Imágenes de páginas

shall dwell in safety: and this his name which (man) shall call him, Jehovah our righteousness.” Jer. xxxiii. 16: In mono pown Ebwynn nomin' yunn Erin pron npox my no knp, own “In those days shall be saved Judah, and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety: and this (name) which (man) shall call her, Jehovah our righteousness.” In altering the common translation of the latter passage, Mr. Brown first disregards the stop after no rip' that is, “shall call her;” which, by separating the two parts of the sentence, prevents Jehovah from being employed as the agent of the verb “shall call.” 2ndly, He entirely neglects the established mode of construction, by leaving n; or “this,” untranslated, and by omitting to point out the name by which Jerusalem should be called. 3rdly, He totally overlooks the idiom of the Hebrew, in which verbs are often employed unaccompanied with their agent, when no specific agent is intended, as appears from the following passages:— Gen. xxv. 26: wy appa nins on ynx No p onx, apy, no sop” “And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel, and (man) called his name Jacob.” 2 Sam. ii. 16: )--in nym wrons wor: pinn wn Don r-pon sinn ppp., n-pn in on nyn is a pyarn “And they caught every one his fellow by the head, and thrust his sword in his fellow's side ; so they fell down together; wherefore (man) called that place Helkath Hazurim, which is in Gibeon.” Gen. xvi. 14: on no on non', kop p by “Wherefore (man) called the well Beer-lahai-roi.” They again adduce Isaiah xiv. 23: “Unto me (God) every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear”—compared with Romans xiv. 10, 12: “But why dost thou judge thy brother P or why dost thou set at nought thy brother ? For we shall all stand before the judgmentseat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” Between the Prophet and the Apostle there is a perfect agreement in substance, since both declare that it is to God that every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess, through him before whose judgment-seat we shall all stand:—for at the same time both Jesus and his Apostles inform us, that we must stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, because the Father has committed the office of final judgment to him.— From this passage, they say, it appears that Jesus swore by himself, and that thereby he is proved to be God, according to the rule, that it is God only that can swear by himself. But how can they escape the context, which expressly informs us, that “the Lord,” (Jehovah,) and not Jesus, swore in this manner * We must not, however, overlook what the Apostle says in his epistle to the Philippians, ch. ii. 9–11, where he declares, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess; but neither must we forget, that Jesus is declared to have been exalted to these honours by God, and that the only confession required is, that he is Lord, which office confession of his dignity is to the glory of God the Father. 9. “Wherefore God also hath highly ea'alted him, and given him a name which is above every name; 10. That at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11. And that every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Some have adopted a most extraordinary way of establishing the deity of Jesus. Any epithet or act, however common it may be, ascribed to God in the Sacred Writings, and also to Christ in the New Testament, is adduced by them as a proof of his deity; and I observe with the utmost surprise, that the prejudice of many Christians in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity induces them to lay stress upon such sophisms. For instance, Isaiah xliii. 3: “For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy one of Israel, thy Saviour,” compared with 2 Peter iii. 18: “Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The conclusion they draw from these passages is, that unless Jesus were God, he could not be a Saviour: but how futile this reasoning is will clearly appear from the following passages: Nehemiah ix. 27 : “Thou gavest them saviours, who saved them.” Obad. 27: “And saviours shall come upon Mount Zion.” 2 Kings xiii. 5: “And the Lord gave Israel a Saviour, so they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.” Isaiah xix. 19, 20: “In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign and a witness unto the Lord of Hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.” If this argument possesses any force, then it would lead us to acknowledge the deity not only of Jesus, but that of those different individuals to whom the term “Saviours” or “Saviour” is applied in the above citations. The phrase in Isaiah, “Besides me there is no Saviour,” is easily accounted for by considering, that all those who have been instrumental in effecting the deliverance of their fellow-creatures from evils of whatever nature, were dependent themselves upon God, and only instruments in his hands; and thus all appearance of inconsistence is removed. Again, Ps. xxiii. 1 : “Jehovah is my Shepherd”—compared with John x. 16: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd.” In the former text, David declared God to be his shepherd or protector; in the latter, Jesus represents himself as the one shepherd of the one fold of Christians, some of whom were already attached to him, and others were afterwards to become converts: but Trinitarian writers thus conclude from these passages: If Christ be not one with Jehovah, he could not be called a Shepherd, and thus there would be two shepherds: but a little reflection on the following passages will convince every unbiassed person, that Moses is called a shepherd in like manner, and his followers a flock; and that the term “Shepherd” is applied to others also, without conveying the idea of their unity with Jehovah. Isaiah lxiii. 11: “Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock P” Ezekiel xxxiv. 23, 24: “And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them. I the Lord have spoken it.” If they insist (though without any ground) upon interpreting the name David as put for Jesus, they must still attribute his shepherdship over his flock to divine commission, and must relinquish the idea of unity between God the employer, and the Messiah his servant. Jeremiah xxiii. 4: “I will set up shepherds over them, which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the Lord.” Psalm lxxviii. 56: “They tempted and provoked the most high God”—compared with 1 Cor. x. 9: “Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted.” They thus conclude: The former passage declares the most high God to have been tempted by rebellious Isrelites, and in the latter, Jesus is represented to have been the person tempted by some of them; consequently Jesus is the most high God. How far cannot prejudice lead astray men of sense! Is it not an insult to reason, to infer the deity of Jesus from the circumstance of his being, in common with God, tempted by Israel and others ? Are we not all, in common with Jesus, liable to be tempted both by men and by Satan? Hebrews iv.

15: “For we have not an high priest who cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in
all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Gen.
xxii. 1 : “And it came to pass after these things, that
God did tempt Abraham.” Can the liability to tempta-
tion common to God, to Jesus, to Abraham, and to all
mankind, be of any avail to prove the divinity and unity
of these respective subjects of temptation ?
We find Moses in common with God is spoken against
by the rebellious Israelites. Numb. xxi. 5: “And the
people (Israel) spoke against God, and against Moses.”
Are we to conclude upon this ground, that because God
as well as Moses is declared to have been spoken against
by Israel, that Moses therefore is God himself? In the
same text quoted by them, we find the most high God
provoked also-(they tempted and provoked the most
high God)—so we find Moses and David provoked at
different times. Numbers xxi. 1 : “And Satan stood up
against Israel, and provoked David;” and Psalm cvi. 32,
33: “It went ill with Moses for their sakes: because
they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly
with his lips.” Can any one, from the circumstance of
Moses and David having been the subjects of provoca-
tion, in common with God, be justified in attempting to
prove the deity of either of them P
Isaiah liv. 5: “Thy Maker is thine husband, the Lord
of hosts is his name”—compared with John iii. 29:
“He that hath the bride is the bridegroom,” &c. Eph.
v. 23: “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as
Christ is the head of the Church,” &c. From these they
infer, that as the Church is one bride, so, on the other
hand, there is one husband, who is termed in one place
God, and in another place Christ. My readers will be
pleased to examine the language employed in these two
instances: in the one, God is represented as the husband
of all his creatures, and in the other, Christ is declared to
be the husband or the head of his followers; there is


« AnteriorContinuar »