Page images

virtue of this divine perfection (v. 3), capable of a dignity which raises him above all things, even above the angels themselves.

II. Divine perfections of Jesus.-Col. 1: 19, EV AUTO Evdoκησε, παν το πληρωμα κατοικησαι It pleased the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell (i. e. the fulness of the divinity --whatever power or excellence there is in the Father).--Evdoκησε SC. .


natno, v. 12 (to which the verb may be referred notwithstanding its distance, as the intermediate verses 14-18 are to be regarded as a parenthesis) πληρωμα namely αυτουadmowua rns Torntos (2, 9) divinitatis summa-quicquid virtutis et excellentiae est in Patre.2 John 5: 26, Edwx8 (ó natne) τω υιω ζωην εχειν εν εαυτω. «The Father gave to the Son, to have the divine life and divine power and happiness in himself.” In the work On the Design of the Gospel of John (p. 192), it is remarked, that these words refer to the union of the man Jesus with the divine nature, because the same person is spoken of, who in v. 27 is called vios avó ownov Son of man.

The explanation of this passage in the Dissert. de sensu vocis annowua, affords a reply to the objection urged by Schleusner (Lex. art. iinowua no. 7) against the translation, "every divine perfection." If the divine nature of Christ were spoken of, it could not well be said: “God willed that every divine perfection should be in Christ.” For according to that explanation Evdoxnoe expresses the free purpose of God to bestow all the divine perfections on the man Jesus (sv avto), by virtue of his special union with the godhead. The reason that God willed this is stated in the 20th verse.

III. John 1: 3. Col. 1: 16. Heb. 1:2, 3. Comp. $ 42.

1 Diss. I. in Ep. ad Col. note 23, 24. Comment, on the Hebrews, p. 4-8. 2 Diss. I. Col, not. 35.

3 De sensu voc. ad nowua, 10. 4 Commentary on the Hebrews, p. 8. VOL, II.


IV. John 1:14, o hoyos apš EYEVETO the word became flesh.

[ocr errors]

That man [raoš] who dwelt with the apostles [countaGEV Ev viuev John 1: 14), and personally taught them concerning God, is called “ the only Son of the Father [uovoyevns Topa TAtpos, uovoyevns vios],” because the loyos, tros (God, the Word v. 1.] had become man, because he who had been with the Father [ELS TOV xodnov tov natoos], and who himself was God (v. 1. John 1: 2), wished to become man and personally to give instruction concerning God.

VI. In the sense mentioned in 975, Adam also might be called the Son of God (Luke 3: 38), because he was begotten of no earthly father, but created by God in a perfect state.

VII. John 3:16, 18. 1 John 4: 9, uovoyevns vios 9800 the only begotten Son of the Father. Rom. 8: 32, duos vios his own Son.

VIII. John 14: 7-11. (comp. 8:19, 12: 45). Col. 1: 15. 2 Cor. 4: 4, Elxwv Tov grov the image of God. Heb. 1:3, απαυγασμα της δοξης και χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου (θεov) i. q. Elxov. “image of the glory and transcript of the being (essence) of God.” See Schleusner, art. anavyaoua, and Wisdom 7: 26.

$77. More particular description of the union of Jesus with God.

This union of Jesus with God is not a temporary or limited union, like that of other rational beings, such as the prophets (John 5: 26) (1); but so close is this union that, according to the declarations of the Holy Volume, the Logos, who is himself God, became man (John 1: 1, 14), and that the being who is God, is likewise man (2); and inversely, that the being who is man, is likewise God (3); that the Being who is eternal life (4), who was with the Father (5), become visible to men, in the form of a man 1 John 1: 1. (6); and that inversely he who lived amongst men as a man, could declare concerning himself, that he came from heaven, and had previously been in heaven (7).


I. That the union between Christ and God is not of a limited or temporary nature, is the very proposition which John wished to prove in his Gospel and Epistles ; in opposition to Cerinthus, who maintained that the higher power or Christ did not unite himself with the man Jesus until the time of his baptism, and abandoned him again at the approach of his sufferings, and consequently that their union was neither close nor perpetual. That this was St. John's design we have proved in the work On the Design of John's Gospel and Epistles.?

II. In the first chapter of Hebrews, it is said of him who is,

1 p. 181, 191, 45, 492. On John 5: 26, see $ 76. Ill. 2.


in ν. 8, addressed as θεος or God, έχρισε σε-δ θεος ΣΟΥ God anointed theethy God."

III. He who is declared to have been εκ των αδελφων του Tlavov to xata dapxa of the brethren of Paul, i. e. of the Jews, according to the flesh, is called, in Rom. 9: 5, TEOS Evhoyntos ELS TOUS alwvas God over all, blessed for ever.

IV. In 1 John 5: 20, Sun Clovios life eternal is a synonymous expression with feos God.

V. The expression that Christ " was with the Father" refers to him not as man,

but God. John 1:1. VI. 1 John 1: 2, we announce to you that eternal life, which was with the Father and appeared unto us.

Thus also in 1 Cor. 2:8, it is said, the Lord of glory (ó xvotos ons doệns,) which was the character of Christ as God, (comp. Gros enS do&ns, Acts 7: 2), was crucified; because this same Lord of glory simultaneously lived among men as man. Still, the appellation “Lord of glory” might refer to the state of exaltation of the man Jesus ($ 78), and the sense of the passage be this : “He (that man) who now is the supreme Lord, whom God has raised to so high a dignity, was formerly crucified by men." Comp. Acts 3: 13. 2: 36. 2 Cor. 13: 4.

VII. John. 3: 13,2 “ he who came from heaven, the Son of man, who was in heaven." 6: 62, the Son of man ascending to where he was before. In 1 Cor. 15: 47, the second man is called the Lord from heaven. And in John 8: 58. 1: 15, 30, he who, as man, was younger than Abraham and John the Bap

1[The whole verse should be rendered thus : “ Thou lovest righteousness and hatest iniquity; therefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness more than thy fellows." This version is adopted by the celebrated Augusti, and gives a stronger proof of the Saviour's divin. ity, than our common English translation. S].

2 The Design of St. John's Gospel, p. 191.

tist, is represented as having had an existence prior to them both.

“When divine attributes are ascribed to the Lord Jesus in the N. Testament (says Ernesti) the case is precisely the same as when predicates are affirmed of the whole man, which belong only to his soul, or only to his body." The communicatio idiomatam results from the communio naturarum, and the latter is a consequence of the unio personalis or hypostatica.

$ 78.

The exaltation of the man Jesus, presupposes his intimate union

with the godhead.

The perfection and dignity which are conferred (1) on the man Jesus by this union, are seen most clearly in his present state of exaltation (2). For it would have been impossible that this man (3) could have been raised to so great an elevation (4); that the divine government (5), and divine honour

[On the important subject of the union of the two natures of Christ in one person, which enters so deeply into the modus operandi of the atonement of the blessed Redeemer for the sins of the world, the reader will be gratified by the following quotation from Dr. Woods' Letters to Unitarians, p. 104: “We believe that all the divine and human perfections, which the Scriptures ascribe to Christ, constitute but one person ; and consequently that all his actions and sufferings belo to him as one person ; much as all the actions and sufferings of any man, whether mental 0: corporeal, belong to him, as one man. It results from this view of the subject, that the value or significancy of any action or suffering in Christ must be according to the dignity or excellence of his whole character. Whether the action or suffering takes place particularly in one part oranother of his complex person it is attributable to his whole person ; and it derives its peculiar character from the character of his whole person constituted as it is. The suffering of Christ was therefore of as high importance or value, in making an atonement, as if it could have been, and in reality had been, in the most proper sense, the suffering of the Divinity.” See Reinhard's 'Dogmatik, 592–96. Mori Epitomen. Sartorii Comp.

236. S].

« PreviousContinue »