網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[blocks in formation]

ON CHRIST'S OWN ACCOUNT OF HIS PERSON, AND ON THE NATURE OF HIS KINGDOM, AS SET FORTH AT HIS TWO TRIALS.

Οὐδ' εἰ ἐν ΔΟΛΟΣ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ.

guilty. The Jewish rulers had the will, but not the power, to inflict capital punishment on Him; Pilate had the power, and not the will. But though he "found no fault in Him," he was ultimately prevailed on by the Jews to inflict their sentence of death. “We have a law," they urged, "and by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God."

§ 1. To any one who is convinced of pretensions subversive of the existing the divine origin of the Christian Re- Government; and was pronounced not ligion, who is satisfied that what is called in Scripture" the Kingdom of Heaven" does really deserve that title,—and who is inquiring into the personal character of its Founder, and into the nature of that Kingdom which He proclained and established, the most obvious and natural course would seem to be, to appeal, in the first instance, to that Founder himself, and to consider what account He gave of his own character and that of his kingdom. For to believe Him sent from God, is to believe Him incapable of either deceiving or being deceived, as to these points. He must have understood both his own personal nature, and the principles of the religion He was divinely commissioned to introduce. Having a full reliance therefore both on his unerring knowledge, and his perfect veracity, our first inquiry should be, as I have said, (without any disparagement of other sources of instruction, into the accounts He gave of Himself and his religion; both in the various discourses which He delivered and declarations which He made, on sundry occasions, and, most especially, on the great and final occasion of his being tried and condemned to death.

1

Of this most interesting and important portion of the sacred narrative, many persons, I believe, have a somewhat indistinct and confused notion; partly from the brevity, scantiness, and indeed incompleteness, of each of the four narratives, when taken alone; each evangelist recording, it may be supposed, such circumstances, as he was the most struck with, and had seen or heard the most of: and partly, again, from the commonly prevailing practice of reading the Scripture-histories irregularly, and in detached fragments, taken indiscriminately and without any fixed object, out of different books.†

This indistinctness a reader of ordinary intelligence may I think very easily clear away, by attentively studying and comparing together all the four accounts that have come down to us: and he will then find that this portion of the history so examined, will throw great light on some of the most important points of Gospel truth;-on those two great questions Hui: is expressed in the original.

We collect from the sacred historians that He underwent two trials, before two distinct tribunals, and on charges totally different; that on the one occasion He was found guilty, and on the other, acquitted; and that ultimately He was put to death under the one Authority in compliance with the condemnation which The whole of the New Testament is read in had been pronounced by the other. this irregular mode, in the Second Lessons apHe was tried first before the Sanhe-pointed in our service; as these are appointed in drim, (the Jewish Council,) for blas-reference to the day of the month only; and it is phemy," and pronounced "guilty of consequently a matter of chance which of them Before the Roman governor, fections which a Church-government, if we had shall fall on Sunday. This is one of the imperPilate, (and probably before Herod also,) one, would not fail to remedy. See Appendix He was tried for rebellion, in setting up to the Second Essay B

death."

especially which were alluded to in the cial manner,-in a higher sense, those outset, as to the fundamental character are often called his children whom He has of "the kingdom of Heaven," and the from time to time chosen to be his “peperson of its Founder. culiar People,”—to have his will revealed § 2. When the Jewish Rulers and Peo-to them, and his offers of especial favour ple were clamorously demanding the set before them. Such were the Israelites death of Jesus under sentence of the of old (to whom the title of Son is acRoman Authorities, and Pilate in answer cordingly assigned by the Lord himself, declared, that before his-the Roman-Exod. iv. 22,) as being the chosen or tribunal, no crime had been proved, say-"elect" people of Gou, cair from among ing, "Take ye Him and judge Him ac- all the nations of the world to receive dicording to your law," his intention evi- rect communications, and especial blessdently was that no heavier penalty should ings from their Heavenly Father. And the be inflicted than the scourging which was like privilege of peculiar" Sonship," (only the utmost that the Jewish Authorities in a far higher degree,) was extended afwere permitted to inflict. But they replied terwards to all nations who should emthat the crime of which they had convicted brace the Gospel; "who aforetime" (says Him was, by their law, capital, while the Apostle Peter)" were not a People, yet they were restricted by the Romans but now are the People of Cod." And from inflicting capital punishment; (it Paul uses like expressions continually is not lawful for us to put any man to in addressing his converts, whether they death;") on which ground accordingly walked worthy of their high calling or not. they called on the Governor to exccute the capital sentence of their Court.

Their clamours prevailed, through Filate's apprehension of a tumult, and of himself incurring suspicions of disloyalty towards the Emperor; which they had endeavoured to awaken by crying out that "if he let this man go, he was not Cæsar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Cæsar." But this was only brought forward as a plea to influence Pilate. The trial before the Jewish Council had nothing to do with the Roman Emperor, but was for "blasphemy," because "He made Himself the SON OF GOD."

It is important, therefore, to inquire, since this phrase may conceivably bear more than one meaning,-in what sense it was understood by those who founded on it the sentence of death.

In a certain sense all mankind may be called children of God. In a more espe

• It seems to have been not unusual for the Ro

man Governors of Provinces to endeavour thus to

prevent, or mitigate, or cut short, any tumult not directed against the Roman power itself, by yielding to the wishes of the populace, however unreasonable, or conniving at their disorders. A sort of compromise was thus made with the most turbulent and violent among them; who, provided they made no attempt to throw off the yoke of a foreign Power, were permitted to sacrifice a fellow citizen to their lawless fury. Thus Gallio at Corinth left the rioters to settle their own disputes as they would; (Acts xviii. ;) and the magistrates at Philippi readily and spontaneously gratified the populace by seconding and sanctioning their unjust violence. Pilate on this occasion did so, tardily and reluctantly.

† (Acts xvii.).." for we are also his children."

Yet again, still more especially, those who do avail themselves of the privileges offered to them, and "walk as Children of the light," are spoken of as, in another and a superior way, the "Sons" of Him whom they love and submit to as a Father: "as many," says Paul," as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God."

Those Patriarchs, and Prophets again, to whom of old God revealed Himself immediately, and made them the means of communication between Himself and other men,-his messengers to his People, and endowed with miraculous powers as the credentials of a heavenly embassy,-to such men as having a peculiar kind of divine presence with then, we might conceive the title of Children of God to be applicable in a different tense, as distinguishing them from uninspired men.

Now it is a most important practical question whether Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith,-He to whom we are accustomed emphatically to apply the title of the Son of God,"-was so designated, in the Angel's first announcement, and on so many occasions afterwards, merely as being an inspired messenger from heaven, or in some different and higher sense; and what that higher sense is.

[blocks in formation]

dwelt on when He is speaking of Himself, (John iii.) This is a further stage in the revelation given; for the Angel had not told Mary that He should be "the Son of God," (though it is so rendered in our version) but only "a Son of God," vids

Θεοῦ.

different and superior sense from that in which any other could be so called. But what was the sense, it may be asked, in which they did understand the title? Did the people of that time and country understand that God was with Him, not only in some such way as He never was with any other man, but so as to permit and require divine worship to be addressed to God in Christ? Many passages by which this tenet is supported are commonly cited from the Evangelists and Apostles; but I wish at present to confine myself to the expression "the Son of God," and to inquire in what sense that word was understood at the time.

about with eagerness than clearly understood,) let us confine ourselves to such views as we may presume the Apostles to have laid before the converts they were instructing; who were most of them plain unlearned persons, to whom such abstruse disquisitions as I have been alluding to must have been utterly unintelligible; but who, nevertheless, where called on,-all of them, of whatever age, sex, station, and degree of intellectual education,-to receive the Gospel, and to believe, and feel, and act, as that Gospel enjoined.

I need not multiply the citations of passages of which so many must be familiar to every one even tolerably well-read in the New-Testament. But there is one tha. is peculiarly worthy of attention, on account of the care which divine Providence then displayed in guarding the disciples against the mistake of supposing Jesus to be merely one-though the most eminent one-of the Prophets. In the Waiving then all abstruse disquisition transfiguration "on the Mount," three fa- on the notions conveyed by such terms voured Apostles beheld their Master sur- as "consubstantiality"" personality," rounded with that dazzling supernatural-hypostatic-union,"" eternal filiation," light which had always been to the Is- and the like, (oftener I conceive debated raelites the sign of a divine manifestation, and which we find so often mentioned in the Old Testament as the Glory of the Lord the Shechinah;-which appeared on Mount Sinai, on the Tabernacle in the Wilderness,-in Solomon's Temple, &c. and they beheld at the same time, in company with Him, two persons, each of whom had been seen in their lifetime accompanied by this outward mark of supernatural light; Moses, their great lawgiver, whose "face shone when he came down from Mount Sinai, so that the Israelites could not fix their eyes on it, and Elias (Elijah), their most illustrious Prophet, who was seen borne away from the earth in that Shechinah appearing as a "chariot and horses of fire:" and now, these same two persons were seen along with Jesus. It might naturally have occurred to the three disciples (perhaps some such idea was indicated by the incoherent words which dropped from them) -the thought might have occurred to them, were Moses and Elias also Emmanuels?—were all three, manifestations of "God dwelling with his People?" and was Jesus merely the greatest of the three? To correct, as it should seem, any such notion, it was solemnly announced to them that their Master was a Being of a different character from the others there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Sox: hear Him." And on two other occasions we read of the same signs being given.

§ 4. No one can doubt then, that those who believed in Jesus at all, must have believed Him to be the Son of God in a far

There is one great practical point clearly intelligible to all, thus far, at least, that they can understand what the question is that is under discussion, and which it is, and ever must have been, needful to bring before all Christians without exception: viz., whether there is that divine character in the Lord Jesus which entitles Him to our adoration:—whether He is the Son of God in such a sense as to authorize those who will worship none but the one God, to worship Jesus Christ; so that all men* should honour the Son even as they honour the Father."

Now there is a maxim relative to the right interpretation of any passage of Scripture, so obvious when stated, that it seems strange it should be so often overlooked; viz. to consider in what sense the words were understood by the generality of the persons they were addressed to; and to keep in mind that the presumption is in favour of that, as the true sense, unless reasons to the contrary shall appear.

Some are accustomed to consider what

• John v. 23.

Bense such and such words can be them against it. Such a one would be brought to bear; or how we should be doubly bound to make such explanations most naturally inclined to understand and such disavowals as should effectually them but it is evident that the point we guard his disciples against falling into the have to consider, if we would under-error-through any thing said or done by stand aright what it is that God did design | himself-of paying adoration to a Being to reveal., the sense (as far as we can not divine: even as the Apostle Peter ascertain it) which the very hearers of warns the Centurion Cornelius against the Christ and his Apostles did actually at- adoration which he suspected that Cornetach to their words. For we may be lius designed to offer him; saying, stand sure that if this was, in any case, a mis-up, I myself also am a man." Jesus of taken sense, a correction of the mistak course would have taken care to give a (if it relate to any important practical like warning, if He had been conscious point) will be found in sore part of the of not having a claim to be considered as Sacred Writings. divine, and had at the same time been aware that the title of Son of God would be understood as implying that claim. That the title was so understood, is the

However strange therefore it may seen to any one that the phrase "Son of God" should have been so understood as it was at the time, and however capable of ano-point to which I am now calling the readther sense it may appear to us, still, the er's attention. sense which Jesus and his Apostles meant to convey, must have been that, whatever it was, in which they knew that their hearers understood them.

§ 5. On one occasion, when he had healed a cripple on the Sabbath-day, and had commanded him immediately "to take up his bed" (which was a work prohibited by the Jewish law) He vindicates himself against his opponents by saying "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work;" or, as it might be rendered more clearly, according to our modern usage,

And what this meaning was, may I think be settled even by the testimony of his adversaries alone, as to the sense in which they understood Him. They charged Him, not only on his trial, but on many other occasions also, with "blas-"My father has been working up to this phemy," as "making Himself God," "making himself equal with God ;" and threatened to "stone Him," according to the law of Moses against blasphemers; understanding blasphemy to comprehend the crime of enticing the People to worship any besides the one true God, Jehovah.*

Now if they had misunderstood his words, and had supposed his language to imply a claim to such divine honour as He did not really mean to claim, we may be sure that any one-I do not say merely, any inspired messenger from heaven, but any man of common integrity, would at once have disavowed the imputation, and explained his real meaning. If any Christian ministers, in these days, or at any time, were to have used some expression which they found was understood, either by friends or foes,—as implying a claim to divine worship, what would they not deserve, if they did not hasten to disclaim such a meaning?

And much more would this be requisite in the case of a person who foresaw (as Jesus must have done) that his followers would regard Him as divine,-would worship Him-if He did not expressly warn

• See Deut. xiii.

time;" (that is, ever since the creation, the operations of God have been going on throughout the universe, on all days alike;) and I work ;" I claim the right to perform, and to authorize others to perform, whatever and whenever I see fit. "Therefore the Jews" (says the Evangelist) "sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his [proper] Father; making himself equal with God.

On another occasion (John x. 33) when He had said "I and the Father are one," the Jews were about to stone Him for blasphemy, "because (said they) thou being a man makest thyself God." He defends Himself by alleging a passage of their Scripture in which the title of God" is applied to those," to whom the word of God came;" implying however at the same time

* Εργάζεται έως στι.

I have treated more fully on this point, in an Essay entitled "Thoughts on the Sabbath."

Our version, it is important to observe, does not give the full force of the passage as it stands in the Original. It should be rendered, "that God was his own proper (or peculiar) Father." (warépa dv.) This it seems was the sense in which (according to the Evangelist) He was understood by his hearers to call God his Father, and Himself

"the Son of God."-See Wilson on the New Testament, referred to in the Preface.

tion.

[ocr errors]

a distinction between Himself and those be supposed to have recorded any thing persons, and his own superiority to them: that did not occur. All the four, there"Say ye of Him" (He doth not say "to fore, should be compared together, in orwhom the word of God came"-but) der to obtain a clear view of the transac"whom the Father hath anointed and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God?" This however did not necessarily imply any thing more than superiority, and divine mission; and accordingly we find the Jews enduring it; but when He goes on to say "that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him," we find them immediately seeking again to lay hands on him; and Ile withdraws from them.

It seems to have been divinely appointed that Jesus should be convicted on no testimony but his own; perhaps in order to fulfil the more emphatically his declaration "No man taketh away my life, but I lay it down of myself." For the witnesses brought forward to misrepresent and distort his saying "Destroy this temple," and "I will destroy," could not make their evidence agree.

The High Priest then endeavoured, by examining Jesus Himself, to draw from Him an acknowledgment of his supposed

asked Him two questions; which in the more abridged narrative of Matthew and Mark are compressed into one sentence; but which Luke has given distinctly as two. After having asked Him "Art thon the Christ?" they proceed to ask further "Art thou then the Son of God?”* and as soon as He had answered this last question in the affirmative (according to the Hebrew idiom "Ye say," "Thou hast said") immediately "the High Priest rent his clothes," saying, "He hath spoken blasphemy: ye have heard the blasphemy; what need we any further witnesses? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth."

But the most important record by far in respect of the point now before us is that which I originally proposed to no-guilt. He and the others appear to have tice, the account of our Lord's trial and condemnation before the Jewish council. In order to have a clear view of this portion of the history, it is necessary to keep in mind, hat when He was tried before the Roann Governor, it was (as I observed in the beginning) not for the same crime he was charged with before the Council of the Jews; but for seditious and treasonable designs against the Roman Emperor: "We found this fellow perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that He Himself is Christ a King." "Whosoever maketh himself a King, speaketh against Cæsar." Now I need hardly remark that this was no crime under the Law of Moses; and § 6. Some readers, I believe, from not would in fact have been a merit in the carefully studying and comparing together sight of most of the Jews. But what He the accounts of the different Evangelists, was charged with before them, was blas- are apt to take for granted that the crime phemy, according to the Law of Moses; for which our Lord was condemned was and of this they pronounced Him guilty, that of falsely pretending to be the Mesand sentenced Him to death; but not hav-siah or Christ. But whatever the Jews ing power to inflict capital punishment, they prevailed on Pilate, who had acquitted Ilira of the charge of treason, to inflict their sentence: "We have a law, and by our law Ile ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God."

In order to understand clearly the trial and condemnation of our Lord before the Jewish council (which is in many respects a most important part of Sacred history) we should study, as I have said, the accounts given of it by all four of the Evangelists. Each relates such circumstances as most struck his own mind; were one is abridged, another is more diffuse; each omits some things that are noticed by another; but no one can

• See Dex. xìii. 7.

at

may have thought of that crime, they certainly could not have found it mentioned, and death denounced against it, in the Law of Moses. It could, at any rate, have been no crime, unless proved to be a false pretension; which was not even tempted. Nor could they have brought that offence (even if proved) under the head of blasphemy; unless they had been accustomed to ex; ect the Messiah as a divine person. Then, indeed, the claim of being the Messiah, and the claim of divine honour, would have amounted to the same thing. But so far were they from having this expectation that (not to multiply proofs) they were completely at a loss to answer our Lord's question, how Da

See John xx. 31.

« 上一頁繼續 »