17. The opinions of the ancient Jews respecting the Son of God.
THE OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS, RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD.
It is of rt-o inconsiderable consequence to ascertain the opinion of the Jews, before and after Christ’s incarnation, respecting the doctrine of the Trinity. They formed their opinion of the divine nature from the writings of the Old Testament. As they were perfectly acquainted with the idiom of their own language, they were well qualified to determine the meaning of their own Scriptures. It appears that the plural name of God, which is so often used in the Old Testament, naturally conveys an idea of some kind of plurality in the divine nature. The plural names, given to the idols of the heathen, form no valid objection to this hypothesis, when it is considered there were many of the same name. The writings of Philo the Jew, are very full and explicit on the divine nature. That he wrote some time before the birth of Christ has been clearly proved by a divine of the church of England, in a treatise entitled, “The Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church against the Unitarians.” In producing testimonies in favor of the Trinity, or of the Divinity of Christ, from the writings of this celebrated Jew, we shall quote them as they are found quoted in this English author.
OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS, «fec. 219
Philo,* in several places of his writings observes, “That Moses, the law-giver of the Jews, made this his chief end to destroy the notion of polytheism.”
He then affirms, “that though it is said, God is one, yet this is not to be understood with respect to number.”
Though this expression is obscure, there is no doubt that he had an^itlea of purality in unity. He says, “God begets his Word, and his Wisdom, and that his Wisdom is the same with his Word; that this generation was from all eternity; for the Word of God is the eternal Son of God.” Philo speaks of two powers in God; that these powers made the world, or by them God created the world; that these eternal powers appeared, acted, and spoke as real persons; and in a visible and sensible manner.”
“It is clear how sensible the Jews have been that there is a notion of plurality plainly imported in the Hebrew ie\\, since they have forbidden their common people the reading of the history of the creation, lest understanding it literally, it should lead them into heresy. The Talmudists have invented this excuse for the Seventy, as to their changing the Hebrew plural, into a Greek singular; they say it was for fear Ptol.
Phil, should take the Jews for polytheists.” St. Jerome observes the same.
Since the time of Christ the Jews have retained the opinion that there is a plurality in the divine nature. “Both the authors of the Midrashim and the Cabalistical authors agree exactly in this, that they acknowledge a plurality in the divine essence; and that they reduce such a plurality to three persons as we do. To prove such an assertion, I take notice first, that the Jews do judge as we do, that the word Elohim, which is plural, expresses a plurality. Their ordinary remark upon that word is this, that Elohim
• The following quotations fi-om ancient Jewish authors are not made vith a view to subscribe to all their opinions, but simply to shew that they believed there was a plurality in the divine Nature; that the promised Messiah was the Son of God; and that he was divine.
220 OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS is as if one did read El hem^ that is, they are God.
Bachaje, a famous Commentator of the Pentateuch, who brin2;s in his work all the senses of the four sorts of interpreters among the Jews, speaks to this purpose upon the Parascha Breschit. fol. 2 Chronicles 3:1-17.” Allix. p. 160.
“The author of Zohar is a voucher of great authority; and he cites these words of R. Jose, (a famous Jew of the second century,) when examining the text, Deuteronomy 4:7, Who have their gods so near to them? What, saith he, may be the meaning of this.f^
It seems as if Moses should have said, Who have God so near them? But saith he, there is a superior God, and there is the God, who was the fear of Isaac, and there is an inferior God; and therefore Moses saith, the Gods so near. For there are many virtues, that come from the only One, and all they are one.”
“See how the same author supposes that there are three degrees in the Godhead, in Levit. Colossians 116.
Come and see the mystery in the word Elohim, viz. there are three degrees, and every degree is distinct by himself; and notwithstanding they are all One, and tied in one, and one is not, and separated from the other. Upon the words of Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord;” they must know that those three are one.”
“You have this remark of the same author in Gen. fol. 54, Colossians 2:1-23. delitera, \^ that the three branches of that letter denote the heavenly Fathei^s, who are there named Jeliovah, our Lord, Jehovah.”
“R. Hay Hagahon, who lived seven hundred years ago, said there are three lights in God; ihe ancient light, or Kadmon; the pure light, the purified light, and that these make but one God: and that there is neither plurality nor polytheism in this. The same idea is followed bv R. Shem Tov.”
“If you would know their (i. e. the Cabalists) opinion, to whom it was that God did speak at the creation, Genesis 1:26, R. Juda will tell you God spoke RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD. 221 to his Word. If you would know of ihem, who is the Spirit of whom we read, Genesis 1:2, that he moved on the^ face of the waters^ Moses Botril will inform you, it is the Holy Spirit.” The Chaldee paraphrases are consonant with the opinion of Philo respecting the divine nature. “They ascribe the creation of the world to the Word. Tiiey make it the Word that apjjeared to the ancients under the name of the Angel of the Lord. That Abraham swore by the Word. The Word led Israel in the pillar of a cloud. The Word spake out of the fire at Horeb.” The Jews inferred from their Scriptures that the promised Messiah Avas the Son of God. “Philo in his pieces hath preserved the sense of the ancient Jews in this matter, that this Son was the Aoyo, as where he sailh, that the Word, by whom they swear was begotten; that God begat his Wisdom according to Solomon, Proverbs 8:24, which Wisdom is no other than the Aoyog; that the Aoyo; is the most ancient Son; the eternal Spirit of God; that his Word is his image and his first born; that the Word is the Son of God, before the Angels; that the unity of God is not to be reduced to number; that God is unus, not unicus.”
“Nothing can be more express for to prove that there is a Son in the Godhead, than what we read in the Targum of Jerusalem, Genesis 3:22. Genesis 3:7\e word of Jehovah said.^ here Jldam, whom I created^ is the only begotten Son in the world, as I am the only begotten Son in the high Heaven.’ Philo calls the Aoyo; “the first born of God, the eternal Word of the eternal God, begotten by the Father.”
“In Isaiah 4:2, the Messias is called the Branch of the Lord, no doubt as properly as he is called the branch of David, Jeremiah 23:5. “In that day, saith he, the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious,” which is in Jonathan’s paraphrase interpreted of the Messias. From which it is natural to conclude that 222 OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS the proper Son of God was to be the Messias, and the Messlas was to be the proper Son of God.”
“The Targum on Jeremiah 23:1-40 : acknowledges the Messias to be there treated of, and yet he is called in this place, the Lord of our righteousness. See to the same purpose the Targum on Jeremiah 33:14. The learned M.
Edzardi has proved that the same interpretation of these words of Jeremy, hath continued among the Jews from the time of Jesus Christ, without interruption, till these latter days; and this he hath done from a great number of Jewish authors.”
“Philo says that the eternal Word appeared to Abraham. And elsewhere he names that Angel or Word, Jehovah.”
“Philo says that it was the Word which appeared to the Jews upon mount Sinai; that God spoke to the Jews when he gave them his laws.”
“Philo avows that the Word was the eternal Son of God. He calls him the first born and the Creator of the world.”
St. John expresses the same sentiment at the commencement of his Gospel. “In the beginning was the Word. All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made.” He expresses the same opinion of Christ, which the Jews before him had expressed.
It has been attempted to invalidate the authority of Philo, by saying that he learned his notions of the Trinity from Plato. But the testimony of heathen will remove this objection. “The very heathen authors own that Plato borrowed his notions from Moses, as Numenius, who (as Theodoret tells us) did acknowledge that Plato had learnt in Egypt the doctrine of the Hebrews, during his stay there for thirteen years;” Theod. Serm. 1. That the ancient Jews believed in a plurality in the divine nature, and in the Divinity of the Messiah, is supported by the Chaldee paraphrases.
These paraphrases exhibit the Messias or Word, RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD. 223 in a similar manner to that, which the writers of the New Testament exhibit him. The Jerusalem Targum on Genesis 1:27, says, “The Word of the Lord created man in his own image.” When God appeared to our first parents after they had sinned, it is said, “they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the midst of the garden.” Philo says that it was the Word of the Lord, that appeared to them. “So both Onkelos and Jonathan have it, that Adam and his wife heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God walking in the garden.” The Jerusalem Targum makes use of a similar mode of expression.
“The Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven, the second time; and said, by myself have I sworn, saith the Lord,” &c. “There both Onkelos and Jonathan have it. By my Word have I sworn, saith the Lord-’ When it is considered, that the ancient Jews believed that the Word was God, they might with propriety say that God swore by his Word; and with equal propriety might the apostle say, that God swore by himself. Many other quotations might be made from the Targums of similar import and of similar application. But it is objected that there is no weight in the argument drawn from the Targums, because the Hebrew word for God, is often translated or paraphrased in the Chaldee language, the Word of the Lord; that this is the idiom of that language; and that it signifies neither more nor less than God himself. But the Chaldee word Mimra is sometimes used differently and separately by the paraphrasts. “We read in Jonathan’s Targum, that Jacob vowed a vow to the Word, saying, if the Word of the Lord will be my help, &c. then shall the Lord be my God.” In the first part of this quotation, the term Word, or Mimra is used by itself; and it is used as synonymous with Lord. In the same manner does St. John use the word AoyoQ.
224 OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS
Onkelos on Exodus 29:42, says, “I will appoint my Word to speak with thee there, and I will appoint ray Word there for the children of Israel.” Here the paraphrast makes a distinction between I and Word; a distinction not unlike that, M-hich Christians make between the Father and the Word. When it is considered, that Philo viewed the Aoyog as the promised Messias, it is highly probable that his Hebrew brethren had the same idea of it when they wrote their Targums, notwitiistandiijg all that Prideaux, Louis Capellus, and father Simon have said about the peculiar idiom of the Chaldee langurige.
Onkelos and Jonathan on Numbers 22:9, paraphrase thus, “The Word came from before the Lord, and said.” The objection drawn from the idiom of the Chaldee language will not apply to this phraseology. The manner of expression denotes a distinction between the Word and the Lord; and as the critics upon the idiom of the Targums acknowledge that the Word is synonymous with Lord, we have all we contend for For a further view of this subject, see Allix Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church against the Unitarians. The quotations, which have just been made from ancient Jewish authors are extracted from the works of Allix. “And what advantage do we derive from the labors of others, if we can never confide in them, and occasionally save ourselves some trouble by their means?”* The Messiah was revealed to the Jews by the name Son. When God speaks of him by that name, he calls him my Son. In the 2d Psalm, God is introduced addressing a certain personage, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” Then he commands, saying, “Kiss the Son, lest he” be argry.” It is generally, if not universally, admitted that this Psalm, or at least, so much of it as describes the Son, is ap-
* Priestlev.
RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD. 225
/ plied to the Messiah. If there were any doubt on this point, the apostle to the Hebrews can remove the difficulty; for he quotes this passage in relation to Jesus Christ. In the Acts of the Apostles it is quoted in the same connection: “I will be his Father and he shall be my Son.” If this prophecy had’a primary reference to Solomon, its ultimate reference was to Christ; for the apostle Paul quotes it with this reference. The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the Messiah, saith, “Unto us a Son is given.” God, by the prophet Hosea, saith, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my Son out of Egypt.” The prophecy, contained in the latter part of this text undoubtedly relates to Christ; for St. Matthew quotes it in relation to him, and as fulfilled in him.
We learn in the New Testament, what opinion of the Messiah the Jews had formed from these characteristic descriptions. Jesus repeatedly called God his Father. He therefore implicitly called himself his Son. Many times he expressly called himself his Son, his only begotten Son. On a certain occasion Jesus called God his Father in the hearing of the Jews.
They were offended; because they understood him by this expression and by claiming this title, to make himself equal with God. (ftrov tcjT 0fw) The word JVov literally signifies equal; and it is in vain to attempt to reduce it below this signification. In other places it is translated, and it is correctly translated equal.
St. John, describing the city Jerusalem, says, “The length, and the breadth, and the height of it are (/Va) equal. There can be no doubt respecting the correctness of the translation of the word in this passage. But if this word were of doubtful signification, what the Jews said to Christ on another occasion exhibits in a clear light their opinion of the name, Son of God.
Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” The Jews accused him of blasphemy because that he being a man made himself God. It appears that they had formed their opinion from the prophets that the Messias was 29 226 OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS. the Son of God; and by their answers to Jesus, it appears that they considered the Son of God to be, or to be equal to, God. Had they behoved that Jesus was their expected Messias, they would not have accused him of blasphemy because he called God his Father. During the short time that they believed that he was the Messias, no honors were too great to be bestowed upon him. But when they found that he did not grant them that deliverance which they expected, their opinion changed. They viewed him as a mere man; and of course, a blasphemer, because he pretended to be the Son of God, Adam, Israel, believers, and angels are called sons of God. The Jews understood Christ, claiming a higher relationship to God than these; a relationship, which implied divinity. In answer to the accusing Jews, Christ vindicated himself against the charge of blasphemy upon their own principles, and agreeably to their own Scriptures. If they might be called gods, to whom the word of God came, he inferred that he himself, whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world, might, without blasphemy, be called the Son of God. But he referred them to his works for proof of his union with the Father. When Christ was on trial before the council, the high priest adjured him by the living God, that he should tell them whether he was the Christ, the Son of God. This demand implied that the high priest believed that the promised Christ was the Son of God. His question was, whether Jesus was this personage. When he answered in the affirmative; and told him that he should see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, the high priest accused him of blasphemy. This representation clearly implies that the high priest believed that the promised Messiah was the Son of God; that the Son of God was divine; that Jesus was blasphemous for pretending to divinity, when he was, in his estimation, a mere man.