nd the Divine good-will, did not shelter
them from the consequences of ingratitude and rebellion, if He spared
not the natural branches, we should take heed lest He spare not us.
Such analogies are really arguments, as solid as those of Bishop
Butler.
But the same cannot be maintained so easily of some others. When that is
quoted of our Lord upon the cross which was written of the paschal lamb,
"a bone shall not be broken" (Exod. xii. 46, John xix. 36), we feel that
the citation needs to be justified upon different grounds. But such
grounds are available. He was the true Lamb of God. For His sake the
avenger passes over all His followers. His flesh is meat indeed. And
therefore, although no analogy can be absolutely perfect, and the type
has nothing to declare that His blood is drink indeed, yet there is an
admirable fitness, worthy of inspired record, in the consummating and
fulfilment in Him, and in Him alone of three sufferers, of the precept
"A bone of Him shall not be broken." It may not be an express prophecy
which is brought to pass, but it is a beautiful and appropriate
correspondence, wrought out by Providence, not available for the
coercion of sceptics, but good for the edifying of believers.
And so it is with the calling of the Son out of Egypt. Unquestionably
Hosea spoke of Israel. But unquestionably too the phrase "My Son, My
Firstborn" is a startling one. Here is already a suggestive difference
between the monotheism of the Old Testament and the austere jealous
logical orthodoxy of the Koran, which protests "It is not meet for God
to have any Son, God forbid" (Sura xix. 36). Jesus argued that such a
rigid and lifeless orthodoxy as that of later Judaism, ought to have
been scandalised, long before it came to consider His claims, by the
ancient and recognised inspiration which gave the name of gods to men
who sat in judgment as the representatives of Heaven. He claimed the
right to carry still further the same principle--namely, that deity is
not selfish and incommunicable, but practically gives itself away, in
transferring the exercise of its functions. From such condescension
everything may be expected, for God does not halt in the middle of a
path He has begun to tread.
But if this argument of Jesus were a valid one (and the more it is
examined the more profound it will be seen to be), how significant will
then appear the term "My Son," as applied to Israel!
In condescending so far, God almost p
|