The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-11-30
AN EXPOSITION

YUM oO. anu my ratner are one.
Then took the Jews up stones again to stone
him. Jesus answered them, MANY good works
have showed you from my Father; for which
of those works do we stone me?" The Jews an
swered him, saying For good work we stone
thee not but for blasphemy, and because that
thou being man, makest myself God" Jesus
answered them, Is it not written in your law,
L said Ye are gods2 If he called them gods
INTO whom the word of God came say We of
him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent
into the world Thou blasphemest; because 1
said, L am the Son of God?"
The most obvious meaning of this scene
between Jesus and the Jews, the con-
struction which the conversation most
naturally bears, on superficial examina-
ton, is this: The Jews charged Christ
with making himself God; he answered,
=" Is not the term gods applied to the
judges spoken of in the SIND Psalm? and
if your inspired Scripture applies this APP
pellation to them, how can it be irreverent
for me, whom the Father consecrated and
sent into the world, to apply the same
term to myself Apparently, he means
to say to them, al did not claim to be
God in the higher meaning of that term;
only spoke of myself as {" a son of God,"
just as your judges are called " sons. of
God" in the 92nd Psalm"
This is, practically, the Interpretation
put on the conversation by some common
tators (see Barnes, Ryle, Abbott, Schaff S
Popular Commentary. So also Dr.
John Brown, as we'll as Calvin, Bucer,
and Erasmus. But, can this be correct?
Can it be true that Jesus meant to lower
his claims before the angry mob who
threatened to stone him? Or, as some OF
tho com mAntatnrs suggest. did he merely
mean to employ an argument adj hOmi-
mem. and say to the Jews, You, at least,
cannot regard my language as blasphe-
nous, because David uses the same Ian
guage in speaking of your judges
Trinitarians maintain that Christ
claimed to be the Son of God in the
fullest and deepest Specification of that
term; and that he taught this doctrine
to the people, and to his disciples. Did
he do it? If so, can it be true that on
this occasion he undertook to make the
impression on the Jews that they had
misunderstood him, when he asserted his
oneness with the Father?
We think the transaction is susceptible
OF different construction. And num-
Der of commentators do construe it diff
ferently. But few of them make the
matter perfectly clear. Olshausen and
Scott are the most satisfactory.
If we turn back to Ex iv: 16, and vii:
/, we shall see Moses spoken of as taking
the place Of God in his relation to Aaron
and to Pharaoh. Aaron is spoken of as
his prophet. This Moses was a type
of Christ; he was the great vicegerent
whom God set up in the first instance to
administer the theocracy which he estab-
lished among the Hebrews Moses is
succeeded by the Judges; these by David,
the founder of the Holy City, the kingly
type Of the Amounted One, whom God was
to send into the world.
The whole administration of the Jewish
theocracy was typical Of the everlasting
kingdom which Christ was to ordain.
The officers Of the theocracy were the
representatives and agents Of God, who
was the real King over his people. They
are called "gods" again in Exodus xxi
6, Then his master shall bring him unto
the [gods] judges" -; and in Exodus xxi
8. See also Exodus xviii: Is, where
Moses says, Because the people come
unto me to enquire Of God" As his
organs, the rulers Of Israel, be they Judges,
prophets, or divinely enlightened men,
are called goods, and in verse 6, Psalm
81, the children (or sons) Of God
They were officially regarded as par
takers o. the Divine nature. The Old
Testament Swallowed forth preparation
for that union between God and man
which Christ, taking on himself the hu-
man nature, was to complete.
The argument Of our Lord was, there
fore, this: II spoke Of the Father and
myself as one mot one person, but.
one entity-the Greek is en- not eis) :;
i spoke Of myself as participant