11. 27.) This should be noted as a most decisive testimony both to the Deity and personality of the Holy Spirit."
HEBREWS 9. 8: "The Holy Ghost this signifying."
This expression shows the Holy Spirit to be the author of the whole Mosaic ritual. The Holy Spirit formed the tabernacle, and appointed its services according to his eternal plan, and who speaks through each and all of its services. As the Holy Spirit is the author of the Mosaic ritual he must be a person, for none but a person can be an author. Again, as the Holy Spirit is the author of this system of worship he must be God.
Some Unitarians object to the doctrine of the Deity of the Holy Spirit, that " the name of the Holy Spirit is omitted in the salutations of the epistles, and also in the apostolic benedictions." I will give Hurrion's answer as it is quoted by David Simpson:
As Christ came not to glorify himself, but the Father, so the Spirit came not to glorify himself but Christ, as our Savior teaches us in these words: 'He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak. He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.' (John 16. 13, 14.) When Christ came in the flesh he veiled his own glory and proclaimed the Father's; so the Holy Spirit, as it were, conceals his own glory to promote the glory of Christ, in whose name he both speaks and acts. But yet, as Christ sometimes did, he turns aside the veil, and manifests his own glory, though not so frequently, so clearly, and so fully as that of the Son. The design of his mission was to glorify the Son, not himself; and Christ was no less God, and no less worthy of glory when he humbled himself, than when he was exalted, so the Holy Ghost is no less worthy of glory when he comes to reveal the glory of Christ, than if he had come more fully to display his own. (Simpson's Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 339.)
AS Unitarian writers have a great deal to say about the pluralis majestatieus (the plural of majesty), when they are endeavoring to explain the use of plural pronouns by Deity, I propose to examine every case that is cited by these writers, so far as they have come to my notice.
And the first to be examined is—
GENESIS 1. 26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."
In addition to what I have already said on this text, I add the following:
Some interpreters, both Jewish and Christian, have understood a plural of dignity, after the manner of kings. This is the opinion of Gesenius and most of the Germans. But the royal style of speech was probably a custom of much later date than the time of Moses. Thus we read, Gen. xli, 41-44, I have set thee over the land of Egypt; I am Pharaoh.' Indeed, this royal style is unknown in Scripture. . . . The ancient Christians, with one mind, see in these words of God that plurality in the Divine unity which was more fully revealed when God sent his only Son into the world, and when the only begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, declared him to mankind. So, e.g., Barnabas (chapter iv), Justin M., Tremens, Theophil., Epiphan. (Tares. 33. 4-2), Theodoret. (The Bible Corn.)
1 KINGS 12. 9; 2 CHRONICLES 10. 9: "And he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people?" In these texts it is not by any means certain that Rehoboam assumes the majestic style in the use of his pronouns. If he had been using the pluralis majestaticus, he would have been just as likely to have used it when he spoke to the old men (see verse 6). When he speaks to the old men, it is evident that he is not in sympathy with them, and he uses the singular pronoun; but when he speaks to the younger men, he is in sympathy with them, and his words show his willingness to associate them with himself in the making up of his answer to the people; and his words cannot be fairly quoted as an instance of pluralis majestaticus.
EZRA 4. 18: "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me."
These are the words of Artaxerxes, or Smerdis, the Magian, who usurped the Persian throne in the absence of Cambyses. He was sustained in his government by the Magian priests in the effort to substitute the religion of the Magians in the place of the religion of the Persians. It is probable that the pronoun " us," as used by him, refers to the Magian priests, who were associated with him in the insurrectionary government.
ISAIAH 6. 8: " Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"
The language here used carries our thoughts back to Genesis 1. 26: Let us make man.' The work of which God's envoy would have to speak, was not inferior in importance to that work of creation; in fact, it was far greater. The plural pronoun can not be accounted for by supposing that the king addressed his ministering attendants. They wait to catch every intimation of his will (Ps. 103. 20); they are not associated with him in counsel. Isaiah himself asks: With whom took he counsel?' (40. 13). There is no angel in heaven,' it has been said, to whom he does not stoop down through infinite degrees when he communicates his thoughts.' The Tresagion, if it does not expressly propound the solution, implies it. (The Bible Commentary.)
JOHN 3. 11: " Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness."
It does not seem reasonable to suppose that Jesus would use the style of majesty when speaking of himself during the days of his humiliation. He seldom used the plural pronoun when speaking to the people; indeed, I know of but one other instance of using it when referring to himself; namely, Mark 4. 30. There may be other instances of his doing so, but I do not know of them. In the examination of John 3. 11, the point to be settled is, to whom do the pronouns "we" and " our " refer? These pronouns have been referred by different commentators to Christ and the prophets, Christ and John the Baptist, Christ and the disciples, and to Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these views will be examined separately. There can be no doubt that Christ himself was comprehended in the " we" and the " our" of the text; but it is not equally certain that " the prophets," " John the Baptist" and " the disciples," besides " the Father and the Holy Spirit," were embraced in these pronouns. It would seem that " the prophets" were not included. Christ was speaking of witnesses and testimony that belonged to the present, not the past. The words " speak " and " testify" are in the present tense. Christ was a speaker and witness then present, and the other members of the " we" must, like him, be speakers and witnesses existing at the same time with himself; hence the "we" does not comprehend the prophets, for they were of the past. John the Baptist does not seem to be comprehended in " we " and " our." Although John was a " witness" to Christ (John 1. 7, 15), yet Christ did not receive his testimony. " Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness to the truth, but I receive not testimony from man." " But I have greater witness than that of John." (John 5. 33, 34, 36.) On these texts I subjoin the following notes: "The Savior gives himself a place above all prophets, inasmuch as he declines human testimony." (Tholuck.) "John, by his testimony, added nothing to me; I was what I was, and I am what I am, before John testified of me, and since." (Burkitt.) Jesus could not disclaim the benefit of John's testimony, and yet associate him with himself as a witness. It seems evident that the Baptist was not comprehended in the we." The disciples of Christ have been witnesses for him since Pentecost, but they were not witnesses for Christ during his stay on earth. Two points will make this plain.
1. Although they were to a certain degree the recipients of the Holy Spirit, yet they had not received it in such a measure as qualified them to act as witnesses for Christ. There had been rich impartations of the Holy Spirit to Zacharias, Elizabeth, Mary, Simeon, Anna, John the Baptist, and possibly to others; but the gift of power and of testimony was not given until Pentecost. "The Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7. 39); "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" (John 16. 7); " Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye at Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high" (Luke 24. 49). This last text was spoken by our Lord after his resurrection, and before Pentecost. Just before his ascension he said: " Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence." (Acts 1. v.)
2. Although the disciples were appointed to preach during the time of Christ's ministry, yet they were not appointed to act as witnesses until after his resurrection; that is, their work as witnesses was to begin at Pentecost. Their appointment as witnesses was not made until after his resurrection, and then they were to " tarry at Jerusalem until endued with power." (Luke 24. 48, 49.) Christ said to them: " When the Comforter is come . . . ye also shall bear witness." (John 15. 26, 27.) Again: " Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me." (Acts 1. 8.) These words were spoken by Jesus ten days before Pentecost. In the days of Christ the disciples were intended as future witnesses; but Christ was speaking to Nicodemus of some persons who were associated with him at the time as witnesses. The disciples were not then witnesses, hence were not comprehended in the " " and " our." The investigation so far has furnished proof that the " we" did not comprehend either the prophets, John the Baptist, or the disciples.
I will now adduce the evidence proving that the pronouns do refer to the Father and the Holy Spirit as united with Christ in the speaking and bearing witness. The " we " are said to " have seen," to " know," to " speak," and to " testify." It will not be questioned that the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit " have seen" and " know " all and everything that could have been seen and known by any and all witnesses. Nor will it be questioned that Christ spoke to men, for " he taught them as one having authority." The only points to be proven are, that the Father and the Holy Spirit then spoke to men, and that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit then acted as witnesses to men. That the Father then spoke to men, will be shown when we come to prove that the Father acted as a witness to the Son. During the human lifetime of Christ he seems to have spoken for the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The Father was a witness for Christ: "And lo, a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt. 3. 17.) The record of this testimony of the Father to Christ is repeated by all of the evangelists. (See Mark 1. 11; Luke 3. 22; John 1. 32-34.) Again, a similar testimony was given by the Father to Christ at his transfiguration. (Matt. 17. 5; Mark 9. 7; Luke 9. 35; 2 Peter 1. 17.) Our Lord claims the witness of the Father: “And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me" (John 5. 37); " Him hath God the Father sealed" (John 6. 27); " The Father that sent me bears witness of me" (John 8. 18.)
Christ was a witness, and testified. He said of himself: "What he hath seen and heard, that he testifies." (John 3. 32.) "Jesus answered, and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true; for I know whence I came, and whither 1 go." "I am one that bears witness of myself." "I speak that which I have seen with my Father." (John 8. 14, 18, 38.) " Christ Jesus who, before Pontius Pilate, witnessed a good confession." (1 Tim. 6. 13.) "The faithful and true witness." (Rev. 3. 14.)
The Holy Spirit also was a witness. Although his work as a witness was to a certain extent suspended during Christ's earthly ministry, nevertheless he testified to him and for him. Note the following evidence: At his baptism, "the Spirit of God" descended "like a dove, and" lighted " upon him." (Matt. 3. 16; Mark 1. 10; Luke 3. 22; John 1. 32, 33.) "Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee." " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me." (Luke 4. 14, 18.) " God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." (John 3. 34.)
A calm survey of the foregoing Scriptures and arguments makes it reasonably evident that the pronouns "we" and " our," in John 3. 11, refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—a Triune God. This conclusion would seem to be more probable from the fact that our Lord, in his conversation with Nicodemus, reveals truths that none but the Triune Godhead could know. Thus he reveals the necessity of the new birth, in order to understand the nature of the kingdom of heaven. (Verses 3, 5.) He reveals the nature of the new birth. (Verses 4-6.) He reveals the necessity of his own death. (Verses 14, 15.) He reveals the Father's love for man. (Verse 16.) He reveals the doctrine of salvation by faith. (Verses 14-18.) These are items known only to the Godhead, and to which none but the Godhead could testify; others might become acquainted with them and preach them, but none except the Three Persons in the Godhead could " testify" to them.
It has been objected to the foregoing view of the case, that Christ's usage of "we have seen", forbids the application of the passage to the Holy Spirit; but this objection is not well-founded, for is used in the Septuagint and in the New Testament to designate the fact that God knows—witness the following passages: "I have seen this people." (Dent. 9. 13.) " I have seen his ways." (Isaiah 57. 18.) " Behold, I have seen it, saith the Lord;" " I have seen thine abominations;" "I have seen lawless deeds." (Jeremiah 7. 11; 13. 27; 23. 13.) " His eye is too pure to behold evil." (Hab. 1. 13.) " What he hath seen and heard, that he testifies;" " I speak that which I have seen." (John 3. 32; 8. 38.)
MATTHEW 3. 15: " Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness."
This is not a case of pluralis majestaticus; for our Lord is not speaking of himself alone, but of himself and John the Baptist. His words evidently refer to the reception of the sacrament of baptism; connected with this, there were two parties—John the administrator, and Christ the subject. John objected to his administering the ordinance to Jesus, and Jesus urged John to the discharge of their mutual duty; the pronoun " us" refers to Christ and John.
2 CORINTHIANS 1. 8: " For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble, which came to us in Asia."
The pronouns " we," " our," " us," probably refer to Paul, Gaius, and Aristarchus, who together experienced serious troubles in Ephesus. (See Acts 19. 23-41.)
1 THESSALONIANS 2. 18: "Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul."
The " we" of this text includes Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus. (See chapter 1. 1.) This text might be para-phrased thus: " 1. Silvanus, and Timotheus would have come unto you; I certainly would have come."
HEBREWS 13. 18: "Pray for us: we trust we have a good conscience."
The " us" and " we" in this text evidently refer to the brethren who are alluded to in the words: " Them that have the rule over you." (Verses 7, 17, 24.) Paul asked the Hebrews to pray for him and the other pastors.
I have now examined every case of the so-called pluralis majestaticus to which my attention has been called, and I have failed to find any case that has warranted the usage of the name. As a style of speech it is common enough among the royalty of to-day, but I sincerely doubt whether you can find any instance of it in the Holy Scriptures. I am left to the conclusion that the use of plural pronouns by Deity does unquestionably prove a plurality of persons in the Godhead.