the Son of God, the Messiah, and Saviour of the world, the
first and principal object of the prophecies, prefigured and promised in
the Old Testament, expected and desired by the patriarchs; the hope of
the Gentiles; the glory, salvation, and consolation of Christians. The
name Jesus, or, as the Hebrews pronounce it, יהושוע, _Jehoshua_, or
_Joshua_, Ἰησούς, signifies, _he who shall save_. No one ever bore this
name with so much justice, nor so perfectly fulfilled the signification
of it, as Jesus Christ, who saves even from sin and hell, and hath
merited heaven for us by the price of his blood. It is not necessary
here to narrate the history of our Saviour’s life, which can no where be
read with advantage except in the writings of the four evangelists; but
there are several general views which require to be noticed under this
article.
1. Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or Messiah promised under the Old
Testament. That he professed himself to be that Messiah to whom all the
prophets gave witness, and who was, in fact, at the time of his
appearing, expected by the Jews; and that he was received under that
character by his disciples, and by all Christians ever since, is
certain. And if the Old Testament Scriptures afford sufficiently
definite marks by which the long announced Christ should be infallibly
known at his advent, and these presignations are found realized in our
Lord, then is the truth of his pretensions established. From the books
of the Old Testament we learn that the Messiah was to authenticate his
claim by _miracles_; and in those _predictions_ respecting him, so many
circumstances are recorded, that they could meet only in one person; and
so, if they are accomplished in him, they leave no room for doubt, as
far as the evidence of prophecy is deemed conclusive. As to MIRACLES, we
refer to that article; here only observing, that if the miraculous works
wrought by Christ were really done, they prove his mission, because,
from their nature, and having been wrought to confirm his claim to be
the Messiah, they necessarily imply a _divine attestation_. With respect
to PROPHECY, the principles under which its evidence must be regarded as
conclusive will be given under that head; and here therefore it will
only be necessary to show the completion of the prophecies of the sacred
books of the Jews relative to the Messiah in one person, and that person
the founder of the Christian religion.
The time of the Messiah’s appearance in the world, as predicted in the
Old Testament, is defined, says Keith, by a number of concurring
circumstances, which fix it to the very date of the advent of Christ.
The last blessing of Jacob to his sons, when he commanded them to gather
themselves together that he might tell them what should befall them in
the last days, contains this prediction concerning Judah: “The sceptre
shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until
Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be,” Gen.
xlix, 10. The date fixed by this prophecy for the coming of Shiloh, or
the Saviour, was not to exceed the time during which the descendants of
Judah were to continue a united people, while a king should reign among
them, while they should be governed by their own laws, and while their
judges should be from among their brethren. The prophecy of Malachi adds
another standard for measuring the time: “Behold, I send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek,
shall come suddenly to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant,
whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts,”
Mal. iii, 1. No words can be more expressive of the coming of the
promised Messiah; and they as clearly imply his appearance in the second
temple before it should be destroyed. In regard to the advent of the
Messiah before the destruction of the second temple, the words of Haggai
are remarkably explicit: “The desire of all nations shall come, and I
will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of Hosts. The glory of
this latter house shall be greater than of the former, and in this place
will I give peace,” Hag. ii, 7. The Saviour was thus to appear,
according to the prophecies of the Old Testament, during the time of the
continuance of the kingdom of Judah, previous to the demolition of the
temple, and immediately subsequent to the next prophet. But the time is
rendered yet more definite. In the prophecies of Daniel, the kingdom of
the Messiah is not only foretold as commencing in the time of the fourth
monarchy, or Roman empire, but the express number of years that were to
precede his coming are plainly intimated: “Seventy weeks are determined
upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,
and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and
prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know, therefore, and understand,
that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore
and two weeks,” Dan. ix, 24, 25. Computation by weeks of years was
common among the Jews, and every seventh was the sabbatical year;
seventy weeks, thus amounted to four hundred and ninety years. In these
words the prophet marks the very time, and uses the very name of
Messiah, the Prince; so entirely is all ambiguity done away. The
plainest inference may be drawn from these prophecies. All of them,
while, in every respect, they presuppose the most perfect knowledge of
futurity; while they were unquestionably delivered and publicly known
for ages previous to the time to which they referred; and while they
refer to different contingent and unconnected events, utterly
undeterminable and inconceivable by all human sagacity; accord in
perfect unison to a single precise period where all their different
lines terminate at once,--the very fulness of time when Jesus appeared.
A king then reigned over the Jews in their own land; they were governed
by their own laws; and the council of their nation exercised its
authority and power. Before that period, the other tribes were extinct
or dispersed among the nations. Judah alone remained, and the last
sceptre in Israel had not then departed from it. Every stone of the
temple was then unmoved; it was the admiration of the Romans, and might
have stood for ages. But in a short space, all these concurring
testimonies to the time of the advent of the Messiah passed away. During
the very year, the twelfth of his age, in which Christ first publicly
appeared in the temple, Archelaus the king was dethroned and banished;
Coponius was appointed procurator; and the kingdom of Judea, the last
remnant of the greatness of Israel, was debased into a part of the
province of Syria. The sceptre was smitten from the tribe of Judah; the
crown fell from their heads; their glory departed; and, soon after the
death of Christ, of their temple one stone was not left upon another;
their commonwealth itself became as complete a ruin, and was broken in
pieces; and they have ever since been scattered throughout the world, a
name but not a nation. After the lapse of nearly four hundred years
posterior to the time of Malachi, another prophet appeared who was the
herald of the Messiah. And the testimony of Josephus confirms the
account given in Scripture of John the Baptist. Every mark that denoted
the time of the coming of the Messiah was erased soon after the
crucifixion of Christ, and could never afterward be renewed. And with
respect to the prophecies of Daniel, it is remarkable, at this remote
period, how little discrepancy of opinion has existed among the most
learned men, as to the space from the time of the passing out of the
edict to rebuild Jerusalem, after the Babylonish captivity, to the
commencement of the Christian era, and the subsequent events foretold in
the prophecy.
The predictions contained in the Old Testament respecting both the
family out of which the Messiah was to arise, and the place of his
birth, are almost as circumstantial, and are equally applicable to
Christ, as those which refer to the time of his appearance. He was to be
an Israelite, of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David, and of the
town of Bethlehem. That all these predictions were fulfilled in Jesus
Christ; that he was of that country, tribe, and family, of the house and
lineage of David, and born in Bethlehem, we have the fullest evidence in
the testimony of all the evangelists; in two distinct accounts of the
genealogies, by natural and legal succession, which, according to the
custom of the Jews, were carefully preserved; in the acquiescence of the
enemies of Christ in the truth of the fact, against which there is not a
single surmise in history; and in the appeal made by some of the
earliest Christian writers to the unquestionable testimony of the
records of the census, taken at the very time of our Saviour’s birth by
order of Cæsar. Here, indeed, it is impossible not to be struck with the
exact fulfilment of prophecies which are apparently contradictory and
irreconcilable, and with the manner in which they were providentially
accomplished. The spot of Christ’s nativity was distant from the place
of the abode of his parents, and the region in which he began his
ministry was remote from the place of his birth; and another prophecy
respecting him was in this manner verified: “In the land of Zebulun and
Naphtali, by the way of the sea beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the
nations, the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light;
they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the
light shined,” Isaiah ix, 1, 2; Matt. iv, 16. Thus, the time at which
the predicted Messiah was to appear; the nation, the tribe, and the
family from which he was to be descended; and the place of his
birth,--no populous city, but of itself an inconsiderable place,--were
all clearly foretold; and as clearly refer to Jesus Christ; and all meet
their completion in him.
But the facts of his life, and the features of his character, are also
drawn with a precision that cannot be misunderstood. The obscurity, the
meanness, and the poverty of his external condition are thus
represented: “He shall grow up before the Lord like a tender plant, and
as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form or comeliness; and when
we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Thus
saith the Lord to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation
abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes
also shall worship,” Isaiah liii, 2; xlix, 7. That such was the
condition in which Christ appeared, the whole history of his life
abundantly testifies. And the Jews, looking in the pride of their hearts
for an earthly king, disregarded these prophecies concerning him, were
deceived by their traditions, and found only a stone of stumbling,
where, if they had searched their Scriptures aright, they would have
discovered an evidence of the Messiah. “Is not this the carpenter’s son?
Is not this the son of Mary? said they and they were offended at him.”
His riding in humble triumph into Jerusalem; his being betrayed for
thirty pieces of silver, and scourged, and buffeted, and spit upon; the
piercing of his hands and of his feet; the last offered draught of
vinegar and gall; the parting of his raiment, and casting lots upon his
vesture; the manner of his death and of his burial, and his rising again
without seeing corruption, were all expressly predicted, and all these
predictions were literally fulfilled, Zech. ix, 9; xi, 12; Isaiah l, 6;
Psalm xxii, 16; lxix, 21; xxii, 18; Isaiah liii, 9; Psalm xvi, 10. If
all these prophecies admit of any application to the events of the life
of any individual, it can only be to that of the Author of Christianity.
And what other religion can produce a single fact which was actually
foretold of its founder?
The death of Christ was as unparalleled as his life; and the prophecies
are as minutely descriptive of his sufferings as of his virtues. Not
only did the paschal lamb, which was to be killed every year in all the
families of Israel, which was to be taken out of the flock, to be
without blemish, to be eaten with bitter herbs, to have its blood
sprinkled, and to be kept whole that not a bone of it should be broken;
not only did the offering up of Isaac, and the lifting up of the brazen
serpent in the wilderness, by looking upon which the people were healed,
and many ritual observances of the Jews, prefigure the manner of
Christ’s death, and the sacrifice which was to be made for sin; but many
express declarations abound in the prophecies, that Christ was indeed to
suffer. But Isaiah, who describes, with eloquence worthy of a prophet,
the glories of the kingdom that was to come, characterizes, with the
accuracy of a historian, the humiliation, the trials, and the agonies
which were to precede the triumphs of the Redeemer of a world; and the
history of Christ forms, to the very letter, the commentary and the
completion of his every prediction. In a single passage, Isaiah lii, 13,
&c; liii, the connection of which is uninterrupted, its antiquity
indisputable, and its application obvious, the sufferings of the servant
of God (who under that same denomination, is previously described as he
who was to be the light of the Gentiles, the salvation of God to the
ends of the earth, and the elect of God in whom his soul delighted, Isa.
xiii, 10; xlix, 6) are so minutely foretold, that no illustration is
requisite to show that they testify of Jesus. The whole of this prophecy
thus refers to the Messiah. It describes both his debasement and his
dignity; his rejection by the Jews; his humility, his affliction, and
his agony; his magnanimity and his charity; how his words were
disbelieved; how his state was lowly; how his sorrow was severe; how he
opened not his mouth but to make intercession for the transgressors. In
diametrical opposition to every dispensation of Providence which is
registered in the records of the Jews, it represents spotless innocence
suffering by the appointment of Heaven; death as the issue of perfect
obedience; God’s righteous servant as forsaken of him; and one who was
perfectly immaculate bearing the chastisement of many guilty; sprinkling
many nations from their iniquity, by virtue of his sacrifice; justifying
many by his knowledge; and dividing a portion with the great and the
spoil with the strong, because he hath poured out his soul in death.
This prophecy, therefore, simply as a prediction prior to the event,
renders the very unbelief of the Jews an evidence against them, converts
the scandal of the cross into an argument in favour of Christianity, and
presents us with an epitome of the truth, a miniature of the Gospel in
some of its most striking features. The simple exposition of it sufficed
at once for the conversion of the eunuch of Ethiopia. To these
prophecies may, in fact, be added all those which relate to his
spiritual kingdom, or the circumstances of the promulgation, the
opposition, and the triumphs of his religion; the accomplishment of
which equally proves the divine mission of its Author, and points him
out as that great personage with whom they stand inseparably connected.
2. But if Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, in that character his Deity
also is necessarily involved, because the Messiah is surrounded with
attributes of divinity in the Old Testament; and our Lord himself as
certainly lays claim to those attributes as to the office of “the
Christ.” Without referring here to the Scriptural doctrine of a Trinity
of divine Persons in the unity of the Godhead, (see _Trinity_,) it is
sufficient now to show that both in the Old and New Testament
Scriptures, the Messiah is contemplated as a divine Person. In the very
first promise of redemption, his superiority to that great and malignant
spirit who destroyed the innocence of man, and blighted the fair
creation of God, is unquestionably implied; while the Angel of the
Divine Presence, the Angel of the Covenant, who appears so prominent in
the patriarchal times, and the early periods of Jewish history, and was
understood by the early Jews as the future Messiah, is seen at once as a
being distinct from Yahweh and yet Yahweh himself; bearing that
incommunicable name; and performing acts, and possessing qualities of
unquestionable divinity. As the “Redeemer” of Job, he is the object of
his trust and hope, and is said to be then a “living Redeemer;” to see
whom at the last was to “see God.” As “Shiloh,” in the prophecy of
Jacob, he is represented as having an indefinitely extensive reign over
“the people” gathered to him; and in all subsequent predictions
respecting this reign of Christ, it is represented so vast, so perfect,
so influential upon the very thoughts, purposes, and affections of men,
that no mere creature can be reasonably supposed capable of exercising
it. Of the second Psalm, so manifestly appropriated to the Messiah, it
has been justly said, that the high titles and honours ascribed in this
Psalm to the extraordinary person who is the chief subject of it, far
transcend any thing that is ascribed in Scripture to any mere creature.
But if the Psalm be inquired into more narrowly, and compared with
parallel prophecies; if it be duly considered, that not only is the
extraordinary person here spoken of called, “the Son of God,” but that
title is so ascribed to him as to imply, that it belongs to him in a
manner that is absolutely singular, and peculiar to himself, seeing he
is said to be begotten of God, verse 7, and is called, by way of
eminence, “the Son,” verse 12; that the danger of provoking him to anger
is spoken of in so very different a manner from what the Scripture uses
in speaking of the anger of any mere creature, “Kiss the Son, lest he be
angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a
little;” that when the kings and judges of the earth are commanded to
serve God with fear, they are at the same time commanded to kiss the
Son, which in those times and places was frequently an expression of
adoration; and, particularly, that, whereas other Scriptures contain
awful and just threatenings against those who trust in any mere man, the
Psalmist nevertheless expressly calls them blessed who trust in the Son
here spoken of;--all these things taken together make up a character of
unequivocal divinity: and, on the other hand, when it is said, that God
would set this his Son as his King on his holy hill of Zion, verse 6,
this, and various other expressions in this Psalm, contain characters of
that subordination which is appropriate to that divine Person who was to
be incarnate, and engage in a work assigned to him by the Father. The
former part of the forty-fifth Psalm is by the inspired authority of St.
Paul applied to the Christ, who is addressed in these lofty words, “Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the
sceptre of thy kingdom.” In the same manner Psalm cii, 25–29, is applied
to Christ by the same authority, and there he is represented as the
Creator of all things, changing his creations as a vesture, and yet
himself continuing the same unchanged being amidst all the mutations of
the universe. In Psalm cx, David says, “Yahweh said unto my Lord,
(_Adonai_,) Sit thou upon my right hand until I make thine enemies thy
footstool.” And in Isaiah vi, the same Adonai is seen by the prophet
“seated upon a throne, high and lifted up,” receiving the adoration of
seraphs, and bearing the title, “Yahweh, Lord of Hosts,” of which
passage St. John makes a direct application to Christ. Isaiah predicts
his birth of a virgin, under the title of “Immanuel, God with us.” The
same prophet gives to this wonderful child the style of “the Mighty
God,” the Everlasting Father,” and the “Prince of Peace;” so that, as
Dr. Pye Smith justly observes, “if there be any dependence on words, the
Messiah is here drawn in the opposite characters of humanity and
Deity,--the nativity and frailty of a mortal child, and the
incommunicable attributes of the omnipresent and eternal God.” Twice is
he called by Jeremiah, “Yahweh our righteousness.” Daniel terms him the
“Ancient of Days,” or “The Immortal;” and Micah declares, in a passage
which the council of the Jews, assembled by Herod, applied to the
Messiah, that he who was to be born in Bethlehem was “even he whose
comings forth are from eternity, from the days of the everlasting
period.” Thus the prophetic testimony describes him, as entitled to the
appellation of “Wonderful,” since he should be, in a sense peculiar to
himself, the Son of God, Psalm ii, 7; Isaiah ix, 6; as existing and
acting during the patriarchal and the Jewish ages, and even from
eternity, Psalm xl, 7–9; Micah v, 2; as the guardian and protector of
his people, Isaiah xl, 9–11; as the proper object of the various
affections of piety, of devotional confidence for obtaining the most
important blessings, and of religious homage from angels and men, Psalm
ii, 12; xcvii, 7; and, finally, declares him to be the eternal and
immutable Being, the Creator, God, the Mighty God, Adonai, Elohim,
Yahweh.
In perfect accordance with these views, does our Saviour speak of
himself. He asserts his preëxistence, as having “come down from heaven;”
and as existing “before Abraham;” and as being “in heaven” while yet
before the eyes of his disciples on earth. In the same peculiar manner
does he apply the term “Son of God” to himself, and that with so
manifest an intention to assume it in the sense of divinity, that the
Jews attempted on that account to stone him as a blasphemer. The whole
force of the argument by which he silenced the Pharisees when he asked
how the Messiah, who was to be the Son of David, could be David’s Lord,
in reference to the passage in the Psalms before quoted, arose out of
the doctrine of the Messiah’s divinity; and when he claims that all men
should honour him as they honour the Father, and asserts that as the
Father hath life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in
himself, that he “quickeneth whom he will,” that “where two or three
meet in his name he is in the midst of them,” and would be with his
disciples “to the end of the world;” who does not see that the Jews
concluded right, when they said that he made himself “equal with
God,”--an impression which he took no pains to remove, although his own
moral character bound him to do so, had he not intended to confirm that
conclusion. So numerous are the passages in which divine titles, acts,
and qualities, are ascribed to Christ, in the apostolical epistles, and
so unbroken is the stream of testimony from the apostolic age, that the
Deity of their Saviour was the undoubted and universal faith of his
inspired followers, and of those who immediately succeeded them, that it
is not necessary to quote proofs. The whole argument is this: If the Old
Testament Scriptures represent the Messiah as a divine Person; the
proofs which demonstrate Jesus to be the Messiah, demonstrate him also
by farther and necessary consequence to be divine. Yet, though there is
a union of natures in Christ, there is no mixture or confusion of their
properties: his humanity is not changed into his Deity, nor his Deity
absorbed by his humanity; but the two natures are distinct in one
Person. How this union exists, is above our comprehension; and, indeed,
if we cannot explain how our bodies and souls are united, it is not to
be supposed that we can comprehend the mystery of “God manifest in the
flesh.” So truly does Christ bear the name given to him in
prophecy,--“Wonderful.”
3. The doctrine of the Deity of Christ derives farther confirmation from
the consideration, that in no sound sense can the Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments be interpreted so as to make their very different and
often apparently contradictory statements respecting him harmonize. How,
for instance, is it that he is arrayed in the attributes of divinity,
and yet is capable of being raised to a kingdom and glory?--that he is
addressed, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” and yet that it
should follow “God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows?”--that he should be God, and yet, by a human
birth, “God with us?”--that he should, say, “I and my Father are one,”
and, “My Father is greater than I?”--that he is supreme, and yet a
servant?--that he is equal and yet subordinate?--that he, a man, should
require and receive worship and trust?--that he should be greater than
angels, and yet “made lower than the angels?”--that he should be “made
flesh,” and yet be the Creator of all things?--that he should raise
himself from the dead, and yet be raised by the power of the Father?
These and many other declarations respecting him, all accord with the
orthodox view of his person; and are intelligible so far as they state
the facts respecting him; but are wholly beyond the power of
interpretation into any rational meaning on any theory which denies to
him a real humanity on the one hand, or a real and personal divinity on
the other. So powerfully, in fact, has this been felt, that, in order to
evade the force of the testimony of Scripture, the most licentious
criticisms have been resorted to by the deniers of his divinity; such as
would not certainly have been tolerated by scholars in the case of an
attempt to interpret any other ancient writing.
4. Being, therefore, not only “a teacher sent from God,” but the divine
Son of God himself, it might be truly said by his wondering hearers,
“Never man spake like this man.” On our Lord’s character as a teacher,
therefore, many striking and just remarks have been made by different
writers, not excepting some infidels themselves, who, in this respect,
have been carried into admiration by the overwhelming force of evidence.
This article, however, shall not be indebted to a desecrated source for
an estimate of the character of his teaching, and shall rather be
concluded with the following admirable remarks of a Christian prelate:--
“When our Lord is considered as a teacher, we find him delivering the
justest and most sublime truths with respect to the divine nature, the
duties of mankind, and a future state of existence; agreeable in every
particular to reason, and to the wisest maxims of the wisest
philosophers; without any mixture of that alloy which so often debased
their most perfect production; and excellently adapted to mankind in
general, by suggesting circumstances and particular images on the most
awful and interesting subjects. We find him filling, and, as it were,
overpowering our minds with the grandest ideas of his own nature;
representing himself as appointed by his Father to be our Instructer,
our Redeemer, our Judge, and our King; and showing that he lived and
died for the most benevolent and important purposes conceivable. He does
not labour to support the greatest and most magnificent of all
characters; but it is perfectly easy and natural to him. He makes no
display of the high and heavenly truths which he utters; but speaks of
them with a graceful and wonderful simplicity and majesty. Supernatural
truths are as familiar to his mind, as the common affairs of life are to
other men. He revives the moral law, carries it to perfection, and
enforces it by peculiar and animating motives: but he enjoins nothing
new beside praying in his name, mutual love among his disciples, as
such, and the observance of two simple and significant positive laws
which serve to promote the practice of the moral law. All his precepts,
when rightly explained, are reasonable in themselves and useful in their
tendency: and their compass is very great, considering that he was an
occasional teacher, and not a systematical one. If from the matter of
his instructions we pass on to the manner in which they were delivered,
we find our Lord usually speaking as an authoritative teacher; though
occasionally limiting his precepts, and sometimes assigning the reasons
of them. He presupposes the original law of God, and addresses men as
rational creatures. From the grandeur of his mind, and the magnitude of
his subjects, he is often sublime; and the beauties interspersed
throughout his discourses are equally natural and striking. He is
remarkable for an easy and graceful manner of introducing the best
lessons from incidental objects and occasions. The human heart is naked
and open to him; and he addresses the thoughts of men, as others do the
emotions of their countenance or their bodily actions. Difficult
situations, and sudden questions of the most artful and ensnaring kind,
serve only to display his superior wisdom, and to confound and astonish
all his adversaries. Instead of showing his boundless knowledge on every
occasion, he checks and restrains it, and prefers utility to the glare
of ostentation. He teaches directly and obliquely, plainly and covertly,
as wisdom points out occasions. He knows the inmost character, every
prejudice and every feeling of his hearers; and, accordingly, uses
parables to conceal or to enforce his lessons: and he powerfully
impresses them by the significant language of actions. He gives proofs
of his mission from above, by his knowledge of the heart, by a chain of
prophecies, and by a variety of mighty works.
“He sets an example of the most perfect piety to God, and of the most
extensive benevolence and the most tender compassion to men. He does not
merely exhibit a life of strict justice, but of overflowing benignity.
His temperance has not the dark shades of austerity; his meekness does
not degenerate into apathy. His humility is signal, amidst a splendour
of qualities more than human. His fortitude is eminent and exemplary, in
enduring the most formidable external evils and the sharpest actual
sufferings: his patience is invincible; his resignation entire and
absolute. Truth and sincerity shine throughout his whole conduct. Though
of heavenly descent, he shows obedience and affection to his earthly
parents. He approves, loves, and attaches himself to amiable qualities
in the human race. He respects authority, religious and civil; and he
evidences his regard for his country by promoting its most essential
good in a painful ministry dedicated to its service, by deploring its
calamities, and by laying down his life for its benefit. Every one of
his eminent virtues is regulated by consummate prudence; and he both
wins the love of his friends, and extorts the approbation and wonder of
his enemies. Never was a character at the same time so commanding and
natural, so resplendent and pleasing, so amiable and venerable. There is
a peculiar contrast in it between an awful greatness, dignity, and
majesty, and the most conciliating loveliness, tenderness, and softness.
He now converses with prophets, lawgivers, and angels; and the next
instant he meekly endures the dulness of his disciples, and the
blasphemies and rage of the multitude. He now calls himself greater than
Solomon, one who can command legions of angels, the Giver of life to
whomsoever he pleaseth, the Son of God who shall sit on his glorious
throne to judge the world. At other times we find him embracing young
children, not lifting up his voice in the streets, not breaking the
bruised reed, nor quenching the smoking flax; calling his disciples, not
servants, but friends and brethren, and comforting them with an
exuberant and parental affection. Let us pause an instant, and fill our
minds with the idea of one who knew all things heavenly and earthly,
searched and laid open the inmost recesses of the heart, rectified every
prejudice, and removed every mistake, of a moral and religious kind, by
a word exercised a sovereignty over all nature, penetrated the hidden
events of futurity, gave promises of admission into a happy immortality,
had the keys of life and death, claimed a union with the Father; and yet
was pious, mild, gentle, humble, affable, social, benevolent, friendly,
affectionate. Such a character is fairer than the morning star. Each
separate virtue is made stronger by opposition and contrast; and the
union of so many virtues forms a brightness which fitly represents the
glory of that God ‘who inhabiteth light inaccessible.’ Such a character
must have been a real one. There is something so extraordinary, so
perfect, and so godlike in it, that it could not have been thus
supported throughout by the utmost stretch of human art, much less by
men confessedly unlearned and obscure.” We may add, that such a
character must also have been _divine_. His virtues are human in their
class and kind, so that he was our “example;” but they were sustained
and heightened by that divinity which was impersonated in him, and from
which they derived their intense and full perfection.
5. A great deal has been written concerning the form, beauty, and
stature of Jesus Christ. Some have asserted, that he was in person the
noblest of all the sons of men. Others have maintained, that there was
no beauty nor any graces in his outward appearance. The fathers have not
expressed themselves on this matter in a uniform manner. St. Jerom
believes that the lustre and majesty which shone about our Saviour’s
face were capable of winning all hearts: it was this that drew the
generality of his Apostles with so much ease to him; it was this majesty
which struck those down who came to seize him in the olive garden. St.
Bernard and St. Chrysostom contend in like manner for the beauty of
Jesus Christ’s person; but the most ancient fathers have acknowledged,
that he was not at all handsome. _Homo indecorus et passibilis_, says
Irenæus. Celsus objected to the Christians, that Jesus Christ, as a man,
was little, and ill made, which Origen acknowledged in his answer to
have been written of him. Clemens Alexandrinus owns, in several places,
that the person of Jesus Christ was not beautiful, as does also Cyril of
Alexandria. Tertullian says plainly, _vultu et aspectu inglorius_; that
his outward form had nothing that could attract consideration and
respect. St. Austin confesses, that Jesus Christ, as a man, was without
beauty and the advantage of person; and the generality of the ancients,
as Eusebius, Basil, Theodoret, Ambrose, Isidore, &c, explain the passage
in the Psalms, “Thou art fairer than the children of men,” as relating
to the beauty of Jesus Christ according to his divinity. This difference
in opinion shows that no certain tradition was handed down on this
subject. The truth probably is, that all which was majestic and
attractive in the person of our Lord, was in the _expression_ of the
countenance, the full influence of which was displayed chiefly in his
confidential intercourse with his disciples; while his general
appearance presented no striking peculiarity to the common observer.
first and principal object of the prophecies, prefigured and promised in
the Old Testament, expected and desired by the patriarchs; the hope of
the Gentiles; the glory, salvation, and consolation of Christians. The
name Jesus, or, as the Hebrews pronounce it, יהושוע, _Jehoshua_, or
_Joshua_, Ἰησούς, signifies, _he who shall save_. No one ever bore this
name with so much justice, nor so perfectly fulfilled the signification
of it, as Jesus Christ, who saves even from sin and hell, and hath
merited heaven for us by the price of his blood. It is not necessary
here to narrate the history of our Saviour’s life, which can no where be
read with advantage except in the writings of the four evangelists; but
there are several general views which require to be noticed under this
article.
1. Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or Messiah promised under the Old
Testament. That he professed himself to be that Messiah to whom all the
prophets gave witness, and who was, in fact, at the time of his
appearing, expected by the Jews; and that he was received under that
character by his disciples, and by all Christians ever since, is
certain. And if the Old Testament Scriptures afford sufficiently
definite marks by which the long announced Christ should be infallibly
known at his advent, and these presignations are found realized in our
Lord, then is the truth of his pretensions established. From the books
of the Old Testament we learn that the Messiah was to authenticate his
claim by _miracles_; and in those _predictions_ respecting him, so many
circumstances are recorded, that they could meet only in one person; and
so, if they are accomplished in him, they leave no room for doubt, as
far as the evidence of prophecy is deemed conclusive. As to MIRACLES, we
refer to that article; here only observing, that if the miraculous works
wrought by Christ were really done, they prove his mission, because,
from their nature, and having been wrought to confirm his claim to be
the Messiah, they necessarily imply a _divine attestation_. With respect
to PROPHECY, the principles under which its evidence must be regarded as
conclusive will be given under that head; and here therefore it will
only be necessary to show the completion of the prophecies of the sacred
books of the Jews relative to the Messiah in one person, and that person
the founder of the Christian religion.
The time of the Messiah’s appearance in the world, as predicted in the
Old Testament, is defined, says Keith, by a number of concurring
circumstances, which fix it to the very date of the advent of Christ.
The last blessing of Jacob to his sons, when he commanded them to gather
themselves together that he might tell them what should befall them in
the last days, contains this prediction concerning Judah: “The sceptre
shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until
Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be,” Gen.
xlix, 10. The date fixed by this prophecy for the coming of Shiloh, or
the Saviour, was not to exceed the time during which the descendants of
Judah were to continue a united people, while a king should reign among
them, while they should be governed by their own laws, and while their
judges should be from among their brethren. The prophecy of Malachi adds
another standard for measuring the time: “Behold, I send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek,
shall come suddenly to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant,
whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts,”
Mal. iii, 1. No words can be more expressive of the coming of the
promised Messiah; and they as clearly imply his appearance in the second
temple before it should be destroyed. In regard to the advent of the
Messiah before the destruction of the second temple, the words of Haggai
are remarkably explicit: “The desire of all nations shall come, and I
will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of Hosts. The glory of
this latter house shall be greater than of the former, and in this place
will I give peace,” Hag. ii, 7. The Saviour was thus to appear,
according to the prophecies of the Old Testament, during the time of the
continuance of the kingdom of Judah, previous to the demolition of the
temple, and immediately subsequent to the next prophet. But the time is
rendered yet more definite. In the prophecies of Daniel, the kingdom of
the Messiah is not only foretold as commencing in the time of the fourth
monarchy, or Roman empire, but the express number of years that were to
precede his coming are plainly intimated: “Seventy weeks are determined
upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,
and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and
prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know, therefore, and understand,
that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore
and two weeks,” Dan. ix, 24, 25. Computation by weeks of years was
common among the Jews, and every seventh was the sabbatical year;
seventy weeks, thus amounted to four hundred and ninety years. In these
words the prophet marks the very time, and uses the very name of
Messiah, the Prince; so entirely is all ambiguity done away. The
plainest inference may be drawn from these prophecies. All of them,
while, in every respect, they presuppose the most perfect knowledge of
futurity; while they were unquestionably delivered and publicly known
for ages previous to the time to which they referred; and while they
refer to different contingent and unconnected events, utterly
undeterminable and inconceivable by all human sagacity; accord in
perfect unison to a single precise period where all their different
lines terminate at once,--the very fulness of time when Jesus appeared.
A king then reigned over the Jews in their own land; they were governed
by their own laws; and the council of their nation exercised its
authority and power. Before that period, the other tribes were extinct
or dispersed among the nations. Judah alone remained, and the last
sceptre in Israel had not then departed from it. Every stone of the
temple was then unmoved; it was the admiration of the Romans, and might
have stood for ages. But in a short space, all these concurring
testimonies to the time of the advent of the Messiah passed away. During
the very year, the twelfth of his age, in which Christ first publicly
appeared in the temple, Archelaus the king was dethroned and banished;
Coponius was appointed procurator; and the kingdom of Judea, the last
remnant of the greatness of Israel, was debased into a part of the
province of Syria. The sceptre was smitten from the tribe of Judah; the
crown fell from their heads; their glory departed; and, soon after the
death of Christ, of their temple one stone was not left upon another;
their commonwealth itself became as complete a ruin, and was broken in
pieces; and they have ever since been scattered throughout the world, a
name but not a nation. After the lapse of nearly four hundred years
posterior to the time of Malachi, another prophet appeared who was the
herald of the Messiah. And the testimony of Josephus confirms the
account given in Scripture of John the Baptist. Every mark that denoted
the time of the coming of the Messiah was erased soon after the
crucifixion of Christ, and could never afterward be renewed. And with
respect to the prophecies of Daniel, it is remarkable, at this remote
period, how little discrepancy of opinion has existed among the most
learned men, as to the space from the time of the passing out of the
edict to rebuild Jerusalem, after the Babylonish captivity, to the
commencement of the Christian era, and the subsequent events foretold in
the prophecy.
The predictions contained in the Old Testament respecting both the
family out of which the Messiah was to arise, and the place of his
birth, are almost as circumstantial, and are equally applicable to
Christ, as those which refer to the time of his appearance. He was to be
an Israelite, of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David, and of the
town of Bethlehem. That all these predictions were fulfilled in Jesus
Christ; that he was of that country, tribe, and family, of the house and
lineage of David, and born in Bethlehem, we have the fullest evidence in
the testimony of all the evangelists; in two distinct accounts of the
genealogies, by natural and legal succession, which, according to the
custom of the Jews, were carefully preserved; in the acquiescence of the
enemies of Christ in the truth of the fact, against which there is not a
single surmise in history; and in the appeal made by some of the
earliest Christian writers to the unquestionable testimony of the
records of the census, taken at the very time of our Saviour’s birth by
order of Cæsar. Here, indeed, it is impossible not to be struck with the
exact fulfilment of prophecies which are apparently contradictory and
irreconcilable, and with the manner in which they were providentially
accomplished. The spot of Christ’s nativity was distant from the place
of the abode of his parents, and the region in which he began his
ministry was remote from the place of his birth; and another prophecy
respecting him was in this manner verified: “In the land of Zebulun and
Naphtali, by the way of the sea beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the
nations, the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light;
they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the
light shined,” Isaiah ix, 1, 2; Matt. iv, 16. Thus, the time at which
the predicted Messiah was to appear; the nation, the tribe, and the
family from which he was to be descended; and the place of his
birth,--no populous city, but of itself an inconsiderable place,--were
all clearly foretold; and as clearly refer to Jesus Christ; and all meet
their completion in him.
But the facts of his life, and the features of his character, are also
drawn with a precision that cannot be misunderstood. The obscurity, the
meanness, and the poverty of his external condition are thus
represented: “He shall grow up before the Lord like a tender plant, and
as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form or comeliness; and when
we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Thus
saith the Lord to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation
abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes
also shall worship,” Isaiah liii, 2; xlix, 7. That such was the
condition in which Christ appeared, the whole history of his life
abundantly testifies. And the Jews, looking in the pride of their hearts
for an earthly king, disregarded these prophecies concerning him, were
deceived by their traditions, and found only a stone of stumbling,
where, if they had searched their Scriptures aright, they would have
discovered an evidence of the Messiah. “Is not this the carpenter’s son?
Is not this the son of Mary? said they and they were offended at him.”
His riding in humble triumph into Jerusalem; his being betrayed for
thirty pieces of silver, and scourged, and buffeted, and spit upon; the
piercing of his hands and of his feet; the last offered draught of
vinegar and gall; the parting of his raiment, and casting lots upon his
vesture; the manner of his death and of his burial, and his rising again
without seeing corruption, were all expressly predicted, and all these
predictions were literally fulfilled, Zech. ix, 9; xi, 12; Isaiah l, 6;
Psalm xxii, 16; lxix, 21; xxii, 18; Isaiah liii, 9; Psalm xvi, 10. If
all these prophecies admit of any application to the events of the life
of any individual, it can only be to that of the Author of Christianity.
And what other religion can produce a single fact which was actually
foretold of its founder?
The death of Christ was as unparalleled as his life; and the prophecies
are as minutely descriptive of his sufferings as of his virtues. Not
only did the paschal lamb, which was to be killed every year in all the
families of Israel, which was to be taken out of the flock, to be
without blemish, to be eaten with bitter herbs, to have its blood
sprinkled, and to be kept whole that not a bone of it should be broken;
not only did the offering up of Isaac, and the lifting up of the brazen
serpent in the wilderness, by looking upon which the people were healed,
and many ritual observances of the Jews, prefigure the manner of
Christ’s death, and the sacrifice which was to be made for sin; but many
express declarations abound in the prophecies, that Christ was indeed to
suffer. But Isaiah, who describes, with eloquence worthy of a prophet,
the glories of the kingdom that was to come, characterizes, with the
accuracy of a historian, the humiliation, the trials, and the agonies
which were to precede the triumphs of the Redeemer of a world; and the
history of Christ forms, to the very letter, the commentary and the
completion of his every prediction. In a single passage, Isaiah lii, 13,
&c; liii, the connection of which is uninterrupted, its antiquity
indisputable, and its application obvious, the sufferings of the servant
of God (who under that same denomination, is previously described as he
who was to be the light of the Gentiles, the salvation of God to the
ends of the earth, and the elect of God in whom his soul delighted, Isa.
xiii, 10; xlix, 6) are so minutely foretold, that no illustration is
requisite to show that they testify of Jesus. The whole of this prophecy
thus refers to the Messiah. It describes both his debasement and his
dignity; his rejection by the Jews; his humility, his affliction, and
his agony; his magnanimity and his charity; how his words were
disbelieved; how his state was lowly; how his sorrow was severe; how he
opened not his mouth but to make intercession for the transgressors. In
diametrical opposition to every dispensation of Providence which is
registered in the records of the Jews, it represents spotless innocence
suffering by the appointment of Heaven; death as the issue of perfect
obedience; God’s righteous servant as forsaken of him; and one who was
perfectly immaculate bearing the chastisement of many guilty; sprinkling
many nations from their iniquity, by virtue of his sacrifice; justifying
many by his knowledge; and dividing a portion with the great and the
spoil with the strong, because he hath poured out his soul in death.
This prophecy, therefore, simply as a prediction prior to the event,
renders the very unbelief of the Jews an evidence against them, converts
the scandal of the cross into an argument in favour of Christianity, and
presents us with an epitome of the truth, a miniature of the Gospel in
some of its most striking features. The simple exposition of it sufficed
at once for the conversion of the eunuch of Ethiopia. To these
prophecies may, in fact, be added all those which relate to his
spiritual kingdom, or the circumstances of the promulgation, the
opposition, and the triumphs of his religion; the accomplishment of
which equally proves the divine mission of its Author, and points him
out as that great personage with whom they stand inseparably connected.
2. But if Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, in that character his Deity
also is necessarily involved, because the Messiah is surrounded with
attributes of divinity in the Old Testament; and our Lord himself as
certainly lays claim to those attributes as to the office of “the
Christ.” Without referring here to the Scriptural doctrine of a Trinity
of divine Persons in the unity of the Godhead, (see _Trinity_,) it is
sufficient now to show that both in the Old and New Testament
Scriptures, the Messiah is contemplated as a divine Person. In the very
first promise of redemption, his superiority to that great and malignant
spirit who destroyed the innocence of man, and blighted the fair
creation of God, is unquestionably implied; while the Angel of the
Divine Presence, the Angel of the Covenant, who appears so prominent in
the patriarchal times, and the early periods of Jewish history, and was
understood by the early Jews as the future Messiah, is seen at once as a
being distinct from Yahweh and yet Yahweh himself; bearing that
incommunicable name; and performing acts, and possessing qualities of
unquestionable divinity. As the “Redeemer” of Job, he is the object of
his trust and hope, and is said to be then a “living Redeemer;” to see
whom at the last was to “see God.” As “Shiloh,” in the prophecy of
Jacob, he is represented as having an indefinitely extensive reign over
“the people” gathered to him; and in all subsequent predictions
respecting this reign of Christ, it is represented so vast, so perfect,
so influential upon the very thoughts, purposes, and affections of men,
that no mere creature can be reasonably supposed capable of exercising
it. Of the second Psalm, so manifestly appropriated to the Messiah, it
has been justly said, that the high titles and honours ascribed in this
Psalm to the extraordinary person who is the chief subject of it, far
transcend any thing that is ascribed in Scripture to any mere creature.
But if the Psalm be inquired into more narrowly, and compared with
parallel prophecies; if it be duly considered, that not only is the
extraordinary person here spoken of called, “the Son of God,” but that
title is so ascribed to him as to imply, that it belongs to him in a
manner that is absolutely singular, and peculiar to himself, seeing he
is said to be begotten of God, verse 7, and is called, by way of
eminence, “the Son,” verse 12; that the danger of provoking him to anger
is spoken of in so very different a manner from what the Scripture uses
in speaking of the anger of any mere creature, “Kiss the Son, lest he be
angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a
little;” that when the kings and judges of the earth are commanded to
serve God with fear, they are at the same time commanded to kiss the
Son, which in those times and places was frequently an expression of
adoration; and, particularly, that, whereas other Scriptures contain
awful and just threatenings against those who trust in any mere man, the
Psalmist nevertheless expressly calls them blessed who trust in the Son
here spoken of;--all these things taken together make up a character of
unequivocal divinity: and, on the other hand, when it is said, that God
would set this his Son as his King on his holy hill of Zion, verse 6,
this, and various other expressions in this Psalm, contain characters of
that subordination which is appropriate to that divine Person who was to
be incarnate, and engage in a work assigned to him by the Father. The
former part of the forty-fifth Psalm is by the inspired authority of St.
Paul applied to the Christ, who is addressed in these lofty words, “Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the
sceptre of thy kingdom.” In the same manner Psalm cii, 25–29, is applied
to Christ by the same authority, and there he is represented as the
Creator of all things, changing his creations as a vesture, and yet
himself continuing the same unchanged being amidst all the mutations of
the universe. In Psalm cx, David says, “Yahweh said unto my Lord,
(_Adonai_,) Sit thou upon my right hand until I make thine enemies thy
footstool.” And in Isaiah vi, the same Adonai is seen by the prophet
“seated upon a throne, high and lifted up,” receiving the adoration of
seraphs, and bearing the title, “Yahweh, Lord of Hosts,” of which
passage St. John makes a direct application to Christ. Isaiah predicts
his birth of a virgin, under the title of “Immanuel, God with us.” The
same prophet gives to this wonderful child the style of “the Mighty
God,” the Everlasting Father,” and the “Prince of Peace;” so that, as
Dr. Pye Smith justly observes, “if there be any dependence on words, the
Messiah is here drawn in the opposite characters of humanity and
Deity,--the nativity and frailty of a mortal child, and the
incommunicable attributes of the omnipresent and eternal God.” Twice is
he called by Jeremiah, “Yahweh our righteousness.” Daniel terms him the
“Ancient of Days,” or “The Immortal;” and Micah declares, in a passage
which the council of the Jews, assembled by Herod, applied to the
Messiah, that he who was to be born in Bethlehem was “even he whose
comings forth are from eternity, from the days of the everlasting
period.” Thus the prophetic testimony describes him, as entitled to the
appellation of “Wonderful,” since he should be, in a sense peculiar to
himself, the Son of God, Psalm ii, 7; Isaiah ix, 6; as existing and
acting during the patriarchal and the Jewish ages, and even from
eternity, Psalm xl, 7–9; Micah v, 2; as the guardian and protector of
his people, Isaiah xl, 9–11; as the proper object of the various
affections of piety, of devotional confidence for obtaining the most
important blessings, and of religious homage from angels and men, Psalm
ii, 12; xcvii, 7; and, finally, declares him to be the eternal and
immutable Being, the Creator, God, the Mighty God, Adonai, Elohim,
Yahweh.
In perfect accordance with these views, does our Saviour speak of
himself. He asserts his preëxistence, as having “come down from heaven;”
and as existing “before Abraham;” and as being “in heaven” while yet
before the eyes of his disciples on earth. In the same peculiar manner
does he apply the term “Son of God” to himself, and that with so
manifest an intention to assume it in the sense of divinity, that the
Jews attempted on that account to stone him as a blasphemer. The whole
force of the argument by which he silenced the Pharisees when he asked
how the Messiah, who was to be the Son of David, could be David’s Lord,
in reference to the passage in the Psalms before quoted, arose out of
the doctrine of the Messiah’s divinity; and when he claims that all men
should honour him as they honour the Father, and asserts that as the
Father hath life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in
himself, that he “quickeneth whom he will,” that “where two or three
meet in his name he is in the midst of them,” and would be with his
disciples “to the end of the world;” who does not see that the Jews
concluded right, when they said that he made himself “equal with
God,”--an impression which he took no pains to remove, although his own
moral character bound him to do so, had he not intended to confirm that
conclusion. So numerous are the passages in which divine titles, acts,
and qualities, are ascribed to Christ, in the apostolical epistles, and
so unbroken is the stream of testimony from the apostolic age, that the
Deity of their Saviour was the undoubted and universal faith of his
inspired followers, and of those who immediately succeeded them, that it
is not necessary to quote proofs. The whole argument is this: If the Old
Testament Scriptures represent the Messiah as a divine Person; the
proofs which demonstrate Jesus to be the Messiah, demonstrate him also
by farther and necessary consequence to be divine. Yet, though there is
a union of natures in Christ, there is no mixture or confusion of their
properties: his humanity is not changed into his Deity, nor his Deity
absorbed by his humanity; but the two natures are distinct in one
Person. How this union exists, is above our comprehension; and, indeed,
if we cannot explain how our bodies and souls are united, it is not to
be supposed that we can comprehend the mystery of “God manifest in the
flesh.” So truly does Christ bear the name given to him in
prophecy,--“Wonderful.”
3. The doctrine of the Deity of Christ derives farther confirmation from
the consideration, that in no sound sense can the Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments be interpreted so as to make their very different and
often apparently contradictory statements respecting him harmonize. How,
for instance, is it that he is arrayed in the attributes of divinity,
and yet is capable of being raised to a kingdom and glory?--that he is
addressed, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” and yet that it
should follow “God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows?”--that he should be God, and yet, by a human
birth, “God with us?”--that he should, say, “I and my Father are one,”
and, “My Father is greater than I?”--that he is supreme, and yet a
servant?--that he is equal and yet subordinate?--that he, a man, should
require and receive worship and trust?--that he should be greater than
angels, and yet “made lower than the angels?”--that he should be “made
flesh,” and yet be the Creator of all things?--that he should raise
himself from the dead, and yet be raised by the power of the Father?
These and many other declarations respecting him, all accord with the
orthodox view of his person; and are intelligible so far as they state
the facts respecting him; but are wholly beyond the power of
interpretation into any rational meaning on any theory which denies to
him a real humanity on the one hand, or a real and personal divinity on
the other. So powerfully, in fact, has this been felt, that, in order to
evade the force of the testimony of Scripture, the most licentious
criticisms have been resorted to by the deniers of his divinity; such as
would not certainly have been tolerated by scholars in the case of an
attempt to interpret any other ancient writing.
4. Being, therefore, not only “a teacher sent from God,” but the divine
Son of God himself, it might be truly said by his wondering hearers,
“Never man spake like this man.” On our Lord’s character as a teacher,
therefore, many striking and just remarks have been made by different
writers, not excepting some infidels themselves, who, in this respect,
have been carried into admiration by the overwhelming force of evidence.
This article, however, shall not be indebted to a desecrated source for
an estimate of the character of his teaching, and shall rather be
concluded with the following admirable remarks of a Christian prelate:--
“When our Lord is considered as a teacher, we find him delivering the
justest and most sublime truths with respect to the divine nature, the
duties of mankind, and a future state of existence; agreeable in every
particular to reason, and to the wisest maxims of the wisest
philosophers; without any mixture of that alloy which so often debased
their most perfect production; and excellently adapted to mankind in
general, by suggesting circumstances and particular images on the most
awful and interesting subjects. We find him filling, and, as it were,
overpowering our minds with the grandest ideas of his own nature;
representing himself as appointed by his Father to be our Instructer,
our Redeemer, our Judge, and our King; and showing that he lived and
died for the most benevolent and important purposes conceivable. He does
not labour to support the greatest and most magnificent of all
characters; but it is perfectly easy and natural to him. He makes no
display of the high and heavenly truths which he utters; but speaks of
them with a graceful and wonderful simplicity and majesty. Supernatural
truths are as familiar to his mind, as the common affairs of life are to
other men. He revives the moral law, carries it to perfection, and
enforces it by peculiar and animating motives: but he enjoins nothing
new beside praying in his name, mutual love among his disciples, as
such, and the observance of two simple and significant positive laws
which serve to promote the practice of the moral law. All his precepts,
when rightly explained, are reasonable in themselves and useful in their
tendency: and their compass is very great, considering that he was an
occasional teacher, and not a systematical one. If from the matter of
his instructions we pass on to the manner in which they were delivered,
we find our Lord usually speaking as an authoritative teacher; though
occasionally limiting his precepts, and sometimes assigning the reasons
of them. He presupposes the original law of God, and addresses men as
rational creatures. From the grandeur of his mind, and the magnitude of
his subjects, he is often sublime; and the beauties interspersed
throughout his discourses are equally natural and striking. He is
remarkable for an easy and graceful manner of introducing the best
lessons from incidental objects and occasions. The human heart is naked
and open to him; and he addresses the thoughts of men, as others do the
emotions of their countenance or their bodily actions. Difficult
situations, and sudden questions of the most artful and ensnaring kind,
serve only to display his superior wisdom, and to confound and astonish
all his adversaries. Instead of showing his boundless knowledge on every
occasion, he checks and restrains it, and prefers utility to the glare
of ostentation. He teaches directly and obliquely, plainly and covertly,
as wisdom points out occasions. He knows the inmost character, every
prejudice and every feeling of his hearers; and, accordingly, uses
parables to conceal or to enforce his lessons: and he powerfully
impresses them by the significant language of actions. He gives proofs
of his mission from above, by his knowledge of the heart, by a chain of
prophecies, and by a variety of mighty works.
“He sets an example of the most perfect piety to God, and of the most
extensive benevolence and the most tender compassion to men. He does not
merely exhibit a life of strict justice, but of overflowing benignity.
His temperance has not the dark shades of austerity; his meekness does
not degenerate into apathy. His humility is signal, amidst a splendour
of qualities more than human. His fortitude is eminent and exemplary, in
enduring the most formidable external evils and the sharpest actual
sufferings: his patience is invincible; his resignation entire and
absolute. Truth and sincerity shine throughout his whole conduct. Though
of heavenly descent, he shows obedience and affection to his earthly
parents. He approves, loves, and attaches himself to amiable qualities
in the human race. He respects authority, religious and civil; and he
evidences his regard for his country by promoting its most essential
good in a painful ministry dedicated to its service, by deploring its
calamities, and by laying down his life for its benefit. Every one of
his eminent virtues is regulated by consummate prudence; and he both
wins the love of his friends, and extorts the approbation and wonder of
his enemies. Never was a character at the same time so commanding and
natural, so resplendent and pleasing, so amiable and venerable. There is
a peculiar contrast in it between an awful greatness, dignity, and
majesty, and the most conciliating loveliness, tenderness, and softness.
He now converses with prophets, lawgivers, and angels; and the next
instant he meekly endures the dulness of his disciples, and the
blasphemies and rage of the multitude. He now calls himself greater than
Solomon, one who can command legions of angels, the Giver of life to
whomsoever he pleaseth, the Son of God who shall sit on his glorious
throne to judge the world. At other times we find him embracing young
children, not lifting up his voice in the streets, not breaking the
bruised reed, nor quenching the smoking flax; calling his disciples, not
servants, but friends and brethren, and comforting them with an
exuberant and parental affection. Let us pause an instant, and fill our
minds with the idea of one who knew all things heavenly and earthly,
searched and laid open the inmost recesses of the heart, rectified every
prejudice, and removed every mistake, of a moral and religious kind, by
a word exercised a sovereignty over all nature, penetrated the hidden
events of futurity, gave promises of admission into a happy immortality,
had the keys of life and death, claimed a union with the Father; and yet
was pious, mild, gentle, humble, affable, social, benevolent, friendly,
affectionate. Such a character is fairer than the morning star. Each
separate virtue is made stronger by opposition and contrast; and the
union of so many virtues forms a brightness which fitly represents the
glory of that God ‘who inhabiteth light inaccessible.’ Such a character
must have been a real one. There is something so extraordinary, so
perfect, and so godlike in it, that it could not have been thus
supported throughout by the utmost stretch of human art, much less by
men confessedly unlearned and obscure.” We may add, that such a
character must also have been _divine_. His virtues are human in their
class and kind, so that he was our “example;” but they were sustained
and heightened by that divinity which was impersonated in him, and from
which they derived their intense and full perfection.
5. A great deal has been written concerning the form, beauty, and
stature of Jesus Christ. Some have asserted, that he was in person the
noblest of all the sons of men. Others have maintained, that there was
no beauty nor any graces in his outward appearance. The fathers have not
expressed themselves on this matter in a uniform manner. St. Jerom
believes that the lustre and majesty which shone about our Saviour’s
face were capable of winning all hearts: it was this that drew the
generality of his Apostles with so much ease to him; it was this majesty
which struck those down who came to seize him in the olive garden. St.
Bernard and St. Chrysostom contend in like manner for the beauty of
Jesus Christ’s person; but the most ancient fathers have acknowledged,
that he was not at all handsome. _Homo indecorus et passibilis_, says
Irenæus. Celsus objected to the Christians, that Jesus Christ, as a man,
was little, and ill made, which Origen acknowledged in his answer to
have been written of him. Clemens Alexandrinus owns, in several places,
that the person of Jesus Christ was not beautiful, as does also Cyril of
Alexandria. Tertullian says plainly, _vultu et aspectu inglorius_; that
his outward form had nothing that could attract consideration and
respect. St. Austin confesses, that Jesus Christ, as a man, was without
beauty and the advantage of person; and the generality of the ancients,
as Eusebius, Basil, Theodoret, Ambrose, Isidore, &c, explain the passage
in the Psalms, “Thou art fairer than the children of men,” as relating
to the beauty of Jesus Christ according to his divinity. This difference
in opinion shows that no certain tradition was handed down on this
subject. The truth probably is, that all which was majestic and
attractive in the person of our Lord, was in the _expression_ of the
countenance, the full influence of which was displayed chiefly in his
confidential intercourse with his disciples; while his general
appearance presented no striking peculiarity to the common observer.