Part 9 (1/2)
On the contrary, we a.s.sert that every Divine Truth respecting the Logos, which appears in the germ in St. John, is expanded in Justin. St. John's short and pithy sentences are the text, and Justin's remarks are the exposition of that text, and of nothing less or more.
So far from Justin's doctrine being contrary to the spirit of St. John's, Justin, whilst deviating somewhat from the strict letter, seizes and reproduces the very spirit. I will give in the next section two or three remarkable instances of this; which instances, strange to say, the author of ”Supernatural Religion” quotes for the purpose of showing the absolute divergence and opposition between the two writers.
SECTION XIII.
THE PRINc.i.p.aL WITNESS ON OUR LORD AS KING, PRIEST, AND ANGEL.
The author of ”Supernatural Religion” quotes the pa.s.sage in Dial.
x.x.xiv.:--
”For Christ is King, and Priest, and G.o.d, and Lord, and Angel, and Man, and Captain, and Stone, and a Son born,” &c.
And he remarks, with what I cannot but characterize as astonis.h.i.+ng effrontery, or (to use his own language with respect to Tischendorf) ”an a.s.surance which can scarcely be characterized otherwise than an unpardonable calculation upon the ignorance of his readers.” (Vol. ii.
p. 56.)
”Now these representations, which are constantly repeated throughout Justin's writings, are quite opposed to the spirit of the Fourth Gospel.” (Vol. ii. p. 288.)
He first of all takes the t.i.tle ”King,” and arbitrarily and unwarrantably restricts Justin's derivation of it to the seventy-second Psalm, apparently being ignorant of the fact that St. John, in his very first chapter, records that Christ was addressed by Nathanael as ”King of Israel”--that the Fourth Gospel alone describes how the crowd on His entry into Jerusalem cried, ”Osanna, Blessed be the King of Israel, Who cometh in the name of the Lord” (xii. 13)--that this Gospel more fully than any other records how Pilate questioned our Lord respecting His Kings.h.i.+p, and recognized Him as King, ”Behold your King;” and that those who mocked our Lord are recorded by St. John to have mocked Him as the ”King of Israel.”
So that this term King, so far from being contrary to the spirit of the Fourth Gospel, is not even contrary to its letter.
But this, gross though it seems, is to my mind as nothing to two other a.s.sertions founded on this pa.s.sage of Justin:--
”If we take the second epithet, the Logos as Priest, which is quite foreign to the Fourth Gospel, we find it repeated by Justin.”
Now, it is quite true that the t.i.tle ”priest” is not given to our Lord in St. John, just as it is not given to Him in any one of the three Synoptics, or indeed in any book of the New Testament, except the Epistle to the Hebrews: yet, notwithstanding this, of all the books of the New Testament, this Gospel is the one which sets forth the reality of Christ's Priesthood. For what is the distinguis.h.i.+ng function of the Priesthood? Is it not Mediation and Intercession, and the Fourth Gospel more than all sets forth Christ as Mediator and Intercessor? As Mediator when He says so absolutely: ”No man cometh unto the Father but by me;”
”As my Father sent me so send I you; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them.”
Again, the idea of Priesthood is actually inherent in the figure of the good Shepherd ”Who giveth His Life for the sheep;” for how does He give His life?--not in the way of physical defence against enemies, as an earthly ”good shepherd” might do, but in the way of atoning Sacrifice, as the author of ”Supernatural Religion” truly a.s.serts, where he writes (vol. ii. p. 352):--
”The representation of Jesus as the Lamb of G.o.d taking away the sins of the world is the very basis of the Fourth Gospel.”
Again, in the same page:--
”He died for the sin of the world, and is the object of faith, by which alone forgiveness and justification before G.o.d can be secured.”
Again, with reference to His Intercession, we have not only the truth set forth in such expressions as ”I will pray the Father,” but we have the actual exercise of the great act of priestly Intercession, as recorded in the seventeenth chapter of the Fourth Gospel. If we look to words only (which the author of ”Supernatural Religion” too often does), then, of course, we allow that the epithet ”priest” is quite foreign not only to the Fourth Gospel, but to every other book of the New Testament, except the Epistle to the Hebrews; but if we look to the things implied in the idea of Priesthood, such as Mediation and Intercession, in fact Intervention between G.o.d and Man, then we find that the whole New Testament is pervaded with the idea, and it culminates in the Fourth Gospel.
The next a.s.sertion of the author of ”Supernatural Religion” on the same pa.s.sage betrays still more ignorance of the contents of St. John's Gospel, and a far greater eagerness to fasten on a seeming omission of the letter, and to ignore a pervadence of the spirit. He a.s.serts:--
”It is scarcely necessary to point out that this representation of the Logos as Angel, is not only foreign to, but opposed to, the spirit of the Fourth Gospel.” (Vol. ii. p. 293)
Now just as in the former case we had to ask, ”What is the characteristic of the priest?” so in order to answer this we have only to ask, ”What is the characteristic of the angel?”
An angel is simply ”one sent.” Such is the meaning of the word both in the Old and New Testament. The Hebrew word [Hebrew: mlakh] is applied indifferently to a messenger sent by man (see Job i. 14; 1 Sam. xi. 3; 2 Sam. xi. 19-20), and to G.o.d's messengers the Holy Angels, that is, the Holy Messengers, the Holy ones sent. And similarly, in the New Testament, the word [Greek: angelos] is applied to human messengers in Luke vii. 24, [Greek: apelthonton de ton angelon Ioannou], also in Luke ix. 52, and James ii. 25. That the characteristic of the angel is to be ”sent” is implied in such common phrases as, ”The Lord _sent_ His Angel,” ”I will _send_ mine angel,” ”Are they not all ministering spirits _sent_ forth to minister?” &c.