صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST.

A REMARK, or two, on the interesting article translated from the French on this subject, seems to demand notice.

[ocr errors]

In page 246, it is said, Moreover, the Lord Himself has declared, that He was not the Son of David, and that THUS, in the sense of the LETTER, this genealogy [in Luke] was not his." This statement, that

the Lord is not the Son of David, is then substantiated by a reference (after the example of our author in Ap. Ex. 205, and other places) to Matt. xxii. 42 to 45. But still it does not thence appear, so far as I can see, that therefore the genealogy is not his. Swedenborg, in the passage alluded to, gives the spiritual reasons why the Lord was born of the house of David, and why He is called the root and offspring of David; and he then states as the reason why the Lord is no longer the Son of David, that he had put off the infirm Humanity which he had derived from the mother, and put on the Divine Humanity from the Father; but this implies an admission that as the Son of Mary, He was, by birth, the Son of David, and that Mary was of the house of David, and that before his glorification, the genealogy in Luke, if it was that of Mary, was necessarily the genealogy of her Son, Jesus Christ, and therefore it is so still, in respect to the period preceding his glorification. It appears to me that our author's construction of Matt. xxii. 42—45, is more properly the spiritual than the literal sense of it; and that we are not precluded thereby from understanding literally the obvious meaning which the words appear to convey. According to the tenor of the words as they stand, the utmost that can be drawn from them is this; that since David called the expected Messiah, "Lord," He could not be the Son of David absolutely, or on the Father's side; but this does not include any denial that He was the Son of David originally, on the mother's side. I do not deny that, according to the spiritual-doctrinal sense, the Lord is no longer the Son of Mary and Son of David, in respect to the continuance of natural relationship, but still, although the maternal image has been obliterated from his Humanity, it pleased the Lord, after his ascension into heaven, to make such a declaration as literally implies, that He desires that his Humanity should be remembered as in some sense identical with that same Jesus who was at once the Son of God and the Son of Mary.

To my understanding, our author sanctions this conclusion, which I have drawn from the last testimony the Lord was pleased to give of Himself, in Rev. xxii. 16. He there says, "I am the root and the

offspring of David." As the Son of Jehovah, the Lord was necessarily one with the Father from whom he proceeded forth, because God being indivisible cannot beget a Divine Son separate from Himself; the Lord on the Father's side was, therefore, (as being the Author of existence to all men) the "root of David;" but, on the mother's side, He was the "offspring of David." Here is, then, a declaration that, in some sense, the Lord was the Son of David even after He had ascended above the heavens, and notwithstanding that he had put off, in the world, all his natural relationship to Mary, by putting off all that he had derived from her by natural inheritance. Still, it appears, that He had put off his natural relationship only in such wise as still to preserve his personal identity with the Son of Mary, of the race of David. And so completely is this identity preserved, even now, that Swedenborg informs us of a most remarkable fact in proof of it, which he witnessed in spiritual vision; he says that the Lord shewed Himself in the sun of heaven to certain Jews who had known Him in the world, and in whose memory was delineated his countenance as they had actually seen it in the world, "when they all confessed that it was the Lord Himself." (A. C. 7173. E. U. 40.) However some may be disposed to explain away the proper deduction from this fact, by talking about appearances, for my part, I perceive what kind of evidence it was intended to afford to these Jews, and I believe it was intended to afford a similar evidence to the members of the New Church, who have been thus supernaturally put in possession of it.

That Swedenborg regarded the matter in this light, may fairly be inferred from what he says (in Apoc. Rev. 954) as follows::- "I am the root and [of the] race of David, signifies that He is that same Lord who was born in the world, consequently the Lord in his Divine Humanity. By virtue of this He is called the root and race [or offspring] of David; and also the germ [or branch] of David; (Jer. xxiii. 5; xxiii. 15.) also the rod out of the trunk of Jesse, and the shoot from his roots." (Isa. xi. 1, 2.)

In regard, then, to the Lord as the Son of Mary, and thence the Son of her progenitor, David, it appears that, looking at his Humanity as the Son of Mary in one point of view-as actually bearing her image,— he ceased to be her Son in this point of view when he had put off her image by his glorification even to a certain extent, that is, at the marriage of Cana, when he called Mary woman" and not "mother;" thereby indicating, as Swedenborg teaches, that he was no longer her Son, that is, no longer her Son in respect to that attribute of the relation of Son, which consists in bearing the mother's image. But it also appears that when we look at the Lord's glorified Humanity in

66

another point of view-as maintaining and preserving, in some sense, its identity with the visible human being actually born of Mary, living in the world, dying on the cross, rising from the dead, dwelling above the heavens, he is still "the offspring of David," through David's descendant, Mary.

The fact that Mary was of the house of David, is, I believe, acknowledged universally. I am much mistaken if I have not read somewhere in the writings of Swedenborg, that the Lord was born of the house of David, and of the tribe of Judah, because of the surpassing degeneracy of that house and tribe, and in order that he might take upon himself the uttermost degree of hereditary evil, and by putting it away in temptations, provide for the salvation of man to the uttermost. It has been concluded generally by commentators, (see Dr. Adam Clarke's Commentary) that while Matthew gives the legal genealogy of the Lord, or that of Joseph his reputed father, Luke gives his natural genealogy on the mother's side, the genealogy of Mary. Thus Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, while Luke calls him the [ ] of Heli. Our translators, in order to make sense, have filled up the blank with the words the son, printed in italics in order to mark the interpolation ; but all commentators, I believe, would rather say, in this case, the son-in-law of Heli, affirming that Heli was the father of Mary, and thus only the father-in-law of Joseph. If this be accurate, the author of the paper translated from the French has fallen into error, where he says that "in Luke, the genealogy is that of Joseph;" and also that "the two genealogies, in the sense of the letter, belong to Joseph, the husband of Mary."

I confess that I am not learned on this subject. but as it is so confidently affirmed by Dr. A. Clarke and others, that Heli was the father of Mary, and not of Joseph except by marriage, I am led to conclude, until furnished with better information, that the genealogy of Luke is that of Mary, and therefore the natural genealogy of Jesus Christ. It can only be the genealogy of Joseph by supposing that he was of the house of David on his mother's side, as well as on the side of his father, who, according to Matthew, was named Jacob. On this supposition, Heli was not the father of Joseph, but his grandfather, the father of his mother, but this idea, I believe, has never been entertained in the Christian Church. One thing appears certain, that Jacob and Heli, both named as the father of Joseph, supposing the two genealogies are those of Joseph, cannot be the same person, since Jacob was descended from David's son Solomon, and Heli from David's son Nathan; it cannot, then, be concluded that Heli and Jacob were the same person without manifest absurdity; and if they were not,

there appears no more reason for concluding Heli to be the father of Joseph's mother, than for supposing him to be the father of Mary, unless, indeed, unreasonable stress be laid upon the words of Luke, "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [ ] of Heli;" as if the words "son of" before Joseph, were necessarily to govern the filling up of the blank space before Heli, which may as properly be filled up by the words "son-in-law," as "grandson," for clearly the word "son" is out of the question.

INQUIRER.

DOES THE CASE OF THE CRUCIFIED THIEF AFFORD ANY SANCTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF INSTANTANEOUS SALVATION?

66

It is well known that the doctrine of 'Instantaneous Salvation," prevalent amongst some parties, rests chiefly on the Lord's declaration to the crucified thief, "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke xxiii. 43.) It is hence inferred that as this man was an evil doer, and (according to his own confession) deserved his fate on account of his evil deeds (ver. 41), that he was saved by the Lord's immediate mercy, and that his salvation, on account of his penitent state, was instantaneously effected, and that, consequently, every other evil doer (although he continue in evil to the end of his days), provided he implore the Lord's mercy, and confess his sins, at the last hour of his life, will be saved also. Now, if all this be a false inference from the text, and if the doctrine of instantaneous salvation chiefly founded thereon be consequently false, which we are quite certain is the fact, it must of all false doctrines be most pernicious, most deadly and most fatal to man; since no doctrine is more likely to lull the mind asleep in every thing evil than this. It tends to harden and confirm a man in every kind of selfishness and sin, because, under the influence of this doctrine, he reasons thus with himself:-I love to gratify my propensities of every kind;—I love to be rich, and I will acquire riches by whatever means I can―by deceit, fraud and lies; provided I can acquire wealth, no matter how, I will follow out my propensity, whatever iujury others may sustain by my conduct. And in respect to any other evil propensity he may have, he reasons with himself in a similar manner. And when he feels the struggles of conscience (if conscience be not already extinguished) within him, he silences the monitor by appealing to the crucified thief, and says

to himself:-When on the bed of sickness, or in the immediate prospect of death, if I implore the Lord's mercy and confess my sins, I shall be forgiven and saved. Now can any thing be more deadly and destructive than this? The fiery flying serpent could not inflict a more deadly wound upon its victim in the wilderness, than the doctrine of instantaneous salvation inflicts upon the soul of him who adopts it as one of the guides of his life!

In order to explain this case of the crucified malefactor, so as to prevent it being employed to confirm the dogma of instantaneous salvation, some writers have had recourse to suppositions in respect to his previous character, and the political nature of his offence, or crime. It has been stated, that he might have known Jesus before the dreadful period when they met on the cross, and that his offence was of a political nature merely, not involving the breach of any divine commandment from a confirmed love of evil, and that consequently his mind was in a state to acknowledge the Lord, and receptive of his mercy. Be this as

66

it may, the divine Record states nothing of the kind, but rather the contrary, for the malefactor himself says, we receive the due reward of our deeds," plainly shewing, that he thought the punishment not greater than he deserved.

Now the New Church doctrines enable us to take a view of this subject so as to prevent us from being exposed to the venomous bite of the fiery flying serpent, which in the Word corresponds to the dogma of instantaneous salvation (D. P. 340), and we will proceed here to show how this may be understood. All things related of the Lord were representative; they were real facts which literally occurred as divinely stated in the Gospels, but at the same time they involved and represented the states of the Church, as existing in the aggregate, and in individual minds. And this was especially the case in the last temptations which the Lord underwent immediately prior to his crucifixion, and the crucifixion itself. Hence Swedenborg says:

"That the Lord himself, as the Chief Prophet, represented the state of the church in its relation to the Word, appears from the circumstances attending his passion: as, 'that He was betrayed by Judas; that He was taken and condemned by the chief priests and elders; that they buffeted Him; that they struck him on the head with a reed; that they put a crown of thorns on His head; that they divided His garments, and cast lots for His vesture; that they crucified Him; that they gave him vinegar to drink; that they pierced his side; that He was buried, and rose again on the third day.' His being betrayed by Judas, signified that He was betrayed by the Jewish nation, who at that time were the depositories of the Word; for Judas represented that nation. His being taken and condemned by the chief priests and elders, signified that He was taken and condemned by the whole Jewish Church. Their scourging Him, spitting in His face, buffeting Him, and striking Him on the head with a reed, signified that they treated in a similar manner, the Word, with respect to its divine

« السابقةمتابعة »