ÌÍ¡ 112 MORAL LAW UNDER Tn13 GOSPEL. future state, a heaven and a hell in the other world, dost thon came to give any new directions how to avoid this hell, and ob- tain this heaven?" Our Lord, beforehe answered his question takes occasion to ask hint, why he called him good, which was a title that eminently belonged to God only : The hest conjecture that interpreters can make of this query, is this, viz. Jesus searched into his opinion concerning himself; whether he knew or believed that he was the Messiah, or the Son of God, who was " one with the Father," and thereby had a right to divine titles and characters, and might justly be called good in a.divine sense. Perhaps Jesus might have, before this time, manifested this his own oneness with God ; but if he had not, yet there were several descriptions of the Mes- siah in the Old Testament, wherein the names and titles of the true God are given to the Messiah, which could not be given him without such a.oneness with God, andtherefore -he might justly take occasion to catechise such aforward young man who seemed to be conceited of his own righteousness, &c. It is as if Jesus had said, " Thou cattest me good : There is none originally., eter- nally and perfectly good but God himself; nonegood as God is ; none, hash right to the titlein the most absolute and exalted sense of it but God : Why .then dost thou use this salutation to me, and give me this title? Dost thou think any thingmore than hu- man dwells in me'?" K° Hast thou known or observed any of those speechesor those miracles of mine, whereby I have asserted and proved that I um in the Father, and the Father in me, or, that I am one with :the Father, and so partake with him in the title of good ?" SeeJohn x. 30, 37, 38. and xiv. 8-10. Here it may be remarked that our Saviour -did not use to publish his own divinity, or oneness with God, in plain and express terms to the people, hut generally by such me- thods of enquiry and insinuation. See Mark ii. 5 -1.1. where he had forgiven the sins of a man that was sick of the palsy before he healed him ; and then he proves by the nmracle of healing, that he had a right to forgive sin, while the Jews acknowledge that none could forgive sins but God alone. So John x. 30-3G. after he had given a,hint of his Deity, bysay- ing, I and.my Father are one, the Jews would have stoned him for pretending tobe God ; whichbe answers by.such an enquiry; Since those are called gods -in scripture, to whom the word of God came, say ye ofhim whom the Fat/ter hath.sanctified and sent :into the world, he blasphemeth,-because I said I am the Son of God? Such a sort of oblique insinuation, or :enquiry concerning the di- vinity of his person, seems to be our Lord's design in this text.. If this be not the purport and intention of this question, I must confess I atn ignorant of the design of it. llut, this-seems to ,ma the most probable conjecture.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=