Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

be sons of the Most High.' Note, chap. viii. ver. 28, Christ himself is called the Son of the Most High;' as he told his disciples they also should be, and be called.

6

Christ saith of those who are risen from the dead, that they are' like unto the angels,' and sons of God.' Luke xx. 36.

are the Rom. viii. 14---19, St. Paul saith, As many as are led by the spirit of God, or a godlike spirit, they are the sons of God:' ix. 26, instead of being called God's people,' they should be called 'the sons of God.' 2 Cor. vi. 18, Ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Gal. iii. 26, Ye are all the sons of God,' by or through the Christian faith, or religion.

All these phrases are rightly understood, not of a natural but of a spiritual filiation, or sonship; and signify the spiritual relation or state whereunto true Christians are adopted by God, upon their sincere profession of the true religion, and conformity to the laws of his kingdom. As such, they are truly styled sons and daughters of God; born of God. But it is very observable, that although St. John, in his gospel, and after, in his first epistle, uses yevvdw, in its derivatives, (which signify to be begotten, or born of, &c.) yet he never once takes the least notice, by those words, of Christ's eternal, or supernatural generation, which points are so common among all the moderns. And it cannot be conceived, that those notions, if true, should be overlooked, or always omitted, by St. John, who is so careful to magnify his master Jesus Christ in every part of his history. And it highly deserves our consideration, that if the notions of an eternal generation and supernatural conception had been current, and commonly received among Christians, when St. John wrote his gospel, and his epistles, that he should never once take the least notice, or make the least mention, of two such points, for the edification of those among whom his writings were first received: who must have been highly offended at such an omission, if such notions had been

articles, commonly received at that time, in their creed, or faith.

PIZA AABIA. Rev. xxii. 16. A root of David.

Jesus Christ himself styles himself, Pila Axbid, Rev. v. 5, a root, or descendant of and from David. This is the true sense of this character, in the opinion of most critics and interpreters, vid. Synop. Critic.; yet some few have absurdly inverted the sense, and made Christ the root, from whence David came, to prove the pre-existence.

Rom. xv. 12, St. Paul gives this title or character to Christ, as a descendant from Jesse, alluding to Isaiah xi. 1, 10, where our translation expresseth it,

There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.' And the LXX thus: A rod, or branch, shall come forth from the root of Jesse.'

Rom. i. 3, ix. 5, 3, compared. St. Paul saith, Christ was descended from David by his natural descent; and expressly that Christ was from the fathers, i. c. the patriarchs, by his natural descent. By the same phrase St. Paul sets forth his own descent.

ΥΙΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΕΥΛΟΓΗΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ. MS. Alexan. Mark xiv. 61, 62. Son of the Blessed God.

[ocr errors]

Jesus Christ owns himself to be the Son of the Blessed God;' but Christ never assumes that title, [the blessed God:] and it is never given to Christ in the whole New Testament. The Centurion, and they who assisted at Christ's crucifixion,--said, Truly this man was a Son of God,' Matt. xxvii. 54, Mark xv. 39. And Luke xxiii. 47, plainly tells us, what those words signified, Truly, this man was a just, or righteous person."

MONOTENHE, John i. 14-18, iii. 16-18, 1 Ep. iv. 9, only begotten, or dearly beloved.

St. John, and he only, (for not one of the writers of the New Testament besides him,) styles Jesus Christ

[ocr errors]

'the only begotten Son' in five places. It must be observed, that the writers of the New Testament do magnify their master Jesus Christ, by several highraised characters; as is still customary in the eastern nations, when speaking of eminent persons. The word really signifieth great favourite, or dearly beloved; as only sons or daughters usually are; as as Movoyeves, John i. 14; as, or like an only begotten. So Jesus Christ was beloved of God. But St. John does not once take notice of the miraculous conception and birth, in all his gospel, which is most remarkable: and this alone makes it highly probable, that he did not know of it, nor find it in his copies of St. Matthew. and St. Luke.

Had St. Matthew and St. Luke in their autographa given us the history of Christ's supernatural generation, they, no doubt, would have used this word Movoyevs again and again. And St. John using it, and yet wholly omitting the account of Christ's supernatural generation, plainly shews, that he used that word, not in a literal, but in an allegorical sense; that is, to signify a favourite who was in the bosom of his father. John i. 18.

AгАIIHTOΣ, Beloved.

[ocr errors]

Jesus Christ is called God's beloved Son, in' or with whom he was well pleased,' Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5, Mark i. 11, ix. 7, Luke iii. 22, ix. 35, 2 Pet. i. 17. And as many as received him as a teacher sent from God, to them he gave a right or privilege to be, or be esteemed as, the sons of God,' John i. 12. And they are also the beloved of God,' Rom. i. 7. 'Blessed are the peace-makers,' for they shall be called the sons of God,' Mat. v. 9. 'Love your enemies,' &c. that ye may become the sons of your Father, who is in heaven,' ver. 44, 45.

[ocr errors]

CHAP. XXXIV.

The noted passage attributed to Jesus Christ, Phil. ii. 6-11, considered.

είναι

THE words, Phil. ii. 6—11, tò eivai loa ☺ew, to be equal to God, are much insisted on, and falsely translated in our English version, and in many others. The temerity of such translators is highly blameable. For, 1st, The notion they convey is contrary to scripture and reason; 2d, Their translations must infer two Gods.

The word 'Ioos signifies often likeness, and not strict equality, in Homer, 'Irosos, like a god; and in other writers, 'Iodveos, velox uti ventus, Eurip. 'Iróleos Bus, Odysses I. 'Iovepos, somnio similis, Eschyl.

St.

Our translators have used the word like, and not the word equal, in Acts xi. 17, Phil. ii. 20, 2 Pet. i. 1. Tremellius, from Syriac, 'Iodyyeλo, Luke.xx. 36, sicut angeli. So 'Icórios, and 'Icoquxos, used by St. Paul and St. Peter, in the places before cited. Our translators should have considered the words in Psa. lxxxix. 6. Τις ἰσωθήσεται τῶ κυρίω, Τίς ὁμοιωθήσεται τῶ κυρίω εν υιοῖς Θε8. The phrase, τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, has the same meaning as open Ose, in the first part of the verse. Paul, in the foregoing verses, exhorts the Philippians to avoid strife and vain glory, and to be humbleminded; and, to enforce this exhortation, proposes to their imitation the example of our master Christ, in these words : 'Let the same mind,' or humble mind, be in you as was in Christ Jesus; who being in the form, or appearance, or likeness, of a God; (that is, of a person extraordinary, as God signified amongst the Greeks yet he did not account or esteem that likeness to a God to be a thing seized, or to be assumed, or snatched, &c. ουκ άρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, αλλά Tapá dorov Ti; i. e. He did not consider it as a prey, but as a gift; for his power, his honour, his wonderful works, he declares expressly, he received from God; or they were God's works, or works done by God;

John v. 30, 36, xiv. 10. But, on the contrary, Christ humbled himself, and became obedient--wherefore God hath highly exalted him,' ver. 8, 9.

The English translation takes no notice of the opposition in the original between oux and dλnd. The apostle sets forth Christ's humility, first, negatively. He did not assume divine honours, or account his likeness to a God to be a spoil received; he did not make ostentation of his power that attended him in working miracles. And then affirmatively, St. Paul adds, but emptied himself, or avoided all honour on that account.

Whereas the English translation makes Christ assume no less than an equality with God: a monstrous, absurd, and impossible notion; for the one true God can have no equal. Equality must necessarily suppose two or more beings, or things; and consequently infers that there are two or more Gods. So of this translation it may be safely and certainly affirmed, that it is impossible it should be a true translation. And it must have shocked the Philippians, with their bishops and deacons ; after St. Paul had, in his salutation, chap. i. ver. 2, styled the Father, the God and Father of us (Christians) and of the Lord Jesus Christ,' if he should have presently told them, that "Christ thought himself equal to his God and Father, who had highly exalted him,' ii. 9-11, and freely given him a name above every name; that every tongue should own their Lord (or master) Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father.' To whom alone St. Paul, iv. 20, expressly offers and ascribes honour and glory, without mentioning his supposed equal Jesus Christ.

[ocr errors]

To be in the form of God, (v poppy,) or to be like a God, (oa Oe,) the two phrases here mentioned of Jesus, are proper and suitable to him, acting in the sight of the spectators, with 'miracles, wonders,' and signs; which,' Acts ii. 22, God wrought by him.' But to say of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus

[ocr errors]

Christ,' that he (God the Father) was in the form of

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »