WE live in a country where the Christian religion is the popular
religion. Almost all profess to receive its doctrines in some form or
other; at least, there are, as yet, comparatively few who openly deny and
reject them. Of course it is a common thing to speak of the rejection of
the Lord by the Jews as the result of their perverse and willful prejudice
and obstinacy. For by receiving ourselves what they rejected, we testify
our disapprobation of their conduct. Perhaps some may suppose that the
advantages for clear and satisfactory evidence are on the side of those
who lived at the time of the Lord’s coming, and had an opportunity of
seeing and hearing for themselves. We shall not enter into an
examination of this question. Still less do we intend to say what may be
construed into an apology or extenuation of the sin of the Jews in
rejecting the Lord; but we have supposed that some notice of certain
circumstances attending their denial and rejection, might prove
interesting, and also illustrative of the states of doubt and skepticism
in which men now are, with respect to the revelation of the internal sense
of the Word.
It is well known that at the time the Lord appeared in the world, the
Jews were expecting the Messiah. Their attention was of course
powerfully directed to Him. He claimed to be the Messiah of whom the
prophecies spoke; and said that He had come to seek and to save that which
was lost. Whenever He spoke, His Word was with power. He taught as one
having authority. He healed the sick, and even the winds and the waves
obeyed His voice. The Jews came to examine into His pretensions and
claims, and were disposed to receive Him as their long expected
deliverer. Nay, they even attempted to take Him by force, and make Him
their king. But He perceived their object, and ‘departed again into a
mountain, Himself alone.’ Here then was a difficulty which the Jews had
not anticipated. He came in a peculiar character, and must be so
received. A reception of Him in any other character would not be a true
reception of Him. We propose to inquire briefly into this character in
which He claimed to have come, and in which the Jews rejected Him.
The Lord came not in His own name. He constantly warned men against
supposing that He, who to all external appearance was a man like unto one
of themselves, was to be regarded as the author of the words which He
spake, or of the works which He wrought. But He asserted, again and
again, that they were the words and works of the Father who sent Him. Now
as this appears to have been the stumbling block to the Jews, it is
deserving of particular attention. It was this mysterious connection
between Him and the Father which they so obstinately refused to
acknowledge. It was upon this subject that they appeared to be most
anxious to have their doubts and difficulties relieved, by having it
explained in a manner adequate to their own states, and intelligible to
their own understandings. We shall have occasion to notice how the Lord
met and answered them upon this point, as we proceed. But it may be well
first to state the doctrine of the New Church in relation to it, that the
reader may bear it with him in the examination, as a lamp to his path.
‘The Lord in His essence is nothing else but Divine Good, and this as
to each principle, viz, as to the essential Divine Principle and
the Divine Human: whereas Divine Truth is not in Divine Good, but from
Divine Good, for so the Divine Good appears in heaven, as was said above;
and whereas Divine Good appears as Divine Truth, therefore for the sake of
man’s apprehension, the Lord’s Divine is distinguished into Divine Good
and Divine Truth, and Divine Good is what in the Word is called Father,
and Divine Truth is what is called Son. This is the arcanum which lies
hid in this circumstance, that the Lord so often speaks of His Father, as
if He was distinct, and as it were another from Himself, and yet in other
places asserts that He is one with Himself. That Father in the internal
sense is good, and in the supreme sense the Lord as to Divine Good, was
shown above n. 3703; and that Son denotes truth, and the Son of God and
the Son of Man denote the Lord as to Divine Truth was shown n. 1729,
1730, 2803, 2813; and the same is manifest from all those passages where
the Lord makes mention of His Father and calls Himself Son. That in the
Word of the Old Testament it is the Lord who is called Jehovah, may be
seen n. 1343, 1736, 2921; and that He is there also called Father is
evident from these passages. ‘Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is
given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall
be called Wonderful, Counselor, God, Hero, the Father of Eternity,
the Prince of Peace.’ Isaiah 9:6. (Arcana Coelestia 3704).
Thus He was not sent by the Father in any sense which would imply a
separation; for the Father dwelt within Him. Neither are we to regard His
being sent of the Father in a sense which would imply His absence from
heaven. For He Himself said, that No man hath ascended up to heaven, but
He that came down from heaven, the Son of Man which is in heaven.’ Hence
we may see that the Father who sent, and the Son who was sent, were to
each other in the relation of internal and external. This is the relation
which subsists between the Divine Love and the Divine Wisdom—goodness and
truth. They exist not in separation, but in union; and when united they
are not two, but one. The Lord our God is one Lord. They appear
to us to be separate, and to be two, because that which we see, and which
is external, is continually referring us to that which is within, and
which we do not see. While we are listening to the commands of Divine
Truth, we do not see the Divine Good which is within them. It is
therefore necessary that they should speak to us of that from which they
come forth and to which they go; but even then we are slow to understand
that they speak to us of the Father. Or the relation between the Father
and the Son may be illustrated by a reference to that between the spirit
and the body in man. The body is in obedience to the spirit, and moves
only to accomplish the will and purposes of the spirit. There is a sense
in which it may be said to be sent by the spirit; but the spirit is all
the while dwelling within it, and is in fact doing all that the body, to
external appearance, seems to do.
Now the doctrine concerning the Lord, which we have here briefly
referred to, is the grand and distinguishing doctrine of the true
Christian religion. It was not fully revealed at the time of the Lord’s
coming into the world, because men were not then able to receive it. But
every thing looked to the final revelation of this doctrine, and was
adapted to prepare the way for it. All that was revealed had the evident
tendency to elevate the character of the Lord—to lift up the Son of Man in
the minds of men. And though they were not in a state to receive a full
revelation of the true signification of Father and Son, and thus to
understand this mystery, yet they were not permitted to infer from the
teaching of the Lord, that this relation did not exist. Though the Jews
were unable to understand these terms in any sense different from their
most common and ordinary acceptation, yet the terms were constantly used.
They were perfectly adapted to convey the best idea upon the subject that
men could receive, and were therefore selected. Upon this, as upon all
other subjects, they were told, that to those who have, more should be
given. The time was to come when men should be shown plainly of the
Father. But they were not on this account to wait for a more full
disclosure before they should receive any thing. On this point there was
no room for doubt. At the time of the baptism, and also of the
transfiguration, a voice from heaven proclaimed, ‘Thou art My beloved Son
in whom I am well pleased.’ The mystery which was here involved was felt
by the Jews, as well as it has been in all subsequent time by Christians;
and it is evident that this was what they were so much offended at in
Him. And it was because they could get no explanation upon this subject,
that they finally crucified Him. For it is to be recollected that their
testimony against Him altogether failed them; and He was adjudged to be
worthy of death for speaking blasphemy in declaring that He was the ‘Son
of God.’
Our general view may perhaps be made more apparent, by a reference to
some of the principal events related in the Gospels. The testimony and
record of John the Baptist were, that ‘this is the Son of God.’ We have
already alluded to the voice from heaven immediately after the baptism.
The account of the temptation in the wilderness, which followed soon
after, refers to the same thing. The tempter said, ‘If Thou be the Son of
God, command this stone that it be made bread.’ Again, ‘If Thou be the
Son of God, cast thyself down from hence.’ The replies which were given
to these suggestions had no tendency to explain may or qualify what seems
to have been put in a questionable form; but are in perfect accordance
with what He constantly taught, that the Son did nothing except from the
will and influence of the Father within Him. When He drove from the
temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money,
His language was ‘make not My Father’s house an house of merchandise.’
When accused of breaking the law, because He healed on the Sabbath day, He
answered them, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.’ And when the
Jews, therefore, ‘sought the more to kill Him, because He had net only
broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself
equal with God,’ what was the character of His reply? We find nothing in
it that has the least tendency to relieve their difficulty, by authorizing
them to make a wider distinction between Him and the Father. On the
contrary, the whole tenor of the reply goes to establish an identity
between Him and the Father. He commenced by saying that His Father
worketh hitherto, and that He worketh, and He continues through the whole
discourse to declare and show not merely that His works were similar to
the works of the Father, but that they were absolutely and identically the
same, ‘that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father.’
He also takes occasion to declare the real difficulty in the case on the
part of the Jews. ‘I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive me not;
if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.’ Again be
says, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath;
therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.’
To a man sick of the palsy, He said, ‘Son, be of good cheer, thy sins
be forgiven thee.’ Upon this occasion the scribes said within themselves,
‘This man blasphemeth.’ But they obtained no explanation in accordance
with their evil thoughts. On the contrary the Lord distinctly declares
that ‘the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins.’ We read again,
that ‘the Jews murmured at Him, because He said, I am the bread which came
down from heaven.’ But He answered, ‘Murmur not among yourselves.’ And
in the subsequent part of the same reply, when He declared that the bread
which He would give ‘was His flesh,’ we find the Jews again striving among
themselves, ‘saying how can this man give us His flesh to eat.’ But the
reply neither gives them permission to make any qualification, nor
opportunity for evasion. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and
drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This was a hard saying, even
for many of His disciples, who ‘from that time went back, and walked no
more with Him.’ But it was also the occasion when He turned to the twelve
and said, ‘will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered Him, Lord, to
whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and
are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.’ This is
the same reply which Simon Peter, upon another occasion, made, and which
the Lord pronounced to be the rock upon which He would build His church.
On another occasion, when the Pharisees sought to entangle Him in His
talk, after replying to their question, ‘Jesus asked them, saying, What
think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He? They say unto Him, The Son of David.
He saith unto them, how then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying,
the Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, till I make thine
enemies thy footstool? If David, then, call Him Lord, how is He his Son?’
And we read, that ‘no man was able to answer Him a word, neither durst any
from that day forth ask Him any more.’
We have already observed that whenever the Lord alluded to His union
with the Father, it seemed to produce the most violent opposition from the
Jews. Thus when He said unto them, ‘Before Abraham was, I am,’ they took
up stones to cast at Him. Again, when He was speaking of His laying down
His life for His sheep, and said ‘I have power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again, this commandment have I received of My Father,’
there was a division among the Jews, and many of them said, ‘He hath a
devil, and is mad, why hear ye Him?’ So when He declared, ‘I and the
Father are one,’ the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
We have thus attempted to trace, in a hasty manner, the history of the
treatment of the Jews towards the Lord, in order to bring to view the
peculiar character in which they rejected Him. But as His final
condemnation and crucifixion, were the consummation of that rejection, we
must refer more particularly to the circumstances attending these. We
have already remarked that their testimony against Him, to substantiate
their accusation, that He had been ‘perverting the nation and forbidding
to give tribute to Caesar,’ entirely failed them. This was in fact a
mere inference of theirs; for as He claimed to be a king, they supposed
that His claims would necessarily interfere with Caesar’s, although He had
told them to render unto Caesar the things which were Caesar’s, and that
His kingdom was not of this world. But while Pilate declared that
neither he nor Herod, having examined Him, had found any fault in Him,
touching these things whereof they had accused Him, it made no difference
in their feelings. But they cried out ‘away with Him, crucify Him.’
He was condemned upon His own answer to the question whether He was ‘the
Christ, the Son of God.’ When He affirmed that He was, the high
priest exclaimed, ‘what need we any further witness? ye have heard the
blasphemy.’ The Jews also answered Pilate, when he said that he
found no fault in Him, ‘We have a law, and by our law He ought to die,
because be made Himself the Son of God.’ The cause of His
condemnation appears also in the accusation which was set up over His
head. This is Jesus the King of the Jews. It appears still more manifest in the revilings of
the thieves, of those who passed by, and of the chief priests. ‘If Thou
be the Son of God, come down from the cross.’ ‘He trusted in God; let Him
deliver Him, if He will have Him: for He said, I am the Son of God.’ Here
they rested the issue. They regarded Him as a mere man, and found Him
guilty of blasphemy, for making Himself the Son of God. For this cause
they crucified Him, and while on the cross, they still offered to believe
in Him, if He would come down, and thus prove His Divine power. Thus
while they were presuming to reject His own testimony, and to prescribe
the evidence that would be satisfactory, they were blinded to all that was
given. But ‘the centurion and they that were with him, watching Him,
when they saw the earthquake and those things that were done, feared
greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.’
If we have succeeded in pointing out the character in which the Jews
rejected the Lord, we have, doubtless, at the same time pointed out that
in which Christians were required to receive Him. A man became a
Christian, by regarding Him as the Son of God. It never was sufficient
to regard Him as a man. Nicodemus, the Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews,
came and said unto Him, ‘Rabbi, we know that Thou art a teacher come from
God; for no man can do these miracles that Thou doest, except God be with
him.’ Jesus answered, ‘except a man be born again, be cannot see the
kingdom of God.’ And afterwards in the same discourse, in explaining the
distinction between the regenerate and the unregenerate man, the Lord
refers to the same test in the following words: ‘He that believeth on Him
is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because
he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.’ Here
we are expressly told in what character we must believe on Him, to escape
condemnation.
We intended to have remarked upon the various manners in which many,
who profess to receive the Lord, estimate His character, in connection
with the preceding view of that in which the Jews rejected Him. But the
article has already extended, perhaps, beyond a proper length. It is
truly worthy the consideration of all, who call themselves Christians, to
inquire whether they receive the Lord in His true character, in which He
suffered Himself to be rejected and crucified. For it may be,
notwithstanding our professions, that we merely ‘build the tombs of the
prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, and say, if we had
been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with
them in the blood of the prophets,’ even while we are witnesses unto
ourselves that we are ‘the children of them which killed the prophets.’
