Page images
PDF
EPUB

art thou? Jesus said unto them, Even what I told you at first," (λaλw, I tell.) See also John xii. 9; xv. 27; xx. 14; xxi. 4. 12. Acts ix. 2646.

The Jews evidently understood the language of Jesus as an assertion of his existence before the birth of Abraham ; for in the paroxysm of their rage they took up stones to stone him as a liar and a blasphemer.

This text is regarded by the supporters of the Arian hypothesis as a decisive proof of the pre-existence of

46 Newcome in loc. "Eywu, præsens pro imperfecto: eram. syw πελον. Nonnus. Sic in Græco. Ps. xc. 2." Grotius." I am, that is, I was." Bishop Pearce, who observes in his note that the present tense is sometimes used for the preterite, and refers to John viii. 25; i. 18. Matt. xxiii. 39. and his notes upon them. "Le présent se prend souvent dans l'Ecriture pour l'imparfait, qui est un tems dont les langues Orientales manquent." Le Clerc." I assure you in the most solemn manner, I existed before Abraham drew the breath of life." Harwood." The peculiar use of the present tense in the usage of scriptural expression is to imply determination and certainty, as if he had said, My mission was settled and certain before the birth of Abraham." Wakefield." The words may be rendered, I was. The present for the imperfect, or even for the preterperfect, is no unusual figure with this writer." Campbell.-" Dixerat prius, diem suam ardenti desiderio expetitum fuisse ab Abraham. Quia hoc Judæis incredibile erat, subjecit se tunc quoque fuisse." Calvin.

The expositors and critics are almost unanimous in giving to the words yw a the sense of past time. Nevertheless a learned writer in the Theological Repository, vol. iv. p. 350, objects, “If it be said that ɛyw u may be translated I was, this appears to me more easily asserted than proved. Indeed the present tense of us in Greek and of sum in Latin may in some instances be translated have been, but I imagine in those only where the present time is taken in with the past, and a continuance of being is implied." And Dr. Carpenter, in his Letters to Mr. Veysie, p. 246, remarks, that "for the interpretation which requires yw eiui, I am, to have the sense of I was, no justification appears in the writings of John, at least, if in any part of the New Testament."

The learned reader will judge how far the evidence alleged supports the general sense of critics and expositors, that the present tense is here used to express what is called the imperfect, I am, for I was.

It is observable that in the text above cited, John v. 13, the Cambridge manuscript for 75 851 reads 75 7. The Vulgate, the old Italic, and Beza, translate " quis esset."

[blocks in formation]

Christ; and the Unitarian exposition of it is treated by them with great contempt 47.

"The Socinian interpretation of this passage," says Dr. Clarke, (Scrip. Doc. No. 591.) "is very languid and unnatural, that Christ was before Abraham in the foreknowledge and appointment of God. The plain meaning is, that he was really with God in the beginning, and be fore the world was.'

[ocr errors]

This language is rather too confident, especially as the learned advocate of this high-Arian or semi-Arian hypothesis has not condescended to state his objections to the Unitarian interpretation. The venerable bishop Pearce has given his explanation of the text in less offensive terms. "What Jesus here says relates, I think, to his existence antecedent to Abraham's days, and not to his having been the Christ appointed or foretold before that time: for, if Jesus had meant this, the answer would, I apprehend, not have been a pertinent one. He might have been appointed,

47 Dr. Harwood in his Observations on the Socinian Scheme, p. 42, allows himself great freedom and warmth of language upon this subject. "That plain declaration," says he, "of our Saviour to the Jews, that before Abraham was, he had an existence, will, I think, for ever stand in full force against all the acumen of criticism, and sagacity of refinement, which may be employed to invalidate and explain away its natural and obvious signification. The interpretation that our Lord had an existence in the divine decree before Abraham, and that it was before the times of this patriarch fore-ordained that he should appear in such an age and state of the world, is extremely forced and futile, and does not discriminate our Lord from thyself, O reader, who hadst from eternity an existence in the divine decree. It is plain that our Saviour's audience took these words in their natural acceptation; for, upon his asserting to them that he was in being before their great ancestor, they were instantly transported with fury against him as a blasphemer and impostor, and took up stones with a design to murther him. These actual violences of the Jews prove, I apprehend, better than a thousand inane and chimerical theories, how our Redeemer was understood, and intended to be understood."

After all, notwithstanding this fine declamation, the Jews might, for any thing that appears, misunderstand our Lord's words, as unquestionably they did.

foretold,

foretold, for the Christ; but if he had not had an existence before Abraham's days, neither could he have seen Abraham, nor could Abraham have seen him 48."

In his own liberal and gentle spirit, Dr. Price, in his Discourses upon the Person of Christ, p. 135, makes the following observations upon the Unitarian interpretation of this text:

:

"The interpretations which the Socinians give of these texts are such as cannot easily occur to any plain man. By saying that he existed before Abraham, they think that he only meant that his existence was intended before Abraham and by the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, they understand the glory which he had in the divine foresight and appointment before the world was. I must own to you that I am inclined to wonder that wise and good men can satisfy themselves with such explanations. But I correct myself. I know that Christians, amidst their differences of opinion, are too apt to wonder at one another, and to forget the allowances which ought to be made for the darkness in which we are all involved. Sensible of this truth, and hoping to be excused if I should ever express my conviction in too strong language, I proceed to recite to you some other texts 49."

It cannot, I think, be denied that the words of our Lord in this declaration to the Jews, will, when considered in their grammatical import and construction, bear the sense

* The learned prelate conjectures that the evangelist wrote Aspaa εώρακε σε, "did Abraham see thee?" which he thinks would best suit the connexion: but his conjecture is unsupported by any authority.

19 It is curious to observe how Dr. Clarke, Dr. Price, and Dr. Harwood are led away by the notion that the Socinian interpretation is languid, forced, and unnatural, without assigning any reason why they think so, and without reflecting that a sense which, from established associations, may appear most obvious and natural to one, may to another, whose train of associations is different, appear forced and farfetched. The bishop of Rochester (Dr. Pearce) does not fall into this

error.

which the Arian expositors annex to them, and in which the Jews appear to have understood them.

But against this interpretation it may be alleged, that the word, even when used absolutely, very rarely, if ever, expresses simple existence 50; that it is not probable that our Lord would have been so very open and explicit upon this high and mysterious subject to his enemies, when he was so reserved to his friends, and does not appear to have hinted it even to his disciples 51; that if he had intended in this instance to announce his own pre-existence so very explicitly as many believe, he would have taught this extraordinary doctrine more frequently, in a greater variety of phrase, and would have laid greater stress upon it; and finally that this fact, so solemnly declared, would have been more attended to, and would have made a more permanent and vivid impression. It would have been a subject of general conversation and scrutiny, of admiration, or offence. Whereas the idea of such a claim on the part of our Lord vanished immediately. The disciples did not notice it. The Jews did not repeat it. And it is not alleged as a charge against our Saviour that he arrogated this extraordinary attribute. It is probable therefore that Jesus did not mean to be understood in

50" By interpreting au as meaning to exist, they take it in a sense different from its most common acceptation, and from the meaning in which it is used in every instance in which it occurs in this very chapter." Simpson's Essay ix. p. 105.

5 "Did we not daily experience," says an excellent writer, (Mr. Lindsey) in the Comment. and Essays, vol. i. p. 408," the power of prejudice to darken our understandings, and hinder us from seeing the most palpable contradictions, one might be surprised that any could ever suppose our Lord to be so very open and familiar with those Pharisees, his most bitter adversaries, as to tell them such a wonderful secret concerning himself, that he was the I AM, Jehovah, the eternal God, as some construe his words, or according to others, that he had existed with God from the beginning, before the world was, at the same time that he kept his disciples quite in the dark about things so prodigious and extraordinary.”

the

the sense in which the Jews did or pretended to apprehend him, and for which the Arian expositors contend. Another sense may be given to our Lord's declaration, which is liable to fewer objections, and which is perfectly consistent with the proper humanity of Christ.

3. " Before Abram shall become Abraham, I am he," i. e. the Christ.

It was promised to Abraham that he should be the father of many nations; and, as a pledge of the accomplishment of this promise, by special divine appointment his name was changed from Abram to Abraham. Gen. xvii. 4, 5. In this declaration to the Jews, our Lord solemnly avers, that before the accomplishment of this promise to Abraham he appears as the Messiah.

This explanation of the text was proposed, though not absolutely adopted, by Slichtingius, Wolzogenius, Stegman, and others of the old Socinians. It has been revived and defended by a writer in the Theological Reposi tory, vol. iv. p. 348; and Dr. Carpenter, in his Letters to Mr. Veysie, p. 246, expresses his approbation of it. In favour of this interpretation it is stated, 1.) That the original word (yever bai) does not necessarily refer to past time, but much more frequently, and in the writings of this evangelist uniformly, to that which is future 52. 2.) That as the second clause is allowed to be elliptical, so probably is the first; and the ellipsis cannot be better supplied than by this hypothesis. 3.) That this interpretation retains the proper sense of the present tense (I am) in the second clause, a sense which it bears uniformly in

"The word yeveral occurs 38 times in the New Testament. In five passages only it signifies past time. Luke iii. 22; ix. 36. Acts xxii, 17. Phil. i. 13. 1 Thess. i. 7. In John xiii. 19, the phrase pо TH YEveobai is found, which is properly rendered before it shall come to pass.' And John xiv. 29, the very same words occur which are used in ch. viii. 53; πpiv yɛverbal, where they must refer to future time, "I have now told you before it come to pass." Theol. Rep. vol. iv. p. 348.

all

« PreviousContinue »