Page images
PDF
EPUB

and my God!"
plied by him to Jesus.
was employed by him, not as the proper name
of the Deity, but as an appellative, according to
a common use of it in his day; or perhaps in a
figurative sense, as it sometimes occurs in modern
writers, of which the passages before quoted from
Young afford examples.† I have already had oc-
casion to remark upon the different significancy of
the term "God" in ancient and in modern times,
a difference important to be well understood in
order to ascertain the meaning of ancient authors.‡
The name "God" is an appellative in the Old Tes-
tament; § and it is a characteristic and peculiar

Both titles, I believe, were ap-
But the name "God"

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

† See p. 158.

[The Hebrew words commonly translated "God" in the Old Testament are Elohim and El. The former is applied to Moses, Exodus vii. 1 (comp. iv. 16);-to the apparition of Samuel, 1 Sam. xxviii. 13 (comp. verse 14);-to Solomon, or some other king of Israel, Psalm xlv. 6; to judges, Exodus xxi. 6; xxii. 8, 9, 28; and to kings or magistrates, Psalm lxxxii. 1, 6, and perhaps cxxxviii. 1 (comp. verse 4, and Psalm cxix. 46). See also Ezekiel xxviii. 1. Many have supposed the word Elohim to denote angels in Genesis iii. 5 (comp. verse 22), Psalm viii. 5, and some other passages, as Psalm xcvii. 7, where the Septuagint version has ayyedot. This opinion was entertained by Milton, who accordingly, in his Paradise Lost, very often denominates angels "gods." The title "God of gods" is repeatedly given to Jehovah in the Old Testament: see Deuteronomy x. 17; Joshua xxii. 22; Psalm 1. 1 (Heb.); cxxxvi. 2; Daniel xi. 36.

El is the Hebrew word which is translated "God" in Isaiah ix. 6, where it is supposed by most Trinitarian commentators to be a name of Christ. This passage has already been noticed. (See p. 182.) The same word is applied to Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel xxxi. 11, where it is rendered in the Common Version" the mighty one "; in

distinction of the writers of the New Testament, when compared with those who preceded and followed them, that they used this name as it is used by enlightened Christians at the present day.

But the argument deserves notice as illustrating

the Septuagint, apxwv, "ruler." In Ezekiel xxxii. 21, where it is used in the plural, it is translated "the strong." In Isaiah ix. 6, the Septuagint version, according to the Alexandrine manuscript, and also the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, render the word by loxvpós, "strong."

Our Saviour refers to this use of the word "God," in a lower sense, in the Old Testament. "Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods? If those are called gods to whom the word of God was addressed," &c. See John x. 34-36, and compare Psalm lxxxii. 1, 6.

There is but one passage in the New Testament, besides that now under consideration, in which there is any good reason for supposing the name "God" to be given to Christ. This is in the Epistle to the Hebrews, i. 8, 9, quoted from Psalm xlv. 6, 7,-"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," &c. But here the context proves that the word "God" does not denote the Supreme Being, but is used in an inferior sense. This is admitted by some of the most respectable Trinitarian critics. Thus the Rev. Dr. Mayer remarks: "Here [i. e. in Hebrews i. 8] the Son is addressed by the title God; but the context shows that it is an official title, which designates him as a king: he has a kingdom, a throne, and a sceptre; and in ver. 9, he is compared with other kings, who are called his fellows; but God can have no fellows. As the Son, therefore, he is classed with the kings of the earth, and his superiority over them consists in this, that he is anointed with the oil of gladness above them; inasmuch as their thrones are temporary, but his shall be everlasting." (Article on "The Sonship of Christ," in the Biblical Repository for January 1840, p. 149.) So Professor Stuart says: "As to the quotation of Psalm xlv. it seems to me a clear case, that it does not fairly establish the truly divine nature of him to whom it is applied. Elohim appears to be here applied as designating an official capacity, which is high above that of all other kings." (Biblical Repository for July 1835, pp. 105, 106; compare his Commentary on Hebrews, p. 294, 2d ed.) After these admissions, it is hardly worth while to mention the fact, that such commentators as Calvin and Grotius

the very loose reasoning which has been resorted to in bringing passages from the Old and the New Testament in support of false doctrines. Supposing that Thomas had believed, and asserted, that his Master was God himself; in what way should

regard the Psalm in question as relating, in its primary sense, to Solomon.

Such, then, being the use of the word "God" in the Old Testament, Thomas may have applied it to Christ as it is applied to the subject of the forty-fifth Psalm, where it denotes "a divinely-anointed king," regarded as the earthly representative of God. But, without reference to this use of the word, there is no difficulty in conceiving that Thomas, under the circumstances related by the Evangelist, may have applied the term "God" to Christ, not as the Infinite and Unchangeable Being, but as one invested with the authority of God and manifesting his perfections, his Image and Vicegerent on earth. He had listened to his words of eternal life; he had beheld the manifestations of that supernatural power which stilled the tempest, which gave sight to the blind, which raised the dead; in his Master's resurrection he now recognized, with feelings which we can hardly realize, the immediate interposition of the Almighty; the impression which had been made on his mind and heart by all that was divine in Christ was vivified anew; he felt the truth of the sublime words which but a few days before he had heard from his lips, " He who has seen me has seen the Father"; and, overwhelmed with wonder, reverence, and awe, he exclaims, "My Master! and my God!"

But is it not marvellous that theologians have made of this exclamation a proof-text, construing language of the strongest emotion as if it were the language of a creed? A more rational view, however, has been taken of the passage by such commentators as Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, and Lücke, and, apparently, Neander and Tholuck, who recognize the invalidity of the Trinitarian argument which has been founded upon it. Meyer, in the first edition of his Commentary (1834), remarked, very judiciously, that expressions uttered "in such ecstatic moments are "entirely misused when applied to the proof of doctrinal propositions." But in his second edition (1852) he does not seem quite willing to give up the passage. He speaks of Thomas as expressing "his faith in the divine nature [or essence, Wesen] of his Lord"; and, though he ob

[ocr errors]

this affect our faith? We should still know the fact on which his belief was founded, the fact of the resurrection of his Master, and could draw our own inferences from it, and judge whether his were well founded. Considering into how great an er

serves that the strong feeling under which the exclamation was uttered renders it less fitted for doctrinal use, he cites as important the remark of Erasmus, that Christ accepted the acknowledgment of Thomas, instead of rebuking him, as he would have done if he had been falsely called God. The obvious reply to this is, that Christ accepted the acknowledgment of Thomas as he meant it, not in the irrational sense which modern theologians have put upon the words. And as Greenwood has well remarked:

"The answer of Jesus himself excludes the supposition that he was addressed as the Supreme God. For he said unto his disciple, 'Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.' Now this must mean, 'Because thou hast seen me here alive, after my crucifixion and burial, thou hast believed that I am raised from the dead; and it is well; but blessed are they who cannot have such evidence of the senses, and yet shall believe in the glorious truth, from your evidence, and that of your brethren.' He could not have meant, that they were blessed who, though they had not seen him, yet had believed that he was God; because there is no connection between the propositions; because the fact of the resurrection of Jesus cannot, to the mind of any one, be of itself a proof of his deity; and because no one thinks of requiring to see God, in order to believe that he exists." (Lives of the Twelve Apostles, 2d ed., p. 139.)

Nothing can be more thoroughly irreconcilable with the whole tenor of the Gospel history, than the supposition that the disciples, during their intercourse with their Master on earth, regarded him as the Supreme Being. (See before, p. 75, et seqq.) It is, accordingly, admitted by many Trinitarians, that the mystery of the hypostatic union was not revealed to them before the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. See Wilson's "Unitarian Principles confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies," p. 351, et seqq.

What the Apostle John understood to be implied in this confession of Thomas, may be inferred from the words with which he concludes this chapter.]

ror he had fallen in his previous obstinate incredulity, there would be little reason for relying upon his opinion as infallible in the case supposed. I make these remarks, not from any doubt about the meaning of his words, but, as I have said, for the purpose of pointing out one example of that incomplete and unsatisfactory mode of reasoning, which appears in the use of many quotations from the Old and the New Testament.

CLASS VII.

THE passages to which we have had occasion to attend are of a character to excite an interest in ascertaining their true meaning, without reference to the general subject of this volume. Their explanation rests on facts and principles important to be known and attended to in the study of the New Testament. But there are others brought forward by Trinitarians of which the same cannot be said, and which require only a very brief and general notice.

I have endeavored to show, that whenever a Trinitarian meaning is given to any passage, it is given in violation of a fundamental rule of interpretation. But there are passages adduced, in the senses assigned to which, not merely this rule is violated, but the most obvious and indisputable characteristics of language are disregarded, and the reasoning proceeds upon the assumption that they do not exist. Thus, for exam

« EelmineJätka »