really was fifty before He was crucified, is utterly without war- rant, and absurd.
Some think that our Lord's countenance was so marred and aged by sorrow and care, that He looked much older than lie really was, and that hence the Jews supposed Him to be nearly fifty. But I prefer the former view.
Euthymius thinks that the Jews thought our Lord was fifty years old, on account of His great wisdom and experience. This, however, seems a weak and untenable view.
68.— [Jesus said. ..before Abraham was, lam.'} This famous verse, I believe, can only receive one honest interpretation. It is a distinct assertion of our Lord's eternity, — His existence before all creation. '• I solemnly declare unto you that before Abraham was and existed I was, the great I AM, the same yesterday, to-clay, and forever, — the eternal God." All attempts to evade this explanation appear to me so preposterous that it is waste of time to notico them. The man who can think the words only mean, " I am He who was promised to Adam before Abraham was born," seems past the reach of reasoning. — The name " I AM," we must remember, is the very name by which God revealed Himself to the Jews, when He sent Moses to them : " Say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me." (Exod. iii. 14.)
Let us carefully note what a strong proof we have here of the pre-existence and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He applies to Himself the very name by which God made Himself known when He undertook to redeem Israel. It was " I AM " who brought them out of the land of Egypt. It was "I AM" who died for us upon the cross. The amazing strength of the foun- dation of a sinner's hope appears here. Believing on Jesus we rest on divinity, on One who is God as well as man.
There is a difference in the Greek verbs here employed, which we should carefully notice. The Greek for "was" is quite dif- ferent from the Greek for " am." It is as if our Lord said, " before Abraham was bom, I have an existence individual and eternal."
Chrysostom observes: "He said not before Abraham was, I was, but, I AM. As the Father useth this expression I AM, so also doth Christ, for it signifieth continuous being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to the Jews blasphemous."
Augustine says: "In these words acknowledge the Creator and discern the creature. He that spake was made the Seed of Abraham ; and that Abraham might be, He was before Abra- ham."
Gregory remarks : " Divinity has no past or future, but always the present ; and therefore Jesus does not say before Abraham was I was, but I am."
133
59.— [Then took they up stones to cast at him.~\ It is clear that the Jews at any rate had no doubt what our Lord meant in the pre- ceding verse, whatever modern Socinians may think. They saw and knew at once that He who spake to them boldly claimed to be Jehovah, and One far greater than Abraham, being very God. This they did not believe, and therefore regarded Him as a blas- phemer who ought at once to be stoned. In their rage and fury they immediately took up stones, which were probably lying about on account of repairs of the temple, in order to stone Him. The whole proceeding appears to have been a tumultuous and disorderly one, not regularly conducted, but sudden and un- authorized, like the stoning of Stephen afterwards. (Acts vii. 58.)
[But Jesus hid himself, etc.'] I think this withdrawal can only be regarded as miraculous. The Greek word rendered "hid Himself" is literally "was hid." It seems most improbable that our Lord could " pass by " and " go through the midst " of an angry crowd, whose eyes had for a long time been fixed and concentrated on Him, without being seen and stopped, unless there was a miraculous interposition. I believe that the eyes of His enemies were holden, and that they did not know Him for a season, or that by His own almighty power He rendered Him- self temporarily invisible. It is only what He did at Nazareth on a similar occasion ; (Luke iv. 30 ;) and if we once concede that our Lord could work miracles at His will, there seems no reason to suppose that He would not work one on this occasion.
Let us note that our Lord's enemies could do nothing to Him until His hour was come for suffering. When He was at last taken prisoner, brought before Pilate, and crucified, it was not because He could not escape, but because He would not. What He did here He might have done there.
Let us note that it is not always the path of duty and of real obedience to God's will to sit still and submit to sufferings and death. It may be the will of God that we should " flee to some other city " and avoid death. (Matthew x. 23.) To court martyr- dom and throw away life, when it might be saved, is not always the duty of a servant of Christ. Some of the martyrs of the primitive Church appear to have forgotten this.
Augustine says : "Jesus did not hide Himself in a corner of the temple as if He were afraid, or take refuge in a house, or run behind a wall or a pillar; but by His heavenly power He made Himself invisible to His enemies, and went through the midst of them."
The argument of Maldonatus, that this verse proves the pos- sibility of Christ being corporally present in the Lord's Supper in the bread, is so preposterous that it requires no refutation. There is no positive proof that our Lord was actually invisible here. It is quite possible that the eyes of His enemies were " holden that they could not know Him." (Luke xxiv. 16.) Jf He
134