he had meant the resurrection? He rather seems to add these words, on purpose to distinguish this last raising up from the former. Moreover the words "as concerning," point out another subject than the foregoing, whereas the former part of the 34th verse is superfluous, if the 33d meant the resurrection of Christ. Besides, the word here translated raised up, in other texts, signifies to raise up seed. "I will raise unto David a righteous branch. -I will raise up thy seed after thee which shall be of thy sons, and will establish his kingdom.-I will raise him up a faithful priest.-And raise up seed to thy brother. That of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.-A prophet shall the LORD your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me." As to the other two places where this text from the second psalm is cited, they have no relation to the resurrection of Christ, distinct from other parts of his character. It is therefore plain, from the use the apostle makes of this text, that it refers to the general character of the Messiah, as the Son of God, which name, as foretold in the old testament, was particularly given him, when he appeared in flesh upon the important errand of man's salvation. Thus, I think it is abundantly evident, that all the texts in the old testament, which speak of Christ as a SON, are in the new testament applied to him in his economical character; which makes one strong argument for his sonship being taken in that sense. But I proceed to a 4th General argument, taken from several texts, which seem exegetical, or explanatory of the term Son of God, as applied to Christ in the new testament, and which cannot be interpreted any other way than as having a relation to his economical character.-The first I shall mention, is that declaration of GOD concerning his Son at his baptism, which was repeated at his transfiguration"This is my beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him." Three very comprehensive sentences, and all agreeable to the present purpose. In general, GOD, in the character of the Father, expresses his delight and satisfaction in Jesus Christ his Son, as he stood intrusted with the great concerns of men's salvation, and the obligation to obedience from them, on account of that economical relation. The relation and love of GOD to Christ, is expressed in the first clause, This is my beloved SoN." In the second, are implied the relation the redeemed stand in to GOD, and the love he bears to them in his Son, as mediator-" In whom I am well pleased." Which is similar to that expression, "I am pleased for his righteousness sake;" which righteousness the Son having finished, and the Father accepted on their behalf, a new relation is constituted betwixt GoD and them, as the foundation of their duty required in the last clause, "hear ye him." We are under necessity to include the notion of Christ as mediator and redeemer, in the character of Son in this text, or it is impossible to make good sense of it. How else can we account for GOD's being well pleased with sinners in him? Is it not for what he has done for them as mediator and their redeemer? Or where shall we find ground for any particular immediate obedience to the Son more than to the Father? If he be considered to be God, as he is a SON, he cannot be the medium of our acceptance with GOD,-nor the object of any particular duty distinct from the Father, except we admit the notion of two GODS. Peter tells us, that the "Lord Jesus Christ received from GOD honor and glory, when this voice came to him from heaven." How this can be true, if he is a SON, as he is GOD, is not easily accounted for: that is, how he could receive honor and glory as GOD, by GOD owning him to be his SON! But it is easy to conceive how he might receive honor and glory in his inferior character as God's servant,— the promised Messiah, by being so solemnly owned to be the "beloved Son of God, in whom he was well pleased." And as it is with Christ, as mediator, that GOD is well pleased, it must be in that sense, he is here called his beloved SON. This is further clear from a parallel text.-" Behold* my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles," &c. All this, with several other things that are in the context, certainly belong to him as mediator. The term servant, as applied to him, is the same with Messiah; and that of elect, Matthew renders "Beloved† in whom I am well pleased," when he applies the passage at large to Christ, which is the same with the text we are considering, and shews them to be of the same import. And whereas we are commanded to hear the SON, it is plain in what sense we are to understand. that title, from an ancient prophecy of Christ by Moses" The LORD thy GOD will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, him shall ye hear." They apostle tells us, that this was foretold of Jesus Christ. From these considerations, it is indisputa * Isa. xlii. 1. + Matt. xii. 18. ble, that his being called the beloved Son in the text, is meant of his complex character as mediator, the Savior of men. In him as the beloved Son of God, are we accepted, having made peace through the blood of his cross. He is the great prophet and teacher of his people, whom they are to hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto them." For "GOD, (says the apostle) in these last times hath spoken to us by his SON." We have heard the testimony of the Father concerning Christ's sonship; the next instance shall be a short commentary upon this term from his own mouth. Having cured a man that was born blind, whom the Jewish rulers, through their blindness, had excommunicated for receiving his cure on the sabbath, and saying, that his physician was a prophet, and had cured him by the power of GOD. Our LORD, to shew the regard he has to those who are persecuted for telling the truth, found out the man, and opens more fully his character unto him. "He said unto him, dost thou believe in the Son of God? He answered and said, who is he, LORD, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee." Our Savior very rarely, if in any instance but this, expressly called himself the Son of God. But here he does it in such a manner, as the meanest capacity may understand that his human nature must be included in his own description of himself as the Son of God. Whoever is so possessed with prejudice as to deny this, do in effect say, that our LORD either gave such a description of his sonship to the man, as he could have no ideas of, could understand nothing about, and so imposed upon him; or, that the lips of truth told the man a plain and undisguised falsehood, by say ing, in answer to the man's question, "Thou hast both seen him, (the Son of God) and it is he that talketh with thee," per It is very remarkable to our purpose, how the Ethiopian eunuch came to the knowledge and belief of the Son of God. Having read that prophetical account of Christ's sufferings," He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb dumb before his shearers, so opened he not his mouth," &c. He asked Philip who the prophet was there speaking about? We are told that Philip from that text preached JEsUs unto him, and from the evidence of the truth, that JESUS was the son spoken of, he desired to be baptized. Philip told him he might, if he believed with all his heart. "He answered, I believe that JESUS CHRIST is the SON OF GOD." The eunuch had been at Jerusalem to worship, where he, no doubt, had been told the current news of the nation at that time, concerning Jesus and his followers; but it is plain, he did not understand his character as the Savior, till Philip informed him of the accomplishment of these prophecies which he had been reading, in the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, as the Messiah and Savior of men. This knowledge was the ground of the faith which he expressed, "That Jesus (the man of whom he had heard among the Jews, and whose real character Philip had now informed him of) was the Son of God;" the promised Messiah, whose sufferings he had been reading, but did not know who to apply them to. This must be the sense of the passage, or we can find no connection betwixt Philip's preaching Jesus unto him, and his believing on the Son of God: nor could his confession of such faith in any Isa. liii. 7, 8. |