Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

NOTE (L), p. 282.

On Heb. i. 3.

SEVERAL commentators suppose that the phrases, áñaúγασμα τῆς δόξης, καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” do not refer to the pre-existent and divine nature of our Lord. Beza thinks this exposition dangerous, and Stuart argues that the expressions are inadequate to such a state of majesty'; both which opinions, though in a sense correct, are not to the purpose. For, with the utmost respect to such high authorities, it may be inquired, what human analogies are adequate to a description of the divine essence, or what, if unduly and irreverently prosecuted, are not dangerous? If we are to repudiate all representations on this subject which may possibly be distorted or misunderstood, revelation is at an end. But the writers of Scripture, so far from submitting to any such restrictions, employ images for the illustration of the nature of God, even less adequate and more likely to be abused than those before us. Such, for instance, as are derived from the human body and from human passions, are of frequent occurrence, especially in the writings of the Prophets; and these, it will be admitted, are at least equally remote from the reality, and not less liable to unsanctioned interpretation.

Mr. Stuart contends that the words ἀπαύγασμα and χαρακτὴρ "imply, of course, what is visible and perceptible." But from the examples which we can command of the use of these and similar expressions by Jewish writers, the very contrary is to be inferred. Thus, by the terms of this class, we find described the relation of the divine Logos to the Father; a relation, be it remembered, purely spiritual. They abound in the works of Philo. He calls the WORD, the Image, (εikov,) the eternal Image, the copied Image, (áñɛikóvioμa,) of God; the impressed Image, (x а ρ а ктǹo,) of the seal of God. In speaking of the human understanding,-another spiritual substance, -he describes it as an accurate resemblance, the derivation and the radiance of the blessed nature" of the Logos.

(ἐκμαγεῖον, ἡ ἀπόσπασμα, καὶ ἡ ἀπαύγασμα. De Mund. Opific., T. i., p. 35. See above, p. 64.) An apocryphal writer employs similar phraseology in respect of wisdom. After having described it as a purely spiritual essence, he proceeds to style it "the radiance (añavуaoμa) of the Eternal Light, the spotless mirror of the energy of God, and the Image (kwv) of his goodness." (Wisd. vii. 26.) So St. Paul, apparently with the same design, designates the Son, in his pre-existent state, "the Image (ɛikwv) of the invisible God." (Col. i. 15.)

It is, in fact, as great an error in rhetoric as in exegesis, to represent the άavyaoμa (radiance) of an invisible dóža (glory) as visible; and the xapaкτǹp (impressed likeness) of an hypostasis purely spiritual as perceptible to sense. The latter supposition is all but a contradiction in terms. If vπóσraσiç signifies, as Mr. Stuart expresses it, God "as he really is," the divine "substance or essence," the xapaктno, exact likeness, cannot but be invisible; since it would otherwise be wanting in the most obvious characteristic of the divine essence, its spirituality.

That the analogy suggested by the former of these expressions, "the radiance of his glory," includes the revelations made by Christ, is an exceedingly probable conjecture; but it cannot be conceded that this is the entire signification of both phrases. In some sense it is evident that they apply to the person of our Lord. "Exact likeness of his substance" is a description purely personal; but is wholly inapplicable to the person of the incarnate Logos. That was composed of heterogeneous natures, of which one was at the utmost remoteness from the divine essence. Hence, in his higher nature alone, can Christ be the exact likeness of the Father's substance.

Professor Stuart, from the oneness of the Logos with God, argues, that he cannot correctly be described as only an Image of the substance of the Father. And were the Father and the Son in every respect one, that is, were these but two names of the same hypostasis, no argument could be more conclusive. But, as some distinction is admitted, in that respect the Son may be the exact Image; and this alone is necessary to the exposition for which we contend.

In Mr. Stuart's reasonings upon this subject there is considerable obscurity. But if I understand him aright, his judgment is, that whoever or whatever makes known to us the

divine character, is so far the radiance of God's glory, and the image of his substance. Our Lord is so called,,“ because,” says Mr. S., "he reveals to us, in his person and work, just and proper views of the perfections of the Father." But this is a dignity common to others. The Prophets, for instance, upon this exposition, might be accurately designated the effulgence of the divine splendour, which would so far nullify the argument of the passage. The Apostles, as the agents employed to communicate yet more perfect views of the divine perfections and government, personally considered, are, of course, in a sense more emphatic than the Messiah, the radiance of the glory of God, and the exact image of his person. Nay, this exposition is susceptible of yet greater comprehension. Elsewhere, for example, Mr. Stuart remarks, "No developement ever made is so highly and decisively characteristic of eternal power and Godhead as the act of creation." (Vol. ii., p. 382.) There is therefore no serious objection to the modified application of the description before us, to an act so illustrative of the divine attributes.

But without laying any stress on conclusions so obviously inadmissible, is it to be supposed that, by phrases so precise and so magnificent as, The radiance of the glory, and the exact and impressed Image of the substance of God, nothing more is meant than what this exposition amounts to, viz., that Jesus Christ was the greatest Prophet ever commissioned to make known the nature and reveal the will of God?

Nor is this interpretation objectionable in itself alone; it is repudiated both by the terms and by the connexion of the passage. "By whom also he made the worlds; who being (osv) the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding (pépwv) 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." In each clause the same participial mode of expression is employed,-being, -upholding. The latter describes the perpetual sustentation of all things by the omnipotence of the Son; and, in order to the harmony of the passage, the former must be explained of a permanent state, and not of a transient act or series of acts. He exists as,—not becomes the radiance of the divine splendour. This is his settled and unchanging mode of being, not

one of the functions of an office recently assumed, and hereafter to be laid aside. That this is the only legitimate exposition, appears from the expression which succeeds: "Being the brightness,-upholding all,-he sat down," &c.; where the contrast between the state and the act is sufficiently distinct.

We can scarcely conceive of any thing which would more enfeeble the passage than the insertion of Mr. Stuart's paraphrase. "By whom also [God] made the worlds, who, having revealed to us just and proper views of the Father's perfections, and controlling the universe by his powerful word, when he had BY HIMSELF purged our sins, sat down," &c. However grand in itself the prophetical office and work of Christ, its mention between that of the creation of all worlds, and of the irresistible controul over universal nature, is an insignificancy into which no man of ordinary taste could possibly fall, especially as it destroys the emphasis of the following clause,-" when he had by himself purged our sins." It is personal dignity which this expression suggests; whereas the exposition before us withdraws from the only phrase susceptible of such a sense its personal application, and reduces the whole of the Apostle's description to that of office and function alone. It is this which gives infinite value to the satisfaction of Christ, that it was effected by himself, not as a divine teacher, but as the Father's fellow. His oblation it was that gave force to his doctrines; but this interpretation makes his doctrines to enhance the value, or to ensure the validity of his oblation.

Once more, had the design of the Apostle been what is generally supposed, which certainly is a possible case, we naturally inquire in what terms he could have conveyed his meaning. In none, assuredly, not liable to the charge of inadequacy; in none, not capable of distortion; and in none, it may be added, which, were this exposition allowed, might not be explained away. Is that, then, it is most respectfully submitted, a lawful style of exegesis which renders it impracticable to state a doctrine which may yet be true? Are we justified in limiting the writers of Scripture by a standard of interpretation which determines that they shall not declare what it is very possible the Holy Spirit may direct?

NOTE (M), p. 286.

On Psalm ii. 7.

"

"I WILL DECLARE THE ORACLE: JEHOVAH HATH SAID UNTO ME, THOU [ART] MY SON; THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE.' The reader's attention is requested to the following preliminary remarks.

1. This passage occurs four times in the Scripture, being thrice cited in the New Testament; Acts xiii. 33; Heb. i. 5; v. 5. Hence we are assured of its importance and significancy, and equally of its impressiveness, which last must of course depend upon the clearness with which it enunciates the truth, and the consequent facility with which its meaning would be apprehended. It cannot therefore be obscure or enigmatical, nor can its sense be remote or recondite, uncertain or ambiguous. A text possessing these characteristics would not be quoted so often, especially as is the fact, without an accompanying explanation.

2. A second remark, still more obviously true, is, that in its proper sense it must be appropriate to each discourse in which it occurs. Hence, of several interpretations, that is to be preferred which is most fully adapted to the whole; while, on the other hand, such as are limited in their aptness to but one example of citation are strongly to be suspected, if not summarily dismissed.

3. A third circumstance, not to be wholly passed over, is, that in every instance the passage is addressed to Jews. Its exposition, therefore, must be conducted upon the acknowledged principles of Jewish theology; and no sense which would not be appreciated by a Jewish auditor or reader can be otherwise than incorrect.

These rules, it is presumed, are so evident as not to demand formal proof, and, if duly regarded, will save much useless labour.

From these premises there is in general one negative conclusion which seems unavoidable;-that the reference of the passage cannot be to the bare Messiahship of our Lord;

« ÎnapoiContinuă »